I've been working on a difficulty model, it needs some work, but I'm predicting November 8, 2011.
nice accuracy ... are you going to publish the model, i'd be interested to see it at least, probably others too? |
|
|
|
We are above the channel trendline in both, normal (1.6$) and log scale (around 3$). We've gone super-exponential .... seller's strike continues, the question is at what price do the big seller's come out of the woodwork? Those guys have mined the first 2.5 million coins for example. |
|
|
|
The "point" of currency is to deny people the necessities of life. Well here's your problem right here ... if your believe this fallacy you're fecked right from the start. Money facilitates the allocation of resources and capital in a free market which amazingly provide people with a greatly increased number of the necessities of life. Money is in essence an information technology, it passes pricing information in a fast, efficient and distributed manner, such that the producers of the "necessities of life" can make correct decisions regarding supplies available and existing demand. Having a pet anti-fetish against money, the technology, is like being opposed to Windows Server Edition. Write a better one if you don't like it, try not to turn into a political crusade, you'll be disappointed and wrong for a long time since it is an information technology. |
|
|
|
Aw man you got my hopes up with that thread title  booo to misleading titles edited to reflect the poll nature of thread ... sorry if it got your hopes up  |
|
|
|
I am developing an opensource linux CPU/GPU hash cracker ....
at that point I prefer not to release the source of the plugin So is it open source is isn't it? I'm not going near this until more eyes have been over it ... like more than yours. Hope it is for real, sounds too good to be true in some ways. |
|
|
|
Can someone explain what is going on here? Where are all my shares going? The whole time I been producing at 660 MH/S!!  Why was my last payout so low? I paused my client for ~5 minutes to reboot, I change a flag -w to test it out for a few hours, realtime MH/s wasn't different... I changed it back about 20 minutes ago It was a really short round and you only got a few of the shares that were submitted ... the very short rounds it is a crap shoot who gets the most shares in and doesn't have time to even out to reflect average hashrates .... if you hang around for enough short rounds it will even out when totalled over all of them. Next time just hope the short round are all your shares going in ... ! |
|
|
|
deepbit has hit the motherlode  on the new difficulty too ... how long can this last i wonder? |
|
|
|
Adding more coins just makes an arbitrary market cap value even more arbitrary, IMO.
Quite,the 'market cap' figure on BitcoinCharts is arbitrary. How on earth is it possible to quantify the initial monetisation phase of a tradeable virtual commodity? ... it was just a little mind exercise that got taken too seriously I fear. |
|
|
|
Good to see you haven't been 'fooled' into buying worthless bitcoins (or bananas or carrots) yet ... carry on.
Were you around last time a tradeable virtual commodity was monetised? No did not think so, no one was.
We are off the charts here so trying to sound knowledgeable just leaves anybody looking stupid quite quickly (they probably were to begin with but managed to hide it with long words and fine sounding fluffy arguments). A little humility will take a long way when venturing into unchartered territory.
I love when people arrogantly call for others to display humility. If you read what I said more carefully, you wouldn't have interpreted it (as you plainly did) as some sort of attack on Bitcoins or their market value. You have no idea what I've bought or sold, and I was plainly not making a recommendation to do either. I'm not an investment advisor (at least not formally), and I have no interest in disclosing my personal financial positions to you. I'm sorry if you're claiming you can't grasp simple economic language, but nothing I said was "fluffy," and what "long words" did it use? Honestly, it wasn't even "fine sounding." I admit I'm used to writing for an educated academic audience, but it's not hard to understand what I said and to see that it's correct on its own terms. Making up numbers and calling them "market capitalization" is what lacks humility. If you want to say "I think Bitcoins will rise against the US Dollar," say that instead; don't say something that's baseless, logically confused, and misleading. Maybe if I try again we can communicate like adults. "Market capitalization" itself -- even when it's not the figure you conjured yourself -- is sometimes a misleading figure even in its traditional contexts; it doesn't describe, for example, how much capital a company has access to. I recently owned a stake of a company that went public and, as a result, had a market capitalization of $2 billion; however, they raised only $50 million in the IPO. The $2 billion value is useful when calculating the value of individual shareholders' stakes; it's not useful in calculating the size of the company's "economy" in the way the term is applied to Bitcoin. Note, in case it's still confusing, that a single trader on Mt. Gox can increase or decrease the "market capitalization" by several million dollars by committing only several thousand dollars. You can't read into the figure properties that it won't bear, at least without making profound logical and mathematical mistakes. I've been reading you on other threads and as far as I am concerned ~:RETRACTED:~ you are not even wrong, academic educated or otherwise ... I only read the first paragraph above and gave up ... 's' you are on my scroll list, the first guy on bitcoin forum to make it there, congratulations. |
|
|
|
Because it is already known that 21 million coins will be issued and the expectation of the market out over the next few years is that there will be at least several more million in circulation than issued thus far.
If they are issued and sold with no new demand, the price will fall. If they are issued and sold with (increasing) demand that (thus) matches demand for the current coins, the price will stay the same, and the "market capitalization" will increase. What you're saying is like arguing that the value of "the banana economy" includes bananas that have not yet been grown yet because we know that some more are growing and will be ready soon. If that happens but nobody new wants bananas, the price of them falls. To say it more intuitively, if nobody wants the new bananas, they have no value, and you can't assume that because there is demand for the current bananas that there will be equivalent demand for the new ones. The market capitalization is actually likely a significant overestimate of the Bitcoin economy because the clearing price does not reflect the value of the entire economy; the whole economy would not clear at the current price. Of course, if all sold today, Bitcoins would have a substantially lower value than the "market capitalization" figure suggests. It is an enticing "marketing" figure but has probably misled many people. Good to see you haven't been 'fooled' into buying worthless bitcoins (or bananas or carrots) yet ... carry on. Were you around last time a tradeable virtual commodity was monetised? No did not think so, no one was. We are off the charts here so trying to sound knowledgeable just leaves anybody looking stupid quite quickly (they probably were to begin with but managed to hide it with long words and fine sounding fluffy arguments). A little humility will take a long way when venturing into unchartered territory. |
|
|
|
How does it do with no worksize setting?
Good question, it is better again ... 338~340 ... so going to edit title of thread. Can get rid of worksize flag ... less crap on CLI is good. |
|
|
|
what are you getting for mhps?
poclbm flags; -v -w64 -r2 -f1 336.8 Mhash/s poclbm flags; -v -w128 -r2 -f1 335.1 Mhash/s phoenix 3 flags; VECTORS AGGRESSION=11 BFI_INT WORKSIZE=64 335.8 MHash/s |
|
|
|
25Mhash slower here.
Okay, maybe it is just my particular set-up on that rig ... ubuntu 10.10, SDK 2.1, fglrx 11.2 (AMD drivers built/installed as .deb packages), HD 5970 clock 775/300 |
|
|
|
The simple counter to the "Bitcoins are being used for illegal activities and should be banned" argument is that, since bitcoins have a transaction record easily available on the public net, without even needing a search warrant or anything, bitcoins are actually *more* traceable than cash. You don't need to set someone up with marked bills. *Every* bill is marked. When the politicians finally get around to trumpeting about how it's a haven for criminals, be sure to point that out. It's no worse than bank transfers between numbered accounts, and it's considerably easier for law enforcement to follow any trail that gets left behind.
If they can show a direct association between an address and the suspect, then yes. That's gonna be quite entertaining seeing plod get up to speed with the intricacies of tracinf transactions through the block chain ... probably be some consultancy BTC in for experts in blockchain analysis ... hmmm might start a web site, Sam Spade block chain private detective. |
|
|
|
Okay, here's a tip for free for anybody using the Cypress chip (5870, 5970) ... it seems the new phoenix miner 1.3 goes a bit faster using worksize=64 now not worksize=128 ... and it is same on new poclbm also i think ...i.e., -w 64 is now better than -w 128 ... must be something to with the BFI_INT flag being enabled ... check it out (I waited until new difficulty is set to release this info but have been using this for a few days already). ... you can thank me later with tips  EDIT: after more testing as per discussion below NO worksize flag or setting (default) is better than -w64 and -w128 |
|
|
|
Yes, it is not a bubble if bitcoin were embarassingly undervalued anywhere below USD$XXX ... fill in any number you want here to quantify the demand for a crypto-currency of the bitcoin flavour. EDIT: quantifying the monetisation of virtual commodity has no historical precedence, charts out the window, we're off to la la land ...  |
|
|
|
|
Of course I just picked a number, it was a conservative estimate of how many coins that haven't been issued yet but the market is fully expecting them to be issued in the near future.
Your turn, pick a good number of bitcoins that you think market has priced in?
I say that they have priced in probably more, maybe a lot more than 10.5 million but I just chose that as a conservative estimate and calculated market cap based on that ... I'm a bit lost how that is mysterious to you?
I don't think the market has priced in all 21 million but I do think it has priced in AT LEAST 10.5 million (the point at which the block reward to miners halves to BTC 25 per block), probably more ...
|
|
|
|
When did it cross 10,000?
Correct answer ..... on the log10 plot it took 3-4 months to go from 10,000 to 100,000 so we can expect to cross 1 mill around august I'm picking. |
|
|
|
|
You must have missed the word conservatively .... I just chose the point where half the coins would be issued, that is 'only' 20 months away and therefore in the near time horizon. I could have used 21 million but I don't think the market is pricing that far out into the future (2030) ... so conservatively using the near time horizon and easy point to do rough back-of-envelope calc. to demonstrate it is probably much more than the current coins times market price ... i.e. $14 mill. Rough proof by demonstration.
|
|
|
|
|
the common way of calculating market cap underestimates the true size. Why? Because it is already known that 21 million coins will be issued and the expectation of the market out over the next few years is that there will be at least several more million in circulation than issued thus far. So conservatively, the market has already priced in total coin issuance to at least Jan 2013, i.e. 10.5 million coins.
Using current exchange rates BTC 1 = U$ 2.5 then current market cap is at least around U$25 million already.
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
