Monitoring the Crypto Bubble

Where do you think we are in the crypto bubble?


  • Total voters
    146
Cost to set up a MultiversX validator node: $130K Australian or more? I've got no idea how much it costs to buy the stuff above.

Cost to set up a BTC node: $156 including delivery

https://zaitronics.com.au/products/raspberry-pi-4-4gb-model-b-barebones-starter-kit

And another $150 for an external drive:

https://www.officeworks.com.au/shop/officeworks/p/samsung-1tb-t7-portable-ssd-grey-sassd1tbgy

I've got no idea how much electricity one of those things consume, I've read $5/year and there's maybe 20GB of data/month.

Then you're on your way to operating a full node. More info here:

https://raspibolt.org/guide/raspberry-pi/preparations.html

Agree but this is not the end, there are more.
Cost of cooling like AC when the room get heated up.
A mini server tower would cost something like $20K. if start from scratch.

Here why many of this miners locate in colder country.
There is no guarantee; one can mine the BTC out after invested in mining.
The earlier days are much easy. The cost of power consumption in western countries also very high even to run the nodes or being a validator.
For instance, I heard the validator get paid like $3Kusd / month on one of the site in coins; then the coins fluctuate and decrease overtime.
The values may sound high but not enough as the machine also may need maintenance and replacement over time.
 
The issue it seems is that some are conflating mining with validating. Now miners help secure the network but they need validators to confirm transactions. Some miners act as validators as well, but there are thousands more validator nodes than mining.

Running a node doesn't mean someone is going to mine BTC. This is why BTC is the most decentralised network, anyone can add computational power in order to do their bit to enhance the security of the network for very little cost. You don't need an ASIC miner to run a node. You don't need air conditioning. You don't need access to cheap power. Something not everyone can do with a POS network.

It's akin to voting. BTC is democratic, every one can vote regardless of how much BTC they hold. POS systems are like a situation where only landholders are allowed to vote in a Council election.

There are lots of good POS networks out there, but from a monetary good and investment perspective BTC shits over every other crypto token. I think this gets the anti-BTC crowd a bit salty at times. :D
 
Last edited:
Last time I will weigh in on this. Shiney, you are trying to draw a meaningless distinction.
An attack on a blockchain by a group of miners controlling over 50% of a network’s mining hashrate – the sum of all computing power dedicated to mining and processing transactions – is called a 51% attack.
...
A 51% attack, also known as a majority attack, occurs when a single person or group of people gains control of over 50% of a blockchain’s hashing power. ...

Successful attackers gain the ability to block new transactions from being confirmed as well as change the ordering of new transactions. It also allows the malicious agents to essentially rewrite parts of the blockchain and reverse their own transactions ...
...

https://www.coindesk.com/learn/what-is-a-51-attack

The concentration of mining hashrate is the important issue for Bitcoin's network security. As already mentioned, there are mining whales that control significant portions of BTC's mining hashrate presently. The BTC maxi mantra about security is exceedingly myopic. I'm not saying BTC is unsecure. I'm saying that it's not necessarily that much better than modern POS systems. The Astrarizon link I shared in post #3000 has a nice writeup in section 4 that talks about EGLD's security model with adaptive state sharding. Very cool stuff!
 
The distinction is far from meaningless as mining and validating are distinct functions in the BTC network, while they are not in a POS network.

The BTC maxi mantra about security is exceedingly myopic.

Except that it's proven to work. When Ghash exceeded the 50% limit miners quit the pool, the price of BTC fell, Ghash ceased operations because it became unprofitable and ten years later BTC is about USD95000.
 
The distinction is far from meaningless as mining and validating are distinct functions in the BTC network, while they are not in a POS network.



Except that it's proven to work. When Ghash exceeded the 50% limit miners quit the pool, the price of BTC fell, Ghash ceased operations because it became unprofitable and ten years later BTC is about USD95000.

With the level of detail you guys are getting into, maybe it's time to set up Crypto Stackers?
 
As a proponent of Elliott Wave Theory, I can see a potentially interesting upcoming situation. A whole bunch of coins seem to be in synch, Pepe, Bonk, XRP, Gala to name a few, and could hit a HUGELY significant low in the next couple of weeks that would then lead to a historically significant (moonlike?) jump. For example Bonk may increase 12-1400%. The potentially interesting part is that this timing could CO-INCIDE with Trump's inauguration, leading the Fundamental analysts to avow that OBVIOUSLY the rally is a result of rather than a coinciding event.
 
Bang! And straight through resistance. Blue sky now.

BTCUSD_2025-01-20_17-19-46.png

Edit to add: those resistance levels were drawn on the weekly chart, this is the daily so it looks a little "off".
 
USA going to create a "digital asset stockpile" (sec 4.c.ii)

Presidential Actions
STRENGTHENING AMERICAN LEADERSHIP
IN DIGITAL FINANCIAL TECHNOLOGY
EXECUTIVE ORDER
January 23, 2025
By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, and in order to promote United States leadership in digital assets and financial technology while protecting economic liberty, it is hereby ordered as follows:

Section 1. Purpose and Policies. (a) The digital asset industry plays a crucial role in innovation and economic development in the United States, as well as our Nation’s international leadership. It is therefore the policy of my Administration to support the responsible growth and use of digital assets, blockchain technology, and related technologies across all sectors of the economy, including by:

(i) protecting and promoting the ability of individual citizens and private-sector entities alike to access and use for lawful purposes open public blockchain networks without persecution, including the ability to develop and deploy software, to participate in mining and validating, to transact with other persons without unlawful censorship, and to maintain self-custody of digital assets;

(ii) promoting and protecting the sovereignty of the United States dollar, including through actions to promote the development and growth of lawful and legitimate dollar-backed stablecoins worldwide;

(iii) protecting and promoting fair and open access to banking services for all law-abiding individual citizens and private-sector entities alike;

(iv) providing regulatory clarity and certainty built on technology-neutral regulations, frameworks that account for emerging technologies, transparent decision making, and well-defined jurisdictional regulatory boundaries, all of which are essential to supporting a vibrant and inclusive digital economy and innovation in digital assets, permissionless blockchains, and distributed ledger technologies; and

(v) taking measures to protect Americans from the risks of Central Bank Digital Currencies (CBDCs), which threaten the stability of the financial system, individual privacy, and the sovereignty of the United States, including by prohibiting the establishment, issuance, circulation, and use of a CBDC within the jurisdiction of the United States.

Sec. 2. Definitions. (a) For the purpose of this order, the term “digital asset” refers to any digital representation of value that is recorded on a distributed ledger, including cryptocurrencies, digital tokens, and stablecoins.

(b) The term “blockchain” means any technology where data is:

(i) shared across a network to create a public ledger of verified transactions or information among network participants;

(ii) linked using cryptography to maintain the integrity of the public ledger and to execute other functions;

(iii) distributed among network participants in an automated fashion to concurrently update network participants on the state of the public ledger and any other functions; and

(iv) composed of source code that is publicly available.

(c) “Central Bank Digital Currency” means a form of digital money or monetary value, denominated in the national unit of account, that is a direct liability of the central bank.

Sec. 3. Revocation of Executive Order 14067 and Department of the Treasury Framework of July 7, 2022. (a) Executive Order 14067 of March 9, 2022 (Ensuring Responsible Development of Digital Assets) is hereby revoked.

(b) The Secretary of the Treasury is directed to immediately revoke the Department of the Treasury’s “Framework for International Engagement on Digital Assets,” issued on July 7, 2022.

(c) All policies, directives, and guidance issued pursuant to Executive Order 14067 and the Department of the Treasury’s Framework for International Engagement on Digital Assets are hereby rescinded or shall be rescinded by the Secretary of the Treasury, as appropriate, to the extent they are inconsistent with the provisions of this order.

(d) The Secretary of the Treasury shall take all appropriate measures to ensure compliance with the policies set forth in this order.

Sec. 4. Establishment of the President‘s Working Group on Digital Asset Markets. (a) There is hereby established within the National Economic Council the President’s Working Group on Digital Asset Markets (Working Group). The Working Group shall be chaired by the Special Advisor for AI and Crypto (Chair). In addition to the Chair, the Working Group shall include the following officials, or their designees:

(i) the Secretary of the Treasury;

(ii) the Attorney General;

(iii) the Secretary of Commerce;

(iv) the Secretary of Homeland Security;

(v) the Director of the Office of Management and Budget;

(vi) the Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs;

(vii) the Assistant to the President for National Economic Policy (APEP);

(viii) the Assistant to the President for Science and Technology;

(ix) the Homeland Security Advisor;

(x) the Chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission; and

(xi) the Chairman of the Commodity Futures Trading

Commission.

(xii) As appropriate and consistent with applicable law, the Chair may invite the heads of other executive departments and agencies (agencies), or other senior officials within the Executive Office of the President, to attend meetings of the Working Group, based on the relevance of their expertise and responsibilities.

(b) Within 30 days of the date of this order, the Department of the Treasury, the Department of Justice, the Securities and Exchange Commission, and other relevant agencies, the heads of which are included in the Working Group, shall identify all regulations, guidance documents, orders, or other items that affect the digital asset sector. Within 60 days of the date of this order, each agency shall submit to the Chair recommendations with respect to whether each identified regulation, guidance document, order, or other item should be rescinded or modified, or, for items other than regulations, adopted in a regulation.

(c) Within 180 days of the date of this order, the Working Group shall submit a report to the President, through the APEP, which shall recommend regulatory and legislative proposals that advance the policies established in this order. In particular, the report shall focus on the following:

(i) The Working Group shall propose a Federal regulatory framework governing the issuance and operation of digital assets, including stablecoins, in the United States. The Working Group’s report shall consider provisions for market structure, oversight, consumer protection, and risk management.

(ii) The Working Group shall evaluate the potential creation and maintenance of a national digital asset stockpile and propose criteria for establishing such a stockpile, potentially derived from cryptocurrencies lawfully seized by the Federal Government through its law enforcement efforts.

(d) The Chair shall designate an Executive Director of the Working Group, who shall be responsible for coordinating its day-to-day functions. On issues affecting the national security, the Working Group shall consult with the National Security Council.

(e) As appropriate and consistent with law, the Working Group shall hold public hearings and receive individual expertise from leaders in digital assets and digital markets.

Sec. 5. Prohibition of Central Bank Digital Currencies.

(a) Except to the extent required by law, agencies are hereby prohibited from undertaking any action to establish, issue, or promote CBDCs within the jurisdiction of the United States or abroad.

(b) Except to the extent required by law, any ongoing plans or initiatives at any agency related to the creation of a CBDC within the jurisdiction of the United States shall be immediately terminated, and no further actions may be taken to develop or implement such plans or initiatives.

Sec. 6. Severability. (a) If any provision of this order, or the application of any provision to any person or circumstance, is held to be invalid, the remainder of this order and the application of its provisions to any other persons or circumstances shall not be affected thereby.

Sec. 7. General Provisions. (a) Nothing in this order shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect:

(i) the authority granted by law to an executive department, agency, or the head thereof; or

(ii) the functions of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget relating to budgetary, administrative, or legislative proposals.

(b) This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.

(c) This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.

THE WHITE HOUSE,

January 23, 2025.

https://www.whitehouse.gov/presiden...n-leadership-in-digital-financial-technology/
 
(ii) promoting and protecting the sovereignty of the United States dollar, including through actions to promote the development and growth of lawful and legitimate dollar-backed stablecoins worldwide;


congrats crypto bros, you’re unintentionally making all of us have less freedom with our money.
 
Didn't you read all of it?
I did not, I should have definitely read the full thing before jumping the gun there :D:p.

The key takeaways I got from it was that
  • (ii) promoting and protecting the sovereignty of the United States dollar, including through actions to promote the development and growth of lawful and legitimate dollar-backed stablecoins worldwide;
&
  • (v) taking measures to protect Americans from the risks of Central Bank Digital Currencies (CBDCs), which threaten the stability of the financial system, individual privacy, and the sovereignty of the United States, including by prohibiting the establishment, issuance, circulation, and use of a CBDC within the jurisdiction of the United States.
Sort of conflict with each other, I guess the difference would be a stable-coin is operated privately and without government overreach, whereas a CBDC would be?

The other thing that I found interesting was how vague this is. I was hearing certainty from the crypto crowd of a strategic Bitcoin reserve, but from the citation below it definitely doesn't sound like a 100% thing. I don't know if the stock pile is seperate to the Bitcoin reserve, maybe they are.
  • (ii) The Working Group shall evaluate the potential creation and maintenance of a national digital asset stockpile and propose criteria for establishing such a stockpile, potentially derived from cryptocurrencies lawfully seized by the Federal Government through its law enforcement efforts.
The other thing that is surprising is how much proposed regulations are potentially going to be added into the crypto space. From my understanding, was crypto not meant to be entirely outside of the system? If regulation was the goal then this is fantastic for the crypto space.
 
Ive looked into BTC and some of the alternatives but due to scepticism...and ignorance i distrust it. Whole idea gives me pause and cautious/paranoia? takes over. An unknown entity creates a new type of asset from thin air and we all have the opportunity or did to buy? Something that benefits US the people and not those who guide the reins? A pure minded principle in a world of sickening corruption n skewed rules. I like Gold...at times blinded by it in the past and why not? Its a beautiful thing sometimes one track mind pays off. After being screwed over by third parties and scumbag super fund "handling" my $ i'd like to believe in this but also want to hold it safe away from scumbag parasites and 3rd party exchanges. WE are the only ones with our own interests at heart. Raving aside like to know what drives such deep resolve and belief in this digital Coin, in short years its smashed silver cap and achieved almost mainstream adoption its achieved amazing things hodl have been greatly rewarded. If time and inclination please explain why it moves and motivates you so and why belief in holders is almost like a religion, i'd like to believe in something this supposed digital alternative to gold
 
Regulation wasn't the goal but ironically, without it the crypto sphere would remain a cult.

eg institutional investors that may be currently restricted by their charter as to whether they can buy BTC or even a spot ETF, they may only be allowed to by a company for example.

The talk, expectations and hope is for the introduction of new regulations that relax some of these restrictions.

The worry is what a more relaxed regulatory landscape could entail for average investors.
 
... I guess the difference would be a stable-coin is operated privately and without government overreach, whereas a CBDC would be? ...

Stablecoin supply is limited by growth of underlying assets that back the coins. They are not fiat constructions where supply can be inflated at will (at least, not if they are honest).

CBDCs are fiat constructions that are not backed by any underlying assets. Central banks can manipulate supply as they wish.

The stablecoins that currently exist do not employ virtual machine programming systems or smart contracts AFAIK. CBDCs were being designed to mimic the features that exist in major crypto blockchains including programmability (which makes it easy for central banks to control who, what, how, where and why with respect to transactions).

Stablecoins <> CBDCs
 
Back
Top