So Bitcoin will die from being too valuable.   Has that ever happened to anything ever in the history of mankind.

If less people adopted Bitcoin wouldn't the price go down?  If the price goes down wouldn't Bitcoin be less valuable and thus solve the problem of dying from being too valuable?

The idea that something can both be excessively valuable and die is ... well silly.  Lots of things could kill Bitcoin, it being too valuable isn't one of them.

You must be right.  The largest OEMs which ship tens of millions of PSU don't know what restriction their cases and designs are doing.  They probably had some kid just slap one on because it looked cool.  No possible chance they measured he restriction and airflow in a lab before going into production. That is one possibility. 

The other one is that you just have a defective unit.

SeaSonic X-1250 has the same exact "diverter flap" I used 12 of them for almost two years in high ambient temp garage and had no failures.  If you open up 90% of PSU on the market today they have a flap similar to that.   It is to prevent the airflow from bypassing the high heat components.

Is this really accomplishing anything guys?

Let me know when they make electric jets, electric pesticides, electric plastics, electric asphalt ...

Oil moves the world.   Gasoline is relatively easy to replace other stuff not so much.

LTC uses the same cryptographic primitives so if BTC is collapsing due to a cryptographic failure then LTC is dead too.  LTC uses the same protection method (proof of work) and although it uses a different algorithm if some entity has decided to spend hundreds of millions of dollars to destroy BTC (and destroy their investment at the same time) then they aren't going to forget about LTC.  LTC dies too.   IF BTC is collapsing because of unjust legal and regulatory action then all virtual currencies are in the crosshairs and LTC is dying too.

LTC is too much of a clone to provide any meaningful benefit as a hedge against a failure of BTC.  While I am not an advocate of PPC for a variety of technical reasons at least in one of those three scenarios PPC is different enough to provide a meaningful hedge.

Note: I own no LTC or PPC.

Who says it will be thrown away later?  Isn't this kinda a carriage before the horse thinking.  Even if it is "thrown away" later ... later might be decades from now. 

Lolz.  If you think this is the biggest challenge facing mass adoption of Bitcoin well all I got to say is lolz.

In the meantime tell your bank manager a "millibit" is still under a buck.

This.  OP care to share how you determined it is QT client making the disk access?  Or is this one of those "X happens and I have QT client installed therefore the QT client caused X" type assumptions?

You looking at the same chart as me? Prior to the April hype bubble for LTC it generally had a money supply worth 1/200th to 1/300th of Bitcoin.  Today it is 1/40th.

Nice link though. 

I stopped last summer and parted it out. Was fun while it lasted but I saw the ASICs on the horizon.  Just pointing out that buying used isn't always bad.  Some people can't deal with out of warranty failure and if you are buying one GPU it might not be worth the hassle but if you buy a lot and intend to drive them hard anyways it can be worth it.

Chip efficiency is often not the whole story.  You are looking at 10% inefficiency (12%-13% probably more realistic under real world conditions) in DC regulator and another 10% for the ATX PSU.

So if chip is 0.65 J/GH @ 1VDC then the entire board is ~0.74 J/GH @ 12VDC.   @ 400 GH/s nominal that is 295W.  Now add on two probably 6W fans per radiator and you are looking at 307W per board.   On sierra we know there are two exhaust fans.   So 307W*3 + 12W = 933W @ 12VDC.  Throw in 90% efficient PSU and that is 933W/0.9 = 1036W at the wall.   1013/1200 = 0.87 J/GH.  

HashFast has stated they believe the boards can be faster possibly 500 GH/s.   To push the clock that high may require a higher nominal voltage.   Power usage for silicon scales linear with the clock (no change in J/GH) but scales by the square of the voltage.  So say it requires 10% higher voltage that would be 21% higher power consumption.  0.87 * 1.21 ~ 1.1 J/GH.

Since HashFast doesn't yet know what the final clock and voltage will be the 1 W per GH/s makes sense.  My total guess is that if the chips end up closer to 400 GH/s without much headroom they will run it at a lower nominal voltage and higher efficiency.  If the chips show more potential performance they will run them at a higher nominal voltage and lower efficiency. 

Just my opinion got no inside info or anything like that.  

Sure but it takes time and even high priority txs (which aren't required by most nodes to include a fee) still need a miner willing to include the tx in a block..  You could either create a 1 BTC + 1 small output tx every day and maybe get it confirmed in a day so you eliminate 1 spam output every 2 days or so.   It will require coin control and properly constructing transactions, and some charity on the part of the miner.   In the end you might "recover" maybe half a cent per day in dust spam for a lot of manual work.  Or you could just wait.  The min mandatory fee on low priority txs was at one time 0.1 BTC it has been lowered 3 times to 0.1 mBTC.  It is entirely possible that in the future if the exchange rate keeps rising the limit will be lowered further making once "unspendable" dust, spendable again.

Making a giant free tx is probably pointless.  No miners is going to incude a 20KB unpaid tx even if it is high priority.  Remember miners aren't required to include any specific tx.

Sounds like a self correcting problem.   The solution is a merge mined separate chain. If MC does implode under its own created tx "spam" then hopefully the outcome will encourage others that follow to a better solution.

Well in fair fairness it is 160 bits; the checksum doesn't add uniqueness.   Still 160 bits is 4 billion times less likely than a 128 bit one.  The probability of a collision with a specific key (first preimage attack) is even less likely.

Why would the Chinese be superstitious about the price of Bitcoins in Dollars or Euros or Rubbles?
The relevant price is ~2600 Yuan which has nothing to do with "4".

And make the transaction massively large and thus the fees more than the value of the dust spent.

That is incorrect.  Bitcoin works on a system of discrete inputs and outputs.  Each output remains unique and adding non-dust outputs to a wallet with dust doesn't "magic" them away.  You will have a wallet with dust and non-dust.

To OP.  The min fee on low priority tx has been lowered at least three times in the history of Bitcoin.  There is nothing you can do to get rid of dust.  Someday however the amounts that are considered dust now may not be due to higher valuation. 

@oda.krell

So you believe in an appeal to stupidity?  Paraphrased it is "I am smart and won't be fooled by this utter nonsense, but the masses are stupid and can't educated themselves so it will fail".

This also assumes there is a massive amount of very rich but also very stupid people.   The good news is free markets are self correcting.  If these hypothetical very rich but very stupid people sell off in masses there will be a transfer of wealth to marginally smarter but less rich people.  Tada.  Problem is self correcting.

However anecdotally we have seen this is just nonsense.  Canada recently eliminated their penny.  The sub division of the Canadian dollar was reduced by a factor of 5x.  By your logic we should have seen the Canadian dollar skyrocket 500% against other currencies as the ultra rich but ultra stupid people in the world suddenly believed in mass the scarcity of the Canadian dollar was greatly increased and dump other assets to buy the more "valuable" Canadian dollar.  Of course we saw no such change in exchange rates or prices.

collapse in price =/= collapse of Bitcoin.

If you feel the price is excessively high ... don't buy or sell off a portion (sell into rally)
If you feel the price is excessively low ... don't sell or buy to increase your stake (buy on the dips).

So much wrong with that post.