I recall the 10,000 BTC was worth about $50 at the time, so whatever that exchange rate translates into. $50 is still a lot for two large pizzas, but I suspect he wanted to give an incentive for someone to do it.
if you try to buy anything from any merchant that is not yet into bitcoin, you probably would not get it even at a 100x markup. most merchants i ask about bitcoin don't even consider it a scam. they just don't consider it at all. else, if you can buy something for bitcoin, please do so and don't bother hoarding. you are one of those who know where to convert fiat to bitcoin so you don't loose anything if you use bitcoin. |
|
|
|
|
*If* there is ASICs, it better be no hostile nodes. If there is money in producing ASICs, great! Others will do better ASICs and the monopoly problem is solved. As a miner myself with his 2k€ equipment idle since half a year, I see rather more people mining with appliances that you just plug in than less.
|
|
|
|
|
That said, maybe you should take your survey on the next bitcoin conference where people know it is anonymous.
|
|
|
|
|
pm me a token please but be aware that I will not accurately answer questions about my balance and similar questions that i wouldn't answer publicly here neither.
|
|
|
|
The block reward continually halves; we will asymptotically reach the theoretical limit of 21 million. So yeah, you'll probably be dead...
What happens if the BFL asic is real and an extra 10000TB/S is added in minining The difficulty will go up to match the new speed and keep block production steady. And there is no need to worry that we will run out of difficulty levels; they can go to a hugely high number to match whatever new technologies can throw at it. Rjk's got it. When all the ASIC devices start reaching consumers (whether its from BFL or some other competitor) then the difficulty will rise accordingly. At worst, the jump from 25 BTC to 12.5 BTC will come a few months sooner than originally expected. It is likely that when ASICs start reaching consumers, we will see a few weeks where the time it takes the network to solve 2016 blocks (i.e. the # of blocks needed for a difficulty readjustment) will be shortened to a span of a few days rather than an average of 2 weeks. But, once the majority of ASIC purchasers have received their devices, then we will be back to the 2 week average. To make this assumption come true, you would have to significantly increase the computing power over several retargets. My bet is ASICs will not accelerate the whole progress of getting to 25BTC block reward at all as they will not be available before that. Definitively not in an amount to compete with existing hashing power. To have the jump "a few months sooner", you would have to have a constant increase of hashing power of 100% per retarget for two "few months". Doubling network speed per retarget/week would take 2 few months to arrive few months early. As two months is the minimum to qualify for "few months", "two few months" would be more than 16 weeks. 16 weeks of doubleing would end at about 655PH/s. Hmm … I wanna see that  A single T/H added to the network at the current moment would decrease time it takes to reach the next difficulty adjustment by more than a full day. A full week would require a doubling of the network hash rate (~24-26 T/Hash). A full month would require ~175-225 T/Hash. This is easily forseeable. Let's say that the average miner has an output of about 5 g/hash. If you take an average network hashrate of 13 t/hash, and divide that by 5 g/hash, you're looking at about 2600 miners. Now, let's assume the average cost of a 5 g/hash mining setup is $4000. In terms of ASICs, $4000 will get you approximately 120 g/hash (you can buy 3 of BFL's $1300 40/ghash models). Now, multiply 120 g/hash (or .12 t/hash) by 2600. You get 312 T/Hash. And there you have it, the time it takes to reach the 12.5 BTC is decreased by more than a month. Then, take into account all the new miners that will enter the picture in the next 4 years. If the number of miners has reached ~2600 in the past 4 years (actually, it's been less than 4 years, and miners didn't REALLY start to enter the picture until the first quarter of last year), then it's reasonable to assume that the number of miners will at least double, if not triple, quadruple, or even more. Let's say we have 4 times the number of miners by the year 2016 (2600 x 4 = 10,400), then we're looking at ~1.245 P/H. Then, also take into account the declining cost of ASIC units over time, and this number could increase even more. I think it's quite reasonable to assume the jump to the 12.5 BTC reward will occur at least 2 months earlier than anticipated. Edit: BTW, I think you meant 8 weeks = 2 months, and not 16 weeks = 2 months. 1) I thought you talked about the drop to 25BTC, not 12.5BTC 2) 16 weeks was correct. 2 times "few" months > 2 * 2 months > 2 * 2 * 4 weeks = 16 weeks |
|
|
|
The block reward continually halves; we will asymptotically reach the theoretical limit of 21 million. So yeah, you'll probably be dead...
What happens if the BFL asic is real and an extra 10000TB/S is added in minining The difficulty will go up to match the new speed and keep block production steady. And there is no need to worry that we will run out of difficulty levels; they can go to a hugely high number to match whatever new technologies can throw at it. Rjk's got it. When all the ASIC devices start reaching consumers (whether its from BFL or some other competitor) then the difficulty will rise accordingly. At worst, the jump from 25 BTC to 12.5 BTC will come a few months sooner than originally expected. It is likely that when ASICs start reaching consumers, we will see a few weeks where the time it takes the network to solve 2016 blocks (i.e. the # of blocks needed for a difficulty readjustment) will be shortened to a span of a few days rather than an average of 2 weeks. But, once the majority of ASIC purchasers have received their devices, then we will be back to the 2 week average. To make this assumption come true, you would have to significantly increase the computing power over several retargets. My bet is ASICs will not accelerate the whole progress of getting to 25BTC block reward at all as they will not be available before that. Definitively not in an amount to compete with existing hashing power. To have the jump "a few months sooner", you would have to have a constant increase of hashing power of 100% per retarget for two "few months". Doubling network speed per retarget/week would take 2 few months to arrive few months early. As two months is the minimum to qualify as "few months" and "two few months" would be more than 16 weeks we would have to see 16 weeks of doubling that would end at about 655PH/s. Hmm … I wanna see that |
|
|
|
Does anyone have up-to-date information on the correlation between cost of mining and bitcoin price? How much does it cost to mine 1 bitcoin? How has that cost changed over time?
Do people generally think there is a connection between mining cost and bitcoin price, or is that not considered to be relevant?
Thanks!
with rising prices people will start mining until it doesn't pay off anymore. therefore a small time miner never makes a profit and a big time miner has to stem some investment. |
|
|
|
First, I see a threat in monopoly. Imagine a 20x more effective hardware coming out reaching all the miners in storm pushing the difficulty to 200TH only to turn out to have a kill switch. Right after reaching block #XYZ they all fail. That would be fun The next retarget would take a year and endless discussions. Poppcorn Second, I like proof of stake. We need it and we will see it at some point. The earlier we start the transition the better. |
|
|
|
I recently saw a .5 BTC fee on a tx covering hundreds of BTC. That got me thinking... what is the largest fee ever paid?
I don't believe it's possible to sort blockexplorer or blockchain.info by fee size. Over 185200 blocks now, how would it even be possible to efficiently find this out? Sorting 185k (id,fee)-pairs by fee would take … less than 0.05s. |
|
|
|
Couldn't this all be from just one european magnate who is buying huge amounts of bitcoins for the lulz?
for the lulz? maybe not but one? for sure. I consider bitcoin market cap too low for most investors to even consider trying it. Buy low - sell high is hard when by buying you move the price by 30%. |
|
|
|
There is almost as many people trading in Chilean Pesos  |
|
|
|
I've been working on such a thing, too but stopped it for several reasons. I hope you provide (without scamming people ) what I had in mind, so here was my feature set: * Send coins to facebook friends * instantly * without fees * even dust down to 1 Satoshi * allow to send to all friends with a timeout (if coins don't get collected aka. the friend does not use your app), they return to your balance within a week) * outbound transactions would of course cost the normal fees Reasons I did not continue this was that I did not get positive response here on the forum and considered you - the forum members - the first wave of people to spread coins on facebook. Secondly I was pretty sure Facebook would find a reason to ban this app very quickly. Thirdly I did not feel too confident taking a long time responsibility for your coins. If Facebook allows this app to survive some weeks, I am sure it will reach millions of users. Actually my app works in that it can receive coins to facebook users and send in and outbound but it is ugly, therefore please go for it! For me it was a great lesson on how easy it is to prototype such an app with all the book-keeping already in place within bitcoind. |
|
|
|
 It has been mentioned elsewhere but I guess this shows quite well how in sync the US and the EU market are (thanx to arbitrage) and how the exchange volume also correlates mostly with a strong tendency to a growing EU market. |
|
|
|
ok, sorry for spreading fud as this is most likely a bug in my android phone and persists for many other sites since at least 6 months: bitinstant as some other bitcoin related websites show an illegal certificate warning on my motorola defy. as bitinstant is affected at least on my device, they might be interested in resolving the source of this scary warning. This certificate is not from a trusted authority.
Issued to:
CN: RapidSSL CA
Org: GeoTrust, Inc.
Issued by:
CN: GeoTrust Global CA
Org: GeoTrust Inc.
Validity:
issued: 19/2/2010
Expires: 18/2/2020 my phone is rooted, just in case that helps. the problem was there before rooting it. This is a known issue and is caused by the CA not being included in android. To fix it we will be switching to another CA, but for now please disregard the warning - despite the CA not being in android your data is still secure. You have a link? Why is this CA not included? In Opera it works. It probably depends on which Android version you use. If the root certification authority (CA) certificate did not exist or was not included in the Android version your device has, then you will get a certificate warning. The fix is either to upgrade your device or to let the service use a certificate that was issued by an old (established) CA such as Verisign. They charge you big time for this and they make a ton of money. The phone is rooted so I should be able to import those certificates but I posted here to raise awareness as I don't know how many are affected. It scares people out of using bitcoin when they apparently have some IP poisoning going on on their device (or whatever their guess is). |
|
|
|
nothing really, just a fake wall, in a day or two it will be back where it was last week.
"Fake" walls are walls in the second row making the users bullish or bearish. I saw that 25k wall at first front and it was completely teared down by sales and not just removed by the trader. If I have 25k*6.5$, why would I put that money in one order like the way he did? Does he like nice wall pictures? If this was a fake wall it was an expensive fake as fake would mean it was the trader himself who sold his own 25k BTC to himself. Maybe MtGox should provide a feature to buy slowly, like x BTC every y minutes. |
|
|
|
ok, sorry for spreading fud as this is most likely a bug in my android phone and persists for many other sites since at least 6 months: bitinstant as some other bitcoin related websites show an illegal certificate warning on my motorola defy. as bitinstant is affected at least on my device, they might be interested in resolving the source of this scary warning. This certificate is not from a trusted authority.
Issued to:
CN: RapidSSL CA
Org: GeoTrust, Inc.
Issued by:
CN: GeoTrust Global CA
Org: GeoTrust Inc.
Validity:
issued: 19/2/2010
Expires: 18/2/2020 my phone is rooted, just in case that helps. the problem was there before rooting it. This is a known issue and is caused by the CA not being included in android. To fix it we will be switching to another CA, but for now please disregard the warning - despite the CA not being in android your data is still secure. You have a link? Why is this CA not included? In Opera it works. |
|
|
|
ok, sorry for spreading fud as this is most likely a bug in my android phone and persists for many other sites since at least 6 months: bitinstant as some other bitcoin related websites show an illegal certificate warning on my motorola defy. as bitinstant is affected at least on my device, they might be interested in resolving the source of this scary warning. This certificate is not from a trusted authority.
Issued to:
CN: RapidSSL CA
Org: GeoTrust, Inc.
Issued by:
CN: GeoTrust Global CA
Org: GeoTrust Inc.
Validity:
issued: 19/2/2010
Expires: 18/2/2020 my phone is rooted, just in case that helps. the problem was there before rooting it. |
|
|
|
|
i was thinking of a service the one way or the other and thought of putting data into the receiving addresses as well for the purpose of data transmission. a certain size of prefix code can be generated in no time with vanitygen. if you consider clandestine message exchange of large groups with shared secrets, that would increase the available bits quite dramatically and as the message would be encrypted, the vanity prefix would not raise suspicion.
|
|
|
|
If you knew you could get the last bet in I guess it is ok to leave yourself unbalance and take care of it later.
But say you come across it with evenly balanced bets (50%) and you think Side A is 80% to win so you load up on Side A. Now someone else comes along and thinks side A is even more than 80% likely and they bet and now there is so much on A that you prefer B at these odds. You can't unbet A but you can bet on B now.
If you want to make sure you don't end up taking a wager you don't want no matter what happens then you need to bet both sides up front.
I wanna see you on a roulette table betting equal amounts on both red and black. Is this the kind of strategy advise people get at sealswithclubs, too? If all did that, nobody would win except the site owner even if everybody guessed exactly right the likeliness of every event. ... I guess you are just trolling given you are quite a bit into this whole gambling thing. I'm 100% serious. But I'm not saying it is always the best way. Imaging you know that Side A is 80% to happen and there is little or no action yet and you don't know how much will end up sitting on each side and you have to make your bet(s) right now (going away on safari for a month). Do you just bet on Side A hoping there won't be more than 80% of the money sitting on side A at the end? I put down 80% of my bet on Side A and 20% on Side B. That way the worst case scenario for me is break even, that would be when other's bets sit 80/20. If there is more on either side I make some (theoretical) profit. Now if you know the result 100%, no uncertainty, at all then you put the money down all on one side (same theory as before it just happens to be 100/0 this time). ok, the safari argument is a good one. still i don't bother betting when is see the others reflecting the odds exactly as I see it as my chances of winning are just too low. when the others "have no clue" i want to profit from that. |
|
|
|
|
I also see the incentive as a show stopper. I could help with German translation but I am not a day trader so the incentive is rather counter-productive. What is it targeting at after all? The people with massive money movements would profit most? So you think those with a lot of spare money are the ones that will translate your site?
Get rates of professional translation services and offer 20% of that here or ask your users on the site to translate.
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
