 Show Posts
|
|
Pages: [1]
|
|
Wall Street could easily be defined as the 'mainstream'
Bitcoin has reached relevance with Wall Street... thus Bitcoin has already reached the mainstream.
|
|
|
|
|
Detroit was literally a case-study in financial mis-management at the governmental scale...
|
|
|
|
fatal as they will permanently remove the perception of BTC as a viable long term investment.
Do you think, in that case, LTC could be percieved as a viable long term investment? No, or at least it will be massively reduced compared to the expectations that have been built around BTC. If BTC ever ceases to be be a viable long term investment then it takes every other coin with it because it will be obvius the LTC would also have a successor some day. But I wouldn't be surprised if it takes several such successions until people finally realize that the value in crypto-currency is the CODE not the COINS and we are going to see a succession of innovative coins that gradually supplant each other on technical merits, much as we treat every other piece of software ever made. Very original thinking. Must sit and think. Hardware 'volume' is essentially the proxy for the value of a particular Cryptocurrency [inherent given the proof-of-work designation that pays out the currency]. Although you are certainly correct that the technical merit of Cryptocurrencies will increase over time [as both a byproduct of further mathematical precision and the need to protect the network against more sophisticated hardware - Graphene microprocessors & Spintronics systems], the initial investments into the hardware must be made to made a singular cryptocurrency network valuable to the supposed users of said network. a classic chicken & the egg problem emerges from this relatively straightforward logic. Needless to say... I certainly feel that the number of viable & valuable cryptocurrencies will grow over time. But in the mean time - Bitcoin's first mover advantage and Litecoin's relatively-more-sophisticated mathematical approach [along with both's relatively large hardware base over other newcomer coins] have successfully entrenched them for the longer-term. -Johnny www.americandatafarms.com |
|
|
|
Should a 'Nation-state' decide to bulk buy... say 2 million 10nm ASICs... they could potentially create a 'central reserve' [as they would capture the vast majority of the 'freshly minted' BTC]. However, I feel that this would concurrently encourage other 'Nation-states' to participate in the same manner.... which would decentralize the power of the initial first-mover. In any case, 'ASICs' are certainly going to be the main source of the BTC network's computational power [so i guess in that sense the technology itself could be considered a symbolic 'central reserve', though i don't see how we gain analytically from considering it as such....since the term defines a unitary body that is capable of making choices..... ASICs by definition can do only one thing] for the foreseeable future. ...then again, everything might turn on its head once Graphene Microprocessors & Spintronic systems arrive en masse... -Johnny www.americandatafarms.com |
|
|
|
... I like it much better then those 'constant % increase' scenarios.
He's basically just making different scenarios which have time-interval re-evaluations - a 'constant % increase' occurs between each time intervals based on R's criteria. Note the glaring purple line that is LINEAR? ...... that's his expected value for the system - and it's essentially a constant % increase. hardly 'great work' imho. -Johnny www.americandatafarms.com |
|
|
|
'Freshly Minted' BTC (or even other Cryptocurrencies) might actually prove to be a way to get contemporary finance in the game. If you remove the traceability of their assets, it might decreases their relative risk. Thus - any mining might be greater than no mining. Thus - mining with FPGAs, regardless of relative profitability to ASICs, might generate more value than input cost under the right market conditions. -Johnny www.americandatafarms.com |
|
|
|
No commodity-based or currency-based hedging strategy will feasibly work for the average consumer. No consumer will have enough money to protect their investment portfolio (the physical act of purchasing enough silver, gold, or other commodity will hurt their total wealth - the amounts they can afford are too little to make for any realistic gains) For I-Banks & Hedge-Funds, profitable strategies only exist in either High-Value Information Plays, Energy Production, Technology, and Mining [But Risk is inherent to even these]. For the forseeable future, the only 'Riskless' strategies are in Small-Nanometer Hardware (including bioengineering production) and HFT. -Johnny www.americandatafarms.com |
|
|
|
You should never guarantee profits, regardless of the venture. Arbitrage plays are fairly attractive when it comes to BTC & other cryptocurrencies, but bank-roll size is going to be what determines profitability. -Johnny www.americandatafarms.com |
|
|
|
ASICs were anticipated as part of the 'Bitcoin Whitepaper' - Bitcoin itself is a mechanism designed to facilitate efficiency on numerous levels, computing efficiency being one of them. Given ASICs supremacy in both Total Processing Power & Processing Power per Watt, ASICs in a sense are a metaphorical representation of Bitcoin fulfilling its computational efficiency potential. Any statements otherwise must then be fallacious. -Johnny www.americandatafarms.com |
|
|
|
To speculate on BTC price past the next seismic event is inappropriate, thus 'one day' would have to be a point somewhere within the three years.. A ten-bag increase for Bitcoin - 100 to 1000 dollars - is certainly 'feasible', but highly unlikely. -Johnny www.americandatafarms.com |
|
|
|
Requesting total forum access; Wish to engage in discussions regarding Bitcoin dynamics - in particular, the economics of cryptocurrency trade and mining. My company is American Data Farms, a complete synopsis is available on our website; www.americandatafarms.comThank you |
|
|
|
|
