Well, the extra-energy can be stored and sold later. I think that it isn't profitable mining bitcoin with this extra-energy because of the high price of the ASICs (and the maintenance). Not only free electricity is necesary to mine bitcoin, it's necesary a investment in machines and space. Bye  You really can not store AC power in any meaningful way.... and AC to DC, then back to AC for transmission.... that isn't efficient either. The power system, likely looses about 25 to 40 percent of the energy from generation to your door in things like line loss, along with losses at transmission.While I am not saying the OP's idea is good or bad, since power systems are run by governments, and they manage to mess it all up at least 3/4 of the time..... storing electrical energy isn't as easy as you would think. I don't think this is true. Do you have any sources on this? It has been (somewhat) proven above that the electric grid (in the US at least) is very efficient and looses little via leakage getting electricity from electric plants to where it is used Along the route, through the hundreds or even thousands of miles of high tension lines and towers (called ‘pylons’) significant but naturally-occurring electrical current losses of up to one-third of the original output are experienced — which must be covered by 1) sending more current than is needed to ensure the required amount reaches the city after the losses are factored in 2) the installation of costly substations, with their hugely expensive transformer systems to recover and re-modulate the current. |
|
|
|
From wikipedia on Money Supply M0: In some countries, such as the United Kingdom, M0 includes bank reserves, so M0 is referred to as the monetary base, or narrow money.[11]
MB: is referred to as the monetary base or total currency.[8] This is the base from which other forms of money (like checking deposits, listed below) are created and is traditionally the most liquid measure of the money supply.[12]
M1: Bank reserves are not included in M1.
M2: Represents M1 and "close substitutes" for M1.[13] M2 is a broader classification of money than M1. M2 is a key economic indicator used to forecast inflation.[14]
M3: M2 plus large and long-term deposits. Since 2006, M3 is no longer published by the US central bank.[15] However, there are still estimates produced by various private institutions.
MZM: Money with zero maturity. It measures the supply of financial assets redeemable at par on demand. Velocity of MZM is historically a relatively accurate predictor of inflation.[16][17][18] |
|
|
|
There are so many presumptions about what a pegged side chain to BTC would look like.
That is to presume the security of the SC would be equal or greater than the current BTC master chain. I highly doubt that will ever be the case.
If there was ever equal or greater security on a SC then why not have everyone just switch to the more secure chain?
To peg them and say they are "equal" and coins are transferrable between them makes little sense as one chain will always be more secure or have more infrastructure to support it.
Seems like a broken idea to me.
It is a broken idea, but switching to another chain is either done via proof of burn, two way peg, or a hard fork. Either way it's a serious change. The SC idea isn't that bad an idea, but in the end, they would probably lead to more security issue due to added complexity. If it can be done, it will be done, but honey-badger don't care, and I'm tired of the whining from SC folks. Just do it. Amir Taaki wants to bring complete anonymity to Bitcoin. First he has to demonstrate it on other blockchains. The SC developers can demonstrate it on an altcoin and if it works, then Bitcoin can adopt it. If they come up with a two-way peg that works, then the trade-off for whatever benefit the SC offers may be worth some sacrifice, like security or functionality. It's unlikely it can be more secure than Bitcoin AND have other benefits. If they did, then just hard fork Bitcoin. |
|
|
|
Who are you trying to fool?
Bitcoin technology has been surpassed by 3 generations of new crypto currencies.
Bitcoin is slow, bulky, insecure, not anonymous, centralized, halted development, shitty difficulty adjustment.
Most coins have been hacked or scammed from legit users, market is completely cornered by those criminals.
We'll see in a few days after CES 2015 with IBM's ADEPT and the World of Bitcoin exhibits. |
|
|
|
|
Most of the bitcoiners are absent. They're probably heading to Vegas for the World of Bitcoin.
|
|
|
|
|
The timing of this dump is too good. It's the end of the holiday break when families are traveling. CES is this week featuring IBM's Internet of Things and World of Bitcoin.
|
|
|
|
|
We'll see if CES rocks the Bitcoin world this week between IBM's Internet of Things and World of Bitcoin.
|
|
|
|
|
I have to admit it was smart timing to cause a panic dump at the end of the holiday season when most aren't paying attention.
|
|
|
|
Yes it is good that developers have commercial support to work on the core, but neutrality would be served better by the developers getting their support from a more widely dispersed set of interests.
Don't leave us hanging in the wind like that. What types of interests do you have in mind? |
|
|
|
I suspect most people who have been trolling Adam and the sidechain developers have ulterior motives. They probably either hold large Alt coin hoards, are part of alt coin development teams or have other vested interests that the sidechain project would directly compete with/make redundant.
Quite the opposite most are heavily invested in Bitcoin and more over the idea of hard money. SC are a threat to fundamental hard money function in Bitcoin. I would agree that it isn't just the alt coin camp talking down SCs. SCs have the potential of giving people a false hope of it being equivalent to Bitcoin but in fact not having all of the elements of MC Bitcoin. Homeopathic remedies are still acceptable forms of snake oil. Magical thinking is everywhere. Bitcoin has properties that can't be duplicated. There can't be generic forms of Bitcoin, but there are placebo trials called altcoins. |
|
|
|
Satoshi invented a new element called bitcoinium, and all alt-coins are made of it too;
Not sure what to make of that analogy. It sounds homeopathic. |
|
|
|
You're a little late asking this since Gox. Most of the people that lost a lot are gone. But due to security issues I lost about 200 BTC.
200 BTC is quite a fair sum. What security issues caused the loss? Mostly key management, but I'm at a loss for much of it. I brought these issues to the attention of the devs and they added safeguards for future loss prevention. That's why I'm still helping fight FUD and not divested. Was this with BTC or another currency out of curiosity? I never fiddled much with anything other than Bitcoin. I lost a bunch because I started a brainwallet type trivia game and imported one of the private keys into a hotwallet. Another was an issue with how I used BIP38. Others were related to backups and possibly a stolen laptop. What I have left is hopefully well secured. |
|
|
|
He's saying that no matter what altcoins claim, they are no better than Bitcoin and are only used to scam value out of actual original Bitcoins. The reason is that they all use the same amount of energy to reach value.
The question is not related to this thread only but to all recent work done by Adam Back. If you don't mind I'll wait for his reply. He explained it in his OP. Perhaps if you ask more specific questions he might not have to simply repeat himself. |
|
|
|
The idea is similar to the sidechains development taking place in Bitcoin – with the difference that the additional functionality is all contained within the NXT platform, without the need for an external two-way peg. Emphasis mine. It doesn't offer a two-way peg, so what does the SC stand for? |
|
|
|
A lot of grid is wasted during off peak times. Energy is stored or sold in inefficient manners. Instead, they should use any excess energy in mining bitcoins to sell. Rather than raising electric rates, they can increase their customer base. Their price discovery will be the electricity/btc pair. They can choose which will be most profitable. Storage can then be bought by customers for their needs based on rates. This just seems more efficient than being forced to sell to only one market.
You cannot really store energy, those methods popped up in the renewables sphere mostly, more often only there. The issue regarding POW mining is that it can absorb any amount of power supply. On the long, we need something else besides that. I'm not sure what you mean by "absorb any amount of power supply." Mining is voluntary. PoW proves the energy. It's a matter of physics what you do with the work. You can always turn it back into energy. The problem with selling energy units is counterparty risk, especially with energy market manipulation. I'm not saying we burn all our produced energy, just the energy that the grid wastes over long distances. Energy is easy to store locally, or at least it should be if we want to get away from burning carbon. |
|
|
|
You're a little late asking this since Gox. Most of the people that lost a lot are gone. But due to security issues I lost about 200 BTC.
200 BTC is quite a fair sum. What security issues caused the loss? Mostly key management, but I'm at a loss for much of it. I brought these issues to the attention of the devs and they added safeguards for future loss prevention. That's why I'm still helping fight FUD and not divested. |
|
|
|
There is no FREE electricity, forget it! Mining Bitcoins isn't cheap at the current difficulty.
I'm not saying power plants give away their power. I'm saying it's more efficient for them to mine bitcoins and pass the savings to customers that can store their own peak power needs. |
|
|
|
They could not conduct a 51% attack. If they tried to conduct one the miners that would be mining on the pool would leave to another pool.
Again, a wishful thinking. Actually it's greedy thinking. |
|
|
|
Lets conduct a scifi thought experiment, and talk about Bitcoin...
I have just noticed " researching decentralization" in your forum signature. If we consider Bitcoin as the first step to decentralization then creation of millions small "Bitcoins" (let's call them altcoins) seems to be the second step in the same direction. But for an unknown reason you keep promoting only Bitcoin and trying to construct other systems on top of it. It would be great to know why... the universal cryptographic AI was measuring Joules expended, and unlike humans was not easily swayed by marketing and logos: a proof of joules mined is a proof joules mined, whatever letter or logo you stamp on the coin!
He's saying that no matter what altcoins claim, they are no better than Bitcoin and are only used to scam value out of actual original Bitcoins. The reason is that they all use the same amount of energy to reach value. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
