....... I have one concern and one only. The hash rate.
I didn't even pay attention to the hash rate of 2017, or 2013 for that matter, so it's difficult to make a comparison.
It currently seems to me, that the hashrate that took us from $10k to $60k, is going to be the one that takes us from $40k to whatever multiples of that - let's say $160k in all modesty.
I do not like this if it remains so, but what I do like - is the absence of spam transactions, and on-chain fees outperforming the Lightning network.
I'm fully expecting to witness a huge rise of the hashrate towards the end of the year (250+), so our new ATH is validated.
I do understand and appreciate that quite a bit of the power of bitcoin comes through the various incentives that are created through mining - but to assert that there are possible concerns with bitcoin's hashrate seems to be quite out of place.
I will admit that in May/June/July - ish when we had a lot of miners going off line, there did seem that there had been some potential for setting up some kind of a hashrate attack (and some of the concerns would have been that the Chinese had been strategically pulling hashrate and then going suddenly redeploy it), yet the longer that miners are able to move around, they are able to be prepared for that kind of potential attack - including the difficulty adjusting every two weeks, so there is a bit of a need to set up such a possibility for an attack and then wham bam deploying it, which would have to be set up again (like it was earlier in this year that made it seem feasible as something that might happen).
Jay, price follows the hashrate (and difficulty), and not the other way round imo.
Yes.. that way of considering the matter probably explains a vast extent to why we differ in our assessmen/framing of hashrate/BTC price then.
Jay, price follows the hashrate (and difficulty), and not the other way round imo.
I would characterize this dynamic as miners responding to price rather than their regulating price..
But whatever, you can consider it however you like, and I will recharacterize if I believe necessary if you make those kinds of comments in this thread.
My concern was that we seem to be re-using the same hashrate at the moment, not some potential attack on the BTC network.
I doubt that it matters.
Yeah, ... there was a downward adjustment that is migrating back to where it was earlier in the year. So what?
As you indicated, this had the potential to occur when we dropped to 60 from 200. Fortunately it was outlived, and felt like the Chinese turned off their spam miners instead.
The result? A healthy BTC network with minimal fees.
I don't exactly get what you are saying here..
I do know that fees went down outragously, so perhaps that was due to spam mining, to the extent that was existing earlier in the year.
I will not take a thesis on the Lightning network yet, until I see for myself. But reading the recent posts on WO, I can already feel that something is not quite right. Don’t get me wrong, micropayments with BTC is the future, whether it’s a layer 2 solution or a sidechain dedicated to BTC.
Lightning network does not make or break bitcoin, but sure, it can complement bitcoin to the extent that it facilitates transactions... and bitcoin is already great whether lightning network exists or not.. yet at the same time, we seem to be all kinds of amazing things happening through the lightning network, whether referring to free and instant transactions in El Salvador, free and instant transaction developments that Jack Mallers has been facilitating through Strike, or some other various random transactions that are happening with a variety of individuals, whether the WO gang or other private or semi-public groups who are creating and building connections... and seemingly a lot of growth happening on lightning network too.. and I even heard of some connections that blockstream has been attempting to make between lightning and liquid too..
I don't claim to be following all of the particulars, even though it surely seems that a lot is happening and continuing to happen and develop whether on bitcoin or lightning or other related matters.
I will not take a thesis on the Lightning network yet, until I see for myself. But reading the recent posts on WO, I can already feel that something is not quite right.
And when I hear about it and think about it from a layperson/Average Joe's perspective who is actually expected to
use the LN, as well as merchants who are expected to plug in, it sounds even worse. Crossing my fingers that it can all be salvaged.
Seems that El Salvador and Strike have found a lot of use cases for a lot of peeps who are hardly at all technologically sophisticated..
You guys can be devils advocates or skeptics all that you like.. it's not as if you are even attempting to assess the matter in any kind of way that shows extra utility and options being developed.. even if you personally might not be using those options.
