Buy shares in a ASIC mfg that self mines.  Nothing beats mining with at cost hardware.

How do this maths?

It's funny how people on one side or another of an argument can be so completely blind to the opposing premise.


I wince when I hear statements like, 'the only logical answer ...,' without any substantive rebuttal of specific argument.

How does the 'common good' of free market support the goals of Proof of Work in the context of hashing power economics?


This is what I'm getting at.  I believe under certain conditions free market behavior can contradict the goals of PoW.


I believe inefficient market, i.e. commanding >50% profit margin on commodity hardware, is the root of the problem.  Even if it's a temporary problem there's a temporary window of time where blocs of large, private hashing entities can establish a beach head.  Considering self preservation would any one private entity approach 50% network capacity?  Not if they are rational actors.  However, a bloc of private entities can degrade the integrity of PoW in such a way that imposes more risk than large mining pools since there is no ready recourse.  Will a bloc of such entities be considered sufficient risk when/if that time comes to seriously consider a protocol change?  

Do we trust such a bloc providing bitcoin network security?  Why?  What if such a bloc would not yield their influence and refuse to participate in changes that would negatively impact their collective interests?  Would we have replaced one master for another?


Free market?  Yes.  But I'm not a free market fundamentalist that believes that free market is compatible with every noble goal.

I wouldn't go in to financial ruin because of the express actions of a significant other.


Drastic measures might be called for.

*sigh*


We just need one good, big e-tailer to accept btc.  :/

How about this.


Name things that would not be possible by withholding guns from the public.  Rank them in order of importance.

ASIC adoption will continue unabated for at least 6 months.

Network capacity will rise to 700 TH in 6-8 months.

At least one ASIC mfg will reduce $/GH by 30-50% in 6 months.




That is all.

One of my payments is late, so I put a few negative bfl posts up.  Maybe the refunds are draining liquidity.

Not an expert, but did a little research on the sandia cooler and air bearings in general.

If it's fixed on an axis and given sufficient spin/force the air bearing can maintain separation in other orientations (of course inverted would be bad).  I'd venture to say that the gap is less predictable in any orientation other than horizontal.  Maintaining the smallest gap possible is very important for this application.

Maybe it's just that lotr and it's universe is crap?

In a sentence what ppl are fearful of in this model is

Uneven administration of justice.  Unpredictable and arbitrary outcomes.

But to the extent that our own 'democratic' representative governments deliver unpredictable and arbitrary outcomes at the cost of taxpayers other models seem appealing.

You are not retarded.  D3 is being a little harsh. 

SATA phy would work, but a serial protocol is needed that does not incur contention present with a large number of bus nodes.  SATA data link is not appropriate since it's a ptp link.

A cascade/daisy chain linkage of sata phy ala the mini rig sc is a good example.  Still need a protocol.

Jebus on a popsicle stick!   Inaba, the FUD hierophant extraordinaire, always blesses us with these lovely comments.

https://forums.butterflylabs.com/bfl-forum-miscellaneous/519-10-dec-2012-bfl-asic-update-18.html#post8108


First of all, the FUD is imminent with 'Avalon delays are just getting started.'  This is really starting to get predictable.


And, by Inaba's own admission above in bold, BFL screwed the pooch making 'error(s)', which required 'clock buffers' as the latest propaganda would have us believe.  The official line from BFL is that 'clock buffers' are an enhancement.  But as we can see Inaba is equating what he foresees as show stopping 'error(s)' on the Avalon front as the exact same problem BFL had and is the cause of the current BFL delay.


I'm tired of the propaganda.  Credibility gets shredded when CEO's show up to spin last minute remediation as enhancements all the while it makes little sense and then the COO tripping up and making a statement like this.

Inaba FUD'ed himself up.

Make sure it has no broken LED's.

Wouldn't want someone to freak out over an issue that doesn't affect functionality.


 

@ Yohan and Cunicula


I am going to refrain from giving my opinion on projects like this in the future.  I do agree this will happen regardless of how I personally feel, or many people feel, about it.


We'll all see what happens.

Scenario 1

Enterpoint gets a conventional loan from a bank.  Mines bitcoin.  Private, centralized.  


Scenario 2

Enterpoint offers equity stake mining bond to community.  Dividends paid.  Capital risk hedged on the back of community if bitcoin tanks.  
Investors have little idea if the product can scale performance wise.  A privately controlled product developed on what effectively is a loan from a community of potential competitors.



Either way it's pretty shite.

While I don't think that mods will start kicking off pariahs I do strongly believe that a reputation indicator, something more meaningful than ignore feature, should be implemented here.


It's been discussed before with the main opposing argument that rep counters can be exploited.  My rebuttal is to implement rep impact / vote that is weighted according to the voter's own rep or something similar.
And a limited number of rep votes in a period.  Not perfect, but it's needed.  Post count certainly doesn't equal quality.

Yes, I have access to children. 


couldn't resist.

I agree that it is probably inevitable.


However, do you feel that this might be a 'bad money driving out good,' situation?  What I mean to say is what would happen if a bloc of large, private mining operations appear.  Each operation taking advantage of a) at cost hardware and b) economies of scale.

Keeping in mind such large entities would be so invested that their debt would influence them to keep mining at razor thin margins would a bloc of these entities force less efficient miners (i.e. pretty much all independent miners) out?


What I feel differentiates this type of situation from the idea of 'professional, efficient operations,' is that these self mining operations by definition are producing their own hardware.  The playing field is no where near balanced.