|
Strangling network connections is how I paraphrased the OP. I don't think it makes sense either, except maybe for certain regimes.
If governments saw bitcoin as a threat, they might simply outlaw bitcoin or make the legal burden of exchanging bitcoin burdensome. It would be so much easier for governments to do, stifling acceptance and yet without being authoritarian.
Actually, my point is - wtf is the OP's point?
|
|
|
|
|
In the context of total Amazon transactions, the demand for purchases via bitcoin is probably not too significant.
Hope they'll still do it though. Their margins are so thin, any cost savings is good.
|
|
|
|
|
I don't understand the intent of this discussion.
Sure, it's possible to "kill bitcoin" by strangling network connections. You can also attack piracy and kill p2p by fundamentally changing how networks work. Does this seem plausible?
It's probably possible and much easier to move bitcoin to a seedy, underground marketplace by outlawing bitcoin, putting the squeeze on exchanges, etc.
|
|
|
|
I told you so! There, you can close this thread now  |
|
|
|
The baby girl's name is proposed to be "Satoshi Bitcoin"  |
|
|
|
Can new miners reach ROI with low risk while paying $0.25/Kwh?
You can't make any predictions about ROI unless you know what the difficulty is going to be in the future. Yes, there are many variables affecting ROI predictions for this project, so let me bold a key part. The other way to look at this is: if ROI predictions are so difficult, why are investors considering to throw good money (the bulk of the value of SCRYPT at this point) into more mining? |
|
|
|
|
The way I see it, you need to figure out the best use for that reinvestment fund while ignoring the fact that you currently have miners running. It is illogical to think that you should expand operations just because you have "reinvestment" funds at hand.
Can new miners reach ROI with low risk while paying $0.25/Kwh? The best use for the reinvestment funds will not change regardless of whether the existing miners swim or sink.
Baffling as it may seem to you, PETA shareholders were better off with higher dividends than by reinvesting. Because the PETA reinvestment would have never paid back the initial investment amount.
|
|
|
|
|
Yes, I'd buy one. But what would you have that trezor hasn't already done?
I also like the idea of eventually using trezor for other things, etc. password manager.
|
|
|
|
|
Is there any future in scrypt/altcoin mining anyway (denominated either in btc or usd), or is it a sinking boat?
|
|
|
|
I understand there are shares , I understand there are dividends and I know people are buying and selling and so on but for the love of me I have no idea what the business is  by looking at xxxprofit I can see it might be erotic in nature but still no idea Here you go - https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=362400.0 |
|
|
|
Posts: 566
Address: 1AahzKNU7NgNJyQPx7BJDLSiFRhgSA2P7c
The Hero Member is full.Please be waiting for the next round. So you chose to just skip me? Seems like the logical thing to do would have been to add me to the list, but just notify me that as you already had 10 Hero+ and that I would be counted as a full... You would prefer to have more Hero Members... right? Hence why you pay them more? So why would you skip over one. I will leave my signature like this, it is to my benefit to do so, but I question your decision making in skipping me, and picking lower people over me. Sorry , my expression is not accurate which make you misunderstood. 'The Hero Member is full' means the Hero & Senior is enough.So the left solts only for Full Member. Not sure if you misunderstood aahzmundus. He is basically saying that he is willing to be paid at the full member rate. Yes, please try and consult someone who understands better and could possibly help clear this up. You skipping over Hero members in favor of full members when a Hero member is willing to be paid and counted as a full, makes no sense... Since you pay Hero members more, you obviously value them more. If you had 30 hero members willing to do this, it would be logical to kick out full members to make room for more Hero members. What you are doing is worse, kicking out a hero member in favor of a full member... Some people (such as maccd) would have migrated to the highest paying option. In fairness to sunxiaoxiao, since your original post did not indicate that you were willing to accept the full member rate, it was also logical for him to skip over you. I think you should be able to see that point of view too. As for the rest, it is probably a misunderstanding. If all goes well, all the tubes will be sold out in a month and this ad campaign will end after that  Anyway, I have a question on the signature tagline: "The Best $/Gh Bitcoin Miner So Far" Why is there a need to caveat with "So Far"? That just sounds wrong and invites questions. |
|
|
|
This situation was already foreseen in the prospectus - see the section under dissolution. However, it's pretty doubtful that there will be any value left in the assets at that point in time. Ive been away for a while, but AFAICS, new mining hardware is still selling for ~$800/TH. Used hardware isnt going to fetch the same price, especially not when its cryptx selling as he utterly blew his reputation on that. And in two months, prices will have come down further, but lets optimistically guestimate cryptx could still fetch $300/TH. Thats ~0.6BTC at todays low exchange rate. Or 0.00062BTC per unit. Hardly trivial considering the current market price which isnt even twice that. Of course, two months from here, its entirely possible BTC value will have doubled, which would reduce the miner's BTC denominated value almost proportionally, and prolong the current flow of money towards cryptx fees while market prices per TH continue to tumble. Moreover I suspect cryptx will lower his fees once mining revenue is almost equal to minng fees, as its far more economical for him to continue mining (read: collect fees) than sell the hardware and having to hand out the proceeds.Exactly. I assume that cryptx will lower his fees, which is bound to be much higher than his costs. Dissolution and distributing the proceeds to shareholders does not benefit him since he doesn't hold any shares. Whereas continuing mining means he continues to collect fees until the mining revenue reaches marginal costs. So I doubt that there will be any value left in 1.1PH of obsolete assets at that point in time. |
|
|
|
So are they really gonna just let it die?I would think they would be forced to do something soon or liquidate and pay out a one time big dividend
You seem to be under the impression that this is not going the way cryptx planned, and that the purpose of the project is not to extract the maximum amount of hosting fees. This situation was already foreseen in the prospectus - see the section under dissolution. However, it's pretty doubtful that there will be any value left in the assets at that point in time. |
|
|
|
|
It's been a month. Any updates on this venture, and when it will be available to individuals?
|
|
|
|
Big retailer like Amazon can set their own rules and invent their own coin.
Hmm - but they did! Not a crypto coin though. |
|
|
|
|
There, joining now.
Posts: 120
Bitcoin address: 1MkYZvGZc9QP6pfu4aBL24F5WjDi7Ffgdc
|
|
|
|
|
How do you overuse a noun / name like bitcoin or satoshi? I mean, if you're referring to them, you gotta call them by the name. Now if you're talking about most commonly used words...
|
|
|
|
Wow, dat amount of cabling.  Wouldn't it be easier to set up big fat trunks and distribution boxes? I bet they don't bother to troubleshoot it, and just lay a new cable if there's a problem. |
|
|
|
|
I don't see what value this bank would bring, compared to a good wallet.
Anyway guys, this thread is from 2012!
|
|
|
|
|
So, you now know that there's no limit. Why did you want to know that, agian?
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
