Topic: Bitcoin IS basically DESTROYED - page 25. (Read 47260 times)

I wouldn't say that it is destroyed. But the whole point of Bitcoin is decentralisation, looking at it, China pretty much owns Bitcoin which is definitely not what we want.

Bitcoin is not destoyred

Do you expect a basket of currencies as MA has suggested, or something else?


I came to the same conclusion. In addition, I would argue that anonymity must be incorporated or the system will suffer the same protocol attacks Bitcoin is currently experiencing. Even with anonymity it is possible that protocol erosion could occur.

A technical attack without anonymity could simply filter known addresses (and optionally, linked ones) at the centralised verification level, causing enough delay in transactions that participants will opt for a "new, improved version" that delegates power more directly to centralisation. With anonymity that isn't as easy, but there will probably be enough information gleaned through other methods to target the intended subject.

I'm left wondering whether a ZK routing method wouldn't be more effective. Of course, that might entail rebuilding the Internet as we know it.

That said, unprofitable PoW is currently be the best option enforcing skin-in-the-game.

Fiat has an unverifiable money supply, no party can ever verify the amount in circulation or how much was created at any moment in the past. 

Broken, centralized, permissioned public shitcoin is different.  We can see how much is there at any point!  We can see if the ledger suddenly has new coin.  Sure, I share your enthusiasm to prevent bitcoin from turning into broken, centralized, permissioned shitcoin but hey - that ain't fiat! 

I don't like people shitting in my living room but I don't need to pretend shit is nuclear waste to make my argument. 

Too bad you didn't learn that the universe is composed of partial orders and not a total order. Then you'd understand why every consensus system will become centralized and thus a defacto a fiat.

To say that bitcoin is destroyed because a certain country controls the majority of the hashrate is an overstatement. There are several people outside of China that are mining in Chinese pools out of convenience, fact of the matter is that Chinese pools are very competitive and run by companies whereas most pools outside of China are smaller operations.  But that doesn't really make that big of a difference, Chinese miners aren't necessarily bad intentioned just because of their location, the fact that bitcoin is receiving so much adoption in a jurisdiction with so much censorship is rather positive.

Would you kindly remind us all what's the title of the Bitcoin whitepaper?

ps Your entire post is off topic.

Bitcoin doesn't need fixing. Why not? Because it was really never meant to be a currency. What was it meant to be? Bitcoin was meant to be a centralizer for contracting. Here's what I mean.

We all have the right to contract with each other. But if we want to contract with somebody in some form of major investment, we need to go through some government controlled operation, like the New York Stock Exchange, for example.

The great benefit of Bitcoin lies in the things that Counterparty, Colored Coins, Mastercoin, Ethereum, and a whole lot of other companies that ride on the Bitcoin blockchain are doing. These companies, and the Internet, are opening up free but safe contracting to all kinds of people in all kinds of ways through the centralized thing that Bitcoin is.

How long will it take to mine all the bitcoins? That's how long there will be freedom to use these other companies that are building and maintaining secure trading and contracting in a host of ways, all on the Bitcoin blockchain. And this field of endeavor has just seen a few hints of the beginning of the gigantic contracting thing that it could become.

Look at and think about the details of Counterparty, Colored Coins, and Ethereum. Then set your imagination to work in figuring out how the operations and services of these companies can free your business from government limitations in ways that could never be done without Bitcoin.

比特币真的死了！

美国有比特币，美国有intel 也有比世界的半好多。

美国是比特币的王，比特币死了。买莱特币 ：）

China already owns over 80% from the miners . The chinesse exchangers are owning around of 95% from trading volume too

Of course, the price is manipulated on how the exchanger's cartel wants and the stupids/blinds people are saying:  "BTC belongs to US" )

Really?  In both threads?  Someone likes the sound of their own voice.  

I guess I'll copy and paste my reply here then, as I've already replied in the other thread where the post you're quoting actually appears:



Still not 51%, though, is it.  There is no individual with more than 51% of the hash rate.  So again, unless you're working under the assumption (because you have no proof) of collusion, then there is no issue.  There is no lie present in what I've said.  Just your wild accusations of ill intent.



I support a larger blocksize too, but just because that didn't get enough support from miners, it doesn't automatically prove beyond all doubt that they're colluding to achieve that result.  You are speculating.  Guessing.  Assuming.  You have no definitive proof of collusion.



And in the highly unlikely event that were to happen, the rest of us would happily let them fork away to mine an empty chain that none of us would be transacting on.  You can take off your "The end is nigh" sandwich board now.

 



The one that makes a hell of a lot more sense than the delusional fantasy world you're from.

The first to go bankrupt are the marginal miners, not the ones with the lowest electricity costs and the highest efficiencies due to very large economies-of-scale in mining farms.

The halving will INCREASE the centralization of Bitcoin's hashrate (to China's mining farms), not decrease it.

Satoshi designed the distribution curve this way. Who is your hero, who is your daddy who sold you to the banksters?

---

Well I lately more and more realize that Bitcoin is a funnel where n00bs come in to buy and miners cash out. The stalwarts don't buy more, as they are few in number and already have their big portion.

So an interruption in the stream of n00bs might have a domino deleveraging effect, since many people loan their BTC short to earn extra revenue.

Leverage may be hiding where you think you see only HODLers.

Also with the halving and marginal miners not wanting to turn their ASICs into door stops, they may be in a more strained position and need to deleverage in a contagion.


If they fear counterparty risk, they will cause a stampede and cause counterparty defaults.

The slowdown in buying from n00bs, can cause the price to drop, which will cause the enriched shorts to pile on (cash out their initial investment and gamble the profits) overshooting to the lower low bottom. Plus all the copycats chasing the trend especially with the "world is falling down" hysteria.

V bottom on steriods. Buy the bottom same as in 2009.

---

Hey guys I have a question that just popped up in my mind. What if the price of Bitcoin doesn't increase much after the halving and with the cut in half block rewards and increasing difficulty, do you think the Chinese miners will go bankrupt or they will manage to break even and get a slight profit? Can the Chinese government offer the mining farms preferential electricity pricing lower than the average for the country?

Ah I misread the Google quote as "kilowatt hour" and rather it is referring to annual consumption. Still 1/100th is still a small fraction.


Ahem. You mean 0 profit margin factories with a Minsky Moment collapse imminent. China will massively reset and realign their economy away from the over reliance on zero-profit (State subsidized) manufacturing. Full employment is no longer the egregious problem that China had to worry about in the past. China  is very much diversifying now into producing high valued services and high valued, lower volume manufacturing. An example is the new ARM-based CPUs being produced out of China.

China will have abundant power to charge to its collective and use to control anything that is important for China's Communist Party to control. And Rockefeller has been over there consulting with them. The banksters are doing very well on their plan for the new totalitarian world order.

The cost of electricity for the corrupt in China can be essentially free (although it may be more at the level of 2 cents per KWH now from what I heard, so that the power players protect their political reputation in case it gets DOXXed). But there needs to be coins paid for mining, so that it is worthwhile to even do that corruption in the first place. Thus unprofitable mining with a tail reward could still be vulnerable, but in my design not so because the tail reward is so small compared to the PoW difficulty supplied by the signers of transactions, that the cartel can't find it worthwhile to do the corruption. I said my design will turn ASIC mining farms into door stops. Do you think it is wise for me to create such a CC and be assassinated? This is not a game we are playing here. This is real life and pissed off oligarchs have their ways of making people disappear.

On the ASIC commodization (besides that I already pointed out the fact that it wouldn't totally level the time-to-market access and does nothing to account for free electricity charged to the collective), it appears the opposite might occur:

Please stop painting me as a Bitcoin permabear. I merely claimed it might not have hit the bottom yet for the decline from $1000, but I never claimed it wouldn't go higher again.

And I am not 100% sure my vaporware design (with no ETA on when I might ever implement it) will solve the centralization problem, but at least it has a chance whereas the other designs don't have a chance if they also scale up. Monero's block size auto adjustment with penalty will do nothing to stop centralization if Monero is scaled up enough that it is becomes profitable to design ASICs for it. It is more difficult to design an ASIC for Monero's memory hard proof-of-work function, thus Monero can scale up more before it becomes profitable enough to design an ASIC for it. There is no way to solve the problem of centralization using a profitable PoW design. Period. Full stop. Whether an unprofitable PoW is viable and whether it would actually fix the centralization problem, is something that can't be properly peer reviewed because there is no white paper. And I don't want to go off on that diversion right now.

My criticisms against the other coins, was just to be sure that everyone admits they are just in love with gambling and not actually making any technical solutions to anything. As long as we all admit we are just gamblers, then I STFU and let us play Lotto and try to steal from each other in the zero sum game of greater fool theory of speculation. White the Chinese mining cartel is extracting $1 million a day from us via printing-coins-out-of-thin-air and soon also by sky high transaction fees. We steal from each other with speculation volatility while the oligarchs in China steal from us. Eventually all our wealth has been siphoned from us, they (TPTB) win. Which is what "Satoshi" designed Bitcoin to do to us. Period.

Satoshi isn't some man. Bitcoin was created by a secret group funded by the banksters. How can't that be obvious by now given what profitable proof-of-work does to all of us over time.


I never thought the value of Bitcoin would crash to 0. I rather think you will be forced to pay your taxes when you transact in Bitcoin by signing an output over to the appropriate authority, which will be enforced at the block chain protocol level by the Chinese mining cartel. I don't know when those capital controls will come, but my guess is after 2018, maybe later. And I think these taxes will become very high as the governments around the world are bankrupt, people love socialism, and they will need to steal the money from those who still have any.

Yes chaos such as a fragmented Internet would change many things.

---

Price rise considered alone is not sufficient. If the centralized control forces you to pay 90% of your Bitcoins to the world government when ever you want to transaction them, because you must pay your fair share of socialism's bankrupt cost ($100s of trillions of unfunded social obligations owed by the bankrupt nations to their entitled citizens), then a higher price may still be a loss.

---

One man can't accomplish what "Satoshi" did with such precision. It was a large group of experts. No doubt about it.

You guys who have no experience in doing something like this, love to have your James Bond fantasies. But you are completely out-of-touch with the reality of actually doing what "Satoshi" accomplished.

I fear more the Chinese government making a move on the Chinese mining farms in the country because they fall under China's jurisdiction and it's very easy to keep the miners in check by threatening to close down their operations. By controlling the miners the Chinese government basically can control the Bitcoin network and as China is striving to become a global leader this plan of attack might be on their agenda who knows. I don't trust the Chinese and having the most of the hashing power centralized there is certainly alarming.

Very insightful attempt at a retort, I am impressed. Thanks. But the huge increases in scaling will come offchain with Lightning Networks and thus no mining. The Chinese mining cartel has been consulting with the core developers (i.e. Blockstream) about this issue.

The difficulty is set by the level of block reward and transaction fees times the Bitcoin price. If you are implying the price of Bitcoin will increase 1000X, then I have bridge to nowhere to sell you.

TPTB are managing their Bitcoin baby very well. And we are gullible fools.

---

Smooth I suspect you've been busy doing other s/w work lately bcz you've been quiet and also because you don't totally have your mind immersed in this right now.

At 12.5 coins per block, 75 BTC per hour, and at $3000 that would be $225,000 per hour.  At 4 cents per KWH, that is 5.6 million kilowatts. Google tells that "China's power consumption in 2015 rose 0.5 percent from a year earlier to 5.550 trillion kilowatts".

That means in your scenario, Bitcoin would only be consuming one millionth of the electrical generation capacity of China. Sorry the increase in the value of Bitcoin can't overwhelm China's ability to subsidize the electricity.

I think indeed bitcoin could be better off if miners would get much less money. A block is currently worth $ 11,400. If miners would get much less, they would performe the exact same service with a lower hash rate. The only good thing about a high hash rate is that it makes a 51%-attack much more expensive to do. But as a few miners already have that much power, the possible risk of a 51%-problem is already present.

Electricity prices fluctuate wildly. Only a few hours per day prices are really high. For mining, it would even be possible to shut it down a few hours per day if prices get too high, but I doubt miners are big enough energy consumers to get good deals on the grid.

You are disingenuously spreading lies and you know it.

It has been explained to you numerous times that it is not the pools that are the only point of centralization but also the mining farms. There is one cattle farmer in China who is investing in a mining farm large enough to mine 30% of all BTC that is stolen from us via printing-coins-out-of-thin-air (aka coinbase block reward) to pay miners.

Also it is entirely illogical to claim that cartels and oligarchies do not cooperate with each other, when in fact all throughout history of mankind they always do, because it is the only way they can control the pricing and reap more profit for themselves. It has already been explained to you numerous times that the Chinese mining cartel prevented the timely increase of the block size by refusing to mine on Bitcoin Classic or XT. This is because they prefer to support Blockstream's Segregated Witness which will provide much smaller and delayed block size increases, so that they can drive transaction fees sky high. Also they support Blockstream's SegWit, because it changes the Bitcoin block chain protocol in such a way (insidious soft fork versioning) as it will make it virtually impossible for anyone to stop the mining cartel from changing the protocol in the future at-will.

Thus the Chinese mining cartel is already speaking and acting as a cooperating oligarchy and they have already 51% attacked Bitcoin's protocol, when they blocked the block size increases which would have kept our transaction fees low.

This is very dangerous for our future, because it means in the future when the Chinese government says to these mining farms in China (which control more than 50% of Bitcoin's network hashrate) that they must change the protocol to require that every transaction include a signed government issued identification number or that every signed transaction must include a tax contribution to China or the world government, then the miners will have no choice but to comply because otherwise they will find their $100 millions investment in mining equipment padlocked and confiscated by the government.

What kind of delusional fantasy world do you live in DooMAD.