Bitcoin 'Miners' Face Fight For Survival As New Supply Halves (reuters.com) 164
SpzToid quotes a report from Reuters: On Saturday, the reward for [bitcoin] miners will be slashed in half. Written into bitcoin's code when it was invented in 2008 was a rule dictating that the prize would be halved every four years, in a step designed to keep a lid on bitcoin inflation. From around 1700 GMT on Saturday, instead of 25 bitcoins up for grabs globally every 10 minutes, worth around $16,000 at the current rate BTC=BTSP, there will be just 12.5. That means only the mining companies with the leanest operations will survive the ensuing profit hit. "The most important thing is to be the most efficient miner," said Streng, the 26-year-old co-founder of German firm Genesis Mining, which has "mining farms" in Canada, the United States and eastern Europe, as well as in Iceland. "When the others drop out, that means that they leave the market and give you a bigger share of the pie."
Other motivations (Score:5, Insightful)
With smaller players dropping out of the game, soon it might become a "single player" game after all. If this scenario happens, then a single entity controlling 51% of the keychain nodes can potentially disrupt the entire BitCoin economy by effectively "rewriting history".
I'm not sure this is a good thing. Every advancement seemed to have moved the needle to this direction. While everyone was able to run CPU miners is was very democratic. Then GPUs came, but still people could drop in a few hundred, and continue. After FGPA, and the ASICs, it's not just very large firms, where smaller people can only "rent" nodes, and hope they can trust the infrastructure.
We might need a "reset", where ASIC is no longer viable, but I'm not sure that would still be possible.
Re:Other motivations (Score:4, Interesting)
We might need a "reset", where ASIC is no longer viable, but I'm not sure that would still be possible.
Many if not most altcoins started because they wanted to avoid the ASIC path, by choosing more elaborate hash functions. Of course, it's always possible to design ASICs for these too, even if they end up looking like special versions of GPUs. Besides hash functions, many altcoins have other interesting features that might end up in Bitcoin some day.
However, it's easier to start using the altcoins themselves than hard fork Bitcoin. With cryptocurrencies and automated exchanges, there's less need for everyone to stick with the same coin.
Re: Other motivations (Score:4, Insightful)
No reasonable person wants to carry a dozen wallets to conduct commerce, even if they're of the cryptocurrency variety. There are huge network effects for having a de facto standard (crypto)currency in an area.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Also, Bitcoin, as it sits, is environmentally abusive. Increasing processing demands, higher costs, more energy wasted to make more coins and process transactions. Between that and the problem of a single entity winning a blockchain war, Bitcoin can never sustain. Better would be to re-write it with low processing for "minting" new coins, and centralize the creation of coins.
A centralized minting process would undermine the whole raison d'être of bitcoin, thus will never happen. While your fears are somewhat correct, they are outdated. In the past the value of bitcoin was inherently tied to the production costs of bitcoin where there is a very narrow margin of profit above the minting costs from production. Thus if bitcoin every did go mainstream than the electrical costs to mint such bitcoins would also similarly skyrocket .
Thus in the past there were 2 types of bitcoin t
Re: (Score:2)
" there are other options that allow bitcoin to scale where "layer 2" payment channels that are onchain and secure can occur that will allow bitcoin to scale to over 100k txs per second"
That's pretty fucking slow, actually. Bitcoin won't be viable for shit until you can process a few million per second.
Re: (Score:3)
" there are other options that allow bitcoin to scale where "layer 2" payment channels that are onchain and secure can occur that will allow bitcoin to scale to over 100k txs per second"
That's pretty fucking slow, actually. Bitcoin won't be viable for shit until you can process a few million per second.
Visa averages around 2k tps (transactions per second) with daily peak rates of 4k tps , and a capacity of 56k tps. I like your optimism however , as you are probably suggesting that bitcoin needs much higher throughput than Visa for AI and machine to machine txs which I would agree. Don't worry, as the Lightning network will eventually be able to handle your demands - https://lightning.network/ [lightning.network]
Bitcoin is a speculative investment scheme (Score:2)
Bitcoin won't be viable for shit until you can process a few million per second.
Visa averages around 2k tps (transactions per second)
Visa is not supporting a speculative investment scheme. Bitcoin is more analogous to high frequency wall street trading, not actual consumer transactions. Bitcoin is *currently* primarily a speculative investment scheme.
Re: (Score:2)
Visa is not supporting a speculative investment scheme. Bitcoin is more analogous to high frequency wall street trading, not actual consumer transactions. Bitcoin is *currently* primarily a speculative investment scheme.
99.9% of speculation and btc day trading happens offchain within exchanges though.
Re: (Score:2)
Visa is not supporting a speculative investment scheme. Bitcoin is more analogous to high frequency wall street trading, not actual consumer transactions. Bitcoin is *currently* primarily a speculative investment scheme.
99.9% of speculation and btc day trading happens offchain within exchanges though.
Doubtful. Leaving bitcoins in an exchange is universally considered high risk and that transferring the coins to your wallet is highly advised.
Re: (Score:2)
99.9% of speculation and btc day trading happens offchain within exchanges though.
Doubtful. Leaving bitcoins in an exchange is universally considered high risk and that transferring the coins to your wallet is highly advised.
Although modern exchanges are regulated , insured and more secure I agree with you its typically not wise to leave you coins on an exchange. Regardless , my statement is 100% accurate because one cannot effectively daytrade if they are constantly removing their coins from exchanges. I don't daytrade but know a large part of the community who does and they don't often
Switch bitcoin to proof of ownership (Score:2)
In the past the value of bitcoin was inherently tied to the production costs of bitcoin where there is a very narrow margin of profit above the minting costs from production.
What makes you think this has changed? The price has roughly doubled with a reward halving upcoming.
Thus if bitcoin every did go mainstream than the electrical costs to mint such bitcoins would also similarly skyrocket .
No, bitcoin could switch from a proof of work system to a proof of ownership system. The problem with the later is the initial distribution of coins, but that is a problem for a new coin not an established coin that is already widely distributed.
Re: (Score:2)
In the past the value of bitcoin was inherently tied to the production costs of bitcoin where there is a very narrow margin of profit above the minting costs from production.
What makes you think this has changed? The price has roughly doubled with a reward halving upcoming.
Today the cost of bitcoin production dropped from ~1.6 million per day to around 820k a day USD and the price remained the same.
No, bitcoin could switch from a proof of work system to a proof of ownership system. The problem with the later is the initial distribution of coins, but that is a problem for a new coin not an established coin that is already widely distributed.
There are many more problems with proof of stake than you imply. Take a look at the security concerns the Ethereum community has with a bad actor controlling a significant stake and their upcoming wishes to switch to proof of stake as an example.
Re: (Score:2)
In the past the value of bitcoin was inherently tied to the production costs of bitcoin where there is a very narrow margin of profit above the minting costs from production.
What makes you think this has changed? The price has roughly doubled with a reward halving upcoming.
Today the cost of bitcoin production dropped from ~1.6 million per day to around 820k a day USD and the price remained the same.
Look at a historical chart. It ramped up in anticipation, speculation. It doesn't just double on the day. People have been expecting the doubling, so miners stay around, and have been buying as a result.
https://www.coinbase.com/chart... [coinbase.com]
No, bitcoin could switch from a proof of work system to a proof of ownership system. The problem with the later is the initial distribution of coins, but that is a problem for a new coin not an established coin that is already widely distributed.
There are many more problems with proof of stake than you imply. Take a look at the security concerns the Ethereum community has with a bad actor controlling a significant stake and their upcoming wishes to switch to proof of stake as an example.
You are merely re-stating the problem I described earlier, and bitcoin is widely distributed and beyond such concerns. This issue we both refer to is a big problem for coins that are born proof of stake, not those who switch to proof of state once mature.
Re: (Score:2)
This was obvious at the outset, the profits from mining would diminish and increasing fees would be needed to pay for the energy cost of each transaction. As i recall there was some handwaving about this being an academic consideration only.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Virtual currency does not require lots of power (Score:2)
Everything takes energy.
Its a solved problem, the mining/minting algorithm can be based on proof of ownership not proof of work. See Nxt for example. The problem is in distributing the ownership initially after block chain genesis.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Even among people who can afford hardware, there is a lot of effective consolidation because of 'pools'. These aren't irrational behavior: if you have a small amount of hashing capacity going it alone might pay off handsomely but will probably pay nothing, while pooling more or less guarantees a return proportional to your hashing capacity; but also leaves you largely at the mercy of the infrastructure.
While there are some valid concerns over pool mining centralization this is widely overblown concern due to 2 reasons. First is the fact that p2pool is only around 1% more inefficient than mining at the largest pool and removes these risks you suggest and there are many active members mining there and growing. Secondly it is trivial to point your hash rate at another pool and most miners automate this for uptime and other concerns.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Sounds very much like the internet and advertising - and we all see how well that's working out.
That is a complete non-sequitur. What are you talking about? It is almost exactly like other financial institutions, credit cards, etc. Every time you transfer money you pay a small fee to compensate the miners who make the whole thing work.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The mining will take a familiar pattern as resources become scarce and the artificial value of the precious stone rises. Capitalists will exploit human labourers running slave computers and we will all be using the term, "blood coins."
Then as global economies switch to organic foods and free range farm animals along with organic produce, BTC will be labeled, "conflict free coins."
Those who know history are bound to predict it.
Re: (Score:2)
We might need a "reset", where ASIC is no longer viable, but I'm not sure that would still be possible.
You would need most of the Bitcoin users to agree.
I think you're talking about a hard fork here, because miners with an existing investment in ASICs are not going to support this.
Therefore, you need a new community of miners (with no ASICs), and the rest of the public choosing the new fork and abandoning the fork supported by the current crop of miners.
Re:Other motivations (Score:4, Insightful)
With smaller players dropping out of the game, soon it might become a "single player" game after all.
Be aware there are also strong forces occuring that are pushing the decentralization of mining right now. Most principly hitting Moore's cliff with ASIC manufacturing will insure that newer generation ASICs only are slightly better than older generation ASICs.
can potentially disrupt the entire BitCoin economy by effectively "rewriting history".
This isn't true and not the consequences of a 51% attack. History cannot be re-written by a 51% attack as the amount of energy needed to ourun the longest chain with the most proof of work going several confirmations back is insurmountable. This is typically why the historical record of bitcoin txs are referred to as "immutable" . A 51% attack could potentially create double spends or prevent txs occurring in the present, not several confirmations past.
We might need a "reset", where ASIC is no longer viable, but I'm not sure that would still be possible.
This is of course possible and the code has already been written in the event of an unlikely attack from miners. This is unlikely to be needed however because there are both forces that drive centralization of mining and forces that drive decentralization of mining and a more likely outcome in the future is a mix of p2pool mining with some large industrial locations.
Re:Other motivations (Score:4, Insightful)
Which causes deflation (need less of the currency to buy the same thing - in other words the currency's value goes up). Which is the whole reason countries moved off the gold standard. The rate at which new gold was being mined was not keeping pace with the rate at which the economy was expanding (population and productivity increases), causing deflation, which destabilized the economy (you could "make" more money by stuffing it under a mattress, than by using it to do something economically productive).
Which is exactly what governments do with a fiat currency - adjust the availability of the currency to stabilize and moderate its value, to maintain a slight inflation rate.
And we've come full circle. The folks who rejected fiat currencies and advocated bitcoin have learned the lesson governments learned with gold eighty years ago, and are advocating changes to make it behave more like a fiat currency.
Re: (Score:3)
> (you could "make" more money by stuffing it under a mattress, than by using it to do something economically productive).
That's only true if the rate of deflation was greater than the nominal rate of return on other investments. Stock earnings, as measured by the S&P 500 have grown at an average of 6.6% over the last 55 years, plus paid out a few percent in cash dividends on top of that. If the dividends were re-invested, then total earnings would grow around 8.8%. If your money were deflating a
Re: (Score:2)
Which is exactly what governments do with a fiat currency - adjust the availability of the currency to stabilize and moderate its value, to maintain a slight inflation rate. And we've come full circle. The folks who rejected fiat currencies and advocated bitcoin have learned the lesson governments learned with gold eighty years ago, and are advocating changes to make it behave more like a fiat currency.
Bitcoins volatility is a fair criticism of it as a currency. Just keep in mind -
1) Bitcoin is becoming less volatile with each passing year
2) Bitcoin isn't just a currency, so even in the offchance it fails as a currency it can still be very valueable as a protocol, or asset class, or store of value , or just for the blackmarket , or.for smart contracts and an immutable ledger , or . ect..
3) Bitcoin is already more stable than certain fiat currencies, remember bitcoin only needs to be valuable to cert
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Other motivations (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Miners making commercial profit by using an optional fee for a service which has as a big selling point that some commercial entity isn't profiting by charging fees?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That has never been a selling point.
Yes it has, from the very start. Use this. It's better than paypal because it doesn't cost unlike using paypal. Use this, it's better than a bank transfer because it doesn't cost unlike the bank transfer. Constant lines used repeatedly here on our very slashdot by proponents of BitCoin hundreds of times.
The other wonderful feature is independence from control of a central bank. Well that did wonders for it too with the price bouncing around more than cheap hooker in Amsterdam.
Owners of coins can manage blockchain (Score:2)
Honest question from someone who only knows the basics: how do you trade bitcoins without miners around? I thought the transactions had to be embedded in the blockchain.
You use a proof of ownership mining/minting scheme like Nxt rather than the current proof of work mining/minting scheme. In proof of ownership it is the owners of coins who make their computer a node in the network for the processing of transactions which maintain the blockchain.
Switching to proof of ownership is something bitcoin could do. Especially now that coins are widely distributed. The big problem with proof of ownership is the initial distribution of coins, bitcoin is beyond that.
Of course mi
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Bitcoin: designed by a brilliant mathematician who had never read a macroeconomics textbook or intermediate-level survey.
sPh
Re: (Score:2)
Bitcoin: designed by a brilliant mathematician who had never read a macroeconomics textbook or intermediate-level survey.
I take it you think there's something wrong with Bitcoins from the macroeconomics point of view?
Re: (Score:2)
Bitcoin: designed by a brilliant mathematician who had never read a macroeconomics textbook or intermediate-level survey.
sPh
From reading Satoshi Nakamoto writings it was clear that he had an extensive background in many schools of economics. You may disagree with Hayek and the Austrian school of economics, which is fine, but it is highly misleading to suggest that someone who doesn't agree with Keyenes isn't familiar with their economic hypotheses.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
An inherently deflationary currency in a world that has experienced 300 years of continuous economic and population growth - what could possibly go wrong?
sPh
Re: (Score:2)
An inherently deflationary currency in a world that has experienced 300 years of continuous economic and population growth - what could possibly go wrong?
sPh
Bitcoin is Disinflationary from a production standpoint not deflationary. Whether bitcoin is deflationary or inflationary within the economy is simply a matter of supply and demand. If you are suggesting concerns with usability due to scarcity than have no fear as bitcoin can be divided by 8 decimal places and therefore even if each one is valued over 1 million a piece there will be plenty for everyone to use. Additionally, within layer 2 you can get even higher fractions of satoshis for more decimalization
Re: (Score:2)
Deflation increases the wealth of the people holding the currency. In Bitcoin's case, an intentionally disinflationary currency was coupled to a ponzi scheme - the hope was that demand rises high enough for early adopters to make bank (which it did).
Bitcoin has always been expressly designed to favor the people who got bitcoins early. And it was just obvious enough to recruit people who thought themselves early.
Asking people to adopt it worldwide is like Parker Bros saying "We're gonna make Monopoly Money i
Re: (Score:2)
> Bitcoin has always been expressly designed to favor the people who got bitcoins early.
And start-ups favor the founders and early investors, so what's your point?
For the first 18 months bitcoins were worth *zero*, they were merely an interesting experiment. There was no guarantee they would ever be worth anything in real terms. Then someone bought two pizzas for 10,000 BTC, establishing a value of 0.4 cents/BTC, meaning the mining reward at the time was 20 cents. Given that there were perhaps 100 pe
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Deflation increases the wealth of the people holding the currency. In Bitcoin's case, an intentionally disinflationary currency was coupled to a ponzi scheme - the hope was that demand rises high enough for early adopters to make bank (which it did).
Bitcoin has always been expressly designed to favor the people who got bitcoins early. And it was just obvious enough to recruit people who thought themselves early.
Asking people to adopt it worldwide is like Parker Bros saying "We're gonna make Monopoly Money into a valid international currency. Yes, we are the only ones who have Monopoly Money in meaningful quantities. No, we won't be printing hardly any more, we want to protect our investment. It's actually nearly impossible to print it, we engineered it that way. If you want some, you have to give me something in return. But look how pretty it is!"
Don't worry, we do not need you to buy any bitcoin. I actually encourage you to avoid it until you understand it. There are enough of us that will continue to burn our fiat for more fungible currency to keep bitcoin growing. I will continue buying bitcoin even if I have to at 500k+ a bitcoin due to its utility alone. You don't really understand bitcoins utility if you believe if is merely dependent upon speculation, but perhaps in 4 to 8 years as bitcoin continues to grow in value you may scratch your head
Re: (Score:3)
I think he meant that ASIC miners are hardwired computers which they are.
Stupid rule (Score:2)
Why such a hard step instead of a constant progression?
Re: (Score:2)
The rule, as written, is simple and unambiguous. Literally integer division followed by a rightshifting.
Re: (Score:2)
And it has a hard step, causing turbulence in bitcoin exchanges and so on.
If you want it easy, you could even publish a rule giving the rate for each day until the "next step", then there is a small step at 12am every day. Way better.
Re: (Score:2)
The only reason it prospers is because it's easier to swap tokens from an obvious scam than move real money about without various banking sharks taking a cut. Pretty sad isn't it?
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, i still see some pyramid scheme ... the early adopters are rich as fuck now if they believed in it and invested, while people mining now have investet as lot of real money in their mining farms, which probably now are just garbage, because running them costs more than they get from them.
This doesn't stop me to just buy bitcoin and pay with it, but it's a unfair game with respect to "free money" in the early days.
Re: (Score:2)
That's a good question. Maybe because it was simple? Anyway that's what Satoshi came up with and it will have to do. The decision has been criticized for unnecessary turbulence/price volatility which it causes.
Many newer cryptocurrencies such as Monero have opted to smoothly decreasing supply instead.
Re: (Score:2)
I am not that much into bitcoin, but i guess before such steps there is a lot of mining activity, which ceases after the step to wait what happens to the price then?
A smooth decrease would not cause such things.
BitCoin's Central Bank lowers interest rate (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Actually a decrease in the money supply would both cause an increase in secondary lending rates (because money is more scarce and therefore more burdensome to loan) and also in a fractional reserve system like the one you are complaining about could be caused by an increase in the federal funds rate as opposed to a decrease like you claimed. But don't let your complete lack of knowledge regarding monetary policy stop you from opining on something you know nothing about.
For those who actually care, if the c
Profit like 1849 profiteers (Score:4, Interesting)
Sell the equipment and resources to the miners, skim the illicit trade hidden from governments, and rob your clients blind as an exit strategy seems to be the result of Bitcoin operations. Are there _any_ bitcoin markets that show legitimate handling of client transactions for more than a few months without turning to direct theft from clients?
Re: (Score:2)
Sell the equipment and resources to the miners, skim the illicit trade hidden from governments, and rob your clients blind as an exit strategy seems to be the result of Bitcoin operations. Are there _any_ bitcoin markets that show legitimate handling of client transactions for more than a few months without turning to direct theft from clients?
There is real value created in minting virgin bitcoins as it allows miners to trade an ASIC and electricity for heat and fungible currency. While there has indeed been some scamming ASIC manufactures "premining on ASIC's" while the clients wait on preorders, and there does indeed exist some fractional reserve cloud mining operations, a normal user can now buy an ASIC from several reputable manufactures , have it immediately delivered with no pre-order wait time, and expect a profit if their electrical costs
Dimitri at a Rave learns about Bitcoin (Score:2)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
You keep on using that word (Score:2)
The entire thing is a scam baited for geeks and really pisses me off.
Re: (Score:2)
Disinflationary - You keep on using that word. How about instead of trying to mislead people you just write "deflation"? You can't? The rubes would catch on and not add to the pyramid scheme? The entire thing is a scam baited for geeks and really pisses me off.
I have been using the word "deflation". I have no reason to avoid using this word as it doesn't strike fear in my heart like it apparently does to you. It is a simple fact that bitcoin often behaves deflationary in the economy as the US dollar has lost 99.98 % against bitcoin in the last 6 years due to high demand and the fact that the minting supply is disinflationary. This isn't always the case however as you can see bitcoin behaved inflationary in 2014 due to a relatively high inflation minting rate of ~
Re: (Score:3)
Bitcoin mining certainly is. Bitcoins themselves are just like any fiat currency: Worth what others deem it worth based on how much they trust it to still have that worth when they want to spend it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Bitcoin is just like dog shit. It's worth what others deem it worth based on blah blah blah blah blah.
Re: (Score:2)
That's basically what props up all the currencies: That people think they can still get something in exchange for it tomorrow. The moment this stops, the currency's value drops rapidly.
Own goal (Score:2)
Makes it far worse than fiat currency of a state with real assets doesn't it?
I really don't get why bitcoin perpetrators take this angle - it's an own goal.
Re: (Score:2)
Wow, I never knew I live in a failed state. The millions trying desperately to get in almost fooled me...
Re: (Score:3)
This is precisely why Bitcoin has always been a scam. If you weren't in on the ground floor you get screwed.
Not getting the maximum profit is not the same as getting screwed. Same as any company where the early investors reap the maximum profits but the companies still trade on the exchange with robust health.
There will be another halving in a few years - you could get in now and be in that advantaged position then.
Be more worried about privacy problems with bitcoin than that you weren't an early investor.
Re: (Score:2)
Eventually, no new coins ... suppose I could collect them all when the time comes. Heh. Or I could spool up some servers, declare that I have them all, hit control alt delete, and give the whole world a chance to start the whole game again.
This doesn't come anywhere close to being a coherent thought. What are you talking about?
Re: (Score:2)
A new bitcoin algorithm, written in Beginners' All Purpose Symbolic Instruction Coconut.
10 c = speed of lite beer
20 accelerate my ass to c
30 gosub and return to Earth just in time for no new coins being min(t)able
40 sell junk on ebay for bitcoin
50 ? "profit!"
60 REM Never spend bitcoin
70 go to 40 until I gots them all
When the no-new-bitcoins era comes, and you are greeted by a homeless guy who tells you he "gave" away everything for all the bitcoins in the world ...
How does that story play out?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
I've always said it was a pyramid scheme. For early miners it was very easy to mine and each score was bigger, but the system relied upon ever more people buying into the scheme to create value.
Bitcoin is disinflationary and has already reached a critical mass of users where there is absolutely no need for anyone else to adopt it. If more people adopt bitcoin , great, if not than bitcoin will continue to appreciate if the existing userbase finds value in its fungibility. Now here is a very important point to consider. Bitcoin primary value rests in the premium for fungibility over fiat. Thus bitcoin will always be useful for its existing userbase, or any new adopters, if regulations and states exi
Re: (Score:2)
"Bitcoin is disinflationary"
The rapidly and falsely-rising 'value' of bitcoin tells me and anyone else that ever paid attention to economics that you're dead wrong.
Re: (Score:2)
"Bitcoin is disinflationary"
The rapidly and falsely-rising 'value' of bitcoin tells me and anyone else that ever paid attention to economics that you're dead wrong.
Bitcoin is disinflationary from a minting or production perspective until the year 2140 and than inflation will slow to 0. It can behave either inflationary or deflationary within an economy as a matter of supply and demand. Right now there is ~2.34 million in inflation a day hitting the markets and within a few hour the inflation hitting the markets will be half that. If you need some evidence that bitcoin can act inflationary within the economy than just look at its capitulation during 2014 where inflatio
Re: (Score:2)
"Continue to appreciate"
Sweetheart, when a currency appreciates, that's deflation. You can say "disinflationary" all you want.
Re: (Score:2)
"Continue to appreciate"
Sweetheart, when a currency appreciates, that's deflation. You can say "disinflationary" all you want.
Yes , of course bitcoin is often acting deflationary(which is great) , but sometimes behaves inflationary based upon supply and demand. I am clearly making a distinction between minting (disinflationary) and how bitcoin behaves in the economy (sometimes inflationary and sometimes deflationary). There have been long periods of inflation as well. Take a look at 2014.
Re: (Score:2)
The system does not rely on anything like that. That is exactly the reason why the amount of coins that can be mined in a time period is halved after each time period.
Re: (Score:2)
I've always said it was a pyramid scheme. For early miners it was very easy to mine and each score was bigger, but the system relied upon ever more people buying into the scheme to create value.
It was very easy to mine, so it was also near worthless. Both those who started to churn away GPU time and the very first people to sell/trade things of real value for Bitcoins took a huge leap of faith that this wouldn't just flop and be worth absolutely nothing. I remember reading about it when it passed $1 in value and thinking this was just a fad that would be nothing more than a few nerds passing around pizza and beer money before it flopped, so I'd strongly disagree that it looked like a pyramid schem
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Bitcoin depends on artificial scarcity for value- never a good thing.
All currency and money equivalents depend on scarcity else there's no point to the currency in either of the roles usually assigned to it (medium of exchange and store of value). Further, the scarcity of bitcoins is quite natural, arising inherently from the Bitcoin system.
Re: (Score:2)
And what could be more natural than bitcoin, a construct of mind?
Even the universe itself, all of nature, does not boast philosophical intuition for being necessary to exist, at least to us bumheads.
Re: (Score:2)
The artificial scarcity here is not ADVANTAGING ANYONE. That is a big distinction. There is no bank to manipulate or be manipulated. The BTC from here to the very last one mined are able to be mined at a known rate. When they are mined, the currency functions without any scarcity. The only alternative here would be to have all bitcoin already in the wild. That wouldn't work. How would you solve the equation?
I know many people who mine. Only one of them has a libertarian appreciation. As for stealing to
Re: (Score:2)
Sure buddy, deflation of currency doesn't advantage those that have a lot of that currency. That's a totally reasonable thing you're saying.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's the way the IMF forces onto Greece. Big difference.
Re: (Score:2)
The IMF doesn't force it's way anywhere. However, if you ask the IMF to lend you money it doesn't lend good money after bad into a blind pit without conditions like reforming your economy and paying your taxes. Greece could have chosen to go without but even populist demagogues like Tsipiras recognise that the reforms are necessary to improve Greece's future.
Re: (Score:2)
No, you don't have to work for less than a slave would make, you could always choose to starve to death...
Re: (Score:2)
False dichotomy. I disagree with you so you attempt to use the most ridiculous comparison possible to attempt to justify your position.
No, my brother the drug addict, you may not take my rent money to pay for your habit, my children need a roof over their heads. I will give you money but only for rehab.
The Greeks had everything planned to refuse the IMF's conditions, exit the EEC and reintroduce the drachma but that wouldn't have reformed the greek economy nor changed their habit of not paying taxes. Greece
Re: (Score:2)
Then maybe those reforms should start by not buying more submarines, but I guess Germany wouldn't want that to happen...
Re: (Score:2)
Meh, gold's not really worth shit.
Rhodium, Osmium, Platinum? Now we're talking.
Also, gemstones.
Re: (Score:2)
Iridium - Hammer's Slammers need a LOT of that stuff.
sPh
Re: (Score:2)
Yes they do: but the white lives have police protection.
Re: (Score:2)
The black community is and has been doing plenty for a long time. What they don't have control over is themselves and their young men being stopped, frisked, arrested & incarcerated for things where white men don't get hassled, go free, get probation or lesser sentences.
Once you're in the system, everything in your life changes. You can't simply serve your time and have your life reset like it's a video game.
Your job prospects are affected, every traffic stop becomes a major event, you can be refused h
Re: (Score:3)
Or... (3) Change the algorithm so that ASICs have a hard time with it but normal CPUs don't.
Re: (Score:2)
Because Ethereum's PoW oh wait PoS oh wait but maybe is a joke?
Re: (Score:3)
You mean like Ethereum? Why not just jump ship from Bitcoin?
Ethereum has many problems besides its goals of switching to an untested and insecure proof of stake algo. It was largely premined , it is insecure , it won't scale, the halting problem and recursion will haunt it, its functionality can be replicated by bitcoin more securely, it lacks a network effect, most of the largest stakeholders can be targeted, they are planning on reversing the history and blacklisting thus removing immutability, ect..
No fight since price more than doubled ... (Score:3)
The price already did increased, even x3 in last ~month, possibly that was in anticipation of this effect
Exactly, there is no fight for survival since the price more than doubled. Any miner that survived during the time bitcoin spent in the mid 200's recently is quite happy even with the split. If anything miners that had shut down are now finding it profitable to turn their hardware back on, again even factoring in the split. With current prices and a split we are equivalent to the low 300's. Mid 200's to low 300's (equivalent) is a win for miners.
Sure, a handful of very old mining hardware might be turned