Jameson SLopp is a bad actor, liar and disgusting shitcoiner manipulator.

You know that the difficulty adjustment makes mining always unprofitable right? You only have a 2016 block timeframe to do a massive hash dump and be VERY lucky to make profit. Then you must have a massive increase in efficiency to even compete profitably again. So, yeah a guy lost $600...

This is what happens if folks take Slopp bad actor seriously. He is investor in Nakamoto and its good when scammers get rekt.

Dude expected to spend a few usd and get 3btc back from finding a block. not too smart.

That's not true at all. Difficulty, on average, only changes by a few small percentage points each adjustment. So there is plenty of time to remain profitable so long as you aren't getting into mining with an unprofitable setup from the get-go.

could have bought a bitcoin punks, a fine pepes and a blockforge with that loss dang

Renting hashrate is an uphill battle for profitability.

The only reason to do this is money laundering, which I'm not opposed to. I used to clean KYC sats by renting hashpower on Nicehash before they started forcing KYC on their service. You point it at a pool that doesn't KYC and you get clean virgin sats sent to a clean wallet.

The big miners rent hash and renting hash has become a market. Now with DATUM and Ocean small miners can rent hash and become sovereign by creating their own Bitcoin block templates. They now are able to complete and decentralize Bitcoin mining. But we know that, as you are bad actor together with the compromised Core, you don't like that.

Wow, at least he can do the math to help him 😅

😂🤣

Uh huh, and how do you think the other miners respond? This first order thinking shit is aggravating as fuck.

Ya, renting hashrate is a silly casino where the house (who you're "renting" from) always wins.

💯

You're right. If mining is so unprofitable, then I guess miners are all just producing blocks out of charity. I mined for a year and a half on a single miner I bought myself. Somehow I survived the dreaded difficulty adjustment!

You haven't had a chance to look at their claimed losses huh? You might want to do that. You pool mining IS losing money. I don't care what you are pretending. The numbers versus market valuations are below equivalence above 2¢ per KWH. Even AFTER that the machines, compute depreciation, opportunity cost, and space acquisition make it even worse. Even people who mine with stranded [free] electricity have research, transport, operational, and data throughput costs. Mining is so unprofitable a few mining companies started buy Bitcoin because the price appreciation was outpacing the block rewards. So, yeah I geuss these miners are charitable, subsidized, or stupid. Take your pick.

Take Slopps cock out of your mouth and start thinking before writing because you make 0 sense.

To influence Bitcoin's security you need to control power and control ASICs. I don't think that renting hash does either of those things meaningfuly.

The key is when you are mining to produce your own sovereign Bitcoin block template and now that is possible for everyone with DATUM. Where the hash comes from is irrelevant as long as the above is enforced.

So Jameson SLopp who is a shitcoiner, bad actor and evil manipulator together with the compromised Core and some Coretards hate Bitcoin mining decentralization. Shocking, not.

At least the scammers of old used to get new Bitcoiners to buy shitcoins, but the ones now are getting them to waste money on hashrate and run (faulty) nodes. I think that makes these new ones at least better than Vitalik and co. It does likely make them a little easier to fall for though. I do still worry about the replay attacks we'll no doubt end up hearing about. Guess people gotta touch the hot stove..

Your original claim was that the difficulty adjustment makes mining *always* unprofitable. Whether or not a mining corporation is operating on losses at the moment is irrelevant to the fact that your claim is factually untrue. Corporations come and go and unprofitable operations will go bankrupt. The core premise that mining is always unprofitable, as you claimed, though is untrue. A difficulty adjustment of 1-5% isn't going to ruin a miner that is capable of operating with profits beyond that. The current adjustment is looking to be only +0.81%. If a miner was operating in profits this adjustment period, they're likely going to be operating in profit the next as well.

I’m a newcomer, and not a technically savvy person. Learning the fundamentals of the protocol, and the technology is an uphill battle, but one that seems worse climbing. From my narrow understanding, what I’ve gathered is that the amount of people contributing to mining process is more important receiving returns from the process. The through line I’ve heard from people expressing this sentiment is that this helps secure the network through de-centralizing the mining process even more so, and not to expect any return. If anything expect to pay a fee and consider that as a small price for a securing the network further. As I said before, I am not technically savvy. Before Bitcoin I had issue managing files let alone a seed phrase. I have not implemented any of these node mining protocols, or bip 110, currently running a standard mode on bitcoin core. Would you mind explaining what you mean by “faulty” nodes? It sounds like you have a complete opposite opinion and I’m curious why that is as a newbie. Appreciate the patience in advance

Assuming profits and difficulty adjustments are proportional is incorrect. 1% increased difficulty doesn't equate to 1% loss in profit. It not only compounds but is also random as well. The mining incentive always was a fresh UTXO. You make the market for Bitcoin as a miner that power has unquantified benefits. As for your claim that a miner can be profitable that remains to be seen. Hiding losses because you don't factor all the costs is not evidence contrary to my claim. This is a supply/demand certainty. If there is profit to be made and there is no USP or differentiator to mining (there isn't) then the supply fills that demand and profit is reduced to the margin of production.

I mean nodes that are out of consensus with the network. That is, those signalling for BIP110. As for mining without reward, good luck keeping that up. It's antithetical to rational economic action. By all means decentralize the hash rate, but find ways to do it that are profitable, either outright, through heat reclamation, or at least through the intangible value of paying slightly more for KYC-free sats. You do nobody any favors being a martyr, and won't last long. Bitcoin is not a charity, and the last guy known for professing altruism in the space is in prison for a very very long time.

On the matter of BIP110, I'm sure you heard it's about keeping Bitcoin as money and not data storage. How could anyone disagree? Except it doesn't. You can still put images on chain in BIP110 compliant transactions -- the data is just in different fields. That's the thing about data. It's 0's and 1's, and you can generally do what you want with them if all you want is to store rather than execute them. Meanwhile, the activation by contentious soft fork is almost certain to result in a chain split, unless miners cave like they did with the last major UASF which brought us Segwit. Given how pointless the BIP is, this seems unlikely. More likely is that the newest people to Bitcoin who know the least about what they're doing are put in a position to fall victim to replay attacks or at least unexpected behavior. If it were more popular or somehow becomes more, there is also the risk of large reorgs (where confirmed transactions suddenly are no longer included in the chain) which SERIOUSLY undermines Bitcoin's value proposition. I don't think this is likely, though it does speak to the recklessness with which proponents are moving forward. The whole thing seems to be driven by an ideology of 'we have to do something'. It's true spam is somewhat harmful and should be avoided, but just throwing an ineffective tantrum about it is not how to fix the matter. I'm personally fond of mempool filters, which were the status quo before the change in Core v30, and which Knots has for a long time supported to do things like filter inscriptions. And I still use it, though am somewhat annoyed that you have to go out of your way to avoid the default of BIP 110 signalling by default in 29.3 (you can however still run non 110 if you download the correct version). Other methods to mitigate the damage include utreexo which solves a lot around handling utxo set bloat. Both the Core and Knots side here seemed to rush out changes recklessly, so if your head is spinning, that's the tl;Dr. If you're not up on how to defend against replay attacks, maybe take a few weeks off of sending transactions in the beginning of September just to let the dust settle. And if you're trying to get caught up on the tech it's hard to recommend Mastering Bitcoin enough as a great primer (though I hear great things about Grokking Bitcoin). You can read it free here:

GitHub

GitHub - bitcoinbook/bitcoinbook: Mastering Bitcoin 3rd Edition - Programming the Open Blockchain

Mastering Bitcoin 3rd Edition - Programming the Open Blockchain - bitcoinbook/bitcoinbook

And if you want to go further, the Bitcoin Dev project has more resources than you'll run out of for a few years anyway at

The Bitcoin Dev Project

The Bitcoin Dev Project | The Bitcoin Dev Project

Find your way in Bitcoin open source. Explore learning paths, good first issues, tools, and communities to start contributing to Bitcoin development.

Welcome to Bitcoin. We disagree a lot.

I'd also say if you're near any of these, do stop by. You'll feel like an impostor at first, but as you read and chat with people you'll surprise yourself at how much you can start to keep up. And meanwhile, we love hearing questions to clarify.

BitDevs NYC

BitDevs NYC

BitDevs is a community for those interested in discussing and participating in the research and development of Bitcoin and related protocols.

Mining is luck. Solo Bitaxing, individuals renting hash or mining farms punching out mass hash play the same game. Winning a block can’t be predicted. The point of mining is willing participation so as to be in the game. The same as choosing to run a node, the same as choosing to use sound money

I take Bitcoin University seriously

And they don’t even have a bitaxe to show as a participation trophy 🤣

You were saying? View quoted note →

No one rents hash for profitability you doofus. It’s why you scammers always fail to understand what drives the anti-spam movement.

Some people do it smarter: View quoted note →

In an adversarial environment, you might find that no hashers will rent to you.

...better than nothing, and I do love DATUM...

DATUM truly decentralizes Bitcoin and that makes Bitcoin Freedom Money - permissionless and sovereign (not centralized mining with centralized control)

You got NAKA’d broke boi

You have NO idea what you’re taking about. The people who own the machines get paid for their hash ! They don’t control shit. It’s literally the same thing

This fact goes against @Jameson Lopp s entire narrative lol 😂

That second link is one of the coolest things I've seen in bitcoin.

I’ll look into it all once I have the time, appreciate it

That one's courtesy of @Bitcoin Dev Project so if you did have comments, praise, or want to get zapping, that's who to direct that all to. And yes, I can't think of many other places where you can get that much information to go from zero to node/protocol developer all in one convenient place. They've really outdone themselves. They've also got Saving Satoshi, if reading so much isn't your thing and you'd rather learn the material by playing a game, at

Saving Satoshi

Saving Satoshi

Explore the mysteries of Satoshi and learn about bitcoin along the way.

It's a journey -- if you look into it ALL I'll look forward to hearing about your role as a maintainer of the project. Like any other journey worth making it begins with a single step, and proceeds with single steps thereafter.

But also, don't feel like you have to look into ALL of it. Most any corner of Bitcoin you go into will be enriching even if it's all you do (though admittedly it is still possible to end up with a sophomoric level of understanding, but you seem particularly primed to avoid the dangers thereof, having chosen the name "Humility"). It's also worth noting that for as deep down the technical hole you can go, Bitcoin is a multidisciplinary beast, and that whether you specialize or generalize, there will always be people out here that know more than you about something. At the end of the day it's not a map where X marks the spot, but rather, a map that is constantly being both expanded at the edges and enhanced in terms of its fidelity (as well as layers underground and into the sky). Freedom be like that sometimes.

Several things to unpack here. “You can still embed data in other fields.” Nirvana Fallacy. Core actively removed the guardrails. BIP-110 puts them back. The argument that imperfect protection means no protection is the same logic used to justify removing seatbelts because they don’t prevent all deaths. “Chain split unless miners cave like SegWit.” You just described exactly how a UASF works — and then called it unlikely because BIP-110 is “pointless.” That’s circular. The pointlessness is your assertion, not your evidence. “Risk of large reorgs.” You then wrote: “I don’t think this is likely.” You raised a catastrophic scenario you don’t believe in, to imply recklessness. That’s a phantom threat — a rhetorical device, not an argument. “Driven by ideology.” So is every position in this debate. Yours included. The whitepaper is clear: peer-to-peer electronic cash. Not peer-to-peer data storage. BIP-110 restores relay policy toward that standard.

Wavlake

BIP-ey 110 • Kyma Fi

Play, boost, and more on Wavlake ⚡️🎵

BIP110 has nothing to do with relay policy; is is a change to consensus rules. Core changed a relay policy. BIP110 is an attempt to change consensus. Core's move did not render any Bitcoin frozen. It is impossible to know in advance how much may be frozen by BIP110 through things like presigned transactions, common in inheritance schemes. To do nothing of value. Moving jpgs from opreturn into other fields in a transaction and bloating the utxo set while doing so isn't fixing anything. It's just a power trip from the sorts of people who have openly stated that they'd like unilateral control (mechanic) or would like to incorporate law enforcement measures into Bitcoin (Luke). You can't inhibit arbitrary data on chain, save through size limits, any more than you can prevent your enemies from using Bitcoin. Deal with it.

You can limit arbitrary data abuse on Bitcoin and that is what BIP 110 achieves. Its both beautiful and significant.