datadata

Rate limiting output is a form of filtering. It would be effective at this kind of resource consumption attack.

It isn't a perfect inflation hedge, no one is claiming that. You are cherry picking a single interval where the correlation is negative. If you zoom out, you'll find that the correlation is mostly positive. Past correlation is also not predictive of future results.

There are certainly time frames where change in global m2 money supply and change in bitcoin's price over say 12mo would have a positive R value. That isn't the point I am making. If the amount of money available goes up, then one would expect that the price of other things, all else held equal would also go up. It would be quite strange for bitcoin or any other commodity to behave differently consistently and over a long period.

Not sure, it is just a correlation not an iron rule and definitely not the only influence. The shrinking here of m2 is much much smaller than the previous increase was as well.

Inflation is a lagging indicator. Bitcoin gained in 2020 and early 2021 when debasement happened and the supply of money increased. That debasement takes time to show up in price data, and then even longer to show up in headline inflation, which is a 12 month average.

TIPS and i-bonds are limited in their role as a hedge. Sure, you are exactly compensated for inflation on the capital you invest. However, without the ability to have any leverage, you can't actually use this as a hedge against other capital which has exposure to inflation but which couldn't be converted.

Another good way in which these companies are lying is with overbooking, or legally selling more tickets than seats on the plane and hoping that the statistical rate of people now showing up will cover the deficit.

Perhaps it is to make it look not like default style of ChatGPT output?

The payment was to not mine coins and thus conserve electricity to more important consumers during times of shortages

Do you have any example of your claim about providing help?

Where did I say burn piles of money? I'm saying that if the transmission line is profitable, build it. If it isn't profitable and bitcoin mining is profitable, mine bitcoin. Both options should only be done if they are profitable.

This is the exact opposite of burning money. Your assessment whether bitcoin mining is wasteful or not is beside the point, the point is merely to unlock the economic value of stranded energy.

Look, you are touting a metric that you agreed has no bearing on the argument you are trying to make. The number of machines does not matter, it isn't part of any meaningful equation at all. Akin to summing the miles per gallons per car over the number of cars to measure efficiency.

We are not measuring what YOU personally believe is "useful productive" work. We are measuring if there is a way to extract economic value (payment) for stranded energy.

> So if there's a small amount of power, you get no yield from mining.

You are going in circles. The amount of mining you can do is exactly proportional to the available power. It does not suddenly go to zero. If the yield or profit is greater than the costs, it is economically worthwhile.

Would you then agree that your original point that "99.7% of machines do not solve a block" is not by itself an argument that bitcoin is more or less wasteful than it needs to be? Because through a bookkeeping trick you can reduce or increase that figure by an arbitrary amount.

> If there's a small amount of power available then it's not worth mining.

Could you explain how you arrived at this conclusion? The value of mining is generally proportional to the available power. If the capital expense of a mining rig is less than a transmission line, it might be better to mine than to transmit. For example, if it costs 1 million dollars to install a transmission line, but only 1 thousand dollars to setup a mining rig that could consume all the energy, it probably be more feasible to mine than to transmit.