That is TWh/year, not TW. Divide it by 365 day/year * 24 hour/day and his number was about right.

I think there is some price where the supply can be absorbed by the market, if the coin continues to develop and begin to realize its potential for scalability, microtransactions, etc.  That is a big if, which is why the initial burst of buying was overly exuberant.

The supply is fixed in XCN but not in BTC. At a lower price the supply is less of an overhang.

If the price drops to something sustainable and then the coin begins to successfully develop, then the price should go back up.

More supply than demand is always the only objectively correct answer.

But my opinion is that it was grossly overvalued for a coin that was only a few days old with major "growing pains" and I said so a few days ago.

There is also an overhang of one guy with over 500k coins mined from the beginning at very low cost (and whatever other ninja miners we don't know about)

I still think it is somewhat overvalued, but not too bad at this point. I'd be a buyer at 1500 given no further developments.

Install the development library for gmp. Exact instructions depend on your linux distribution.

You are assuming:
1. That supply of for example cheaper power (and other similar resources) is unlimited and instantly available
2. That supply of more efficient miners is unlmiited
3. That more efficient miners can be deployed instantly before even more efficient miners are developed.

All of these are false.

Looking at averages for the entire network is incorrect except in the static model where there are no constraints (time or quantity) on increasing capacity.

Sure in that toy model the most efficient miner just instantly scales up to cover the entire network and then the averages do apply.

This is also totally unrealistic.

That's quite different from running a botnet. A botnet might not have a direct operating cost but you still have to put time and some money into it. Whatever you get out of a botnet, you worked for it.

I general I agree with rpietilla though. There is likely to be little difference in selling behavior as a function of operating cost. Small differences are possible but not that important.

Mining is largely irrelevant at this stage. Even with cheap ASIC hardware the average Joe won't mine enough to care or matter.

Good hardware wallets and getting paid in BTC would both be a fairly big deal. #2 is starting to happen. #3 is not even in sight.

It isn't a wash for the reason explained earlier. During the period of time of the transaction and potentially for some time thereafter (if the conversion back isn't immediate) there is additional demand for Bitcoins. There are only a fixed number of bitcoins (about 13 million now). Imagine using BTC for payment on eBay (and elsewhere) becomes so popular that there are 13 million of these transactions in progress at any given time, and the average size of such a transaction is 1 BTC. That would tie up every single Bitcoin in existence. Because people want Bitcoins for other reasons, in reality what would have to happen is the price of BTC goes up so the average transaction size (in BTC) goes down so the number of Bitcoins tied up in this way also goes down.

The first day's mining will be very close to 1% after 100 days, but the mining on this coin has been messed up for a week (and is still messed up, maybe messed up even more now). Who believes that the hash rate has naturally grown to 6 billion from less than half that over the past 1-2 days while the price has dropped by more than half?

A week's mining will be about 7% after 100 days, not 1%, and who knows how long it will be until there is anything resembling a level playing field.

Laziness and convenience would increase holding much more than that. If you get $30 worth of BTC for an item on ebay you probably just hold it, especially if there are plenty of places to spend BTC. You are probably not going to worry about exchange rate risk on $30. Ebay traders are not miners.

I don't want him to keep the miner private. I have no position on the matter at all. It's his business, entirely. 

I do think it is better for a coin to try to level the playing field on mining to some extent, which is why we created open source GPU miner bounties early on for XMR. The nv bounty produced results and although the ati miner didn't, we got lucky in that claymore released his miner. It is not open source but at least it is public (with a small fee). Not ideal, but better than private.

So if you are asking me if I think it would be better for BBR if he released his miner, the answer is yes (and it would have been even better had he released it much earlier). However, I have no say in that and neither does anyone else.

You can't know that. Or more specifically you can't know what difference it could have made earlier.

The process of a coin getting any kind of following early on is one that depends a lot on bringing in miners. When there is zero else you can do with the coin (not even speculate on it much because the trading market hasn't developed), the potential audience is all miners.  And if most miners can't compete you naturally lose a big part of your potential early audience.

From the point of view of growing a community around a coin, 1000 or 5000 small miners is much better than a few big ones, especially big ones who are just going to move on to their next opportunity to rip through a new coin once they are done with this one.

Not that any of this is your responsibility though. It isn't your coin, and you owe the people trying to develop it nothing. You can and should do what you want and whatever makes you the most money.

1. I guess. But how long can they be broke if they're supposedly making so much money mining with no overhead?

2. It is work to run a botnet. I don't know the details of what tasks running a botnet entails but it has to be a naturally competitive market. If it is too easy then other people get into it and it becomes more work to successfully compete.

Any of them would work. Replacing the PoW on a coin is, in terms of code changes, just not a big deal. They all have advantages and disadvantages though.

For US participants, this is Friday at:

10 am EDT
9 am CDT,
8 am MDT
7 am PDT

Alaska and Hawaii you can figure it out on your own.

1. I would like to see actual evidence of this as opposed to people just stating it. Is there any?

2. Not having a high cost structure would reduce, not increase the incentive to sell. The people who are most motivated to sell quickly are those with high operating costs (electricity, cloud mining, etc.). So this argument about botnet behavior is illogical in addition to unproven.

You have to put a decimal point and a whole bunch of zeros (keep adding them until it works -- you will get different error messages) and the letters ep at the end. I have no idea why.

That's what merging is for. If you change nothing but the proof of work, merging will be trivial, and could even be automated.

There is a widely held perception that small miners don't sell off the majority of what they mine. I have no idea if it is true, but it explains a lot of the disapproval and suspicion of large miners be they farms, botnets, etc.

Run a RAM test. Replace the bad module if that's what it is. Bad RAM would definitely explain corruption of your blockchain.