is the test net pool still up? I can't seem to connect to it
It looks like diff on testnet reset and the bitcoind went nuts handing out all those blocks, so it needed a swift kick in the balls. It should be working again now. I don't get it, I see current difficulty is 1, but when I mine, it's at 1.02k difficulty |
|
|
|
Updating the numbers:
(3600 blocks per day * $380) / 6 = $228,000
why divide by 6? |
|
|
|
|
is the test net pool still up? I can't seem to connect to it
|
|
|
|
So there really is no place where we can buy testnet coins? Call me crazy, but... why? Why would you want to buy testnet coins? In the off-chance that you need to do some testing of some custom software: you wouldn't even really need the official testnet; as ckolivas points out, just launch a private one. If bored, adjust the code, give yourself a few million coins from the get-go. Except your private testnet has no real users, and the official testnet has actual users, nodes, miners and transactions that are not controlled by you. |
|
|
|
They don't need to pay 100% of the unit cost, but they do need to pay 100% of the ASIC component cost, otherwise you are just buying a more expensive heater for no reason. The problem is, with 20% up time, there is no hope of ever paying back the 100% ASIC cost, even with the electricity cost savings. Therefore, you are indeed just buying a more expensive heater for no reason.
Ahh... you are making the mistake assuming ASICs cost a lot to manufacture once the initial investment is amortized. It is merely a matter of scale. You do realize ASIC's exists in many cheap 10-20 dollar children's toys, right?
10-20 dollar children's toy ASIC doesn't consume 1200W electricity. If you are going to use them as heaters, you need a ton of ASIC in there. These ASIC will make the heater cost extremely expensive compared to a regular heater. |
|
|
|
They can not be on all the time, why would you have them on when the temperature is above 76F? Waterheater can not be on all the time neither, they run in cycles, otherwise you are just wasting water/energy.
The problem is when you can't have them on 100% of the time, you could never recoup your hardware cost, because like you said, new ASIC will be come cheaper and more efficient, therefore driving up the difficulty, and your old hardware, when not on 100% of the time, will never recoup the cost. Which makes your investment a loss when competing against a real mining farm.
In the equation above the ASIC's hot water heater are on 20% of the time, silly. The transaction rewards and block rewards merely subsidize the electricity or amortize the unit cost. They don't need to pay 100% of the unit costs or electrical costs as that is just a bonus. People need hot water regardless, and some  people like hot water when its overcast in the morning or at night. They don't need to pay 100% of the unit cost, but they do need to pay 100% of the ASIC component cost, otherwise you are just buying a more expensive heater for no reason. The problem is, with 20% up time, there is no hope of ever paying back the 100% ASIC cost, even with the electricity cost savings. Therefore, you are indeed just buying a more expensive heater(that requires constant on internet) for no reason. |
|
|
|
Again, you are questioning reality with your imagined scenario. If it was indeed profitable, it would be in mass usage by now. The REALITY is that it is NOT profitable to run a ASIC as a heater, because it CAN NOT be turned on all the time, therefore the hardware cost can not be easily recouped. It has no hope to compete against a full time mining farm.
Some heaters are on all the time, but lets assume that we have intermittent Asics competing with full time Asics for a moment. Option A- ASIC hot water heater running 20% of the time cost efficiency = (amortized costs of design, testing, build, and shipping / millions of units) - 20% normal rate of transaction fees and block rewards compared to standalone miners Option B- ASIC Standalone miner running 100% of the time cost efficiency = (amortized costs of design, testing, build, and shipping / thousands of units) + electricity costs + possible costs for cooling Do the math . What is more efficient? P.S... remember in option A electricity isn't included because its a needed product already consumed. They can not be on all the time, why would you have them on when the temperature is above 76F? Waterheater can not be on all the time neither, they run in cycles, otherwise you are just wasting water/energy. The problem is when you can't have them on near100% of the time, you could never recoup your hardware cost, because like you said, new ASIC will be come cheaper and more efficient, therefore driving up the difficulty, and your old hardware, when not on 100% of the time, will never recoup the cost. Which makes your ASIC part of the investment a loss when competing against a real mining farm. So you basically bought a very expensive space heater/water heater, when you could have gotten a regular one cheaper, even considering the total cost of ownership. Again, like I told you weeks ago, when your imagined scenario doesn't exist in reality, you need to first question your scenario, not question reality. Also again, if you truly believe in your scenario, then build the product, and let me know of your huge success. |
|
|
|
OMG. The appointment of secretary general is an election process! with candidates!, how much does it cost to be a winning candidates? Yes, that is what the link I sent you described. They are appointed through an election process involving elected officials who ran popularity campaigns. This no way is akin to the general public or users electing an official directly. Yes, if BTSX simply has small election of government and industry insiders appointing DPoS delegates the election costs are minimal. I agree. Is that what you envision of BTSX? oh, so only general public election are considered election now? BTSX delegate is elected by a group of stakeholders, it's not a general public election. It's more like a IEEE or ICANN board election, and how much does it cost to be elected as IEEE or ICANN board member? |
|
|
|
How much is the campaign cost to be elected as the Secretary-general of United Nations? show me your "well known study".
The Secretary-general isn't elected but appointed: http://www.un.org/sg/appointment.shtml....by elected officials who do ultimately have to campaign. So the answer is either a very costly sum of the campaign costs of all those that appointed them or N/A. Or are you insinuating DPoS in the future will have appointed positions rather than elected positions? per unit cost will shrink in ASIC, the total cost of PoW CAN NOT shrink, otherwise how do you secure the network against 51% attack? PoW expense will have to be more and more expensive as Bitcoin grows in scale.
Yes, I do expect the hash rate to increase , and electricity usage increase. This is exactly what will force decentralization and miners to need to use ASICs as products which create useful heat energy with the side effect of free PoW which can than in turn be used to subsidize the energy costs and amortize the unit costs. I don't get why you fail to understand the economics. OMG. The appointment of secretary general is an election process! with candidates!, how much does it cost to be a winning candidates? Again, you are questioning reality with your imagined scenario/economics. If it was indeed profitable, it would be in mass usage by now. The REALITY is that it is NOT profitable to run a ASIC as a heater, because it CAN NOT be turned on all the time, therefore the hardware cost can not be easily recouped. It has no hope to compete against a full time mining farm. But hey if you think you are smarter than everybody else, go ahead and build your ASIC heater, and let me know of your huge product success. |
|
|
|
I know You love to make up scenarios that simply doesn't exist in reality. You imagined "security holes" with PoS that doesn't exist in reality. You imagined "election costs" with DPoS that doesn't exist in reality. Now you are imagining "space heater", "water heater" that are PoW ASIC machines, that doesn't exist in reality. You know why? because they are horribly expensive, and inefficient to compete with mega mining farms, because as heaters, they can not be turned on all the time, therefore there's no way for them to ever compete with real mining farms in terms of efficiency.
Let's just keep the topic on something that does exist in reality, that is the $500 million PoW expense that is staring Bitcoin holders in the face!
Election costs are well known and studied. Are you assuming that interests won't compete for delegate seats like they do for normal politics? ASIC costs and production isn't unique to Bitcoin. You realize that these are well known and documented and costs will naturally shrink with competition and scale. Why do you think you can buy a 20 dollar burner cell phone now? How much is the campaign cost to be elected as the Secretary-general of United Nations? show me your "well known study". per unit cost will shrink in ASIC, the total cost of PoW CAN NOT shrink, otherwise how do you secure the network against 51% attack? PoW expense will have to be more and more expensive as Bitcoin grows in scale. |
|
|
|
Strawman much? Who ever claimed 100% efficiency? ASIC's are 99% efficient at converting electricity to heat and the initial production costs need to be amortized across all units.
I know You love to make up scenarios that simply doesn't exist in reality. You imagined "security holes" with PoS that doesn't exist in reality. You imagined "election costs" with DPoS that doesn't exist in reality. Now you are imagining "space heater", "water heater" that are PoW ASIC machines, that doesn't exist in reality. You know why? because they are horribly expensive, and inefficient to compete with mega mining farms, because as heaters, they can not be turned on all the time, therefore there's no way for them to ever compete with real mining farms in terms of efficiency. Let's just keep the topic on something that does exist in reality, that is the $500 million PoW expense that is staring Bitcoin holders in the face! |
|
|
|
there's no proof the heat can be utilized efficiently Yes. It is basics of physics. other than heating the facility in winter and this is not "work" in terms of "proof-of-work" Also even if the heat is 100% efficiently utilized Perpetuum Mobile?  Again? Oh, no! Bullshit, the energy being there doesn't mean it can be easily 100% efficiently utilized. Try convert sunlight into electricity with 100% efficiency? or build a simple household boiler with 100% efficiency? In terms of heating the facility, it's usually a facility that doesn't need heating, most likely it needs cooling. Also it works only in winter. |
|
|
|
This is a FACT, and since it's a fact, therefore it will be true even when Bitcoin has no inflation (ie. when coin supply run out, the PoW expense will still exist). Therefore, YOU are the one that is confusing inflation with this perpetual PoW expense. I have no problem with Bitcoin inflation, at all.
If heat is a product instead of something thrown away and ASIC costs are amortized with block rewards and transaction fees than what is the problem? Are you suggesting future mass ASIC manufacturing/shipping costs will be higher than campaign political costs? Bitshares would be more interesting if Daniel stuck with TaPoS instead of settling on DPoS. There are security and future political costs with campaigning and lobbying that will need to be considered when you introduce more human involvement into securing the blockchain. I suppose there are limits with how many things we need to heat on earth though.... but this isn't a pressing dilemma. What are you talking about? there's no proof the heat can be utilized efficiently, other than heating the facility in winter, all the big mining farms do not try to utilize the heat at all. Also even if the heat is 100% efficiently utilized, that only balance out the electricity cost. The hardware cost is still there, and most likely higher because now you want to use the heat, which means additional hardware components. There's also no proof there's political expense associated with DPoS. I'm a delegate in btsx, and I didn't spend anything to get voted in. Also, even if there is expense, as long as it stays within the eco-system, I don't see any problem with that. Unlike Bitcoin PoW, which transfers wealth out of the eco-system, into the pockets of hardware vendor and electric company. |
|
|
|
Every holder of Bitcoin is paying, by having their coins depreciate 10% each year, perpetually, due to the cost of PoW mining. Though we have been lucky so far, since the inflow of capital far outpaces this depreciation in the past. But at some point, the inflow of capital will be unable to keep up, and we will see the depreciation, we are possibly seeing it right now.
You are confusing inflation with price appreciation, and your claim is based entirely on a timeframe that you selected to fit your bias. Just as easily, you could say that Bitcoin price has appreciated by greater than 4x per year and be equally correct. There is inflation in the money supply of Bitcoin, which was and is known (since it wasn't heavily pre-mined like other coins), math-based, predictable, and FALLING over time. Because industrial miners are profit-focused, they are selling virtually immediately to lock-in current price to pay the bills, rather than speculating about future value. This causes somewhere between 0 and 3600 BTC to be sold daily onto the market, creating natural downward pressure on price. What I have stated is NOT a claim, it is a FACT that Bitcoin eco-system pays roughly $500 million in PoW mining expense this year, which means $500 million is transferred from the Bitcoin eco-system, to ASIC hardware vendor and electric company. This is a FACT, and since it's a fact, therefore it will be true even when Bitcoin has no inflation (ie. when coin supply run out, the PoW expense will still exist). Therefore, YOU are the one that is confusing inflation with this perpetual PoW expense. I have no problem with Bitcoin inflation, at all. |
|
|
|
ets say it is 20c per kwh=$17 Sorry. I do not want to calculate mining profits. I only want to know - who is paying today these $17 bucks per transaction  OK, I know (I think that I know) who is paying. His name is John Smith and he thinks that his transactions are low-cost and bitcoin is awesome. He also thinks that bitcoin will cost tomorrow more than today. He knows nothing in cryptography, math, physics and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservation_of_energy. He thinks that he can gain infinite profits only holding some digits in his computer for infinite time. UPD: OK, may be one can argue with $17 per transaction. Let us go one step back. Who is paying [%your number][%your currency] for 83.33kWh per one transaction? Every holder of Bitcoin is paying, by having their coins depreciate 10% each year, perpetually, due to the cost of PoW mining. Though we have been lucky so far, since the inflow of capital far outpaces this depreciation in the past. But at some point, the inflow of capital will be unable to keep up, and we will see the depreciation, we are possibly seeing it right now. |
|
|
|
Yeah, that's interesting, I hope he hasn't been arrested. Thought it seems his website bitbet.us is still resolving bets, I'm not sure if he's still the one running it. |
|
|
|
Bitcoin CAN NOT be a good storage of value, because the PoW mining expense is way too high. By holding Bitcoin, you are basically charged a 10% tax each year. That's not a good storage of value. Bitcoin can become a good storage value if it converts to a Proof of Stake network.
It is my understanding that most PoS coins use PoW for initial coin distribution. Bitcoin is still not generally regarded a viable, so the continued coin distribution is justified, IMO. The 10% tax will be reduced to a 5% tax within 3 years. The "unfair" wealth of the "early adopters" is a common criticism I hear about Bitcoin. You appear to be arguing that the early adopters should control even more of the wealth. Except more than 60% of Bitcoins are already distributed, and still no plans in sight to fade out PoW. The tax CAN NOT be reduced by halving, because the PoW network NEEDS to maintain 10% expense in order to not be laughably easy to 51% attack. Therefore it will reach a new equilibrium that rests at 10%, and continue to suck wealth out of the Bitcoin eco-system at that rate. I don't see how does PoS is related to early adopter controlling more wealth (also, as you said PoW doesn't prevent it neither, Satoshi controls over 1M Bitcoin). PoS can be distributed fairly, by using a mixture of PoW, development donation and proof of burn. PoS benefits every single participant of the eco-system, wealth is re-invested in the eco-system instead of transferred out to hardware vendor/electricity company. |
|
|
|
I really don't know why? I mean will we ever see $800 again... I doubt it for some reason
Bitcoin's price depends on the perception of the people. If enough people consider bitcoin as a good storage of value, it might hype immensely and we will see $800 or even $1000 again in near future. But if they think instead "better live now and spend everything" BTC will go down, too. Bitcoin CAN NOT be a good storage of value, because the PoW mining expense is way too high. By holding Bitcoin, you are basically charged a 10% tax each year. That's not a good storage of value. Bitcoin can become a good storage value if it converts to a Proof of Stake network. |
|
|
|
everyone who wanted it has it already. The permabulls keep holding and they ran out of ammo since they were calling the bottom wrong too often already. No new money coming in because nobody buys into these charts. Well, too bad, too sad.
Satoshi should have known better than forcing 10% inflation on us almost a decade into adoption.
Once the panic is on it's over.
Let me guess, you have a different coin to suggest? are you happy with 10% inflation? Do we need that? It wont be that high for long. Come the next halving it will..er halve. Whether i am happy about it is irrelevent. The coins are being distributed as per the algorithm and the really high inflation of bitcoin is behind us. A much better question is whether a centralized mining race is good for bitcoin in the longer term. Inflation is not the problem, therefore it has little effect on the eco-system even when it's lower. The PoW mining expense is the problem, $500M per year currently, and will grow higher if Bitcoin price rise. Therefore, it's hard for Bitcoin price to rise. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
