Bitcoin in a hyperbolic bubble

[DublinHead54]

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



So can the Chinese shutdown mining operations, yes of course. Same way they could shutdown their airports and disrupt international airline traffic network.

Why would the Chinese government be interested in carrying out a 51% attack when they can just shut the miners down lol?

It is pretty clear to anybody that follows the market, China's interference was never ever about mounting a 51% attack. Do you have evidence suggesting the opposite? So you are basically trying to argue that the sky isn't blue.

I guess you've no interest in discussing the impact, but good to see you've hedged your bets for future by saying it'll cause network distruption without offering anything else up.

 

[tecate]

The discussion about a 51% attack was introduced way back in thread.

Chinese Miners Do Not Provide a Credible Threat to Bitcoin's Decentralised Peer to Peer Network
There is no realistic and credible threat to the bitcoin network from any Chinese entity - be that a corporation or the Chinese government. On mining pools, participants can move from one mining pool to another dynamically - they're not locked in. If the controller of a mining pool worked against their interest they wouldn't be long in doing that.
If it cost X billion to carry out an attack on the network and the potential upside was much less than the cost of the attack, what participant in a mining pool is going to be down with that?

On the government threat - firstly, they would need a motivation. Who would they be attacking in going to all that effort? But for all intents and purposes, lets assume that the Chinese government have one. Mining farms are cast all over China - often in remote inaccessible locations. The Chinese can't move against these miners without letting the cat out of the bag that something is afoot. Counter measures would be taken. The attack would fail. At worst it would cause temporary network disruption. As with all other attacks, such an eventuality would only serve to make the network stronger in the longer term.

Would greater geographical distribution of mining facilities be optimal? Sure. Notwithstanding that, any reasonable appraisal of the current threat potential that I've come across doesn't suggest that such an eventuality would destroy bitcoin. Beyond that, I do see greater distribution of such facilities in other regions as we move forward. We've already seen increased growth in that regard in regions such as North America. Of course for the Roubini's of this world that have a hatred for bitcoin, such individuals will latch on to any old rubbish without even handed assessment simply because its useful to them in casting fear, uncertainty and doubt.

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.

 

[WolfeTone]

Why would the Chinese government be interested in carrying out a 51% attack when they can just shut the miners down lol?

I've no idea, lol!

It is pretty clear to anybody that follows the market, China's interference was never ever about mounting a 51% attack.

Yes, that is what is being said to you. Perhaps you can elaborate and explain what China's interference is about?

So you are basically trying to argue that the sky isn't blue.

Well, technically speaking it isn't.... lol! Let's no go there!

I guess you've no interest in discussing the impact

I am interested in discussing the impact. I'm interested in learning what is the impact.
As @Duke of Marmalade points out, it is probably a positive for bitcoin.

 

[DublinHead54]

I've no idea, lol!



Yes, that is what is being said to you. Perhaps you can elaborate and explain what China's interference is about?



Well, technically speaking it isn't.... lol! Let's no go there!


I am interested in discussing the impact. I'm interested in learning what is the impact.
As @Duke of Marmalade points out, it is probably a positive for bitcoin.

As did I.......

For other readers of this thread, I actually think the China crackdown is good as it decreases centralization of mining and reduces the chance of a 51% attack which is bringing the network back towards the original plan.

 

[tecate]

Yes, that is what is being said to you. Perhaps you can elaborate and explain what China's interference is about?

Think about this Wolfie. If it was never about an attack, then why was it being dredged up as a criticism of btc repeatedly? So apparently then it was about a ban rather than an attack? Well, the ban is being implemented right now and nobody seems to think that this is a bad thing!

Ergo, all of this criticism was Fear / Uncertainty / Doubt -> FUD.

 

[Duke of Marmalade]

There is one very unlikely scenario where a fall in the hashrate could be fatal. The hashrate has fallen by 50% they say. The 10 minutes is maintained by halving the difficulty. No problem. And this can continue almost ad infinitum as the difficulty level is currently over 10trillion times its starting level.
But if the hashrate fell so suddenly that the protocol had not yet recalculated the difficulty then until that new difficulty is reset the average time to solve the hash puzzle would increase. So whilst a 1,000 fold reduction in hashrate is easily accomodated if it happens over a reasonable time period, if it happened all at once it would take 10,000 minutes (1 week) to add the next block Just a theoretical musing dear cultists, it is as likely to happen as everybody winning the lottery next week.

 

[DublinHead54]

Ok so any reporting that dares criticise or present a negative opinion is FUD? What a load of rubbish. If that were true then it seems some people on here have authoritarian views when it comes to bitcoin. It's such a weak defence to just call a news story FUD, especially when said reporting comes from respected crypto news outlets.

I guess I should just come to this forum for the truth*.


*Truth according to Tecate

 

[WolfeTone]

Ok so any reporting that dares criticise or present a negative opinion is FUD?

No, just the criticism that has been levelled here.

 

[Duke of Marmalade]

Ok so any reporting that dares criticise or present a negative opinion is FUD? What a load of rubbish. If that were true then it seems some people on here have authoritarian views when it comes to bitcoin. It's such a weak defence to just call a news story FUD, especially when said reporting comes from respected crypto news outlets.

I guess I should just come to this forum for the truth*.


*Truth according to Tecate

You are dealing with a cult. Imagine you are discussing the meaning of life with, say, Muslims, you are on eggshells when the subject of the Prophet comes up. I have spent a long time in these parts mocking the cult until it suddenly dawned on me, I am effectively insulting these guys' religion, something which we all accept is quite non PC.

 

[tecate]

You are dealing with a cult.

And the 'cult' labeling is being applied to a group of people who's ideas you are ideologically opposed to. So a difference of ideas is being debated but the establishment set decide to label the upstarts with the 'cult' tar and feathering. Tell me, Marmalady, what gives your ideas on the subject a free pass whilst those you oppose get the 'cult' tar and feathering?
I mean, people can decide to 'mock', to label & tar and feather, to be all about demonstrating how 'wrong' someone is/was - OR - we could just stick to the nuts and bolts of the subject area and consider it.

 

[WolfeTone]

I have spent a long time in these parts mocking the cult

Yes, I think it started at a point when bitcoin was less than a $1,000?....it's been a blast!

 

[Duke of Marmalade]

Yes, I think it started at a point when bitcoin was less than a $1,000?....it's been a blast!

Actually, I stand to be ejected here, I think it started in late 2018 when it soared to $20k. It has grown 50% since then but relative to its volatility that is not actually a good Sharpe Ratio. Admittedly I would have been predicting something closer to -100%

 

[tecate]

Actually, I stand to be ejected here, I think it started in late 2018 when it soared to $20k. It has grown 50% since then but relative to its volatility that is not actually a good Sharpe Ratio. Admittedly I would have been predicting something closer to -100%

That's inaccurate, Marmalady. You first stated on 13 Feb 2015 that Bitcoin was 'a load of baloney'. The price on that day was $230/bitcoin. Between then and now, we've seen a price increase of 13,421% ( or 27,726% by comparison with the ATH price from earlier this year). Nouriel has outdone you though - he's been criticising the hell out of bitcoin since it was at $13.
Over its 12 years, bitcoin has averaged a 213% increase per annum. The charge that bitcoin has a poor Sharpe Ratio is inaccurate.

 

[Duke of Marmalade]

That's inaccurate, Marmalady. You first stated on 13 Feb 2015 that Bitcoin was 'a load of baloney'. The price on that day was $230/bitcoin. Between then and now, we've seen a price increase of 13,421% ( or 27,726% by comparison with the ATH price from earlier this year). Nouriel has outdone you though - he's been criticising the hell out of bitcoin since it was at $13.
Over its 12 years, bitcoin has averaged a 213% increase per annum.

Ok. I'm ejected, though my serious engagement did begin in late 2018.
I am certainly not claiming that there is any price at which I would have been singing a different tune. It would always have been BOHA to me.

 

[tecate]

Ok. I'm ejected

Don't fret Marmalady, it's the weekend so here's a gift from the other side of the pond.

 

[DublinHead54]

The rhetoric on this thread is that Bitcoin is going on a journey of adoption. As such there have been claims that volatility is expected as part of the adoption cycle and it will reduce over time as the asset matures.

What's evident in the last 3 months that BTC is as volatile as ever despite the network growth. Examples being PayPal adoption, Coinbase IPO, Tesla, El Salvador to name a few. These are examples that have been posted by those on this forum as evidence of Bitcoins growth, legitimacy and adoption. However, volatility remains high.

I've seen the argument presented that it took hundreds of years for gold to become stable. But today is a different world. We live in a connected global economy where technology adoption is rapid. For example, it took less than a decade for Smartphones to become dominant. So I'm not sure the 'it takes time' argument holds much weight. Now BTC adoption is difficult given its in competition against governments, but the will of the people is powerful.

But I'd like to hear from @WolfeTone on his views on what will need to happen for BTC to become less volatile?

 

[DublinHead54]

A good example of how the Bitcoin network does use 'trusted' third parties (exchanges) and the security issues with it. Not your keys, not your coins....

Founders of South African Crypto Investment Firm – and $3.6B in Bitcoin – Are Missing

Africrypt investors were told not to inform police of the purported hack because it could slow the recovery of their funds.

www.coindesk.com

 

[WolfeTone]

The rhetoric on this thread

Is also about the Chinese crackdown on bitcoin mining and how, in the end, we all agreed it was most likely a positive for bitcoin.

What's evident in the last 3 months that BTC is as volatile as ever despite the network growth.

And I would suggest it will remain so for sometime. Bitcoin, in the grand scheme of global finance and money is tiny.

For example, it took less than a decade for Smartphones to become dominant.

Smartphones operate on a massive infrastructure that is financed, regulated and co-ordinated by private tech companies and telecommunications regulators employing tens of thousands of people in roll-out, support and maintenance etc.
Bitcoin is an 8 page posting on a fringe tech site.
There is simply no comparison.

But I'd like to hear from @WolfeTone on his views on what will need to happen for BTC to become less volatile?

Much more wider adoption. Cannot say definitively, but a ten-fold increase in adoption seems like a good starting point.

 

[Duke of Marmalade]

Don't fret Marmalady, it's the weekend so here's a gift from the other side of the pond.

View attachment 5663

Agreed, the Central Banks have told us as much. They aim to reduce its value by 2% p.a. which eventually will be as close to zero as makes no difference. So long as it can reasonably be trusted to buy a Big Mac at near enough current prices for the next year or so, that is all that is required of a medium of exchange.

Crypto will quickly go to its intrinsic value - zero
Duke of Marmalade, 21st Century

 

[DublinHead54]

Much more wider adoption. Cannot say definitively, but a ten-fold increase in adoption seems like a good starting point.

What does much wider adoption translate into? 10 more countries accepting it as legal tender?

In your opinion does it need more adoption to become less volatile? If BTC is tiny in terms of Global finance, do you not think that limits its potential for adoption? What do you think will change to lead to 10x adoption?