Topic: Satohsi's Math ( Original Paper ) clearly stated BUYING BTC would lead to Ruin (Read 369 times)

NOBODY is mining, because your can't make a profit anymore, more people are turning off the their btc servers than setting them up,

The issue here on gambler's ruin, is not mining, because that was essentially free at the start, you just ran on idle cpu cycles and you got free bitcoin in 2009, that was the model, parity for all,

Post 2014 something twisted happened assholes ( exchanges, trading-houses ) descended upon bitcoin and offered 'speculation', now speculation by definition is  a roll of the dice 50/50 at best,

Now the paper of Satoshi, was completely about this F=2*p-1, if p>51% you win but you don't play a 50/50 game, you invest zero

Today of course btc is 100% speculation mining is dead and gone,

People are supposed to BUY btc to the moon, trouble is there are no new suckers, ...err  I mean buyers

IMHO btc was never meant to be traded like 'cards', its just a p2p way to move funds between A&B, nothing more, not a bank, and certainly not an 'investment'.

Actually calling BTC an investment is the worst kind of word, because its  a p2p temporary store for money from A2B, when you leave money on the table in BITCOIN you risk losing all your money, but on the short-term the risk is low, maybe 10%, which is ok if your escaping nazi-usa to new-zealand or soemthing like that, ... but long term holding assets in bitcoin is insane.

If everyone is mining, then who is the one buying? I don't think mining would be profited for everyone unless people wants to get richer in more time.

its more about the ones that are first with ASICS (th manufacturers who the Quality assure test the hardware before delivering in december to customers)

(simply numbers by dividing the millions down to simple digits for simple demo)
imagine the network was at say 56hash (call it 4x of s9 miners 14hash)
instead of swapping 4 s9 for 4 s15(28hash) which would make that pool able to achieve 112hash
they instead swapped 4 s9 for 2 s15 to get 56hash capability.

the costs would go down meaning they can sell for less and make a profit. or even now and again swap 4 s9s for just 1 s15 to bring the hashrate down while still profiting

its like in a 10 second race why push yourself to do it in half the time knowing if you do it in half the time youl be expected to half time it every race. better to just race at 10 seconds. and if you can still win without exerting urself then reduce your speed a lil more. thus win without risking cost to your limbs
because you learned from 5 years ago trying to run as fast as possible left you with a 2 year limp.

It is definitely that Satoshi and the whales are knowing something more than just random crypto players, so I think we should wath them closely.

So what you are saying is that bitcoin is currently a terrible investment? I think if Satoshi were around he would think otherwise. Just with every piece of documentation and planning there is not perfect foresight. If people want to own bitcoin then they have a choice to either buy or mine, for many it's much easier or cheaper just to buy bitcoin.

I don't know so much about pools and their motivations, but (if I were part of such an operation at present) I would think that if I miss the newest ASICs, probably my competition will go for it and I will be a loser eventually. And because everybody else is thinking the same, I would rather expect new ASICs to be introduced, although, of course, in the long run, it is shooting your own leg.

Firstly mining bitcoin isn't at a loss or else no one would do it. It might be for some people but for others it is not. Following that up, nobody ever had a mining cost of 0. It may have been close to 0 for 1 btc in the early days but it was not zero, everything has a cost, even if it's just an opportunity cost.

yep and thats exactly what caused the october 2013 price movement. the inception of asics.
ofcourse the hashrate rise would have only caused the price to move up so much, but speculators FOMO'd and over shot the mining cost/btc buy cost equilibrium..
(i too done the math and got(still havenow as a footrest) a avalon 3module 100gh asic from that period )

pools learned the hard way that pushing up hashrate would shoot them in the foot which is why instead of limping along for 2 years in 2014-15. they would play a differnt game this year

this is why when new next gen asics started running in october '18 as "QA testing" cough cough..  pools didnt want to push the hashrate up and spark another FOMO event. as that would just shoot them in the foot again.
so while taking out say 8 old miners they replaced 3 new double efficiency miners of effectively same power as 6 old miners to keep hashrate down. save on costs while making the old miners of competitors lose out. while QA testers profit to be able to sell even in low prices. its just a temporary event.

but anyways this is just temporary dip drama (unrelated to altcoin drama) which when the public delivery of new next gen asics ocurs last week of dcember. we will see the hashrate and price rise and 2019 will start on a positive. 

Exactly, I have the same observations, I mined back then in 2014 or whatever year it was when bitcoin price started growing and ASICs started to come into play. I learnt a big deal, and I wouldn't have changed it, but the price and difficulty increase made it impossible to mine at some point, so I sold my cards and after short calculation it proved I would have been much better off if I simply bought the same amount in BTC, not mined.

I don't understand this thread.What's the conclusion?BTC a scam?
I agree that BTC was to be mined,but can anybody mine bitcoins know with his own PC?
I like the formula F=2P-1 I might use it every time,when I make a risky investment decision.
However,I don't consider buying bitcoins to be a risky investment decision.

Another funny thing from OP logic is, that if You mine a coin and dont cash it ever in, how can You get Your original investment back, however little You spent on hardware or electricity? And the person how buys Your mined coin, how will he get his spending back if not reselling it??

another thing the OP has wrong

the reason satoshi mined but never sold is this:
1. in 2009-10 there wasnt any xchange to sell. not out of not wanting a system, but out of being such a new system at the time that it just didnt happen yet
2. satoshi updated his client so many times while debugging it. he simply did not retain his private keys.
3. if people mined and never sold then no one would trade. they would just hold privatekeys of funds that dont circulate

tl-dr;
you cant kill fiat as fiat laws such as minimum wage, tax and other things keep fiat in circulation. but trying to avoid swaps in and out of fiat will not make btc adoption grow. infact stopping buying will ruin btc

lengthy point:
dont get me wrong about point 3. i understand the concept of trade for goods and services rather than fiat. but for a system where it does cost  fiat to not only mine. but to get goods from manufacturers to offer to bitcoiners. people do need to convert to alternative currencies to pay off their costs. so if no one was to buy coin. no one would be able to sell coin. and thus peoples view of utility would be less.

i can understand that the OP may think that buying/selling should not be the dominant utility(investment) and that the OP may be thinking that bitcoin being dominant utility for goods/service(trade) is what concept of bitcoin should be.
but without anyone buying coin and without anyone selling coin for other currencies. bitcoin would lead itself to ruin because it limits the expanse of utility, by becoming a small niche community where only a few use it for goods/service and then realise the limited scope of the community and simply drop out because they cant use it outside the community.

in short if you hire a gardener who accepts btc and fiat. if you find that while mining btc to give to your gardener for his services that you cannot use bitcoin for anything else because your local grocery store cant convert btc to fiat to buy more produce from suppliers. then over time you realise that your paying for electric to get btc to hand to your gardener and your gardener cant use the btc to buy groceries. both you and the gardener would start to think its better to just use fiat, as its less complicated.

why spend fiat to mine bitcoin to pay a gardener who then cant feed himself because of your payment.  where as skipping the paying electric, mining, sending coin to gardener. and just handing the gardener fiat instad of your electric company is simple for everyone.

..
with all that said allowing selling for other currencies meaning someone is allowed to buy. allows bitcoin to expand beyond a niche community,, groceries stores begin to accept btc because they know buyers will give them fiat for their btc so the grocery store can buy next weeks produce to restock the stores shelving. and that encourages more acceptance

summary:
you cant kill fiat as fiat laws such as minimum wage, tax and other things kep fiat in circulation. but trying to avoid swaps in and out of fiat will not make btc adoption grow. infact stopping buying will ruin btc

In order for bitcoin to exist it does have to be circulated and behind that process
are the miners. Solely accumulating bitcoin and storing them is not healthy for the
ecosystem. The ecosystem is still in development though as we all know we need
more merchants which would incline people to spend.

Then what is the use of Bitcoin if we shouldn't buy it then? I guess Satoshi has some big plans for Bitcoin but people around the world only uses it to gain more than just money.

How come the mining cost is zero?? That is probably true for the initial few people who used to mine bitcoin using their laptops back in 2009 because they didn't have to buy expensive hardwares and got away with a nominal electricity cost. You statement is utter nonsense at today's point of time!

Your entire statement would have made sense to me, if you had said that "Buying BTC for storing up and investment would lead to ruin". Because BTC is here to be used as a currency and not as an investment. It needs to be circulated and not to be stored in large coffers.

When BTC forked and split to BCH it was great for investors because they doubled their holdings. When BCH forked and split to BSV, once again investors were happy. But......... Three types of bitcoin will lead to ruin for all three coins.

Many people don't realize that having three coins dilutes bitcoin and makes adoption even less likely. It becomes more of a short term investment asset (because it won't last in the long term) rather than currency that people can use to conduct everyday business.

Think of it this way. If you're in the USA and instead of using good old dollar bills, you have three choices. USD (US Dollars), USG (US Gold), and USP (US Platinum). When you go out to grab a pizza, you can pay for it with USD, USG, or USP. But wait, a pizza costs $9.95 USD, or $5.57 USG, or $13.72 USP. Bah! Too complicate to figure this out when all you want is to eat. Hold on a sec! The Pizza Hut down the street doesn't take USP. Domino's take USP but not USD. Papa John's only takes USD. Uh oh! What to do now? Maybe just drop all these coins and go back to gold old fashioned greenbacks. Diluted coins are not good for the consumer, not good for the industry, not good for the merchant, but probably good only for those fat cats who invest in currency.

I don't think so. In the current market, $3,700 is still not enough to guarantee your safety. The short-selling power in the market is too strong, and has been trying to short the bitcoin, and $3,700 is obviously not a low enough price for the bears. Low enough price, I think the real bottom of the market may appear in the middle of next year.

I think the base point of bitcoin is at $ 3700, I bought it at this price because I'm sure $ 3700 is the worst value of bitcoin 2018, I don't need to wait for the next 1 to 3 years to sell, the target for the next year will be the decisive round

In additional to what Franky1 stated above, when you consider that it was meant to be a peer to peer network, how was it to be transferred from one peer to another after er it has been mined by one? keep in mind that the supply is limited


Edit; Trading anything, is like flipping a dice. And I never knew dice games to be for retarded people.

funny part is.
if it costs $5000 to mine a bitcoin. but difficulty adjustmnts and hashrate competition dont make it a sure thing.
but you can buy a bitcoin for $4k and thats a sure thing. $4k guarantees you 1btc

then the OP's theory above becomes obsolete

why spend $5k mining with no guarantee of a whole 1btc,,
when you can spend $4k and guarantee 1btc and still have a bit of fiat to spare