Bitcoin in a hyperbolic bubble

Status
Not open for further replies.
tecate said:
@Duke of Marmalade - All too predictable.


LINK

The bitcoin project I was referring to. Bitcoin itself is an open protocol - which can be utilised by anyone - even you, Dukey.
Click to expand...
Sorry, that is too Jesuitical for me. I am not one to criticise bitcoin because of the company it keeps but how you can describe the "project" as totally at odds with the doings of authoritarian governments completely baffles me.
 
Duke of Marmalade said:
Sorry, that is too Jesuitical for me. I am not one to criticise bitcoin because of the company it keeps but how you can describe the "project" as totally at odds with the doings of authoritarian governments completely baffles me.
Click to expand...
The project is - bitcoin itself as a protocol doesn't care. It's open to anyone to use. I know the lengths you will go to - to tar and feather Dukey - but there's nothing of substance for you to pursue here. Most in the bitcoin space are wary of any government or government official. That hasn't changed. Nobody is putting Bukele on a pedestal. It doesn't appear that way but lets assume that Bukele has ill intent here - well, what ill-intent will that be - as he's putting in place a currency he has no control over. In a recent interview, he was asked about exactly this - his answer, you don't have to trust me/us - I/we have no control over bitcoin.
As per Alex Gladstein's (Human Rights Foundation) tweet, celebrate that individual action - not the individual(s) behind it.
 

This is a stereotypical response on this thread of answering an unrelated point. You've just not addressed the point.

The Chinese government have shut down miners. Which is contrary to your early stance that the government could not shut down miners.

Or are you an Wolfetone now suggesting that the mainstream crypto news sources (of which you've used to suppor your arguments before) is now just reporting FUD?
 
tecate said:
Mining farms are cast all over China - often in remote inaccessible locations. The Chinese can't move against these miners
Click to expand...

There we have it. Black and white, the Chinese government can't move against the miners as said so by Tecate.

Now they've been proven wrong.
 
It's strange - some seem to be under the impression that the network has been attacked (with a view towards taking control of it) as opposed to regulation within one territory being applied and can't seem to be able to comprehend the difference between the two.

Asking miners to leave a territory is not an attack on the network. A 51% attack would involve much more than asking miners to leave a territory within a timeframe.
 
Last edited:
presidenttttt said:
But someone on twitter said it was going to the moon? I am going to stick to punting on horses for another while.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure what metrics you're using but as it stands today, it's 279% up on this day last year.

Meanwhile Andreesen Horowitz are tripling down, announcing a $2.2 billion crypto investment fund.
 
Last edited:
Dublinbay12 said:
Which is contrary to your early stance that the government could not shut down miners.
Click to expand...

Can you provide a direct quote to support that?
I'm only reading the part about not being able to move against miners without letting the cat out of the bag. Counter measures would be taken (ie miners move elsewhere), the attack would fail, at worst temporary network disruption.

That does appear to be what has/is happening.
 
Dublinbay12 said:
There we have it. Black and white,
Click to expand...

But you have edited his/her quote to present a different meaning, you have left out the rest of the comment that would , inconveniently for you, give a whole different context.
We can all do that, here is something you said earlier

Dublinbay12 said:
It is simply fact [edit] to say that the Bitcoin code base cannot be changed.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
WolfeTone said:
But you have edited his/her quote to present a different meaning, you have left out the rest of the comment that would , inconveniently for you, give a whole different context.
We can all do that, here is something you said earlier
Click to expand...

I did not edit, I quoted directly. Sure go ahead and paste the entire quote, the interpretation is the same.

You've successfully changed the topic to the interpretation of a quote rather than the underlying point. Can we get back to it?

Are you disagreeing that the Chinese government can close down miners?
 
Last edited:
For some the below article will present useful analysis, for others it will be decried as 'FUD'. I can bet who will do that.

Bitcoin hashrate drops by nearly 50% following China's mining crackdown

Bitcoin hashrate, or the total computational power to mine the cryptocurrency, has dropped by nearly 50% in over a month.
www.theblockcrypto.com

This is a great example of how central governments can impact the network. I for one think although this may cause a lot of short term volatility and slow the adoption of the network, it will be a long term benefit. Having a 'decentalized' network with a 65% mining concentration in a totalitarian Country was not sustainable.

Though as we have seen these private mining organizations are moving to countries like Kazakstan that will be favourable to their business model. I hope this reduces the mining concentration and the chance of a 51% attack.

I'm still bearish overall on BTC adoption as anything more than a store of value for a small minority. This is already seen by a few players getting a dominant stake in the share of supply. It will be interesting to see if MicroStrategy can maintain their strategy and pay their debts if BTC continues its downward trajectory. I found it interesting that Microstrategy had to turn to established financial markets and fiat currency to fund their Bitcoin purchases.

Lastly, ironically a system that was designed to remove the need for trusted third parties now entirely relies on trusted third parties. For the average joe or the unbanked market entry is via an exchange (third party). The network relies on private corporations (miners) to run rather than the peer to peer network first established. I will concede that due to the increasing power required to execute PoW that it was foreseen it would require large purpose-built mining operations.

However, for the average user there is trust required in using the BTC network, so the question becomes for the average person. Who do you trust more, the government or Coinbase?

(I fully expect @tecate to refuse to comment on this, as he knows it is a flaw in the adoption).
 
@Dublinbay12 that is the point, the interpretation is NOT the same

Here is the full sentence
tecate said:
The Chinese can't move against these miners without letting the cat out of the bag that something is afoot
Click to expand...

You deliberately left the second part of the sentence (in italics) out of your quote in order to portray an absolutist position, when in fact @tecate comment was conditional.

Of course governments can move against miners - cutting off electricity supplies one be one way. But the point being made as I understand it is that this would signal to the network to that an attack is underway and the network would respond in kind by mobilising miners elsewhere, El Salvador would seem like a mining friendly country for instance.
So the attack would fail. At most just network disruption for a period, as tecate went on to say.
Which appears to be exactly the case.
 

@WolfeTone please see post 994, in which I quoted in full at the start of this topic.

Just to clarify, you are agreeing with my original point in post 994 and that the evidence isn't FUD?

Based on your interpretation of Tecates stance, why have we seen an almost 50% decrease in the Hashrate? Surely per Tecates stance that chinese government movement to shutdown would fail, we wouldn't have seen this. The argument is a bit contradictory.

I've come to expect that at this point. There is always a point put in that is vague enough to allow a flip flop when things change.
 
Last edited:
Dublinbay12 said:
Just to clarify, you are agreeing with my original point in post 994 and that the evidence isn't FUD?
Click to expand...

No I am not agreeing with your original point at all. You have interpreted a comment to mean something else that is different from my interpretation.
You are trying to portray a comment by another user as absolutist when clearly the comment, when read in its full context, was conditional.
Dublinbay12 said:
Further, do you have a view on when the hash rate will return to the levels seen prior to the China shutdown? I would think it isn't as seamless as you portray?
Click to expand...

If you think I am portraying it as "seamless" then that is another misinterpretation on your part.

The article you posted in #1013 is a good example of how the Chinese government move against miners is FUD by way of mining operations moving to more bitcoin friendly territory.
 

There we have it.....the arguments are always conditional. You clearly would rather debate interpretations rather than content, I've tried to engage with you multiple times on the topic at hand (China shutdown), and you keep bringing it back to an interpretation. By the way interpretations, are subject to a different opinion. For context, there were subsequent discussions with Tecate on Chinas ability to intefere with BTC. They firmly believed that China shutdown was FUD, and would not happen, but I digress.

If you still want to talk about interpretations rather than content, I won't engage with you. If you would like to discuss, please see below.



At the end of the day, an external party (China Government), has shut down a significant portion of the mining pool in the last month resulting in the hashrate dropping by ~50%. This poses a threat to the stability of the network and the underlying price. The news of the shutdown has been a clear factor in the downward price pressure.

The hypothesis presented by @WolfeTone is that a china shutdown constitutes an attack and this would fail because the miners would move to other geographies. This has not yet happened at scale, thus in my opinion the argument is too open ended. There should rather be a discussion on the short term impacts to BTC adoption and price because of this shutdown. The other aspect is that these private mining organizations rely on 'friendly' countries with cheap electricity, so what are the options.

Overall, I really fail to see how anybody with knowledge of BTC can simply brush this under the carpet by calling it FUD or assuming the miners can just move easily.
 
Dublinbay12 said:
You clearly would rather debate interpretations rather than content,
Click to expand...

It's important that if you want to 'debate' content that you are then open to others having different interpretation of that content.

Clearly we interpret tecates post differently.

I also interpret the content you posted in #1013 differently to how you interpret it.

You seem upset

Dublinbay12 said:
If you still want to talk about interpretations rather than content, I won't engage with you.
Click to expand...

Dublinbay12 said:
I really fail to see how anybody with knowledge of BTC can simply brush this under the carpet by calling it FUD or assuming the miners can just move easily.
Click to expand...

I'm not brushing it under the carpet nor am I assuming miners can just move easily.
The FUD is with regard to some notions that what is occuring that it represents a 51% attack by Chinese authorities on the network. It does not. It is disruptive to the network for sure, and how long will it take for mining operations to come on scale I do not know.
In the long-run, what is happening in China is a good thing as I interpret it to mean that any prospective 51% attack by State agents is being significantly reduced, albeit in short to medium term, it is disruptive to the network.
 
Where are these notions? Correct me if I am mistaken but it was you and Tecate who introduced a 51% attack in recent posts? Certainly none of the links or comments I have posted reference a 51% attack. A 51% attack of the Network is entirely different to what the Chinese government are doing lol. A state agent performing a 51% attack would require them to be running nodes themselves and trying to obtain 51% of the hashrate, and thus being able to force a new chain. Or taking over the mining operations and running them as state owned entities. I'm not sure if you fully understand the concept of a 51% attack an the difference to what China did?

But look this is an example where you/Tecate have introduced a different topic to detract from the point trying to be discussed.

Your last comment is a point I have made earlier, but again, it was not the point I was trying to engage with you on. I'll try again.....

What do you think the impact of this shutdown in China will have in the short term for the price and adoption?
 
The clamp down on Chinese miners is in my book a minor positive for bitcoin and possibly explains the dead cat bounce after the knee-jerk fall to below $30k.
@WolfeTone says "(it) is disruptive to the network for sure" . Not at all. The integrity of the blockchain is not in the hashrate but in the 10 minutes delay built into the protocol. The difficulty level in PoW had risen to 21trillion its original difficulty because of the increase in hashrate. The hashrate could further reduce immensely without compromising the blockchain one iota.
 
Last edited:
Dublinbay12 said:
Correct me if I am mistaken but it was you and Tecate who introduced a 51% attack in recent posts?
Click to expand...

Ok, I will correct you. The discussion about a 51% attack was introduced way back in thread. It was in the context of a 51% that tecate made his comment about attacks on miners, at least that is how I interpreted it. You appear to have interpreted it that s/he was talking about any sort of attack at all.

You confirm it here

Dublinbay12 said:
51% attack of the Network is entirely different to what the Chinese government are doing
Click to expand...

So can the Chinese shutdown mining operations, yes of course. Same way they could shutdown their airports and disrupt international airline traffic network.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Menu
Log in
Register