Bitcoin is going to 13k this week

Thanks I just watched and will be kicking myself for the next 100k hours

since when. the begining of time. has anyone been right on ta on bitcoin. ever. period. sell before you lose.

you're really reaching there cowboy

My sides.

You joke, but I cashed out last week.

USA covid numbers to get scary in three weeks.

4th of July next week is going to spread it like wild fire.

the nothing burger grows

Joke's on you I'm always buying (RLC digital oil)

>Buy the fucking dip
NO

fuck off

i dip is mumu sad for 3-4 hours you smooth brained moonboy... holy shit when west coast us finally goes to sleep there's nothing holding this piece of shit together, ill buy in a few days or done with crypto entirely, i cant afford to lose more

yeah... the clownening is going into november, if you didnt sell at 10k, you can join the 19k club and keep waiting

>muh 2 more weeks

>On the Instability of Bitcoin Without the Block Reward
cs.princeton.edu/~arvindn/publications/mining_CCS.pdf
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
bis.org/publ/work765.pdf

"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."

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.

“SELFISH MINING WITH TRANSACTION FEES: Selfish mining is a deviant strategy first identified by Eyal and Sirer [9]. Essentially, a selfish miner chooses not to release blocks immediately upon being found, instead withholding them in hopes of tricking the rest of the network into wasting their mining power mining blocks that will be orphaned. We find that the selfish mining strategy performs even better in the transaction fees model than the block-reward model. A priori, there’s no reason to expect this. In this section we provide simulation results, along with some intuition and a theoretical analysis proving this. Essentially what winds up happening is that while the selfish miner mines the same fraction of blocks in either reward model, the selfish miner’s blocks will tend to be larger. In the block-reward model, this doesn’t matter because all blocks are worth the same, but in the transaction fees model this means the selfish miner gets greater reward.”
Analysis. We proceed now with an analysis of the rewards obtained in the transaction fee model by a selfish miner. Parts will look similar to the analysis done in [9]. For every infinitesimally small transaction fee that arrives, we wish to compute the probability that it winds up in a block mined by the selfish miner. Note that if the selfish miner just used default mining instead, this probability would be exactly α. The determining factor in this probability will be the size of the selfish miner’s private chain. To this end, let’s define the following states (same states used in [9]), and we’ll compute this probability separately for each state. • State 0: Everyone agrees on the longest chain — Racingm H = false. • State i > 0: The selfish miner m has a private chain of length i — Privatem = H + i. • State 00 : There are competing blocks of height H, one of which was produced by the selfish miner, and the selfish miner has no
private blocks — Racingm H = true and Privatem = H.

im not reading all this give me the summary

BTC is destined to fail and will be replaced by XMR

Thanks
Just
Bought
100k

So what you're saying is we should ditch pow coins for pos coins preferably written in a functional programming language?

Based and low IQ pilled

Yes, POW is not substainable at all. It has 0 chance at working long term. Why you think ethereum is switching to POS? Monero might have a chance to work tho, havent looked at it close enough. Bitcoin code will prove to be problematic sometime in the future, and thats just the tip of the iceberg.

every time, that chart
jesus christ
anyone know who figured this out?

"We have argued that deviant mining strategies in a transactionfee regime could hurt the stability of Bitcoin mining and harm the ecosystem. In a block chain with constant forks caused by undercutting, an attacker’s effective hash power is magnified because he will always mine to extend his own blocks whereas other miners are not unified. This would make a “51%” attack possible with much less than 51% of the hash power. Many other unanticipated side-effects may arise. In the block size debate, it is frequently argued or assumed that space in the block chain will be a scarce resource and a market will emerge, with users being able to speed up the confirmation of a transaction by paying a sufficiently large transaction fee. But if miners intentionally “leave money on the table” when solving blocks, as is the case in undercutting attacks, it breaks this assumption. That is because undercutting miners are not looking to maximize the transaction fee that they can claim, and don’t have a strong reason to prioritize a transaction with a high fee.(9) Put another way, the block size imposes a constraint on the total size of transactions in a block and the threat of being undercut imposes another constraint on the total fee. The two interact in complex ways. We believe that qualitatively our results will continue to hold in a world where the available block size is much smaller than the demand, but quantitatively the impact of undercutting will be mitigated (see end of Section 3.1). Still, it is an important direction for future research to understand this connection more rigorously. Despite the variety of our results, we believe we have only scratched the surface of what can go wrong in a transactionfee regime. To wit: we have not presented an analysis of miners whose strategy space includes both undercutting and selfish mining, primarily due to the complexity of the resulting models."

>comparing 5 years in the 00s to past 1 year

>USA covid numbers to get scary in three weeks
Have people still not realized 99% of people are asymptomatic even when they do get infected. Thank fuck for the lockdown though. Getting free 2000 neetbux a month finally gave me the push to get into learning stonks.

The cycles are getting longer. I heard 2023 is the next bull run. We’ve still got a couple of years to accumulate

Attached: E55FAFAC-4383-4834-8B68-BAA5C7728128.jpg (1786x835, 331.19K)

I looked at my broker charts to confirm and indeed it is an uncanny resemblance. If it follows a similar pattern to AMZN, we should expect to see it moon right before the election.

“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”