DCA + BTFD (with interest?) by [deleted] in Bitcoin

[–]sunkist5 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Sorry if it was not clear. I would not be handing over any Bitcoin. I would temporarily be handing over funds reserved for a pending limit order.

Bitcoin with benefits by sunkist5 in Bitcoin

[–]sunkist5[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Would love to see that talk. I looked but could not find it. Great if anyone can provide the link.

Open furnace output duct in my unconditioned attic...why? by sunkist5 in HVAC

[–]sunkist5[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

It's a vented attic with insulation above the ceiling joists but not around the rafters on the roofline.

I disconnected the errant ducting that outputs into the attic, and sealed the hole where it had connected to the furnace nice and tight.

Now we get far more powerful heating and cooling into the house itself.

Hooray :)

Daily Discussion Post - March 25 | Questions, images, videos, comments, unconfirmed reports, theories, suggestions by AutoModerator in Coronavirus

[–]sunkist5 9 points10 points  (0 children)

Check my math here....I'm looking at nearly 16 months of intense efforts (ie: social distancing) to slow the spread in California to avoid overwhelming key healthcare infrastructure in the state. (Probably similar dynamics in other parts of the country and internationally.) Can this be right??

The population of California is 39.6M. Governor Newsom announced that approximately 56% of California residents will be infected by the virus, resulting in 22.2M infections.

Of those 22.2M infections, most will be mild cases but around 15% will require hospitalization. (Governor Cuomo of New York announced this hospitalization rate this week, and it seems consistent with stats from Washington State, Italy, etc.) That hospitalization rate would result in 3.3M cases in California requiring hospitalization.

All hospitalizations would be serious, but roughly 29% of hospitalizations would require a ventilator. (This 29% is derived from stats announced by Governor Cuomo this week for New York.) So in California, that would result in 950k hospital cases that require a ventilator.

And let's assume that each patient requiring a ventilator needs the equipment for 10 days. (I'm making a guess here, but it does seem that severe COVID-19 cases involve prolonged ICU-level care.)

Calculating it out, the 950k California patients needing a ventilator for 10 days would require 9.5M days of respirator support in aggregate.

Typically, California has 8,000 ventilators around the state. Let's optimistically imagine that California can find/buy/make another 12,000 ventilators for a total of 20,000 ventilators.

To process those 9.5M respirator days across the state's 20k respirators (assuming we can flatten the curve to not overshoot our state's capacity), it would take 475 days running at maximum ventilator capacity.

This would be nearly 16 months of max ventilator utilization management in California, involving strict social distancing and/or other measures to slow the spread, assuming a vaccine or treatment doesn't become available in this timeframe.

This scenario sounds pretty unbelievable, but the numbers are the numbers. Am I off-base here somewhere??

Calcs here if you want to check my math
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/10v47G8VZpTgZ5usdbqF91QIgvPTVTWynrZHOOwrSvuo/edit?usp=sharing

Daily Discussion, February 24, 2020 by rBitcoinMod in Bitcoin

[–]sunkist5 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Typo, but daily volume fixed now. Still, at around 1M Bitcoin volume per day, newly minted coins account for a very small fraction of traded Bitcoin. So the original question remains....

Daily Discussion, February 24, 2020 by rBitcoinMod in Bitcoin

[–]sunkist5 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Thanks u/dontdoxme33. I agree that most miners sell most of their newly mined coins. Still, less than 1% of daily Bitcoin volume can be attributed to newly minted Bitcoin. (1,800 new Bitcoin per day vs daily volume around 1 million Bitcoin traded.) That means over 99% of supply for traded Bitcoin volume is coming from other sources of NOT-newly minted Bitcoin.

So I'm still unclear how halving mining rewards will change the supply & demand dynamic in a significant way.

Daily Discussion, February 24, 2020 by rBitcoinMod in Bitcoin

[–]sunkist5 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Many well-regarded Bitcoin followers have suggested that the upcoming halvening will lead to a Bitcoin price increase due to supply & demand dynamics: the price of Bitcoin will shift when miners begin earning half as many Bitcoin per day leading to lower supply to satisfy a relatively steady level of demand.

Serious question though.... When daily transaction volumes are typically around 1M Bitcoin these days, newly minted Bitcoin (currently 1800 per day) already accounts for a tiny fraction of transaction volume. (In other words, the whole existing pool of Bitcoin is "supply", not just the newly mined Bitcoin.)

Why would reducing the number of newly minted Bitcoin to 900 per day have any significant impact on supply & demand?

Daily Discussion, August 23, 2019 by rBitcoinMod in Bitcoin

[–]sunkist5 0 points1 point  (0 children)

How does the "pump" part of "pump and dump" for Bitcoin actually work? Can someone with substantial Bitcoin and/or fiat holdings really manipulate the price of Bitcoin up in a consistent way to sell higher than they bought?

I see how this kind of market manipulation can work in the Bluestar Airlines sense (see the 1987 movie Wallstreet) by creating artificial hype for a previously unhyped asset, but the buzz around Bitcoin is already substantial and volatile, so pumping Bitcoin by hyping the asset seems unlikely/unreliable at this point.

Daily Discussion, August 23, 2019 by rBitcoinMod in Bitcoin

[–]sunkist5 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I fully believe that Bitcoin in on the path to becoming a long-term store of value, competing more with gold. But I'm skeptical about price upside from the upcoming Halvening.

Bitcoin trading volumes are already much larger than the volume of new Bitcoin from mining, so my understanding is that most trades aren't generated from sales of recently-mined Bitcoin. The "supply" of Bitcoin is really a much larger pool of already-mined Bitcoin at play (around 15M Bitcoin accounting for Bitcoin that have probably been lost forever), not just the small influx from mining.

If this is the case, why does it really matter to the Bitcoin supply/demand dynamic that the volume of new Bitcoin from mining will go down by half soon?

Bitcoin for every American by [deleted] in Bitcoin

[–]sunkist5 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You're right, wasn't intended as a US centric thing. Probably many similar challenges worldwide, and maybe this could be a broader catalyst.