Continued from my prior comment post:

1. […]
2. […]
3. […] Emphasize the point that low-cost mining hardware can in some cases still break-even at market rates for generating electricity from solar power, which is thus a profitable investment in adding solar power generation.
4. […]
5. […]
6. […]
7. […]
8. Additionally there’s another flaw in Litecoin as an attempt to be the transactional alternative to Bitcoin. It has no instant onboarding mechanism, which would allow people (and botnets!) to burn extant resources already in the possession of the general public without needing to go buy mining hardware. Instant onboarding is important for onboarding the masses, because they have low patience and want instant access to something they find interesting. Monero has tried and failed to maintain ASIC-resistant mining with CryptoNight, i.e. Monero is now entirely centralized and lost immutability as the developers+community change the proof-of-work algorithm often to try to fend off ASICs. There’s some new research for an attempt to make a CPU ASIC-resistant miner, but I remain (as I explained in 2016) very skeptical because a) CPUs are designed for maximum throughput (e.g. speculative ILP and OoOE), not maximum efficiency, and b) “There's No Such Thing as a General-purpose Processor”. However, I do think there’s an objective way to do a proof-of-burn to instantly onboard users and if it were launched immediately there might still be a slight chance of overtaking Bitcoin as the blockchain with the most mined value and thus network effects (and certainly overtaking Litecoin’s mined value in the competition over which altcoin will provide the high volume transactional blockchain). 😉 Such a proof-of-“work” design as I envision would also hypothetically improve upon Satoshi’s insecure proof-of-work by being secure against a future quantum computer. That doesn’t mean I would implement such a thing. Remember I quit due to health problems. I might sell the design idea if someone offered me enough money for it.
9. It’s interesting to contemplate as an extension of what proof-of-work is teaching us about primacy of relative energy as the fundamental metric of objectivity, that we humans are just an astrological process. Proof-of-work although actually extropian is some sense, is still “dystopian” in the existential philosophical sense that humanity as it views itself as existentially more significant than it is, i.e. humanity ostensibly doesn’t yet accept that its raison d'être is just as an energy and entropy conduit/facilitator on an astrological scale. Yet small things grow faster. A Biblical interpretation may still view us as the center of a Godly universe that must go forth and multiply in an entropic, energy density objective manner. Something for me to contemplate more deeply in the future. Someone mentioned to me after reading this blog that we may end up with a Dyson sphere of BTC mining.

@realr0ach wrote:

As for the whole stock/flow deal, it makes a lot of bad assumptions like assuming the entire planet is willing to be the greater fool for imaginary, valueless bitcoins when they aren't, or that Bitcoin even has a valid Schelling point in the first place when it doesn't. If S/F was valid for shitcoins, there wouldn't be a mountain of dead PoW altcoins already.

Stock/flow only works on an actual commodity that humans need and NOBODY actually needs Bitcoin. It's a fake commodity. If you hoard all 21 million, the entire planet can just ignore you like you don't even exist. If you hoard all the physical silver, the world doesn't get to ignore you and stock/flow actually functions. Tricking the goyim to hoard a fake, valueless commodity instead of a real one might be the greatest Jew scam of all time because it grants you absolutely zero power while pretending it does.

There was a Zerohedge poll on Bitcoin a week or two ago that I think showed 70% of users being anti-Bitcoin and only 30% pro (something around those numbers). Bitcoin is overwhelmingly hated on Zerohedge and by much of the public in general. People know the kikes like Larry Summers are pushing for a cashless society slavery system and do not want part of ANY digital currency whatsoever.

Everyone has no choice but to accept that proof-of-work is an objective meritocracy based on marginal energy per token mined. This is what gives gold its valuation. This is the way it has always been. Bitcoin is not really new, from an economic standpoint, just a technological innovation on gold.

Society needs a meritocratic standard of valuation. That is why it embraced gold. Once you understand that the marginal energy expended by token mined is what gives gold (and proof-of-work) its MERITOCRATIC valuation, then you understand that everybody NEEDS Bitcoin to exist. And they better get some BTC else they’re going to worth much less soon.

Of course 70% will be wrong. The “MAJORITY must always be wrong” because of the nature’s entropic need for a power-law distribution of wealth. And the majority will lose the illusion of wealth they thought they had because of it. Meritocracy is objective, not a democracy. Democracy is an illusion of egalitarian value (which obviously can’t exist in nature).

Hive account@zoidsoft,

Please re-read my prior comment post as I augmented it significantly, corrected some points, and removed the inquiry about your encrypted message. You may want to remove the mention of the encrypted message and I will also edit this reply to remove my mention of it. So we don’t abuse readers with off-topic verbiage.

The question is kind of moot at this point AFAIC since I'm not vulnerable

BTC that isn’t stored in legacy Satoshi v0.5.3 address which begin with a 1 and instead are stored in the “soft-forked” altcoin Bitco[i]n Core protocol addresses (aka SegWit) which begin with a 3, will be donated in the future to the miners when they take all those said “pay to anyone” SegWit donations.

but I thought that anything with more than about 6 confirmations is pretty much set in stone (segwit or not).

Incorrect.

I've noticed that certain high profile OG's (such as John McAfee and Andreas Antonopoulos) still use the old address format (hmmmmm). Not sure how stripping transactions that start out with a 3 would work from the miners perspective unless of course it was a 51% attack or within the 6 confirmation threshold.

You presumably don’t understand the mechanism. See my explanation below. And McAfee wasn’t the first one who discovered this issue. My links below to Trilema.com are the original source (details were in the logs). McAfee is a wannabee (more important than he is) copycat.^†

In Satoshi’s protocol those Bitco[i]n Core SegWit addresses are “pay to anyone”. Which means when a miner group with significant enough clout (i.e. probably significant hashrate aided by wealthy hodlers with millions of BTC who know Bitcoin must remain immutable or it loses its sui generic lead) starts spending those SegWit to themselves, that will cause the altcoin Bitco[i]n Core to furk (fuck/fork) off. Then since only so many donated SegWit can fit in each block, many other miners will join in the taking of the BTC booty at no cost by stopping their mining on the Bitco[i]n Core altcoin and instead mining on the Satoshi real, original, immutable Bitcoin chain. Bye byeee Bitco[i]n Core…

Contrary to conventional and popular thought, the taking of the SegWit donations and kicking off the idiot snowflakes who believe cryptocurrency is a democracy, will actually increase the valuation of Bitcoin or at least not interfere with its S/F valuation march higher. Reason being that minions will be kicked off of Bitcoin anyway. And enriching the miners means more energy expended on mining, which in the S/F valuation model means a faster rise in the market cap and price. Thus all the value that was perceived to be in Bitcoin Core will be sucked into Bitcoin sending Core towards 0 and Bitcoin up even faster.

About that sui generis position:

Volatility costs: Often people forget to consider volatility costs which depends on your holding period. Altcoins typically have higher volatility than Bitcoin which has the nasty effect of scaling with transaction size. A hypothetical example:

LTC: $10 payment + 10% vol + 0.01 fee = $1.01
BTC: $10 payment + 1% vol + 0.20 fee = $0.30
LTC: $100 payment + 10% vol + 0.05 fee = $10.05
BTC: $100 payment + 1% vol + $1.00 fee = $2.00

^† _{Copied CryptoNight proof-of-work from Monero/Bytecoin.}