It's sort of heady, but consider how a computer does math. It's a series of and/or gates. That's abstracted up to machine code, that's further abstracted to assembly, that's further abstracted to low level langauges like C, that's further abstracted to higher level languages like c# that's further abstracted up to things like SQL Databases. There are just too many layes of abstraction for anyone to guarantee anything. <- big period!
I'll try to grab what happened with NXT... just a sec.
I guarantee if you write an SQL database in C# you will have a database with really shitty performance. |
|
|
|
I had a dream that I was in the future and I was junking my old hardware from the "Bitcoin days", everything was obviously worthless, except what was also worthless was I was junking my wallets with my private keys and all my Bitcoins! In my dream I was trashing them because they were hopeless worthless.... nothing different than say keeping a copy of Doom running on my Windows 8 machine, stupid nostalgia and time to move on.
A friend of mine was laughing at me that I actually believed silly alpha numeric codes had any value. It was terrible!
Something obviously happened but i woke up before I could find out. Still sick to my stomach.
Step away from the forums. Get some fresh air. Come back in a month when you can participate without obsessing. We all need to do it from time to time. |
|
|
|
BTC volume was reported as greatly falling in a national newspaper, apparently it was well researched though I dont have it here now. Volume and market size is falling ? which would seem to match your 2000 marker comment A worldwide deflation fear is expanding and may actually be rampant. BCA Daily Insights (August 25, 2014) notes that, “out of 32 OEC countries, more than two-thirds have domestic inflation rates that fall short of 1%.” BCA analysts go on to argue that the worldwide inflation rate may converge to zero over the next couple of years.
http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2014/08/deflation-fear/
I simply dont believe it and I do mean simply because it seems a straightforward argument to say we obviously have inflation. Many governments, some of the largest even are running defecits and so they are increasing their debt and in turn the size of their national montary base. So I take that debt as money, I know its not treated as such and its unlikely someone will convert 1 trillion of debt directly into paper notes to go use on a high street. However if they did it would immediately realise what is already in play, that we do have inflation of many national currencies. The money is not being exchanged for goods however so I presume this is why we have the fear of deflation. What is actually happening I think is lower trade per capitia and a kinda sinkhole effect where debt is being contained and money supply restricted, lower velocity of money. If all the banks stopping lending this would be deflation as in effect less money is available and so I think the debt situation is similar. It does not stop inflation being true, one day it will happen like an avalanche. The only alternative is to vaporise that debt by default, then we may have true deflation. As a counter I will point to the prices of extremely high worth items such as rare art or unique classic cars perhaps, there is no deflation in these markets and they are relevant as they match the standard unit size of 100,000 that a treasury bond deal would be done in. I would much rather take the Dino Ferrari then debt which yield so little. e.g. The EURO overnight rate just went sub-Zero Debt is deflationary overall, the inflation is temporary..... Yes, we get the money now, but it has to be paid back with interest. This increases demand for money, thus deflation. Abolishing debt would not be deflationary because that would free up money that was previously allocated to servicing said debt. Deflation causes default, default doesn't cause deflation. |
|
|
|
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? Yes, mining will tend to cluster where power is cheapest, but other factors are in play. For example, in the apartment I am currently renting, I have electric heat. Mining hardware is just as efficient as an electric heater, so for the 6 months a year I need extra heat, running mining hardware is essentially free. Other than power costs, and perhaps saving a small amount per unit on shipping 100 vs 1 unit there isn't much economy of scale involved in mining. |
|
|
|
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? 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". |
|
|
|
Rhetorical question genius.
One does simply not use such stupid methods when talking about Bitcoin. Right now on Bitstamp: $520.00 2073.01248762 $1,077,966.49 This is certainly interesting,someone is trying to block the price here. Or someone is placing a large order at the daily high after we have retreated from it to drive the price down into their lower bids. |
|
|
|
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. |
|
|
|
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. This is true. So how does this fact help you design a coin that resists custom chips unless you change the algorithm all the time with no preplanning of what is coming next? That may be a possibility, but the decision as to what to use next would need to take place publicly so insiders can't take advantage and build custom chips. There are also common operations in nearly all hashing algorithms, so a custom chip that could handle multiple algorithms could probably still outdo a CPU or GPU. |
|
|
|
This is a very prestigious school, for your information. Everyone has heard about the failure of MtGox and the arrest of the Bitcoin CEO, but most of them have no idea that this forum exists. I showed it to my math teacher. He put on his reading glasses, laughed and then cleaned the glasses (perhaps he thought he was misreading) and then told me that this community strikes him as an "academic case of mass delusion".  i think that about sums up the credibility of you and anyone at this 'prestigious school'. Oh great CEO Mark Karpelès, why have you forsaken us?!?! |
|
|
|
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 It is impossible to make something that a general purpose CPU can do better than a custom chip, so try again. Well, impossible is a strong word, but I'm going to need a plausible explanation of how you are going to achieve such a feat. |
|
|
|
|
Accepts bitcoin for what? They don't sell anything to consumers. I suppose they could accept it for ads, but what businesses have BTC to spend?
|
|
|
|
|
It's much easier to wipe out a traditional bank's records with a missile than to wipe out the blockchain. Even if they take out half the network right after a difficulty adjustment and it takes a month of 20 minute blocks to readjust, the transaction record will be safe.
|
|
|
|
Eighteen percent of participants indicated that they were “likely” or “very likely” to use a digital currency, and only 3% of those who had heard of bitcoin said they had actually bought some.
So a factor of 6 increase in demand when the next bubble gets rolling? |
|
|
|
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? |
|
|
|
I shouldn't have shorted LTC.  Should I back at a loss? Any opinions? I closed my 0.013 short below 0.01. Just looking at LTCBTC I'd probably hold on to a short if I had one, but I'd rather be long BTC. If you are short in USD terms, I would GTFO. |
|
|
|
The question is, is is fair to compare USD to Zimbabwe when US still have the strongest military in the world.
It is the strongest military today because it is paid for with higher and higher debt that cannot be maintained. The dollar is a liability backed solely by the military which exists solely because countries are willing to borrow our dollars. When that stops it all comes falling down. Hard to stop something as gigantic as US. Not saying it will not decay over time. But I do not see it falling down during our life time. Why not? If they decouple oil from the dollar tomorrow the US is dead pretty quickly. The US knows this. Why do you think anybody who has gone public with such plans has been invaded? If all countries want their gold from the federal reserve and find out there gold no longer exists the US will lose all credibility and be dead.
Everybody already knows it is mostly gone. So far, the markets don't seem to think it's worth the pain a USD collapse would cause to everybody who depends on us importing their crap. Military power is a nice thing to have but it costs money and printing more won't help you. Even patriotic pro US soldiers want to get paid.
Printing more seems to be working fine so far. We also sell lots of military hardware to both sides of any conflict that pops up, produce much of the exportable food in the world, and are now a major energy exporter. .... So, oil is tied to the dollar, and this tie is backed with bombs. Food, military hardware, and energy are what we export, and anyone worth worrying about exports mostly unimportant consumer goods. Don't get me wrong. I see the B.S., but I don't think any foreign powers can kill the game any time in the next couple decades. What may very well take down the US, however, is the growing income inequality and the absolute FACT that the majority of the population are either debt slaves or so poor they can barely make rent. That will be our undoing, not the world waking up. The world's leaders know what game they are playing and it's not worth rocking the boat. And the world's citizens are too busy trying to make a living, just like the average American. |
|
|
|
Can you list your assumptions? For starters, are you assuming constant power production and constant power price? Because neither of those will hold whatsoever on the timescales you're talking about.
It is not a perfect model by any means that is why I called it "rough 'back of the envelope' estimates" . All values static and based on "today's" numbers: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=694401.0The rising worldwide power production will "help" us use a lower percentage of the overall power production. The rising cost of power will "help" us use less power. Both of which are why your "estimates" would better be described as "upper bounds" for the portion of energy production used. As for some estimates I have gathered from people in the US power industry with knowledge of such things, the expect power costs to go up 2-5X in the next 20 years, barring a quick and tremendous surge in new nuclear construction. That is very unlikely to happen since no new nuclear power construction projects have been initialized since the 1980s and the coal, gas, and renewable industries can easily stir up the emotional argument against any proposed projects. All that said, the US is only 4% of the world's population, so maybe overall it won't be so bad. |
|
|
|
The question is, is is fair to compare USD to Zimbabwe when US still have the strongest military in the world.
It is the strongest military today because it is paid for with higher and higher debt that cannot be maintained. The dollar is a liability backed solely by the military which exists solely because countries are willing to borrow our dollars. When that stops it all comes falling down. Hard to stop something as gigantic as US. Not saying it will not decay over time. But I do not see it falling down during our life time. Chinese and Russian investors are still soaking up as much high end US real estate as they can get their hands on, and investing heavily in our companies. They will have to start investing way more of their money at home before they will be willing to cut us loose. |
|
|
|
A price of $252,000 in era 0 (50 BTC/block) would have caused the Bitcoin network to attempt to consume about 30% of all the electrical power produced on the planet. A price of $252,000 in this era, era 1 (25 BTC/block) would cause the Bitcoin network to attempt to consume about 15% of all the electrical power produced on the planet. So, in order to keep the Bitcoin network from attempting to consume more than 1% of all the power produced we should all hope that the price does not reach that level until at least era 5 - about 2029 or so. Of course all of these numbers are rough "back of the envelope" estimates: Original target Subsidy Est Fees Power % of total world
Era starting year BTC/block BTC/hour GW power production
--- --------------- ----------- ---------- ------ ----------------
0 2009 50.00000000 0.00000000 680.40 29.44%
1 2013 25.00000000 0.00000000 340.20 14.72%
2 2017 12.50000000 0.00000000 170.10 7.36%
3 2021 6.25000000 0.00000000 85.05 3.68%
4 2025 3.12500000 0.00000000 42.53 1.84%
5 2029 1.56250000 0.00000000 21.26 0.92%
6 2033 0.78125000 1.31250000 13.61 0.59%
7 2037 0.39062500 3.65625000 13.61 0.59%
8 2041 0.19531250 4.82812500 13.61 0.59%
9 2045 0.09765625 5.41406250 13.61 0.59%
Can you list your assumptions? For starters, are you assuming constant power production and constant power price? Because neither of those will hold whatsoever on the timescales you're talking about. |
|
|
|
I just tried to make a purchase on www.scan.co.uk using Bitcoin. It took too long for the confirmations to complete (almost 2 hours for 6 confirmations).... Payment was refused.... The bulltards get angry when you point out stuff like this. Or you could not be a cheapskate and include a 0.00001 BTC transaction fee. Surely you can afford less than a penny. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
