Cryoptocurrenices / Blockchain / Initial Coin Offerings

User avatar
aSushiRoll
Trader
Posts: 74
Joined: Fri Apr 05, 2013 10:54 pm

Cryoptocurrenices / Blockchain / Initial Coin Offerings

Post by aSushiRoll »

I've been gathering a lot of datasets from outside of the charting/price action space, where most people tend to just look at price&volume and perform TA on that or have some algo's that trade that way.
The nice thing about crypto is everything is out there, all the data, and you can datamine however you want.

ANyway as a first post and most general overview let's focus on the cost price of mining BTC. Ultimately inflation, new supply, expanding/contracting mining farms etc. all have to do with expectations on cost price of Bitcoin.
A nice thing is the inflationary schedule is mathematecally dictated; a halving of the mining rewards every 4 years or so. Easy to plot that out in a graph, use trandingview's Pine scripting language to color code how many months we have to go until the next halving and how that has played out in the past and we get
2018-12-22 Sushi - colored months since halfing 0.png
This is just one viewpoint that draws us to Aug/Sep/Oct as release from accumulation phase and start of the next runup. Approx 9 months before the next halving event (may 2020)

obviously things rhyme until they dont
trendlines hold until they dont
patterns exist until they're broken

so take this with a grain of salt

i've got an entire list of datasets that some of my friends have datamined and they all point to similar conclusions , not per se aug-oct 2019, but more so that we are not leaving the 3-4K$ range anytime soon and it could take 6 months to 2 years before leaving.
I personally don't agree with the 2 year viewpoint at all.

[edit]
I see that that image doesn't load in full rez.
green vertical lines are mining halving events
yellow vertical line is just a projection from the length of time it took us last time to get out of the accumulation phase
it's a Log chart, weekly, with price action from 2011 onwards

If you want to share that image, please ask pm before doing so
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
Last edited by aSushiRoll on Fri Jan 25, 2019 3:03 pm, edited 1 time in total.
K-Lander
Trader
Posts: 35
Joined: Thu Nov 17, 2011 9:03 pm
Location: Buenos Aires, Argentina

Cryoptocurrenices / Blockchain / Initial Coin Offerings

Post by K-Lander »

aSushiRoll » Fri Jan 25, 2019 11:57 am wrote:I've been gathering a lot of datasets from outside of the charting/price action space, where most people tend to just look at price&volume and perform TA on that or have some algo's that trade that way.
The nice thing about crypto is everything is out there, all the data, and you can datamine however you want.

ANyway as a first post and most general overview let's focus on the cost price of mining BTC. Ultimately inflation, new supply, expanding/contracting mining farms etc. all have to do with expectations on cost price of Bitcoin.
A nice thing is the inflationary schedule is mathematecally dictated; a halving of the mining rewards every 4 years or so. Easy to plot that out in a graph, use trandingview's Pine scripting language to color code how many months we have to go until the next halving and how that has played out in the past and we get


This is just one viewpoint that draws us to Aug/Sep/Oct as release from accumulation phase and start of the next runup. Approx 9 months before the next halving event (may 2020)

obviously things rhyme until they dont
trendlines hold until they dont
patterns exist until they're broken

so take this with a grain of salt

i've got an entire list of datasets that some of my friends have datamined and they all point to similar conclusions , not per se aug-oct 2019, but more so that we are not leaving the 3-4K$ range anytime soon and it could take 6 months to 2 years before leaving.
I personally don't agree with the 2 year viewpoint at all.

[edit]
I see that that image doesn't load in full rez.
green vertical lines are mining halving events
yellow vertical line is just a projection from the length of time it took us last time to get out of the accumulation phase
it's a Log chart, weekly, with price action from 2011 onwards

If you want to share that image, please ask pm before doing so
Ahhh brother, 140k by 2021... :) It certainly is a wishful scenario, but what a beautiful one, isn´t it?
The current range will have to break some time soon, and I find it hard to believe it will go any souther. Your graph shows the upcoming SEC decision on the ETF. If it gives it a green light, price will skyrocket already in late February. We´ll see...

Thanks for the insight, and best of luck to you.

Cheers,
K
User avatar
tomele
Administrator
Posts: 1166
Joined: Tue May 17, 2016 3:40 pm
Location: Germany, Forest of Odes, Defending the Limes

Cryoptocurrenices / Blockchain / Initial Coin Offerings

Post by tomele »

Bitcoin and all blockchain technologies should be banned and shut down immediately.

It has been estimated that the current global power consumption only for the servers that run bitcoin’s software is a minimum of 2.55 gigawatts (GW), which amounts to energy consumption of 22 terawatt-hours (TWh) per year — almost the same as a whole country like Ireland.

That is absolutely insane in a world that needs to fight global warming. But sure, why should you care for the planet and your children if you can make some bucks?

Cheers
Thomas
Happy pippin, Thomas :-BD

It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble.
It's what you know for sure that just ain't so.
(Mark Twain)

Keep the coder going: Donate
User avatar
Tebis
Trader
Posts: 111
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2011 9:50 am
Location: Switzerland

Cryoptocurrenices / Blockchain / Initial Coin Offerings

Post by Tebis »

tomele » Today, 02:41 wrote:Bitcoin and all blockchain technologies should be banned and shut down immediately.

It has been estimated that the current global power consumption only for the servers that run bitcoin’s software is a minimum of 2.55 gigawatts (GW), which amounts to energy consumption of 22 terawatt-hours (TWh) per year — almost the same as a whole country like Ireland.

That is absolutely insane in a world that needs to fight global warming. But sure, why should you care for the planet and your children if you can make some bucks?

Cheers
Thomas
Thomas,
I agree 100%. :good:
have a nice weekend !
Ernst
User avatar
aSushiRoll
Trader
Posts: 74
Joined: Fri Apr 05, 2013 10:54 pm

Cryoptocurrenices / Blockchain / Initial Coin Offerings

Post by aSushiRoll »

Hi guys, this is exactly why I want to contribute to this thread. A lot of false assumptions!

If your argument is for the power consumption; remember how the first computers filled up entire rooms, or floors and their associated power consumption?

The power consumption is due to the consensus algorithm. It's a very simple algo actually, everybody with a miner has to brute force some puzzle (hash). simple, yet very inefficient. It's called "proof of work" as all the miners have to perform some "work" (a lot of work!)

In the simplest explanation;
Miners create blocks, these blocks are just a number of transactions grouped together. Those blocks are chained together, creating a blockchain. You dont want the world to know who will create the next block, because you could then convince/force them to prioritize certain transactions and/or leave others out. So how do you ensure that we can't predict who will be creating the next block? Well the last person to create a block adds a puzzle (hash) to the block and the entire world has to brute force solve that puzzle (hash), the one who solves it is allowed to create the next block. The difficulty of that puzzle varies and goes up and down dependant on how much mining power is in the network, to always target an average solving time of 10 minutes (one block every 10 minutes).
If you now want to game the system and want to increase your chances of making that block you'd have to own more than 51% of the mining power in the world to increase your chances up to a point where it makes sense to say on average you'll be making more blocks than anyone else, giving you a lot of power. But anyone owning 51% of the mining power would be disincentivized to mess with the system, as it cost a lot of money to own 51% of the mining power and would screw his own investment. (yes there are exceptions like malicious actors who dont care about money etc).

Since then there have been multiple suggestions and decentralized ledger technologies actually launched (and running currently) that solve this, by implementing proof of stake, for example.

So the previous issue of how d you determine who creates the next block while incentivizing good behaviour? In this case the person that creates the nxt block is determined pro rata as to how big of a % of the total supply of coins for that cryptocurrency they own. So if I hold 20% of the supply on average i'll be creating 20% of the blocks. If i want to game the system i'll have to own more than 51% of the supply, which i'd have to buy. Since i'd be buying it i'll be driving up price and it becomes harder and harder to get that 51%. And even when I do do I really want to throw away my investment by making that coin worthless? That's the idea behind that.

Both solutions are subobtimal.

In general DLT (decentralized ledger technologies) can be classified in 3 main categories
1) blockchain (99% of project/coins)
2) DAG's (direct acyclic graphs) (IOTA and hashgraph are some examples)
3) TEMPO (radix)

Blockchains (specifically blockchains, not DAG or TEMPO) have a fundamental issue which is called the "Trilema" which states that you can never fully optimze all 3 out of
1) decentralization
2) security
3) scalability
It's an inherrent flaw that hasn't been solved yet you an only really choose 2 out of 3, having to comprimise on the third.

DAG's come closer to solving the trilema, although so far they've always had to use a centralized controller, coming back to the trilema, but perhaps in a lesser fashion than blockchains.

Radix, with it's tempo architecture, is so far the only one in existenc that i know of that actually solves the trilema. It has semi-lineair scaling, meaning the more nodes you add the higher the throughput. Blockchains suffer from the oposite; the more nodes the slower the network.

Anyway, my point is; DAG's, Radix and even blockchains with other consensus algorithms don't use PoW [proof of work] and so the entire point about the power consumption is not really a valid argument.
Perhaps for Bitcoin specifically yes, but then again Bitcoin is the least innovative tech out of all the DLT's

Radix has been in development for 6 years now and will launch main net end of 2019
Extremely lower power consumption, true scalability (millions of transactions per second [visa does 12k]), decentralized, secure. An extremely elegant solution as well in terms of the tech & consensus algo.
User avatar
aSushiRoll
Trader
Posts: 74
Joined: Fri Apr 05, 2013 10:54 pm

Cryoptocurrenices / Blockchain / Initial Coin Offerings

Post by aSushiRoll »

tomele » Sat Jan 26, 2019 1:41 am wrote:Bitcoin and all blockchain technologies should be banned and shut down immediately.

It has been estimated that the current global power consumption only for the servers that run bitcoin’s software is a minimum of 2.55 gigawatts (GW), which amounts to energy consumption of 22 terawatt-hours (TWh) per year — almost the same as a whole country like Ireland.

That is absolutely insane in a world that needs to fight global warming. But sure, why should you care for the planet and your children if you can make some bucks?

Cheers
Thomas
TLDR on my previous post; power consumption argument is only really valid for Bitcoin itself. There are now many many coins with much better tech with extremely low power requirements for the network, to a point of becoming neglectible
User avatar
tomele
Administrator
Posts: 1166
Joined: Tue May 17, 2016 3:40 pm
Location: Germany, Forest of Odes, Defending the Limes

Cryoptocurrenices / Blockchain / Initial Coin Offerings

Post by tomele »

aSushiRoll » 26 Jan 2019, 17:09 wrote:
TLDR on my previous post; power consumption argument is only really valid for Bitcoin itself. There are now many many coins with much better tech with extremely low power requirements for the network, to a point of becoming neglectible
I did write about BITCOIN, didn't I?

Thomas
Happy pippin, Thomas :-BD

It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble.
It's what you know for sure that just ain't so.
(Mark Twain)

Keep the coder going: Donate
User avatar
aSushiRoll
Trader
Posts: 74
Joined: Fri Apr 05, 2013 10:54 pm

Cryoptocurrenices / Blockchain / Initial Coin Offerings

Post by aSushiRoll »

well to be fair, you wrote "Bitcoin and all blockchain technologies" and that would encompass all blockchains imho and technologies i would assume would potentially extend even beyond that, but the latter is an assumption on my end.

Perhaps you meant Bitcoin and all Bitcoin clones (bitcoin cash/gold etc.)

if you meant all PoW coins then it would have been more clear with PoW coins :) and then yes, I would sort of agree, but not as black and white.

Because a lot of efficient algo's have some form of minor PoW that won't mean much in terms of global energy consumption, but if someone were to try and spam the network it would cause sufficient overhead

In the end; let's have free markets decide eventually what will be the main choice. I'm not too much in favor of banning or forcing any sort of monetary system onto someone else
User avatar
SteveHopwood
Owner
Posts: 9754
Joined: Tue Nov 15, 2011 8:43 am
Location: Misterton - an insignificant village in England. Very pleasant to live in.

Cryoptocurrenices / Blockchain / Initial Coin Offerings

Post by SteveHopwood »

aSushiRoll » Sat Jan 26, 2019 7:00 pm wrote:well to be fair, you wrote "Bitcoin and all blockchain technologies" and that would encompass all blockchains imho and technologies i would assume would potentially extend even beyond that, but the latter is an assumption on my end.

Perhaps you meant Bitcoin and all Bitcoin clones (bitcoin cash/gold etc.)

if you meant all PoW coins then it would have been more clear with PoW coins :) and then yes, I would sort of agree, but not as black and white.

Because a lot of efficient algo's have some form of minor PoW that won't mean much in terms of global energy consumption, but if someone were to try and spam the network it would cause sufficient overhead

In the end; let's have free markets decide eventually what will be the main choice. I'm not too much in favor of banning or forcing any sort of monetary system onto someone else
Here is a serious suggestion.

Forget it. You face running into trouble if you continue.

SHF is about trading Forex. You want to discuss something else? Go elsewhere to do so.

This thread is locked.
Read the effing manual, ok?

Afterprime is the official SHF broker. Read about them at https://www.stevehopwoodforex.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?p=175790#p175790.

I still suffer from OCCD. Good thing, really.

Anyone here feeling generous? My paypal account is always in the market for a tiny donation. [email protected] is the account.

To see The Weekly Roundup of stuff you guys might have missed Click here

My special thanks to Thomas (tomele) for all the incredible work he does here.
Locked

Return to “Lounge”