@gaoson is on PowPing!

PowPing is a place where you can earn Bitcoin simply by socializing, for FREE.
Never tried Bitcoin? It's OK! Just come, socialize, and earn Bitcoin.
Check out gaoson's activities
Total Economy: 0.1 USD
https://youtube.com/watch?v=68vms6Qkq1U
Great presentation by Jerry Chan. Concerning the mining economics, however, the reality is not as simple as presented in the slide shown around 9:50. The graph there is essentially correct, but missing some very significant complexities. The current BTC mining model heavily (almost exclusively) on the continuous increase of the BTC price. And the reason why the BTC mining economics model hasn't really got into serious trouble so far (as it should) is because the BTC price is still rising. The last halving occurred on May 11, 2020, when the PDC price was around $9000. As of now, the price is above $18,000, more than enough to compensate the halving effect. So if one wonders why BTC seems drumming along just fine, is not because what presented by Jerry was incorrect, but because BTC mining happens to be still enjoying the ride on the price rise. The more fundamental problem with BTC mining economics model is that it lacks a real economic foundation to support itself. As said above, it relies on the continuous increase of the BTC price, but the BTC price itself is a result of the market faith, no small part of which relies on the success of mining economics itself. So this is circular without an external foundation. If this support cycle becomes inadequate, they will have to continue to raise the per-transaction fee to be able to remain a viable business. In this regard, there is a fundamental difference between the BTC mining economics and BSV transactional economics, and the difference is often missing in people's understanding. The difference is that, to the extent that BTC needs to support itself by transaction fees (when the price rise of BTC can no longer compensate the effect of halving), its only choice is to raise the per-transaction fees, since it does not have transaction volume growth; while BSV is the opposite. BSV mining model is projected to receive continuous growth in transaction fees even when the per-transaction fee doesn't change or even goes down, because the total number of transactions are increasing exponentially. On the other hand, the big question is, when will the price rise of BTC no longer be able to compensate the effect of halving? Theoretically, it should happen and must happen eventually. But the trouble (or good news, depending on which side you're sitting on) so far is that the price trend of BTC has had no trouble to support that. If you look at the entire historical graph of BTC price, there is a baseline support that indicates the price doubling every year. Now think about this. The halving happens only once 4 years. During the 4 years, the baseline support price of BTC increases by 16 times (if the BTC baseline price trend continues), giving a base support of 8 times (16/2) to the mining economics. This means that even if the computational cost of mining increases 8 times every 4 years (which is roughly 65% increase every year), and also that there is no increase in per-transaction fee, the BTC mining business would still be able to survive on that baseline support. Therefore, the only way for the fundamental support for the BTC mining economics to be broken is that the BTC price loses that baseline support of doubling every year. For example, let's say BTC price's baseline support stays flat (with volatility in actual price of course). Let's also say that its competitor BSV nodes' computational power continues to grow at a fast pace every year, while the BSV transactional fees also grows at least commensurately every year. This would not only make the BSV transaction processing economics a viable one, but creates an enormous amount of pressure on BTC, because in this circumstance, BTC's own mining computational power must also match up at the same speed of growth, for otherwise its network and ecosystem will be outpaced and eventually overwhelmed by BSV. But in the above scenario, can BTC mining computational power be able to match that of BSV when the baseline support for BTC price is flat? Mathematically, the only way to do that is to continuously increase the per-transaction fee, because BTC has no basis for transaction volume increase. Doing that, however, is committing suicide, or at best confining itself into a niche business. I think BTC will eventually crumble, but the crumbling may not happen as quick as many think it will. This is mostly due to the blind money's continuous feeding the bubble of the BTC price. Perhaps some dramatic event will happen to suddenly pops that bubble. An economy that has real transactional value support may also suffer crashes but will survive. But an economy that is purely circular faith-based may not eventually.
thacypha tipped:
raymond tipped:
Thanks for sharing that link, and great thoughts. I think BTC crumbles when Tether crumbles. There’s definitely fishy things going on there and I think Tether has been used to prop the price of BTC up in order to keep BTC miners afloat. The game gets increasingly difficult as price gets higher though. This recent BTC surge hasn’t had much of an increase in BTC search results. They need fat whales to put up a lot more money for the ponzi to keep growing. Tether/Bitfinex appeals were rejected quite recently and the case will go to trial. There are now also some discovery deadlines so it will be increasing to see what more gets unearthed there.
gaoson replied:
Yes, I'd be shocked if the court ends up finding no serious fraud committed by Bitfinex on Tether. However, I'm skeptical of several things. First, although the severity of the penalty may be a large fine, it may not stop Tether; second, Tether's impact might be mostly on retail buyers, and not so much on institutional buyers. It's the institutional buyers who are driving the BTC price this time. Retail buyers, not so much (as also indicated in the flat BTC search levels). Anyway, not that I think these institutional buyers know what they're doing. They are very experienced professionals in their own trade (especially finance), but when it comes to the real inner workings and economics of Bitcoin and blockchain, they don't know what they're talking about. They just think that they have figured it out finally, when they actually haven't. It shows when they talk trying to make their BTC thesis. Bitcoin is inherently multidisciplinary (computer sciences, economics, law, finance, and business etc.), and very few institutional investors have the requisite depth. They could end up being the last bunch of fools.
raymond replied:
This is what I have been pondering all year. Are all these super smart institutional buyers missing the forest for the trees or deliberate actors. One thing that could force the tether train wreck to happen is if this bill gets passed: https://www.investopedia.com/new-stablecoin-bill-raises-hackles-of-crypto-community-5090337#:~:text=What%20Is%20the%20STABLE%20Act,banking%20regulations%20in%20their%20jurisdiction. It would make circle/Goldman Sachs USDC the only regulated stable coin in town and open the door to black listing the rest.