>huge sections of the economy now depend on brrr
>they are going to brrr for the rest of the year
>Bitcoin's supply rate halves in ONE WEEK
>within 4 months more and more normans are going to notice the significant BTC rally caused by the halving
>some of them will catch on that they can just buy BTC with their brrr money
>there are people who aren't bulls right now
BRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR
Other urls found in this thread:
cs.princeton.edu
bis.org
twitter.com
what if it goes down
fundamental mining dynamics strongly suggest that it won't go down on a mid-term (EOY) time scale.
>BTC has extremely limited use because its a shitcoin
>people see it going up in dollars
>people also see cheeseburgers going up in dollars
>in fact people see everything going up in dollars
>nobody buys BTC because it does nothing
fundamental mining dynamics strongly suggest it will be an unprofitable, unsecured turd in ONE WEEK
>people have a need to store value since they don't want to store value in form of 500 cheeseburgers
>there is a readily available asset that provides that and is actually appreciating too
>this is actually the main reason money exists
>everyone buys BTC because it provides that
>if
mining spiral fud has been around every halving, it is simply fud, nothing more.
Will Altcoins also go up when the BTC halvening happens?
For example ETH and LINK
I read that historically they moved the same way BTC did after halvenings but the gains were even bigger. Will it be like this this time?
Altcoins were around during the first halving, but they weren't really much of a "thing". It was only during 2017 that they rallied so much. But they were just being propelled by the momentum of BTC. I guess you'll see another wave in alts too, but if you look at the long term holds from 2017, they are all underperforming btc except for maybe a couple of tiny fringe ones. The secret that most people don't want you to know is that they only use alts to try to raise their BTC balance. That's why some people are so against altcoins in general
Liquidity crunch, or brrrrr'd money stagnates in the hand of few stingy cunts whilst others can barely pay bills.
>On the Instability of Bitcoin Without the Block Reward
cs.princeton.edu
The most in-depth paper written on bitcoin EVER
Princeton university
>Beyond the doomsday
economics of “proof-of work” in cryptocurrencies
Monetary and Economic Department
"Second, the transaction market cannot generate an adequate level of
“mining” income via fees as users free-ride on the fees of other transactions in a block and in the
subsequent blockchain. Instead, newly minted bitcoins, known as block rewards, have made up the bulk
of mining income to date. Looking ahead, these two limitations imply that liquidity is set to fall dramatically
as these block rewards are phased out. Simple calculations suggest that once block rewards are zero, it
could take months before a Bitcoin payment is final, unless new technologies are deployed to speed up
payment finality. Second-layer solutions such as the Lightning Network might help, but the only
fundamental remedy would be to depart from proof-of-work, which would probably require some form
of social coordination or institutionalisation."
“Impact on Bitcoin security. If any of the deviant mining strategies we explore were to be deployed, the impact on Bitcoin’s security would be serious. At best, the block chain will have a significant fraction of stale or orphaned blocks due to constant forks, making 51% attacks much easier and increasing the transaction confirmation time. At worst, consensus will break down due to block withholding or increasingly aggressive undercutting.
>Written by phd´s in computer science and economics. Bitcoiners can’t refute this fud, lol. These academic papers prove that proof of work will not work longterm.
Another weakness is the lack of on chain governance, which results in huge governance and coordination problems, and limits innovation.
Yes but hopefully eth 2.0 will launch and that will give it some pretty good gains along with the bull run gains.
>spreading this fud across the whole board
when has princeton been right about anything related to bitcoin? they don't fucking know
it´s the most in depth acedemic paper done on bitcoins flaws. They have spent years putting together this paper. There is a growing consensus in the academic community that bitcoin will not work well without block rewards. Arthur Breitman, founder of tezos has said this himself, amongst others. Vlad from ethereum has also admitted it
Bitcoin without block rewards will open up a pandorabox of problems.
do you even realize that BIS is bitcoin's biggest enemy? they have every incentive to attack it with FUD. don't fall for it. And Breitman and Vlad are not authorities on this
Sure, but that doesn´t mean their critcicism is not legit. Bitcoin will have big trouble without block rewards. Any smart person that have studied it would come to that conclusion.
"Unfortunately, there is reason to expect that the demand for transactions
will fall to very low levels. People are likely to make use of off-chain transaction
mechanisms via trusted third parties, particularly for small amounts, in order
to alleviate the need to wait for confirmations. Payment processors may only
need to clear with each other infrequently.
This scenario is not only economically likely, it seems necessary given the
relatively low transaction rate supported by Bitcoin. Since blockchain transaction will have to compete with off-chain transaction, the amount spent on
transactions will approach its cost, which, given modern infrastructure, should
be close to zero.
Attempting to impose minimum transaction fees may only exacerbate the
problem and cause users to rely on off-chain transaction more. As the amount
paid in transaction fees collapses, so will the miner’s revenues, and so will the
cost of executing a 51% attack. To put it in a nutshell, the security of a proofof-work blockchain suffers from a commons problem[9]. Core developer Mike
Hearn has suggested the use of special transactions to subsidize mining using a
pledge type of fund raising[10]. A robust currency should not need to rely on
charity to operate securely"
>BIS and Princeton
lmao
"Unfortunately, proof-of-work arbitrarily increases the costs to the users
without increasing the profits of the miners, incurring a deadweight loss. Indeed,
since miners compete to produce hashes, the amount of money they spend on
mining will be slightly smaller than the revenues, and in the long run, the profits
they make will be commensurate with the value of their transaction services,
while the cost of mining is lost to everyone.
This is not simply a nominal effect: real economic goods (time in fabs,
electricity, engineering efforts) are being removed from the economy for the
sake of proof-of-work mining. As of June 2014, Bitcoin’s annual inflation stands
at a little over 10% and about $2.16M dollars are being burned daily for the
sake of maintaining a system that provides little to no security over a centralized
system in the hands of ghash.io.
The very security of a proof-of-work scheme rests on this actual cost being
7
higher than what an attacker is willing to pay, which is bound to increase with
the success of the currency.
Proof-of-stake eliminates this source of waste without lowering the cost of
attacks — indeed, it automatically scales up the cost of an attack as the currency
appreciates. Because the thing you must prove to mine is not destruction of
existing resources but provision of existing resources, a proof-of-stake currency
does not rely on destroying massive resources as it gains in popularity."
Mike Hearn hasn't been involved with bitcoin in years and stated that sold all of his coins.
Nobody actually knows how it is going to play out. What we do know is that the supply rate has decreased twice and the amount of hash rate has been increasing year over year for ten years. So even if rewards decrease, it's attractive enough for the rate to go up. Fees will become more valuable as value appreciates
>ghash.io
your old fud is extremely stale. when this was written, bitcoin was worth a small fraction of what it is now.
"There is an even deeper problem with proof-of-work, one that is much harder to mitigate than the concentration of mining power: a misalignment of incentives between miners and stakeholders. Indeed, in the long run, the total mining revenues will be the sum of the all transaction fees paid to the miners. Since miners compete to produce hashes, (5) It is possible that a new technology will supplant ASICs who themselves replaced FPGA boards. However, the pace of this type of innovation is nowhere fast enough to prevent miners from forming dominating positions for long period of times; and such innovation would benefit but a new (or the same) small clique of people who initially possess the new technology or eventually amass the capital to repeat the same pattern. (6) the amount of money spent on mining will be slightly smaller than the revenues. In turn, the amount spent on transactions depends on the supply and demand for transactions. The supply of transactions on the blockchain is determined by the block size and is fixed."
come back when you have a better understanding of bitcoin governance (research why the new york agreement failed). if you understand that you wouldn't want to post this outdated shit.
you are just a fudder. how big is your short position if you are this convinced?
"As security researcher Dan Kaminsky explains, Bitcoin looks like a security nightmare on paper. A C++ code base with a custom binary protocol powers nodes connected to
the Internet while holding e-cash, sounds like a recipe for disaster. C++ programs
are often riddled with memory corruption bugs. When they are connecting to
the Internet, this creates vulnerabilities exploitable by remote attackers. E-cash
gives an immediate payoff to any attacker clever enough to discover and exploit
such a vulnerability.
Fortunately, Bitcoin’s implementation has proven very resilient to attacks
thus far, with some exceptions. In August 2010, a bug where the sum of two
outputs overflowed to a negative number allowed attackers to create two outputs of 92233720368.54 coins from an input of 0.50 coins. More recently, massive
vulnerabilities such as the heartbleed bug have been discovered in the OpenSSL
libraries. These vulnerabilities have one thing in common, they happened because languages like C and C++ do not perform any checks on the operations
they perform. For the sake of efficiency, they may access random parts of the
memory, add integers larger than natively supported, etc. While these vulnerabilities have spared Bitcoin, they do no not bode well for the security of the system."
Christ, it's been some time since I've seen such a dedicated autist. How much are they paying you per hour to write shit on BTC so your employers can buy cheap panic-sold BTC assuming people fell for it?
it´s all true, and you can´t argue the point made. Bitcoin has shit code, won´t work without block rewards and no formal governance makes it shit. Miners control the bitcoin network, not stakeholders.
Funny how bitcoiners ignore and suppress the weaknesses of bitcoin.
it's not all true. this has been argued for years. miners don't control the bitcoin network. if the code is so shit, why don't you exploit it for profit? i'll wait. bitcoin has weaknesses (and you haven't even listed the more interesting ones) and they are worth discussing, but you are just conducting a poor FUD campaign. it's obvious.
He doesn’t buy cheeseburgers as an investment. Never gonna make it
NGL. He is right.
The most indepth acedemic paper i read said the opposite, but im waging and cant find it right now
...