Topic: Wall Observer BTC/USD - Bitcoin price movement tracking & discussion - page 13632. (Read 26715517 times)

O.k., so pretty much you are saying that you made some profits in 2013/2014, when you sold because you were able to buy those nice things with the profits.  However, perhaps 1) you ended up spending both principle and profits on your nice things, 2) you did not recognize the investment value of bitcoin until much later, so you did not buy many bitcoins between 2014 and 2015, 3) you said that you bought some bitcoin in late 2016, but that was not enough (or was not very many bitcoins), 4) you seemed to recognize the value of bitcoin late - in 2017 and perhaps even in late 2017.   

These are really tough circumstances, and still I gather that it is very unlikely that you really did learn your lesson and really do recognize the value of bitcoin. Hopefully, you can just engage in a kind reasoned approach, and just buy back with reasonable amounts of ongoing dollar cost averaging rather than attempting to bet on either the direction of the market or engage in a kind of gambling.

It seems that even if you have screwed some things up in your recent bitcoin perspective history, I think that if you continue to dollar cost average into bitcoin and attempt to learn from your mistakes and attempt to employ incrementalism strategies, you could be doing very well, financially, in 5-10 years.  Personally, I don't think that you should attempt to rush the matter, because you will have a greater likelihood to take rash actions, like you already have done in the past.  Anyhow, hopefully, it all works out and you can attempt to play the long game, and please keep in mind that sometimes I may seem to be harsh on people or lecture people for gambling too much, but it is mostly because I don't think that gambling is a very good way to approach the matter, and if you do not rush the situation, there are still decent chances that you can build up your BTC portfolio and  things are going to work out for you.  If you end up gambling and playing around too much with alts and things like that then the odds of your personally profiting are not likely to be as good.

In relation  % grow to other coins.

 If the Bitmain IPO goes ahead, we know their monopoly has been broken.

I had 2-3 coins in 2013. (or 2014, I know I had them before the crash) I managed to cash out just from the top price $1000. I bought myself an ipad and a nice vacation. Then I told myself how clever I was for dumping that shit at the top. LoL suckers right?

Now I am buying back those coins from $6k+, I even bought some at $15k few months ago. That's how I sold low and bought *high.

*only for now. This time I know what's going on.
** I also didn't dump shit at $20k, only buying more.

You could be right that the costs per coin  are lower than the estimated range that I indicated.  There are threads on the cost of mining topic, and various discussion points.  

I am certainly in agreement with you that there could be various ways that once miners are able to generate coins, there are likely other ways (besides pure mining) that they could either drive down the costs per coin or alternatively to generate profits from such coins.

Miners don't need anything like $6000/BTC to remain profitable.

I'd put it closer to $2000, even lower if you take the money laundering angle into account.

You are a miner, so you probably know more of the technicals of mining than me.  And, there are likely a lot of people that look at the mining issue from a different perspective than me, but I am largely thinking in terms of security.. and the fact that changing the algorithm would introduce a whole hell of a lot of unknown risk to bitcoin, including qustions about its centralization (if the algorithm was quickly changed)

In essence, my understanding is that it would not be very difficult technically to change bitcoin's mining algorithm, but the question is not so much about what is technically feasible, but instead looking at game theory and broader scale economics and incentives that are created and which players would be advantaged by an algorithm change.

I don't think that the individual profitability of mining (as the way that you outlined the possible motivation for changing the algorithm) is a significant reason to change the algorithm, because in essence, if mining becomes less profitable because of the number of big players mining, then the free market would likely take care of that by causing the less profitable players to drop off... and sure more centralization, but still not a motive to change the algorithm in order to spread out mining to smaller players.

A bit over a year ago, LukeDashJr and perhaps some of the other developers were proposing an algorithm change as a means to undermine the seeming monopoly of bitmain and some of their seeming bullying behavior and in order to punish them.   It seems that a motive to change the algorithm in order to hurt Bitmain  would not necessarily cause that kind of speculated damage to bitmain, but instead would likely hurt the smaller players more and would likely hurt any of the upcoming miner developers who are trying to put a dent into bitmain's efficiency.  In other words, bitmain would likely be way to likely to be advantaged by an algorithm change because it would be the kind of player that could most easily establish new machines to adapt to such new algorithm and to phase out their no longer useful (and old machines), and therefore if there was an aim to punish bitmain through a new algorithm, the opposite effect would be the more likely outcome which means that it is not too likely that a change in the algorithm would cause greater decentralization (if that was the intention).

Bitcoin ultimately remains stronger, more secure, by sticking with the original algorithm that a lot more players can develop upon (including bitmain, and bitmain does not have as BIG of a monopoly as is asserted).

Regarding cost of mining, I have seen a pretty wide spectrum of costs between $3k and $7k, and perhaps that largely varies based on electricity costs and the efficiencies of the equipment being used and perhaps some software technics that can cause for some private employment of greater efficiencies that miners would keep secret some of their efficiency techniques and other costs (to the extent that they are able to keep those private).

not to be an ass...but actual question...I read someplace a month ago, actually the claim that miners need about $6,600 usd to make profit mining ..this

was for the majority of big BTC miner halls...IF, the price dumps (see LTC) and there is an overabundance of ASIC miners (see LTC) is it not possible that

it could get so bad or centralized (see LTC Bitmain) that perhaps this could be the case? I used LTC as an example ..which is not exactly fair, in that they have

many pow-scrypt coins effected in this manner, not just Bitcoin forks....but there has to reach a point in price vs mining...where it could be you just could NOT

mine coin at a price without having to change algo?

anyway, probably not explained right, but you get the direction...what would it take to change algo on BTC? (if any)

It's not going to happen, so I don't know what your point is except to bring up something that is not going to happen?

That's a nice hashrate miners. Those are some nice ASICs.

It would be shame if someone...

changed...

the algorithm.

That would be that Bcash idiot Jbreher 

Just realized that Bitcoin's hash rate is up +100% since January 2018 and around +25% since May as well as +15% from two weeks ago.

 more like a landmine.  Watch your step!

this guy is a gold mine today

I will pay you 10% under market for all your segwit tainted coins.

Might need to do it in batches.

No?

It's the standard Bitfinex scam as usual where they try to rig the price on that exchange by fraud where you can't even sell bitcoins for dollars, then they attempt to dump bitcoins for dollars at elevated prices on the real exchanges like Bitstamp and Coinbase.  As predicted, there is no demand for their fraudulent tether pump on the real exchanges.  I'm so tired of watching these Bitfinex criminal's scam day in and day out.  Yes, the people who run the exchange are 100% involved - it's a MtGox 2.0.

From my understanding, for some assertion to fit into a lying category, then it would have to include an intention to mislead, right?  

I have had no intention to mislead in regards to this particular segwit fungibility topic.  Whether I was "completely wrong," I have my doubts about that too, so I would need to see the exact statement in order to attempt to assess about what you are referring and whether it matters.

Even though I have been wrong about various matters in the past, a categorization of "completely wrong" is a very strong assertion that I will deny, at least for now, unless I see evidence to the contrary... So far, all I see is that you are making bullshittingly bold lack of fungibility statements, and acting as if they have some kind of material significance in regards to the current state of bitcoin.  



Hole?  What hole?

Are you just trying to argue for the sake of it?  Is there some kind of point that you would like to make?  Is bitcoin going to die soon?  cause of death = lack of fungibility?

You surely act as if you have made some kind of meaningful statement at some point in regards to some kind of lack of fungibility question in bitcoin.



O.k.  You are asserting a theory.. So fucking what?  Do you have any evidence of a problem, yet?  Anyone refusing to take segwit transactions that amounts to a material and significant problem?



That is generous of you.  I recall something about you not using segwit.. so good luck with that.  Of course, legacy addresses can still be processed because the segwit fork was backwards compatible, so perhaps that will work out for you.  Maybe at some point in the future, you will come around to using segwit?  Who knows?  You do seem to have some strange inclinations.  But hey, to each his own.



I don't think so.  You want to continue to pursue this topic, and it seems that you are not really getting any traction, here, but you want to continue, right?  What does that say?  To me, it seems that you want to continue to pursue irrelevance and attempting to give more weight to the topic than it deserves... at least at this time.


Does not really seem that it is subject to much debate if it is a pie in the sky speculation with a very low probability of even being an issue.  Probably better to create another thread on the topic or to join the topic in another thread if you think that it remains such an important discussion point, no?


Gotta find some humor in this self-description.  I couldn't maintain a serious face, and argue that you are without some humor, from time to time, even if your humor, in this case, was not intentional.



touché

Answering a question with nearly the same question.  I suppose you could not really answer my rhetorical question very well, except to merely tailor your question to what you perceive to be my conduct.

We've exhausted this fungibility topic, for now, no?  

Any other points needed?  Doesn't seem like it to me.


Exactly.  I think that is part of the point.  There is no real evidence of peeps refusing to accept segwit coins or segwit tainted coins.... Not yet, anyhow.  So the discussion point remains theoretical and speculative rather than based on any kind of significant facts (except for "asserted facts" whatever that is?).

So in regards to the merit number, I had seen some of the 1337 discussions, yet I think what confused me about jojo's post was how the whole thing is connected to the portion of my post that jojo cited?  It's like over my head.  dudes, and dudette.

This concept of maintaining fungibility is not a new one in bitcoin, and of course, it is going to be tested, and perhaps tested with a bit of rigor.  Just because it is a potential vulnerable area does not mean that bitcoin is not going to be able to overcome various attacks on its fungibility.  Should we not be taking one step at a time, rather than assuming that various attack vectors are going to be successful merely because people, such as jbreher, are attempting to spread FUD about it?

Surely, I might conclude that fungibility is a .1% concern, and you might conclude it is 10% and jbreher might consider that it is 20%, but the mere fact that we have different probabilities about future value and utility should cause us to invest differently based on how BIG we believe the threat to be.  Some folks are going to be closer to being correct than others, and that is the nature of the free market, to some extent.


Your answer above, about fiat being sort of non-fungible seems to be a bit off.   Fiat is backed by government laws, etc, and there have been fungibility court rulings in regard to fiat.  Of course, governments can chose to change their fiat related rules too.  I would conclude that there is a decently strong public policy to attempt to maintain dollar fungibility and that gives the dollar decent strength and decent predictability.  Of course, the rules could be changed, at some point in regards to the dollar.  Seems to be a bit more difficult to change the rules in regards to bitcoin, and in that regard, there will likely be both governmental attempts or anti-bitcoin groups that try to change bitcoin rules, and some of the anti-bitcoin groups will actually tout themselves as being pro bitcoin, and out to do what is "best" for bitcoin.  Good luck, we will see, and each of us will decide if we are scared by what is happening or decide to sell our bitcoin (or discontinue usage of bitcoin) based on such happenings.


You are likely correct that there is a sliding scale when it comes to fungibility, and I think that most free market types are going to perceive the most value in bitcoin being associated with greater levels of fungibility... so yeah, you are right that lesser fungibility may maintain some value, but the amount of decrease in value may be a lot greater than what you seem to be projecting it to be.  For example if confidence is lost because coins get blacklisted, then surely that seems problematic to me if it is allowed to occur.  So if any 3rd party such as coinbase or fed government tries to label coins, then there would likely be some effort by the bitcoin community to either not use their services or to move coins to other location and clean them of their blacklisting.