It is bad news when BC future depends on investors being robbed of their hard earned money instead of the underlying technology working as intended...
It's working as intended. --Dad, what's that white stuff in birdshit? --Son, that's birdshit too. |
|
|
|
Only professional trolls get paid. Fallling, fonsie or other low quality trollls are not one of them. I'm using rebuilder's method and I can read this thread easily.
... Just for argument's sake, Fallling's approach is extremely cost (as in "invested time") effective. Don't assume that you are the intended target--you're not. "Success is the important thing. Propaganda is not a matter for average minds, but rather a matter for practitioners. It is not supposed to be lovely or theoretically correct. I do not care if I give wonderful, aesthetically elegant speeches, or speak so that women cry. The point of a political speech is to persuade people of what we think right. I speak differently in the provinces than I do in Berlin..."--Joseph Goebbels |
|
|
|
It is a really scary prospect. They day mining cost becomes unprofitable (soon), there will be a lot of dead mining companies thus an huge flash crash, thus killing even more miners. Also no one will lend money to this companies during theses times.
Nah. Many mining companies have been running in the red (if you include the cost of gear) for quite a while. Look at stuff like PETA, SCRYPT, HMF, Labrat. These are all for-profit "professional" mines. They will continue operating even when electrical costs surpass the exchange price of the coin they mine. --But how is that possible, Mr. Peabody? It just don't make sense! --You see, Sherman, the operators of these "mines" don't make their profits from the coin they mine. The real money comes from their "investors."  |
|
|
|
...
But you're calculating now (average) profit of miners, while I talked about _cost_ per coin.
I never said price (market price, that is) can never fall below production cost, which is what you have in mind maybe. That said, I believe production cost is a price attractor, and we won't fall below it unless extremely strong momentum brings us there. If price would fall below production cost for a longer period, we would certainly see the effect of that in hashrate / difficulty, but we don't (yet).
My point is the price feedback loop is laggy--it has a time delay. Introduce a time delay into any negative feedback loop (think typical op amp circuit, or a governor on a steam engine) and what you get is an oscillator (hunting or surging for mechanical stuff). Depending on initial conditions, the oscillation will be sustained, damped, or terminal (things go poof!) *The time constant was really out of hand when people were preordering ASICs and getting them a year later. And coffee is not working for me today  P.S: Do you see what I mean by sloppy price feedback? |
|
|
|
oda.krell: What I'm trying to say is there are scenarios (not just hypothetical) in which a rational miner is forced to continue mining even though overall, the operation is unprofitable. Having a hard time putting it into words, maybe an example might be clearer: 1. I spend $1k on hardware. At current difficulty and [predicted] difficulty increase rate, I calculate that ((hardware cost) + (hosting cost)) < (price of coins mined over lifetime). Profit. 2. Other rational miners do same, difficulty skyrockets. <=="turn on" calculations, using your formula, all made sense. Rational. 3. Now my original calculation is no longer true. I will lose money, but wat do? My options are as follows: <=="turn off" condition 3a. Shut down as soon as my original calculation, (1), is no longer valid, losing my original 1k investment. 3b. Keep mining while (hosting cost to mine one coin) remains < (price I could get for that coin). <==obviously the rational choice, my loss will not be total, but I won't break even either. 3c.  Is this any clearer? (it's morning ) |
|
|
|
oda.krell: Interesting bit re. rationality of miners/tx fees (from http://www.coindesk.com/faster-bitcoin-network-keep-fees-low ) ...small miners face a higher marginal cost than the minimum transaction fee 0.0001 BTC (5 cents at the time of publication). Acting rationally, they should not include any transactions in their blocks. In order to incentivise them to include transactions, fees would have to roughly quadruple to 0.0004 BTC (20 cents).
Another tangent re. "Hardware cost + total energy cost over entire life time of (energy profitable) mining of hardware, divided by coins mined during that time = price per coin": That is the point at which a rational player would start mining. Once the mining gear is bought, he will continue mining until Hardware cost + energy_cost_to_mine_coin > price_per_coin. |
|
|
|
in august we had in btc a google trend of 22, now in september its 25. could this be a signal for the next bubble?  It could drop back if the price and activity don't follow soon. But the activity is nearing the previous high, and once it surpasses previous highs we should also start to see new highs in value. That will also increase the amount of google searches on bitcoin. Now blend in bitcointalk Alexa results, spice to taste, and serve!  |
|
|
|
|
This is a case of "not even wrong."
Property is a complicated concept, as rigidly defined as, oh, let's say "fairness."
The notion of property of property predates farming. The kill of a hunting party, for instance, is that party's joint property.
Babies, right after learning "mama," learn "mine!"
The concept of property does not require a government, or even an outside authority, but force: "Yeah, I took it from you, now it's mine. Whatcha gonna do about it?"
This is a huge thing you guys are poking.
~NotLambchop the Pataphysician.
|
|
|
|
DOGE with a massive spike today. It finally broke its long term down trend. As stupid as some of you may think the coin is, its a great sign for the entire crypto market as a whole. Let's hope it holds because less liquid alts can show signs of a market wide reversal long before BTC can.
Dumping BTC 2 bi DOGE nao! |
|
|
|
...I can smell it in the air, we are going to the moon sooner or later.
That's not rocket fuel you smell, hdbuck. That's the stench of despair  |
|
|
|
^ Science knows...
 |
|
|
|
...
I would like to add that a 'free market world' is a world were solutions to problems are allowed to compete and the best and most efficient survive until appropriate, while the ones that were wacky to start with, or became so with time, are allowed to fade out. It is an environment were problem-solving solutions evolve.
Well sure! And, unless you think that today's economy is the ideal free market, the free market itself was phased out and replaced by not_free_market, because, in your words, "most efficient survive ... while the ones that were wacky to start with, or became so with time, are allowed to fade out." Why is this not obvious? Because there is a fundamental market that is not free, and has never be: the 'violence market'.  Nazis. Oh teh edge... Now explain to me how free_market allowed the violence_market to come about? Why did our problem-solving free_market ubermensch allow such a travesty to happen? Is it what you call "best and most efficient"? Or... Was it a cruel whim of our Mighty Reptilian Overlords? Finally, does your free market exist today? Did it ever exist? Or is it just talk?  |
|
|
|
...
I would like to add that a 'free market world' is a world were solutions to problems are allowed to compete and the best and most efficient survive until appropriate, while the ones that were wacky to start with, or became so with time, are allowed to fade out. It is an environment were problem-solving solutions evolve.
Well sure! And, unless you think that today's economy is the ideal free market, the free market itself was phased out and replaced by not_free_market, because, in your words, "most efficient survive ... while the ones that were wacky to start with, or became so with time, are allowed to fade out." Why is this not obvious? |
|
|
|
...
Ok so I was just confirming, that basically you are saying BTC wil become irrelevant because it will no longer "do what it says on the tin"
First, some housekeeping. Sentences end with a period. Ellipsis: three dots. Take the extra dots in your ellipses and stick them at the end of your sentences. Put the rest in your pocket--sell them to your friends. Again, I did not say "will" (or "wil [sic]"). Try putting moar care into reading than you do into writing. and you do not know what "a solution to centralization means?"
well, you infer that Bitcoin was only relevant because it is decentralised .........what made it relevant? because it was offering a solution to ...... ... ... centralisation..... right or no? No. I Bitcoin is a solution to money. It never tried to offer a "solution to centralization" because centralization need to be solved as much as peanut butter. Being decentralized helps Bitcoin. Being centralized hurts Bitcoin. How can I make this any simpler 4 U? @empowering: But I have just gave you a concrete, non-trivial, and common example of the semantics not being semantics at all! ...stealing and fraud are still stealing and fraud... But many people here call taxes stealing. Do you see how petty semantics aren't petty semantics, and that attempting to formalize shit and reconcile different interpretations of "what's right" gave us The Body Of Law? |
|
|
|
...stealing and fraud are still stealing and fraud... But many people here call taxes stealing. Do you see how petty semantics aren't petty semantics, and that attempting to formalize shit and reconcile different interpretations of "what's right" gave us The Body Of Law? |
|
|
|
What freedoms are you talking about, in particular? For instance, your notion that my freedoms should stop where yours begin seems overbroad. Can I take from you what I believe to be rightfully mine?
Of course you could, if you could if your could provide sufficient proof to support your claim. My perception is that you are too focused on semantics. ... Not at all. Many people sincerely feel that private property is theft, i.e. it doesn't and shouldn't belong to you. How would you handle those? Some people feel that if they're starving while you have plenty, they are entitled to take it from you. How would you handle those? Do you see where this is going? You mention proof. "Proof" is an empty concept unless everyone agrees on the premises and rules of derivation (they don't--hence wars, revolutions, and forum posts). |
|
|
|
...
I am asking , if you are not saying specialisation "will make BTC fail" then what are you saying? you state "not relevant" so by that are you saying it is no longer doing what it first set out to do (ie "what it said on the tin") i.e be decentralised.... and therefore you state ...........irrelevant.
I am asking what you mean by irrelevant... if it is not that BTC will fail, what does it mean? that it will just no longer be important? no longer be desired ? no longer be used? no longer be the solution to "centralisation" ?
I am saying that centralization is hurting BTC ==> making it more like the stuff it aimed to replace ==> making it irrelevant. I did not say Bitcoin is certain to fail. If that's what I meant, I would have said "BTC will fail." I did not suggest that Bitcoin is a solution to centralization, I'm not even sure what that means. By "irrelevant" i mean unimportant, sorta' like Christianity and Communism are today. I hope that answers your questions, if not--ask away. But no need for boldface. |
|
|
|
Free market is a tautology. It is not Fairy Godmother. Free market doesn't magically make good stuff succeed and bad stuff fail.
Unless you believe in the Lizard People, free market is responsible* for every economic system on Earth, including those with central planning, exorbitant taxation and draconian regulations.
TL;DR: Saying "free market will decide" is saying "whatever will be will be"--NOT interesting.
*If only by failing to prevent.
I can't speak to what everyone means when they say "free market", but I think this term is mostly used in this forum to mean "free" in the libertarian sense. That is, my freedom ends where it starts to impinge on your freedom, and vice versa. This means that a "free market" is explicitly NOT one in which you are free to restrict my economic freedom, nor I yours. From context, I gather that your definition of "free market" is simply 'the exercise of free will', and thus much broader than the meaning intended by the people you are responding to. From wikip: ...A free market contrasts with a controlled market or regulated market, in which government intervenes in supply and demand through non-market methods such as laws creating barriers to market entry or directly setting prices (etc., etc.)
What freedoms are you talking about, in particular? For instance, your notion that my freedoms should stop where yours begin seems overbroad. Can I take from you what I believe to be rightfully mine? |
|
|
|
...
Free market is a tautology. It is not Fairy Godmother. Free market doesn't magically make good stuff succeed and bad stuff fail.
Unless you believe in the Lizard People, free market is responsible* for every economic system on Earth, including those with central planning, exorbitant taxation and draconian regulations.
TL;DR: Saying "free market will decide" is saying "whatever will be will be"--NOT interesting.
*If only by failing to prevent.
Hmm I do not agree... besides markets have rarely been allowed to be actually free... Allowed by whom? What, other than the free market, allowed the [obviously undesirable] "not free market" to happen? Our masters The Lizard People? ...and also the free market does not make good stuff succeed, and bad stuff fail... it is the other way around good stuff in a free market has a chance at succeeding and bad stuff in a free market is free to not be supported by customers and to fail... there are other factors in play of course... apart from for rigged markets..
Sure. Bad stuff, like not_free_market, is free to be unsupported. Unfortunately, it obviously was supported--after thousands of years free market dialectic, it's finally with us  besides surely then by your logic then... the "bad stuff" in this case being centralisation specialisation of BTC mining in this case ,being the "bad stuff" or making BTC "bad stuff" then it will not magically make BTC fail then according to your logic? because the free market doesn't magically make good stuff succeed and bad stuff fail.
Where have I suggested that free market would make bitcoin fail? I even left a TL;DR: for you, TL;DR: Saying "free market will decide" is saying "whatever will be will be"--NOT interesting. Or are by saying "irrelevant" are you more talking about what BTC had written on the tin when it first popped up? as opposed to it failing?
Not sure what you're asking. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
