Yes I am also worried about the correction. Down to 5500? 6?
Because people unhappy selling at 7100 will be happy selling at 5500-6000? Correction sellers always boggle my mind  |
|
|
|
The entire Bitcoin marketcap, in comparison, is just the money needed to absorb just a few months of the global gold mining production.
Aye. Well, if you consider eight to be 'a few'. And three years ago, Bitcoin's market cap would have absorbed 'just a few weeks of the global gold mining production.' The trend is my friend. OTOH, the trend hates you.  It's still "weeks", if you don't bother counting up to 39 |
|
|
|
Think gold... Every year, 3500 tons are mined (or 112.5m ounces). These require 1300$ x 112.5m ounces = 146.25bn USD. Now these 146 billion, is for every year. Another 146bn will be needed next year, and the year after that, etc etc etc - expanding into cash requirements of the trillions range (1.5 trillion for 10 years of gold mining production). The entire Bitcoin marketcap, in comparison, is just the money needed to absorb just a few months of the global gold mining production. |
|
|
|
576 BTC wall at bitfinex eaten like snacks  6600 incoming! You mean 6666  |
|
|
|
Με το china ban η τιμη πηγε απ'τα σχεδον 5 στα σχεδον 2.5... δεν ηταν επαρκης δλδ αυτη η διορθωση?
Με το ίδιο σκεπτικό κι εγώ μπορώ να πω ότι η τιμή πήγε από τα 200$ στα 6000$ χωρίς καμιά διόρθωση όταν βλέπουμε το εβδομαδιαίο διάγραμμα. Δε το λεω σε σχεση με τα διαγραμματα, αλλα με τη πραγματικοτητα. Εστω καποιος πουλησε στα 5 επειδη το ενιωθε οτι ειναι ψηλα και οτι μπορει να διορθωσει μετα το ραλυ. Ε μπορεσε να αγορασει στα 4 στα 3 ή στα 2.5μιση... Αυτο ειναι μια πραγματικη διορθωση, δεν ειναι ανυπαρκτη. |
|
|
|
$1000 2x coin?
That's insane.
IIRC BCH topped at 1200? |
|
|
|
|
Με το china ban η τιμη πηγε απ'τα σχεδον 5 στα σχεδον 2.5... δεν ηταν επαρκης δλδ αυτη η διορθωση?
|
|
|
|
Lol @ his critique: "It just doesn’t make sense. This thing is not regulated, it’s not under control, it’s not under the supervision" of any central bank.
A member of the ruling elite, sees no sense in something he can't control. No shit |
|
|
|
in topic I'm now all in cash with my funds on exchanges. Won't buy back until a Big Dump happens.
Is that not a bit early? better safe than sorry. All your funds, either btc, or cash, on exchanges isn't that safe. Just saying... |
|
|
|
Ποιός κανει τους κανόνες;
Οι miners ή οι κάτοχοι BTC;
Κανεις και ολοι. Αν ηταν μονο οι miners, και οχι πχ οι χρηστες, τοτε οι χρηστες απλα θα χρησιμοποιουσαν ενα non-updated chain. Αυτοματως το miners fork θα πεθαινε λογω μηδενικης τιμης αφου δε το θελει κανεις. Το τι συνιστα το bitcoin πρεπει να εχει τεραστιο consensus για να αλλαξει, και περιλαμβανει ολο το οικοσυστημα. |
|
|
|
οποτε αν καταλαβαινω σωστα, αν βγει καμια ρωσια,κινα, και φτιαξουν μερικα υπερεργοστασια και μιναρουν ενα δικο τους btc fork και φτασουν τη
δυσκολια του στο θεο, τοτε αυτο θα ειναι και το κανονικο bitcoin?
κατι δεν ποιανω σωστα?
Το θεμα ειναι οτι το ποσο hashrate ή proof of work εχει προστεθει ειναι ασχετο εφοσον το chain εχει πλεον διαφορετικα rules. Εστω το 99% των miners συμφωνει σε ενα φορκ οπου οι κανονες λενε οτι θα βγαινουν τα διπλασια coins για mining. Αυτο ειναι το bitcoin? Η απαντηση ειναι οχι. Γιατι? Γιατι εχει αλλους κανονες. Αντιστοιχα για το s2x. Αλλοι κανονες = δε παιζει ρολο το ποσο work εχει. |
|
|
|
Also who is selling coins now before the 2 forks? What's going on here then?
Fucking whales
The major accumulator players are trying to be unpredictable. If their moves are predictable, they'll get others front running their buys... so they have to let it breathe downwards, so that longs don't get comfortable. On the other hand, the accumulators can crush the shorts anytime they click the buy button. But they do need shorts as well in order to provide coins to buy. They let both longs and shorts win a few times and then baaaam, it comes out of nowhere and prices are +500/1000.... lol... |
|
|
|
my only real concern with the fork is bitmain goes with BCH and out of Seg2k and thus we have core/bch/seg2k all with 33% or so....thus no consensus ..thus another 2 years
33% of what? There are three different chains, with different rules. |
|
|
|
|
What kind of scam are we talking about?
|
|
|
|
Where the fuck is all this money coming from ?!??
Where else? The endless wells of fiat all over the planet |
|
|
|
|
Πολυ αμφιβαλλω αν οι περισσοτεροι ξερουν πως να στειλουν τα 2x coins τους χωρις ΤΑΥΤΟΧΡΟΝΑ να στειλουν ΚΑΙ τα bitcoins τους... δε μιλαμε για bcash εδω περα... δεν υπαρχει replay protection. Οταν στελνεις 2x coins στελνεις και τα bitcoin σου μαζι...
|
|
|
|
Anyone planning on testing the 7980XE?
The specs don't impress me and it's overpriced. It has a low base clock and a relatively small cache, both critical for CPU mining. Intel is known for better single threaded performance but that doesn't matter when mining. The 24 MB cache limits the number of threads mining cryptonight to 12, not even enough to load all the physical cores. A Threadripper 1920X (12C/24T, 32MB cache) will likely perform better for less than half the price. Compute intensive algos are irelevant because GPUs are much more efficient and CPUs can't comptete. The 7980XE doesn't yet have SHA support, unlike Ryzen, but that's less of an issue because there are few algos that can use it. It does have AVX512 but I don't see much benefit in that because it only improves compute performance. On those algos that could potentially use it the gain would be small, less than the gain from AVX to AVX2. There are fewer opportunities to promote AVX2 to AVX512 because AVX512 works on larger vectors, only algos that use vectors of 512 bits or greater can use it. I'm curious for some real results to compare, but I won't be bying one. Keep in mind that it extends the registers to 32 (xmm16-xmm31 / ymm16-ymm31 / zmm16-zmm31). If register pressure is an issue, it can help. It also offers masking with K registers which might be useful in some cases. One problem though is that avx512 gets underclocked... in a xeon system which worked around 2 - 2.1 ghz normal, and typical code execution was boosted at 2.6ghz, avx512 was running at ~1.8ghz. Google cloud has some servers with avx512 which you can play on without buying avx512 CPUs, but they kind of suck at benchmarking due to being VMs with unstable performance (resource sharing). Thanks for sharing your thoughts. I have not seen any register issues with the existing vectored code. Having more registers at your disposal is always nice - it allows for new possibilities in how you write the code - especially if there are a lot of variables or tables. The x, y & z regs are also overlaid in the 7980XE but only the lower 256 or 128
bits can be accessed by ymm or xmm respectively. This creates a lot of overhead when an app needs to revert to smaller vectors for some operations.
I think the problem is from xmm->ymm due to having 1x128 or 2x128 lanes which create a dependency issue, requiring the zeroing of the upper ymm part to use the xmm without a perf penalty. There's a lot of avx code that sucks without vzeroupper for this reason. IIRC ymm->zmm don't have the same issue, even if they overlap, but I may be wrong on this. But having +16 more registers is good for such scenarios also... in case you want to reuse a register which was previously overlapped, you just use a new one thus avoiding false dependencies altogether (assuming at least a vzeroupper or a vzeroall at the start of the function). AVX & AVX2 are also underclocked, AVX512 is underclocked more.
Something like that... The K registers seem interesting. I don't fully understand them but they appear to be able to reduce the number of instructions when shuffling vector elements.
There's a lot of things they can be used for. Essentially they perform partial operations on the full width of a register, but this can be pretty useful. You can avoid doing some stuff twice and blending the two different stuff, (as you can do it in one go), you can read memory up to X bytes by using the appropriate mask, etc. If you are using, say, a 512bit vector on 64bit elements, and want to perform something on 384 bits (6x64) you just put a 0b00111111 on the k register and then use the k register alongside with the instruction. Or you can do stuff like 0b01010101, thus working on first, third, fifth, seventh element and leaving the rest unchanged (or have it overwritten with zeroes on one go - depending the z flag setting, which is also new). Now that I'm thinking about this, and this is relevant to what you said earlier on xmm/ymm/zmm overlap and performance issues, one can use just one type of register (like zmm or ymm) for all types of operations, whether small or large, assuming they also use the appropriate k register to set the width they want. In this way false dependencies should be nullified even between xmm/ymm. You want to do 128bit op? You use a ymm register with a 0b00001111 (32bit elements) or 0b0011 (64bit elements) k-mask and the ymm is addressed as ymm on the 128bit lower part. Opcode will probably be somewhat larger though. K-regs are not too hard in their use, but I dislike the fact that they can't get fed with immediate values like general purpose registers and that I have to go immediate=>gpr=>k register or load values from memory. The only thing that took me a while to find out (I thought I was hitting a gcc bug) is how to properly write the instruction with the proper syntax, for gcc assembly-within-c... For example if I want to move 320 bits from memory to a zmm register it goes like this: "mov $0b1111111111, %%eax\n" (10 x 1 bit = 10 x 32 bit elements) "kmovd %%eax, %%k1\n" "vmovdqu32 0(%0), %%zmm0 %{%%k1%}%{z%}\n" The z flag is there to zero out the rest of the bits (if there was anything on zmm0). |
|
|
|
There's another huge implication which is left unmentioned in the article and it concerns economic growth. Economic growth is the increase in GDP minus the effect on inflation. Per wiki: Economic growth is the increase in the inflation-adjusted market value of the goods and services produced by an economy over time. It is conventionally measured as the percent rate of increase in real gross domestic product, or real GDP.[1]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_growth So if GDP goes from 100bn to 105bn but you have 2% inflation, that's only 3% growth because you deduct the 2%. But if the 2% reported inflation is actually 7%, then you must deduct 7% from the 105bn, which then makes "growth" into recession (~98bn). Economies worldwide are presenting false growth numbers based on artificially reduced inflation indexes. They are counting inflation as growth. Right. And who's to say that GDP even increases by as much as they report, if at all? They can game that number too. Yeah, they are not actual numbers. Just "estimates". A few years ago our local finance minister decided the GDP went up by 25% overnight http://money.cnn.com/galleries/2007/biz2/0701/gallery.101dumbest_2007/39.htmlThey are counting inflation as growth.
Not only: we cannot deduct inflation from nominal gains when paying taxes. So we are fully taxed on inflation. A steal within a theft. There is too much theft involved with inflation. Taxes, deposits, social security, you name it. |
|
|
|
:'(CPI is a government statistic also. The end figures only publish after approval and adjustment, they will not report the higher price of a car for example without first discounting the car as being superior to one ten years ago. So say 25% higher price, they might reduce actual recorded inflation and say the car is 20% improved so inflation of price is 5%. Fair or not this is not a plain number hence the steady line may be from this constant process of correction.
Dollar is rising today as earnings average rises at its fastest for some time
http://www.businessinsider.com/if-people-knew-the-actual-inflation-rate-it-would-crash-the-economy-2016-8There's another huge implication which is left unmentioned in the article and it concerns economic growth. Economic growth is the increase in GDP minus the effect on inflation. Per wiki: Economic growth is the increase in the inflation-adjusted market value of the goods and services produced by an economy over time. It is conventionally measured as the percent rate of increase in real gross domestic product, or real GDP.[1]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_growth So if GDP goes from 100bn to 105bn but you have 2% inflation, that's only 3% growth because you deduct the 2%. But if the 2% reported inflation is actually 7%, then you must deduct 7% from the 105bn, which then makes "growth" into recession (~98bn). Economies worldwide are presenting false growth numbers based on artificially reduced inflation indexes. They are counting inflation as growth. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
