|
They have a saying in stock trading: "the market can stay illogical more time than you can stay solvent" ... or something like this.
|
|
|
|
Some are probably starting to disable GPU mining farm because of bicoin halving in 10 days AND Asic coming in less than a month.
I wouldn't disable anything yet and wait for the actula halfing and/or ASICs to start pumping the difficulty up. Unless you want to sell your GPUs and think that the price drop AFTER is more than the BTC you can mine BEFORE. |
|
|
|
|
I think the revenue should be declared when realized. In your example, in 2013.
|
|
|
|
We should do a BFL song.
Like this maybe:
Mama, just bought a rig, sent my bitcoins, half a ton,
pressed a button, now they're gone, mama
Wealth had just begun, but now I've gone and thrown it all away
Mama, ooo, didn't mean to make you cry
If I'm not rich again this time tomorrow
Carry on, carry on, as if nothing really matters
lmao, good one |
|
|
|
This thread is going nowhere but troll-landia.
Aye. Let me nudge it a little bit.  |
|
|
|
Did anyone really seriously expect BFL, the masters of delayed shipping times based on their FPGA products, to make it before 2012?
I still think they will be first out for the first hundred orders but i would still not count on Jan 2012. Think Feb based on the last
performance they had for more then 100 orders.
You mean 2013, right? |
|
|
|
|
Go bASIc go! Oh, wait, Go BFL, go! Lol! I'm not in the first batch so whatever. Good luck to everybody and let's see those ASICs mining.
|
|
|
|
It's also entirely possible he's got a bunch on order himself and thinks the more ppl he scares away the better off he is.  M Busted! |
|
|
|
I also have normal discussions on a wide range of topics with the rest of the forum except you. When your response is: That makes absolutely no sense ... you sound condescending and trying to be a smart arse. Had you started with "In my opinion I think it's better to mine solo because a) b) c) ..." I wouldn't have considered you a troll. I mean look at your previous answer. Get the fvck down from your high horses. Show us you're just as good at argumenting "for" because you showed us you're pretty good at argumenting "against". That's easy. |
|
|
|
People will still mine bitcoins regardless of the profitability factor.
That's not logical. If I spend 2 BTCs to mine 1 BTC ... it's only logical to stop mining until BTC prices rise and/or difficulty comes down and/or I get free electricity, etc. |
|
|
|
The fact that you think 50% is the same as .001% is exactly why I said that it sounds like you do not understand mining.
The fact that you just like to pick on words/numbers and take them out of context makes you a troll. |
|
|
|
Anyway, the discussions in this thread have all been warmed over many times by economists before. Bitcoin mining is a textbook example of a perfectly competitive market. In the long run margins are razor-thin to not existant and the thousands of miners we have today will be driven down to a few.
Not entirely true. In the long run, the mining will be dictated by the Gh/W ratios. Since the only operating cost is the price of electricity, the W price will dictate who stays mining and who closes down. As long as the ASICs units have comparable Gh/W ratios, it doesn't matter if you are a miner with let's say, a farm of 1.5 Th rigs or a miner with a jallie at 4.5 Gh running. Both miners will keep them running as long as they pay the same price for electricity and that price is less than the BTC profits. So I expect to have there will be thousands of miners still mining ... This subject was already discussed in multiple posts. |
|
|
|
As a miner on a PPS pool, I could careless if the pool EVER finds a block. The pool operator has stated they will give me X for every share submitted. if they never find a block then they better be buying coins to pay me. Is this likely to happen? No, but thats not the point.
^^^ This. If you had the hypothetical 50% of the network hashing power, not only does mining on a pool grant whatever pool you are on > 51% power, which is bad, but unless the pool already contributes significant (another appreciable chunk of total network hashing) power on top of your own, you are essentially still mining solo except that you are paying pool fees, and distributing part of the reward that you are almost guaranteed to be finding, to others for no appreciable reason. This is very true and I had not thought about it that way. The 50% number was just an example, I could have used 10%, 1% or 0.001%. |
|
|
|
I'm not sending my ASIC to ... mystery miners  |
|
|
|
I think Pool mining makes more sense the more hash power you have because you take out luck out of the equation. Example: if you have half of the hashing power of the network, you'll almost get half of the bitcoins generated if you mine using pools (minus the ones going to the "lucky solo miners"). If solo mining, and with a bad luck, you can get 0 bitcoins ... So, feeling lucky ... punk? |
|
|
|
...
Now, if you just joined teh mining community and blindly bought GPUs and FPGAs when everybody was talking about ASICs and how they are x100 times more efficient ... you deserve to be screwed.
If someone ends up sitting on your 'asic pre-order' for several years before getting something out the door which is pretty capital intensive and at least as high-risk as Bitcoin itself...you deserve to be screwed. Lol, that too ... |
|
|
|
I disagree with the idea that GPU miners 'can't be screwed' by ASIC investment. I'm guessing you mean GPU miners who already broke-even and are re-investing profit. But by no means does this apply to all GPU miners - i) because they may have been late to come on board and are yet to break even; ii) because they may be investing way more than they've profited, out of overconfidence arising out of profitability to date, out of fear of being left behind or simply because they conclude it's a good time to be risking more.
Yes, I'm referring to those that already broke-even. Yes, it does not apply to all GPU miners, especially the ones that arrived late on board or the ones overconfident in the future profits. I know ASICs pre-orders started 5-6 months ago, which means ASICs were talked about even earlier. Any serious GPU miner that likes to keep himself updated with the news in the Bitcoin world would have considered the scenario that this might be real and would have made appropriate plans such us: do not buy truckloads of GPUs and/or pre-order the ASICs as future replacements. Even if you started 7-8 months ago (just prior to ASICs announcements) I think that would have been enough time to recoup the investment made (especially since ASICs keep being postponed, lol). Now, if you just joined teh mining community and blindly bought GPUs and FPGAs when everybody was talking about ASICs and how they are x100 times more efficient ... you deserve to be screwed. |
|
|
|
Yes, I briefly mentioned that in a previous post; interest can be seen as a measure of investment risk and a measure of protection from inflation. In the current system it's usually both because there is no 0% interest rate for risk-free assets. Care to comment on how interest should be regarded when dealing with a deflationary currency/environment? For example there can't be such thing as negative interest for risk free assets ... |
|
|
|
|
So money becomes an asset on its own rather than an exchange medium; you can make money just by having money. I understand that ... doesn't mean I agree with it, I mean look at where this approach got us into now. The power to create money should reside with people that create actual things, not with banks.
In your example, the rent I pay is the price paid for a service you're providing to me (shelter). Interest on a loan is not exactly the same; I agree to pay to the bank for their services, for managing money (aka opening account, assessing my credit worthiness, transferring money, etc.), but that should be like a fixed fee, not % of interest. I guess I'm starting to advocate for Islamic banking ... lol.
|
|
|
|
Assume a bowl of water with exactly 15 units of water in it. You have a spoon (or ladle) removing 1 unit of water from the edge of the bowl. You scoop this water from as close to your right hand side of the bowl as possible. Then you pour it out into the same bowl as close to your left hand side as possible. How many times will you be able to perform this action before all the water piles up on the left hand side? The problem you have is that the water continues to move over time filling in the area where you scooped it from other nearby areas and moving outward from where you dumped it to other nearby areas. So the right hand side of the bowl can continue to pay the left hand side indefinitely as much interest as needed.
Lol, interesting example you found there. Here's a thought. For the loans+interest system to work, it has to have 100% efficiency. Meaning the bank will spend back into the economy all the interest money they collected, meaning there are no money "lost" somewhere in between, etc. Because in order to pay back interest without actually taking another loan, the money to pay back interest need to be be available somewhere in the economy, right? To use your example, one has to be very careful/fair with the spoon to not spill/pour a single drop of water on another bowl. I don't believe the system can be 100% efficient, or in other words all interest money will be re-circulated and there are no money "lost" in the process. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
