Not sure if its QT trader or the APIs themselves, but both MTGOX and BTC-E's APIs are both "down" for QT trader, but up for all other software systems including sierra charts, any idea what is going on?
This can happens if you used same API keys in another programs. Once this API keys was used on another program it become broken for Qt Bitcoin Trader. So you need re-create API keys. If this is not solution for you, please send me debug file to my email. How to save debug file read in first message of this thread. Thanks for the quick response IGHOR, I've made fresh API keys for both just to be sure and it's still giving me indefinite API lag, I'll send you a debug dump shortly. Perhaps you got a temp ban from both for the amount of connections from the same IP? I had this problem briefly with BTCe a couple days ago when I made another key for another build I was working on, and ended up having 2 different builds running at the same time (with one freshly restarted, so I guess you could count a 3rd API connection briefly if it hadn't timed out yet) It cleared up after about 10 minutes or so tho (with a cloudflare verification thingy in the browser, so I guess that would have counted as a 4th) Hey you were right, after not attempting for ~20 min I tried it again and it worked |
|
|
|
Not sure if its QT trader or the APIs themselves, but both MTGOX and BTC-E's APIs are both "down" for QT trader, but up for all other software systems including sierra charts, any idea what is going on?
This can happens if you used same API keys in another programs. Once this API keys was used on another program it become broken for Qt Bitcoin Trader. So you need re-create API keys. If this is not solution for you, please send me debug file to my email. How to save debug file read in first message of this thread. Thanks for the quick response IGHOR, I've made fresh API keys for both just to be sure and it's still giving me indefinite API lag, I'll send you a debug dump shortly. |
|
|
|
1. They're really letting you do this?
2. You know this is extremely illegal? People use the darkweb and several other anonymity tools to sell these same drugs. Be smart..
Legally, in canada, buying modafinil online is completely legal if you have a perscription, selling however requires a permit. It's not the most legal thing in the world to sell modafinil online, but its sure as hell not "extremely illegal", speaking from hypothetical experience of course. |
|
|
|
|
Not sure if its QT trader or the APIs themselves, but both MTGOX and BTC-E's APIs are both "down" for QT trader, but up for all other software systems including sierra charts, any idea what is going on?
|
|
|
|
|
agreed, this is a great video, we should have a youtube "explaining bitcoin" respository in a sticky.
|
|
|
|
|
neat, there's been quite a few other cars sold for bitcoin (generally used but sometimes new), however teslas are a fun one, if I kept all my coins a tesla S would be a great buy.
|
|
|
|
This is your claim. I don't have to have faith in, or believe, in anything, since it's on you to prove that new jobs will not come out, despite them doing so for centuries to date.
Nope, you are living in delusion. All global statistics support my point of view. Since last 30 years or so ( depending on the country ). Global Real wages down Labor participation rate down Labor income share in GDP down. ( This was an iron division between labor share and capital share that was stable for centuries until computers arrived ) Amount of people working in private businesses down ( trend of last 10 years ). Many people hired in administration ( hidden unemployment ) More people working part time , less people working full time. ( scewing statistics of true unemployment , in many countries someone working 8 hours a week is not counted as unemployed ) Record low investments into new employees , record high investments into equipment. All within a world of record productivity. Sorry , the trends don't lie , they just are. Free market is a fanatical religion , nothing more , and it makes its followers resistant to knowledge. There is absolutely no hint that current trends will change and new jobs will come out of woodwork especially when there is a prospect of computerization almost half the occupations in the next 20 years. This is just impossible. You are 100% correct, the only jobs that will be generated in the coming years will be in engineering design, and architecture outside of government jobs. A great case study of the world we're rapidly approaching is from the comic book / movie "Dredd" (Judge Dredd and Mega City one). A nation where every basic need is provided for free by a robot underclass, where no one "needs" to work. Same with the sci-fi novel series "The Expanse," where on earth absolutely no one works unless they actively want to, the remaining populace is given a stipend similar to native saudi arabians. We're getting real close to a limitless resource world once we actually pull our heads out of our collective asses and heavily invest into AI robotics. |
|
|
|
|
if you can make some seriously top quality hoodies/T-shirts, maybe even dress shirts there may be a market, but shitty prints with terrible fabric won't fly.
|
|
|
|
|
From my limited understanding, I don't see how this physically does anything.
If your would-be attacker has your wallet, chances are he also has your MindHash program that converts your small string into a huge function.
What's stopping him from just brute forcing your MindHash? I understand that this process would take a very long time but I don't see it taking any longer than a multi word bitcoin wallet password, seems a little convoluted.
|
|
|
|
Epoch for ASIC mining on the network is January 30th of this year when jgarzik got his test unit: http://pastebin.com/g4BhvCXKThere wasn't a noticeable jump in network hashrate until mid February when Avalon units in bulk and ASICMINER blades started up. appreciated, I'm going to try and adjust the time constant so that it doesn't accelerate noticably until then, most of the time constants we're pretty much arbitrarily based off my precieved "timeline of events" and what the network hashrate slop looked like |
|
|
|
Absolutely right, Impaler.
Bitcoiners have no economics training. It's like the blind leading the blind. This is too funny.
Many companies spend billions of dollars on R&D and the products fail and never make back the investment. What a fantasy world, if your wealth increases with increase in spending.
Bitcoiners are so blinded by greed that they refuse to see that Bitcoin is a pyramid scheme.
All they look at are the rising prices at the exchanges.
The exchanges are not regulated, no government oversight.
I can open my own exchange have group of friends buy and sell to each other, bid up the price, and wait for the suckers to buy into Bitcoin with real world currency. You are sheeps, helpless against the wolves.
unfortunately, you have no idea what bitcoin is if you think it's a pyramid scheme, this is a common misconception that shows your lack of knowledge. Take a look at the the wiki, learn what bitcoin is, learn what its potential implications are for macroeconomics, I assure you that you have no idea what you're talking about if you think "bitcoin is for suckers". You should also note that the "big fish", the early adopters have not sold even though they had the chance to, its because they don't have the mental capacity of a goldfish and understand what bitcoin means to the world. https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Myths - there's even a specific article talking about "isn't bitcoin a pyramid scheme?" http://seekingalpha.com/article/1836602-is-bitcoin-for-real-macroeconomic-considerations-for-an-alternative-currencyAll this information is out there, please take a minute and read about it. PS: this is coming from someone who owns <0.1 btc and at one point owned 650 however needed to sell for tuition Their is one huge glaring problem with your whole theoretical framework COSTS != VALUE The cost to create BTC's has no link what so ever to their market price. This is a classic 'regression theorem' error by BTC zealots, just because something valuable is destroyed to make a product dose not make the product worth the cost of the inputs. People make foolish production decisions every day which produce products worth less then the input costs, the free market weeds these people out eventually so in the LONG RUN the products are worth at least the inputs (and hopefully some profit margin if your a good business person). But it is by no means an absolute that can be applied here. By adding up all expenditures involved in mining BTC all you have determined is how much minimum value we would have to apply to BTC as a service in order to consider the production to have been a sound investment. The actual value we DO assign could be vastly higher or vastly lower then that production cost, it is a fully independent variable. Your number IS useful (I can't speak to accuracy) don't get me wrong, your just calling it by the wrong name and drawing erroneous conclusions from it. Also you may find this site to be a treasure trove of data, this guy has been doing analysis of the network for some time and has tracked the ASIC transition and produced estimates of electrical consumption. http://organofcorti.blogspot.com/I agree with you, it's not ready yet. Right now (besides my school-work that I'm doing) I'm designing two compound coefficients that I need to add to the labour value to get the "True Value" (not speculative) These values are the "Risk Factor" of bitcoin, which includes everything that makes the investment not 100% safe and acceptable, and the second one is the "Utility Factor" of bitcoin, or it's ability to be more useful than other systems as a payment processor, as a inflation-less currency, etc. THAT information is mostly independent of most bitcoin variables and will have to be determined empirically based off data points like "number of bitcoin emergency patches, cumulatively per year" this value could definitely contribute to a "security factor" which would be addable to the "Risk Factor" however the specific empirical multiplicative factors I'm not entirely sure on yet, will work on it later. |
|
|
|
Posts for controlled drugs aren't allowed here, and amphetamine is schedule 2.
Modafinil however is completely legal for import in canada as long as you have a perscription, as do I. |
|
|
|
Hi James,
I haven't had a chance to dig thru this very carefully, but on the surface this appears to be the best analysis of bitcoin value that I've seen here.
The two small points that I'd add is that: 1.) you skipped the "FPGA epoch" between GPU- and ASIC- mining, which is probably significant for this sort of analysis, and 2.) I don't see any factor here to account for lost coins, which is probably also significant when you are calculating (total cost to mine) / (total bitcoins mined). The numbers you are getting from blockchain.info seem to be a small factor less than the actual number of coins mined (your/their data says 11,969,600 coins for yesterday, but we've actually been above 12mn for a while) but I can't tell where that difference is coming from, or if it's a good estimate of coins lost.
As for the start date of the ASIC epoch, I believe jgarzik announced his receipt of the first publicly available Avalon so you can probably search back on the forum here or his Twitter for that date. Of course there were various manufacturers testing equipment before this date, and a significant impact on mining really didn't happen until ASICMINER came online a bit later, but that date is probably as good as any.
I think this analysis is really interesting.
One of the main reasons BTC will never go to zero is that there is a significant amount of money invested into mining. Those miners control the BTC supply and will always try to at least break even with their investments, so only sell coins when they're making some profit, and hold when they're not, creating at least some form of price resistance. That form of price resistance is probably only going to grow given that the economic effort to get into mining is only going to grow. It is true on the other hand that the miner's control of BTC supply will eventually diminish with time, but for the next couple of years the reward will keep being 25BTC/block, so I think this calculation is very relevant to short/mid term pricing.
However you are plotting exponential quantities in a linear manner, making your graphs display very little information. If you could plot them in log scale they would become a lot more informative.
Thanks to both of your for your points, I've been fighting with excel 2013 graphing functions to actually figure out how to make reasonably useful graphs but to this point no avail. I like the coin destruction factor, I didn't do any research into the amount of coins "lost", or a reasonable way to determine the exact quantity over at timeframe, but I might be able to make an assumption of "very very old" coins that haven't moved since its creation could be considered "lost". Also there was the FGPA epoch in the middle between GPU and ASIC, however since it never really took over from GPU mining and was nothing in compared to the effect that ASIC mining had, I made a reasonable assumption that the fast acting expotential I used for ASIC would also factor in FPGA, if I did get some more time though I'd definitely refine the expotentials time constants. |
|
|
|
added some fancy graphs for people to visualise the data, I forgot how impossible it is to read someone else's excel plots without graphs  |
|
|
|
So I've been working on a project to effectively determine the value of a bitcoin irrespective of speculation on a per unit time basis (from bitcoin's inception to now). I've done some work into developing a "cost of labour" analysis of bitcoin by making two assumptions: 1. Bitcoin Mining has two parameters that indicate cost, MH/$ (capital costs), and MH/W (electrical costs). All other costs I assume to be negligible, and with that assumption I assume capital cost increments to be infinitely small. 2. That my (mostly arbitrary) expotential plateauing/decaying curves for CPU mining usage, GPU mining usage, and ASIC mining are mostly accurate, if you can help me work on the time constants for each I'd greatly appreciate it, I've tried to find the 0 day ASICminer came onto the scene but I haven't had any luck. https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B-1iklukQfPyOEY5eW5wVnJxR0U/edit?usp=sharingwork to do:I'm still working on the Risk/Utility Factors, however its just about exam time for my last year of university and I can't really afford to do anymore theory crafting this weekend, so I've put my exel on google docs for all to see. If you have any critiques let me know, I'm doing this in the hope that someone might value this financially and help give me a reason to continue (*cough* tips please! *cough*) Warnings: All data was pulled from blockchain.info for ease of use, values below 0 don't have decimals for some reason, so the begining year or two are pretty hard to use unfortunately, will probably switch to another dataset at some point. I'm not the best at reading excel functions, there could be a simple error somewhere, please let me know and I'll correct it as soon as possible!  I appologize for the lack of labelling, office 2013 is really obtuse.  |
|
|
|
Fair enough. Don't forget that the risk changes dramatically over time. The risk in 2009 was tremendous. So tremendous that many people mining in 2009 were more likely doing so for reasons other than trying to create value. Also so tremendous that people probably had difficulty performing rational calculations.
Furthermore, we don't really have a good idea even today what the risk is. What are governments going to do about this? How well will we scale from less than one transaction per second to tens of thousands? How well will we cope with quantum computing? Will some new technology utilizing quantum entanglement better solve the double-spend problem and render the whole concept of Bitcoin obsolete? When will all these things happen?
---
The bottom line is that, in my humble opinion, I think you have your cause and effect backwards. Estimates of the expected value of bitcoin cause the market rate to rise, and when the market rate rises, people spend more money mining.
But maybe the best way to be convinced of that is to work it all out and see how it all connects. Let us know what conclusions you come to. If you start a new thread, feel free to ping me by PM so I can follow it.
My risk factor is mostly the chance that a 0 day exploit might surface before the general white hat programming community see and fix the issue in a client update, since the protocol is in a constant state of updating I don't see this being an issue unless SHA-256 itself is broken and needs to be updated, in that case I could see an issue, however I feel that besides that potential outcome, my risk factor reaching an asymptotic low sometime in ~2020 would take this particular outcome into consideration, I'll talk to gmaxwell about it. Will do, I'm writing a spreadsheet right now, to be honest this will probably fit better in blog format but I'll do both to start. I'm not sure exactly what constants I should use for some of these coeffecients so I'll be putting it all in a google docs for everyone to see once I build the framework. |
|
|
|
The true value of a bitcoin will be less than the total amount of productive energy that was diverted to its production if this whole exercise turns out to have been a mistake.
What if the math behind Bitcoin is flawed, and tomorrow it is announced that anyone can steal bitcoins from anyone else, and there's nothing we can do about it. You agree at that point the "true value" of bitcoin will be nearly zero, right?
(I don't mean to imply that there's much of a chance of this, but it's possible.)
The total amount of productive energy that was diverted to the production of bitcoin is roughly a lower limit on the total value that miners <i>expected</i> bitcoin to have. But the miners might have been wrong. (I say roughly because some miners in the past and probably even today are mining for the fun of it rather than because they think they're producing something valuable. There are also miners in the past and probably even today that are stealing electricity and processing power from others.)
Good point, in that case a risk factor should be added as well to the calculation, I do believe my "borrowed" corporate finance textbook has examples of risky endeavours, however bitcoin's risk is sort of unknown at this point and I could probably only create a time based speculative risk factor (we've existed for this long without any fundamental flaws, the chance of a major flaw decreases by n% every year.) I think that risk assumption is valid, particularly because we have very excellent programmers/white hats that have been attacking the bitcoin protocol since its inception, and it's been adapted and reinforced considerably since. There used to be a ton of hobbyist miners, which is why I believe the price before used to be quite low in comparison to now. There is very little chance of "hobbyist" miners being able to produce any amount of bitcoins, compared to the "serious" miners who have invested considerable amount of economic value (aka diverted labour) into buying bitcoin ASIC mining farms, which is a partial reason why I believe the price increased, the miners themselves value Bitcoin more now than they did previously. Also the amount of money going to pay electricity per PH has been decreasing steadily, which means that the people with "free" power don't have anywhere near the advantage they once had. Again this all looks past the speculative nature and looks just at the concrete value of a single bitcoin, which I think will continuously rise until the "value" reaches a meaningless value (in relation to Fiat, the "current" standard of potential labour) |
|
|
|
|
In that case it would be close to that, however that gets into some different issues, if EVERYONE used slave labour to build pools, then it would be the value of the food required to feed the slaves + the lost labour that could have gone towards productive enterprise such as mining (assuming a roman slavery system). However if only a handful of people were doing this, the market value would be the same as all others, however the true economic value would be the total cost of building the pool, theres a similar parallel with bitcoin mining / cypherlocker botnet masters, both are extremely unethical but produce a product indistinguishable from the legitimate.
EDIT: I've never taken an economics course outside of engineering, so this is mostly just conjecture, however I can't see how the true value of a bitcoin would be less than the total amount of productive energy that was diverted to its production. I can certainly see it being higher as there is significantly more utility to bitcoin than gold, however.
SECOND EDIT (I'm interested now!): What if on top of the diverted labour value (what was discussed before), you factor in a coeffecient of utility, the coeffecient would take into consideration the amount of transactions that bitcoin competitors (paypal, western union, etc) deal in on a volume basis as a percentage of the rest of the global economy and used that as a multiplicitve factor in the derivation, I feel like that would be more accurate and would factor in the "intrinsic value."
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
