Is it not true that cost of a hash is averaged/stabilized over time by the daa?

Its a miracle if it is and don't let bgp kick me out until you answer.

Or what do I mean to say that isn't about the supply.

Recommend Laura Shin's interview with Kyle Davies for entertainment value, dunno how to embed videos here but: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IEsjWV7GRgY

All you do is copy/paste the "IEsjWV7GRgY" part, highlight it, and click the YouTube icon. It's the same thing for a Twitter post

he’s got one of the more punchable faces in crypto

The problem with Bitcoin is it's the miners who are making all of the money verifying transactions. Bitcoin should move to proof of stake where the holders of Bitcoin get paid, but the miners will never move away from proof of work, because they are only interested in mining it and selling it into the market.

The bitcoin holders are the dumb money about to get rug pulled.

huh 0o?
its actually the opposite...

Proof of stake is vulnerable to people with large sums of money. Bitcoin is vulnerable to someone controlling 50%+ of the mines in existence. I would say the later one is more secure. Neither system is without risk, but at the end of it all it doesn't even matter. All that matters is that enough people believe either one to be secure.

The market cap of Bitcoin is 1.2 trillion dollars. Nobody on planet earth has 600 billion dollars to gain control of 50% of the network.

The people mining it don't want to own Bitcoin. They just want to mine it and sell it.

It's perceived lack of scarcity is also untrue. There are only only so many litecoins or potcoins or nano coins or any of the other 2.4 million cryptos out there.

Also Bitcoin is terrible for the environment. It's only use is paying for child porn.

Bitcoin hodlers will get the investment result they deserve.

Proof of stake, lol so already rich bitcoin dorks can get richer?



Bitcoin mining is transforming energy.

How about a volcano too dangerous for people to live near, too expensive to run power lines out from, but produces heat 24/7. Drop some turbines and bitcoin miners on that free energy source. What about a raging river nobody lives near?

I've consumed a few good podcasts with mining company CEO's the past 3-4 months. It's no longer about competing on hash rate, it's about cheap power - https://twitter.com/ded_asf/status/1781394874387906819

Race to the bottom for the cheapest power. Transforming power grids along the way.

Imagine telling all of Africa that they have to get rich first (to stake) instead of using all their stranded renewable energy to mine.

I think this was actually true until big finance got involved. Now I think power and greed will keep this thing pingponging about for a long time. When the rich want something, they find a way.

But what bitcoin will never be, is something anyone buys something with reliably. It's just purely for making (or losing) money.

If poor people were able to make money in Africa mining Bitcoin they would already be doing it.

It's a couple of massive players with huge investments in compute hardware that are making all of the money mining and selling the Bitcoin.

There's no point in owning Bitcoin when it is proof of work because it will never pay you anything.

If it was proof of stake at least it wouldn't be as bad for the environment and the holders of Bitcoin would get paid for verifying the transactions.

So in other words Bitcoin has already been corrupted.

Eventually another coin will come along that people like more.

It's like at the beginning people pumped Gamestop, then AMC, then Bed Bath and Beyond, but the recreational was always one step behind, because they weren't putting their money into anything that had any value.

A case can be made that its actually good for the environment. I'll let you do your own research.