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.

Bitcoin is horrible for the environment.

The only reason that it hasn't been banned, is because the participants running the show, are giving millions of dollars to Congress.

Bankman-Fried contributed more than $70 million to election campaigns in less than 18 months alone.

https://time.com/6241262/sam-bankman...cal-donations/

SBF was bad for BTC. He's one of the reasons why regulators are going after BTC. BTC was just fine before SBF came in to the picture.

Regulator's aren't going after Bitcoin. When was the last time you heard Congress saying Bitcoin is bad for the environment, privacy coins such as Dash and Monero are used to pay for child porn and are not traceable, a lot of people are being scammed through ICO's where people just run away with the investing public's money, maybe we should at least take a look at this.

Instead Congress waste everybody's time trying to get TikTok banned, which is no threat at all, because they own shares in Big Tech companies and they don't want them disrupted by an outside competitor ByteDance, which they hold no stake in what so ever.

Specifically in what way is BTC inordinately 'Bad for the Environment'?

And they are...

Captain obvious... it's a race to solve and equation, best man wins.

you've completely MISSED the entire point of being insulated against fractionalization and confiscation of wealth...

and therefore would be centralized and controllable, at which point the statement 'bitcoin is a ponzi scheme' becomes a truism... because the MAIN component to a 'Ponzi Scheme' is centralized control.

what?

prove that... hypotheticals are a poor place to find facts and truths.

That is called, 'The Network Effect' and is NOT unique to BTC or in fact ALL other assets...


-----------------------------------------------


it is very disappointing when people try and straw man their way to a point of truth...

Bitcoin uses the same amount of electricity as Norway. 61 percent of the electricity used to mine Bitcoins is created from fossil fuels.

And you're not insulated from confiscation if you own Bitcoin.

If a government bans Bitcoin unless you want to get thrown in jail you have no option, but to give it up. Try telling the government you're not paying your taxes or commit a murder while you're at it. See how that works out.

And if you want to spend your Bitcoin you have to withdraw it to you're bank account, so the government knows you have it either way.

I should have said regulators in the US are going after crypto. They want everything except BTC to be declared a security and they are going after DEXs.

I think this is because everything except for bitcoin is a security.

Really can't disagree that almost all of these cryptos are securities but now in essence they are coming after code with DEX and mixers as being money transmitters. What's next, Github because of their open source code? obvious exaggeration there.

Good podcast from Apr 19 about Bitcoin mining from capital allocators.

https://open.spotify.com/episode/6Ny...QXGbjZ22zbq8Yg

Let's listen to a couple of other experts in the mining field.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SUm8e7UeVdE