r0ach calls racism. I, for one, chortled. |
|
|
|
Own up: whose the fucking cock who keeps dumping when we try to go above $1200?
Remember, don't be that cock. Do you mean... don't... SELL ALL THE BITCOINS! ? Incidentally, I dumbed my cookie @ $1199.69. Next dumb target - another ~0.1% @ $1233.69. Or buy my cookie back @ $1166.69. Whatevs. Kinda hoping for the former. |
|
|
|
Own up: whose the fucking cock who keeps dumping when we try to go above $1200?
Well, I do have ~0.1% of my stash on offer at $1199.69. ... typical sellout hardforker, you'd probably sell your grandmother for the price of a streetcorner blowjob? /troll Comes a time for portfolio rebalancing. Even for a Bitcoin maximalist. I'll get to it some day...  |
|
|
|
Own up: whose the fucking cock who keeps dumping when we try to go above $1200?
Well, I do have ~0.1% of my stash on offer at $1199.69. If only 'twere enough to explain the cockblock. No such luck. |
|
|
|
Tell us again jbreher about the imminent feasibility of femtometer transistors for CPUs, I'm in the mood for a laugh
Now see there you go simply lying to try to ... I dunno ... win Innertubes points? I never said anything about femtometer transistors, accordingly, there is no way I could "tell us again". |
|
|
|
"5nm is far too close" ... for ... what exactly? What is it about 5nm that makes it "too close"? What occurs, or stops occurring at 5nm?
Is this a trick question? Not a trick question. Carlton made an assertion that 5nm was "too close", but did not specify what it was too close for. I was merely asking him to clarify his assertion. |
|
|
|
But this is irrelevant. Again. Despite being irrelevant to Bitcoin, it neither brings an end to semiconductor scaling. As you keep missing, we are just starting to exploit the third dimension in semiconductor fabrication.
hmmmmm, jbreher thinks silicon chips can be fabricated at 5nm and less, knows that 14nm took 24+ months, yet also knows that 3D TSV chips is suddenly being looked at as the actual vector with which to continue Moore's law. Why aren't the engineers considering going into femtometer processes? (like you seem to think is possible lol) You're right this is irrelevant, but it was your point to begin with, jbreher. So now we know your original post was irrelevant, spare yourself the embarrassment https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1771911.msg17957121#msg17957121to wit: You do realize Bitcoin is working exactly as intended (ie allocating scarce resources efficiently)
Well, no. To quote satoshi: The existing Visa credit card network processes about 15 million Internet purchases per day worldwide. Bitcoin can already scale much larger than that with existing hardware for a fraction of the cost. It never really hits a scale ceiling. If you're interested, I can go over the ways it would cope with extreme size.
By Moore's Law, we can expect hardware speed to be 10 times faster in 5 years and 100 times faster in 10. Even if Bitcoin grows at crazy adoption rates, I think computer speeds will stay ahead of the number of transactions. |
|
|
|
Your statement was that "microchip manufacturing has (ironically) hit it's the technological limits". Which, of course, I have demonstrated to be objectively false.
It's very simple: 5nm is far too close to the actual size of individual silicon atoms. Presumably you now would like to argue with the atoms themselves about how they are exhibiting the wrong dimensions Do you understand what individual means, lol "5nm is far too close" ... for ... what exactly? What is it about 5nm that makes it "too close"? What occurs, or stops occurring at 5nm? Of course I understand what individual means. A 5nm cube of silicon contains on the order of 12,500 silicon atoms. Still quite far from 'individual'. But this is irrelevant. Again. Despite being irrelevant to Bitcoin, it neither brings an end to semiconductor scaling. As you keep missing, we are just starting to exploit the third dimension in semiconductor fabrication. Sure, there will be problems at each process node. That will continue to be solved just like we've solved each process barrier for the last half-century. The only measure that matters -- the amount of computation one can do for a certain amount of money -- will continue to climb unabated. |
|
|
|
Moore's Law is no longer tenable, as microchip manufacturing has (ironically) hit it's the technological limits.
aww..... that's just precious. Indeed... After decades of educated people making the same hurried conclusions that the human race has at various intervals and industries hit its technological limits only to be proven premature not much later in the future, we'll continue to have people we can rely on to make the same (misguided) conclusions. I always find that precious=) what you 2 lithographic etching engineers are failing to appreciate is that while Moore's law could be continued with a different paradigm, that paradigm does not exist yet. Until it does, Moore's law as described stopped working last year, it took ~24 months to get 14nm transistors, and will take longer than that to reach 10nm. 5nm transistors have been demonstrated in the lab fifteen years ago. 7nm fab pilot production has been achieved two years ago. Volume production this year. By at least three independent fab companies with different processes. And as pointed out earlier, yesterday's planar processes are giving way to the third dimension - which opens vast new frontiers for scaling. Chips built with 64 layers of cells (far more layers of lithography) are shipping -- in volume -- for regularly-ordered device technologies. Which will lead to a quantum leap in scaling, before settling back down to something approximating Moore's 'law'. Incidentally, while I am not a lithographic engineer, my day gig has me exchanging research info with lithographic engineers as a regularly occurring interlock activity. You? That's all very fascinating. But where's the part that illustrates Moore's Law is still in effect? Oh yes, that's right, every step since the 14nm process has been taking LONGER than the 18 months of R&D time Gordon Moore predicted, so you've proven precisely nothing Your statement was that "microchip manufacturing has (ironically) hit it's the technological limits". Which, of course, I have demonstrated to be objectively false. Of course, Moore's 'law' is not what you claim it to be. If anyone would be able to define 'Moore's law', one would expect that logically to be Gordon Moore himself. The quote attributed to him, that serves as his vision of any sort of 'Moore's law' is " The number of transistors and resistors on a chip doubles every 24 months". Which remains pretty well on-track. But in the context of Bitcoin, such is largely irrelevant. The only question that matters in this space is 'Is semiconductor technology improving at a rate that exceeds the expected rate of increase of Bitcoin usage, would Bitcoin have an unrestricted maxblocksize?' The answer to which would be an unqualified 'Indubitably'. |
|
|
|
when there's a moore's law for bandwidth, that's when it'll become a 'law' that's worth paying attention to.
Nielsen's law. Nielsen's law of Internet bandwidth growth. It's a thing. https://www.nngroup.com/articles/law-of-bandwidth/eta: I see Lauda beat me to the post |
|
|
|
Moore's Law is no longer tenable, as microchip manufacturing has (ironically) hit it's the technological limits.
aww..... that's just precious. Indeed... After decades of educated people making the same hurried conclusions that the human race has at various intervals and industries hit its technological limits only to be proven premature not much later in the future, we'll continue to have people we can rely on to make the same (misguided) conclusions. I always find that precious=) what you 2 lithographic etching engineers are failing to appreciate is that while Moore's law could be continued with a different paradigm, that paradigm does not exist yet. Until it does, Moore's law as described stopped working last year, it took ~24 months to get 14nm transistors, and will take longer than that to reach 10nm. 5nm transistors have been demonstrated in the lab fifteen years ago. 7nm fab pilot production has been achieved two years ago. Volume production this year. By at least three independent fab companies with different processes. And as pointed out earlier, yesterday's planar processes are giving way to the third dimension - which opens vast new frontiers for scaling. Chips built with 64 layers of cells (far more layers of lithography) are shipping -- in volume -- for regularly-ordered device technologies. Which will lead to a quantum leap in scaling, before settling back down to something approximating Moore's 'law'. Incidentally, while I am not a lithographic engineer, my day gig has me exchanging research info with lithographic engineers as a regularly occurring interlock activity. You? |
|
|
|
jbreher, are you suggesting that it's possible to break the laws of physics in order to continue with Moore's law? We're going to build transistors out of something that's smaller than 1 silicon atom, yeah? you're pretty cute yourself, lol
Why, no, Carlton. I am suggesting that your assertion is that we are at the end of Moore's 'law' scaling due to fundamental technological limits in microchip manufacturing is absolute twaddle. You know there is such a thing as "diminishing marginal returns" right? Irrelevant. Other than the fact that process technology nodes continue their unabated march, there is also a third physical dimension that semiconductor manufacturing is just starting to exploit. |
|
|
|
Moore's Law is no longer tenable, as microchip manufacturing has (ironically) hit it's the technological limits.
aww..... that's just precious. jbreher, are you suggesting that it's possible to break the laws of physics in order to continue with Moore's law? We're going to build transistors out of something that's smaller than 1 silicon atom, yeah? you're pretty cute yourself, lol Why, no, Carlton. I am suggesting that your assertion is that we are at the end of Moore's 'law' scaling due to fundamental technological limits in microchip manufacturing is absolute twaddle. |
|
|
|
Moore's Law is no longer tenable, as microchip manufacturing has (ironically) hit it's the technological limits.
aww..... that's just precious. |
|
|
|
I thought I once saw them say the bought most of their coins in 2012.
I'm thinking 2013. They had a big presence at BitCoin2013 San Jose (it was a conference). I don't remember them being around before that. |
|
|
|
Badger of honey Crotchety gob of bee glue Spit gold in my face  gotta admit.. I lol'd You have a way with words, BMB. |
|
|
|
and i'm in the red something like 4 BTC... ARGH.
never-go-full-retard.png |
|
|
|
You do realize Bitcoin is working exactly as intended (ie allocating scarce resources efficiently)
Well, no. To quote satoshi: The existing Visa credit card network processes about 15 million Internet purchases per day worldwide. Bitcoin can already scale much larger than that with existing hardware for a fraction of the cost. It never really hits a scale ceiling. If you're interested, I can go over the ways it would cope with extreme size.
By Moore's Law, we can expect hardware speed to be 10 times faster in 5 years and 100 times faster in 10. Even if Bitcoin grows at crazy adoption rates, I think computer speeds will stay ahead of the number of transactions. |
|
|
|
There is a price you will pay for whoring out your personage like a common signature slut.
What do you mean by that I mean that nothing in life is free. If you are getting paid to post, you have an incentive to blather endlessly on topics about which you know nothing. This forum is infested with signature sluts who create post after post after post of meaningless drivel. Because of this, a paid sig is a signal to the rest of us that your post is not worth reading. So we don't. |
|
|
|
I wonder who may have an incentive to code up an alternative implementation? Maybe somebody who already has millions of dollars tied up in capital equipment - someone whose continued profitability requires making any optimization allowed by the protocol...
I'd be happy to write a new client with emphasis purely on performance and scalability from scratch... if someone wanted to throw large sums of money at me to do so and keep sending me more indefinitely to maintain and update it. Well, that seems a perfectly reasonable stance. Just as a question ... do you have an estimate of the % of solved blocks that are attributable to your SW? |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
