 Show Posts
|
|
Pages: « 1 2 3 [4] 5 »
|
When you notice that walls are being used to set floors and ceilings you stop playing their game.
1. Set ceilings by placing sell walls...Nick nervous sells and drops the price... buy lower.
2. Set floor by putting up buy walls and Gus greedy buys...sell high.
Keep repeating this and the clueless wont know what's hitting them.
Hint: look at volume on certain exchanges and notice most dumps occur between 3am and 4am US
central time...most people are asleep at this time to notice. For the past few days some actor(s)
is buying around 6-8 hundred BTC's and then dumping them around mentioned time.
Some smart traders have already figured this out...therefore no huge buys.
What he said... Do you recall when this started? |
|
|
|
I'm not dismissive because I'm heavily invested... my holdings are tiny. I'm dismissive because I've been involved on a very technical level since 2010 and I have training and work experience building computer hardware.
Mining has a tendency to centralization today because mining hardware is not commodity hardware. It is produced by very few people, and those close to the manufacturers are the ones who have the large operations. Once the hardware manufacture catches up with the top of the line manufacturing processes used by CPU and GPU manufactures, there will no longer super-moore's law gains in efficiency and the margins will be squeezed out of mining hardware production. At this point, there will be nobody with an advantage and mining will once again decentralize. It is just a speed bump, not a "new normal".
Thanks for sharing your perspective. I like a lot of it and I hope you are right. But, even if you are right that the hardware becomes commoditized and readily available there are still economies of scale that will make it more profitable to be bigger and drive those with lots of capital to make bigger operations in areas with very low power costs. The effect of that would be driving out participation by anyone not living in areas with artificially low power costs. Wouldn't it? |
|
|
|
Ideally the "peers" should be CPU based. That enables broader participation and access. The trend to more and more specialized equipment GPUs --> FPGA --> ASICs leads directly to the network being more commercialized.
Hogwash. It doesn't matter what hardware is used for mining. If mining is profitable, then big farms will be built. That's how people think. If you can make $1 per day mining on a desktop CPU, then a farm will be built to mine $1,000,000 a day on a huge farm of desktop CPUs. We saw it in the early days of mining when botnets were redirected to mining purposes. Also this. So again, I ask, how are you going to stop centralization? The important thing is not that we keep the big players out, it's that anybody who want to can be a player and that even if you aren't a player, you can verify things aren't wonky with just a CPU. True, I also recall admins at schools and businesses getting in trouble for CPU mining on their machines without permission as well. I dont claim to have a technical solution on exactly how to make it more "peer-to-peer". I'm sure it could be done. I think a lot of people active in theses forums have a lot invested in bitcoin and thus tend to be quickly dismissive of anything negative. I really like bitcoin. If I didn't I wouldn't be here. I'm bringing fourth my perspective to generate constructive dialog on an aspect of bitcoin that I believe is stuck on a path that will cause more centralization. It seems pretty obvious to me that mining is becoming more centralized. Give me some reasons you think its not and wont naturally evolve to that? |
|
|
|
It is impossible to make something that a general purpose CPU can do better than a custom chip, so try again.
A highly customized chip can do 1 thing better. If you adapt what it needs to do beyond its original design it becomes worthless. |
|
|
|
My perspective on the halving. It has a large impact on mining. It will obsolete a ton of gear in an instant. We are already headed to greater and greater centralization of mining and this will add to it. Centralization was not at all the intent of bitcoin and if not addressed this momentum will reform around a 2.0 digital currency that is decentralized and probably has other core innovations.
I disagree about centralization being inevitable in Bitcoin mining, but let's assume it is true. How would you change mining to make it more resistant to centralization? Ideally the "peers" should be CPU based. That enables broader participation and access. The trend to more and more specialized equipment GPUs --> FPGA --> ASICs leads directly to the network being more commercialized. Like any industry, the companies working in this space will compete and this typically evolves to a monopoly or oligopoly. The title of Satoshi's PDF is "Bitcoin: A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System". We are quickly moving to the point where mining is controlled by a few big players. Increasingly you see the ASIC server farms being collocated in data center type facilities in locations with very inexpensive power. That's not peer-to-peer |
|
|
|
|
Here is my perspective which may be different than others. A lot of the discussion in this sub-forum tends to be more "trader" dominated. Large spectrum ranging from novice get rich quick, seasoned traders, academic traders, technical traders etc. I'm none of those. I understand business and markets but am not a professional trader. I got involved for different reasons.
A. I thought it was a good idea to shake up the banking and finance industry (including irresponsible government fiscal policies). We've watched the information age transform business, communication, information, media consumption, etc. Banking has been highly controversial over the last 2000 years. Here are a couple favorite perspectives from leaders who championed the best of American ideals.
“The Government should create, issue, and circulate all the currency and credits needed to satisfy the spending power of the Government and the buying power of consumers. By the adoption of these principles, the taxpayers will be saved immense sums of interest. Money will cease to be master and become the servant of humanity.”
- Abraham Lincoln
"The real truth of the matter is, as you and I know, that a financial element in the large centers has owned the government of the U.S. since the days of Andrew Jackson."
- U.S. President Franklin D. Roosevelt in a letter written Nov. 21, 1933 to Colonel E. Mandell House
B. I have always been a computer enthusiast. I've built more than 100 computers and it was enjoyable to push another frontier with CPU and GPU mining.
My perspective on the halving. It has a large impact on mining. It will obsolete a ton of gear in an instant. We are already headed to greater and greater centralization of mining and this will add to it. Centralization was not at all the intent of bitcoin and if not addressed this momentum will reform around a 2.0 digital currency that is decentralized and probably has other core innovations.
|
|
|
|
This is my perspective. Like most things its not a single cause. - Still coming down off a bubble from lots of get rich quick speculators.
- Market cap and global trade volume still small enough to be easily driven up or down at will by those with lots of capital.
- I think projects like Ethereum have people questioning the long term viability of bitcoin. That project has taken in 28,000 bitcoins (@ $475 = $13.3M) over this time period. So far they have liquidated about 3,500 bitcoins but that will create some down pressure as they cash out the rest of it.
https://blockchain.info/address/36PrZ1KHYMpqSyAQXSG8VwbUiq2EogxLo2 |
|
|
|
Like most things its not a single cause. I would say: - Still coming down off a bubble from lots of get rich quick speculators.
- Market cap and global trade volume still small enough to be easily driven up or down at will by those with lots of capital.
- I think projects like Ethereum have people questioning the long term viability of bitcoin. That project has taken in 28,000 bitcoins (@ $475 = $13.3M) over this time period. So far they have liquidated about 3,500 bitcoins but that will create some down pressure as they cash out the rest of it.
https://blockchain.info/address/36PrZ1KHYMpqSyAQXSG8VwbUiq2EogxLo2 |
|
|
|
It's weird though that he is mostly ranting and raving about economy while there are NASA and Hollow Earth secrets that should also be revealed and paid attention to.
I must know more about NASA and Hollow Earth secrets. Careful what you say cause Buzz may kick your ass. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1wcrkxOgzhU |
|
|
|
I'll never in a million years understand why so many people freak out that this guy sells things. Do you freak out when you see commercials advertising on tv every five seconds? People who whine about that lose all credibility with me and I assume they are just trolling. Their not complaining about the crap fud new stories on the television and their prescription drug ads but but if some guy on the radio sells coffee... look out!!
So I take it you are a fan... I wasn't reacting so much to him trying to make some money off the brand he has created but the ridiculous romancing that was in the copy about the coffee. He makes some interesting points here and there but its so latent with extremely biased propaganda that its too hard to watch. |
|
|
|
This is huge! Check it out: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ovk-G_sgwmcInfoWars now accepts bitcoin in their store and what not. Anyone who knows what a tinfoil hat propaganda machine that Alex Jones is should know that this is just a beginning. This is all positive propaganda for Bitcoin and I'm sure he will refer to Bitcoin in the future a lot. Same happened to Christopher Greene from AMTV a while ago and I hope David Icke will soon start promoting Bitcoin too. Never heard of Alex Jones or info wars. Whatched the one 9 minute video on bitcoin. Couple first reactions. He prints out websites on paper and uses them in his "new cast" which apears to be a prototypical far right biased faux journalism. The last minute of his 9 minute video is a about his own branded coffee. "...for more than a decade my favorite coffee has come from the high mountains of southern mexico. Where the chiapas farmers grow their unique shade grown arabica bean. We have now managed to secure these sought after beans in a highly customized blend..." What a load of crap... what little credibility I was willing to give him quickly vanished when I heard his plug for his "Wake up America Patriot Blend Coffee" Lost even more credibility once I looked at his other stories on youtube like: "Why Obama Brought Ebola To America: Special Report" "Obama Launches Border Crisis To Destroy America" .... So much crap Fake news propaganda targeted at the poorly educated and easily impressionable... |
|
|
|
I understand mining enough to know that it is a good way to lose a lot of money. I also understand that in the years I have been here it has always been more profitable to just buy the BTC than to mine it. That did not stop me from mining in the GPU era and paying for my equipment plus a little bit - but I still lost relative to just buying the BTC and holding them for the same time period.
I never said it was profitable. I said there are more people mining now than a few years ago. I don't see a way to force it to be profitable at all for people that paid too much for their mining equipment and/or pay too much for electricity.
The best way to make money on mining is to design, build, run, then sell mining equipment. It might be profitable to do a 14nm miner. I would just have to convince my boss to divert resources to the project. Hey, that is not a bad idea...
I mined with GPUs and ASICs. GPU mining was very profitable for me mostly because I was in early enough and had lots of system engineering skills to build good rigs. I was barely profitable with ASIC (first generation). After that nothing was viable. Why would a company make a mining device that can profitably generate $10K over its useful lifespan and sell it to others for say $5,000... Initially there were a few "community" projects that did it to get the start up capital required. Not the case anymore. Big players with financing have moved in. Individuals are largely out. Now we will watch the competing chip makers battle it out which will lead to more consolidation with fewer players. I don't think its healthy for bitcoin. I get your perspective and respect it. I still have great concern that several core tenants of bitcoin's original intent have drifted off course and if not corrected will probably open the door to something else that is a 2.0. Hopefully bitcoin doesn't get stifled by banking and governmental forces. There are a LOT powerful of interests that would like the concept of bitcoin to go away. |
|
|
|
I understand your concern but I would almost bet there are more miners now than a few years ago. Sure there are some big players but the overall number of miners has increased due to the availability of cheap ASIC miners.
I don't think you have a good handle on the current state of mining. Mining is no longer profitable for an average user. Has not been for at least half a year and unlikely that any company that makes profitable mining equipment will sell those devices to people for less than what they could make mining with them themselves. Spend some time in this area of the forum and update your understating of mining profitability and decentralization. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?board=81.0 |
|
|
|
You mean increased centralization, right? Do you mean large mining pools? If the miners care they can move to other pools and spread out the hashing power, but, obviously they don't seem to care. TPS, need larger block sizes, would require a fork to go past the current limit, but we are not using the current max block size so this is not an issue yet. blockchain size, checkpointing and pruning, but what is the current size? How much does a 5 TB drive cost now? Not a problem yet. Core development is not happening. Bitcoin has some amount of critical mass but if they don't shore up the foundation(pun intended) this momentum will be lost.
It is open source so you/anyone who thinks things are moving too slowly can pitch in any time and help out. I did mean increased centralization... I initially got involved with bitcoin as a miner. I loved the idea of a non-governmental peer to peer digital currency. I had the technical background to be comfortable building GPU rigs. At that time things were decentralized and bitcoin was more like a movement. Something to shake up the status quo as it relates to money transfer fees, banking, and governmental control of the money supply. Most mining was done by individuals and it was a peer to peer system. As things have evolved off of the personal computer and on to specialized ASIC devices it has become increasingly centralized with a few large players and consolidation is likely to continue. This centralization will lead to more and more control by a few large players. Not at all what was intended. Why is that not being address? I'm sure you know the block chain is currently about 20GB doubling every 8 months at present but will accelerate if their is more adoption. http://blockchain.info/charts/blocks-size?timespan=all&showDataPoints=false&daysAverageString=1&show_header=true&scale=0&address= |
|
|
|
|
A few people have responded more or less "the bitcoin core is fine" implying that concerns such as increasing decentralization, TPS limitations, and blockchain size are nothing to worry about.
I'm sorry those three are all really significant. Worse, they have been understood for sometime and yet there does not appear to be a consensus on how or when they will be addressed. Show me the core development road map that lays out in broad strokes the next 12 months...
Core development is not happening. Bitcoin has some amount of critical mass but if they don't shore up the foundation(pun intended) this momentum will be lost.
|
|
|
|
File/music sharing protocols and the entities behind them have evolved considerably.
Napster
Gnutella, eDonkey2000, Freenet
Kazaa
Limewire
Bittorrent
I think digital currency will evolve just as everything else has.
Bitcoin = 1.0 Something else will be 2.0
Sounds fine, but what did any uses have invested in those technologies? Nothing, or close to nothing. Not the case with bitcoin. This is an extremely important point. If an individual has a lot invested in Bitcoin, they also have a vested interest in seeing that specific protocol's infrastructure strengthened. This is very different from an individual user of Napster, Kazaa, Limewire, and slightly different from a user of Bittorrent. Agreed. File/music/movie sharing for the most part are hack0rz and tech savvy people that are just trying to avoid paying for stuff and don't have a lot invested in it financially. While not identical I would argue its more similar to bitcoin than say the TCP standard developed more than 40 years ago by DARPA. People in this forum tend to have a lot invested in bitcoin but the average person out there does not. I'm not pumping any alt. They are all scams. The few legitimate attempts I've seen to get a true decentralized P2P distributed digital payment system in place don't seem to have any traction or adoption. If there is a serious collapse in bitcoin I would expect one of those to bloom. |
|
|
|
Every example you have listed above is a company ( or company like) ... or maybe more apropriately a "thing" .. Bitcoin is more of a protocol, and in my view, protocols are much more resiliant with "first mover advantage" .. think more like: TCP/IP, HTTP, FTP, SMTP ... While all of these have somewhat evolved over the years, the current incarnations are still very much like the originals, and built up from the originals.
If BTC hasn't already hit critical mass with the first mover advantage, it isn't far off. And with a protocol, once critical mass has hit, it is nearly impossible to replace it with a new (even if better) non-compatable protocol.
Sigg
Your right bitcoin is a lot like a protocol. The Internet suite protocols examples you gave are all things that grew out of the formation of the internet by DARPA, IAB, IETF, W3C etc. Bitcoin is a disruptive entrant that is more similar file sharing protocols than it is to the governmental and academic bodies that created those protocols. File/music sharing protocols and the entities behind them have evolved considerably. Napster Gnutella, eDonkey2000, Freenet Kazaa Limewire Bittorrent I think digital currency will evolve just as everything else has. Bitcoin = 1.0 Something else will be 2.0 |
|
|
|
Bitcoin is the 3rd revolution I'm living through
1st revolution was Personal Computer's which are now tablets and smartphones to many (1980's-2000's)
2nd revolution was The Net the age of instant free info (1990's-2000's)
3rd revolution was Digital Cryptocurrency (2010's-)
The Digital Revolution and subsequent Information Age will be considered a transformation era every bit as significant as the Industrial Revolution and Neolithic Revolution. But... Why are you so sure that Bitcoin will be a long term success in the digital currency space? Things evolve over time and its rare that the early versions or leaders in a space survive at all. Some examples off the top of my head. My Space, AOL, Napster, Blockbuster, Netscape, Xerox, IBM... At one time all of those companies were the champions of their space but its normally the case that as things evolve they are not able to maintain that position. Normally someone comes along with a version 2.0 that is so much better everyone moves on to that. Then a different company comes out with 3.0 that causes another industry shift and so on. The company that did the 1.0 version becomes a footnote to history. Bitcoin has very serious scalability issues. It is increasingly less decentralized. It does not have strong leadership or a lot of re-development happening to address core problems with its long term viability. Most likely it will be replaced by something else in the not too distant future... |
|
|
|
I hope for the shopkeeper that the ATM was insured, I didn't google about it but I think they are worth almost $4000. EDIT: more than $4000 https://lamassu.is/I think being struck by lightning is regarded as un-insurable by the insurance companies because they regard it as an act of god. There's usually something in the small print saying you are not insured against acts of god. I do get 'force majeure' but please don't tell me there are actually paragraphs that include a wording like 'act of god' America was founded by mostly Europeans escaping religious persecution in Europe. Even after 350+ years those religious roots are still pretty strong. Our founding fathers tried to build in separation of church and state because they knew how horrible it was to have a government controlled by a particular religion. Sadly, even to this day in America you will run across people who believe the earth is 6000 years old and Noahs flood really happened around that time. I saw it last week at a "history museum". Here is a recent poll on Americans religious beliefs. http://www.harrisinteractive.com/NewsRoom/HarrisPolls/tabid/447/ctl/ReadCustom%20Default/mid/1508/ArticleId/1353/Default.aspxAt the time of this poll belief in evolution is up to 47% in America and belief in ghosts is 42%... Pretty embarrassing. |
|
|
|
|
No big investor would pile in so hard and fast for a long term position. You would feather in the buying more slowly to not drive the price up on your own buy. The volume doesn't look like its broad-based participation from a lot of different investors. Looks like a few big players intentionally coming in hard and fast to drive it up.
My guess is its one of two likely possibilities:
1. Some not yet public news is about to break that someone(s) with a lot of capital is buying in advance of (insider trading is perfectly fine with an unregulated market, so is every other dirty trick)
2. One of the bigger "market manipulators" is trying to create some upward momentum presumably so they can pull the rug out on others.
|
|
|
|
|
