|
I'm with the space octopus
|
|
|
|
To whose wondering about the purpose of mintcoins: http://forum.bitcoin.org/index.php?topic=5788.20Also, small time miners not always know they are better without the pool, and your "small" to work outside the pool, still need to be big enough to get BTC generated before difficulty change (otherwise he risk never getting BTC), Vladmir explained that in the topic about deepbit being a security problem. I'm not pretending mint coins aren't more valuable, rather that given the market capitalization and their availability right now, I doubt anyone is interested in these just yet. At least not enough to pay exorbitant fees for it. That private key trading idea applies to used coins too anyways, since there won't be any transaction log in the block chain. We are agreeing that small miners will slowly be forced to join pools. On Tycho's end, if he had those 500 Gh/s, he'd be better off taking them off of his pool, so the likes of me wouldn't scare away new comers from joining his pool. |
|
|
|
The fact that pool owners advertise the pool size, means that to miners it is a important stat (the bigger the pool, the most regular is the payouts), thus throwing your own ghash on it at least has some marketing value.
Not really. Small time miners are better off in a pool, and Tycho's would still be #1 if you take 500 Gh/s, so people would join his regardless. As a matter of fact, he'd still be bigger than slush's and BTCmine combined... |
|
|
|
|
edit: wrong thread ='(.
Also, mining is getting crazy competitive, if you're gonna join, don't go spending money you can't afford to lose.
|
|
|
|
Although dishwara is sounding very paranoid what he writes is perfectly possible...
Also I noticed that deepbit has a 500 ghash variation those last days, some other people mentioned it before, but I did not paid attention because I did not knew what 500 ghash meant until I saw the bizarre variations in the bitcoinwatch graphics ie beside the obvious graph that goes up and down a lot, I noticed that refreshing bitcoinwatch pizza graph, deepbit sometimes is 25%, and sometimes is almost 50%, and this repeat for a while, suggesting that each time the 500 ghash thing fails to connect, reboot or whatever, deepbit loses half of its computing power, and that computing power is 25% of the network computing power, making me finally realize that the numbers on the graph are in ghash, thus the entire network is around 2000 to 3000 ghash, someone alone has 500 ghash means that this someone can do some serious stuff...
I dunno if that someone is Tycho though.
That's doesn't work IMO. If Tycho really had 500 Gh/s and had buyers for "minted" coins, he could just as well solo, and it wouldn't change squat to his profit, besides the fact that people like me wouldn't be bitching at the size of his pool and give him a bad rap for that. |
|
|
|
I'm not the one who doesn't understand the implications. Say fellows, what happens to a currency when the greatest demand for it comes not from consumers looking to purchase products or as a store of value, but instead is a bunch of people looking to speculate in the currency?
But since you don't have more to say, don't let the door hit you on the way out.
That's a pretty wild claim. There are 3 actors in the BTC market: Long term investers, Miners (sellers), and day traders/speculators. Miners are accounted for, so the only unkown is the balance between adopters and speculators. If you look at the price history, BTC hit $9, quickly fell back to ~$7.5 and is now slowly depreciating, with volumes around 7-15k a day on Gox. The mining speed witnessed for the past 2 weeks is about 10k BTC minted a day, so the figures match, and right now it is very much likely most speculators have exited the market and are waiting for the next press hit that will bring a flow of new investors. Moreover, I say your claim is wild because it is overly pessimistic to expect a market to be only fueled by speculators, without a base of support, even more on a market you can't down-trade. Those speculators would understand they'd be technically playing poker against each other if they were to be the main market makers, and no speculator wants that. |
|
|
|
|
Is there really a market for minted coins? First time I hear about this.
|
|
|
|
it's absolutely not fraud. a new block chain does not compromise rights of anyone intending to continue to use the old one. it's not fraud to start up 'inflacoin' and suggest that people use it. it wouldn't be fraud for gavin to do so, or for him to release a client that simply started a new 'bitcoin' chain. It can be seen as fraud if you'd be pretending that chain will be successful because the original one is, which you are implying. Anyways, if the newcomers were so eager for a brand new chain, I don't see why they can't start it on their own. This is open source, Gavin doing it himself won't bring power to it, and will serve to discredit the original chain. Also, central bankers starting their own block chain is preposterous. The concept of 2 alternate chains coexisting is unrealistic anyways. 2 pure e-currencies coexisting is borderline impossible, what's left for 2 instances of the same commodity. |
|
|
|
|
First name: Goat
Last name: Pig
Middle name: Raccoon
|
|
|
|
+2. However I guess what I am saying is that although I will be buying BTC I see nowhere I would want to spend them at the moment. But that's just me.
Coins are emitted by miners. Miners have costs and are competing against each other, it is very likely that most miners will sell their BTC. Coins issuances will stop circa 2140, by then Bitcoin will be dead or filled with vendors, at which point hoarding won't be a problem. |
|
|
|
@goatpig: that's not at all what i'm saying. i don't care much about the original distribution, and i'm agnostic as to whether the public will either. as i said, it's just an incidental observation of a potential benefit to a restart.
And I think that potential affluence of newcomers will be mitigated by the effective departure of early adopters who would lose anywhere between thousands to millions of dollars in the process. |
|
|
|
I don't understand it, that's why I am asking and hoping people who do will educate me. I am not here to bash, if I was I would've left the pool. I just want to make sure.
The speed displayed in the your miner is the amount of hashes your GPUs are computing per seconds. Some of these hashes turn out to be low difficulty solutions to the block, and are sent back to your pool. Your speed displayed on the pool is established upon that later part. The frequency at which you find and submit these solutions is subject to fluctuations, so your effective speed on the pool will be within a certain bracket, technically could expect that speed to fluctuate anywhere between +/- 20% your hashing speed, but rest assured, it evens out in the long term. |
|
|
|
@forever-d, multiple competing chains could be quite robust without ever getting in the way of e-commerce, but we can cross that bridge when we come to it. for now, we could think of a restart as what happens when we move out of 'beta' toward real production. this is a particularly good moment in time to consider it.
(another way to say it: you can't prevent other people from starting new block chains. what's hard is getting new chains to benefit from the network effects of a community. better gavin, now, than paypal, citibank or facebook in six months.)
many bloggers and journalists are specifically recommending against adoption because of the history of the current block chain. they don't say it that way, but it's what their arguments boil down to. that block chain comes with a get-rich-quick mentality and has been overpromoted in speculative terms. and what's the reason to keep it, really, except to reward people like us in ways the public won't particularly want and at best will be neutral to?
with a new chain, gavin's promises in interviews that 'everyone can be an early adopter' would be more nearly true. and bitcoin would more clearly stand or fall as a payments system, not as a quirky speculative store of value subject to manipulation that's scaring people away. restarting the chain, at this particular moment in time, emphasizes payments and deemphasizes speculative bubbles. the more people use it to make transfers, and the fewer who use it as a retirement-planning vehicle that appeared one day from heaven, the more likely the technology will be important and help people.
You are saying people will be reluctant to join Bitcoin because early adopters return on high risk investments makes the outsiders so jealous they'd rather give up on the economical advancement of Bitcoin altogether, and your proposed solution is to smite those early adopters that got Bitcoin where it is now to allow newcomers to get that profit for themselves instead? |
|
|
|
I think you are wrong. Bitcoin supply isn't all 6M bitcoins that have been minted, but only those that are used for trading. From the market point of view, bitcoins that have been minted but never used for trade, might as well not exist. I suspect that a lot of that kind of coins are entering the market for the first time.
What coins do you expect have the highest probability of entering the market? Coins bought by "hoarders", or coins "minted" my miners? Putting aside day traders and the like, several elements indicate that a miners is much more prone to sell his production than a long term investor is. Nevertheless, the point stands. A coin that has been accessed through trading, no matter how long it is held upon, has already brought in dollars in the market. A freshly minted coin didn't. |
|
|
|
Regarding legitimacy, if it is commonly observed that a currency is easily created "for free", even in a limited amount, this could reduce society's willingness to accept it as currency. If the aim is to have bitcoin widely used (don't know if this is the case or not) then these kind of things will affect that.
Yet society has no problem using dollars, euros, yens, pounds and others. Every single one of these currency are made out of thin air, at a key stroke. Intrinsic value doesn't define market value. |
|
|
|
1) No. Only until block 127,000 or so (10-15 days from now). Then difficulty will readjust and you'll have to lower down your expectations. There's also no telling where the price is going, although the general expectation is up. 2) No. This isn't in anyway malicious or harmful to the network. The guy paying for the electricity might have some beef with you, but that's your business solely. 3) For the past 30 days, about 4.2 million dollars worth of Bitcoins were traded. I think you're $240 a month will sell just fine. ( http://bitcoincharts.com/markets/) |
|
|
|
3) It took me MANY HOURS to download all the blocks.
Once you have the block chain you don't have to redownload it. It's a one time thing. Every time you'll open your client it'll only download the newest blocks that you are missing. 1) Instant. You're not considering the cost you incur for that instant payment. Also you can use an escrow/3rd party for instant payments. |
|
|
|
The price is tied to difficulty and overall network hashrate.
If network hashrate increases more than difficulty then price will go down.
In which case the price for 1 BTC will be alot higher the day difficulty gets so high that mining is no longer profitable.
I'm not 100% sure if I've gotten the system right though. Can someone prove me wrong?
i don't know how to prove you wrong but difficulty & hash rate represent costs of mining for new coins. which should not misunderstood as value. especially value of all coins. the fact that anybody spend meat space money for hardware, electricity and bandwidth can not be simply interpreted as an equation between costs and exchange rate. it is a matter of demand and supply at what price level the trade happens. you can spend bazilions of kuna to buy & operate mining equipment but if no one wants to buy you either keep the coins or sell at what is offered. no one cares what did you spend on mining price follows difficulty because of people willing to help mint coins and add power to the hashing network because they can profit from this activity. if there would be no influx of new money through exchanges, the price would be still in a 10 cents limbo i thing that greed is leading, followed by difficulty. price is irrelevant. His point is that mining is the only source of inflation in the system. If the network hashrate increases a lot compared to difficulty, let's say 12 blocks an hour instead of 6, then for the time, until the difficulty adjusts, the supply of Bitcoin will increase. The point about mining being only 20% of the total market is irrelevant. It is the only inflationary component to the market, so it is the only one that naturally reduces price. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
