Forgive me the ignorance on my part, but is that new?!?!

And sorry for my drooling.

 



Add:

Was just reading backwards in the thread and came across this:



Sweet!

Mine 'um and Get Out of 'um

Mine 'um and Get Out of 'um, that's what I've been doing over the last several weeks. DMD, DRK and EXE were my favorite mines, and DGB my favorite “way oversold” best buy on the open market. Had a sprinkling of SRC and VTC mining as well. There's a couple a scrypt coins that could be on that list, but I refuse to support scrypt (the gross returns are minimal and net returns worse, so why bother anyway?) with the exception of building a size position in DGB on the expectation of an algo change with them.

Things have changed in the last few days though, and I'm no longer getting the 3-4x ratio on the DGB over directly mining it. (You could buy 3 to 4 times the amount of DGB with the proceeds from mining the most profitable coin than you could by directly mining it.) It's more like a 2x ratio now, and with the hassle of selling, then buying, and then getting it back to your wallet, you've got a half hour process on your hands (or longer if you bid instead of taking the offer), and it's not worth it.

So now I'm letting the coins I mine go directly to my wallet for ease of use and a bit of diversification. I like EXE, SRC and VTC longer term so, hey, why not accumulate some of them too (and if the price jumps a bunch . . . who knows?). I'm currently on EXE and GRS (like that one a lot too).

Don't know how long this current profitability picture will last, but steady longer term trends may be settling in and it just might be that putting miners on long term accumulation coins turns out to be a fairly good proposition not just for the moment, but also for the longer term.


What's your take? What have you been doing?


BTW, I Like What To Mine!

And my "Goodbye" still stands, but it's not a half-assed, half-baked goodbye: it's a goodbye either with all my posts remaining, or none of them - and that means quotes - so you make the decision and get that delete finger going or leave them all. Keep in mind that there is always the possibility to start an independent thread, titled "DMD, Everything You Shouldn't Do", or "DMD, How To Kill A Coin", for example.

Grow up. Take your hits like a man, and leave it at this. (I think I'm being more than fair with you.)

Remember, you either leave them all, or your delete them all.

One way or another, this one you will get right.

popshot, I've found everything you guys have done for the last 3 weeks "disturbing, unhelpful and harming", so I guess we're even.  

Are you really going to seriously suggest that I (and the MANY other contributors with similar opinions and inputs) are the cause of the DMD debacle? Are you really thinking that will go over any better than a led balloon?

Anyone who reverts to calling someone like me who has made considerable, serious, and well thought out contributions a troll is, well, sorry pal, but serious folks know better and will see right through that. That's a lightweight cop-out deserving of its author.

As I just said just above this post, goodbye.

And if you're convinced I'm a troll, I challenge you to leave everything I've written intact here on this thread (that is to say: I challenge you to not delete any more of my posts), unless, you are afraid that people see this "troll's" comments. If I'm just a troll, then these comments should prove you right.  

Going to blame trolls for DMD losing 2/3rds of its value in two weeks?

Right.


Add: seeing that you've already deleted 3 key posts of mine regarding this most recent issue, you might as well continue . . . and you'll need to deleted the posts made by others quoting me as well. LOL

Who's the troll?

Who in the world has talked about the foundation? You are really showing your lack of reading comprehension with this sort of comment.


So you just have no clue? Or is there something else that causes you to say that I "could contribute something"?


Of course, everything ECM said was "all compiled information from this thread".   


As if that is practically nothing. (And good luck with PoS.)


Which we found out about from you.


Show me another pool with a hashrate. Go to the OP and click the links and learn something. Your pool is the only "functional" pool (currently at 100% of the network hashrate - now that's the sign of a healthy coin, and certainly the best indication that it's time to go on vacation).


Popshot is right about one thing. At this point this is nothing but an internet pissing match, and I don't go there. I thought that by suggesting to ECM that we "leave it at that" would be indirect enough, and when followed by "cheers" . . . but I guess I need to be more direct:

@EMC

ROFL


ps. nothing personal - i know you meant well - but it is what it is - let's just leave it at that - cheers

That depends a bit on when you are talking about: today, tomorrow, 5 years from now, 10 years from now . . .  

Total US M2 money supply was $11.269 TRILLION on 2014-05-12.
http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/M2/

That's 536.62 times as much as eventual DGB.

And it's still worth a Dollar!  


21 billion is puny in comparison (especially when taken in a worldwide context where the combined M2 of industrial nations is around 6 times that of just the US). If anything, one might argue that 21 billion borders on the low end.

Add: a DGB-BTC overlay, for a comparative look. 

I see your points, but with regards to your first point, I don't see where the mining program and the algo being mined are related. If someone comes up with a more efficient mining program for GPU/CPU use, that would be good news for the traditional miner. The only problem would be if ASICs were to somehow implement that program. At that point you simply throw in a double checkpoint, or whatever else small program change that the new ASIC did not anticipate, and you've rendered them obsolete for your coin. If that isn't enough, then you go with the "big guns" and implement those big changes you've been working on for months like PoS and/or PoT and/or whatever else you've got up your sleeve. Software is always faster and easier to change than hardware.

With regards to your second point, I agree that the more there are of you using the same algo, or same "strain" of algo, the more succulent that group becomes in the eyes of ASIC developers, and, obviously, the smaller the group, the opposite. On the other hand, we've got the principle of "strength in numbers" with more devs working together to further develop a mutually agreed upon standard when dealing with a larger group. There are two sides to that coin.

I think I completely agree with you that even a small fork can be dangerous, but there comes a time when your back is up against the wall, and you've got to do something. That's why I'm minimalistic with my suggestions, and why I stress leveraging the threat of going head to head with any future challenges from potential ASIC manufactures. It's all about buying time, and then doing your absolute best, but with baby steps as it were - those who go "all in" very often get their heads handed to them.

BTW, on the efficency front, something I didn't mention earlier was that I was mining DMD with cgminer before the fork to Groestl and continue to mine it with some machines now (but with today's price crush, that might not last much longer), and my coins mined amount per scrypt adjusted Mh/s since DMD settled down after the change (with a similar scrypt adjusted network hashrate and diff) is exactly the same as before - same identical test machine, same network hashrate and diff, and the long term average is the same. Also, I've been mining EXE (scrypt-n vertminer) side by side with DMD (diamond version of the groestl kernel sgminer) for the last 10 days or so, and the output in BTC terms is almost a mirror image as well, with the difference being that I've got a 45% reduction in electricity costs with DMD. That's what I consider to be more efficient. That's first hand experience. You can also go to coinwarz, of course, and enter real time hashrates and electricity costs, and see for yourself that even the best scrytp coins (14 day average screen) aren't even making those levels of BTC equivalent output to begin with (leaving electricity costs completely aside), so you could say that sgminer is super-efficient compared to cgminer on those coins.

Frankly, IF you're going to make a change, it looks like a no-brainer (always adhearing to the KISS principle), and if you don't, it looks obvious that you're sentencing your miners to higher electricty costs, over stressing of their equipment, and an eventual ultimate defeat to the ASICs as they drive the coin's value to zero in the process.

That's the widely shared knock against X11 that I've seen.


HOWEVER, when you compare the most profitable coins to mine from each algo group (with their corresponding miners), that is to say make a scrypt, scrypt-n, groestl, x11, or quark, comparison on a BTC daily profitability basis, the BTC equivalent IS THE SAME (roughly, on average - there is minimal variance, with sometimes the scrypt coin yielding slightly more, sometimes the scrypt-n, etc.).

If the BTC equivalent that is mined IS THE SAME, that means that sgminer is comparatively MORE efficient, or should I say the MOST efficient miner we have at our disposal to date. . . . even if it may be "inefficient" in its own right.

Test it, and compare data.


Add: and when someone comes up with something better, well, all the better for it!!

I've just finished testing with the modified Quark algorithm used by SecureCoin, and the energy savings are just about 45% as well - with equivalent scrypt mining proceeds being generated.

I've been testing using sgminer ( https://github.com/prettyhatemachine/sph-sgminer to be specific) on Ubuntu 12.04 with a single card machine (AMD A4-5300, 4GB Ram, AMD Radeon HD 7950 TAHITI).

As mentioned earlier in this thread, the same setup also mines X11 (this time mining DarkCoin) with the same energy savings and with the same scrypt mining proceeds.

Power draw from the wall drops from ~330W with scrypt to as low as ~180W with X11, ~183W with Groestl, and ~186W with Quark, and they're all cool and quiet.

These results indicate that, from a purely "energy friendly" point of view, either Quark, Groestl, or X11 could be considered as possibilities for an algo change.

That having been said, while it's still too early to categorically conclude, and more testing needs to be done to definitively say that these energy saving are really due to sgminer's improved mining efficiency, we might well make a preliminary conclusion that sgminer's improved efficiency is the reason behind these energy savings and that they are most likely to be attained using any of the algorithms listed on the sph-sgminer announcement thread.  https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=475795.0

Well, we're witnessing another huge crypto SNAFU in realtime. Deja vú all over again.

https://darkcointalk.org/threads/fork-to-stop-masternode-payments.883/

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=421615.msg6956828#msg6956828

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=421615.msg6956926#msg6956926

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=421615.msg6957043#msg6957043

This kind of thing can severely damage the Dev team's reputation and people's confidence in their ability to manage the coin. A botch is a botch, and this kind of failure lingers in the minds of users for a long, long time.

This is probably the main reason why I am such a staunch proponent of a KISS algo change using Groestl. It's been implemented successfully in simple PoW form, and it works. Just how hybrid mixing will go with that, I'm not sure though (I cringe at the thought of what's going to happen once DMD actually gets their PoS functioning . . . yes, that part of the DMD new algo is still not functional).

Nevertheless, this IS NOT TO SAY that we should sit on our hands out of fear of making a mistake. That will lead to ruin as well in my opinion. Something must be urgently done to get the user base back on DGB, and in my view an algo change is the way to do that. Groestl even offers CPU miners the opportunity to get back in the game! And if anyone doubts the potential user base that would come with CPU miners due to their very low mining capacity, take a look at the DOGE user base. I've said before that it's a DOGE eat DOGE world, and, well, if they don't take care of their community, why shouldn't we offer them a place in the sun? What's wrong with directly competing for 'customers'? Groestl represents a 45% reduction in electricity costs and an algo that's meant to serve the masses, and it's a simple implementation with extremely low risk. I think it should be done ASAP . . . hopefully before DOGE does it. 


Everything else can wait and be developed in time without hurry. What's the hurry with a PoS implementation? What's the hurry to unnecessarily complicate things? It's the key component of a cryptocurrency that needs to be defended now: its secure and solid STORAGE OF WEALTH characteristic! Keep It Simple Stupid, Just Do It, and Rock On.

Everything else should be duly assigned to future development that's released when ready. There's nothing that says that future improvements should not be made by taking a stop-gap decision now, nothing at all – in fact, that would be part of the published mission statement.

Who knows how high we can eventually fly, but if we don't do an initial take-off sometime soon, we'll never get off the ground.

Groestl is a straight forward, simple algo change that at least gets DGB out of the scrypt quagmire and moving towards the runway. That, and a simple addition to the mission statement that clearly declares that “DGB is a cryptocurrency designed by the people and for the people and that it will be continually developed and improved upon to that end” should be more than enough to get the price up where it belongs and get that widely distributed user base hashing DGB once again.

http://www.fluttercoin.us/fluttercoin/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/Proof-of-Transaction.pdf

http://www.fluttercoin.us/fltbeta2/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/proof-of-transaction-v2-r.pdf



Also, I'm surprised I haven't seen this anywhere, but, since first hand knowledge is always the best, I thought I'd better give X11 a test run (no I still hadn't), what with Darkcoin heading up the profitability list and all, and the energy savings are exactly the same as with Groestl.  


BTW, the fact that daily mining proceeds from select Scrypt-N, Groestl or X11 coins will buy you 3-4 times the DGB that you could mine if you were mining DGB sends a very loud signal . . . I think anyway.    That could be a big reason why the network hashrate is so low - lots of folks mining other coins and then buying DGB on the open market.

Add: That inexplicable difference in mining proceeds and DGB purchasing power could also be attributable to a general sympathy movement lower in price cause by a general exodus from scrypt as well. (Most likely a combination of scrypt exodus with gaining popularity in ASIC resistant coins though - two worlds meeting halfway as it were.)

Addressing The ASIC Menace (and similar menaces)

• Merriam-Webster defines competition in business as "the effort of two or more parties acting independently to secure the business of a third party by offering the most favorable terms". It was described by Adam Smith in The Wealth of Nations (1776) and later economists as allocating productive resources to their most highly-valued uses and encouraging efficiency. Later microeconomic theory distinguished between perfect competition and imperfect competition, concluding that no system of resource allocation is more efficient than perfect competition. Competition, according to the theory, causes commercial firms to develop new products, services and technologies, which would give consumers greater selection and better products. The greater selection typically causes lower prices for the products, compared to what the price would be if there was no competition (monopoly) or little competition (oligopoly).

We all know that competition generally leads to better and less costly products vis-a-vi monopolistic or oligopolistic paradigms, but what I want to bring to the fore here is a relatively new concept being taught in business and economic schools worldwide in recent decades that goes one step further:


Here's a PDF from a University of Arizona paper (examining the “threat of entry” for broadband providers) that I've drummed up if you're interested in a technical example: http://econ.arizona.edu/downloads/working_papers/Econ-WP-07-18.pdf


What in the world does this have to do with DGB and the current dilemma we are facing?

The concept holds true in other areas of life as well. In this case, we would formulate the theory by saying that “the mere threat of an algo change is sufficient to deter any manufacturer from even contemplating the idea of producing ASIC equipment for your particular algorithm."

Unfortunately though, once ASIC hardware capable of hashing your algorithm is already in use, this theory is rendered impotent.

That's the bad news. The good news is that this theory states that an algo change only needs to be done once – after that the simple threat of doing it again will suffice. And when you think about it, it makes perfect sense: what manufacturer would even consider production of specialized equipment that is promised to be made obsolete on inception? After having seen the threat made good once, no manufacturer in their right mind would even give it a second thought.

The good news is that an algo change only needs to be done once, after that the clear, direct and openly stated commitment to do the same if necessary in the future will be all that's needed to keep anyone thinking about an ASIC device for your coin from contemplating further!


We're not talking about developing anything new (which would be fine for the future, the implementation of something even more energy efficient, for example, but it's not necessary to curb the present threat) since the algo is already out there. It's really simply an “off the shelf” choice.

Scrypt-N would get the job done. So would Keccak or X11 to name a couple of other possibilities.



With the Groestl algorithm for Proof-Of-Work you get a double bang for your buck!

• The Groestl algorithm is possibly the single most GPU-efficient algorithm implemented in any cryptocoin on the market. A comparison between many different algorithms shows that it has the lowest power consumption, heat, and noise of the array of newer ones being implemented in cryptocoins.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Groestl
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gr%C3%B8stl

It's being successfully implemented, and even comes in two flavors now: sha256d or sha256 (single pass) for the transaction hashes.

In my very humble opinion, Groestl is the immediate solution that would not only give DGB a permanent ASIC-proof reputation (in combination with the threat to do the same in the future if necessary), but it would also reward all DGB miners with an electricity bill that is almost half of what their previous scrypt mining bills were!


And if some crazy manufacturer wants to call our bluff, well, we'd just have to say, go ahead, call our bluff and ask them: “Are you feeling lucky, punk?”


If some of you are wondering who I am and what I'm doing coming off so strong as a relative newbie here on the DGB thread, I would just say that I would have you think of me as just another one of you: just another “shareholder” with sizable holdings unapologetically and unabashedly campaigning with the best data I have available and the best rationale I am capable of producing for what I think is best for DGB. Nothing more, nothing less, and I invite everyone with the desire to do so, and similarly good data and thought out arguments (regardless of whether they are in agreement with mine or not), to do the same.

And with that I conclude this formal, three part proposal.


In order to keep this thread as clean [and mean] as possible, help to eliminate clutter by NOT quoting this entire post when responding. If you link to it by quoting only the title, or the particular comment you wish to respond to, that should suffice, and you'll be helping the rest of us to more quickly see and read your own contributions and comments on the subject as well!

Cryptocurrency – For Whom and For What?

• "Fundamentally, cryptocurrencies are specifications regarding the use of currency which seek to incorporate principles of cryptography to implement a distributed, decentralized and secure information economy."
• "Within cryptocurrency systems the safety, integrity and balance of all ledgers is maintained by a swarm of mutually distrustful parties referred to as miners who are usually members of the public handling cryptocurrency transactions for a small fee."

I'm sure that we could all agree that “a distributed, decentralized and secure information economy” whose “safety, integrity and balance of all ledgers is maintained by a swarm of mutually distrustful parties” is the defined, prerequisite, foundation for any cryptocurrency hoping for successful long term adoption and standardization.

Reaching an agreement on a categorical definition of who makes up the decentralized network and the size of their swarm is another matter altogether. Deciding on, and defining these two variables, is undoubtedly essential for making the final decision regarding just about every other aspect of a cryptocurrency.

Who makes up the cryptocurrency's user base? If you are on the Dev team the question becomes: who do you want as your cryptocurrency's users?

I also prefer a 1GH/s network run by 1000 people over a 100GH/s network run by 10 people, INDEPENDENT of the technology used. Note that key concept expressed in the word independent! It's not the technology per se, rather it's the kind of user base I prefer since more users translates into more secure, again, independent of the technology employed.

But let's say that the cryptocurrency's developers prefer the opposite of what I prefer, and they want as few users as possible with the largest hashrate possible. Who am I to get in their way? That's their right and prerogative. Doesn't mean I have to use that particular cryptocurrency though – of course, I always have the same right and prerogative to go somewhere else.

The point is that no-one can really say which is better when it comes to personal preferences and likes and dislikes. What's more, even though you can make a very strong objective argument showing how security is enhanced by a large user base and compromised by a small user base, someone just might choose a less secure network option for whatever strange reason they might have, and that's that.

As a consequence, we've got “a distributed, decentralized and secure information economy” whose “safety, integrity and balance of all ledgers is maintained by a swarm of mutually distrustful parties”, but we still don't know who our users are until we define them on a case by case basis.

Obviously, if security is priority #1, the larger the “swarm”, the better.

Okay, but even “larger” is relative. Larger to what? There's still room here for the ASIC intensive mining ethos to make its argument. It would be elitist of course, but an argument for its case nonetheless. In its most simple of forms it goes as follows: since there are very few specialized ASIC mining machines relative to computers in the world, the aggregate size of an ASIC network need not be nearly as large as that needed for a network of CPU/GPU miners.

And that would be just fine for the developers of a cryptocurrency aimed solely at specialized ASIC intensive miners.

The problem here is that DGB is aimed at a mass consumption audience.

And in this game, unfortunately, you can't have your cake and eat it too (just like life itself ). You have to choose, then clearly define, and then implement.

The debate, as I see it, with regards to this aspect of the current decision making process that DGB is going through, centers on a clear definition of who DGB intends to serve: ordinary folks with the readily available information technology they have at their disposal, or a specialized, elitist group of ASIC miners whose activity precludes the former and most probably ends in killing the coin?

We can spew BS about what we personally like and dislike, fantasize about what's impossible, and the like, but until we seriously lay out all the rock-solid, objective reasons for why we think one thing or the other, we won't be making much of a contribution.

DGB needs to clearly define who its user base is (and is going to be) and then it needs to swiftly move to protect and defend that user base from all attacks, and if the ordinary man in a widely distributed network aimed at the masses is the final, clearly defined, “end user”, then an algo change is urgently needed now (IMVHO).



In order to keep this thread as clean [and mean] as possible, help to eliminate clutter by NOT quoting this entire post when responding. If you link to it by quoting only the title, or the particular comment you wish to respond to, that should suffice, and you'll be helping the rest of us to more quickly see and read your own contributions and comments on the subject as well!

We can't be any more objective and intelligent than that now, can we?  


Let's try to treat this serious issue with a minimum of sobriety.

The Bitcoin Experience, and What It Might Tell Us About The Future For Scrypt


I'd like to suggest that we take a look at what has taken place in Bitcoin, and by doing so, perhaps lay the foundation for creating a thoroughly documented case study, and, ultimately, get as good of an idea as we can as to where scrypt mining might be headed using the logic of extrapolation.

Last December, ZeroHedge posted a very nice article documenting the current state of affairs regarding BTC mining at that time.

The article starts out with some background information to put things into context and then quickly moves to the 'numbers' at the heart of Bitcoin 'mining' and valuations.

As the following chart from the article shows, in addition to the surge in the price of Bitcoin, another explosion was witnessed in the processing power of the Bitcoin network which was directly correlated with price: "from non-existent a couple of years ago, the 'mining' power dedicated to hashing, or the calculations used to extract new Bitcoins, has risen to nearly 10 quadrillion per second!"



The article then gives us an introduction to “what these supercomputer-populated mines" behind the huge increase in hashrate "look like” (along with some pictures like the one below that give us a intuitive visual perspective).



The details regarding the prototype behind these mines, their design, and the technology being employed, are scintillating to say the least, with the following excerpt from the New York Times describing the entrance of one such mine located in Iceland perhaps sufficient to pique your interest further:

• To get there, you pass through a fortified gate and enter a featureless yellow building. After checking in with a guard behind bulletproof glass, you face four more security checkpoints, including a so-called man trap that allows passage only after the door behind you has shut. This brings you to the center of the operation, a fluorescent-lit room with more than 100 whirring silver computers, each in a locked cabinet and each cooled by blasts of Arctic air shot up from vents in the floor.

In my opinion, this article is a wonderful primer on how ASIC mining is a complete game changer, and a 'wake up call' for anyone who thinks they can compete, even with ASIC, on an individual level (without moving to Iceland with a huge stash of cash in their pockets to set up shop with). I highly recommend it, and don't miss the embedded video either!

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-12-25/trip-through-bitcoin-mines


--------------------------------------------------o--------------------------------------------------


The main question, as I see it, that we have before us now has to do with what percentage of current mining is being done by these “supercomputer-populated mines” and what percentage belongs to the most probably extinct members of the now very theoretical widely distributed user base. Given that we're dealing with a basically “anonymous” system, hard data to that effect is hard to come by, if not practically impossible to gather, and we are left with educated guesses. However, based on what I've read from individual accounts and articles like the one above, my educated guess would be that a substantial percentage of current Bitcoin mining corresponds to the supercomputer-populated mines, to not say a vast majority. When looking at where network hashrate has gone in comparison to the inverse trend in price (demonstrating a clear break of the positive correlation between hashrate and price that existed leading up to the advent of mass use of ASIC BTC mining), I'd have to say that these two hard data points corroborate that 'guesstimate'. ( https://blockchain.info/charts/hash-rate  https://blockchain.info/charts/market-price )

If the above is accurate, then what we are seeing, in real time, is the logical consequences of ASIC mining of what what originally designed to be a widely distributed, peer-to-peer, cryptocurrency which increased in value as mining difficulty rose and immediate new relative supply fell. This preliminary conclusion would suggest that our 'real life' case study of BTC clearly demonstrates that ASIC mining not only destroys the widely distributed user base by 'locking out' the little guy from mining, but that it also subverts normal pricing behavior by suppressing price with an oversupply of 'artificially cheap' coins being brought to market. (The ultimate consequence would be the outright destruction of the coin once price goes so low as to fall below 'Iceland ROI', when there would be nobody left to even man the nodes, but that's for another topic and another day.)


My hope is that this is simply the beginning of a collaborative effort to document the 'Bitcoin experience' with an eye on learning from their mistakes (and successes where they are) so as to avoid the same pitfalls that could very well be leading to BTC's eventual demise. Of course, that's my opinion based on how I interpret the information I have at my disposal, and it should by no means imply that this “collaborative effort” should be one way, or unidimensional – if there's one thing I deplore, it's “group think”. All data points and perspectives are not only welcomed, but actively encouraged.


In order to keep this thread as clean [and mean] as possible, help to eliminate clutter by NOT quoting this entire post when responding. If you link to it by quoting only the title, or the particular comment you wish to respond to, that should suffice, and you'll also be helping the rest of us to more quickly see and read your own contributions and comments on the subject at the same time!

You got one side of the equation anyway . . .


Pick and choose what suits you . . . the hallmark of a hollow position.



How about trying to answer the main question? You know, the one that confused you? https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=621383.msg6908763#msg6908763


DoN'T WoRRY iF You CaN'T. i'LL LeaVe You aLoNe. DoN'T MaKe a PRaCTiCe oF BaNGiNG MY HeaD aGaiNST THe WaLL aNYWaY.

I'll conclude that you've done the math and that your question goes beyond and builds upon the basic 'givens' outlined above.


Your phrase "there will be only 5 billion coins produced per year, and a demand that's sufficient to buy them" suggests to me that you believe that demand will be greater than supply (you are giving more weight to potential demand when using the word "sufficient" and less weight to potential supply when using "only"). That's a major assumption you are making, and the kind of assumption professionals term as "imposing your expectations on the market".

Only the market knows what is "sufficient" and what isn't. The market will tell us in no uncertain terms, and it does so everyday in merciless fashion to those who impose their own expectations on the market.

"What people will pay" is another expression often used by participants who are caught in the trap of imposing their beliefs on the market, and is accompanied by other similar phrases like, "it's not rational", "it's obviously worth more", etc., etc. What people may or may not be willing to pay has nothing to do with price. Price is determined by supply and demand, and all we can do is speculate about what price may do in the future; hence, the need to be as objective as possible and to screen your data as thoroughly as possible as well. Remember, people always want to get the best 'deal' they can, regardless of the 'value' they actually assign to what is being purchased.


Your "good news" that the network will still be secure even in a crash only goes so far: until the end of ASIC profitability, when everything goes dark (because the widely distributed user base will have long before been destroyed) and the coin breathes its last breath (and there's absolutely nothing that says that LTC is an exception either, or even BTC for that matter, longer term).