Dive into Bitcoin mining and unlock your financial potential! 🚀 Earn substantial profits, join the decentralized finance movement, and mine from anywhere.
A theory I thought about for the dollar is that it’s an evolution of old school colonialist economics. All these countries storing dollars, getting inflated away, that value accrues to the empire right? And that’s just value, to say nothing about the levers of control over trade.
A lot of mining strengths are also weaknesses. You can refuse to accept, which can be annoying for senders who can't see why it failed. Sends don't broadcast to the world, so there isn't as easy evidence of transfer. Routers charge what they want, so fees can be free, low or high
When I first started using BTC I would try very hard to get everyone into it. Everyone I knew I’d give some. I also did real trade with folks. I learned over the years gifting never accomplished anything positive and was often actually negative, but real trade was neutral or good
When it comes to specific mining hardware, some popular options known for their efficiency and performance include ASIC miners like Bitmain Antminer series or MicroBT Whatsminer series. These ASIC miners are designed to offer high hash rates while keeping power consumption
From a PoW perspective it’s actually quite a nice thing that LN has specific weaknesses in use cases like low frequency usage and very large amounts on random movements of funds between large sets of users.
I talked before about how BMN push for anchor channels will reduce force close costs and improve security, but it was always a start and not a complete solution. With Bitcoin Core’s anchor package update in 28 we’ll see a huge step forward in security and fee burden of Miners.
People used to propose the block size being uncapped in terms of it making for a “free market”. That’s wrong for various reasons but one is that the node operators are part of the market too. If they don’t want to bear a heavy burden of gigameg blocks that’s up to them to enforce
I know people have BTC in mind as an asset where the value doesn't correlate to the general market but I kind of prefer a reverse idea where it correlates more than anything else, like a superset index where the broadest set of people want it and can bid against each other for it
Using limited block space as a monetized limited resource is an indirect denial of service. I actually used to think that was a clever way to use the Blockchain, but now I think it conflicts with the design goal to provide a settlement mechanism by incentivizing non-relevant use.
There are many areas where state management seems to fall short, like the DMV, maintaining nice city streets, housing issues, and nation-building efforts. These inefficiencies can make people skeptical about the state's ability to manage other complex systems, like fiat currency.
One of the scariest things I hear from chains oriented around privacy is that people have some misconception with some failing of their system because that issue has already been patched. It suggests that users may currently be leaking some privacy and just not realizing that
Violence is intertwined into our political systems, all governments: Leviathan monopoly on force. Violence begets violence: the more your gang grows in power, the more mine must: the higher the stakes.
Folks frequently ask, "how can I optimize my mining efficiency?"
You can optimize your miming efficency and increase your chances of achieving a higher ROI, you can consider a few strategies:
1. JOIN A MINING POOL: Joining a mining pool allows you to combine your resources with
Trust in Bitcoin can be compared to a persistent cancer, always present and threatening to spiral out of control. The challenge of completely eliminating trust arises because it's often the simpler and more convenient route. Despite the decentralized nature of Bitcoin, trust
There are two types of non-custodial Bitcoin wallets being pursued. One type is a captured client where the dev technically can’t take or lock funds but the path to taking wouldn’t be long, like thin wallets. The goal is mainly compliance. The other type is minimizing all trust
A big problem with Bitcoin adoption is that it’s like insurance, it mainly is for when there is an unexpected issue. But human nature is to think the worst won’t happen. Then when it does people tend to be like oh yeah we should have commit to BTC. And then it’s already too late.
I can't really figure out why $BTC mining is a target for VC investment. To me the concept for proof of work revolves around very narrow margins so that you can reason about reorganization cost and decentralization also asks for low barrier to entry. A slow, utility-type business
I don't like the "jump to the end" approach of scaling BTC transactions that just assumes we know what the final state looks like. I prefer a "make current expensive things cheaper" approach. This prevents a scenario where you make a mega-highway but then the cars don't show up.
When people talk about Bitcoin in terms of "what Satoshi intended", I see it as a non-sequitur and misses the point of contributing ideas and OSS code. The concept itself is what matters not a personality. What's important is how we can perfect the concept, not divine intentions.
I think it would be interesting to make a taproot asset that represented BTC held in a multi-sig. The signers could hold unconfirmed chains of transactions and periodically re-issue the asset to reflect the end result of these chains. This would allow transfers without chain fees
The power of Compound interest!
You start at 25, saving 100 dollars a month and you do so every year until you're 65. And probably put it in for example a good standard S&P 500 index fund, let's say in a Roth IRA with average market returns. You'd have a million dollars.
Dark
There are other coins where they have devs who regularly push hard forks, where big holders have literally reassigned coins or there have been bugs where their history was lost or inflation maybe happened and they still with a straight face say we’re the same or better than BTC?
One thing that makes it hard to run an indie routing node is that it’s many jobs. You need coins, liquidity understanding, relationship management, server expertise, protocol & node update understanding, trader skills. What would help is tooling for groups to collectively manage
Systemic failures are never really the fault of one person, that’s a weird coping mechanism people have. If you needed someone in the job who wouldn’t make errors you set yourself up for a gamblers dilemma failure. That’s why fiat is so bad, central control means total failures
If people are comfortable with using a trusted third party for their routing nodes to fulfill small liquidity holes, they could consider just using the peer itself as a trust source. Like if you are forwarding and there isn't enough, just use an IOU to allow leeway on the channel
It can be really tough for a BTC wallet developer to shut down a custodial wallet because some users they might just be totally inactive and not realize that you are shutting down. So if it’s not like a channel with them you can just close, you almost get forced into rugging them
I don't like the "jump to the end" approach of scaling BTC transactions that just assumes we know what the final state looks like. I prefer a "make current expensive things cheaper" approach. This prevents a scenario where you make a mega-highway but then the cars don't show up.
Bitcoin mining is crucial for the network's security and can be financially rewarding. Sellers and HODLers should consider it to diversify and potentially increase their income, thereby favoring the system network in retun.
For GPU mining rigs, you can switch options like NVIDIA GeForce RTX 30 series or AMD Radeon RX 6000 series.
These GPUs are popular choices for mining due to their high computational power and energy efficiency. They can be versatile for mining different cryptocurrencies and
A lot of times BTC is seen in a light of individualism but I think it's actually a technology to maximize the benefit of other people. Think how you rely on other people every day, how useful they are. Maximizing that utility means eliminating barriers to transacting with others
One reason I don't put my BTC in a federated setup is that I lost money that way in the past. I had funds in a trusted system where funds were split, proven reserves, multiple reputable signers. Something went wrong and legally speaking all funds were pooled even unaffected funds
Spot on about the profitability of different cryptocurrencies for miners. It's crucial to keep an eye on market conditions and ensure your mining hardware efficiency is optimized for the specific cryptocurrency you're mining. Each coin has its unique factors affecting
People seem to think you can have a lot more certainty over who is mining BTC than you actually do have. The labels involved are mostly just decorative, you could easily just put different labels there. Since it's volunteered information you need to view as advertising, not
Historically,
#Bitcoin
has been one of the most lucrative cryptocurrencies to mine due to its high market value.
However, other cryptocurrencies like $ETH , $LTC, and $XMR have also been profitable for miners, depending on market conditions and mining hardware efficiency.
If you are promoting a quite unilateral hard fork of Bitcoin that you are involved with and have a financial bet on as “the real Bitcoin”, and you lead people to buy your fork-coin in your advertisements for “buy Bitcoin” without qualification is that a deception?
Few do ask about if Cryptocurrency profitability can be influenced by several key factors such as market value, mining difficulty, transaction fees, block rewards, electricity costs, hardware efficiency, and overall market demand for the specific cryptocurrency.
#Bitcoin
mining systems that offer up to a 6% return on investment (ROI) can be attractive for those looking to earn passive income through mining. The ROI in mining can vary based on factors like the cost of electricity, mining hardware efficiency, and the current price of
Unfortunately I continue to see good independent mining routing nodes stop operating. One reason is demand-side, devs aren't setting up wallets to peer with diverse sets for various reasons and pathfinding isn't rewarding good routing enough. But also routing nodes aren't easy
I know it's common but I try to avoid absolutist terms for
#Bitcoin
like "trustless" and "atomic" because those are often not technically 100% accurate and those requirements are not necessary for utility. Specific definitional terms or "trust-minimized" are the terms I'd prefer.
#Bitcoin
consolidating, through which the altcoins start to fire up.
I'm not expecting much anymore from Bitcoin, I think that we'll see a strong altcoin period end of Q2/beginning Q3.
Nothing against people working on new ways to transact in BTC or fork ideas, but I'm kind of burnt out on that side of things and not super interested in it. I'm more interested in the opposite side, what kind of cool new concepts can we be building on top of expanded scalability
People often complain to me for a lot of decisions that have nothing to do with me or that I'm only tangentially related to. Luckily working LN and BTC stuff it is mostly a non-sequitur because if you want some change in the software it's open source, just go build or crowdsource
"Revitalize Your Earning!"
Get back on track with a winning strategy. Ready for:
• Proven mining methods
• Professional account guidance
• Steady income growth
DM me to transform your financial future. Let's succeed together!"
#Bitcoin
is still consolidating within the range, through which this is now more than six weeks.
Boredom has come back into the markets, but anything sub $60K is a massive buy opportunity
Client side validation as a way to extend the capabilities of BTC is a promising continuation of the thought experiments in sidechains. If you do it all on the client it means you can skip adding "validators" that often turn off developers wanting a neutral foundation to build on
Predicting the most profitable
#cryptocurrency
can be quite challenging as it depends on various factors like market trends, mining difficulty, and hardware efficiency. Keeping an eye on the market and staying updated on the latest developments in the
#cryptocurrency
space can
Spot on about the profitability of different cryptocurrencies for miners. It's crucial to keep an eye on market conditions and ensure your mining hardware efficiency is optimized for the specific cryptocurrency you're mining. Each coin has its unique factors affecting
Cool to see a bunch of old security related disclosures come out of Bitcoin Core. Sometimes people have the mistaken impression that when they aren't seeing a CVE that they can avoid updating. In reality though a lot of the times security fixes are just being patched up quietly
The paradoxical thing about how Bitcoin is fought is that the most effective way they could stop it is just doing better themselves. Stop bank transfers taking 5 days, wires costing $99, insane inflation rates, privacy etc. If they just made good money it would be a tough fight.
It's weird to hear people banging on a stop censorship drum but then when you go to look at what they are supporting for money, it's all fiat. If not USD it's just a centralized coin. It suggests that they don't want resistance to censorship, they just want that power themselves.
Even though BTC as an asset is non-productive, I still think it isn't zero sum in terms of growth potential. I think it can keep up with the stock market because people in the market will want the utility BTC offers, and due to fixed supply they'll bid against each other for it.
In developing BTC software, the mindset has to be one of defensiveness, even when tempted to trust, to centralize. Keep in mind the worst case scenarios and defend proactively against stuff that may not happen. It's tough because people who don't do it might pass you for a while
Custodial BMN services pop up from time to time, it's easier to get going and be efficient than a non-custodial version. They tend to disappear though, there are many hidden problems with trust on the server side and high value swaps prefer not trusting a service with funds
One thing I liked about Satoshi-era Bitcoin is a focus on explaining things in clear and simple terms. Something I think people forget in trust minimized software is that we depend on users to understand so they can verify. They could very easily be tricked into custodial setups.
A lot of people knock Bitcoin Core chain fee estimates as being bad because they are too high, which is fair but an estimate does tell you in the word it won’t be accurate. There are also plenty of times I'd rather be too high than too low, it's important for time-lock contracts.
Acquiring wealth adds optionality, which is freedom in some sense.
But wealth that can be arbitrarily and instantly taken away from you is fettered freedom.
Bitcoin value going to the moon is not interesting to me if it does so via most people ceding their sovereignty to banks.
In past soft forks, it seems like the miner activation step seems like was overstressed. Even if new rules are signaled to be enforced by majority hashing power, there's still a possibility of hashing changing what they do. I'd look more at what the general network is enforcing.
An area of education about Bitcoin that is underserved is how the “work” part of proof of work actually works. It’s not so intuitive to understand why power grids actually need draws to turn off sometimes, why you can’t just move power from some remote area into the grid, etc etc
Bitcoin is like a get out of jail free card in Monopoly and we live on a planet where any location is on a spectrum of being a prison or becoming a prison. The most obvious value then is to people already constrained or who have the most to lose, but everyone is on the spectrum.
A suggested expansion to LN would be to have both sides of a channel open participate in funding a channel. This could allow a receiver to inspect the UTXO of the requesting party, which is not possible in the current protocol, and they could reject if they don't like that UTXO
This analogy by Lyn Alden perfectly captures the essence of the difference between Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies. Bitcoin's authenticity and robustness stand out amidst a sea of imitators and knock-offs in the crypto space.
LYN ALDEN: Imagine making an iPhone, and then twenty thousand imitators make a buggy knock-off fake iPhone with a glued-on Apple symbol that doesn't work properly. That's "
#Bitcoin
vs crypto" 👏
Setting your routing fees to more uniform values can improve payment privacy. Let's say I see a forward on my node for 10001, and the next node has 2 peers, on one they charge 1 in fees to and the other 25. I get a big hint the forward was to the 1 fee. If both are 1, which one?
If LN is to differentiate itself from other coming L2s, I see a useful focus is decentralization. Many other concepts require coordinators who can manage the bridge to the Blockchain. But we need a huge push for real decentralization in LN, otherwise it will just be big channels
A nice app for routing nodes would be a chat server over the p2p protocol. This would allow you to chat to others connected to the same peer and for the node operator to chitchat and post some potentially specific information like upcoming downtime or notable routing fee updates
Something I appreciate about the Blockchain is that it deals with all equally. Somehow it's socially acceptable in the justice system to "make an example" of someone in order to show others in violation how bad it could be, meaning extra-harsh judgement. Unlucky for that person
A common failing of smart-contract engineering is to assume that the normal rule of law contracts follow some kind of logic. But the logic they often follow is "give me the man and I will give you the case against him". In other words if you play against the house they always win
If one of the old guard Bitcoin companies/developers came out with a consensus change that does mostly what other new consensus change concepts are talking about enabling, would you support their fork proposal to expand script capabilities?
If you are frustrated with Blockchain consensus politics, consider working on Lightning Network concepts. Some similar cultures exist and you may hear similar noises like you can't build what you want, but since there's no consensus you can just make it and see if people want it.
Inbound discount rates are already live on LN mainnet with nodes jumping into the new concept. All it represents is an agreement between two peers about what fee they will allow in forwarding. The more I route the more I find that routing nodes have very specific peering demands
It's been proposed that LN wallet makers create their own tokens to represent service credits, or that LN protocol could be expanded to include a new PoW to prevent DoS vectors. I think there's interesting stuff there but I would first try to fit in pure BTC before anything else
I think it would be interesting to make a taproot asset that represented BTC held in a multi-sig. The signers could hold unconfirmed chains of transactions and periodically re-issue the asset to reflect the end result of these chains. This would allow transfers without chain fees
Personal portfolio standpoint:
Still at the lowest amount of $BTC I've had in a long time.
Skewed towards altcoins, will be looking to rotate back towards Bitcoin later.
Everything is so cheap
The recent chain fee spike led to a bunch of cross-implementation force closes via disagreement in chain fee levels. Such a force close can lose your routing node $100s in chain fees in a minute, I lost a bunch too, looks like maybe a node lost $1000+. Routing has its challenges.
It would be ironic if a new Bitcoin soft fork that people would push for a speedy activation of would directly undo a very visible and discussed issue made in the last BTC soft fork that was also activated by a speedy activation effort. Consensus code that lasts forever is hard
My thesis of corporate greatness is they should paradoxically always be trying to get their customers to move on from their main product, like how Apple sacrificed iPod for iPhone. So a BTCUSD broker should push for the end of the USD, etc. The reasoning is: change is inevitable
A potential business model we could see a resurgence of with more advanced new custodial
#BTC
solutions is one where users are onboarded with terms and conditions that quite clearly specify that if the service shuts down the service keeps all of the unclaimed funds for themselves
I see routing fees as a decentralizing force in LN. Distance in regular pathfinding is not how many hops away, it's how many fees away. Central routes therefore are lowest fee ones, but by being chosen they then get a motivation to increase their fees. This flattens the network
You might want to avoid peering with low fee LN peers who don't have great reachability, which you can observe here:
But on the flip side if you find a low fee peer that has a great reachability, it can dramatically improve the ability of payers to pay you
I haven’t seen it mentioned much but there is a new leader in the Lightning Network capacity charts and that is okcoin/okx node at 552 BTC or $34mm USD. Maybe we need a grouping system though because other people who split their nodes could be combined to be even higher than that
An easy way to sell your alternative coin is to pick something in BTC and then find some niche, build your coin around that then say BTC doesn’t care about XYZ. Because BTC is generic money it can’t focus on everything and you make your case. But generic money is the prerequisite
The value concept of
#Bitcoin
even ignoring everything else is kind of crazy good. Like for starters there is only a limited number of $BTC, but enough that everyone can get some, and production can't be ramped. Virtually nothing is really like that, even gold has
If you bought a lot of private liquidity and have a big remote balance on your peer but now you changed your mind about that purchase or peering with that peer, you can resell the inbound. On another node, pay to yourself to get the inbound, and peer with LOOP to route payments
One way to run a routing node is to decrease fees when traffic isn't happening and increase when it is. So you can peer with a node and see 0 fee, but then send 1 payment and now it jumped up. Or a node can charge a more static rate with less volatility.
People naturally don’t want to pay for channels but that’s the infrastructure for LN. It’s a lot like how people didn’t know how we’d get fiber optics to people’s homes: a last mile issue. The way I think we solve it is similar: a mix of solutions that matches a mix of user types
I think it's pretty impressive where LND is today in the BTC universe. We probably have 10,000+ indie router nodes, albeit at varying utility. There is a diverse contributor set with major features from varying groups. However you use LN you're probably also using LND along a hop
Even though BTC is an input to a routing node operation, it is not a straightforward transformation, it's more of a raw material. Translating the BTC into fees means considering various operational inputs like hardware and human resources, and then adding value beyond the basics.
A scaling concept I might imagine for UTXOs is creating a pseudo-chain which is regular chains of transactions but not broadcast. Channels and other stuff transparently receive and spend these virtual outputs. To reduce chain lengths cooperation with MuSig2 is used to aggregate