Bitcoin Hashrate Spikes to 120 Exahash: Difficulty Drops ...
Bitcoin difficulty ribbon flashes buy signal – Glassnode
Adjusting Bitcoin mining difficulty can bring down high ...
Bitcoin Difficulty. All about cryptocurrency - BitcoinWiki
How EpiK Protocol “Saved the Miners” from Filecoin with the E2P Storage Model?
https://preview.redd.it/n5jzxozn27v51.png?width=2222&format=png&auto=webp&s=6cd6bd726582bbe2c595e1e467aeb3fc8aabe36f On October 20, Eric Yao, Head of EpiK China, and Leo, Co-Founder & CTO of EpiK, visited Deep Chain Online Salon, and discussed “How EpiK saved the miners eliminated by Filecoin by launching E2P storage model”. ‘?” The following is a transcript of the sharing. Sharing Session Eric: Hello, everyone, I’m Eric, graduated from School of Information Science, Tsinghua University. My Master’s research was on data storage and big data computing, and I published a number of industry top conference papers. Since 2013, I have invested in Bitcoin, Ethereum, Ripple, Dogcoin, EOS and other well-known blockchain projects, and have been settling in the chain circle as an early technology-based investor and industry observer with 2 years of blockchain experience. I am also a blockchain community initiator and technology evangelist Leo: Hi, I’m Leo, I’m the CTO of EpiK. Before I got involved in founding EpiK, I spent 3 to 4 years working on blockchain, public chain, wallets, browsers, decentralized exchanges, task distribution platforms, smart contracts, etc., and I’ve made some great products. EpiK is an answer to the question we’ve been asking for years about how blockchain should be landed, and we hope that EpiK is fortunate enough to be an answer for you as well. Q & A Deep Chain Finance: First of all, let me ask Eric, on October 15, Filecoin’s main website launched, which aroused everyone’s attention, but at the same time, the calls for fork within Filecoin never stopped. The EpiK protocol is one of them. What I want to know is, what kind of project is EpiK Protocol? For what reason did you choose to fork in the first place? What are the differences between the forked project and Filecoin itself? Eric: First of all, let me answer the first question, what kind of project is EpiK Protocol. With the Fourth Industrial Revolution already upon us, comprehensive intelligence is one of the core goals of this stage, and the key to comprehensive intelligence is how to make machines understand what humans know and learn new knowledge based on what they already know. And the knowledge graph scale is a key step towards full intelligence. In order to solve the many challenges of building large-scale knowledge graphs, the EpiK Protocol was born. EpiK Protocol is a decentralized, hyper-scale knowledge graph that organizes and incentivizes knowledge through decentralized storage technology, decentralized autonomous organizations, and generalized economic models. Members of the global community will expand the horizons of artificial intelligence into a smarter future by organizing all areas of human knowledge into a knowledge map that will be shared and continuously updated for the eternal knowledge vault of humanity And then, for what reason was the fork chosen in the first place? EpiK’s project founders are all senior blockchain industry practitioners and have been closely following the industry development and application scenarios, among which decentralized storage is a very fresh application scenario. However, in the development process of Filecoin, the team found that due to some design mechanisms and historical reasons, the team found that Filecoin had some deviations from the original intention of the project at that time, such as the overly harsh penalty mechanism triggered by the threat to weaken security, and the emergence of the computing power competition leading to the emergence of computing power monopoly by large miners, thus monopolizing the packaging rights, which can be brushed with computing power by uploading useless data themselves. The emergence of these problems will cause the data environment on Filecoin to get worse and worse, which will lead to the lack of real value of the data in the chain, high data redundancy, and the difficulty of commercializing the project to land. After paying attention to the above problems, the project owner proposes to introduce multi-party roles and a decentralized collaboration platform DAO to ensure the high value of the data on the chain through a reasonable economic model and incentive mechanism, and store the high-value data: knowledge graph on the blockchain through decentralized storage, so that the lack of value of the data on the chain and the monopoly of large miners’ computing power can be solved to a large extent. Finally, what differences exist between the forked project and Filecoin itself? On the basis of the above-mentioned issues, EpiK’s design is very different from Filecoin, first of all, EpiK is more focused in terms of business model, and it faces a different market and track from the cloud storage market where Filecoin is located because decentralized storage has no advantage over professional centralized cloud storage in terms of storage cost and user experience. EpiK focuses on building a decentralized knowledge graph, which reduces data redundancy and safeguards the value of data in the distributed storage chain while preventing the knowledge graph from being tampered with by a few people, thus making the commercialization of the entire project reasonable and feasible. From the perspective of ecological construction, EpiK treats miners more friendly and solves the pain point of Filecoin to a large extent, firstly, it changes the storage collateral and commitment collateral of Filecoin to one-time collateral. Miners participating in EpiK Protocol are only required to pledge 1000 EPK per miner, and only once before mining, not in each sector. What is the concept of 1000 EPKs, you only need to participate in pre-mining for about 50 days to get this portion of the tokens used for pledging. The EPK pre-mining campaign is currently underway, and it runs from early September to December, with a daily release of 50,000 ERC-20 standard EPKs, and the pre-mining nodes whose applications are approved will divide these tokens according to the mining ratio of the day, and these tokens can be exchanged 1:1 directly after they are launched on the main network. This move will continue to expand the number of miners eligible to participate in EPK mining. Secondly, EpiK has a more lenient penalty mechanism, which is different from Filecoin’s official consensus, storage and contract penalties, because the protocol can only be uploaded by field experts, which is the “Expert to Person” mode. Every miner needs to be backed up, which means that if one or more miners are offline in the network, it will not have much impact on the network, and the miner who fails to upload the proof of time and space in time due to being offline will only be forfeited by the authorities for the effective computing power of this sector, not forfeiting the pledged coins. If the miner can re-submit the proof of time and space within 28 days, he will regain the power. Unlike Filecoin’s 32GB sectors, EpiK’s encapsulated sectors are smaller, only 8M each, which will solve Filecoin’s sector space wastage problem to a great extent, and all miners have the opportunity to complete the fast encapsulation, which is very friendly to miners with small computing power. The data and quality constraints will also ensure that the effective computing power gap between large and small miners will not be closed. Finally, unlike Filecoin’s P2P data uploading model, EpiK changes the data uploading and maintenance to E2P uploading, that is, field experts upload and ensure the quality and value of the data on the chain, and at the same time introduce the game relationship between data storage roles and data generation roles through a rational economic model to ensure the stability of the whole system and the continuous high-quality output of the data on the chain. Deep Chain Finance: Eric, on the eve of Filecoin’s mainline launch, issues such as Filecoin’s pre-collateral have aroused a lot of controversy among the miners. In your opinion, what kind of impact will Filecoin bring to itself and the whole distributed storage ecosystem after it launches? Do you think that the current confusing FIL prices are reasonable and what should be the normal price of FIL? Eric: Filecoin mainnet has launched and many potential problems have been exposed, such as the aforementioned high pre-security problem, the storage resource waste and computing power monopoly caused by unreasonable sector encapsulation, and the harsh penalty mechanism, etc. These problems are quite serious, and will greatly affect the development of Filecoin ecology. These problems are relatively serious, and will greatly affect the development of Filecoin ecology, here are two examples to illustrate. For example, the problem of big miners computing power monopoly, now after the big miners have monopolized computing power, there will be a very delicate state — — the miners save a file data with ordinary users. There is no way to verify this matter in the chain, whether what he saved is uploaded by himself or someone else. And after the big miners have monopolized computing power, there will be a very delicate state — — the miners will save a file data with ordinary users, there is no way to verify this matter in the chain, whether what he saved is uploaded by himself or someone else. Because I can fake another identity to upload data for myself, but that leads to the fact that for any miner I go to choose which data to save. I have only one goal, and that is to brush my computing power and how fast I can brush my computing power. There is no difference between saving other people’s data and saving my own data in the matter of computing power. When I save someone else’s data, I don’t know that data. Somewhere in the world, the bandwidth quality between me and him may not be good enough. The best option is to store my own local data, which makes sense, and that results in no one being able to store data on the chain at all. They only store their own data, because it’s the most economical for them, and the network has essentially no storage utility, no one is providing storage for the masses of retail users. The harsh penalty mechanism will also severely deplete the miner’s profits, because DDOS attacks are actually a very common attack technique for the attacker, and for a big miner, he can get a very high profit in a short period of time if he attacks other customers, and this thing is a profitable thing for all big miners. Now as far as the status quo is concerned, the vast majority of miners are actually not very well maintained, so they are not very well protected against these low-DDOS attacks. So the penalty regime is grim for them. The contradiction between the unreasonable system and the demand will inevitably lead to the evolution of the system in a more reasonable direction, so there will be many forked projects that are more reasonable in terms of mechanism, thus attracting Filecoin miners and a diversion of storage power. Since each project is in the field of decentralized storage track, the demand for miners is similar or even compatible with each other, so miners will tend to fork the projects with better economic benefits and business scenarios, so as to filter out the projects with real value on the ground. For the chaotic FIL price, because FIL is also a project that has gone through several years, carrying too many expectations, so it can only be said that the current situation has its own reasons for existence. As for the reasonable price of FIL there is no way to make a prediction because in the long run, it is necessary to consider the commercialization of the project to land and the value of the actual chain of data. In other words, we need to keep observing whether Filecoin will become a game of computing power or a real value carrier. Deep Chain Finance: Leo, we just mentioned that the pre-collateral issue of Filecoin caused the dissatisfaction of miners, and after Filecoin launches on the main website, the second round of space race test coins were directly turned into real coins, and the official selling of FIL hit the market phenomenon, so many miners said they were betrayed. What I want to know is, EpiK’s main motto is “save the miners eliminated by Filecoin”, how to deal with the various problems of Filecoin, and how will EpiK achieve “save”? Leo: Originally Filecoin’s tacit approval of the computing power makeup behavior was to declare that the official directly chose to abandon the small miners. And this test coin turned real coin also hurt the interests of the loyal big miners in one cut, we do not know why these low-level problems, we can only regret. EpiK didn’t do it to fork Filecoin, but because EpiK to build a shared knowledge graph ecology, had to integrate decentralized storage in, so the most hardcore Filecoin’s PoRep and PoSt decentralized verification technology was chosen. In order to ensure the quality of knowledge graph data, EpiK only allows community-voted field experts to upload data, so EpiK naturally prevents miners from making up computing power, and there is no reason for the data that has no value to take up such an expensive decentralized storage resource. With the inability to make up computing power, the difference between big miners and small miners is minimal when the amount of knowledge graph data is small. We can’t say that we can save the big miners, but we are definitely the optimal choice for the small miners who are currently in the market to be eliminated by Filecoin. Deep Chain Finance: Let me ask Eric: According to EpiK protocol, EpiK adopts the E2P model, which allows only experts in the field who are voted to upload their data. This is very different from Filecoin’s P2P model, which allows individuals to upload data as they wish. In your opinion, what are the advantages of the E2P model? If only voted experts can upload data, does that mean that the EpiK protocol is not available to everyone? Eric: First, let me explain the advantages of the E2P model over the P2P model. There are five roles in the DAO ecosystem: miner, coin holder, field expert, bounty hunter and gateway. These five roles allocate the EPKs generated every day when the main network is launched. The miner owns 75% of the EPKs, the field expert owns 9% of the EPKs, and the voting user shares 1% of the EPKs. The other 15% of the EPK will fluctuate based on the daily traffic to the network, and the 15% is partly a game between the miner and the field expert. The first describes the relationship between the two roles. The first group of field experts are selected by the Foundation, who cover different areas of knowledge (a wide range of knowledge here, including not only serious subjects, but also home, food, travel, etc.) This group of field experts can recommend the next group of field experts, and the recommended experts only need to get 100,000 EPK votes to become field experts. The field expert’s role is to submit high-quality data to the miner, who is responsible for encapsulating this data into blocks. Network activity is judged by the amount of EPKs pledged by the entire network for daily traffic (1 EPK = 10 MB/day), with a higher percentage indicating higher data demand, which requires the miner to increase bandwidth quality. If the data demand decreases, this requires field experts to provide higher quality data. This is similar to a library with more visitors needing more seats, i.e., paying the miner to upgrade the bandwidth. When there are fewer visitors, more money is needed to buy better quality books to attract visitors, i.e., money for bounty hunters and field experts to generate more quality knowledge graph data. The game between miners and field experts is the most important game in the ecosystem, unlike the game between the authorities and big miners in the Filecoin ecosystem. The game relationship between data producers and data storers and a more rational economic model will inevitably lead to an E2P model that generates stored on-chain data of much higher quality than the P2P model, and the quality of bandwidth for data access will be better than the P2P model, resulting in greater business value and better landing scenarios. I will then answer the question of whether this means that the EpiK protocol will not be universally accessible to all. The E2P model only qualifies the quality of the data generated and stored, not the roles in the ecosystem; on the contrary, with the introduction of the DAO model, the variety of roles introduced in the EpiK ecosystem (which includes the roles of ordinary people) is not limited. (Bounty hunters who can be competent in their tasks) gives roles and possibilities for how everyone can participate in the system in a more logical way. For example, a miner with computing power can provide storage, a person with a certain domain knowledge can apply to become an expert (this includes history, technology, travel, comics, food, etc.), and a person willing to mark and correct data can become a bounty hunter. The presence of various efficient support tools from the project owner will lower the barriers to entry for various roles, thus allowing different people to do their part in the system and together contribute to the ongoing generation of a high-quality decentralized knowledge graph. Deep Chain Finance: Leo, some time ago, EpiK released a white paper and an economy whitepaper, explaining the EpiK concept from the perspective of technology and economy model respectively. What I would like to ask is, what are the shortcomings of the current distributed storage projects, and how will EpiK protocol be improved? Leo: Distributed storage can easily be misunderstood as those of Ali’s OceanDB, but in the field of blockchain, we should focus on decentralized storage first. There is a big problem with the decentralized storage on the market now, which is “why not eat meat porridge”. How to understand it? Decentralized storage is cheaper than centralized storage because of its technical principle, and if it is, the centralized storage is too rubbish for comparison. What incentive does the average user have to spend more money on decentralized storage to store data? Is it safer? Existence miners can shut down at any time on decentralized storage by no means save a share of security in Ariadne and Amazon each. More private? There’s no difference between encrypted presence on decentralized storage and encrypted presence on Amazon. Faster? The 10,000 gigabytes of bandwidth in decentralized storage simply doesn’t compare to the fiber in a centralized server room. This is the root problem of the business model, no one is using it, no one is buying it, so what’s the big vision. The goal of EpiK is to guide all community participants in the co-construction and sharing of field knowledge graph data, which is the best way for robots to understand human knowledge, and the more knowledge graph data there is, the more knowledge a robot has, the more intelligent it is exponentially, i.e., EpiK uses decentralized storage technology. The value of exponentially growing data is captured with linearly growing hardware costs, and that’s where the buy-in for EPK comes in. Organized data is worth a lot more than organized hard drives, and there is a demand for EPK when robots have the need for intelligence. Deep Chain Finance: Let me ask Leo, how many forked projects does Filecoin have so far, roughly? Do you think there will be more or less waves of fork after the mainnet launches? Have the requirements of the miners at large changed when it comes to participation? Leo: We don’t have specific statistics, now that the main network launches, we feel that forking projects will increase, there are so many restricted miners in the market that they need to be organized efficiently. However, we currently see that most forked projects are simply modifying the parameters of Filecoin’s economy model, which is undesirable, and this level of modification can’t change the status quo of miners making up computing power, and the change to the market is just to make some of the big miners feel more comfortable digging up, which won’t help to promote the decentralized storage ecology to land. We need more reasonable landing scenarios so that idle mining resources can be turned into effective productivity, pitching a 100x coin instead of committing to one Fomo sentiment after another. Deep Chain Finance: How far along is the EpiK Protocol project, Eric? What other big moves are coming in the near future? Eric: The development of the EpiK Protocol is divided into 5 major phases. (a) Phase I testing of the network “Obelisk”. Phase II Main Network 1.0 “Rosetta”. Phase III Main Network 2.0 “Hammurabi”. (a) The Phase IV Enrichment Knowledge Mapping Toolkit. The fifth stage is to enrich the knowledge graph application ecology. Currently in the first phase of testing network “Obelisk”, anyone can sign up to participate in the test network pre-mining test to obtain ERC20 EPK tokens, after the mainnet exchange on a one-to-one basis. We have recently launched ERC20 EPK on Uniswap, you can buy and sell it freely on Uniswap or download our EpiK mobile wallet. In addition, we will soon launch the EpiK Bounty platform, and welcome all community members to do tasks together to build the EpiK community. At the same time, we are also pushing forward the centralized exchange for token listing. Users’ Questions User 1: Some KOLs said, Filecoin consumed its value in the next few years, so it will plunge, what do you think? Eric: First of all, the judgment of the market is to correspond to the cycle, not optimistic about the FIL first judgment to do is not optimistic about the economic model of the project, or not optimistic about the distributed storage track. First of all, we are very confident in the distributed storage track and will certainly face a process of growth and decline, so as to make a choice for a better project. Since the existing group of miners and the computing power already produced is fixed, and since EpiK miners and FIL miners are compatible, anytime miners will also make a choice for more promising and economically viable projects. Filecoin consumes the value of the next few years this time, so it will plunge. Regarding the market issues, the plunge is not a prediction, in the industry or to keep learning iteration and value judgment. Because up and down market sentiment is one aspect, there will be more very important factors. For example, the big washout in March this year, so it can only be said that it will slow down the development of the FIL community. But prices are indeed unpredictable. User2: Actually, in the end, if there are no applications and no one really uploads data, the market value will drop, so what are the landing applications of EpiK? Leo: The best and most direct application of EpiK’s knowledge graph is the question and answer system, which can be an intelligent legal advisor, an intelligent medical advisor, an intelligent chef, an intelligent tour guide, an intelligent game strategy, and so on.
Testing the Tide | Monthly FIRE Portfolio Update - June 2020
We would rather be ruined than changed. -W H Auden, The Age of Anxiety This is my forty-third portfolio update. I complete this update monthly to check my progress against my goal. Portfolio goal My objective is to reach a portfolio of $2 180 000 by 1 July 2021. This would produce a real annual income of about $87 000 (in 2020 dollars). This portfolio objective is based on an expected average real return of 3.99 per cent, or a nominal return of 6.49 per cent. Portfolio summary Vanguard Lifestrategy High Growth Fund – $726 306 Vanguard Lifestrategy Growth Fund – $42 118 Vanguard Lifestrategy Balanced Fund – $78 730 Vanguard Diversified Bonds Fund – $111 691 Vanguard Australian Shares ETF (VAS) – $201 745 Vanguard International Shares ETF (VGS) – $39 357 Betashares Australia 200 ETF (A200) – $231 269 Telstra shares (TLS) – $1 668 Insurance Australia Group shares (IAG) – $7 310 NIB Holdings shares (NHF) – $5 532 Gold ETF (GOLD.ASX) – $117 757 Secured physical gold – $18 913 Ratesetter (P2P lending) – $10 479 Bitcoin – $148 990 Raiz app (Aggressive portfolio) – $16 841 Spaceship Voyager app (Index portfolio) – $2 553 BrickX (P2P rental real estate) – $4 484 Total portfolio value: $1 765 743 (+$8 485 or 0.5%) Asset allocation Australian shares – 42.2% (2.8% under) Global shares – 22.0% Emerging markets shares – 2.3% International small companies – 3.0% Total international shares – 27.3% (2.7% under) Total shares – 69.5% (5.5% under) Total property securities – 0.3% (0.3% over) Australian bonds – 4.7% International bonds – 9.4% Total bonds – 14.0% (1.0% under) Gold – 7.7% Bitcoin – 8.4% Gold and alternatives – 16.2% (6.2% over) Presented visually, below is a high-level view of the current asset allocation of the portfolio. [Chart] Comments The overall portfolio increased slightly over the month. This has continued to move the portfolio beyond the lows seen in late March. The modest portfolio growth of $8 000, or 0.5 per cent, maintains its value at around that achieved at the beginning of the year. [Chart] The limited growth this month largely reflects an increase in the value of my current equity holdings, in VAS and A200 and the Vanguard retail funds. This has outweighed a small decline in the value of Bitcoin and global shares. The value of the bond holdings also increased modestly, pushing them to their highest value since around early 2017. [Chart] There still appears to be an air of unreality around recent asset price increases and the broader economic context. Britain's Bank of England has on some indicators shown that the aftermath of the pandemic and lockdown represent the most challenging financial crisis in around 300 years. What is clear is that investor perceptions and fear around the coronavirus pandemic are a substantial ongoing force driving volatility in equity markets (pdf). A somewhat optimistic view is provided here that the recovery could look more like the recovery from a natural disaster, rather than a traditional recession. Yet there are few certainties on offer. Negative oil prices, and effective offers by US equity investors to bail out Hertz creditors at no cost appear to be signs of a financial system under significant strains. As this Reserve Bank article highlights, while some Australian households are well-placed to weather the storm ahead, the timing and severity of what lays ahead is an important unknown that will itself feed into changes in household wealth from here. Investments this month have been exclusively in the Australian shares exchange-traded fund (VAS) using Selfwealth.* This has been to bring my actual asset allocation more closely in line with the target split between Australian and global shares. A moving azimuth: falling spending continues Monthly expenses on the credit card have continued their downward trajectory across the past month. [Chart] The rolling average of monthly credit card spending is now at its lowest point over the period of the journey. This is despite the end of lockdown, and a slow resumption of some more normal aspects of spending. This has continued the brief period since April of the achievement of a notional and contingent kind of financial independence. The below chart illustrates this temporary state, setting out the degree to which portfolio distributions cover estimated total expenses, measured month to month. [Chart] There are two sources of volatility underlying its movement. The first is the level of expenses, which can vary, and the second is the fact that it is based on financial year distributions, which are themselves volatile. Importantly, the distributions over the last twelve months of this chart is only an estimate - and hence the next few weeks will affect the precision of this analysis across its last 12 observations. Estimating 2019-20 financial year portfolio distributions Since the beginning of the journey, this time of year usually has sense of waiting for events to unfold - in particular, finding out the level of half-year distributions to June. These represent the bulk of distributions, usually averaging 60-65 per cent of total distributions received. They are an important and tangible signpost of progress on the financial independence journey. This is no simple task, as distributions have varied in size considerably. A part of this variation has been the important role of sometimes large and lumpy capital distributions - which have made up between 30 to 48 per cent of total distributions in recent years, and an average of around 15 per cent across the last two decades. I have experimented with many different approaches, most of which have relied on averaging over multi-year periods to even out the 'peaks and troughs' of how market movements may have affected distributions. The main approaches have been:
An 'adjusted income' approach - stripping out the capital gains components of Vanguard funds to reach an estimate of underlying income generation, both across the entire investment period, and during the sharpest low of the Global Financial Crisis
A long-term asset class approach - relying on long-term historical data on averages of the income produced by various asset classes
A 'tax method' approach - this derives an income estimate as a percentage of the portfolio by drawing on taxable investment income totals from tax return records
Simple historical rolling average - this is a rolling three-year measure, based on the actual distributions record of the portfolio
Average distribution rate approach - this method uses a long-term average of annual distributions received as a percentage of the total portfolio since 1999
Each of these have their particular simplifications, advantages and drawbacks. Developing new navigation tools Over the past month I have also developed more fully an alternate 'model' for estimating returns. This simply derives a median value across a set of historical 'cents per unit' distribution data for June and December payouts for the Vanguard funds and exchange traded funds. These make up over 96 per cent of income producing portfolio assets. In other words, this model essentially assumes that each Vanguard fund and ETF owned pays out the 'average' level of distributions this half-year, with the average being based on distribution records that typically go back between 5 to 10 years. Mapping the distribution estimates The chart below sets out the estimate produced by each approach for the June distributions that are to come. [Chart] Some observations on these findings can be made. The lowest estimate is the 'adjusted GFC income' observation, which essentially assumes that the income for this period is as low as experienced by the equity and bond portfolio during the Global Financial Crisis. Just due to timing differences of the period observed, this seems to be a 'worst case' lower bound estimate, which I do not currently place significant weight on. Similarly, at the highest end, the 'average distribution rate' approach simply assumes June distributions deliver a distribution equal to the median that the entire portfolio has delivered since 1999. With higher interest rates, and larger fixed income holdings across much of that time, this seems an objectively unlikely outcome. Similarly, the delivery of exactly the income suggested by long-term averages measured across decades and even centuries would be a matter of chance, rather than the basis for rational expectations. Central estimates of the line of position This leaves the estimates towards the centre of the chart - estimates of between around $28 000 to $43 000 as representing the more likely range. I attach less weight to the historical three-year average due to the high contribution of distributed capital gains over that period of growth, where at least across equities some capital losses are likely to be in greater presence. My preferred central estimate is the model estimate (green) , as it is based in historical data directly from the investment vehicles rather than my own evolving portfolio. The data it is based on in some cases goes back to the Global Financial Crisis. This estimate is also quite close to the raw average of all the alternative approaches (red). It sits a little above the 'adjusted income' measure. None of these estimates, it should be noted, contain any explicit adjustment for the earnings and dividend reductions or delays arising from COVID-19. They may, therefore represent a modest over-estimate for likely June distributions, to the extent that these effects are more negative than those experienced on average across the period of the underlying data. These are difficult to estimate, but dividend reductions could easily be in the order of 20-30 per cent, plausibly lowering distributions to the $23 000 to $27 000 range. The recently announced forecast dividend for the Vanguard Australian Shares ETF (VAS) is, for example, the lowest in four years. As seen from chart above, there is a wide band of estimates, which grow wider still should capital gains be unexpectedly distributed from the Vanguard retail funds. These have represented a source of considerable volatility. Given this, it may seem fruitless to seek to estimate these forthcoming distributions, compared to just waiting for them to arrive. Yet this exercise helps by setting out reasoning and positions, before hindsight bias urgently arrives to inform me that I knew the right answer all along. It also potentially helps clearly 'reject' some models over time, if the predictions they make prove to be systematically incorrect. Progress Progress against the objective, and the additional measures I have reached is set out below. Measure Portfolio All Assets Portfolio objective – $2 180 000 (or $87 000 pa) 81.0% 109.4% Credit card purchases – $71 000 pa 98.8% 133.5% Total expenses – $89 000 pa 79.2% 106.9% Summary The current coronavirus conditions are affecting all aspects of the journey to financial independence - changing spending habits, leading to volatility in equity markets and sequencing risks, and perhaps dramatically altering the expected pattern of portfolio distributions. Although history can provide some guidance, there is simply no definitive way to know whether any or all of these changes will be fundamental and permanent alterations, or simply data points on a post-natural disaster path to a different post-pandemic set of conditions. There is the temptation to fit past crises imperfectly into the modern picture, as this Of Dollars and Data post illustrates well. Taking a longer 100 year view, this piece 'The Allegory of the Hawk and Serpent' is a reminder that our entire set of received truths about constructing a portfolio to survive for the long-term can be a product of a sample size of one - actual past history - and subject to recency bias. This month has felt like one of quiet routines, muted events compared to the past few months, and waiting to understand more fully the shape of the new. Nonetheless, with each new investment, or week of lower expenditure than implied in my FI target, the nature of the journey is incrementally changing - beneath the surface. Small milestones are being passed - such as over 40 per cent of my equity holdings being outside of the the Vanguard retail funds. Or these these retail funds - which once formed over 95 per cent of the portfolio - now making up less than half. With a significant part of the financial independence journey being about repeated small actions producing outsized results with time, the issue of maintaining good routines while exploring beneficial changes is real. Adding to the complexity is that embarking on the financial journey itself is likely to change who one is. This idea, of the difficulty or impossibility of knowing the preferences of a future self, is explored in a fascinating way in this Econtalk podcast episode with a philosophical thought experiment about vampires. It poses the question: perhaps we can never know ourselves at the destination? And yet, who would rationally choose ruin over any change? The post, links and full charts can be seen here.
3 months later. How the profitability of mining changed after halving
3 months later. How the profitability of mining changed after halving On May 11, the size of the Bitcoin mining reward fell by half. The next time it will be in 2024. What devices will be profitable by that time, and what to hope for owners of obsolete equipment. In May 2020, a halving took place on the bitcoin network. The cryptocurrency mining reward has decreased from 12.5 to 6.25 BTC. This is a long-awaited event, which, according to the hopes of the crypto community, should lead to a strong increase in the value of the coin. For example, Anthony Pompliano, co-founder of investment company Morgan Creek Digital, predicted that the rate would rise to $100,000 by the end of 2021, primarily due to lower mining rewards. So far, the bitcoin price hasn’t responded to the halving as much as expected. In mid-May, at the time of the reduction in the mining reward, the BTC rate was around $9,000. To date, the cryptocurrency has risen in price by 27%. This year’s high was set yesterday, August 18, at $12,400. The hashrate of the cryptocurrency network showed a different dynamics. Its value fell immediately after the halving from 137.5 to 87 EH/s, according to bitinfocharts.com. Since mining bitcoins has become less profitable, some of the miners probably turned off their equipment. They could switch to mining other coins or completely abandon this activity due to its unprofitability. Later, when the BTC rate began to rise, the amount of computing power in the coin’s network also began to increase. So, from late May to mid-August, the cryptocurrency hash rate increased from 87 to 130 EH/s. But over the past three days, the figure has dropped sharply by 20%, caused by floods in China. Torrential rains in Sichuan province caused power outages that interfered with the operation of mining farms. Changes in hashrate and mining rewards have affected its difficulty. On May 11, at the time of the halving, this figure was at around 16.1 T. By the current moment, this value has increased to 16.9 T, in July rising to a maximum of 17.3 T. The decline in the reward for mining cryptocurrency was partially offset by the increase in fees. Until May, a single BTC transfer cost the user an average of 50 cents. By the current moment, commissions have grown more than 10 times, to $5.5. Mining profitability is now at around 0.114 THash/s. It fell sharply immediately after the halving from 0.16 to 0.08 THash/s. To date, the indicator has grown by 40%. This was due to the rise in BTC prices and higher fees. Development Director at BitCluster Dmitry Shuvaev said that the profitability of the device for mining BTC s17–73Th/s is now about 8 thousand rubles per month (at an electricity price of 3.5 rubles per kWh). The payback period is about 15 months. Old devices, such as the Antminer S9, are now unprofitable to use, they do not bring profit. But this situation may change if the bitcoin rate rises to $15,000. “We recommend our customers to buy the new generation S17 or S19 devices. It is these devices that will provide profitability until the next halving. Their break-even point is at $6,000 per bitcoin”, Shuvaev said. In June, specialists from the research division of the BitMEX exchange announced that in the long term, 2–3 ASIC miner manufacturers will remain in the industry. Canaan’s Avalon devices were the first to hit the market in 2014. Three years later, in 2017, Bitmain took 75% of the market. Subscribe to our Telegram channel
New Lands, or New Eyes? | Monthly FIRE Portfolio Update - April 2020
The real voyage of discovery consists not in seeking new landscapes, but in having new eyes. - Marcel Proust, Remembrance of Things Past This is my forty-first portfolio update. I complete this update monthly to check my progress against my goal. Portfolio goal My objective is to reach a portfolio of $2 180 000 by 1 July 2021. This would produce a real annual income of about $87 000 (in 2020 dollars). This portfolio objective is based on an expected average real return of 3.99 per cent, or a nominal return of 6.49 per cent. Portfolio summary Vanguard Lifestrategy High Growth Fund – $697 582 Vanguard Lifestrategy Growth Fund – $40 709 Vanguard Lifestrategy Balanced Fund – $76 583 Vanguard Diversified Bonds Fund – $110 563 Vanguard Australian Shares ETF (VAS) – $174 864 Vanguard International Shares ETF (VGS) – $31 505 Betashares Australia 200 ETF (A200) – $215 805 Telstra shares (TLS) – $1 625 Insurance Australia Group shares (IAG) – $7 323 NIB Holdings shares (NHF) – $5 904 Gold ETF (GOLD.ASX) – $119 458 Secured physical gold – $19 269 Ratesetter (P2P lending) – $12 234 Bitcoin – $158 360 Raiz app (Aggressive portfolio) – $16 144 Spaceship Voyager app (Index portfolio) – $2 435 BrickX (P2P rental real estate) – $4 471 Total portfolio value: $1 694 834 (+$127 888 or 8.2%) Asset allocation Australian shares – 40.9% (4.1% under) Global shares – 21.7% Emerging markets shares – 2.2% International small companies – 3.0% Total international shares – 26.9% (3.1% under) Total shares – 67.8% (7.2% under) Total property securities – 0.3% (0.3% over) Australian bonds – 4.5% International bonds – 9.9% Total bonds – 14.4% (0.6% under) Gold – 8.2% Bitcoin – 9.3% Gold and alternatives – 17.5% (7.5% over) Presented visually, below is a high-level view of the current asset allocation of the portfolio. Comments This month featured a sharp recovery in the overall portfolio, reducing the size of the large losses experienced over the previous month. The portfolio increased by over $127 000, representing a growth of 8.2 per cent, which is the largest month-on-month growth on record. This now puts the portfolio value significantly above the levels of a year ago. [Chart] The expansion in the value of the portfolio has occurred due to an increase in Australian and global equities markets, as well as substantial increases the price of Bitcoin. This is effectively the mirror image of the simultaneous negative movements last month. From a nadir of initial pessimism in late March, markets have generally moved upwards as debate continues about the path of a likely economic recession and recovery from Coronavirus impacts over the coming year. [Chart] First quarter distributions from the Australian and Global Shares ETFs (A200, VAS and VGS) were received this month. These were too early to fully reflect the sharp economic activity impacts of the Coronavirus and lockdown period on company earnings. Despite this, they were significantly down on a cents per unit basis on the equivalent distributions last year. Totalling around $2700, these distributions formed part of new contributions to Vanguard's Australian shares ETF (VAS). The rapid falls in equity have many participants looking forward to a return to normalcy, or at least more open to the pleasing ideas that nerves have been held in a market fall comparable to 2000 or 2008-09, and that markets now represent clear value. As discussed last month, there should be caution and some humility about these questions, if some historical perspective is taken. As an example, the largest global equity market in the world - the United States - remains at valuation levels well above those experienced in previous market lows. Portfolio alternatives - tracking changes under the surface A striking feature of the past year or so has been the expansion of the non-traditional or 'alternatives' components of gold and Bitcoin as a proportion of the overall portfolio. Currently, when combined these alternative assets form a greater part of the portfolio than at any point over the past two years. The chart below shows that since January 2019 the gold and Bitcoin component of the portfolio has lifted from around its long term target level of 10 per cent, to now make up over 17 per cent of the portfolio. In the space of the last four months alone, it has lifted from 13 per cent. [Chart] With no purchases of either gold or Bitcoin over the period, the growth in the chart is the result of two reinforcing factors: A substantial fall in the value of the equity portfolio - reaching nearly $200 000 since the recent February market peak has naturally and mathematically led to a commensurate increase the proportion of other assets. Increases in the value of gold and Bitcoin - have also played a role with a total appreciation of around $150 000 across the two assets over the past 16 months. In fact, the value gold holdings alone have increased by over 40 per cent since January last year. Further appreciation of either gold or Bitcoin prices, particularly if any further falls in equity markets occur, could easily place the portfolio in the same position as experienced in January 2018. At that time these alternative assets made up 1 in every 5 dollars of the portfolio, an unusual, and in that case temporary phenomenon. This represents a different portfolio and risk exposure than that envisaged in my portfolio investment plan. Yet, equally it is critical to recall what the circumstances would likely be for this to arise. Simultaneously high gold and Bitcoin prices are more likely to occur in a situation of severe capital market dislocation, or falling confidence. On the other hand, should confidence and equity market growth be restored, both of these portfolio components could fall back to lower levels. It is difficult to tell which state of the world will eventuate, a key reason for diversification across asset types. United States government debt is already at record levels - equivalent in real terms to levels last seen when it emerged out of the Second World War - despite no similar national effort having being undertaken. Future inflation can potentially partly manage this burden, however, the last sustained episode of persistently high inflation rates during the decade of the 1970s spelt negative real returns. Where investors expect future inflation or financially 'repressive' policies of inflation exceeding interest rates, the economic growth required to 'grow out' of debt can be affected. At this point, my inclination is to address this circumstance gradually through time by re-balancing of distributions and new contributions, rather than to realise capital gains by selling assets at one, or several, points in time. Chasing down the lines - falling average spending in lockdown Since the implementation of lockdown restrictions, average credit card expenditure has fallen by nearly 30 per cent. This has taken credit card expenditure to lower than any similar period in the past six years. Partly as a result of this - as the chart below shows - a new development is occurring. The previously fairly steady card expenses line (red) is now starting to bend down towards, or 'chase', the rolling average distributions line (in blue). [Chart] The declining distributions line is a result of some previous high distributions gradually falling outside of the data 'window' for the rolling three-year comparison of distributions and expenditure. This intriguing picture will probably change before a cross-over occurs, as lockdown restrictions ease, and as the data feeding into the three year average slowly changes over time. Progress Progress against the objective, and the additional measures I have reached is set out below. Measure Portfolio All Assets Portfolio objective – $2 180 000 (or $87 000 pa) 77.7% 104.6% Credit card purchases – $71 000 pa 94.8% 127.6% Total expenses – $89 000 pa 76.0% 102.3% Summary Last month market volatility theoretically took progress down to below most of my financial independence benchmarks on an 'All Assets' (i.e. portfolio and superannuation assets) basis. This position has reversed this month. As markets have recovered and with additional spare time in the lockdown period, I have continued to seek out and think about different perspectives on the history and future of markets. Yet it must be recognised that there is a natural limit to the utility of these ponderings. The shape of the future is always uncertain, and in this world, confident comparisons and analogies with past events can be perilous. Comparisons with past periods of financial market crises miss the centrality of government action as a causal influence on the path of virus affected economies and markets. A virus and recovery is not the same as a global financial crisis originating in housing finance markets addressed through monetary and fiscal stimulus. Most developed country governments have quickly applied the same, if not larger versions of responses as applied in the global financial crisis, a distinguishing step that also makes analogies with the great depression era problematic. Similarly, a pandemic is not hitting and interacting with the shattered economic and health systems of the 1918-19 Spanish flu. Overlaying all of this is the imperfect and partially disconnected relationship between the economy today, and equity markets that discount and focus on the future. This makes all history's lessons more than usually caveated and conditional. One avenue for managing through these times is to focus on what does not change - the psychological difficulty of accepting alterations in financial circumstances and the capacity of markets movements to cruelly surprise us in both timing and direction. One of the best texts to read to get a sense of both of these in such times is Benjamin Roth's A Great Depression Diary. This tells of the day-by-day changes observed in everyday urban life and investment markets, from the point of view of an American small retail investor living through the times. This month also saw the exciting news that Pat the Shuffler and Strong Money Australia are combining efforts to produce a new podcast. Speaking of which, Big ERN's reflections on the current implications of sharemarket market movements for seekers of financial independence have been filled with insight and wisdom. This interesting piece (video) - the latest in a 'virus' market series - from New York University's Professor of Finance Aswath Damodaran on asset performances through the past few months - is a more technical and detailed discussion of how markets have re-priced businesses and profits. Finally, the recently released Hmmminar interview series provides a more heterodox set of speakers and ideas on current markets, presented by Grant Williams. Unlike predicting the future, seeking out different perspectives on it is perhaps the easiest it has ever been in history. While it is not always possible to change the course taken, it is possible to look at the same horizon with new eyes. The post, links and full charts can be seen here.
﷽ The Federal Reserve and the United States government are pumping extreme amounts of money into the economy, already totaling over $484 billion. They are doing so because it already had a goal to inflate the United States Dollar (USD) so that the market can continue to all-time highs. It has always had this goal. They do not care how much inflation goes up by now as we are going into a depression with the potential to totally crash the US economy forever. They believe the only way to save the market from going to zero or negative values is to inflate it so much that it cannot possibly crash that low. Even if the market does not dip that low, inflation serves the interest of powerful people. The impending crash of the stock market has ramifications for Bitcoin, as, though there is no direct ongoing-correlation between the two, major movements in traditional markets will necessarily affect Bitcoin. According to the Blockchain Center’s Cryptocurrency Correlation Tool, Bitcoin is not correlated with the stock market. However, when major market movements occur, they send ripples throughout the financial ecosystem which necessary affect even ordinarily uncorrelated assets. Therefore, Bitcoin will reach X price on X date after crashing to a price of X by X date.
Stock Market Crash
The Federal Reserve has caused some serious consternation with their release of ridiculous amounts of money in an attempt to buoy the economy. At face value, it does not seem to have any rationale or logic behind it other than keeping the economy afloat long enough for individuals to profit financially and politically. However, there is an underlying basis to what is going on which is important to understand in order to profit financially. All markets are functionally price probing systems. They constantly undergo a price-discovery process. In a fiat system, money is an illusory and a fundamentally synthetic instrument with no intrinsic value – similar to Bitcoin. The primary difference between Bitcoin is the underlying technology which provides a slew of benefits that fiat does not. Fiat, however, has an advantage in being able to have the support of powerful nation-states which can use their might to insure the currency’s prosperity. Traditional stock markets are composed of indices (pl. of index). Indices are non-trading market instruments which are essentially summaries of business values which comprise them. They are continuously recalculated throughout a trading day, and sometimes reflected through tradable instruments such as Exchange Traded Funds or Futures. Indices are weighted by market capitalizations of various businesses. Price theory essentially states that when a market fails to take out a new low in a given range, it will have an objective to take out the high. When a market fails to take out a new high, it has an objective to make a new low. This is why price-time charts go up and down, as it does this on a second-by-second, minute-by-minute, day-by-day, and even century-by-century basis. Therefore, market indices will always return to some type of bull market as, once a true low is formed, the market will have a price objective to take out a new high outside of its’ given range – which is an all-time high. Instruments can only functionally fall to zero, whereas they can grow infinitely. So, why inflate the economy so much? Deflation is disastrous for central banks and markets as it raises the possibility of producing an overall price objective of zero or negative values. Therefore, under a fractional reserve system with a fiat currency managed by a central bank – the goal of the central bank is to depreciate the currency. The dollar is manipulated constantly with the intention of depreciating its’ value. Central banks have a goal of continued inflated fiat values. They tend to ordinarily contain it at less than ten percent (10%) per annum in order for the psyche of the general populace to slowly adjust price increases. As such, the markets are divorced from any other logic. Economic policy is the maintenance of human egos, not catering to fundamental analysis. Gross Domestic Product (GDP) growth is well-known not to be a measure of actual growth or output. It is a measure of increase in dollars processed. Banks seek to produce raising numbers which make society feel like it is growing economically, making people optimistic. To do so, the currency is inflated, though inflation itself does not actually increase growth. When society is optimistic, it spends and engages in business – resulting in actual growth. It also encourages people to take on credit and debts, creating more fictional fiat. Inflation is necessary for markets to continue to reach new heights, generating positive emotional responses from the populace, encouraging spending, encouraging debt intake, further inflating the currency, and increasing the sale of government bonds. The fiat system only survives by generating more imaginary money on a regular basis. Bitcoin investors may profit from this by realizing that stock investors as a whole always stand to profit from the market so long as it is managed by a central bank and does not collapse entirely. If those elements are filled, it has an unending price objective to raise to new heights. It also allows us to realize that this response indicates that the higher-ups believe that the economy could crash in entirety, and it may be wise for investors to have multiple well-thought-out exit strategies.
Economic Analysis of Bitcoin
The reason why the Fed is so aggressively inflating the economy is due to fears that it will collapse forever or never rebound. As such, coupled with a global depression, a huge demand will appear for a reserve currency which is fundamentally different than the previous system. Bitcoin, though a currency or asset, is also a market. It also undergoes a constant price-probing process. Unlike traditional markets, Bitcoin has the exact opposite goal. Bitcoin seeks to appreciate in value and not depreciate. This has a quite different affect in that Bitcoin could potentially become worthless and have a price objective of zero. Bitcoin was created in 2008 by a now famous mysterious figure known as Satoshi Nakamoto and its’ open source code was released in 2009. It was the first decentralized cryptocurrency to utilize a novel protocol known as the blockchain. Up to one megabyte of data may be sent with each transaction. It is decentralized, anonymous, transparent, easy to set-up, and provides myriad other benefits. Bitcoin is not backed up by anything other than its’ own technology. Bitcoin is can never be expected to collapse as a framework, even were it to become worthless. The stock market has the potential to collapse in entirety, whereas, as long as the internet exists, Bitcoin will be a functional system with a self-authenticating framework. That capacity to persist regardless of the actual price of Bitcoin and the deflationary nature of Bitcoin means that it has something which fiat does not – inherent value. Bitcoin is based on a distributed database known as the “blockchain.” Blockchains are essentially decentralized virtual ledger books, replete with pages known as “blocks.” Each page in a ledger is composed of paragraph entries, which are the actual transactions in the block. Blockchains store information in the form of numerical transactions, which are just numbers. We can consider these numbers digital assets, such as Bitcoin. The data in a blockchain is immutable and recorded only by consensus-based algorithms. Bitcoin is cryptographic and all transactions are direct, without intermediary, peer-to-peer. Bitcoin does not require trust in a central bank. It requires trust on the technology behind it, which is open-source and may be evaluated by anyone at any time. Furthermore, it is impossible to manipulate as doing so would require all of the nodes in the network to be hacked at once – unlike the stock market which is manipulated by the government and “Market Makers”. Bitcoin is also private in that, though the ledge is openly distributed, it is encrypted. Bitcoin’s blockchain has one of the greatest redundancy and information disaster recovery systems ever developed. Bitcoin has a distributed governance model in that it is controlled by its’ users. There is no need to trust a payment processor or bank, or even to pay fees to such entities. There are also no third-party fees for transaction processing. As the ledge is immutable and transparent it is never possible to change it – the data on the blockchain is permanent. The system is not easily susceptible to attacks as it is widely distributed. Furthermore, as users of Bitcoin have their private keys assigned to their transactions, they are virtually impossible to fake. No lengthy verification, reconciliation, nor clearing process exists with Bitcoin. Bitcoin is based on a proof-of-work algorithm. Every transaction on the network has an associated mathetical “puzzle”. Computers known as miners compete to solve the complex cryptographic hash algorithm that comprises that puzzle. The solution is proof that the miner engaged in sufficient work. The puzzle is known as a nonce, a number used only once. There is only one major nonce at a time and it issues 12.5 Bitcoin. Once it is solved, the fact that the nonce has been solved is made public. A block is mined on average of once every ten minutes. However, the blockchain checks every 2,016,000 minutes (approximately four years) if 201,600 blocks were mined. If it was faster, it increases difficulty by half, thereby deflating Bitcoin. If it was slower, it decreases, thereby inflating Bitcoin. It will continue to do this until zero Bitcoin are issued, projected at the year 2140. On the twelfth of May, 2020, the blockchain will halve the amount of Bitcoin issued when each nonce is guessed. When Bitcoin was first created, fifty were issued per block as a reward to miners. 6.25 BTC will be issued from that point on once each nonce is solved. Unlike fiat, Bitcoin is a deflationary currency. As BTC becomes scarcer, demand for it will increase, also raising the price. In this, BTC is similar to gold. It is predictable in its’ output, unlike the USD, as it is based on a programmed supply. We can predict BTC’s deflation and inflation almost exactly, if not exactly. Only 21 million BTC will ever be produced, unless the entire network concedes to change the protocol – which is highly unlikely. Some of the drawbacks to BTC include congestion. At peak congestion, it may take an entire day to process a Bitcoin transaction as only three to five transactions may be processed per second. Receiving priority on a payment may cost up to the equivalent of twenty dollars ($20). Bitcoin mining consumes enough energy in one day to power a single-family home for an entire week.
Trading or Investing?
The fundamental divide in trading revolves around the question of market structure. Many feel that the market operates totally randomly and its’ behavior cannot be predicted. For the purposes of this article, we will assume that the market has a structure, but that that structure is not perfect. That market structure naturally generates chart patterns as the market records prices in time. In order to determine when the stock market will crash, causing a major decline in BTC price, we will analyze an instrument, an exchange traded fund, which represents an index, as opposed to a particular stock. The price patterns of the various stocks in an index are effectively smoothed out. In doing so, a more technical picture arises. Perhaps the most popular of these is the SPDR S&P Standard and Poor 500 Exchange Traded Fund ($SPY). In trading, little to no concern is given about value of underlying asset. We are concerned primarily about liquidity and trading ranges, which are the amount of value fluctuating on a short-term basis, as measured by volatility-implied trading ranges. Fundamental analysis plays a role, however markets often do not react to real-world factors in a logical fashion. Therefore, fundamental analysis is more appropriate for long-term investing. The fundamental derivatives of a chart are time (x-axis) and price (y-axis). The primary technical indicator is price, as everything else is lagging in the past. Price represents current asking price and incorrectly implementing positions based on price is one of the biggest trading errors. Markets and currencies ordinarily have noise, their tendency to back-and-fill, which must be filtered out for true pattern recognition. That noise does have a utility, however, in allowing traders second chances to enter favorable positions at slightly less favorable entry points. When you have any market with enough liquidity for historical data to record a pattern, then a structure can be divined. The market probes prices as part of an ongoing price-discovery process. Market technicians must sometimes look outside of the technical realm and use visual inspection to ascertain the relevance of certain patterns, using a qualitative eye that recognizes the underlying quantitative nature Markets and instruments rise slower than they correct, however they rise much more than they fall. In the same vein, instruments can only fall to having no worth, whereas they could theoretically grow infinitely and have continued to grow over time. Money in a fiat system is illusory. It is a fundamentally synthetic instrument which has no intrinsic value. Hence, the recent seemingly illogical fluctuations in the market. According to trade theory, the unending purpose of a market or instrument is to create and break price ranges according to the laws of supply and demand. We must determine when to trade based on each market inflection point as defined in price and in time as opposed to abandoning the trend (as the contrarian trading in this sub often does). Time and Price symmetry must be used to be in accordance with the trend. When coupled with a favorable risk to reward ratio, the ability to stay in the market for most of the defined time period, and adherence to risk management rules; the trader has a solid methodology for achieving considerable gains. We will engage in a longer term market-oriented analysis to avoid any time-focused pressure. The Bitcoin market is open twenty-four-hours a day, so trading may be done when the individual is ready, without any pressing need to be constantly alert. Let alone, we can safely project months in advance with relatively high accuracy. Bitcoin is an asset which an individual can both trade and invest, however this article will be focused on trading due to the wide volatility in BTC prices over the short-term.
Technical Indicator Analysis of Bitcoin
Technical indicators are often considered self-fulfilling prophecies due to mass-market psychology gravitating towards certain common numbers yielded from them. They are also often discounted when it comes to BTC. That means a trader must be especially aware of these numbers as they can prognosticate market movements. Often, they are meaningless in the larger picture of things.
Volume – derived from the market itself, it is mostly irrelevant. The major problem with volume for stocks is that the US market open causes tremendous volume surges eradicating any intrinsic volume analysis. This does not occur with BTC, as it is open twenty-four-seven. At major highs and lows, the market is typically anemic. Most traders are not active at terminal discretes (peaks and troughs) because of levels of fear. Volume allows us confidence in time and price symmetry market inflection points, if we observe low volume at a foretold range of values. We can rationalize that an absolute discrete is usually only discovered and anticipated by very few traders. As the general market realizes it, a herd mentality will push the market in the direction favorable to defending it. Volume is also useful for swing trading, as chances for swing’s validity increases if an increase in volume is seen on and after the swing’s activation. Volume is steadily decreasing. Lows and highs are reached when volume is lower.
Therefore, due to the relatively high volume on the 12th of March, we can safely determine that a low for BTC was not reached.
VIX – Volatility Index, this technical indicator indicates level of fear by the amount of options-based “insurance” in portfolios. A low VIX environment, less than 20 for the S&P index, indicates a stable market with a possible uptrend. A high VIX, over 20, indicates a possible downtrend. VIX is essentially useless for BTC as BTC-based options do not exist. It allows us to predict the market low for $SPY, which will have an indirect impact on BTC in the short term, likely leading to the yearly low. However, it is equally important to see how VIX is changing over time, if it is decreasing or increasing, as that indicates increasing or decreasing fear. Low volatility allows high leverage without risk or rest. Occasionally, markets do rise with high VIX.
As VIX is unusually high, in the forties, we can be confident that a downtrend for the S&P 500 is imminent.
RSI (Relative Strength Index): The most important technical indicator, useful for determining highs and lows when time symmetry is not availing itself. Sometimes analysis of RSI can conflict in different time frames, easiest way to use it is when it is at extremes – either under 30 or over 70. Extremes can be used for filtering highs or lows based on time-and-price window calculations. Highly instructive as to major corrective clues and indicative of continued directional movement. Must determine if longer-term RSI values find support at same values as before. It is currently at 73.56.
Secondly, RSI may be used as a high or low filter, to observe the level that short-term RSI reaches in counter-trend corrections. Repetitions based on market movements based on RSI determine how long a trade should be held onto. Once a short term RSI reaches an extreme and stay there, the other RSI’s should gradually reach the same extremes. Once all RSI’s are at extreme highs, a trend confirmation should occur and RSI’s should drop to their midpoint.
Trend Definition Analysis of Bitcoin
Trend definition is highly powerful, cannot be understated. Knowledge of trend logic is enough to be a profitable trader, yet defining a trend is an arduous process. Multiple trends coexist across multiple time frames and across multiple market sectors. Like time structure, it makes the underlying price of the instrument irrelevant. Trend definitions cannot determine the validity of newly formed discretes. Trend becomes apparent when trades based in counter-trend inflection points continue to fail. Downtrends are defined as an instrument making lower lows and lower highs that are recurrent, additive, qualified swing setups. Downtrends for all instruments are similar, except forex. They are fast and complete much quicker than uptrends. An average downtrend is 18 months, something which we will return to. An uptrend inception occurs when an instrument reaches a point where it fails to make a new low, then that low will be tested. After that, the instrument will either have a deep range retracement or it may take out the low slightly, resulting in a double-bottom. A swing must eventually form. A simple way to roughly determine trend is to attempt to draw a line from three tops going upwards (uptrend) or a line from three bottoms going downwards (downtrend). It is not possible to correctly draw a downtrend line on the BTC chart, but it is possible to correctly draw an uptrend – indicating that the overall trend is downwards. The only mitigating factor is the impending stock market crash.
Time Symmetry Analysis of Bitcoin
Time is the movement from the past through the present into the future. It is a measurement in quantified intervals. In many ways, our perception of it is a human construct. It is more powerful than price as time may be utilized for a trade regardless of the market inflection point’s price. Were it possible to perfectly understand time, price would be totally irrelevant due to the predictive certainty time affords. Time structure is easier to learn than price, but much more difficult to apply with any accuracy. It is the hardest aspect of trading to learn, but also the most rewarding. Humans do not have the ability to recognize every time window, however the ability to define market inflection points in terms of time is the single most powerful trading edge. Regardless, price should not be abandoned for time alone. Time structure analysis It is inherently flawed, as such the markets have a fail-safe, which is Price Structure. Even though Time is much more powerful, Price Structure should never be completely ignored. Time is the qualifier for Price and vice versa. Time can fail by tricking traders into counter-trend trading. Time is a predestined trade quantifier, a filter to slow trades down, as it allows a trader to specifically focus on specific time windows and rest at others. It allows for quantitative measurements to reach deterministic values and is the primary qualifier for trends. Time structure should be utilized before price structure, and it is the primary trade criterion which requires support from price. We can see price structure on a chart, as areas of mathematical support or resistance, but we cannot see time structure. Time may be used to tell us an exact point in the future where the market will inflect, after Price Theory has been fulfilled. In the present, price objectives based on price theory added to possible future times for market inflection points give us the exact time of market inflection points and price. Time Structure is repetitions of time or inherent cycles of time, occurring in a methodical way to provide time windows which may be utilized for inflection points. They are not easily recognized and not easily defined by a price chart as measuring and observing time is very exact. Time structure is not a science, yet it does require precise measurements. Nothing is certain or definite. The critical question must be if a particular approach to time structure is currently lucrative or not. We will measure it in intervals of 180 bars. Our goal is to determine time windows, when the market will react and when we should pay the most attention. By using time repetitions, the fact that market inflection points occurred at some point in the past and should, therefore, reoccur at some point in the future, we should obtain confidence as to when SPY will reach a market inflection point. Time repetitions are essentially the market’s memory. However, simply measuring the time between two points then trying to extrapolate into the future does not work. Measuring time is not the same as defining time repetitions. We will evaluate past sessions for market inflection points, whether discretes, qualified swings, or intra-range. Then records the times that the market has made highs or lows in a comparable time period to the future one seeks to trade in. What follows is a time Histogram – A grouping of times which appear close together, then segregated based on that closeness. Time is aligned into combined histogram of repetitions and cycles, however cycles are irrelevant on a daily basis. If trading on an hourly basis, do not use hours.
Daily Lows Mode for those Months: 1, 1, 2, 4, 12, 17, 18, 24, 25, 28, 29, 30
Hourly Lows Mode for those Months (Military time): 0100, 0200, 0200, 0400, 0700, 0700, 0800, 1200, 1200, 1700, 2000, 2200
Minute Lows Mode for those Months: 00, 00, 00, 00, 00, 00, 09, 09, 59, 59, 59, 59
Day of the Week Lows (last twenty-six weeks):
Weighted Times are repetitions which appears multiple times within the same list, observed and accentuated once divided into relevant sections of the histogram. They are important in the presently defined trading time period and are similar to a mathematical mode with respect to a series. Phased times are essentially periodical patterns in histograms, though they do not guarantee inflection points Evaluating the yearly lows, we see that BTC tends to have its lows primarily at the beginning of every year, with a possibility of it being at the end of the year. Following the same methodology, we get the middle of the month as the likeliest day. However, evaluating the monthly lows for the past year, the beginning and end of the month are more likely for lows. Therefore, we have two primary dates from our histogram. 1/1/21, 1/15/21, and 1/29/21 2:00am, 8:00am, 12:00pm, or 10:00pm In fact, the high for this year was February the 14th, only thirty days off from our histogram calculations. The 8.6-Year Armstrong-Princeton Global Economic Confidence model states that 2.15 year intervals occur between corrections, relevant highs and lows. 2.15 years from the all-time peak discrete is February 9, 2020 – a reasonably accurate depiction of the low for this year (which was on 3/12/20). (Taking only the Armstrong model into account, the next high should be Saturday, April 23, 2022). Therefore, the Armstrong model indicates that we have actually bottomed out for the year! Bear markets cannot exist in perpetuity whereas bull markets can. Bear markets will eventually have price objectives of zero, whereas bull markets can increase to infinity. It can occur for individual market instruments, but not markets as a whole. Since bull markets are defined by low volatility, they also last longer. Once a bull market is indicated, the trader can remain in a long position until a new high is reached, then switch to shorts. The average bear market is eighteen months long, giving us a date of August 19th, 2021 for the end of this bear market – roughly speaking. They cannot be shorter than fifteen months for a central-bank controlled market, which does not apply to Bitcoin. (Otherwise, it would continue until Sunday, September 12, 2021.) However, we should expect Bitcoin to experience its’ exponential growth after the stock market re-enters a bull market. Terry Laundy’s T-Theory implemented by measuring the time of an indicator from peak to trough, then using that to define a future time window. It is similar to an head-and-shoulders pattern in that it is the process of forming the right side from a synthetic technical indicator. If the indicator is making continued lows, then time is recalculated for defining the right side of the T. The date of the market inflection point may be a price or indicator inflection date, so it is not always exactly useful. It is better to make us aware of possible market inflection points, clustered with other data. It gives us an RSI low of May, 9th 2020. The Bradley Cycle is coupled with volatility allows start dates for campaigns or put options as insurance in portfolios for stocks. However, it is also useful for predicting market moves instead of terminal dates for discretes. Using dates which correspond to discretes, we can see how those dates correspond with changes in VIX. Therefore, our timeline looks like:
2/14/20 – yearly high ($10372 USD)
3/12/20 – yearly low thus far ($3858 USD)
5/9/20 – T-Theory true yearly low (BTC between 4863 and 3569)
https://preview.redd.it/crbhgda6c0651.png?width=640&format=png&auto=webp&s=522357d06b1f3c893f996dbd3b79aab5461e4dfb Blockchain has been described as an omnipotent technology since its inception. It is expected to affect all walks of life and even reshape production relations. However, blockchain itself has a technical bottleneck called "Impossible Triangle", which is still far from its potential. The so-called "Impossible Triangle" of blockchain, also known as the "ternary paradox", means that no matter which consensus mechanism is adopted by blockchain network to determine the generation mode of new blocks, it cannot take into account the three requirements of throughput, security and decentralization at the same time. For example, bitcoin can theoretically guarantee security and decentralization on the basis of large amount of computing power. But the disadvantage is that it is difficult to improve throughput, slow speed and high cost. EOS, which is said to take improving throughput as an important technological breakthrough, adopts the consensus mechanism of dpos, greatly reducing the number of nodes and being criticized for sacrificing the essence of decentralization. Although the "king of ten thousand chains" Ethereum has the partition technology as the solution of capacity expansion, it can't fall down because of the technical difficulty. Forbes uses "zero knowledge proof" technology, greatly improves throughput without sacrificing decentralization, and solves the "Impossible Triangle" problem that has plagued the blockchain industry for many years. 1、 Zero knowledge proof First, we introduce the concept of lower zero knowledge proof. Zero knowledge proof, as the name implies, is not only to fully prove that they are the legitimate owners of certain rights and interests, but also not to disclose relevant information - that is to say, the "knowledge" to the outside world is "zero". The certifier proves to the verifier and makes him believe that he knows or has some information, but the proving process cannot disclose any information to the verifier. Case 1: a wants to prove to B that he has the key of a room. Suppose that the room can only open the lock with the key, and no other method can open it. There are two ways: ① A shows the key to B, and B uses the key to open the lock of the room, so as to prove that a has the correct key of the room. ② B. make sure that there is an object in the room. A opens the door of the room with his own key, and then takes the object out and shows it to B, so as to prove that he does have the key of the room. The second method belongs to zero knowledge proof. Its advantage is that in the whole process of proof, B can never see the appearance of the key, thus avoiding the leakage of the key. Case 2: there is a circular corridor. The exit and the entrance are the same, but there is a door that can only be opened with a key somewhere in the middle of the corridor. A needs to prove to B that he has the key to the door. With zero knowledge proof, B looks at a entering the corridor from the entrance and then going out of the corridor from the exit. At this time, B does not get any information about the key, but it can completely prove that a has the key. https://preview.redd.it/psbzg9ylc0651.png?width=571&format=png&auto=webp&s=6d58835a211e4d391112cf39720f4aaecda869f6 A large number of facts prove that zero knowledge proof is very useful in cryptography. If zero knowledge proof can be used for verification, many problems will be solved effectively. So how does Forbes use zero knowledge proof to improve TPS? 2、 Second floor expansion It is difficult to solve the "Impossible Triangle" problem if you directly modify the blockchain architecture itself to improve the throughput. After all, the more nodes, it is very difficult to improve the TPS technology on the premise of decentralization. But Forbes thought of the "curve saving the nation" scheme, that is, without changing the blockchain itself, to improve the TPS by setting the second layer architecture. Here is a case in life: If the Forbes public chain is regarded as a real-life bank, and the transfer operation is carried out on the Forbes public chain, it is like handling the transfer business in the bank's counter, but the difference is that the bank is centralized and the blockchain is decentralized. In the case of few people, it's easy for users to handle the transfer business in the bank, but once there are more people, it's easy to form a long queue, which makes the users in the back have a long wait. Blockchain is like a bank. When there are more people in the transfer queue, there will be a block. So to improve the throughput of blockchain is how to improve the speed of bank transfer business. But the bank is so big. There are so many bank staff (you can compare the bank staff to the nodes of the blockchain). It is very difficult for the bank to improve the speed of handling the transfer business. This makes the people behind the line angry, but they have no choice. https://preview.redd.it/euxut33zc0651.png?width=658&format=png&auto=webp&s=899292e272be66b1ead3113db0d21fd9d8985dca Finally, one of the people at the back of the line couldn't bear to wait. He stood up and said, "we can't wait. We have to find ways to improve our efficiency." And they said to him, you are not a banker. What can you do. So, the man said confidently, "let's see my operation and cooperate with me.". Only the person pulls out a book for bookkeeping, starts from the fifth person in line, records the balance of each person's account after transfer in detail, and then asks each person to confirm that the note book is authorized by hand print. Then after the last person records, he gets an account book for recording the final balance of the owner's account. Although there is no specific transfer record in this account book, it is recorded accurately Record the balance of each person's transfer. Although some people transfer to each other many times, no matter how many times they transfer, people only care about the balance of their final account After that person's statistics, just in time, the fourth person in line finished the transfer at the bank. Then he walked into the bank with this account book and said that this was the account balance after the fifth person started the transfer of all the people. The bank only needs to change the account balance of these people in the system. At the first sight of the bank, it's not easy. The staff swiped it and changed all the balances of these accounts at once, so that the bank's handling of transfer business increased by several hundred times. This is how Forbes is implemented. By setting the second level node, which is called relay, let relay collect the account transfer information of queued users and verify the user's signature. After calculation, integrate the token balance information of the final address into the Merkel tree and submit it to the chain, and then process it at one time. We call this method of improving the block chain TPS "the second layer expansion". At first glance, this scheme is perfect, but there are various problems in practical operation. For example:
How can the bank believe that the person with the final account book actually counts the transfer requests of all the queuers?
What if this person, because of personal grudges, intentionally misses the statistics for those who don't like it?
What if this person secretly changes the account balance on the way to the bank?
At this time, zero knowledge proof will be of great use. https://preview.redd.it/25p5vrb9d0651.png?width=599&format=png&auto=webp&s=9d07cb226d1f6f318703c76c5f4d9000b370145a 3、 Zero knowledge proof + second layer expansion + smart contract To solve the above problems is actually to solve the problem of trust. The bank is not stupid. It's OK to let the bank send its own staff. Each staff sent by the bank will issue a "work permit" and an open box with a lock before departure. When you count transfers for people in line, the account book is safe, because people will supervise him. When you count the last person, the staff will put the account book into a locked box and close it. In this way, on the way to the bank, the staff can't do evil and modify the account data. After arriving at the bank, the bank only recognizes the "work permit" and confirms that it is its own staff. Without opening the locked box, it can be determined that this person is indeed trustworthy. It can be seen that in the whole process, the bank gets ZERO account information, but believes that the transfer data counted by this person is safe and reliable, which is zero knowledge proof. The principle of Forbes technology is exactly the same. The main chain will use the zero knowledge circuit to generate the certificate called proof. When relay counts the transfer information of users, it will finally package and submit the general ledger Merkel tree, and use proof to encrypt. After the main chain sees the encrypted package, it will use proof to decrypt, perform the calculation of modifying the address token balance, and then broadcast to the whole node. But there is still a problem that hasn't been solved, that is, what should staff do if they intentionally miss the bookkeeping of people who don't look good? Or the staff ask for a tip from the user. If they don't tip, they don't charge. What should we do? In fact, it's also easy to handle. People who miss the account or are asked for tips will definitely complain to the bank angrily. After the bank checks, they only need to deduct the balance of the staff's account. Here Forbes will arrange smart contracts on the main chain, and require the added relay to mortgage a sufficient number of GFS on the main chain. If relay misses the user transfer request or intentionally increases the transfer fee, the main chain will deduct the pledge GFS of relay through the smart contract to compensate the user's loss. See here, congratulations on finally understanding the technical solution of Forbes to improve TPS. Under the support of huge distributed mining pool, Forbes not only has a large number of nodes to provide ultra-high security and decentralization, but also uses zero knowledge proof + second expansion + smart contract to easily increase TPS to more than 10000, which solves the "Impossible Triangle" problem of blockchain. I think you must have noticed the details of the pledge of GFS by relay. If smart people don't explain, they can predict the future value of GFS from the details.
Bitcoin Halving is done !! And it has something for everyone in the bag Well as far as the traders and investors are concerned, I would like to go by the belief that history repeats itself, but to what extent will it turn out the same way this time around will be something to watch out for. The bitcoin value grew from approximately 600 USD to 3000 USD in 11 months post the previous halving in 2016, and growth continued until bitcoin reached its highest ever market price at 19,783.06 USD in December 2017. With respect to the last two halvings, the volume of BTC is much higher with it rising from nearly 1 billion dollars in 2016 to 21.6 billion dollars (as of 13th March,2020). Miners have become a lesser factor but still, old generation miners might have to close their activities which in turn will decrease the difficulty level and be profitable for new generation miners with newer equipment, but predicting whether the decrease in miners will affect the value of BTC is like taking a blindfold shot. The halving has coincided with the COVID-19 pandemic and with global recession inevitable the future for bitcoin traders is a mystery which only time can unfold.
05-09 00:44 - 'HOW THE HALVING WILL AFFECT MINERS?' (self.Bitcoin) by /u/melissaBrian0 removed from /r/Bitcoin within 4-14min
''' With Bitcoin (BTC) block rewards expected to halve during the early hours of May 12, many analysts are starting to weigh in on what the event will mean for the crypto markets and mining community. Three major bitcoin analyst gave their take on whether the halving is likely to comprise a “healthy rebalance”, or a catalyst for migrating hash power and rising fees. Analysts discuss impacts of halving on miners Johnson Xu, the chief analyst at TokenInsight, predicts the halving will have a significant impact on miners. “A large percentage of older generation miners such as S9s will be shut down in the short term, and phase-out from the network permanently in a few months post-halving,” Ji stated. “The bitcoin halving will result in the network in short term chaos, however, once the difficulty adjustment kicks in and self-adjust to an equilibrium state, we will see the bitcoin network back to a stable position quickly. The halving is positive to the industry in the long run.” “Bitcoin halving is a healthy rebalance to force the network to re-adjust itself into an efficient network where miners can make sufficient margin,” Ji concluded. Halving to impact miners While Zach Resnick, managing partner at Bitcoin SV (BSV)-focussed investment firm, Unbounded Capital, agrees that the halving will disrupt mining operation, he predicts the event will comprise anything but a healthy rebalance. Resnick argues that the halving will wreak havoc on BTC miners and drive a migration of hash power to rival chains such as BSV or Bitcoin Cash (BCH) alongside heavy price losses. “At the moment of the halving, many miners will become unprofitable, and some will likely move to mining BCH and BSV,” said Resnick. “As miners fall off the BTC network, block times will lengthen. If price falls, then more miners will fall off the network.” “If transaction volume increases, fees could quickly spike to unusually high levels since block space will be more scarce due to the longer block times. High fees can make headlines that see prices continue to fall, block times continue to lengthen, and fees continue to rise.” “Because we don't believe there is a fundamental reason for prices to increase, we think it is somewhat likely that speculators waiting for a price surge will cut bait if price is stagnant, and very likely speculators will sell if prices are dropping quickly.” “Many miners are also highly leveraged and may seek to front-run an exit if they no longer believe that a price surge is imminent,” he added.” Will prices rise after the halving? By contrast, NEM Ventures’ head of trading, Nicholas Pelecanos, stated that the halving “has historically signaled the start of Bitcoin's most tremendous bull runs.” However, Pelecanos notes that the reduction in block rewards usually triggers “a brief sell-off” alongside an immediate decline in hashing power. “The 2012 halving was followed by an immediate 10% sell-off and the 2016 sell-off witnessed an extended 38% decline. Both halvings were followed by an approximate 50-day decline in the hashrate.” Pelecanos predicts that the disruptions to miners may be temporary, stating: “If history were to repeat itself and bitcoin entered into a decline post halving, high operating cost miners may have to shut down their rigs until bitcoin reaches a sustainable price ''' HOW THE HALVING WILL AFFECT MINERS? Go1dfish undelete link unreddit undelete link Author: melissaBrian0
HOW THE HALVING WILL AFFECT MINERS? With Bitcoin (BTC) block rewards expected to halve during the early hours of May 12, many analysts are starting to weigh in on what the event will mean for the crypto markets and mining community. Three major bitcoin analyst gave their take on whether the halving is likely to comprise a “healthy rebalance”, or a catalyst for migrating hash power and rising fees. Analysts discuss impacts of halving on miners Johnson Xu, the chief analyst at TokenInsight, predicts the halving will have a significant impact on miners. “A large percentage of older generation miners such as S9s will be shut down in the short term, and phase-out from the network permanently in a few months post-halving,” Ji stated. “The bitcoin halving will result in the network in short term chaos, however, once the difficulty adjustment kicks in and self-adjust to an equilibrium state, we will see the bitcoin network back to a stable position quickly. The halving is positive to the industry in the long run.” “Bitcoin halving is a healthy rebalance to force the network to re-adjust itself into an efficient network where miners can make sufficient margin,” Ji concluded. Halving to impact miners While Zach Resnick, managing partner at Bitcoin SV (BSV)-focussed investment firm, Unbounded Capital, agrees that the halving will disrupt mining operation, he predicts the event will comprise anything but a healthy rebalance. Resnick argues that the halving will wreak havoc on BTC miners and drive a migration of hash power to rival chains such as BSV or Bitcoin Cash (BCH) alongside heavy price losses. “At the moment of the halving, many miners will become unprofitable, and some will likely move to mining BCH and BSV,” said Resnick. “As miners fall off the BTC network, block times will lengthen. If price falls, then more miners will fall off the network.” “If transaction volume increases, fees could quickly spike to unusually high levels since block space will be more scarce due to the longer block times. High fees can make headlines that see prices continue to fall, block times continue to lengthen, and fees continue to rise.” “Because we don't believe there is a fundamental reason for prices to increase, we think it is somewhat likely that speculators waiting for a price surge will cut bait if price is stagnant, and very likely speculators will sell if prices are dropping quickly.” “Many miners are also highly leveraged and may seek to front-run an exit if they no longer believe that a price surge is imminent,” he added.” Will prices rise after the halving? By contrast, NEM Ventures’ head of trading, Nicholas Pelecanos, stated that the halving “has historically signaled the start of Bitcoin's most tremendous bull runs.” However, Pelecanos notes that the reduction in block rewards usually triggers “a brief sell-off” alongside an immediate decline in hashing power. “The 2012 halving was followed by an immediate 10% sell-off and the 2016 sell-off witnessed an extended 38% decline. Both halvings were followed by an approximate 50-day decline in the hashrate.” Pelecanos predicts that the disruptions to miners may be temporary, stating: “If history were to repeat itself and bitcoin entered into a decline post halving, high operating cost miners may have to shut down their rigs until bitcoin reaches a sustainable price
Statement on the Discussion of Shortening Block Time
Discussions on shortening block time have caused widespread concern in the BCH community. On this issue, I think: Zero confirmation is very important for the development of BCH. We should fully support the technologies that improve zero-confirmation security. However, in some important application cases, such as exchange funding, more than one confirmation is still needed within a few years. At present, the user experience of BCH’s confirmation is very bad, which is very unfavorable for the fierce competition in the cryptocurrency market in recent years. If you do not get enough market share, BCH's long-term advantage will also lose the opportunity to show. Therefore, it is recommended to shorten the block time. This view represents the opinions of the majority in the Chinese community who have experienced the scaling debate and the hash war. In fact, the Chinese community has been discussing this issue since the end of 2017. After a year and a half, especially after the hash war, supporters have grown and become consensus among senior members, and most of the opponents have turned to BSV because they Believe in CSW, against all kinds of changes.  Even in the Chinese community, many BCH supporters who entered the community after the hash War did not support shortening the block time. They also believed that the 10-minute block was more in line with the original bitcoin. In contrast, the supporters for shortening block time in Chinese community are concern more about market and user needs than nominal orthodoxy. About half a year ago, I also communicated with the developers on this issue. Combined with the discussion results of the Chinese community and the opinions of the developers, I wrote a proposal to discuss the reasons, possible impacts and some objections for shortening block time. (https://medium.com/@ChangyongLiu/proposal-to-shorten-the-block-time-of-bch-1d7e8e897497) The main opinions of developers were four points:
The current development focus is on improving zero-confirmation. Security;
shortening block time will affect block size, block reward, time lock, etc., which will be very complicated to deal with;
need more clear case to explain the need to shorten block time;
English community don’t support to shorten block time.
At the same time, another Chinese community member posted the suggestion on btc. I showed my support and linked the article in the post. (https://www.reddit.com/btc/comments/ad3uebe_strongly_against_reducing_block_time_from_10/eddvv7m/?context=3)At that time, the English community did not support this proposal. The post were subjected to fierce opposition. It has been more than a year since the Chinese community discussed this issue to the majority reached the consensus. We don't think we can rush to shorten the block time. We need more time to communicate and think. Therefore, the Chinese community has suspended the promotion of shortening block time for half a year. Recently, due to price fluctuations and hash fluctuations, the BCH's confirmation waiting time fluctuated greatly, often encountering an acknowledgement waiting time of more than one hour. For users who are waiting for funding in exchanges, the experience is very bad. Moreover, we are often asked: "BCH has not had a new block for an hour, has it been attacked again?" Some senior members of the community are also losing patience. They can’t understand that such urgent improvements have not received enough attention. I am also very worried about this, so I summarized the recent problems and specific cases, and posted on btc again, suggesting to shorten the block time. ( https://www.reddit.com/btc/comments/cfu99n/the_block_time_of_bch_should_be_shorten建议缩短bch出块时间/) After a few days of discussion, I was very happy to see that although some people still regard the proposal as an attack on BCH, there are already more people who can seriously discuss the proposal to shorten the block time. There have also been progresses in the communicate with the developers. Many people have already seen that the cases of one more confirmation are still in existence. The bad experience of confirmation does affect the competitiveness of BCH. Some discussions have gradually delved into the details. This is very gratifying. However, we also see that there is not enough consensus to shorten the block time. At least the complicated impact of shortening the block time needs to be carefully evaluated and tested. The technical difficulty, workload and the scare of developing resources should also be carefully considered. It is not excluded that the result of the final evaluation is that the shortening of the block time is not feasible, or that zero confirmation of the increase in safety can cause almost all of the cases of confirmation to be replaced by zero confirmation. In this case, giving up the shortening of the block time will become a consensus. The discussion can reach the current state, recognizing that at least there is still a need to shorten the block time in the near future, and began to seriously discuss, I personally think that I have achieved the purpose of my proposal. What is needed next is more communication and collaboration. In fact, through this discussion, the communication between Chinese and English communities has improved a lot, and more smooth communication channels are being established, which is beneficial to the development of BCH. In the relevant discussions, some people tried to take the opportunity to split the Chinese and English communities, and even predicted the new division of BCH, and brought me a hat to try to conspiracy to split the community. I think they are either overly sensitive or support core or bsv. I don't want to spend time in more argument about these. There are many positive things that we need to do. In fact, there has been a consensus among Chinese community members who support the shortening of block time: “Reducing block time is only a suggestion for improvement. The premise of implementation is to form a community consensus and will not lead to any split. If the consensus is not reached, it can be put on hold. And continue to evaluate and discuss." Among the various cryptocurrencies, the scaling debate and the hash war had leaded the BCH community to be a more mature decentralized community. I think we have the patience to reach consensus, but also very firmly identify all kinds of real attacks, and resolutely fight back, just like we did during the hash war. I personally specialize in economic and market analysis, not good at technology and development. In this discussion, I have done what I can do. Looking at the current situation, I think it should be put on hold for a while and wait for the community consensus. I also call on more capable community members to do more detailed assessments, analysis or testing. I will also try to make efforts in this regard. Thank you all. ——————  After the BSV split, I did a small survey on whether to support the shortening of block time in the two most popular WeChat groups in the Chinese community (BCH Bees and BCH 100 Club). Among them, the BCH Bees group with BSV supporters removed, the support rate was 83.8%, and only 2.7% opposed. Among the BCH 100 Club that retained some of the BSV supporters, the support rate was 82%, but the opponents reached 13.7%. Of the two groups, 48.7% and 39.7% were previously opposed to shortening the block time and later turned into support. In Chinese: 缩短区块时间的讨论已经引起BCH社区的广泛关注。在这个问题上，我认为： 零确认对于BCH的发展非常重要，应该全力支持提高零确认安全性的技术。但是，在一些重要的应用案例中，比如交易所充值，在几年内仍然需要一个以上确认。目前BCH的一确认用户体验非常糟糕，对于近几年激烈的密码货币市场竞争非常不利。如果不能获得足够的市场份额，BCH的长期优势也会失去展示的机会。所以，建议缩短区块时间。 这个观点代表了中文社区中经历了扩容之争和算力大战的多数人的意见。实际上，中文社区从2017年底就开始讨论这个问题，经过一年半的时间，尤其是算力大战后，支持者不断增长，在资深成员中成为共识，而反对者多数转向了BSV，因为他们相信CSW，反对各种改变。 即使在中文社区，算力大战后新进入社区的许多BCH支持者也不支持缩短区块时间，他们也认为10分钟区块才更符合原来的比特币。相比之下，中文社区支持缩短区块时间的人更加重视的是市场和用户需求，而不是名义上的正统。 大概半年前，我跟开发者也进行了沟通，并且结合中文社区的讨论结果和开发者的意见写了一份建议，讨论了缩短的理由，可能的影响和一些反对意见。（https://medium.com/@ChangyongLiu/proposal-to-shorten-the-block-time-of-bch-1d7e8e897497 ）开发者主要的意见有四点：1）目前的开发重点在于提高零确认的安全性；2）缩短区块时间会影响区块大小、区块奖励、时间锁等，处理这些会非常复杂；3）需要更加明确的案例说明缩短区块时间的必要性；4）英文社区并不支持缩短时间。 同时，我的文章也在btc发布，当时的情况也的确反映出英文社区对这个建议不支持。其他中文社区成员发布的建议也同样遭到激烈的反对。鉴于中文社区讨论这个问题也经历了一年多的时间。我们认为不能急于推进缩短区块时间，我们需要更多时间沟通和思考。因此，中文社区对缩短区块时间的推动搁置了半年。 最近一段时间，由于价格波动和算力波动，BCH的一确认等待时间波动很大，经常遇到1个小时以上的确认等待时间。对于等待交易所充值的用户而言，体验非常糟糕。并且，我们也经常被问到：“BCH已经一个小时没有新的区块了，它又被攻击了吗？”一些社区资深成员也正在失去耐心，他们认为如此紧迫的改进没有得到足够的重视。对此，我也很担忧，所以总结了最近面临的问题和具体的案例，再次在btc上发帖，建议缩短区块时间。（https://www.reddit.com/btc/comments/cfu99n/the\_block\_time\_of\_bch\_should\_be\_shorten建议缩短bch出块时间/） 经过几天的讨论，我很高兴地看到，尽管仍然有人把建议看做是对BCH的攻击，但已经有更多的人能够认真地讨论缩短区块时间的建议了，跟开发者的沟通也有进展，很多人已经看到一确认场景依然大量存在，一确认的糟糕体验的确影响BCH的竞争力。一些讨论也逐渐深入到细节。这是令人欣慰的。 不过，我们也看到，现在还没有形成缩短区块时间的足够共识，至少缩短区块时间带来的复杂影响需要认真评估和测试，开发的技术难度、工作量和人手来源也要认真考虑。不排除最终评估的结果认为缩短区块时间不可行，或者零确认安全性的提高能够让几乎所有的一确认案例都改为零确认。这样的话，放弃缩短区块时间将会成为共识。 讨论能够达到目前的状态，认识到至少近期仍存在缩短区块时间的需求，并开始认真讨论，我个人认为已经达到了我此次建议的目的。接下来需要的是更多的沟通和协作。实际上，通过这次的讨论，中英文社区的沟通改善了很多，更通畅的沟通渠道正在建立，这对于BCH的发展是有利的。 在相关讨论中，也有一些人试图借机分裂中英文社区，甚至预言BCH新的分裂，并且给我带上试图阴谋分裂社区的帽子。我想他们要么是过度敏感，要么是内心支持core或bsv。我不想耗费时间深入追究，有很多积极的事情需要我们去做。 实际上在支持缩短区块时间的中文社区成员中早已经达成共识：“缩短区块时间只是一个改进建议，实施的前提是形成了社区共识，不会导致任何分裂。如果共识没有达成，可以搁置，并继续评估和讨论。” 在各种密码货币中，经过了扩容之争和算力大战BCH社区是更加成熟的去中心化社区，我想我们有耐心争取社区共识，同时也会非常坚定地识别各种真正的攻击，并坚决回击，就像我们在算力大战中所做的。 我个人主要擅长经济和市场分析，不擅长技术和开发。经过这次讨论，我所能做的都尽力做了。就目前的局面看，我认为应该在搁置一段时间，等待必要的社区共识。我也呼吁更多有能力的社区成员能够做更细致的评估、分析或测试。我也会尝试在这方面做出努力。 谢谢大家！  BSV分裂出去之后，我针对是否支持缩短区块时间在中文社区两个最要的微信群（BCH Bees 和 BCH 100 Club）做了个小调查。其中，移除了BSV支持者的BCH Bees群中，支持率为83.8%，只有2.7%的人反对。保留了部分BSV支持者的BCH 100 Club群中，支持率为82%，但反对者达到了13.7%。在两个群中，分别有48.7%和39.7%的人是以前反对缩短区块时间，后来转变为支持的。
arriving at consensus AND distributing coins via burning Bitcoin instead of electricity/equipment to create permissionless, unfakeable, green, and trust minimized basis over every aspect of sidechain control.
creating Bitcoin peg from altcoin chain to mainchain (the hard direction) by allocating small percentage of Bitcoin intended for burning to reimbursing withdrawals, effectively making it a childchain/sidechain (no oracles or federated multisigs)
This is not an altcoin thread. I'm not making anything. The design discussed options for existing altcoins and new ways to built on top of Bitcoin inheriting some of its security guarantees. 2 parts: First, the design allows any altcoins to switch to securing themselves via Bitcoin instead of their own PoW or PoS with significant benefits to both altcoins and Bitcoin (and environment lol). Second, I explain how to create Bitcoin-pegged assets to turn altcoins into a Bitcoin sidechain equivalent. Let me know if this is of interest or if it exists, feel free to use or do anything with this, hopefully I can help.
how to create continuous sunk costs, permissionless entry, high cost of attacks?
how to do it without needing to build up a new source of hardware capital or energy costs?
how to peg another chain's token value w/o incentivized collusion risk of federation or oracles?
how to make sidechain use fully optional for all Bitcoin parties?
how to allow programmable Bitcoins w/ unlimited permissionless expressiveness w/o forcing mainchain into additional risks?
Solution to first few points:
Continuous Proof of Bitcoin Burn (CPoBB) to distribute supply control and sidechain consensus control to independent parties
Distributes an altcoin for permissionless access and sidechain-only sybil protection.
In case of sidechain block-producer censorship, Bitcoin's independent data availability makes sidechain nodes trivially aware
PoW altcoin switching to CPoBB would trade:
cost of capital and energy -> cost of burnt bitcoin
finality of their PoW -> finality of Bitcoin's PoW
impact on environment -> 0 impact on environment
unforgeable costliness of work -> unforgeable costliness of burn
contract logic can include conditions dependent on real Bitcoins as it's Bitcoin-aware
PoS altcoin switching to CPoBB would trade:
permissioned by coin holders entry -> permissionless entry by anyone with access to Bitcoin
no incentive to give up control or sell coins -> incentive to sell coins to cover the cost of burnt bitcoin
incentivized guaranteed centralization of control over time by staking -> PoW guarantees with same 0 environmental impact
nothing at stake -> recovering sunk costs at stake
contract logic can include conditions dependent on real Bitcoins as it's Bitcoin-aware
We already have a permissionless, compact, public, high-cost-backed finality base layer to build on top - Bitcoin! It will handle sorting, data availability, finality, and has something of value to use instead of capital or energy that's outside the sidechain - the Bitcoin coins. The sunk costs of PoW can be simulated by burning Bitcoin, similar to concept known as Proof of Burn where Bitcoin are sent to unspendable address. Unlike ICO's, no contributors can take out the Bitcoins and get rewards for free. Unlike PoS, entry into supply lies outside the alt-chain and thus doesn't depend on permission of alt-chain stake-coin holders. It's hard to find a more bandwidth or state size protective blockchain to use other than Bitcoin as well so altcoins can be Bitcoin-aware at little marginal difficulty - 10 years of history fully validates in under a day.
What are typical issues with Proof of Burn?
limited burn time window prevents permissionless entry in the future. how many years did it take for most heavily mined projects to become known and well reviewed? many. thus entry into control of supply that's vital to control of chain cannot be dependent on the earliest stage of the project. (counterparty)
"land grabs" - by having limited supply without continuous emission or inflation we encourage holding vs spending.
These issues can be fixed by having Proof of Burn be permanently accessible and continuous: Continuous Proof of Bitcoin Burn CPoBB
This should be required for any design for it to stay permissionless. Optional is constant fixed emission rate for altcoins not trying to be money if goal is to maximize accessibility. Since it's not depending on brand new PoW for security, they don't have to depend on massive early rewards giving disproportionate fraction of supply at earliest stage either. If 10 coins are created every block, after n blocks, at rate of 10 coins per block, % emission per block is = (100/n)%, an always decreasing number. Sidechain coin doesn't need to be scarce money, and could maximize distribution of control by encouraging further distribution. If no burners exist in a block, altcoin block reward is simply added to next block reward making emission predictable. Sidechain block content should be committed in burn transaction via a root of the merkle tree of its transactions. Sidechain state will depend on Bitcoin for finality and block time between commitment broadcasts. However, the throughput can be of any size per block, unlimited number of such sidechains can exist with their own rules and validation costs are handled only by nodes that choose to be aware of a specific sidechain by running its consensus compatible software. Important design decision is how can protocol determine the "true" side-block and how to distribute incentives. Simplest solution is to always :
Agree on the valid sidechain block matching the merkle root commitment for the largest amount of Bitcoin burnt, earliest inclusion in the bitcoin block as the tie breaker
Distribute block reward during the next side-block proportional to current amounts burnt
Bitcoin fee market serves as deterrent for spam submissions of blocks to validate
sidechain block reward is set always at 10 altcoins per block Bitcoin block contains the following content embedded and part of its transactions: tx11: burns 0.01 BTC & OP_RETURN tx56: burns 0.05 BTC & OP_RETURN ... <...root of valid sidechain block version 1> ... tx78: burns 1 BTC & OP_RETURN ... <...root of valid sidechain block version 2> ... tx124: burns 0.2 BTC & OP_RETURN ... <...root of INVALID sidechain block version 3> ...
Validity is deterministic by rules in client side node software (e.g. signature validation) so all nodes can independently see version 3 is invalid and thus burner of tx124 gets no reward allocated. The largest valid burn is from tx78 so version 2 is used for the blockchain in sidechain. The total valid burn is 1.06 BTC, so 10 altcoins to be distributed in the next block are 0.094, 0.472, 9.434 to owners of first 3 transactions, respectively. Censorship attack would require continuous costs in Bitcoin on the attacker and can be waited out. Censorship would also be limited to on-sidechain specific transactions as emission distribution to others CPoB contributors wouldn't be affected as blocks without matching coin distributions on sidechain wouldn't be valid. Additionally, sidechains can allow a limited number of sidechain transactions to happen via embedding transaction data inside Bitcoin transactions (e.g. OP_RETURN) as a way to use Bitcoin for data availability layer in case sidechain transactions are being censored on their network. Since all sidechain nodes are Bitcoin aware, it would be trivial to include. Sidechain blocks cannot be reverted without reverting Bitcoin blocks or hard forking the protocol used to derive sidechain state. If protocol is forked, the value of sidechain coins on each fork of sidechain state becomes important but Proof of Burn natively guarantees trust minimized and permissionless distribution of the coins, something inferior methods like obscure early distributions, trusted pre-mines, and trusted ICO's cannot do. More bitcoins being burnt is parallel to more hash rate entering PoW, with each miner or burner getting smaller amount of altcoins on average making it unprofitable to burn or mine and forcing some to exit. At equilibrium costs of equipment and electricity approaches value gained from selling coins just as at equilibrium costs of burnt coins approaches value of altcoins rewarded. In both cases it incentivizes further distribution to markets to cover the costs making burners and miners dependent on users via markets. In both cases it's also possible to mine without permission and mine at a loss temporarily to gain some altcoins without permission if you want to. Altcoins benefit by inheriting many of bitcoin security guarantees, bitcoin parties have to do nothing if they don't want to, but will see their coins grow more scarce through burning. The contributions to the fee market will contribute to higher Bitcoin miner rewards even after block reward is gone.
What is the ideal goal of the sidechains? Ideally to have a token that has the bi-directionally pegged value to Bitcoin and tradeable ~1:1 for Bitcoin that gives Bitcoin users an option of a different rule set without compromising the base chain nor forcing base chain participants to do anything different. Issues with value pegs:
federation based pegs allow collusion to steal bitcoins stored in multi-party controlled accounts
even if multisig participants are switched or weighted in some trust minimized manner, there's always incentive to collude and steal more
smart contract pegs (plasma, rollups) on base chain would require bitcoin nodes and miners to validate sidechain transactions and has to provide block content for availability (e.g. call data in rollups), making them not optional.
bitcoin nodes shouldn't be sidechain aware so impossible to peg the value
Let's get rid of the idea of needing Bitcoin collateral to back pegged coins 1:1 as that's never secure, independent, or scalable at same security level. As drive-chain design suggested the peg doesn't have to be fast, can take months, just needs to exist so other methods can be used to speed it up like atomic swaps by volunteers taking on the risk for a fee. In continuous proof of burn we have another source of Bitcoins, the burnt Bitcoins. Sidechain protocols can require some minor percentage (e.g. 20%) of burner tx value coins via another output to go to reimburse those withdrawing side-Bitcoins to Bitcoin chain until they are filled. If withdrawal queue is empty that % is burnt instead. Selection of who receives reimbursement is deterministic per burner. Percentage must be kept small as it's assumed it's possible to get up to that much discount on altcoin emissions. Let's use a really simple example case where each burner pays 20% of burner tx amount to cover withdrawal in exact order requested with no attempts at other matching, capped at half amount requested per payout. Example:
withdrawal queue: request1: 0.2 sBTC request2: 1.0 sBTC request3: 0.5 sBTC same block burners: tx burns 0.8 BTC, 0.1 BTC is sent to request1, 0.1 BTC is sent to request2 tx burns 0.4 BTC, 0.1 BTC is sent to request1 tx burns 0.08 BTC, 0.02 BTC is sent to request 1 tx burns 1.2 BTC, 0.1 BTC is sent to request1, 0.2 BTC is sent to request2 withdrawal queue: request1: filled with 0.32 BTC instead of 0.2 sBTC, removed from queue request2: partially-filled with 0.3 BTC out of 1.0 sBTC, 0.7 BTC remaining for next queue request3: still 0.5 sBTC
Withdrawal requests can either take long time to get to filled due to cap per burn or get overfilled as seen in "request1" example, hard to predict. Overfilling is not a big deal since we're not dealing with a finite source. The risk a user that chooses to use the sidechain pegged coin takes on is based on the rate at which they can expect to get paid based on value of altcoin emission that generally matches Bitcoin burn rate. If sidechain loses interest and nobody is burning enough bitcoin, the funds might be lost so the scale of risk has to be measured. If Bitcoins burnt per day is 0.5 BTC total and you hope to deposit or withdraw 5000 BTC, it might take a long time or never happen to withdraw it. But for amounts comparable or under 0.5 BTC/day average burnt with 5 side-BTC on sidechain outstanding total the risks are more reasonable. Deposits onto the sidechain are far easier - by burning Bitcoin in a separate known unspendable deposit address for that sidechain and sidechain protocol issuing matching amount of side-Bitcoin. Withdrawn bitcoins are treated as burnt bitcoins for sake of dividing block rewards as long as they followed the deterministic rules for their burn to count as valid and percentage used for withdrawals is kept small to avoid approaching free altcoin emissions by paying for your own withdrawals and ensuring significant unforgeable losses. Ideally more matching is used so large withdrawals don't completely block everyone else and small withdrawals don't completely block large withdrawals. Better methods should deterministically randomize assigned withdrawals via previous Bitcoin block hash, prioritized by request time (earliest arrivals should get paid earlier), and amount of peg outstanding vs burn amount (smaller burns should prioritize smaller outstanding balances). Fee market on bitcoin discourages doing withdrawals of too small amounts and encourages batching by burners. The second method is less reliable but already known that uses over-collateralized loans that create a oracle-pegged token that can be pegged to the bitcoin value. It was already used by its inventors in 2014 on bitshares (e.g. bitCNY, bitUSD, bitBTC) and similarly by MakerDAO in 2018. The upside is a trust minimized distribution of CPoB coins can be used to distribute trust over selection of price feed oracles far better than pre-mined single trusted party based distributions used in MakerDAO (100% pre-mined) and to a bit lesser degree on bitshares (~50% mined, ~50% premined before dpos). The downside is 2 fold: first the supply of BTC pegged coin would depend on people opening an equivalent of a leveraged long position on the altcoin/BTC pair, which is hard to convince people to do as seen by very poor liquidity of bitBTC in the past. Second downside is oracles can still collude to mess with price feeds, and while their influence might be limited via capped price changes per unit time and might compromise their continuous revenue stream from fees, the leverage benefits might outweight the losses. The use of continous proof of burn to peg withdrawals is superior method as it is simply a minor byproduct of "mining" for altcoins and doesn't depend on traders positions. At the moment I'm not aware of any market-pegged coins on trust minimized platforms or implemented in trust minimized way (e.g. premined mkr on premined eth = 2 sets of trusted third parties each of which with full control over the design). _______________________________________
Brief issues with current altchains options:
PoW: New PoW altcoins suffer high risk of attacks. Additional PoW chains require high energy and capital costs to create permissionless entry and trust minimized miners that are forever dependent on markets to hold them accountable. Using same algorithm or equipment as another chain or merge-mining puts you at a disadvantage by allowing some miners to attack and still cover sunk costs on another chain. Using a different algorithm/equipment requires building up the value of sunk costs to protect against attacks with significant energy and capital costs. Drive-chains also require miners to allow it by having to be sidechain aware and thus incur additional costs on them and validating nodes if the sidechain rewards are of value and importance.
PoS: PoS is permissioned (requires permission from internal party to use network or contribute to consensus on permitted scale), allows perpetual control without accountability to others, and incentivizes centralization of control over time. Without continuous source of sunk costs there's no reason to give up control. By having consensus entirely dependent on internal state network, unlike PoW but like private databases, cannot guarantee independent permissionless entry and thus cannot claim trust minimization. Has no built in distribution methods so depends on safe start (snapshot of trust minimized distributions or PoW period) followed by losing that on switch to PoS or starting off dependent on a single trusted party such as case in all significant pre-mines and ICO's.
Proof of Capacity: PoC is just shifting costs further to capital over PoW to achieve same guarantees.
PoW/PoS: Still require additional PoW chain creation. Strong dependence on PoS can render PoW irrelevant and thus inherit the worst properties of both protocols.
Tokens inherit all trust dependencies of parent blockchain and thus depend on the above.
Embedded consensus (counterparty, veriblock?, omni): Lacks mechanism for distribution, requires all tx data to be inside scarce Bitcoin block space so high cost to users instead of compensated miners. If you want to build a very expressive scripting language, might very hard & expensive to fit into Bitcoin tx vs CPoBB external content of unlimited size in a committed hash. Same as CPoBB is Bitcoin-aware so can respond to Bitcoin being sent but without source of Bitcoins like burning no way to do any trust minimized Bitcoin-pegs it can control fully.
Few extra notes from my talks with people:
fees must be high to be included in next block (and helps pay and bribe bitcoin miners), RBF use is encouraged to cancel late transactions
what if not enough burners, just passive nodes? you can burn smallest amount of bitcoin yourself when you have a transaction you want to go through
using commit hashes on bitcoin to lock altcoin state isn't new (e.g. kmd) but usually those rely on some federation or permissioned proof of stake mechanism with no real costs. this is combination of both.
this is not exactly like counterparty's embedded consensus as block data and transactions are outside Bitcoin, but consensus is derived with help of embedded on Bitcoin data.
deterministic randomness (e.g. via that block's hash) could be used to assign winning sidechain block weighted by amount burned to allow occasional blocks formed by others curbing success rate of censorship by highest burner
wants to transition away from using proof of burn via tunable proofs and native proof of work (whitepaper)
a dominant premine (trust maximized) relative to emission that defeats the purpose of distributing control over incentives (figure 3 in tokenpaper suggests premine still ~30%-70% by year 2050)
variable emission rate "adaptive mint and burn" makes supply unpredictable (and possibly gameable)
additional rewards that aren't trust minimized like "app mining" and "user incentives" possibly gameable with premine
election of a leader includes their own PoW to be elected even at start (5% cap), why lol?
blockstack also suggested use of randomness that depends on that block so Bitcoin miners that already spent energy mining that block can't just re-do it to get picked at no cost
if can burn bitcoins directly via op_return tx would help to use 1 less output and be provably prunable for utxo set (not sure if that's relayed as standard)
Main questions to you:
why not? (other than blocktime)
can this be done without an altcoin? (Not sure and don't think so w/o compromising unforgeable costliness and thus trust minimization. At least it's not using an altcoin that's clearly centralized.)
how to make it less detectable by Bitcoin miners? ( BMM could use some techniques described here: https://twitter.com/SomsenRuben/status/1210040270328254464 ) ( Perhaps since sidechain nodes receive proposed blocks independently and can figure out their hash, the commit message ( sidechain id + block commit + miner address) can be hashed one more time before its placed on Bitcoin, making miners unaware until after Bitcoin block is found that this is that sidechain's burn. Sidechain block producers would have to delay sidechain block propagation until after Bitcoin block is propagated, 10 minutes blocktime helps here. Hiding the fact that Bitcoin is burnt until after the fact is another possibly important matter. )
Should reward be split between all valid blocks or just winner gets all? (Blockstacks approach does not reward blocks marked by different from leader chaintip. That seems dangerous since sidechain tx sorting would be difficult to match and could take significant time to be compensated for perfectly valid work and coins burned. It doesn't seem as necessary in burning since we're not expending costs based on only one previous block version, the costs are independent of block assembly. Tradeoff is between making it easier for independent "mining" of sidechain and making it easier to validate for full nodes on sidechain)
Strong rebound! Bitcoin is up over 20%. How to make this volatility your best ally?
During the day on Wednesday, the decline in the three major stock indexes have triggered trading restrictions, and US stocks will definitely open again in the evening. Unexpectedly, it came a little later than predicted. At 12:56 pm on March 18, the S & P 500 index fell 7%, triggering the fusing mechanism. This is the fifth time in the history of US stocks and the fourth time in 10 days. All the gains since President Trump took office have been cleaned up. Trump takes office: January 20, 2017—present However, it is weird that at 9:30 on the evening of the US stock market opened, BTC did not follow the downtrend, but was suddenly pulled up at the opening time point. It seems that someone has reversed the operation according to the rule of "US stock melted, BTC fell". The motivation for doing this seems clear: when the market thinks that BTC will fall, many people will be short, and pulling up BTC against the trend can pull short orders. Who is the main trader? Then it naturally depends on who's interest to do this, press the table. In short, it may be because of this operation that the price of BTC and the MACD technical indicators have slightly deviated. It may be that the US stock market has passed through, letting everyone realize that the external environment is even worse, so the overall market has slowly pulled back since yesterday, led by the two halving currencies DASH and ZEC, and the entire halving sector has begun to rise. . This law is actually quite obvious. It is simpler to pull the entire market than imagined. There is no need to pull up all currencies, not even BTC, halving the plate or platform currency / public chain / model currency, etc., as long as one of the coins increases The coins in the same sector will soon rise as well. There is no shortage of speculators in the market. They start to gather like wolves smelling blood. Why is BTC repaired before US stocks? Judging from the current price performance, if there is a market bubble, the bubbles in US stocks are obviously more than BTC. Although the Federal Reserve and Trump have continuously released big moves, U.S. stocks have no meaning to stop falling. Trump has been rushed and even directed his attention to anti-China sentiment ... Pulling away, U.S. stocks are falling. While bitcoin is currently stabilizing near $ 5,000, US stocks have fallen the previous two days, and bitcoin has not fallen further. It is believed that before the inflection point of the new cases of the epidemic emerges, the US stock market is unlikely to improve. Even if the crisis is not about to go into a financial crisis, as the saying goes, "the ship is hard to turn around", the repair time of U.S. stocks will be longer than the repair time of Bitcoin. If there is indeed an "invisible hand" on Wednesday, it will lead the trend of BTC and U.S. stocks. If the trend breaks out, it has already been more than half successful. However, although BTC is supported by existing support, if it falls below the 5000-4500 point again, it may follow a new low in US stocks, which means that BTC still cannot escape the epidemic and bring it to the global capital market. Panic. Storytelling and listening Trump's intention to describe "foreign virus" as "Chinese virus" / "China virus" has caused great controversy in the media of the two countries, but the story he wants to tell is actually how the American people are innocent and exposed to exotic viruses Infringement, as a president who strongly protects the American people, not supporting him is equal to not wanting asylum, and will lose his safety and health and well-being ... Many Americans who understand the story will naturally support special features in this round of elections. Lampe's re-election. The ability to tell stories is a kind of "brainwashing" ability, which was absurd at first, but listen to you and believe it. Top investors are good at telling stories, intermediate investors are good at taking advantage of the trend, and ordinary investors can only listen to stories. If there is also a person in the currency circle who is good at telling stories and makes you believe that BTC will definitely rise, how will he tell his story? Story 1. Bitcoin rises for no reason, someone is doing "market value management" Assume that Bitcoin also has an organization similar to an "industry association", consisting of miners and large households. When Bitcoin suddenly falls sharply due to selling pressure or serial explosion, it cannot fall to the floor like some small currencies, and then lie down Can't move. Industry associations must intervene, as this is in the interest of all large households. We know that the market value of Bitcoin is more than 100 billion U.S. dollars, which is only equivalent to the market value of a listed company. There is no market as large as everyone thinks, such as US stocks or A shares. At present, there are only 4 million bitcoins in the market. About 20 billion U.S. dollars. If a story is told that everyone can participate in investing in BTC, everyone only needs to give out 1w RMB. Those who invest in the world, that is, 2 million people who listen to the story are enough to increase BTC. Top 10 BTC mobile address changes The "BTC Industry Association" leaders behind them sat down and talked, giving everyone a reason and sign of buying. Whether it is foreign exchange, bitcoin will rise, or halving the currency will definitely skyrocket. It is now the best for the bottom. Timing ... As long as the average person understands the story and feels that the logic is credible, that's it. BTC's fall may be an emergency, but BTC's soaring, and think carefully, no matter what seems to be the cause, in fact, it seems that someone is using the market to tell you a good story. Even the ten-year-old cow of the US stock market is nothing more than issuing corporate bonds-corporate executives repurchasing stock-stock prices are rising, physical companies have "market value management", not to mention BTC, which has no business? Story 2. Maximizing the benefits of miners The biggest impact of the BTC plunge is that apart from retail quilts and miners shutting down, some miners have been panic for sale. In order to pay for electricity to maintain the operation of mining machines, this wave of decline has also shuffled the mining industry. If the sideways price is around 5000 If the time is long enough, some miners with no coins available for sale will be eliminated, and those old miners who have the latest machines and experienced countless plunges will survive. What will they do to maximize the benefits? Take advantage of the low-cost crazy acquisition of mining machines, two months before the halving, seize the opportunity to dig out coins within the maximum capacity, hoarding. Because once in mid-May, due to halving and difficulty adjustment, the mining cost of the latest mining machine will exceed 6,000 US dollars. Then all the miners called the "Bitcoin Belief", covering up not selling a coin, and waiting until the sellers in the market dried up, the price of the coin started to build a bottom. This process could take up to a month, and the price of the coin would rise steadily (if it does not rise, it must rise ). When everyone starts to believe that the halving myth comes into play, the currency price will also be pulled to a new height, and the miners will ship at a high level, will the benefits be maximized? Is the fund sufficient in the second half of the year? How many more shocks and fluctuations? Retailers cannot play the invisible hand in the market. The only thing that can compete with the power of miners is the exchange. But what is the benefit of the exchange? It is everyone like a hamster who has entered the running wheel, buying and selling constantly, short and long, so the shock of the market is no different than creating huge performance for the exchange ... What do you think of the current market? After panic selling last week, the market began to gradually rationalize. At present, the stock prices of many high-quality companies are already very cheap, and the stock index has hit new lows in recent years. Therefore, it is normal for the market to usher in a wave of rebound after an oversold. However, the global epidemic will continue to deteriorate next week, and the rebound will not be able to bear it. The U.S. stocks continue to fall and squeeze the bubble. Maybe it was analyzed before. Before BTC stands firm at 6000, there is still a high probability that the U.S. stocks will be affected. Then wait again. The mysterious power of "market value management" is shot at 9:30 every night. The main power in these markets determines when the bull market will come.
Ⅰ. Bitcoin price. It directly affects the revenue, but it’s very hard to make the medium and long-term prediction due to big fluctuation. As the maximalist, I’m optimistic on bitcoin to dominate the all cryptocurrency market at the price of 10,000 dollars, however, it’s still unknown when it will be realized because the beautiful future ... Bitcoin Hash Rate Hits All-Time High: Here is How It Works And How It Affects The Price; The 2020 Bitcoin Halving Is Finally Here As Block Number 630,000 Mined; Adding another massive increase of 14.95% on June 16th, Bitcoin’s difficulty level is now at a new all-time high of 17.35 T, according to btc.com. Moreover, the next difficulty adjustment scheduled to occur in two weeks is set to ... Bitcoin difficulty ribbon. As Glassnode notes, their difficulty compressions metric is derived from Willy Woo’s difficulty ribbon. Periods of high ribbon compression historically signal good ... The Bitcoin difficulty is a number which regulates the time that it takes for miners to add new transaction blocks to a blockchain. A higher difficulty number suggests that the competition for block rewards is higher, while a lower number suggests the opposite by incentivizing more miners to participate. The Bitcoin difficulty chart provides the current Bitcoin difficulty (BTC diff) target as well as a historical data graph visualizing Bitcoin mining difficulty chart values with BTC difficulty adjustments (both increases and decreases) defaulted to today with timeline options of 1 day, 1 week, 1 month, 3 months, 6 months, 1 year, 3 years, and all time
What is bitcoin mining difficulty and how it effects our output (HINDI)
What is crypto mining difficulty, how is it adjusted, what is the point of a block time? Vosk explains how the difficulty for mining a block reward is adjusted when mining Bitcoin on sha-256 or ... Jaisa mere viewers ne pucha tha ki bitcoin ki mining, blocks aur difficulty kya hoti hai aur iska hamare mining output pe kya assar padta hai, iss video mein maine ye bataya hai. Bitcoin ki mining ... A non-geeky explanation of what bitcoin mining difficulty is. This also shows how to keep your bitcoin take from diminishing over time. The Bitcoin halving is just a few months away. How will it affect the price of Bitcoin, can historical trends help us make predictions for the price? Watch more awesome crypto news here https ... 01:18 Market Update 02:18 BTC Difficulty and Hash Rate Drop 05:01 Satoshi Nakomoto Won't Sell Bitcoin 07:28 eToro Market Analysis 10:59 Paxful in India 13:36 IOST NFT Collectibles and Mystery Box ...