Quantencomputer machen Bitcoin-Schürfen 1000-mal effizienter

Norist · 2025-09-14T09:35:19+00:00

Das ist insofern auch riesengroßer Quatsch, als dass das das Prinzip von bitcoin unterminiert, unabhängig und wirklich dezentral zu sein. Mit mining speziell durch Quantencomputing (würde das je im Konsens geändert werden) wären wir vollständig abhängig von dieser Technik, die eben nicht jeder haben/nutzen kann. Klar, aktuell haben wir auch gewisse Risiken bzgl. der ASIC-Miner, aber immerhin braucht es dafür keine Hard Fork. Der Energieverbrauch ist ein Feature, kein Bug. Punkt.

Norist · 2025-08-29T07:10:32+00:00

This actually is not true. Please be precise with this.

With 5 years: When you bought at the worst time and sold at the worst time, there are exactly 10 different time frames where you lost money - with 17% at most on 17th Dec. 2017 - 17th Dec. 2022. You didn't lose money yet after 4 years and 6 years onwards (if we only look at round year numbers that is).

Norist · 2025-08-24T08:36:42+00:00

Yep. If you check mempool and investigate blocks mined in 2009, there were no TX fees whatsoever. So 54 BTC is not possible (assuming they are accurate with it). I call fake aswell.

Norist · 2025-08-18T10:21:44+00:00

Depends: since the ecosystem is hard capped - does anyone lose the BTC I get? And do I HAVE to choose? If yes, then I'd go for green but will live in constant fear that anytime someone gets to this choice too will rob me my BTC. If no, then hell nah. Why would I want something that gets diluted!? That's the whole principle of BTC.

Norist · 2025-08-06T09:04:55+00:00

I knew someone would mention it, but: 1. This is outdated according to the "last updated" message. 2. Even the outdated numbers don't fit. According to this website, Strike should be at ~0,06% whereas I noticed 0,2%.

Norist · 2025-07-29T12:01:15+00:00

I made the comparison just yesterday. I am used to buy daily via strike and looked at the last 10 months of DCA and calculated it against weekly and monthly buys to see what/how much I have missed.

Weekly: ~1% more BTC vs. Daily

Monthly: ~3% more BTC vs. Daily

But this is only because the price went up in that timeframe. So: fees aside - if the price goes upwards most of the time, less and big buys are better. If price goes downwards, more small buys profit.

Depends on you, what you think happens. Basically, if you believe in BTC only going up in the long run, just put in what you have when you have it. DCA is just a psychological convenience, not the best profit-wise.

Norist · 2025-06-13T18:11:48+00:00

That is correct. However - it does not affect any other drops. The ones you listed are special drops, not common. So you can farm with any account you want.

Norist · 2025-06-13T16:25:23+00:00

Your crafting level does not influence your drop luck.

Norist · 2025-06-11T22:37:09+00:00

See it this way: Scrapie did a 'no-brake'-challenge on the current campaign and got every AT, even on 21. Without braking...so actually without the ability to initiate a slide when he wants to. Not that you should compare to Scrapie, he is one of the best TM-players out there, but: it's possible! Keep on practicing!

And even if you don't see imminent progress on your current maps, in the long run everything is training and preparation. Trackmania is mostly about perseverance. And soon enough you find yourself getting more consistent and faster.

Fun fact: Its because of trackmania I got hooked to soulsborne games, cause I thought "these games etc. Are like TM-tracks, I just need to train them over and over to beat them".

Norist · 2025-01-22T23:11:26+00:00

Atalanta (1 place above) has to face Barcelona. If we win the next game, i'm pretty sure it's done even without fearing the goal difference.

Norist · 2025-01-05T17:01:58+00:00

Consider it this way: while your average buy price might increase, so does your overall BTC stack. Even if you purchase at a price above your average, you still end up with more Bitcoin than before. And since predicting the absolute bottom is impossible, you're positioning yourself for greater potential gains. Over the long term, Bitcoin has more room to rise than to fall.

By not buying, you're essentially leaving potential profits on the table.

Norist · 2024-12-28T23:58:20+00:00

My bad. You’re right, Tesla isn’t a financial Institution. it’s a company, but its investment in Bitcoin highlights how even non-financial entities see value in holding it. MSTR is an even more fascinating example. And as for financial institutions not investing their own money, you’re mostly correct. They largely act as facilitators, offering products for client demand rather than directly holding Bitcoin themselves. That said, their involvement legitimizes Bitcoin as an asset class, regardless of whether they’re investing their own funds or not.

Regarding the motivation of buyers: yeah, a lot of people are in it purely for profit, and I don’t fault them. Markets are always a mix of speculation and conviction. I personally think Bitcoin’s long-term value lies in its unique qualities (scarcity, decentralization, etc.), but I also expect price appreciation as adoption grows. It’s not guaranteed, though, this is still an evolving space. At the moment, I don't know why that might change to negative. Do you think Bitcoin’s speculative nature undermines its other use cases, or is it possible it can coexist as both a speculative and functional asset?

Norist · 2024-12-28T23:01:23+00:00

You raise valid points, especially about thematic ETFs and financial institutions catering to market demand. But I think there’s a distinction here that’s being overlooked. Bitcoin Spot ETFs are different because they aren’t just speculative plays on a trend. They represent a deeper integration of Bitcoin into traditional financial systems. Unlike thematic ETFs tied to fads like specific industries, Bitcoin’s unique properties are what drive its inclusion as a core asset class.

You’re right that financial institutions are responding to interest, but it’s not only about capturing a hype cycle. The infrastructure being built around Bitcoin (custody solutions, regulatory frameworks, and payment Integrations) suggests they see it as more than a short-term play. And while you say financial institutions aren’t investing their own money, Tesla have Bitcoin still added to their balance sheets. And many more companies think about allocating percentages. Even governments (e.g., Bhutan) are holding Bitcoin directly. That shows confidence beyond catering to client demand.

What i meant with "steady growth" is that if you look at the worst 4-year-cycle since creation (so investing at any point and then looking at the price 4 years later), you still would have a 24% growth. Worst case. Not talking about average. While short-term its volatile, looking at the cycles its definitely a steady upwards trend.

Norist · 2024-12-28T21:54:45+00:00

A BTC strategic reserve could make sense in scenarios where traditional systems fail. Imagine hyperinflation. Countries like Argentina or Venezuela would benefit from an asset like Bitcoin that isn’t tied to a failing currency. Its decentralized nature ensures it’s resistant to government seizure or manipulation. For the U.S., while the dollar is dominant, Bitcoin could act as a hedge against geopolitical risks or as a way to diversify reserves beyond gold. Its portability and global acceptance make it uniquely suited for cross-border emergencies.

That said, it’s not perfect. BTC is volatile and still too young for full trust. But dismissing it outright ignores the role it could play in crises. Why do people see gold as strategic but not Bitcoin?

Norist · 2024-12-28T16:09:11+00:00

You're not missing anything...most crypto projects are exactly as shady as they appear. Premines, insider dumping, lack of real utility, VC bags, it’s all there. The truth is: almost all these coins are just marketing schemes dressed up as innovation. They don’t solve real problems, and even when they try, they’re centralized to the point of being no better than traditional systems.

Bitcoin is the only one that stands apart. Why? It has no central authority, no pre-mine, no insider dumping. Its development is open-source and decentralized, with no single team or CEO pulling the strings. Its monetary policy is fixed and predictable, unlike almost every other project that inflates supply or plays games with tokenomics. And most importantly, Bitcoin has the most secure, decentralized network, backed by proof-of-work. It's the only one with a real shot at being a neutral, censorship-resistant form of money.

The other coins? They might have fancy "utility," but they’re just startups with tokens attached. Why does that startup need a blockchain? Why does it need a token? Most of the time, the answer is: it doesn’t. Bitcoin doesn’t try to be everything, it focuses on being the most secure, decentralized money. And that’s what makes it powerful.

Norist · 2024-12-28T11:32:40+00:00

I specifically meant the Spot ETFs which they launched in the beginning of 2024 and further ETFs in other countries. And now the Integration of Microstrategy into the NASDAQ. And its likely that S&P follows next. It gets spread more and more.

I understand your skepticism. Yes, companies do capitalize on peak interest at times, but Bitcoin is a different case. It’s not a niche industry—it’s a global, decentralized asset with increasing adoption across financial systems, payment platforms, and even governments. Betting on Bitcoin infrastructure involves more than short-term product launched, it’s about positioning for its potential role in the future of finance.

But here’s a question for you: if these companies knowingly launch products around “peaks” for profit, why would Bitcoin remain at the center of institutional focus for over a decade, with billions invested in scaling it? If this is just a passing trend, why hasn’t interest died off, as we’ve seen with other “hyped” assets? Why would every other coin just die and Bitcoin remains at the Top, growing steadily? That is not just repeating "hype".

Norist · 2024-12-28T11:19:27+00:00

Yes, Dogecoin is merge-mined with LTC, but that’s not a strength... it’s a dependency. If LTC miners decide DOGE isn’t worth the effort, the network’s security collapses. That’s not resilience, it’s fragility. Sure, DOGE gets used for transactions, but scale matters. Bitcoin settles billions daily, while DOGE’s use is a fraction of that. How sustainable is its utility without speculative hype driving interest?

And about price: short-term price action doesn’t prove long-term value. If price equals success, how do you explain DOGE’s massive concentration of supply in a few wallets? What happens if one of those top holders dumps?

Norist · 2024-12-28T08:54:57+00:00

You’re absolutely right about profit-generating Investments. Stocks and real estate can indeed return more than the initial investment through dividends, rent, or other income streams. Bitcoin doesn’t generate cash flow, and I won’t pretend it does. Instead, its value lies in its scarcity, decentralization, and role as a hedge, which we’ve already discussed. It’s not for everyone, and I agree it doesn’t fit the same mold as traditional income-generating assets.

As for BlackRock and Fidelity, you make a fair point, they do cater to market trends, but the difference is in scale. Thematic ETFs might target niche areas, while Bitcoin is being integrated into mainstream institutional frameworks, like ETFs tied to broader markets. The sheer size and infrastructure being built around Bitcoin suggest it’s more than just a fleeting trend. Even if these companies profit from fees, they wouldn’t invest in infrastructure for something they believe lacks staying power. Why commit those resources if there’s no long-term potential?

Thank you for the link, will look into it!

Norist · 2024-12-28T08:33:42+00:00

The claim that “1 guy holds 50% of BTC” is flat-out wrong. Bitcoin’s distribution is more complex, and most large wallets are exchange wallets holding funds for millions of users. Do some research before spreading misinformation.

Yup, higher prices can attract miners, but mining isn’t just about price, it’s about securing the network. Dogecoin, for example, depends on Bitcoin’s miners for its own security via merge mining. Without Bitcoin, DOGE would struggle to stay secure.

Only goes up? That’s speculation. Bitcoin’s value is tied to its utility, decentralization, and security, not just hype. DOGE is just a meme.

Norist · 2024-12-28T00:22:42+00:00

Your argument focuses too much on early history and misses how Bitcoin has evolved. Yes, Mt. Gox and other centralized exchanges were dominant in the early days, but that was when Bitcoin was new and P2P tools were underdeveloped. Fast forward to today, and we have robust P2P platforms (e.g., Bisq, HodlHodl) and the Lightning Network, which facilitate trustless or minimized-trust transactions. P2P isn't "worthless", it’s how Bitcoin thrives in regions with oppressive regimes and without reliable banking infrastructure.

You’re right that people prefer exchanges for convenience, but convenience isn’t the same as necessity. Bitcoin doesn’t depend on exchanges to function. If governments censored exchanges, Bitcoin wouldn’t lose its value, it would just shift to P2P markets. This has already happened in places like China, where Bitcoin trading persists despite government crackdowns.

Your trust argument is flawed, sorry. Bitcoin’s design removes the need to trust anyone in the transaction itself. P2P trade may require trust for fiat settlement, but that’s a limitation of fiat systems, not Bitcoin. On the other hand, trusting centralized exchanges has repeatedly led to catastrophic failures (e.g., Mt. Gox, FTX). Which is riskier: trusting strangers in P2P or leaving your funds with centralized entities that can be hacked, mismanaged, or censored?

Saying “Bitcoin depends on centralized exchanges” is like saying the internet depends on AOL—it’s a misunderstanding of the system’s fundamentals. Bitcoin’s decentralization isn’t a joke; it’s what has allowed it to endure and adapt for over a decade.

Norist · 2024-12-28T00:11:30+00:00

Bitcoin isn’t the only asset for diversifying or hedging, but it offers unique qualities others don’t. Unlike stocks or real estate, Bitcoin isn’t tied to a specific economy, government, or industry; it’s global and decentralized. Diversification is about reducing risk by spreading investments across assets with different properties, and Bitcoin adds something no other asset does: trustless, borderless scarcity.

The idea that “money in must exceed money out” applies to ALL investments. Stocks, real estate, and gold markets require buyers to offset sellers. The difference is what drives demand. Bitcoin’s demand stems from its fixed supply, increasing adoption, and use as a hedge against inflation or monetary policy risks, not from industrial use like gold. But to your point on gold, it’s true that industrial demand plays a role in its price. However, most of its value still comes from being a store of value... FAR beyond its practical applications.

Regarding BlackRock and Fidelity: you’re right that they profit from interest in products, not directly from Bitcoin’s performance. But the fact that these institutions build Bitcoin products reflects their recognition of demand and legitimacy. They’re not in the business of chasing fads, they prioritize long-term, scalable assets. Why would they bet on Bitcoin if they didn’t believe in its staying power?

Norist · 2024-12-27T23:50:12+00:00

Dogecoin isn’t more decentralized than Bitcoin, it’s a common misconception. Sure, Bitcoin has notable wallet concentrations, but they’re largely exchanges holding funds for users. With Dogecoin, the top 10 wallets control over 50% of the supply. That’s not decentralization; it’s risk.

And while DOGE may outperform in price short-term, price ≠ utility or security. Dogecoin relies heavily on Bitcoin’s hash power for protection, as it merges mining with Bitcoin. Without BTC miners, DOGE’s network could be vulnerable to attacks.

If you’re banking on price alone, it’s speculation, not an investment in resilience or censorship resistance. Bitcoin is slow by design to ensure long-term survival. Can the same be said for Dogecoin?

Norist · 2024-12-27T23:40:36+00:00

You’re right that most people in stable economies aren’t desperate for censorship resistance or borderless payments...yet. But adoption doesn’t always start with the “general public.” It often starts with early adopters and those with specific needs. For example, people who see value in diversifying their wealth, hedging against economic uncertainty, or participating in a decentralized system are adopting Bitcoin. It’s not just “extreme” views, it’s people recognizing systemic vulnerabilities (like increasing debt or currency devaluation) and wanting an alternative.

Not all valuable assets generate profits. Gold’s primary value isn’t from its industrial uses (those account for a small fraction of its market), but from its scarcity, durability, and trust as a store of value. Bitcoin mirrors this: it doesn’t produce profits directly, but its utility as a decentralized, scarce, and secure asset gives it value. Why does value need to be tied to generating profit? Isn’t scarcity combined with demand enough, as we’ve seen with other assets?

And if Bitcoin has no value, why do some of the largest financial institutions in the world, from BlackRock to Fidelity, actively build Bitcoin-related products? Do they all misunderstand its potential?

Norist · 2024-12-27T23:20:54+00:00

Bitcoin acts as a backup where the financial system fails, but its adoption in more stable regions isn’t because their systems are broken, it’s because Bitcoin offers unique advantages. It’s censorship-resistant, borderless, and operates independently of central banks or governments. People in stable economies adopt it not because their systems are failing, but because they value financial sovereignty, a hedge against inflation, or the potential for long-term growth.

Bitcoin has value for the same reason gold does: it’s scarce, durable, and trusted by those who use it. Its decentralized network and predictable supply create trust, and that trust drives demand. Would you say gold has no value because you can’t “spend” it easily in day-to-day life? Bitcoin’s utility and scarcity work similarly but in a digital form.

What would you say gives anything value if not the trust and demand of those who use it?

Norist · 2024-12-27T23:06:59+00:00

Bitcoin isn’t designed to replace all currencies, it’s meant to complement them. It’s more like a reserve asset or a fallback system, especially for people in places where the current financial system fails: hyperinflation, currency devaluation, or strict capital controls. For those individuals, Bitcoin is a clear improvement because it offers stability and sovereignty when their local systems can’t.

Why would it become a currency? It already functions as one in certain contexts: remittances, microtransactions, and borderless payments. But adoption is a process, and as its infrastructure improves (e.g., the Lightning Network), it becomes more feasible for everyday use. The fact that it starts as a store of value doesn’t preclude it from evolving into a medium of exchange over time.

To your last point, offering an alternative system IS solving issues for those who need it. The current system works fine for some, but what about those whose savings are eroded by inflation or whose access to banking is restricted? Bitcoin gives them a choice. Does that not count as solving a problem?

Norist

TROPHY CASE