I will be submitting an ad for your site today  Great! Thanks for the support. |
|
|
|
|
Is that camera from the 90's?
|
|
|
|
Well, there's two flaws with that thinking:
- that miners work together cooperatively
- that the future price is predictable
Well I simply wanted to point out that miners can, to some extend, control the price by controlling supply. Obviously, you can't predict the future price, but you can play on the parameters that influence the price. Supply being an important parameter. I often have the impression that miners have a mine-dump strategy where they never hold on to the coins. By playing this strategy, miners surrender their power and give the supply forces to market players. Imagine that all miners decided to hold on to their coins and sell them at 30$. The new supply of bitcoins would be completely stopped and the price would most likely go up according to current trends. Of course I'm not suggesting that all miners should do that. It's only a mind game to understand the influence of the supply-side of the market. Miners that find themselves in an unprofitable situation today with the current price, should consider mining and holding on to the coins. You're in a net loss only if you sell the coins. Of course, thats a personal decision to make and there is some risk involved, especially if your time preference is low due to credits or otherwise. Ok, your last paragraph is most certainly wrong. Miners mining at a loss would have more coins if they spent that money on coins instead of electricity. Unless those people are still mining simply because of ideals (wanting to help the Bitcoin network, etc), there is no reason that anyone should be mining at a loss. Also, I took a poll a few months back... the vast, vast majority of miners who answered the poll actually hold their coins. Obviously, it's not scientific, but I was surprised that I was one of the only ones who regularly sold or used all the coins I mined. Of course, I've been holding on to them myself for the last couple of months, and plan to generate a nice collection of them now. |
|
|
|
When did they start planning their ASIC production? 3 months seems like a short time for ASIC production from scratch.
Back in early 2012. |
|
|
|
|
I'd recommend shopping on the Dell Outlet. I got a fantastic 17" i7 8GB 1TB laptop for $480, when the normal price is $850. Granted, I also had a 30% off Inspirons coupon at the time, so I'd wait around for those good coupons as well, but they come often. The one I bought has the Intel 4000 chipset, which I've actually been really impressed with. It won't play BF3, but will play just about everything else, at least on minimal graphical settings. The upside of not having a terribly powerful chipset is that it stays really cool, even on the lap. And the i7 3rd gen is just a beast.
I think the dual-HDD option you seek might cost you more than $500 regardless of what else comes with it, but I could be wrong. I haven't seen that option on any lower-end laptops though.
|
|
|
|
Contrary to the opinion of various ... individuals ... around here, I give you the information and dates as we currently believe them to be... but that's what openness gets us, more hate for missing dates. We keep quiet and we get beat up for not being open, if we are open, we get beat up for not being accurate. It's a no win situation, maybe I should follow W.H.O.P.R.s advice.
Meh
I think it would help if you could answer the more specific questions of why you've been delayed in the past. The delays have generally been accompanied with vague answers as to why. Have you actually received any chips from the foundry yet? If so, how many? Were they completely defective, or did they run, but just at a slower speed than you wanted? Were you expecting to receive the second batch of chips (assuming there was a first) in late November? Was that expected receipt date then pushed back to December 11th, and then again to (potentially) the middle of January? I suppose what I am getting at is, were the chips the only reason for the delays from the start? Why were the chips delayed from October until January? |
|
|
|
They do. But I also add that this did not happen is a bubble or vacuum. They took advantage of that stable environment that provided them the opportunity to profit. From that profit, the company is responsible to pay a just portion is taxes that go to maintain that environment and infrastructure.
So what's the expected response when the government start getting in the way of the functioning of the infrastructure. Just as an example - California's newest round of emissions laws have forced truckers to purchase brand new rigs that actually get about 10% less gas mileage when hauling a load. They're also paying a higher licensing fee to pay for the regulation on the new engine components which are being inspected at weigh stations. ^ That's disgusting... no wonder so many businesses are high-tailing it out of there. |
|
|
|
When will we have a fix for this?
you could just add "+1" after "size()" and recompile. maybe do some testing before using it productively. I don't compile. Did it once, never planning to do it again. Biggest headache I've ever experienced. So, I am asking about a general installer release. Personally, I don't really care about this anonymous side of things and hiding my true balance or associated addresses. I don't have anything to hide with regards to my transactions. But I know a lot of people do care about it, so I am sort of asking on everyone's behalf when we can expect an updated client to be released. |
|
|
|
Based on everything I have read coming from BFL over the past months, I believe they received chips in late October or early November (shortly before they posted the pictures with the chips attached to them), and they didn't work properly (or performed so sub-par as to require a revision). They're doing the clock buffer revision (and who knows what else they are revising and not admitting to), and now waiting on the fab for the new chips.
Based on what they've posted, they've never received a batch of ASIC chips, bad or otherwise. Josh is the only one who implied that they had and Nasser quickly corrected Josh's statement. Producing custom chips requires foundry scheduling and forces us into the queue with other chip developers (from all industries). The design is complete. It’s just a matter of waiting for production and delivery. https://forums.butterflylabs.com/content/127-bfl-asic-delays-depth-expanation.htmlThe design is complete. Period. That is where things are at. They do not yet know when the production run of their chips will happen, only that BFL should be able to take delivery of them in January (after which other things still need to happen before they can be assembled into mining rigs). Nasser and Dave's statements imply that Josh was not fully aware of where the process was actually up to before and was simply assuming that the fab had fucked up in some way. As Josh's role in the production cycle doesn't begin until it's time for the chips to be sliced and packaged, it's easy to see that he mightn't have been kept up to date on every little thing which has been going on up until now and has been making statements based on assumptions he's drawn from what information was available to him rather than hard facts. You know, I think this is a fair assessment and conclusion as well. I will have to take it under consideration. |
|
|
|
Even after the reward drop, miners are still producing on average 108'000 bitcoins per month. To some extend, miners control the supply of bitcoins, and thus the price. If miners feel the current price is too low for them, they should hold on to the bitcoins and sell them later when the price is right. By lowering the bitcoin supply, miners can drive the price up.
If miners dump all the coins on the market as soon as they are produced, they increase the supply of bitcoins and tend to lower the price. If selling bitcoins at current price would result in a overall loss, miners should hold on to the bitcoins until they can sell them for profit.
However, historically, market players do not always play the optimal strategies. Market dynamics are thus complex to predict. Time will tell.
Well, there's two flaws with that thinking: - that miners work together cooperatively - that the future price is predictable |
|
|
|
Syke, that's because, at the time, they WERE close to shipping.
Until the chips came in wrong, and they had to redo them,
and now they're stuck waiting on the foundry to make the changes.
You're completely pulling this out of your ass, am I right? Ten bucks says I'm right. What does "the chips came in wrong" even mean? You believe they had actual chips, but were "unsatisfied with performance" and trashed them? That was Nasser's late November spin on the situation IIRC. Then the latest story: "The fucking foundry, man... Made our chips all wrong so that we have to redesign them." And let's not forget, they were "close to shipping" in October.  Lol, that picture makes me laugh every time I see it. I am simply speculating here, yes. Based on everything I have read coming from BFL over the past months, I believe they received chips in late October or early November (shortly before they posted the pictures with the chips attached to them), and they didn't work properly (or performed so sub-par as to require a revision). They're doing the clock buffer revision (and who knows what else they are revising and not admitting to), and now waiting on the fab for the new chips. I really wish they would be more open about their happenings, but it is what it is. I could be completely wrong, this is just my guessing based on what I have read between the lines in their statements. I truly do not believe they have intentionally misled, only that they have made estimates that turned out to be wrong. They were fully intending to ship in late October, provided everything went right. Syke, that's because, at the time, they WERE close to shipping. Until the chips came in wrong, and they had to redo them, and now they're stuck waiting on the foundry to make the changes.
Without working chips, they were never close to shipping. They sure thought they were though, and every post prior to late October indicates their confidence in this fact. Once they realized their first batch of chips were bad, they then revised to the date they thought their foundary would be able to ship out a new batch. And that part keeps taking longer and longer. |
|
|
|
He's got a good point about the shareholders. Corporations are indeed legally obligated to not waste their shareholders' money, so it may very well be illegal for them to not take advantage of any tax loopholes they can find. I wonder how Starbucks's shareholders are reacting...
Agreed. For governments, there IS a simple solution for this: Make the tax code 1 page instead of 3000. Tax haven competition is good for keeping taxes lower in other countries. And American states. Witness the capital flight from California to Texas. Yet somehow, many people still don't think high taxes damage the economy... |
|
|
|
|
I want to see if you guys actually catch this guy. It's amazing how skilled bitcoiners can be at doxxing.
EDIT: Equally amazing is the number of times nothing ever happens, despite knowing where the guys live.
|
|
|
|
|
Damnit, I read through half the first page thinking this was a new thread.
|
|
|
|
|
When will we have a fix for this?
|
|
|
|
knew they would what? be sitting here on 14 Dec and still not have anything?
No, knew that they would be giving BFL an "interest free loan" until the product was shipped. |
|
|
|
|
Syke, that's because, at the time, they WERE close to shipping. Until the chips came in wrong, and they had to redo them, and now they're stuck waiting on the foundry to make the changes.
|
|
|
|
They have had an interest free loan for about that long looking at it the other way..
hmmmm...
Sure, but anyone ordering from them knew that they would... |
|
|
|
If bfl returned btc for btc, and the $/btc rate plummeted to $2 a coin from $6, the same people demanding btc for btc now would cry "no I payed an equivalent of a $ amount. More coins, you scammers"! In short, bfl is always the bad guy here, whatever the outcome.
Exactly. Not to mention, trying to make BFL pay back the same amount of Bitcoins would be essentially trying to achieve a free 6-month hedge against the value of BTC rising. If the value drops, you still get the miners that are valued at the same dollar amount. If the value rises, you have the option to take the miners, or get the BTC refund and suddenly have 3x the value that you did before, without risking losing any value. I don't know why anyone thinks that would be fair. |
|
|
|
Also, the difficulty IS taking an obvious downturn now, so some people have definitely shut off their machines.  http://bitcoin.sipa.be/ |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
