The weird thing about getting rich in Bitcoin is, it's not even particularly attractive to cash out large amounts - even right now - unless you have a specific purchase in mind. If you had $1 million in BTC, why would you convert even a third of that into fiat just to store it in a bank account where it can get frozen
This conclusion comes from seeing Bitcoin as a reserve asset (one that I very much share). Today US Treasury debt is the reserve asset to own, and the problem with fiat is you can't really "own" debt because a public or individual can choose to refuse to pay. (As the next generation should do if they are smart). I should note that when I said you wouldn't want much of your wealth in fiat, I was speaking from the point of view of being afraid of being too heavily invested in Bitcoin. Like the situation where you a $1 million in Bitcoin and only $20,000 in fiat. If Bitcoin somehow fails, you instantly become a meek peon again, financially. So you'd put some decent chunk, like maybe half, into dollars so that in case of Bitcoin failure you still have half a mil in the bank. That I guess most smaller investors imagine they will do if they win big in bitcoins.
Good points. I would add that there are a lot of other options besides 'fiat' and 'BTC' for wealth storage. Real property, commodities, education, a multitude of traditional instruments, etc. More clever and well off persons will be considering and balancing many of these. Fully agree, this is the rebalancing argument. Yes other assets have issues, but it never makes sense to keep 99% of your wealth in one asset, be it gold, land, fiat, stocks, etc. If BTC continues to go up, it will make sense for many long term believers to sell a little from time to time and rebalance into other assets and remain diversified. Even gold bugs say you shouldn't hold more than 10% in gold, with BTC I think we can go higher than that, but when you get to over 50% in Bitcoin consider selling a little and buy other assets that yield. |
|
|
|
I did something similar and came up with a current value of ~0.053 BTC/Gh, so we are in the same ballpark. Assumes 40% increases, $200 BTC & free hosting fees. Also, most of that value is mined over then next few weeks and most of the value of each Gh will be realized by the end of November. Price is still too high IMHO. It may be possible to trade for profit, but your are trading an over valued asset and risk holding the bag when the price resets to actual value. Now, whoever bought all that Gh at 0.01, congrats to you, but I hope you've been smart enough to sell and not just hold for mining income. |
|
|
|
The exante BitcoinFund prediction is 500. They have a pod of whales swimming in their pond.
Meh, Bitcoin's market cap is currently $2.5B. That is a lot but nothing compared to many $Tillions of gold reserves held. A Bitcoin price of 500 still only brings the market cap to around $6B, it Bitcoin takes off as a viable reserve asset that is nothing and we still have a way to go. The reason price targets make no sense is Bitcoin is either going to the moon, or crashing to zero as a failed experiment. I don't see a middle ground. That is the entire premise of this thread IMHO, that BTC will become a reserve asset and in the process go up A LOT. Why trade that asset? Just hold. |
|
|
|
I'd say its because of the 0 fees there. Daytraders just wanna stay on top of all orders and just squeeze the money out of those trades. Of course they could do this at a lower price too but then the buysupport and competition would probably be bigger.
Then they are trading something that has an intrisic value below what they are exchanging it back and forth for. Seems to be a lot of risk for picking up pennies here and there. |
|
|
|
Hes been busting his ass to keep this together,if you don't think so,then head over to the Terrahash thread & see how they're doing  Link? I checked SB's profile and his last post was Oct 2nd to this thread. Then radio silence as far as I can tell. |
|
|
|
That's because there is hardly any bubble this time. Last time it $10 to $260 in relatively short time period. Price should be at least at $500 before we can even began to talk about bubble.
I think this is not true... We had a jump $140 to $200 in about 24 hours, and then another jump again $200 to $260 (and back to $60) in another 24 hours. It was definitely much slower in the weeks and months before that. Now we moved $155 to $195 in about 24 hours, that is definitely not normal growth. The only moments bitcoin had this growth EVER was during the bubbles. (excluding dead cat bounce after a massive crash) If you compare side by side the April bubble with the current one, you can clearly see where we are. This speed of growth $140 to $200 is pretty much the same as the part of the previous bubble from $60 to $120. What happened next was a mad jump doubling again $120 to $240 in . If this is any similar we can see price skyrocket to over $300 or $350 in the next couple days, then badly crash, probably to $100 or so.I suppose, if price is rising $200 to $250 in more than a week or so, then we are almost safe, and the bubble may touch $500 as you say, but that is when it burst, not when we "begin to talk about bubble", as we are just in the middle of one. The fact that "badly crash" now means $100, to me says that we are definitely NOT in a bubble. If the lows in each cycle are constantly higher than the lows of the previous cycle, then we are still in a long-term up trend. What we are seeing is high volatility within an established up trend. A bubble would be if BTC crashed and then kept going down. |
|
|
|
|
1 BTC = 2 Comex Gold bars (400oz each)
or
250 mBTC = avg US house
or
100 uBTC = 1 night out on the town
|
|
|
|
You should know that China has a large population, over 10 million population, there are 14 city.
There are 3 city 20000000. (does not contain the floating population.)
But that population is overweight in middle age people, with relatively few children, and most of those children are boys with relatively fewer girls since chinese parents keep killing off future potential mothers, so they can have a son. If you look at china's numbers for 0-15 year old girls who determine a population's future, the population does not seem as large as the overall figures you cite. |
|
|
|
I was wondering a similar thing, after all, there's not many businesses that offer 'no fees' to the end user. The way I understand it (and feel free to correct me if better information is available) is that the Ghash.io pool also mines Namecoins by way of merged mining and it's these NMC that provide profit to CEX. On www.ghash.io it states this at the top of the page: "Pool fee is 0% ! However, we have NMC merged mining to cover pool expenses." The pool also generates fee revenue from mining transaction fees (the fees you pay to send BTC across the network) so if you look again at www.ghash.io and scroll down to the 'Last Blocks' section, you see that under the " BTC value" column not only is the pool receiving 25BTC for each new block found, it also appears to distribute some fee (or merged mining?) revenue back into the pool: 2328 2013-10-23 00:08:47 265415 25.2284 3/120 2 hours 632.68 Th/s 2327 2013-10-22 22:09:57 265404 25.0114 14/120 11 minutes 624.69 Th/s 2326 2013-10-22 21:58:50 265401 25.0526 17/120 34 minutes 628.95 Th/s 2325 2013-10-22 21:24:40 265396 25.0642 22/120 3 minutes 631.95 Th/s 2324 2013-10-22 21:21:37 265394 25.0031 24/120 a few seconds 542.11 Th/s 2323 2013-10-22 21:21:20 265393 25.2119 25/120 42 minutes 629.53 Th/s If you look at pool sizes here https://blockchain.info/pools the ghash.io pool is the second largest, so I imagine that it's generating a reasonable amount of fee income and NMC merged mining income to cover costs and provide a level of profit for the pool operators. Anyway, that's the way I understand how things work, but if anyone has any clarity to share, please do.  The NMC merged mining income is used to cover the Ghash.io pool expenses (which are minimal), not the CEX.IO datacenter hosting expenses (which are large relatively). In either case, when the value of BTC mining breaks even with electricity and hosting costs, NMC merged mining will not come close to covering electricity and hosting since the NMC value is insignificant compared to BTC value generated. So we're back to square one, what is the value of a Gh/s in CEX.IO when electricity equals BTC value mined. |
|
|
|
From their FAQ: If the maintenance fees exceed your mining income, GH/s be sold at current market price to cover fees.
CEX.IO MUST buy back sold hashing power at market price to close accounts.
Thanks, I understand that. The value of a Gh/s should be equal to the present value of future income generated. If expected future income is zero (BTC - maintenance < 0), then the market value of Gh/s should be zero as well. There might be some residual value to the H/W owned, but it will be negligible compared to today's prices. So the issue is when maintenance fees exceed mining income, the market price of Gh/s should be valued at zero in a CEX.IO type environment. So the statement above doesn't say much because the market price should be near zero here. My basic point is breakeven mining has value in a home environment, but does not seem to have value in a traded environment. It is this end game that I want to understand better. |
|
|
|
|
At this point another 50x increase in the hash rate makes mining with BitFury chips break even with electricity costs (assuming $0.10 electricity, $200 BTC, zero datacenter costs).
What happens to CEX.IO mining when power cost breaks even with mining value? Today they are providing free electricity since it is negligible to the value of BTC mined, but that is changing fast.
In the GPU/FPGA era, many people mined at near break even just to generate coins (i.e. pay electicity for bitcoins). That can make sense and work in a home/private environment since it is just a way to purchase coins, but I don't understand how the CEX.IO model works here. CEX.IO will have to charge the full value of mining just to cover their costs. This would leave zero value left for Ghash owned since all BTC generated would be used to cover their costs.
Any thoughts on this would be appreciated, I'm interested in the service, but having a hard time trying to model how it makes sense in 6-12 months from now.
|
|
|
|
2 troy ounces of Gold for 1 BTC and there will be no dollars to trade against.
Posts like this make me wish we had a like button. Yes, it's time to stop making BTC comparision to fiat and start making comparisions to real assets. |
|
|
|
Bitmine,Blackarrow & I think Hashfast are around 1/2 watt per GH,looks to be about the best coming.So @ .8 watts per GH is pretty good,for a 55nm chip even  Beats the hell out of BFL 65nm(5 watts per GH) & Avalon 110nm(6 watts per GH) & maybe thier 55nm may come close,but who would buy Y I FU's crap  Bitmine and Hashfast haven't shipped a chip so we know nothing. Why are we even talking about this in the Group Buy thread, keep it on topic please. How is talking about power efficiency of ASIC chips used in Drillbit systems off topic? This factor determines the usefullness of the drillbit boards, and helps people to decide whether or not it is profitable to gamble by buying more boards. |
|
|
|
What's the consumption at 1.6Gh? Some people mostly care about Gh/W, the total hashing power being a secondary stat.
The very top of the OP states 0.8W/Ghps. Is there any information on how the W/Ghps for these chips compare to other ASIC vendors (KnC, CoinTerra, Monarch, etc)? To me this determines if the chips are useable for a long time, or if they are just a short term novelty that will be useless in a few months. I was burned by just how inefficient the Avalon gen1 chips were compared to other ASIC vendors, as a result they will be shut off soon just like GPU & FPGA rigs. I'd prefer something that makes sense to leave running for awhile... Although possible, nobody runs them at 0.8Watt/GH/s more likely to be at 1.0w or more if you overclock. There is plenty of information about the Bitfury chips in the Bitfury development thread under custom hardware. 0.8W/Gh or ~1.0W/Gh is the same ball park. It would be helpful to know how this range compares to the other new ASIC designs coming online soon which may be much more efficient at 28nm. i.e. if KnC or CoinTerra are around 0.05W/Gh then BitFury chips have a long-term issue. Does anyone know if there is a good power consumption comparision of ASIC chip estimates? I tried searching but all I found were incomplete. Thanks, |
|
|
|
What's the consumption at 1.6Gh? Some people mostly care about Gh/W, the total hashing power being a secondary stat.
The very top of the OP states 0.8W/Ghps. Is there any information on how the W/Ghps for these chips compare to other ASIC vendors (KnC, CoinTerra, Monarch, etc)? To me this determines if the chips are useable for a long time, or if they are just a short term novelty that will be useless in a few months. I was burned by just how inefficient the Avalon gen1 chips were compared to other ASIC vendors, as a result they will be shut off soon just like GPU & FPGA rigs. I'd prefer something that makes sense to leave running for awhile... |
|
|
|
Someone made a bot which buys or sells on certain buzzwords in the BTC-E Trollbox ^^
As far as I know it lost money (was only a small amount for fun though)
Well, if it can do that reliably, they only need to flip the buy and sell commands  . i used the trollbox bot and lost 0.5 btc so yeah, flip it and it will work Is the trollbox bot available somewhere with a link? Would love to look at it. |
|
|
|
There are quite a large number of possible drivers here. It could be almost all Second Market, with a dash of China. It could be almost all a few people's foreknowledge of IMF haircuts, with a dash of China. It could be just that some whales were holding off until SR got shutdown. There are so many big reasons. China is definitely at least a sizable chunk of it, though. The large number of possible drivers is the reason that BTC is almost guaranteed to go up significantly over time. There are almost 200 countries, all with fiat issues, and anyone could have a populace that decides to use BTC to hide from inflation (hello Argentina). Or there are any number of new investment vehicles who could drive the price. Or speculative bubble could be driven from any part of the world. Or a new larger black market could be founded based on BTC. The possibilities are endless. All though drive BTC adoption into more people, which auto-deflates the currency. And unlike conventional PhD "wisdom", deflation is good for currency holders... |
|
|
|
The total network hash power just rose like 500T in just a weekend, it is getting difficult to get bitcoin every passing day, many miners will stop mining and start to purchase coins soon, and before they do that, smart money will buy all the coins available on the market
^^ This I did just this starting a few weeks ago. Shutdown the old FPGAs (which were hardly yielding anything anymore) and activated a small weekly purchase to replace mining. There were a lot of small scale GPU/FPGA miners who used mining as a way to acquire BTC, but who were not able to get into the ASIC game. Folks in this category can now either just sit on their balance, or switch to purchasing BTC from time to time. I believe many still want to acquire BTC, and now the only way is through purchasing. Also, sites like coinbase make it very easy to actively steady small weekly (or even daily) purchases that can replicate mining in a sense. If this is the case, that will translate into constant upward support on the price. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
