Topic: 2024 Diff thread happy New Years. - page 26. (Read 7577 times)

and we are now 26 blocks off pace.

pattern happens a lot.

-1 to -10 %. early and then we move up and on to + 1- 3% as a finish,

20EH/s WANTED
Last time seen, they were mining blocks at rates greater than 250 sat/vB.
If anyone finds them, please contact Foundry. 


https://mempool.space/mining/pool/foundryusa

well it would be complex to stop ordinals .

even if you say no tx bigger then 5000bits an ordinal guy could do 100 5000 bit inputs number 01 to 100 and boom 500,000 bits used.

Unfortunately I still can't see LN as a solution/alternative.
The alternative cannot be more complex than the main model. It has to be at least the same, or even simpler.

For me, these are the things that need to be on a second or third layer, not money transactions. But this is my view, which is irrelevant.

the pattern has been - for 400-500 blocks =  the underclock
slowly rising back to 0 than plus = the overclock


most of 2023 has this pattern

and so far most of 2024 has this pattern.


when the ½ ing comes the penalty for a 500 block under clock drops from 6.25 reward to 3.125 reward

it becomes a 50% discount and as fuzzy mentions instead of ordinals video games 🎮 will be used and on and on and on.

people need to learn and use ln

It should be noted that the two largest pools will have +50% hash power. So it really isn't difficult to have concerted actions between them.




I will come back with an analysis on this soon. We will see what can be understood from it. 

Otherwise, I totally agree, it's just a theory.

Apparently and feelings...
You can go here and check the blocks mined by every pool:
https://explorer.btc.com/btc/insights-pools
the shut down thing then pump more get fees sound good in theory but you have on huge problem!

Mining coins is not like oil pumping, so you close  valve you get half, you might shut down 30% of your machine and actually in the next hour mined more than previously, because..luck! So rather than blaming on one pool or others, how about we see what went wrong in that 10% drop which is mainly because of the 12 minutes between block average on the 7!
Well, what happen is that block 824718 proved to be an asshole, as it was mined 2 hours and 2 minutes after the previous, dropping the numbers of blocks to 125 for the day. Does this 2 hours interval sound like something Foundry would be able to do while throttling their gear?  

Yeah, sound nice like a theory but..it's still a theory!


But, with gear shut down doesn't that mean that the epoch will be longer? So you will get the same reward for the 2016 blocks but it will not be in 14 days it will be in 14 days and 8 hours or god knows how much, as everyone will be running their remaining gear longer for the same $, increasing the their electricity spent/bitcoin?


I'm grabbing my fudge popcorn.  

You are going to get some fun comments there  , some folks treat Ordinals as an attack on BTC and they don't take kindly any discussion related to them.




The math still holds true. If it's 7 days, you just divide everything I mentioned above by 2, and so on. However, I understand the theory behind all this. We've discussed it here, probably since 2019 or so. It's a valid theory. I just don't think the math checks out for a single pool. It makes sense if 3-4 of the largest pools do it, as everything they do to the blockchain would be almost 100% beneficial to them. As it stands right now, the way I see it is that mining pools would be better off spamming the blockchain with high-fee transactions than turning off gears.

But, apparently, they don't "turn off" the machines for the full 14 days. The feeling we have is that there is a shutdown of machines in the first few days, after the cycle change, until the network becomes clogged and fees rise. In other words, for 4 or 5 days, they have fewer machines to mine. And then regression with all its strength. And the closer to the renewal of the difficulty, the more power they place.

Therefore, during the last cycle, it was noted that in almost the entire period the predicted variation was 0%, but in the final stretch it rose 1%. Right after the difficulty adjustment, everything slowed down, with -10% expected in the next adjustment. It remains to be seen, the sequence of this cycle, to see if it will really go down.

The ordinal game is literally gonna get bigger - plans in progress to archive vintage Nintendo console games in them.
I started a thread here in the technical area about it.
fun fun... At least it beats the hell out of the inane pics being sold to idjits.

Well, yes, that's a valid point. However, my argument is, if the profit is high, I'd rather harvest it now. The percentage increase in net profit outweighs the block fee. I'm not saying my point makes more sense than yours, but you need to keep in mind that if Foundry turns off gears to achieve anything (be it higher transaction fees or lower difficulty), they would only benefit from 25% of the goal they set, whereas anything they lose is 100% theirs.

If the above is not clear, let's put it into actual figures. If Foundry underclocks all of its gears by 10%, the effect on difficulty would be a drop of 2.5%, and the transaction fees would only go up by 2.5% (since there would be 2.5% fewer blocks for roughly 2 weeks).

Out of this 2.5% increase, Foundry gets only 22.5%. So if the total fees are 2016 BTC per epoch, they now become 2,066.4. That's an extra 50.4 BTC, of which Foundry would get 11.34 BTC. But they have lost 10% of their cut out of those 14,616 BTC. So instead of making 3,654 (if they kept their 25% share), they would make 3,288. That's a loss of 365.4 BTC in a single epoch.

In the next epoch after that 2.5% difficulty drop, they would make 2.5% more profit. So instead of 3,654, they would make 3,745.35 BTC or 91.35 BTC.

So they are up 91.35 + 11.4 = 102.75 BTC, down 365.4 BTC, net = a loss of 262 BTC.

Obviously, operating at a 10% underclock means more efficiency, and thus their power bill would be lower than just 10%, so maybe we can reduce the loss by 10-20% or even 30%. They are still in a net loss.

Again, another reason I say it would make sense to do that in a bear market where gear efficiency matters most. When net profit is close to zero, gear efficiency matters the most. When net profit is high, you are better off overclocking than underclocking. It's just how I would act if I were them. It's how I conduct my mining business as a small-sized miner.

The evidence shows that the last year has had really high fees and we all know this year is the 1/2 ing dial this in for 2023 was okay.

In reality, the fact that the price of Bitcoin is rising is the best time to do so. Since the value in fiat is high, turning off machines does not significantly affect the operation, as the money earned from mining continues to support costs and make a profit.

But foundry found 38 blocks in the last 24 hours, which corresponds to 27% of blocks found, not much lower from their 7-days average of 27.8%, I am not saying they are not doing what you are suggesting because we don't know if the last 7-day representation is even accurate, but don't you think that if they were going to do something like that -- it would be better while BTC price is down? right now BTC sits at roughly 47k which is a very interesting number to most miners and many of them would sell at this price to stack cash for the rainy days, what you suggest would be better down when the price falls, not while going up IMO.

here is another chart

Excellent tip! I'm thinking of doing an analysis with this data. Thanks.

Then I share it here.

the hash power is not really available. it is only an estimate made on blocks made daily.

so if you look at foundry and they make 48 blocks in a day  for days on end the estimate is 48/144 = 33% of the worlds hashrate.

IF THE  world  makes 2016 blocks in exactly 14 days at a difficulty of 72th see below  you can calculate the estimated hashrate



blocks are here


https://blockchair.com/bitcoin/blocks

Where can you see how many blocks each pool mines daily?
And also the hash power of each pool?

quite a bit off pace 368 vs 418

and coins are near 47k


and what is the old mempool up to lets see. here is the last 7 days


first 3-4 days before the diff jump diff rose showing possible overclock and memory pool shrank in count also showing result of blocks being made quickly we lowered to 252k or 255k backed up tx in pool right at the jump.




we are now at 282-285k. tx backed up due to slow blocks.

see below.  so if you want to argue that foundry is testing my raise the fee concept this evidence certainly is in favor of what I said.
 But not conclusive at all.   much like old paternity test. If one guy is type a+ and the other guy is type B-

you could rule one out as the dad. but not prove the one you could not rule out as the dad.


Does this continue to the ETF announcement we will see. If it does  then whales like a mofo it looks more like that is what was done.

Is there any data that helps understand this type of scenario?




I share the same idea. I find this sequence of events over several weeks/months very strange.