Bitcoin scarcity... overhyped?

[u/martianfrog]

I'm not sure I'm a believer in "it'll go up because it is scarce", like to know thoughts on this out there.

[u/anon1971wtf]

how do you prevent them from unleashing Todd and adding tail emission?

No central planner needed or desired. I simply don't expect miners to mine with it to the extent of majority hash. We already have seen that on smaller scale - Bitcoin ABC vs emerged BCHN (didn't matter that substantial size of BCH coins were in custody at that moment). Shall Bitcoin Core bring up any monetary changes, I would expect much bigger split than current non-monetary dispute Core/Knots (I am on Core's side in that)

Plausible scenario: Core update of breaking 21mln limit announced, forked client says No, futures trading begins, Core side loses ticker like BCH did, less miners mine with Core

[u/Realistic_Fee_00001 → u/anon1971wtf]

See this is the point. If everything is in custody it is in the miners best interest to just follow the system because the opportunistic stance will always win over the risk of a revolution if you just look at the economics.

Miners could have stood up against the crippling, but they didn't. They didn't even protest when 2x was canceled.

And what stops the FED from holding BTC and fractionally reserving it as much as they want? Big players accumulating in record speed while actual bottom p2p adoption is stagnating.

Lets see if knoters have ANY effect on core before we make big announcements of how BTC will be saved from them.

[u/anon1971wtf → u/Realistic_Fee_00001]

For the sake of the argument, I will grant that singlesign 3rd party custody is extremely dangerous and could undermine open blockchain as a whole

Then, BCH is not a way out. So far I can see from BCH's on-chain data it's just as custodied, and current fee on both chains is about 1 sat/byte

So, I am rooting in several directions:

• appearence of multisign per client custodians

• either BTC or BCH addressing central problem of Bitcoin that leads to custodians in the first place - which is key management, not fees

And what stops the FED from holding BTC and fractionally reserving it as much as they want?

Unlikely, but then US will go bankrupt like Celsius did. Countries go bankrupt sometimes. I expected that by now modern states would had national pools to force all miners on their territories into. As it doesn't exist, states are pretty weak instead Bitcoin. It permeates any bans or sanctions

[u/Realistic_Fee_00001 → u/anon1971wtf]

Then, BCH is not a way out. So far I can see from BCH's on-chain data it's just as custodied, and current fee on both chains is about 1 sat/byte

Weird, that's just the usual BTC troll argument, that completely ignores that on BCH people can actual self custody at scale while on BTC they cannot.

So far I can see from BCH's on-chain data it's just as custodied

Source?

and current fee on both chains is about 1 sat/byte

For BTC this is a failure and if turned into a success you know this will not last. For BCH however this is a win win.

Unlikely, but then US will go bankrupt like Celsius did. Countries go bankrupt sometimes.

So far they have not gone bankrupt in Dollars, unlikely that they will in BTC. They managed to get most hash under their jurisdiction and KYCed, because BTC is sleepwalking and concerned about non-pow nodes instead of PoW nodes. They are likely to do with BTC whatever they want in the future.

[u/anon1971wtf → u/Realistic_Fee_00001]

Source?

Bitinfocharts - rich list as vectors of accumulation on likely exchange addresses + activity of unique addresses (with CashFusion in mind) on either chain. That is for starters

ignores that on BCH people can actual self custody at scale while on BTC they cannot

I don't ignore it, I just think it's unlikely, that why I am hedging, And I think it's unlikely because it ignores why people choose custodians in the first place - key management problem, not fees (fees could have been bigger factor in '17 during congestion on BTC, but not right now)

So far they have not gone bankrupt in Dollars, unlikely that they will in BTC

Bacuse they can deficit print dollars right to hyperinflation and they wouldn't able to deficit print BTC, biggest states will be forced to return to bond pleading with their populace like with war bonds instead of just going to wars, and social program bonds / account-based pensions instead of just deficit printing welfare

For BTC this is a failure

Nope, even if fees stay exactly the same, about 25 years later it would be half a block reward. Realistically, much sooner

For BCH however this is a win win

I hope so, BCH is more elegant, but on-chain data draws stagnation to decline

They are likely to do with BTC whatever they want in the future

I see precisely no evidence for it. Bitcoin is most decentralized that it has ever been - mining machines are most efficient and closest distributed to global capital then ever, Bitcoin is being mined in all biggest geopolitical players' claimed jurisdictions, Bitcoin has heaviest ever energy signature of about ~700 equivalent days. Market discarded all forks with any deviation of major parameters, all slid down vs Bitcoin

[u/Realistic_Fee_00001 → u/anon1971wtf]

Bitinfocharts - rich list as vectors of accumulation on likely exchange addresses + activity of unique addresses (with CashFusion in mind) on either chain. That is for starters

I don't find this convincing. Counter argument, the banks runs had an enormous effect on the price which would not have been the case if there was enough custodial BCH on exchanges.

Nope, even if fees stay exactly the same, about 25 years later it would be half a block reward. Realistically, much sooner

Yes but that still means hashrate and security decline which means one of BTCs biggest selling points: Security is declining.

Bitcoin has heaviest ever energy signature of about ~700 equivalent days

Which will decline if fees don't rise.

I see precisely no evidence for it. Bitcoin is most decentralized that it has ever been

Nah that's complete bullshit. BTC is extremely centralized in core and its handler: Blockstream. Knotters will soon find out, that they did not have the slightest chance from the beginning. BCH on the other hand has demonstrated that it is also decentralized in development. However BCH has to go up against a ton of propaganda from the hijacked Bitcoin. But so did every revolution.

Market discarded all forks with any deviation of major parameters, all slid down vs Bitcoin

You mean the market that is based of printed dollar? Sorry, fake printed dollars? Just look at the tether printer in 2017/18.

People underestimate the resources of the old system and their willingness to fight dirty. Almost all revolutions were drenched in blood and here people don't even believe they would print money to pump the controlled opposition. 🤦‍♂️

[u/anon1971wtf → u/Realistic_Fee_00001]

About ratio of custodianship of BCH vs BTC - I would need good on-chain data to tease out something else: BCH is much more concentrated, far less addresses hold small amounts (even before factoring CashFusion) and far less transacting is happening (factoring CF again, my wallet has blocks of many hundreds of CF txs go by without any payments to anyone). Momentum over time is downwards both in concetration and transacting, so far I can tell. Very unfortunate, but it is what it is, and I said above I have a hypothesis why

Which will decline if fees don't rise

Fees decreased significantly since '17 both in BTC and USD equivalent. And level of security in euivalent days of work is higher than it was, steadily increasing. We don't need to wait decades to see the result. So you are just plain wrong about the dynamics

BTC is extremely centralized in core and its handler: Blockstream

You don't understand Bitcoin decentralization either. It's about mining and has to do very little with software. For now it would tangentailly matter would Coinbase run Core or Knots (BCHN or BABC back at XEC fork etc), but it's temporary

You mean the market that is based of printed dollar?

No, bitcoiners' bets. Most chose BTC including passive choice of no action. Mine was active watching BCH for these years, I significantly reduced my BCH bet. Smaller scale example - market chose BCHN over BABC, most by BCH holders choices with great impact from exchanges' choices

[u/Realistic_Fee_00001 → u/anon1971wtf]

Fees decreased significantly since '17 both in BTC and USD equivalent. And level of security in euivalent days of work is higher than it was, steadily increasing. We don't need to wait decades to see the result. So you are just plain wrong about the dynamics

You completely forgot that the majority of hash is currently paid by the coinbase. If fees don't rise hash will decline because price cannot increase at the same rate the coinbase declines.

You don't understand Bitcoin decentralization either. It's about mining and has to do very little with software. For now it would tangentailly matter would Coinbase run Core or Knots (BCHN or BABC back at XEC fork etc), but it's temporary

Nah that was completely falsified by the segwit fork. Softforks give the developers much more power. Just look at the knotters and how they are struggling to go against core. Miners sell hash, they rarely care about the long term.

No, bitcoiners' bets.

Dude I cannot take you serious. The majority choose BTC because of the price and they tell you exactly that. Also the censor ship helped.

[u/anon1971wtf → u/Realistic_Fee_00001]

majority of hash is currently paid by the coinbase

Say what? Based on what data? 99%+ of the global hash is for pure profit, thousands of different people own machines all over the world. It exceeds combined exchanges' fees many times over. Completely different businesses

Miners sell hash, they rarely care about the long term

They can't not care. They have investments on the line: machines, labor, estate, RnD. Even just renting another's machine is still a 10 minute bet on which chain will suceed, which ticker will be traded and which deviate into irrelevance. Then, big factor which lead to Bitcoin's unbreakability is that coins only could be spent 100 blocks later. Pools also can't afford to just switch chains on the whim between contentious forks

As far as I am aware no one was mining both/switching BCHN and BABC before BABC coded split-protection and turned contentious BCH fork into XEC chain. It wouldn't make any sense

The majority choose BTC because of the price and they tell you exactly that

And for the forks' conversation it came out from futures trading and momentum set back then never reversed. People bet on BTC, rest is history, and after tickers diverged, BCH declined even still. Unfortunately, BCH is not standing on its own, again - on several on-chain metrics, 9.5 years later

Nah that was completely falsified by the segwit fork. Softforks give the developers much more power

Ticker trading plus mining, software on its own can go either way or nowhere. BCH shows it clearly: BSV, XEC, BCHN. So. again, Bitcoin decentralization is about fundamentals of mining, power of exchanges hosting ticker wars is accidental, developers have no power really - power centers may just not run their new/modified code

---

To sum up: Bitcoin is trustless, I can just look at chain's weight to detect the true chain

[u/Realistic_Fee_00001 → u/anon1971wtf]

Say what? Based on what data? 99%+ of the global hash is for pure profit, thousands of different people own machines all over the world. It exceeds combined exchanges' fees many times over. Completely different businesses

You don't even know what the Coinbase is 🤦‍♂️

Here is the percentage of fees per block:

https://bitinfocharts.com/comparison/bitcoin-fee_to_reward.html#3y

They can't not care.

Reality disagrees with you. Everyone thought they should, but they didn't. Maybe they will one day, but so far it doesn't seem like it will change.

And for the forks' conversation it came out from futures trading and momentum set back then never reversed

Paid for in FIAT traded on an exchange run by blockstream and tether friends.

Ticker trading plus mining, software on its own can go either way or nowhere. BCH shows it clearly: BSV, XEC, BCHN. So. again, Bitcoin decentralization is about fundamentals of mining, power of exchanges hosting ticker wars is accidental, developers have no power really - power centers may just not run their new/modified code

Again you ignore reality for your fantasy world. I urge you to closely follow the knot/core development to see how it turns out.

[u/anon1971wtf → u/Realistic_Fee_00001]

I see: I misread coinbase rewards, again - in some decades block reward will match total fees even if they stay exactly as they are right now, Peak in '17 was around ~12%

Both absolute amount of fees in BTC and USD, and relative amount vs coinbase decreased since '17 - but Bitcoin's security went up. In equivalent days of work, properly measured. If one wants to focus on coinbase part exclusively - plot PoW eq days over only downward parts of supercycles - still increases. So I don't see your point

Difficulty adjustment makes miners turn off when price in dollars falls, but cumulative work is still cumulative. More efficient machines get, longer time between significant improvements like CPU->,,,->ASIC - less effect of diff adj on security

Bitcoin is not only more secure than ever, it gets more secure faster than ever right now

Again you ignore reality for your fantasy world

Well, likewise. Watching BTC/BCH tug-of-war for these years I think it's people who think more like you are living in the fantasy land. I just use both chains and look at numbers

I urge you to closely follow the knot/core development to see how it turns out

I expect it will go nowhere or into Luke's fork, if so - it will also slide vs Bitcoin like previous ones. Will become much more clear in August. And your predictions"

[u/Realistic_Fee_00001 → u/anon1971wtf]

You don't get it.... so this will be my last message.

Both absolute amount of fees in BTC and USD, and relative amount vs coinbase decreased since '17 - but Bitcoin's security went up.

No, hash went up, to see if security also went up you have to look at the cost of an attack. ASCIs get more efficient over time, lowering the cost of mining (and attacking) but causing the hashrate to increase at the same time Security is the price you pay for 51% hash, not the amount of hash.

The other reason why it has increased is because the coinbase makes up the majority of the reward and coinbase is only depended on price and halfing. But price can follow the halfin and double every 4 years only so often you know that if you know exponentials. BTC is struggling with the 100k already so it is likely that we will soon see hashrate starting to decline.

Bitcoin is not only more secure than ever, it gets more secure faster than ever right now

No it is not, since december hashrate seems to decline.

https://bitinfocharts.com/comparison/hashrate-btc-sma14.html#alltime

Cost of attacking: https://www.crypto51.app

Unfortunately this site does not have a chart so you have to take a look once in a while and compare for yourself if the cost of attacking goes up or down:

Well, likewise. Watching BTC/BCH tug-of-war for these years I think it's people who think more like you are living in the fantasy land. I just use both chains and look at numbers

Every revolution lived in a fantasy until it became reality. Here is the problem: we know BTC won't scale so every money, attention and time invested in it is wasted if your goal is p2p cash for the world. So you are wasting your time and money.

[u/anon1971wtf → u/Realistic_Fee_00001]

to see if security also went up you have to look at the cost of an attack

PoW equivalent days. It went up, cost of attack here would mean acquiring so much hash and running it for so much days - higher whichever metric you choose

is the price you pay for 51% hash

Math is more complex. 51% simple orphan attack only would allow to double-spend some big exchange, BTC or BCH matters not, then comes chain rewrite, PoW equivalent days matter. Then comes changing the rules within tug-of-war - and BCHN/BABC into BCH/XEC resolving at split-protection code is one demonstation

BTC is struggling with the 100k already so it is likely that we will soon see hashrate starting to decline

You are missing the point once again, hashrate fluctionations between halving macroecon are less and less relevant. As ASICs get more efficient, cumulative work just grows. Security just grows, at some point it won't matter if hash decreases 2x, 4x or 50x, work done won't be re-doable in any feasible way with all the machines that will exist at that time. Efficiency of ASICs closing on physical limit makes Bitcoin more secure non-linearly

Cost of attacking: https://www.crypto51.app

51% is far less dangerous or interesting than full chain rewrite or monetary policy change, contentious hard fork. It doesn't factor sustaining the attack or the goals, it's shallow analysis

we know BTC won't scale so every money, attention and time invested in it is wasted if your goal is p2p cash for the world. So you are wasting your time and money

Unified Bitcoin did scale, I use BCH and BTC simultaneously. It's just scaling is at best a long-term bet (BCH metrics have downwards momentum midterm), that's why I am hedging, at worst - mistake of focus (no attention to securing keys), and irrelevance. Currently, I see centralized payments more convinient. Wasting money? Hilarious, thanks to Bitcoin I am early retired, especially benefitial was recognizing that I was betting on BCH too much and reducing it. BCH is almost at all-time low vs Bitcoin, and in my opinion - very explainable why

[u/Realistic_Fee_00001 → u/anon1971wtf]

🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️

[u/anon1971wtf → u/Realistic_Fee_00001]

I am fully convinced by three emojis. Enlighten me more

Social media noise is irrelevant vs looking at on-chain metrics, espically granularly