Displaying a slightly higher hash rate would not increase your accepted shares rate. just sayin. ;p
Im hardly a bitcoin expert, but as I understand it, in order to fake the hashrate without him losing money in the process, there would be a mismatch between the number of accepted shares as seen on his pool statistics page, and what I see on my client. Either that, or a mismatch between the hashrate and the number of shares processed. Either would seem trivial to check. Its also not likely he is using fake rejected shares to boost his hashrate, as I currently have zero rejected out of 1100 shares (dont know what it was before I had to reboot to switch OSs, but its low). Anyway, nothing wrong with some paranoia, but it doesnt seem fair to make such accusations without proof or even probably cause. Its not like bitminter is 2x faster. |
|
|
|
Code is obfuscated so verification is impossible (well not impossible but difficult and time consuming).
I thought it wasnt. But maybe Im wrong. Either way, if he is cheating with his hashrates, its an expensive lie since I get paid for my hashes whether I use his client or another. |
|
|
|
i wonder if i'm the only one that keeps reading 'POS' as 'piece of shit'.
Point Of Sale. |
|
|
|
|
Quoting your own previous fallacies does little to prove you point. People stopping to mine has nothing to do with people selling bitcoins. You still dont seem to realize that no matter how many or how few people mine, combined they accumulate exactly the same amounts of bitcoins. 50 BTC per 10 minutes. Whether that is divided by 10 miners or 10 million change nothing about the amount bitcoins they will sell. The will sell 50 BTC per 10 minutes, minus what they keep as speculation.
That in 2 or so years, only 25 BTC will be mined per 10 minutes will have 2 effects: everything else remaining equal (so ignoring a potential increase in transaction fees and especially an appreciation of bitcoins), the amount of miners will half. And admittedly, something will drop in price substantially: the price of used AMD cards. Nothing else.
|
|
|
|
It can't go much lower than $5, or the thash/s is going to start dropping like a rock as well. Yeah! You're beginning to understand the relationship now !  Supply and demand are at relative parity. But when miners stop "demanding" new coins when the award halves, it's going to fricken crash. That's my point. Oh, no, you arent  I give up. As for hashrate being stable. Really? http://bitcoin.sipa.be/speed-lin-ever.pngYou know whats been relatively stable? Mining profit: http://tvori.info/bitcoin/charts/historical.png(green line) Just a short spike when bitcoin bubbled and people couldnt follow bringing enough mining rigs online. |
|
|
|
Maybe you can post your silk road user id to prove your trustworthiness |
|
|
|
|
Even as a controlled demonstration, it took about 1 minute to handle the payment. There is room for improvement me thinks.
|
|
|
|
It is not a coincidence that bitcoins are selling for around $5. That puts the ROI within a somewhat reasonable margin. Again, you got it backwards. That bitcoins are selling for $5 *is* indeed "coincidence". Or at least, its totally unrelated to the miners, but purely a result of demand, mostly speculation and some demand for commerce. That ROI is somewhat reasonable is NOT coincidence. Not because of the price, but because the number of miners automatically adjusts to an equilibrium. You can even calculate that, its really simple. Bitcoin creation is currently fixed at 50 BTC per 10 minutes. Assume a BTC market price of $5 per BTC. That is $250 per 10 minutes or $1500 worth of BTC per hour. assume electricity costs $0.1 per KwH assume everyone uses identical paid for videocards that draw 100W. One GPU costs $0.1*0.1Kw =$0.01 per hour So there will be an equilibrium at 150.000 GPUs. Doesnt matter if its 2 people owning those 150K rigs, or 150K people with a single gpu. More than 150K GPUs, difficulty will increase and the miners will lose money (causing some to pull the plug). Less than 150K GPUs, difficulty will drop and they will make profit (attracting more of them). Note how I havent used difficulty in the math. Thats because it doesnt change the equation. Difficulty level is what governs the amount of miners towards the equilibrium. If you make an assumption for hashrate, You can even calculate the resulting difficulty level if you want. its that simple. the amount of miners adjust themselves to the price and costs, not vice versa. Now you show me the math or even logic how changing the amount of GPUs or # of people owning them somehow influences the price of bitcoins? There is no such relationship. |
|
|
|
Im not forgetting that at all. Its precisely the "per person" that make the above nonsensical. I doesnt matter how many miners there are or how many rigs they have. It has zero influence on the overall number of coins minted and zero influence on either supply or demand for bitcoins for either trade or speculation. It only affects individual miner profitability. Which, in turn, affects price. It doesnt. Price of bitcoins is only determined by supply and demand of bitcoins The amount of miners or mining rigs has influence on neither. Perhaps you should take that economy 101. And because everyone in the world will only be getting 50/7 billion BTC per block, the cost to produce a block will be in the (hundreds of?) millions of dollars. You think 1 BTC will still sell for $5 if that is the case?
You have the relationship backwards. If 1 BTC is worth $5, do you think 7 billion people will mine for it? As a miner you can not influence the price of bitcoin. You can only affect your own profitability by pulling the plug or buy more mining rigs. It doesnt go both ways. Adding more rigs wont influence bitcoin price. |
|
|
|
True up until bitminter.. Only because I'm wondering if anyone has checked their lil java code to see if it is just adding a few %hash to the reported hash to make it look faster? It just seems otherwise the mining app writers here would have snagged up the optimizations by now...
Bitminter isnt opensource. If you like, you could reverse engineer it, its just non obfuscated java code, but it might be illegal to use that code. As for the hashrates being accurate. If they are inaccurate than he is paying me too much I suppose in theory its possible, but it seems unlikely for a lot of reasons. Feel free to scrutinize his app, if you find something you'll destroy his credibility and business. I dont think you'll find any foul play. |
|
|
|
You are forgetting that the number of miners drives up demand. For every additional miner, every other miner's payout is reduced on average by (1 / total # of miners). This lowers supply (per person) and increases demand. Im not forgetting that at all. Its precisely the "per person" that make the above nonsensical. I doesnt matter how many miners there are or how many rigs they have. It has zero influence on the overall number of coins minted and zero influence on either supply or demand for bitcoins for either trade or speculation. It only affects individual miner profitability. If miners don't make a profit, don't expect them to stick around. There goes demand.
Assuming miners act rationally, the number of miners will auto regulate itself to be borderline profitable. But profitability of mining has nothing to do with supply or demand. Even if everyone in the world starts mining, there will still only be 1 block found per 10 minutes. |
|
|
|
|
My fire insurance covers damage from lightening strikes. Not that it happens often here anyway. To give you an idea, in 10 years I can remember losing electricity due to storms or lightening maybe twice.
|
|
|
|
Indirectly or directly, it is still linked. The value of bitcoin may be mostly based on supply and demand, but that is only because a significant amount of the supply has been withheld throughout its history. And since Bitcoin has relatively no base of demand other than speculation, if a lot of those early coins went into circulation or the security of the network drops out when the award halves at the 210kth block, it may create a cascade of effects that bring the bitcoin sell price below the value of its current cost to produce. Then another cascade (crash) of effects to follow.
The supply is not quite so fixed as you think.
None of that has anything to do with the cost of mining. I agree with your point of most of bitcoin transactions being speculation right now, but not with the rest. Whether a speculator bought bitcoins at $0.18 or $18, or a miner spent $1.8 on electricity and hardware to mine his coins. It doesnt matter and has no influence on bitcoin value. |
|
|
|
|
I see lots of 58x0 and 69x0 cards overclocked to the moon. Im curious what temperatures you guys are getting on the VRM s and whether or not that worries you?
I got a 5850 with accelero twin turbo cooler, using the stock cooler plate for ram and vrm cooling. I have zero problems keeping the GPU cool, below 50C in fact, but I dont have the balls to overvolt it to push my clock beyond ~850 MHz because even at stock voltage, at those speeds VRM temperatures go towards 90C.
Im thinking of getting one of those thermal take VRM V5 coolers just for the VRMs, but perhaps Im worrying for nothing. Are you mad overclockers not having 100+C VRM temps ?
|
|
|
|
Still, his hashrate is a tad low for his clocks. I found diablo to be faster than phoenix on my 5850, and bitminter ( https://bitminter.com/) to be a tad faster than diablo even (and a lot easier to use). But mitminter's mining app only works on bitminters pool but that isnt necessarily bad, considering the freebies they are giving out. Bitminter is a java app launching from the browser, so its easy to give it a try. Be sure to click the tweak button and set the interval to 10 or so if you want a responsive desktop. |
|
|
|
Eventually the "mining market" will stabilize on a low but sustainable ROI. Something in the 5% to 20% annually range based on how risky mining is perceived to be. Ironically the thing that people want the most will result in even LOWER profits for miners. If bitcoin takes off and becomes very mainstream and daily volatility falls then the risk in mining decreases and economic theory tells us the margin (profit) will decline also. I believe the 5-20% ROI figure to be accurate for the future. However, the risk is much higher than you might think. I use a similar Mh/W efficiency to the OP in my proposal for EnCoin, a currency based around the cost to produce. According to my guestimates, a coin produced today costs about $3.60, excluding the cost of hardware. That's only a 28% ROI based on a sell price of $5. The average cost to produce, on the other hand, is $1.80. If early coins begin to circulate, 28% ROI on $1.80 makes new coins strictly unprofitable. People lose money, stop mining, and bitcoin becomes a security risk. Feel free to peruse the proposal and the ensuing discussion. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=44682.0You seem to think the value of a bitcoin is related to the mining cost, but it isnt. Mining cost is indirectly linked to the value, but the value of a bitcoin is purely supply and demand. Supply being fixed, no matter how many miners there are, or their cost. |
|
|
|
no, you're confused.
transaction fees are earned by miners who will gradually earn more and more transaction fees as they gradually earn less and less for block rewards.
miners are here to stay.
Exactly. Although the volume of transaction fees depends on the number of transactions. So if bitcoin doesnt become more popular as payment method in the next few years, there wont be enough incentive to keep lots of miners around and the network could become vulnerable. Either that, or transactions would have to become rather expensive, limiting bitcoins adoption. It has potential for a catch 22. Personally, I dont think it will become a problem. Mining for blocks will be around for long enough to give bitcoin time to expand. If it doesnt happen in the next 5 or so years, its probably not going to happen. Also Im pretty sure a fairly large crowd will continue mining even if its not profitable. |
|
|
|
A year or two could mean never because better hardware will come.
Actually, maybe not. Unless you are thinking FPGAs or even ASICs. Next generation AMD videocards will likely be worse at mining than current 6xx0 and previous 58xx ones. From everything I heard they will make designs that resemble nVidia's architecture more, which almost certainly will mean worse hashrates (though better at general purpose computing). |
|
|
|
|
I just had a look at it. I cant take it very seriously tbh, nor the companies listed on them. No offense, but it reminds me a bunch of 12 year olds playing "business man". They all seem to "invest" in each other and, well, thats usually their business plan.
The exchange itself is also rough - to put it mild. To name one thing, I cant seem to find how many shares a company has listed. How am I supposed to invest in a company if I cant figure out its marketcap?
From all the idea's on there that Ive seen (I havent checked them all), there is only that has legs I think, thats IBB. With investments up to 20BTC, its still more a kids game than a business, but the concept has merit and the owner appears to be made of the right stuff. It might go somewhere some day. No Im not boosting the stock, I havent bought any.
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
