This is so insane... I wonder if it's going to last or if we we will hear a "pop" sound somewhere down the line...
You know the answer. Well... it's one of the two. Personally I think this can't really be sustainable. But then again, I'm not that good in predicting things. And of course there are now two camps of people. The ones that predict a bubble and the ones that say this will last. Both groups scream their opinions equally loud and I don't know who I should believe. What's your opinion? When I look at charts it doesn't feel natural. Too much too fast. |
|
|
|
|
So, some of us think that this is an other bubble and it will not hold. So for those of you who agree on coming crash.
Where do you think we will end after the inevitable crash?
My personal guess would be around 20$... That is somewhat over the before, but under 30$ mark.
Too bad I don't have timeframe or can't offer anything much as price...
|
|
|
|
This is so insane... I wonder if it's going to last or if we we will hear a "pop" sound somewhere down the line...
You know the answer. |
|
|
|
If anyone on the losing side did indeed slip BoB a bribe to rule a draw, I'd certainly change my tune about BoB's conduct (also, as noted elsewhere, if anyone at BoB had any coins invested in that bet). But we haven't seen any evidence of this. The ruling itself is circumstantial evidence of corruption, because it does not make sense without a corrupt motive. Finding the actual payment, be it on the blockchain, in cash, in kind, etc. or to extract an admission would require actual serious investigation (search and seizure, wire taps, following the money through the bank system and the block chain). What I think IS on much firmer ground is the supposition that Luke is colluding with Josh to manipulate the bet situation. Well that's pretty obvious, as fraud goes it's so obvious and posted on April 1st that they might even try to claim it was a joke, but it still doesn't explain on its own why Luke's posts should lead betsofbitco.in to cancel the bet. BFL_Josh
Hope you enjoyed our April Fool's joke this morning. We will still deliver by July 1st though. The power requirements are double and the hash rate is is half. So basically we are 4x our original power specs. Don't worry. We will have it figured out by July!
Is that some troll or are they really that stupid... |
|
|
|
|
Entirely depends what happens to internet. Intercontinental networking is rather delicate. Intracontinental could be handled in some ways, though long term lack of supplies would hurt it...
|
|
|
|
|
I agree, the decision was weird and not well reasoned. And still taking the fees after accepting bet with bad terms is not good.
|
|
|
|
In my opinion this makes it pretty clear. The bet was about 3 devices and not about fourth. |
|
|
|
Parity with gold would be a great price. then the goldbugs will be all like "double-u tee eff, bro"
Parity with what amount of gold? a troy ounce, gram, kilogram or megagram?  |
|
|
|
|
"and report its hashrate."
Was the hashrate reported? Does single picture of setup with this info on screen count as report?
It's quite hard to say what are the exact terms and was the statement true even if conditions are barely met.
At the least community will learn to word these bets better.
|
|
|
|
|
Only your hits will be remembered... There is always a bias...
On other hand the statement is true, most users has nothing to do with other users. But the value of cheap, reliable and abundant capability to transfer information between those who matter to individual is immense. And on other hand the cost and abundance means that you can provide services to strangers with minimal cost to partly your own benefit, as such as Tor or Bitcoin...
|
|
|
|
|
If I had any coins I would sell at 500€ and there would be many more people who would cash out. It's just not possible to do this...
Too bad I'm too poor...
|
|
|
|
This might be a dumb question, but is such a cooling mechanism necessary for an ASIC? I was under the impression being an ASIC it would somehow be cooler than a GPU. If it is necessary, does that mean current ASIC holders are losing hashing rate, or that their current rigs will be more prone to breaking down? Why wouldn't this kind of thing be standard in the Avalons at shipping time if it were required? (Purely asking for education purposes only, I would love to see such things made if they are in fact helpful.)
ASICs do use quite large amount of power. And this power is turned in to heat. Generally for semi-coductors driving heat down allows them to run on higher speeds with better stability. Also it does have effect on lifetime. I'm not entirely sure about temperatures current ASICs are running, but lower is better. More stability and longer lifetime. |
|
|
|
You have 2 cows Your neighbor comes kills you and takes your cows You are dead Hmm, now what is this? |
|
|
|
And just consider how much safer BTC would be then Or would it exist at all...  |
|
|
|
"It doesnt look correct to me" -> logarithmic scale
Yes, but even then... the scale shows something like 90 W/cm² for a pentium 4 and maybe 250 W/cm² for a nuclear reactor? Thats the whole building then isnt it? 90W under load seems to be true. There is reason why nuclear rods are submerged in water, other than radiation. You really have to consider size difference. Pentium 4 chips were around 2cm^2 where as nuclear rods are much larger. |
|
|
|
I think reasonable estimate could be made by finding out the size of chip and then finding some chip with know gate density or gate count made with similar technology. And I don't have idea of either one |
|
|
|
Very original thought...
I think in the near future (10-50 years) ASICs at 10nm-1nm will be energy efficient enough.
Also, I do not think that Bitcoin requires infinitely increasing number of nodes to function, only needs large number of nodes with sufficient hashing power to prevent someone from mounting a 51% attack.
The currently established model, having few large pools containing majority of the hashing power, I think will be an adequate match to the network's growth challenge to quite a degree.
I don't see how quantum mechanical effects could be suppressed to make 1nm technology viable. Expect it to stop on a few nanometers. Bitcoin will need to keep growing its computational power because the bigger it gets the more value it has to succeed in a 51% attack. So the pressure to break the network will increase with its market cap. It is effectively an arms race. So while it is true that we only need enough power to prevent an attack, the attack severity will also increase. But i was interested in the energetic picture. Not sure how the model of pool operators helps clearing that up. I don't see mining as a real issue. Probably with very wide adoption one party can't easily reach 51% and most of mining is done, by financial institutions to keep their fees down. Real issue in my mind is the cost on network from traffic viewpoint. If individuals can use their own clients and everything is highly connected the needed throughput could be quite large. Though likely even this isn't an issue. 10MB blocks is around 1MB/s which is 1,3Mb/s. For 70 000 000 clients(1 client for every 100 people) this is 91.4Tb/s. Which is quite large amount of traffic, on other hand it could be done by using such techniques as multicast... So not bad for future... |
|
|
|
I need to have all of the above |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
