|
If you live in the American Midwest and are finding it unprofitable to mine, you can move your rig into my place and I will charge you only 40% of your current electric bill.
I get free electricity.
|
|
|
|
I fail to see how "ethics" applies to capitalism at all. We are dealing with raw capitalism here, not your feelings. If people can make money at it, they will do it.
I thought that too, but then I realized his ethical argument was tied into "too much fucking resource consumption." In other words, he thinks its morally wrong to rape the planet of its resources for Bitcoins. That may or may not be, but that has zero effect on the price of BTC. He means the electricity used in mining? Jesus, that's a drop in the bucket compared to just about anything else. The air conditioners in the USA right now, or driving to work, or all the TV's on right now in the USA alone. Or the power used at Disneyland. Get over it dude, you can pick on a million more important things. Tree hugger.  (that last was a joke - Ridi seems kinds thick, so I wanted to make it explicit  ) Ya, and even if that were an issue, $10 per BTC is better than $2 or $3 per BTC since there's a higher appreciation of the resources used. On a side note, I thought that there's always a constant output of electricity in the power grid to prevent power shortages such that the output would always be the same regardless of miners had their GPUs running or not. Or, is this extra energy simply recycled back into the grid? |
|
|
|
I'm not trying to argue that this wouldn't be a favorable endeavor for anyone. I think it's a great idea.
I would just hate for these to cause a flood of users and drain the ATM's account similar to how the bitcoin faucet ended up.
Yeah, I hear ya, I just don't think that's at all likely. I'd say there's probably at MOST 100,000 Bitcoin users, and maybe only 30% of those users make active trades in a month. So, assuming maybe 30,000 people worldwide for 15 sparsely distributed ATMs.......even 250 ATMs.....I don't think it's likely. I know I wouldn't drive more than 30 minutes to find one. |
|
|
|
Seems pretty easy to service too. I'm sure everything can be monitored remotely which is pretty pretty cool. If it needs more bitcoins, just send them from your beach chair.
Lol, then please look the other way while I walk off with the ATM. If nobody knows about Bitcoin, nobody will know what the hell I'm carrying. |
|
|
|
well now there is a 12000 strong sell wall from people who bought in while the spike progressed  I think the buyer(s) can have quite a feast there, but it would make sense for them to drive the price down a little to dissolve that wall. That 12$ wall is probably built by the buyer, a psyop of sorts. Haha, I just noticed what you wrote under your avatar. It made me laugh. Especially if you were screaming it like a very mad Russian as you were typing it. |
|
|
|
|
Just wait till the conference in 6 days. I wanna see that thing explooode.
|
|
|
|
I fail to see how "ethics" applies to capitalism at all. We are dealing with raw capitalism here, not your feelings. If people can make money at it, they will do it.
I thought that too, but then I realized his ethical argument was tied into "too much fucking resource consumption." In other words, he thinks its morally wrong to rape the planet of its resources for Bitcoins. |
|
|
|
My point is that these bitcoins and/or $$ won't just appear out of thin air when a user engages in a transaction. There's got to be preset funds stored in the machine or somewhere else.
I'm assuming this guy isn't a millionaire and doesn't own 10 TH of the total allocated hashing power this network holds, so he would most likely run out eventually unless he was adding more of his own funds constantly.
There'd probably have to be an initial reserve. Then, I would assume the deposited cash translates into ATM Bitcoins. Regular ATMs have withdrawal limits, and I would think the Bitcoin ATM will have similar limits. Edit: Don't forget, it's not like there will suddenly be 10 million Bitcoin ATMs. He's starting with like 15. There will be a couple people using them, but the point is, more people will spot them. If the ATM has a fee, then the small number of users will increase his total profit without risk for runs on the ATM. This will allow him to then put this profit into more ATMs, more people will see them, more people will use them, and he will collect more fees as profit. Then, more ATMs, more people, more use, more fees, repeat, repeat, repeat. |
|
|
|
My biggest concern is will these ATM's be an exchange service (similar to MTGox, tradehill, etc.) or will the bitcoins be transacted instantaneously at a set price by the owner of them. Even if the price is set to reflect website exchanges prices, how does the end-user of the bitcoin ATM's plan on keeping up with the amount of withdrawals people may make?
If the ATM's plan to use one of the existing web exchanges, this questions is irrelevant.
Yeh, I'm sure the ATM will be connected to the Internet just like any other ATM that processes ATM withdrawals. I assume it will constantly update the going rate. Actually, I think it'd be nice if it went by a 7 or 14 day average as this would inherently stabilize the markets. In other words, the ATM would act as a counterbalance to market volatility, and the markets would act as a counterbalance to ATM volatility. Otherwise, you'd hear a lot of "Shit! Remind me to NEVER AGAIN go to the Bitcoin ATM on the weekends!" |
|
|
|
Markets are a two way street. That is basic economics. You're example about the Hash Rate falling is exactly what I'm talking about. My ethics say 11.9 is way too fucking much resource consumption for something that will still produce just fine a 2 or 3. I plan to advocate that until the price reaches a point low enough to force our obese bitcoin miner baby to a healthy rate.
You must have weird a weird definition of ethics. I don't see how "11.9" for BTC that requires "too fucking much resource consumption" is worse than "2 or 3" for BTC that requires "too fucking much resource consumption. Wouldn't 11.9 be better than 2 or 3? At least then people better appreciate the product derived from "too fucking much resource consumption." Moreover, I don't get how this is tied into what is objectively wrong or right. "I value my 2008 Saturn Aura at 50 grand. I won't sell it to you for less" "How fucking dare you! It required too much fucking resource consumption to make! It should be $2 or $3!" "Ok, I'll buy 20,000 of them from you then." Edit: By the way, I'm pretty sure chopping down millions of trees to produce fiat currency (the production of which, by the way, also requires more fiat currency to fund it) fits into the category of "too fucking much resource consumption." Then again, I have no problem going back to a straight bartering system, but then you can kiss global commerce goodbye. |
|
|
|
I was following you until the last paragraph. How or why is it unethical exactly?
Bingo. If someone is willing to pay $1,000,000 for it, how is that unethical? People place the value they want to place upon something. Nobody is forcing them to buy, and yet, they are buying. I could charge you $1,000,000 per BTC, and even then, how would that be unethical? If you don't want it, don't buy it. And what do you know, I'm not buying, I don't see why you are arguing my point. Unless you think that speculation is the only reason a person would buy or sell. Your response is irrelevant to what I said. I said "they" are buying -- i.e. other people are buying. You are not, but others are. Value is embedded in the relationship between a subject (you) and the object (Bitcoin). Your decision to perceive Bitcoin as less valuable than its current trading value is irrelevant to the value others place upon Bitcoin, and it's because of the value that others place upon it that the trading price is currently at ~$10. If others placed the value much lower, then the trading value would be much lower. Did I say speculation is the only reason a person would buy or sell? I said that it can add to perceived value, and I think this is quite evident given the relatively small number of Bitcoin merchants. Buyers can buy to purchase goods, or because they think there will be more goods available (i.e. a growing Bitcoin economy), or because they think it is a better alternative to traditional currency, or because they think it's value will increase and they can "buy" more USD, or any other reason. Nonetheless, they are buying, and apparently, Bitcoins are simply "worth" the value at which they buy them, and that value is determined subjectively. |
|
|
|
Couldn't get the video to work but if it's what I think it is, the community strikes again! Bravo.
10-15 ATMs in 6 weeks, 250 or something worldwide in 6 months. |
|
|
|
I've been reading this thread https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=36687.0 [Reddit] The Real cost of Bitcoin? - Breaking Down the Math I agree with a few of the posters that the numbers are manipulated in the fact that the bitcoin system can handle many more transactions than what is currently used, without any increased overall cost, resulting in a decreased cost per transaction. This highlights a problem with 'miners' though. Their supply far exceeds the demand. They have to consume massive resources in order to obtain the 50 BTC reward and in order to become profitable they need to sell BTC at gouged rate on the markets. The plain fact of the matter is that BTC is not worth that much, and that much power is not necessary to sustain the system. It's expected that after the mining pool is tapped at 21,000,000 BTC that the miners will hemorrhage unnecessary miners as supply falls to meet demand levels. The current situation though is that as 'miners' pump more processing power into the pool, they will have to gouge the price of BTC to keep running at a profit. Quite simply I don't think it's ethical to be purchasing BTC at these rates unless you have a legitimate need for them. I also speculate that this will catch up with miners, they are essentially pegging the bitcoin to the electricity and equipment involved (not unreasonable) and then throwing in as much electricity and equipment as they can get their hands on (in essence, the decentralized bank can do stupid shit too when the buyers let it.) Welcome to the game, I have been saying this for a month now. The direct buyer at the exchange are feeding the miners fat and happy. The problem is that the direct buyer doesn't understand economics. My tip is to start reading the mining sector of this forum. Speculation can add a lot of value. A deflationary currency assumes that over time, it's value will eventually increase far beyond it's current level. So, buyers will sacrifice additional short-term risk for the potential of long-term profit. |
|
|
|
I was following you until the last paragraph. How or why is it unethical exactly?
Bingo. If someone is willing to pay $1,000,000 for it, how is that unethical? People place the value they want to place upon something. Nobody is forcing them to buy, and yet, they are buying. I could charge you $1,000,000 per BTC, and even then, how would that be unethical? If you don't want it, don't buy it. |
|
|
|
btw holy crap, do you see that last payout address?!?!
1ponzixxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx?!?!?!?!
This is a sign guys.
That's me. That's my new good luck Ponzi address. It will bring all games I play good luck! There ya go ponz geek. A fresh start for ya on this one! |
|
|
|
|
Oh. You coulda just said a black hole.
|
|
|
|
If its such a guarantee to gain cash from it, then when not set the minimum bid to whatever we want?
I don't know, I didn't start it. |
|
|
|
1.) Deposit 1 BTC --> 1.15 payout --> pot = .9 BTC 2.) Deposit 1 BTC --> 1.15 payout --> pot = .75 BTC 1.) paid 3.) Deposit 1 BTC --> 1.15 payout --> pot = .6 BTC 2.) paid 4.) Deposit 1 BTC --> 1.15 payout --> pot = .45 BTC 3.)paid 1.) Deposit 1 BTC --> 1.15 --> pot = .3 BTC 4.) paid 2.) Deposit 1 BTC --> 1.15 --> pot = .15 BTC 1.) paid 3.) Deposit 1 BTC --> 1.15 --> pot = 0 BTC 2.)paid 4.) Deposit 1 BTC --> 1.15 --> pot = 1 BTC 1.) Deposit 1 BTC --> 1.15 --> pot = .85 BTC 3.)paid 2.) Deposit 1 BTC --> 1.15 --> pot = .7 BTC 4.)paid 3.) Deposit 1 BTC --> 1.15 --> pot = .55 BTC 1.)paid 4.) Deposit 1 BTC --> 1.15 --> pot = .4 BTC 2.)paid 1.) Deposit 1 BTC --> 1.15 --> pot = .25 BTC 3.) paid 2.) Deposit 1 BTC --> 1.15 --> pot = .1 BTC 4.) paid 3.) Deposit 1 BTC --> 1.15 --> pot = 1.10 BTC 4.) Deposit 1 BTC --> 1.15 --> pot = .95 BTC 1.) paid 1.) Deposit 1 BTC --> 1.15 --> pot = .8 BTC 2.) paid 2.) Deposit 1 BTC --> 1.15 --> pot = .65 BTC 3.) paid 3.) Deposit 1 BTC --> 1.15 --> pot = .5 BTC 4.) paid 4.) Deposit 1 BTC --> 1.15 --> pot = .35 BTC 1.) paid 1.) Deposit 1 BTC --> 1.15 --> pot = .2 BTC 2.) paid 2.) Deposit 1 BTC --> 1.15 --> pot = .05 BTC 3.) paid 3.) Deposit 1 BTC --> 1.15 --> pot = 1.05 BTC 4.) Deposit 1 BTC --> 1.15 --> pot = .9 4.) paid Each player paid 5 times Deposit 6 BTC each, but each wins 5.75 5.75 X 4 = 23 BTC .9 extra...... 24 BTC in, 23.9 BTC out.....so .1 BTC (10% of initial deposit) goes where? Edit: Also, where does the .9 extra in the pot go? Edit 2: I'm going to spam now. Join these so I can reinvest and so you can make me happy for doing math at 4:42 AM U.S. central time. This is my greedy side. Enjoy it. http://bitcoinduit.com/game/viewRound.php?id=Lets_Ponzhttp://bitcoinduit.com/game/viewRound.php?id=MaxJackpothttp://bitcoinduit.com/game/viewRound.php?id=Half_double |
|
|
|
Yes you're right, but there was a much more fundamental problem from the beginning.
I think that's your only mistake. With that fixed, you get 24 coins paid in and 24 coins paid out. If there's 10% fee on first deposit, then the whole thing is off because pot isn't 1 BTC at start, correct? It would be .9 BTC, and that shifts everything. My question is, where does this 10% go to? |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
