Crypto Currency Thread
Discussion
Thesprucegoose said:
Letting the internet know lol this bit of pH used to be interesting now it seems the ones from npe have joined. Big picture 2018 down trend pick up September. My opinion anyone can suggest another.
Of course you're correct. An insignificant number of people take notice of this forum. Some use sentiment indicators, but the words in this thread don't form part of anybody's algorithms.On the other hand, price swings & volatility are just trading activity. Calling it "whales manipulating the market" is a bit naive. Traders gonna be traders.
Time prediction for price swings is nigh impossible except for lucky dice throws. Trying to predict probable price levels is the way most traders operate.
What is npe?
Fast and Spurious said:
Thesprucegoose said:
Letting the internet know lol this bit of pH used to be interesting now it seems the ones from npe have joined. Big picture 2018 down trend pick up September. My opinion anyone can suggest another.
Thank you. Even Condi?My opinion: buy some tulip bulbs instead.
The problem is the whole thing is like the wild west, look at Mt Gox, Bitconect and all the other hacked exchanges to realise this. Then you have the rumours of Tether not having the cash to back up the coins and UpBit in Korea being raided over fraud.
Maybe a few coins will become the equivalent of Google, Amazon or eBay, but like the dot com boom most of these coins will be an interesting side note on Wikipedia, looked back on with amusement in a few years.
I would be very interested in the actual percentage of people who have made money compared to the percentage of people who have lost money. For every person who started mining BTC years ago there must be 100 people that bought in December due to FOMO at $20k
Oh, and I find it ironic that Crypto is supposed to replace fiat, yet people are buying crypto to make fiat.
Joey Deacon said:
Oh, and I find it ironic that Crypto is supposed to replace fiat, yet people are buying crypto to make fiat.
There's no irony in that. It's just speculation. But you've a very good point in that those adoption curves frequently seen for crypto have got it very wrong. Speculators are not adopters. Holding crypto at an exchange, focusing on when you'll cash out makes you a speculator, not an adopter. There's nothing wrong with speculating btw.Joey Deacon said:
Crypto seems to be a solution looking for a problem that doesn't really exist. There are over 1500 alt coins at the moment, and any investment in these is purely speculative as most of them are little more than a white paper and an ICO. 99.99% of all of these coins are going to amount to nothing and vanish along with the money invested in them.
The problem is the whole thing is like the wild west, look at Mt Gox, Bitconect and all the other hacked exchanges to realise this. Then you have the rumours of Tether not having the cash to back up the coins and UpBit in Korea being raided over fraud.
Maybe a few coins will become the equivalent of Google, Amazon or eBay, but like the dot com boom most of these coins will be an interesting side note on Wikipedia, looked back on with amusement in a few years.
I would be very interested in the actual percentage of people who have made money compared to the percentage of people who have lost money. For every person who started mining BTC years ago there must be 100 people that bought in December due to FOMO at $20k
Oh, and I find it ironic that Crypto is supposed to replace fiat, yet people are buying crypto to make fiat.
This is what's needed to make money though, the wild west scenario. If it all becomes regulated and the volatility stops then so does alot of the ability to make money, and we'll end up in a Forex trading scenario where things move 0.1% every day or so. Some coins may end up replacing fiat to a certain degree, but it's catch 22. No one will use it as currency until the volatility stops, and it won't stop until it used as currency.The problem is the whole thing is like the wild west, look at Mt Gox, Bitconect and all the other hacked exchanges to realise this. Then you have the rumours of Tether not having the cash to back up the coins and UpBit in Korea being raided over fraud.
Maybe a few coins will become the equivalent of Google, Amazon or eBay, but like the dot com boom most of these coins will be an interesting side note on Wikipedia, looked back on with amusement in a few years.
I would be very interested in the actual percentage of people who have made money compared to the percentage of people who have lost money. For every person who started mining BTC years ago there must be 100 people that bought in December due to FOMO at $20k
Oh, and I find it ironic that Crypto is supposed to replace fiat, yet people are buying crypto to make fiat.
I follow datadash on youtube, and alot of his analysis is accurate, and can be used as a good indicator as to where the market is going.
Thesprucegoose said:
Letting the internet know lol this bit of pH used to be interesting now it seems the ones from npe have joined. Big picture 2018 down trend pick up September. My opinion anyone can suggest another.
I would say people are 'expected' to be more specific here, because if someone shares something they know it will give others a chance to make a decision to make money. So if your 'it will go down by September' is based on some insider stuff people might use it as part of their investing decision. As it is then it's just a random feeling despite the wording so no one will actually use that (or should not). To me the financial part of PH is worse (for picking sectors/shares), as a lot of posts are just random 'i feel this will happen' posts. Before there was a lot less posts, but they were generally more fact based on good opportunities.
Behemoth said:
The strength of the system relies on a network of miners and nodes that validate them. These miners are in a network of competition which forever pits miners against each other to form and support the network, regardless of the coin's value. To understand Bitcoin miners, you need to get your head around Nash Equilibrium and you'd then realise it's a strength not a weakness.
.
I don't think any miners will mine a coin if it's price goes to zero. In fact if it even approaches zero, hash rates drop significantly and pool/51% attacks tend to occur. I mine lots of coins, I'm seeing it. Even if rewards increase, it's not enough (eg LCC - price has cratered, difficulty has slumped, rewards have doubled, hash rate is at record lows and continue to go lower, Pools are seeing massive issues).
What is ultimately the Nash equilibrium with miners? It's hardly as theory would have suggested by Satoshi et al - that is, as difficulty goes up rewards go down, hash rate drops, rewards go back up etc. It seems to me, when looking at the market with the highest hash rate (BTC) that the Nash equilibrium will occur when the biggest and the cheapest funded miners with their own mining company (read Bitmain) reap all the rewards, while everyone else gets competed out ie ultimate centralisation.
Not only that, there are lots of dirty tricks being played out there. Whales moving the markets, pump and dumps, hash rates/difficulty/mempool/mood music (ie BTC vs BCH) all being manipulated. That's before we get into ASICBoost being adopted by certain miners (again read Bitmain for all of these) to give them massive unfair advantages.
Don't get me wrong I'm a believer, but right now, the system is awash with issues.
Edited by Mousem40 on Thursday 24th May 17:03
Mousem40 said:
I don't think any miners will mine a coin if it's price goes to zero. In fact if it even approaches zero, hash rates drop significantly and pool/51% attacks tend to occur. I mine lots of coins, I'm seeing it. Even if rewards increase, it's not enough (eg LCC - price has cratered, difficulty has slumped, rewards have doubled, hash rate is at record lows and continue to go lower, Pools are seeing massive issues)
What is ultimately the Nash equilibrium with miners? It's hardly as theory would have suggested by Satoshi et al - that is, as difficulty goes up rewards go down, hash rate drops, rewards go back up etc. It seems to me, when looking at the market with the highest hash rate (BTC) that the Nash equilibrium will occur when the biggest and the cheapest funded miners with their own mining company (read Bitmain) reap all the rewards, while everyone else gets competed out ie ultimate centralisation.
Not only that, there are lots of dirty tricks being played out there. Whales moving the markets, pump and dumps, hash rates/difficulty/mempool/mood music (ie BTC vs BCH) all being manipulated. That's before we get into ASICBoost being adopted by certain miners (again read Bitmain for all of these) to give them massive unfair advantages.
Don't get me wrong I'm a believer, but right now, the system is awash with issues.
Yes, there are plenty of issues but I don't see any that are insurmountable & to me they all seem transient. It's really interesting seeing what's being played out with the 51%s @ BTG. I'm unfamiliar with LCC but there'll be plenty more wherever dev teams are small, pools are already largely bots etc. and nobody keeps an eye out (a key aspect of the worth of validating nodes). All these attacks are good data points.What is ultimately the Nash equilibrium with miners? It's hardly as theory would have suggested by Satoshi et al - that is, as difficulty goes up rewards go down, hash rate drops, rewards go back up etc. It seems to me, when looking at the market with the highest hash rate (BTC) that the Nash equilibrium will occur when the biggest and the cheapest funded miners with their own mining company (read Bitmain) reap all the rewards, while everyone else gets competed out ie ultimate centralisation.
Not only that, there are lots of dirty tricks being played out there. Whales moving the markets, pump and dumps, hash rates/difficulty/mempool/mood music (ie BTC vs BCH) all being manipulated. That's before we get into ASICBoost being adopted by certain miners (again read Bitmain for all of these) to give them massive unfair advantages.
Don't get me wrong I'm a believer, but right now, the system is awash with issues.
Edited by Mousem40 on Thursday 24th May 17:03
But I don't have any fears for Bitcoin. It will learn from attacks on lesser chains and harden. Yes, if it tends to zero the game's up. But even pretty close to zero there are plenty of diehards who will simply fight to sweep up cheap coins & back up it goes.
A core part of Nash Equilibrium is that people won't shoot themselves in the foot. The only clear and present danger there is a large state actor determined to destroy an independent money.
I think the driver in Proof of Work is energy, not miners or asics. Every aspect of mining ultimately resolves to the cost of energy spent. That's what Proof of Work is really all about. There's already a worldwide chase for cheap electricity and that'll push on. The really cheap stuff is in sources like hydro which, rivers & mountains being what they are, are geographically quite dispersed (unlike sources for some rare earth elements, eg) so it's difficult to see that centralising extensively. Even geothermal sources are dotted around the globe. I suppose ultimately, if BTC were valuable enough, a well funded group might try running miners off solar panels in orbit. That'd be a centralising force, for sure.
Behemoth said:
A core part of Nash Equilibrium is that people won't shoot themselves in the foot.
Thing is, now that there is a BTC derivatives market, you can decouple mining/hashing activity from being long the coin.There is nothing stopping someone with big balls from doing the following and making huge profits:
1) Sell a massive amount of BTC short
2) Rent a huge amount of mining hardware for a day (funded by the proceeds of selling BTC short)
3) Launch 51% attack
4) Watch BTC implode
5) Cover your short position at the lower price
6) Go and hide from all of the world's gangsters who are now looking for you
NickCQ said:
Thing is, now that there is a BTC derivatives market, you can decouple mining/hashing activity from being long the coin.
There is nothing stopping someone with big balls from doing the following and making huge profits:
1) Sell a massive amount of BTC short
2) Rent a huge amount of mining hardware for a day (funded by the proceeds of selling BTC short)
3) Launch 51% attack
4) Watch BTC implode
5) Cover your short position at the lower price
6) Go and hide from all of the world's gangsters who are now looking for you
point 2 is a fantasyThere is nothing stopping someone with big balls from doing the following and making huge profits:
1) Sell a massive amount of BTC short
2) Rent a huge amount of mining hardware for a day (funded by the proceeds of selling BTC short)
3) Launch 51% attack
4) Watch BTC implode
5) Cover your short position at the lower price
6) Go and hide from all of the world's gangsters who are now looking for you
JustinF said:
NickCQ said:
Thing is, now that there is a BTC derivatives market, you can decouple mining/hashing activity from being long the coin.
There is nothing stopping someone with big balls from doing the following and making huge profits:
1) Sell a massive amount of BTC short
2) Rent a huge amount of mining hardware for a day (funded by the proceeds of selling BTC short)
3) Launch 51% attack
4) Watch BTC implode
5) Cover your short position at the lower price
6) Go and hide from all of the world's gangsters who are now looking for you
point 2 is a fantasyThere is nothing stopping someone with big balls from doing the following and making huge profits:
1) Sell a massive amount of BTC short
2) Rent a huge amount of mining hardware for a day (funded by the proceeds of selling BTC short)
3) Launch 51% attack
4) Watch BTC implode
5) Cover your short position at the lower price
6) Go and hide from all of the world's gangsters who are now looking for you
Interesting article on Bloomberg regarding the current scams etc around Bitcoin.
Thought it would be interesting given the topic on here at the moment.
https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2018-05-24...
Thought it would be interesting given the topic on here at the moment.
https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2018-05-24...
Behemoth said:
There's already a worldwide chase for cheap electricity and that'll push on. The really cheap stuff is in sources like hydro which, rivers & mountains being what they are, are geographically quite dispersed (unlike sources for some rare earth elements, eg) so it's difficult to see that centralising extensively. Even geothermal sources are dotted around the globe. I suppose ultimately, if BTC were valuable enough, a well funded group might try running miners off solar panels in orbit. That'd be a centralising force, for sure.
Each single bitcoin transaction currently uses enough electricity to power 38 US houses for a day!! The whole thing is totally unsustainable, the cost of transactions are monumental. Its costing (rough and ready, power at 14p/kwh) £133 per cup of coffee bought! How on earth can you argue this is sustainable? In China (where most of the miners are) that power comes from coal sets, which are the dirtiest source of power in major use. Morally its just wrong IMO.
https://digiconomist.net/bitcoin-energy-consumptio...
EDIT - that comes across as if morals and sustainability really matter to a market - I know they dont - but equally how on earth can anyone afford to use it as a currency when each transaction is costing upwards of £100 in fees. This 'money' only appears by new people buying into the system, essentially. When the value of the coins decrease, while I get that it will become easier (cheaper) to mine, if the value keeps falling then you end up in a cycle of ever more coins being produced onto a market which doesnt value them and no matter how cheap you make the transaction if nobody has a use for it then nobody will mine them.
Edited by Condi on Thursday 24th May 22:15
Condi said:
Each single bitcoin transaction currently uses enough electricity to power 38 US houses for a day!!
The whole thing is totally unsustainable, the cost of transactions are monumental. Its costing (rough and ready, power at 14p/kwh) £133 per cup of coffee bought! How on earth can you argue this is sustainable? In China (where most of the miners are) that power comes from coal sets, which are the dirtiest source of power in major use. Morally its just wrong IMO.
https://digiconomist.net/bitcoin-energy-consumptio...
But it makes economic sense to mine bitcoins so people mine bitcoins. The fact that the algorithm requires a lot of computational power and energy to solve is irrelevant. Comparing VISA transactions is also irrelevant...you should first calculate the cost of establishing and removing the gold standard and establishing social and political systems strong and sustainable enough to back the debt based fiat currencies that VISA transacts with. The whole thing is totally unsustainable, the cost of transactions are monumental. Its costing (rough and ready, power at 14p/kwh) £133 per cup of coffee bought! How on earth can you argue this is sustainable? In China (where most of the miners are) that power comes from coal sets, which are the dirtiest source of power in major use. Morally its just wrong IMO.
https://digiconomist.net/bitcoin-energy-consumptio...
Thesprucegoose said:
Letting the internet know lol this bit of pH used to be interesting now it seems the ones from npe have joined. Big picture 2018 down trend pick up September. My opinion anyone can suggest another.
I guess this is my problem with bitcoin. Traders spend their days looking at markets, doing hours of research, knowing their customers, knowing what they're doing, knowing who they're doing it with. Knowing what is likely to happen in 1 month, 2 months, 6 months and why. Knowing their 'unknowns' and knowing variables. Questioning everything they read and cross checking against other sources of information. The more you know about a market the more you can position yourself to take advantage of price movements. But everything, in ANY market comes down to supply and demand. Who wants it? Who has it? How much?
You say in your opinion it will pick up in September - it might do, I wouldnt have a clue. You obviously have a reason to think so, though and I'd love to know what that is? If its 'just a hunch' then thats fine, but why would you put money on what someone on the internet said? Who are they? What are their own interests in Bitcoin? What do they know, or have access to, other people dont? Why is their opinion any more right than mine, or yours, or anyone elses. They might have access to information we dont - in which case they're probably worth listening to, but if so why would they share it?
With bitcoin most traders and 'outsiders' see no fundamental reason for prices to be anything other than £0. There is no fundamental reason anyone needs this unless they are doing something they are unable to do with fiat currency. Experience says that when criminals try and get round the financial system then governments intervene and close it down, or regulate. The only thing supporting price is gamblers, believers, and people with survivor bunkers in their gardens!
There are a lot of people claiming to be traders, or claiming to 'trade' when all they're really doing is gambling based on little or no research and at times very little critical thought. Opinions are the backbone of a market, everyone should have one, but please spend some time researching your market, and questioning what you read to form your own opinion, rather than following what everyone else says.
Sorry, rant over.
As for me? I'd be short.
Speculation can push a market around in the short to medium term, but fundamentals always win in the end. Edited by Condi on Thursday 24th May 22:47
Condi said:
Each single bitcoin transaction currently uses enough electricity to power 38 US houses for a day!!
The whole thing is totally unsustainable, the cost of transactions are monumental. Its costing (rough and ready, power at 14p/kwh) £133 per cup of coffee bought! How on earth can you argue this is sustainable? In China (where most of the miners are) that power comes from coal sets, which are the dirtiest source of power in major use. Morally its just wrong IMO.
https://digiconomist.net/bitcoin-energy-consumptio...
EDIT - that comes across as if morals and sustainability really matter to a market - I know they dont - but equally how on earth can anyone afford to use it as a currency when each transaction is costing upwards of £100 in fees. This 'money' only appears by new people buying into the system, essentially. When the value of the coins decrease, while I get that it will become easier (cheaper) to mine, if the value keeps falling then you end up in a cycle of ever more coins being produced onto a market which doesnt value them and no matter how cheap you make the transaction if nobody has a use for it then nobody will mine them.
Bitcoin has nothing to do with buying coffee. I think you know this.The whole thing is totally unsustainable, the cost of transactions are monumental. Its costing (rough and ready, power at 14p/kwh) £133 per cup of coffee bought! How on earth can you argue this is sustainable? In China (where most of the miners are) that power comes from coal sets, which are the dirtiest source of power in major use. Morally its just wrong IMO.
https://digiconomist.net/bitcoin-energy-consumptio...
EDIT - that comes across as if morals and sustainability really matter to a market - I know they dont - but equally how on earth can anyone afford to use it as a currency when each transaction is costing upwards of £100 in fees. This 'money' only appears by new people buying into the system, essentially. When the value of the coins decrease, while I get that it will become easier (cheaper) to mine, if the value keeps falling then you end up in a cycle of ever more coins being produced onto a market which doesnt value them and no matter how cheap you make the transaction if nobody has a use for it then nobody will mine them.
Edited by Condi on Thursday 24th May 22:15
Early in the web, opponents claimed it would eat the world's energy resources. But kitten GIFs, facebook likes & forum s
tposting seem to be what people want to spend energy resources on. It's an awful lot of Watts. If you want to help save the planet, you should stop using the internet. http://science.time.com/2013/08/14/power-drain-the...Compared to this, a novel sound money is pretty cheap. The oceans are not going to be boiled.
https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2017-12-07...
Behemoth said:
Yes, there are plenty of issues but I don't see any that are insurmountable & to me they all seem transient. It's really interesting seeing what's being played out with the 51%s @ BTG. I'm unfamiliar with LCC but there'll be plenty more wherever dev teams are small, pools are already largely bots etc. and nobody keeps an eye out (a key aspect of the worth of validating nodes). All these attacks are good data points.
But I don't have any fears for Bitcoin. It will learn from attacks on lesser chains and harden. Yes, if it tends to zero the game's up. But even pretty close to zero there are plenty of diehards who will simply fight to sweep up cheap coins & back up it goes.
A core part of Nash Equilibrium is that people won't shoot themselves in the foot. The only clear and present danger there is a large state actor determined to destroy an independent money.
I think the driver in Proof of Work is energy, not miners or asics. Every aspect of mining ultimately resolves to the cost of energy spent. That's what Proof of Work is really all about. There's already a worldwide chase for cheap electricity and that'll push on. The really cheap stuff is in sources like hydro which, rivers & mountains being what they are, are geographically quite dispersed (unlike sources for some rare earth elements, eg) so it's difficult to see that centralising extensively. Even geothermal sources are dotted around the globe. I suppose ultimately, if BTC were valuable enough, a well funded group might try running miners off solar panels in orbit. That'd be a centralising force, for sure.
Interesting- thanks. Didn’t realise mining couldn’t be distributed (i.e same miner owning operations in Iceland and British Columbia say and chaining together). Rather an old fashioned architecture, but yes it helps stop centralisationBut I don't have any fears for Bitcoin. It will learn from attacks on lesser chains and harden. Yes, if it tends to zero the game's up. But even pretty close to zero there are plenty of diehards who will simply fight to sweep up cheap coins & back up it goes.
A core part of Nash Equilibrium is that people won't shoot themselves in the foot. The only clear and present danger there is a large state actor determined to destroy an independent money.
I think the driver in Proof of Work is energy, not miners or asics. Every aspect of mining ultimately resolves to the cost of energy spent. That's what Proof of Work is really all about. There's already a worldwide chase for cheap electricity and that'll push on. The really cheap stuff is in sources like hydro which, rivers & mountains being what they are, are geographically quite dispersed (unlike sources for some rare earth elements, eg) so it's difficult to see that centralising extensively. Even geothermal sources are dotted around the globe. I suppose ultimately, if BTC were valuable enough, a well funded group might try running miners off solar panels in orbit. That'd be a centralising force, for sure.
Gassing Station | Finance | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff