Bitcoin can’t survive without miners keeping their rigs running 24/7. Gold, unlike Bitcoin, exists in nature and doesn’t need a constant energy burn to exist. Right now, miners are getting paid with freshly minted Bitcoin, but here’s the kicker: there’s a hard cap on how many can ever be issued. That means there’s a point in the future when miners will turn off their machines. No miners, no Bitcoin. Bitcoin is just the purple cow everyone’s hyping right now, and that’s the only reason the price has pumped. Meanwhile, the smart money is already gearing up for the biggest short of all time, and guess what? You’re on the other side of the trade. You can’t win this argument logically, period. Every insult aimed at OP in this thread instead of a proper counterpoint is just further proof that I’m right.
you're not criticizing bitcoin correctly. the miners get paid through a combination of new bitcoins and transaction fees, with the rate of issuance for new bitcoins approaching zero. this means that the security budget will have to be covered by fees, which will be sky high if there is no blocksize increase.
>>59565483If it were existential threat there's little reason bitcoin couldn't move to a PoS model.But anyway we have many decades to go until mining decreases that much
>>59565530This is the same tired argument Satoshi himself hinted at. It's still not proven that fees alone can sustain miners. That uncertainty alone is enough to tank the price well before we even reach the point where new Bitcoin rewards aren't enough. But let’s cut the BS — do the math. Fees won’t be enough.Head over to cryptofees.info and see for yourself: Bitcoin averages about $2.5 million in fees right now. That’s a joke. It’s nowhere near enough to keep miners running. They'll shut down. And don’t even start with the cope about ‘increasing fees.’ Increasing fees doesn’t magically create demand for blockspace. There’s no plan to grow demand for Bitcoin blockspace, period. No demand, no fees, no miners, no Bitcoin. It’s that simple.
>>59565573I actually agree with you. fees won't cover the security budget in any configuration. bitcoin maxis are wrong and asic-friendly proof of work is a bad idea.
>>59565533It’s not proven that switching to PoS will solve the problem. Markets hate uncertainty, and if that moment comes, you can bet your ass the price will be shorted to zero by institutional finance. Even if Bitcoin somehow limps through that disaster and retains a shred of credibility, you’re looking at guaranteed hard forks. At least two Bitcoins will emerge: one PoW, one PoS, because there’s no way the community agrees on a single path forward.Bitcoin is going to crash.
Everyone knows that the value of Bitcoin is 0, nobody wants Bitcoin for what it is (a slow already old tech) but for the speculation. All the people that trade Bitcoin want to make more dollars
>>59565602The premise of the scenario is thy PoW is longer viable so whatever PoW hard fork survives isn't going to do well.I wouldn't give up on BTC because of this reasoning, plenty of solutions available also plenty of financial interests in keeping BTC the number 1 crypto
>>59565483The approximate fee on chain would be 222 dollars in the future to replace mining.Most transactions come from small holders given that currently 10million addresses with .01 Bitcoin exist.So instead it'd be more like the fee should be some percent and it would likely be around 2% if a txn.Miners also could fork Bitcoin to a protocol where they continue to mint more.
All of that wouldn't happen until 2040 or 50 when mining isn't profitable anymore because the price stabilizes at 1mil
>>59565483I have a miner in my house. Why would I shut it off it I get network fees?
>>59565827>You can earn BTC fees running a miner in your house.Sign me the fuck up.>We're just going to give up on the network.OP is in fact retarded.
>>59565827If the average txn fee is 200 dollars you probably wouldn't receive anything because it's not more like 10k per block in revenue
>>59565840OP said all miners would just quit.I said I wouldn't quit.LOGIC
>>59565483Based.
>>59565483gold miners are working in shifts around the clock in almost all time zones globally.
>>59565483>here’s the kickerYou're a retard
>>59565879No, it's retarded. It really is. It's a protocol you can choose to use or not use.Timechain. Tick tock next block.Do you spend your time warning people against investing in Uranium or Copper? KEK.
>>59565850I'm saying you'd maybe be too small time to be hired to a pool and I doubt you'd do it lottery style
Well... They could still use small miners but every time you want a payout it could come with a 200 fee so there
>>59565483if people finish mining btc then it becomes a finite resource and as such will absolutely explode in value, are you retarded?
>>59565483Gold in nature can't host and maintain the literal global financial system, retard. Bitcoin is not just a store of value.
>>59565977bitcoin is a permissionless distributed database, but it's not very useful. vitalik was going to add smart contract capability to bitcoin and the other developers told him to GTFO. and it can only process 7 transactions per second because "muh decentralization," but that just ended up pushing people into centralized wallets. not even lightning was able to bring self-custody to more people and it's horrible to use.
>>59565483stfu and go to bed Peter Schiff, we all know you're sidelined forever, you dont need to go this hard
>>59565483>Bitcoin can’t survive without miners keeping their rigs running 24/7I assume you're talking about mining farms. Once there's no more incentive for large organizations to mine, the protocol's integrity will return into the hands of the common user, which was the original intend.I keep a node running, not because I want to earn rewards from mining, but because I want the ledger to persist.This board is mostly speculators who gamble on crypto for the purpose of getting rich. But we purists are not in it for the money - we have an actual need for the protocol and our nodes will keep running even when there's nothing left to mine.
>>59565483I follow that there must be some natural (if not technological) limit to denominating bitcoin by electricity. But what's the logical connection from that limit to bitcoin not continuing to exist?
>>59565483The idea is fine on paper. Never took into account human greed. Look at monero proof of work and not so volatile that could function and used to buy and do shady stuff i wanted. But also you can use it for other stuff, not always have to be illegal, same with fiat, washin money wouldn't be a thing if it was perfect.
if ASIC PoW and the emission curve are existential problems, and I think they are, then why would people go through the trouble to "fix" bitcoin with sweeping consensus changes if users can just as easily switch to an altcoin that doesn't have these issues? people have already tried to fork bitcoin to have bigger blocks. it basically failed. the community can't even agree on whether bitcoin opcodes should be reactivated.
>>59565530>the security budget will have to be covered by fees, which will be sky highThat's cope. When transaction fees become too high people will just move to more centralized solutions.
>>59566059that's not cope you assburger. I'm agreeing with you. bitcoin UX falls apart in a high fee environment
>>59566027That's because there wasn't yet a dire need.
Doesn't the price shoot up if people don't mine since it becomes scarce and illiquid
>>59565995Yes, but you say that as if a decentralized globally accessible ledger with no owners is a small deal, you fucking retard
>>59565483>there’s a hard cap on how many can ever be issued.Not so fast bro!The lightning network can trade amounts as small as 1/1000th of a satoshi.The current mining block reward amount is 3.125 BTC.It would take over 30 more block rate reductions before mining block rewards started being measured in satoshis, which is at least 120 years from now. Reducing it to 1/1000ths of a satoshi would take even longer. Meaning, we have nothing to worry about for the rest of our lifetimes.
>>59566106without mining it don't work man
>>59565483and thats why i sold and bought xrp
>>59565588Wait, are you suggesting factoring larger and larger numbers for absolutely no reason at all, (because other, cheaper, faster consensus algorithms have been developed) burning more and more electricity is.... a bad idea? WE'RE SO EARLY BTC TO A BILLION
>>59565533PoW and PoS aren't the only games in town kek. If only there was some other sort of "consensus" mechanism.... xd
Dull.
>>59566011Why don't you use XMR or litecoin? They are objectively more in line with the original BTC whitepaper than the absolutely sebverted thing we call """Bitcoin"""
>>59566317The high real cost is a benefit as it forces real resources to guarantee btc yield, proof of shitcoin rewards simply holding the shitcoin which is economically perverse
>>59566358PoS isn't the only alternative to PoW. Read some stuff on cryptography, don't just watch cryptocurrency youtube videos for your info.
>>59566121it is, if the number of concurrent permissionless users it can support is too small and if the number of functions it can perform is limited
>>59565827If you have a rig, you’ve got to pay the power bill to keep it running. That’s just reality. The whole point here is that fees won’t be enough to make mining profitable. Eventually, miners will drop out until only a small number remain — just enough to scrape by. But here’s the kicker: that small number won’t be enough to defend the network from a 51% attack.You can bet your last satoshi that someone will pull off a double spend the moment rigs dwindle enough to make it possible. This is the future of Bitcoin — a dying network waiting for the kill shot.>>59565879I’m not a filthy no-coiner, but I’m not gonna shill either>>59565948The people mining BTC are the same ones keeping the infrastructure alive that allows BTC to exist and remain secure. Without enough rigs running, BTC cannot exist. Got it>>59565977I’m not here to argue about what gold is or its role in the monetary system. The point of my thread is that Bitcoin is completely different from gold, and you’re just a flock of parrots who can’t think for yourselves.>>59566011Let me remind you that Bitcoin’s market cap is over a trillion dollars. Good luck maintaining network security with your laptop. This isn’t 2010 anymore, and BTC’s security model was never designed with the idea it would reach this kind of value.
>>59565483>>59566429its a good thing that there are literally dozens of different coins and blockchains out there designed with the goal of solving btc's shortcomings because they forsaw these things over a decade agootherwise you might have a point and not be retarded
lightning doesn't make self-custody more scalable. it doesn't increase the number of people who can interact with bitcoin without going through a financial institution. if you didn't personally open your own lightning channels with your own L1 transactions using limited L1 blockspace, those aren't your funds.most lightning users are using a custodial wallet and payments still often fail. payments failing is a function of lightning network decentralization. the more decentralized it is, the more often payments fail. the basic building block of the lightning network is fractured liquidity. the entire network is composed of constantly shifting channels of fractured liquidity from head to toe. lightning doesn't fix bitcoin's problems with decentralization and scalable self-custody.if you are a bitcoin maxi you are like a robot. you already decided that bitcoin will take over the world and you are working backwards from that premise using motivated reasoning, including cheerleading for broken technologies like lightning.
>>59565483Adressing your statements in order:correct.who cares?Paid in new coins, and mining fees.There is a cap until majority network consensus says otherwise.Mining will always be a thing for people who own coins, otherwise their own coins will be functionally useless, so this point makes no sense.Bitcoin network data still exists on all mining rigs regardless of how many people are actively mining.Not reading the rest because you ranting without any more actual points, and you are fundimentally ignorant on how the bitcoin core network works.Do some actual research before ripping on popular new technology.Just because you don't understand something doesn't make it valueless.
>>59566068There isn't going to be a high fee environment because people can just trade off chain through a DEXes, ETFs, sidechains or whatever instead.
>>59566343“Electronic cash without trusted third parties” as the draft read. Medium of Exchange has little value (see: losercoin, bitcoin trash) as MoE has no term risk. The value has always been Unit of Account (Store of Value being a usecase of UoA) as a trustless unit is DIFFICULT
>>59566361There are no alternatives to PoW, consuming resources is necessary as unearned reward is perversion
>>59566640what makes you think proof of stake rewards are unearned? maybe it feels that way when all you know is a bitcoin node that can run on an outdated raspberry pi computer. the networks that have proof of stake usually have higher validator requirements. that's actual work that you have to do in order to earn anything.
>>59565483Ill mine it at a loss because ill be so fucking rich by then. Ill keep the network alive
>>59566343I use both.>>59566429The electricity bill for my node is paid off by my own pocket, because the value of the protocol is worth the cost. I get more in return. The same principle applies at scale. A country can easily afford to keep the network running in order to reap its benefits.But you're right. It was never intended to reach this kind of value and to BE a store of value. And should the large organizations withdraw their interest causing the market cap to drastically dwindle, that would be also positive for the network. It would return to basics - a currency in the hands of the people.If they stop the money printers tomorrow and crash the economy it will hurt, because healing hurts.
>>59566457Why would miners abandon btc instead of supporting a blocksize increase?>b-because bitshit HAS to go to zero!The only ones “working backwards from conclusions” are you dull little slaveminds.
>>59566517I’ve run multiple rigs and paid power bills in the four figures long before you even heard of ‘internet magic coins.’ You’re the one who doesn’t understand what’s being discussed here. None of your assertions are correct or make any sense. From your arrogance, I can say with absolute certainty that you’re going to learn your lesson the hard way sooner or later.
>>59565483>Right now, miners are getting paid with freshly minted Bitcoin, but here’s the kicker: there’s a hard cap on how many can ever be issued. That means there’s a point in the future when miners will turn off their machines. No miners, no BitcoinNo. It means that issuance gets smaller and smaller over time - and as it does, guess what happens to the price? This is literally going to ten million dollars and more a coin.
>>59566913An ASIC rig is a whole different beast compared to a node that sips power like a router. Running a farm of rigs costs thousands of dollars a day in electricity and hardware. No private entity is going to do it at a loss — you can be absolutely sure of that, because current miners don’t waste a second dumping their BTC on the market the moment they mine it.Good luck betting that governments will burn public money to keep your precious network alive while running it at a loss.
>his shitcoin doesn't have tail emissionsDo bitfucks really?
>>59566964>>59566019You're OP and you're still here. My question is pretty simple and if you can't even pasta some AI chatarrhea as an answer, your idea is probably wrong.
>>59565647i dont want my shitty old car but it does the job, there are many coins that claimed to be superior tech to bitcoin and they all fail against it, its like people who make twitter clones with no users even though they are arguably better than the original. just bet on what everyone else is betting on.
>>59567008Your shitty old car will expire because it rusts. OP is apparently a simple retard because he can't explain how electricity makes bitcoin rust.
>>59566628But if Unit of Account is the main value, then why wouldn't the entities that value UoA run their own networks instead of having to foot the cost of buying in to an inflated, speculative asset? Like, if banks need a UoA, then the they would just run their own interbank BTC network, not deal in one where other entities have a first mover advantage over them.
>>59567063they are
>>59566961Price is guaranteed to go up as issuance gets smaller... because?
>>59567063>>59566628You're both sort of wasting your time arguing about the deck chairs on a problem no one can actually enunciate.
>>59566019>miners stop being profitable>miners pull out>network becomes even slower and more shit>people lose interest>ponzi dies for something else
>>59567008All crypto is a scam and just like a casino with no real use. Regarding Bitcoin the miners have the power and it's heavily regulated by the government's so it have no advantage over fiat money. It's slow expensive and energy consuming. Miners can shut down everything, can fork and change the rules and you don't even know who they are and where they operate. Also the exchanges are running on bots and all manipulated, the market cap is fake. Sure lots of people made a lot of dollars with it but can they all exit in dollars?
>>59565588Btc will one day go to zero. It would only begin to happen after chain link takes the top spot, then people will begin to question BTCs usefulness.>Oh btc has a capped supply >So does chainlink>Btc has a real usecase???>Chainlink is the use case for everything kek
>>59566335Retard post. Lot's of coins have a limited supply, btc only survivea for now because it's rank 1. Once it loses it's position (and it will) it will die.Btc and eth aren't needed, and i doubt either of them can adapt and survive.
>>59567215You are also retarded. Crypto has real uses, aee chainlink.
>>59567273Chainlink have uses inside of the crypto space but all the cryptos are not needed for anything
>>59567293Chainlink allows the real world to leverage blockchain tech. The fact is alot of modern systems are slow and expensive. Chain link allows that to be fixed while also allowing for new money making methods to exists.Most crypto is a scam (99.9%) but chainlink and most chainlink projects have a use case. Institutions like the DTCC and SWIFT will be going live either this year or next year.I cannot wait to see how btc maxis and other baggies react. You can't ignore the elephant in the room once it powers everything.
>>59565483I'm tired of constant tech illiterate people making their blog posts about bitcoin, year after yearI'm starting to think that midwits shouldn't be allowed to talk publicly, and posters instantly banned, considering this has been discusses hundreds of times and op still cannot make sense of the available information, as well as many others, also counting all the jeet shills for competing projects which are a mix of tech illiterate and just scamMidwits cannot understand what tradeoffs means, or anything, just waste of time, educate them and there's 10 more coming
>>59565530Bitcoin needs tail emissions, set to 0.1 BTC at the relevant halving 20 years from now.
>>59566429>BTC’s security model was never designed with the idea it would reach this kind of valueIt absolutely was, considering you have Hal Finney talking about Bitcoin banks and speculating about the market cap if it absorbed the entire derivatives market within the first like two years of bitcoin's existence
>>59567215>Regarding Bitcoin the miners have the powernewfags, look at this, good example of a retard trying to spread misinformationbitcoin is truly rat poison squaredno parasites will survive
What the fuck even happens at this point if an asset worth 2.5 trillion collapses?
>>59565483I guess the idea is that by that point bitcoin will have become a widely approved world reserve currency and fees will be high in hundereds or even thousands of usd per transactions and that\s gonna be fine because only rich people will be moving it and institutions for global settlements, poorfags will just use their coinbase wallet offchain>b-but what about muh decentralized peer to peer casherino,for that there will be monero or litecoin or whatever (still at the same price they are now, 50 years from now)
>>59565483i have never seen such a retarded post on biz in all my daysgold literally requires MINING out of the nature where it exists.miners are paid in dividends and donations from transactions, numbering only in a nanosatoshis per transaction, but with the amount of transactions that adds up to thousands of dollars.now if you excuse me i am going back to chill in my cheese igloo.
>>59565483>>59565530>>59565573i've considered this problem a lotonce btc mining rewards runs out, fees alone will never be able to sustain the system unless the fees are like 180$ / transaction which is insane.What did come to mind was:>Assume World Nation States begin using BTC as a unit of accounting>Transact oil / weapons / goods / services with bitcoin>Now Nation States have incentive to "own" the network>They more of the mining power network they own the more they can influence concensus and also prevent malicious actors from "stealing" their bitcoin reservesThis is the only solution that comes to mind right now - that adoption will become so great that entities of the world have incentive to mine and secure the network themselves. At that point maybe the govt will buy the mining companies and thus make it more centralized... but it will still be a battle between nations for own hashpower and secure their own btc.
>>59567548yeah but the gold that's currently in existence, does not magically disappear if all miners stopped mining new goldretard keep your mouth shut
>>59567156But how does miners being inefficient matter? And what's getting "even slower"?
>>59567735yeah that seems like the only possible positive outcome (assuming they don't change BTC). all or nothinghistory will decide whether satoshi was the king of ponzis or a genius, we might never find out during our lives
>>59566273Phew
>>59567423This. Hal aka satoshi was talking about 10 million a coin back in 09. Boat misser cope thread general with cyclical debunked assorted FUD
we still have 1 more bullrun in this then the world falls apart
>>59567268Network effect. It’s honestly perplexing how you dullards can’t grasp this concept. Does a facebook clone have the same value as fb? Does your lan have the same as the internet?>Once it loses it’s [sic] positionWhy would a buyer of trustless fixed Unit of Account choose anything but the largest? It’s a positive feedback loop, the window for meaningful competition closed a decade ago
Daily reminder that Monero (tail emissions, ASIC resistance, privacy by default) solves all this
>>59567273Never change, /biz/..
>>59565483>t. doesn't know how miners make money
>>59565530>>59565573>>59565588>>59565573My house has solar panels and I have excess energy. It's free for me to run a miner. No matter how low the block reward goes, or how low the transaction fees go, if they are above 0, it makes sense for me to continue mining.Now consider how many professional mining setups are situated to use excess power directly from power plants, solar/wind farms, etc. LolThere is a massive cohort of people for whom it is rational to mine at any reward, because it is free for us to mine. This number of people will only go up.And by the way, the fees would have to be $80 per transaction if we wanted the same reward to the miners in the future as we have today. $80 for a 10 minute, absolute finality settlement of an unconfiscatable currency anywhere in the world.The bank charges me $40 for a wire transfer that takes up to 3 days using an inflating fiat currency which can be blocked for any reason the state wants. Lmao.I'll be happy to pay double for the hard money. Any large financial institution moving HUGE sums of money would happily pay $80 to settle a billion dollars. Any sovereign state wishing for settlement would be happy to pay only $80. Honestly, they would be willing to pay significantly more - miners will earn PLENTY.And when I am buying a hot dog or whatever, I will use a layer 2 like Lightning or Liquid or Cashu or whatever the fuck they come up with in the future.
>>59569317You're trying too hard lol broStop killing threads like that
>>59568814Actually your argument is flawed. MySpace was first and it died to Facebook. Bitcoin will also die. It literally has no use case.
>year 2050 in crypto alternative reality>John wakes up after sleeping 3 hours >check the chart again, his holdings devalued another 10% for a technical problem on the mining rigs in Uzbekistan >goes out for work and hop on the first bus>swipe his hand microchip for the ticket but choose the wrong currency and after a triple conversion the ticket is the equivalent of 50 old dollars (1 for the ticket and 49 in fees for the conversion)>after arriving in the spaceport he take the first ship to Mars where his company is completing a nuclear powered mining rig under the surface>ai avatar of Elon musk salute the workers before the start of the 10 hours shift>checks out and 1000000 dogecoins are added to his balance>goes to the saylor supermarket chain to buy some food>there is technical problems with the mining rigs so he have to wait 3 hours in line>the robot cashier ask which currency he would like to use and he choose dogecoins >the market that day was working on the eth Blockchain so he waits 20 minutes for the payment confirmation, 500000 dogecoins with another 500000 dogecoins for conversion fees>goes back home and eat the vegetable Burger while drinking a diet coke>watch the charts of his various holdings and they are all devalued between 10/15%>access his Bitcoin saving account to transfer some funds needed to pay the rent after 2 hours lost searching the piece of paper with the 12 words key>nearly have an Heart attack while searching >savings are 20% devalued because a mining farm in china shut down>transfer the equivalent of a month of rent>30% fee, now the amount isn't right>goes to sleep crying in pain
>>59569317Have you even run a rig before? Sounds like you're just daydreaming with that nonsense. Energy isn’t free, genius. Even if you've got solar panels, they come with installation and maintenance costs, not to mention the space they take up. To keep a trillion-dollar honeypot secure, you need a massive amount of rigs running non-stop, and there's no way enough panels exist to offset that energy consumption. Oh, and let’s not forget: at night, your precious panels produce zero energy. So, unless you’re shelling out for batteries or buying energy off the grid, your whole setup is a joke.
>>59569440I am running 2 bitaxes. I didn't install the panels for the purpose of mining, genius. I installed them a decade ago. They generate more than my house needs. I use the excess to mine bitcoin, which is free, and then any excess beyond that goes back into the grid.Why don't you look into how much excess energy is used to mine bitcoin at power plants all over the world? Or how miners are heating up water for cities and selling the hot water, or heating up air for greenhouses? Eventually anyone in the business of selling heat will also just mine bitcoin while they do it for the free money.
>>59565483>>59565530https://youtu.be/1gGgAb_A3S0
>>59567063Not trustless, not fixed. US has a unit of account: USD, it's a hardcore shitcoin that people dump as soon as it gets in their hands.Second: network effect. Understand that UoA properties are primarily network properties not unit properties, a clone of btc is not btc, you are still thinking transactionally, a UoA does not move value, it facilitates systemic accounting
>>59566672>reward holders for merely holdingUnearned. Superorganism says you’re a parasite, superorganism wants you dead. I don’t make the rules, don’t like it? Eat a bullet.
>>59569440Dumbfuck, what part of “excess” don’t you understand? One needs more solar capacity than one can use because solar is intermittent, there will always be peak excess power
>>59565483ok, idiot. send me a gram of gold through the internet. or try going through airport security with a gram of gold without being raped by the gestapo
>>59565483>mining gets halved>bitcoin price doubles>miners make the same amount of money
>>59570344The current Bitcoin hashrate market isn’t driven by home rigs—it’s dominated by industrial-scale rig farms. Energy costs? That’s just one piece of the equation. These farms demand a ton of overhead: specialized hardware that turns into junk after just a few months, skilled personnel, and constant maintenance.Technically, yeah, you could run the Bitcoin network on home setups, but here’s the kicker: any regression in hashrate would tank the security of the network. A lower hashrate means less computational power needed to pull off a double-spending attack.Bitcoin is on a ticking clock. It's unsustainable, and the writing's on the wall. From now to 15 years max, everything in this discussion is going to come true. Bitcoin’s collapse is inevitable—it’s just a matter of when.>>59570356The title of the discussion is "Bitcoin is not gold", and that’s exactly the point. Being transferable digitally doesn’t magically solve the issues we’re talking about. The fundamental problem—unsustainable hashrate requirements and vulnerabilities tied to its security model—remains unresolved.If you’re looking for a solution to the problems we just outlined, Bitcoin isn’t it. It never was, and it never will be. There are other cryptocurrencies out there with far more robust security models that avoid Bitcoin’s pitfalls entirely. They’re better suited for the use cases you’re describing. Bitcoin, meanwhile, is just a glorified prototype that’s already creaking under its own weight.
>>59565483It's a very simple trouble. Just don't be greedy btc is overvalued and also the dollar is overvalued. An adjustment will happen and it won't be pretty.
>>59565948Are you sure about that? Which will the majority of people go with black rocks or the new bsv.https://www.forbes.com/sites/digital-assets/2025/01/08/bitcoin-prices-fall-10-after-strong-data-creates-fed-rate-cut-doubts/?
>>59569405Nice, I enjoyed reading this
>>59570412>any regression in hashrate would tank the security of the networkDelusional. Reductions in hashrate reduce the computational requirements for an attack, however, btc already has orders of magnitude higher HR than the next highest blockchain. HR does not need to increase, it only needs to be too high for a practical attack
>>59565483Shaniqua can't come to the phone right now, she's busy milking our purple cow and talking to the Easter bunny
>>59571392>>59570412Further, the “waiting for 6 confirmations” is an explicit guarantee against clawbacks via 51% (or even a supermajority attack) as it becomes exponentially more difficult to revert the chain as the chain grows
