I can get my miners to become more efficient by about fifty percent by down clocking my units.
TOGTFO. Gear you're running/links to credible writeups. |
|
|
|
|
VeritasSapere, so you figure what, about four months before shutdown, if no new gear? Not following mining hardware, what sort of efficiency improvement do you get by downclocking (as in per hash)?
|
|
|
|
I am presently running the last generation of equipment, mostly S5's and SP31's.
So you're currently not scaling up? How much can the difficulty rise (in %) before you're mining at a loss (power/misc costs only, not talking about 'ROI' on gear)? |
|
|
|
...
That depends on the price, most likely scenario is that I will have to down clock or turn off my older equipment while I should be able to keep all of the newer equipment running, especially if I buy into the next generation of equipment closer to the next halving.
"That depends on the price"? You don't know that, no more than any other miners (well, at least those not swapping spit with big exchange owners). I mean what YOU yourself are doing, right now. Are you expanding? Or 'retracting'? Is downclocking what you mean by 'retracting'? |
|
|
|
...
P.S. To avoid complicated maths, model this at the limit, i.e. "the cost of mining 1 BTC is slightly less than market price of 1 BTC, as per satoshi's prognostication.
P.P.S: Which would you do:
1. spend 10 dollars to make five dollars
2. spend "five hundred and twenty million dollars" to make a billion dollars
(chose one)
The cost of mining one BTC is not slightly less than the market price of one BTC. When Satoshi mentioned this he was pointing out something that I am alluding to as well however. Which is that miners will chase profit until it is not as profitable anymore. For example, if Bitcoin doubles in price my mining operation will all of a sudden make twice as much money, at such a point it does make sense for me to expand my operation so that more profit can be made. A good mining operation should expand and retract depending on the network conditions, an increased price is a very clear sign for most miners to expand, unless the difficulty is skyrocketing as well, which does however imply that other miners beat them to the expansion, which is pretty much what is happening now with the mining industry. Assume: you are a perfect miner, mining at the ragged edge of profitability today. Wat do nao? @BlindMayorBitcorn: we'll figure it out as we go along, don't worry  I do not understand your question. I am actually a real world miner though, so I do have insights in how mining works today. So, as an IRL miner, what are you doing? Expanding? With the difficulty pretty much doubling over the past 3 month, how is that working out for you? Or are you 'retracting'? If so, how does one go about doing that? (assuming scale here, or do you mean you got a couple of S7s in the garage?) @BlindMayorBitcorn: he thinks the price of BTC will magically grow overnight, to make up for losses caused by halvening. Because reasons. |
|
|
|
...
P.S. To avoid complicated maths, model this at the limit, i.e. "the cost of mining 1 BTC is slightly less than market price of 1 BTC, as per satoshi's prognostication.
P.P.S: Which would you do:
1. spend 10 dollars to make five dollars
2. spend "five hundred and twenty million dollars" to make a billion dollars
(chose one)
The cost of mining one BTC is not slightly less than the market price of one BTC. When Satoshi mentioned this he was pointing out something that I am alluding to as well however. Which is that miners will chase profit until it is not as profitable anymore. For example, if Bitcoin doubles in price my mining operation will all of a sudden make twice as much money, at such a point it does make sense for me to expand my operation so that more profit can be made. A good mining operation should expand and retract depending on the network conditions, an increased price is a very clear sign for most miners to expand, unless the difficulty is skyrocketing as well, which does however imply that other miners beat them to the expansion, which is pretty much what is happening now with the mining industry. Assume: you are a perfect miner, mining at the ragged edge of profitability today. Wat do nao? P.S. also, what do you mean by "expand and retract"? How does a mining operation go about retractng, exactly? @BlindMayorBitcorn: we'll figure it out as we go along, don't worry |
|
|
|
^^  @bargainbinlambie Any attack will be clear for all to see. The value of what's stolen will be destroyed.
...The wolf also shall dwell with the lamb, and the leopard shall lie down with the kid; and the calf and the young lion and the fatling together; and a little child shall lead them. |
|
|
|
[...] It does matter if the "dollar" value of BTC has doubled since then. Since if hypothetically the value of Bitcoin doubles after the halving, then there is still the same amount being paid for security <snip>
But since the value of BTC has doubled, the thing that you're securing has doubled in value, so you need twice the security. If a $5 lock is just-good-enough to protect a $100 bike, is it also good enough to protect a $200 bike? Yes and because it has doubled in value, miners will be incentivized to increase their operations. So that $5 lock becomes a $10 lock in your analogy. How would the miners be "incentivized" to increase their operations, after the block reward halves & price doubles? Also, earlier postscript you might have missed: P.S. To avoid complicated maths, model this at the limit, i.e. "the cost of mining 1 BTC is slightly less than market price of 1 BTC, as per satoshi's prognostication. P.P.S: Which would you do: 1. spend 10 dollars to make five dollars 2. spend "five hundred and twenty million dollars" to make a billion dollars (chose one) |
|
|
|
[...] It does matter if the "dollar" value of BTC has doubled since then. Since if hypothetically the value of Bitcoin doubles after the halving, then there is still the same amount being paid for security <snip>
But since the value of BTC has doubled, the thing that you're securing has doubled in value, so you need twice the security. If a $5 lock is just-good-enough to protect a $100 bike, is it also good enough to protect a $200 bike? |
|
|
|
... I already explained that we do not lose fifty percent of our security at the halving, since the exchange rate also effects this dynamic ...
Not really. This year, we are paying roughly 10% of Bitcoin's total value, or what people here call "market cap," to secure it. In other words, we are currently spending roughly a dime to store (secure) a dollar for a year. After the halvening, we will be paying only a nickel. It doesn't matter how much a dollar is worth, the ratio remains the same. Same for efficiency/cost of mining gear. What matter is how much a Bitcoin is worth compared to fiat, since if the market capitalization of Bitcoin increases, the block reward will be worth more in terms of fiat value and real world purchasing power. This would stimulate increased mining since there will be profit to be made, since miners costs are still predominately in Fiat and it is the purchasing power of those Bitcoins that really matters not the amount of Bitcoins that are made. This is why the ratio does not stay the same, if the market cap of Bitcoins doubles so does the amount payed for security, these two things are explicitly linked. But it doesn't matter. A safe that's "just good enough" to secure 10 dollars is probably not good enough to secure a billion, agree? The attacker doesn't want to break Bitcoin to prove a point, the amount he's willing to spend on the attack is directly proportional to the potential reward. So if it costs him a buck ten to steal a dollar now, after the halving it will cost him 55 cents. Bitcoin price in fiat doesn't play into this, because it affects both the cost of the attack and the reward equally. Tell me if I'm being unclear. The cost of the attack is measured in fiat. Since to buy and setup more then fifty one percent of the hashpower would cost more then two hundred and sixty million dollars (just ran a rudimentary calculation). If the price of Bitcoin however went up, it would in effect mean that the Bitcoin protocol is paying more for its security in terms of fiat or real world purchasing power. This would incentivize more miners to come into the ecosystem thereby increasing its security. Therefore it can be argued if the price of Bitcoin doubles that the security of Bitcoin would also double meaning that it would cost twice as much to attack the network, in this case for example it would cost more then five hundred and twenty million dollars, and this is just for the setup costs, not including maintenance or even electricity costs which would over the long term might even cost more then the machines themselves. Not to mention that the attacker would lose much more from such an attack then they could possibly ever gain. I guess I am being unclear. We can measure denominate the cost of attack in BTC, fiat or old hubcaps, it doesn't matter. Think of yourself as a burglar Swiper from Dora the Explorer. You denominate your swiping effort in dollars. It currently costs you $1.10 of 'effort' to rob $1 from Dora's pocket (due to the security measures she has in place). You're a pragmatic Swiper, swiping for profit rather than sport. After doing some quick back-of-envelope (also swiped) calculations, you realize it ain't worth it. You choose not to swipe. But then Dora goes and cuts her security spending (in dollars) in half, and now it only costs you $0.55 to swipe a buck. Wat do, Swiper? Doe it matter if we replace "dollar" with BTC in this example? P.S. To avoid complicated maths, model this at the limit, i.e. "the cost of mining 1 BTC is slightly less than market price of 1 BTC, as per satoshi's prognostication. P.P.S: Which would you do: 1. spend 10 dollars to make five dollars 2. spend "five hundred and twenty million dollars" to make a billion dollars (chose one) |
|
|
|
... I already explained that we do not lose fifty percent of our security at the halving, since the exchange rate also effects this dynamic ...
Not really. This year, we are paying roughly 10% of Bitcoin's total value, or what people here call "market cap," to secure it. In other words, we are currently spending roughly a dime to store (secure) a dollar for a year. After the halvening, we will be paying only a nickel. It doesn't matter how much a dollar is worth, the ratio remains the same. Same for efficiency/cost of mining gear. What matter is how much a Bitcoin is worth compared to fiat, since if the market capitalization of Bitcoin increases, the block reward will be worth more in terms of fiat value and real world purchasing power. This would stimulate increased mining since there will be profit to be made, since miners costs are still predominately in Fiat and it is the purchasing power of those Bitcoins that really matters not the amount of Bitcoins that are made. This is why the ratio does not stay the same, if the market cap of Bitcoins doubles so does the amount payed for security, these two things are explicitly linked. But it doesn't matter. A safe that's "just good enough" to secure 10 dollars is probably not good enough to secure a billion, agree? The attacker doesn't want to break Bitcoin to prove a point, the amount he's willing to spend on the attack is directly proportional to the potential reward. So if it costs him a buck ten to steal a dollar now, after the halving it will cost him 55 cents. Bitcoin price in fiat doesn't play into this, because it affects both the cost of the attack and the reward equally. Tell me if I'm being unclear. |
|
|
|
... I already explained that we do not lose fifty percent of our security at the halving, since the exchange rate also effects this dynamic ...
Not really. This year, we are paying roughly 10% of Bitcoin's total value, or what people here call "market cap," to secure it. In other words, we are currently spending roughly a dime to store (secure) a dollar for a year. After the halvening, we will be paying only a nickel. It doesn't matter how much a dollar is worth, the ratio remains the same. Same for efficiency/cost of mining gear. |
|
|
|
|
^^^
>no conspiracy to gimp Bitcoin
No one's talking about a conspiracy to gimp Bitcoin. On the other hand, if the devs work for a company that makes hot dog rolls, and there's a tossup between what to serve for lunch -- burgers or hot dogs, which do you suppose they'll chose?
>hard problems ... will not be solved by a few lines of code
Why not? Increasing the blocksize is how many lines of code?
|
|
|
|
>all the financial products can be regarded as Beanie Babies for majority of the investors No. Most ponzi schemes, most in-game currencies, but not most financial products. Start learning about financial products here. >many home miners have large advantage against industry miners, since they might have free electricity No, there's no such thing as "free electricity," someone (your parents, your landlord, your school) is paying for it. Treating it as "free" is not much different than taking "free money" mom & dad leave unattended around the house. I really don't see any difference in most of the financial products, it is all pump and dump unless participants can make the products by themselves. And the master of all pump and dump scheme is fiat money, it has been tried for over 300 years since John Law's first version of fiat money, so the degree of masking is enough high to blind majority of the people Many apartment rents include electricity cost, of course you can not run large scale operation, but that's how decentralized mining should work. In future when chip technology has reached its end due to processing nodes limitation, home miner can survive long term wise since they have their electricity cost included in the rent, or they use the miner as a heater thus use the heating cost to do bitcoin mining. Of course this will reduce the bitcoin production cost and cause more miners to sell their coins, but that's another topic >I really don't see any difference in most of the financial products That's because a nod is as good as a wink to a blind horse. If you're unwilling to learn, you'll have to take that on trust. Same goes for fiat money. It may not be something you understand, though not everything that you don't understand is a scam. >electricity cost included in the rent This doesn't mean that it's free electricity & you're free to run a cable to the aluminum smelter next door and make a killing. If not obvious, you should also buy your own toilet paper, instead of taking rolls from restaurant bathrooms "because it's free." Same for sugar, salt, pepper, and napkins. |
|
|
|
>you have an exchange for Beanie Babies
When people see Beanie "value rise 400% per year," they'll build exchanges. Same as Bitcoin.
>Being able to produce bitcoin by yourself is a very important aspect
Oh? You mean one can spend $100 to mine $20, that sort of a thing? Because that's roughly what non-factory miners can expect.
If you want, I could create Giant's Place, a Beanie Cloudmining website, where you can pretend that you're mining Beanies while I return $20 out of each $100 you give me.
How would that be different from Bitcoin?
At higher level of abstraction, these are good questions. From this point of view, all the financial products can be regarded as Beanie Babies for majority of the investors, you just need to find some way to promote its value and set up an exchange then you can pump and dump them That's exactly why bitcoin is different, since you can choose to mine bitcoin instead of purchasing it. Your figures of home mines' profitability is off. In fact many home miners have large advantage against industry miners, since they might have free electricity, or even use miners as a heating device, so that the running cost is almost zero, and they can use already ROIed hardware so that the initial cost is also zero My 400% price figure is just a metaphor, in reality the figures will be more likely in 20-50% range per year, this is still extremely high investment return so the most attracted users will be investors >all the financial products can be regarded as Beanie Babies for majority of the investors No. Most ponzi schemes, most in-game currencies, but not most financial products. Start learning about financial products here. >many home miners have large advantage against industry miners, since they might have free electricity No, there's no such thing as "free electricity," someone (your parents, your landlord, your school) is paying for it. Treating it as "free" is not much different than taking "free money" mom & dad leave unattended around the house. |
|
|
|
Is "400% per year" price growth likely for a currency costing $100 per transaction?
"Bitcoin 2.0: A Peer-to-Peer Electronic [Useless As] Cash System"?
Why do you want to use the blockchain directly when all you want is zero fee transaction? Why would I want to buy BTC period? To "store value"? Why not use Beanie Babies for that? How many BTC are there gonna be total, 21 mil? You know how many First Edition Princess Di Beanies there are? That's right, *fewer*. Moar scarcity. And while the 21 million could be changed on a whim, with a simple fork, there'll never be another First Edition Princess Di Beanie. By definition. Princess Di Beanie scarcity is guaranteed by logic, its value could not be diluted according to fundamental and unalterable metaphysical laws. "But how do you transact in Beanies? That's, like, the dumbest thing I ever heard!!" you protest. "Why do you want to use the Beaniestalk directly when all you want is zero fee transaction?" I reply. Beanies are not for transacting, use sidesprouts for that. Beanies are for storing massive amounts of wealth.  Sorry I never heard about Beanie Babies until last year, just like almost no one heard about bitcoin during 2009. But now there are so many exchanges out there to provide the bitcoin conversion to fiat currency world wide, if you have an exchange for Beanie Babies, it would also have its market value decided by the users Scarcity is one of the reason for bitcoin's value, but there are more to it. Being able to produce bitcoin by yourself is a very important aspect, this does not apply to Beanie Babies >you have an exchange for Beanie Babies When people see Beanie "value rise 400% per year," they'll build exchanges. Same as Bitcoin. >Being able to produce bitcoin by yourself is a very important aspect Oh? You mean one can spend $100 to mine $20, that sort of a thing? Because that's roughly what non-factory miners can expect. If you want, I could create Giant's Place, a Beanie Cloudmining website, where you can pretend that you're mining Beanies while I return $20 out of each $100 you give me. How would that be different from Bitcoin? |
|
|
|
Is "400% per year" price growth likely for a currency costing $100 per transaction?
"Bitcoin 2.0: A Peer-to-Peer Electronic [Useless As] Cash System"?
Why do you want to use the blockchain directly when all you want is zero fee transaction? Why would I want to buy BTC period? To "store value"? Why not use Beanie Babies for that? How many BTC are there gonna be total, 21 mil? You know how many First Edition Princess Di Beanies there are? That's right, *fewer*. Moar scarcity. And while the 21 million could be changed on a whim, with a simple fork, there'll never be another First Edition Princess Di Beanie. By definition. Princess Di Beanie scarcity is guaranteed by logic, its value could not be diluted according to fundamental and unalterable metaphysical laws. "But how do you transact in Beanies? That's, like, the dumbest thing I ever heard!!" you protest. "Why do you want to use the Beaniestalk directly when all you want is zero fee transaction?" I reply. Beanies are not for transacting, use sidesprouts for that. Beanies are for storing massive amounts of wealth. |
|
|
|
[...]
If bitcoin's value rise 400% per year and it is very expensive to transact in bitcoin (like 100 USD per transaction), I think everyone would still rush into bitcoin like there is no tomorrow. [...] Is "400% per year" price growth likely for a currency costing $100 per transaction? "Bitcoin 2.0: A Peer-to-Peer Electronic [Useless As] Cash System"? |
|
|
|
Civil engineer: Hey, Boss. Traffic on the bridge is increasing by 50% per month. Shouldn't we widen it?
Bureaucrat: Ha! That bridge has excess capacity. If traffic gets too high, we'll just increase the tolls. Most of those schmucks don't really need to go anywhere anyway.
Civil engineer: Do we know that for sure? What if there is an evacuation or something?
Bureaucrat: That bridge was intentionally designed with low capacity to prevent invasions! Widening it would be a dangerous departure from historic bridge operations.
Civil Engineer: Aren't bridges supposed to be used to facilitate travel?
Bureaucrat: Yes, but only the right sort of travel. That's for me to decide! If traffic gets too heavy, and tolls get too expensive, the people can use buses. Too many single passenger cars anyway.
Civil engineer: Do you own a bus company?
Bureaucrat: Purely coincidental! I'm just guarding against bridgebuilder centralization.
Civil engineer: I see. No conflict of interest there. What's the name of your company anyway, Busstream?
Bureaucrat: BridgestreamTM, Smartass.
Post of the month  |
|
|
|
That's illegal pretty much everywhere and therefore not allowed here.
Yeah but a lot of the offers in digital goods are clearly carded... They are not outright saying the accounts are carded/hacked/cracked though. The OP is outright saying that he is selling carded/stolen items and that is illegal. There is always the (remote) possibility that all the netflix/ect. accounts sold in digital goods are not carded - I would not recommend buying them though. Exactly. OP's only mistake is being honest about what he's doing. OP, how old are you? Go to digital goods, buy a trusted bitcointalk user account, stop being weird and try to blend FFS. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
