This thread is about the energy consumption of the Bitcoin network, not about new ways to produce electricity which may or may not be more renewable and/or less expensive than the standard ones. So please don't start this discussion again, unless you have a new answer to this simple question : https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=520977.msg7578061#msg7578061What question? My post above already answers the vague "See?" in the bottom of that post and you may notice I didn't mention wind in that and stuck to relatively stable methods that allow consistent operation. One for you in turn, why is it you attack any mention of renewable energy usage? Its starting to sound like you have some sort of agenda with this, that was a reply to a direct question on a relatively dead thread that's on-topic with the threads title. Minings energy consumption is considered a problem and every problem can be seen as an opportunity. Yep. Considering the OP still contains this major factual error. .. that the network consumes something like 600MW. That is one third of the electric capacity of the plant of Fessenheim that made the news today (in France)
|
|
|
|
|
2k dump on stamp takes it <$250 once more
|
|
|
|
When I look at the chart now I see a classic pump and dump.
This will go below $250 guaranteed. Just look and zoom out.
short-term possibly, but medium-term I see it building a platform at $300 for the next full-blown bull market. |
|
|
|
I sold my last coins at $293.
I'm out (trading acct only) at $285, but so much energy in the market now, can't see a retrace below 255-260 anymore... |
|
|
|
|
Stock is down to 1/469th, and 2^9 = 512, so it was cut in half nearly 9 times. That price of 1.5 must be the weight of pure distilled hopium.
|
|
|
|
And of course, my $289 sell order that I pulled would of been perfect Always this shit...   Dont worry you'll probably get another chance to sell at 289 on the next surge upwards At which point he will be gagging to re-buy at $310  |
|
|
|
so if I want troll you I just post here and you will see?
Yes, but you'll have to wait your turn, the line starts over there. Can I get your latest theory on how China caused this price rise please? China has been an anchor chain on Finex and Stamp throughout the rally. |
|
|
|
The interesting thing about professional trolls is that they help devs and investors think through every possible weakness and pitfall of the system, from the obvious to the far-fetched. So they too end up contributing.
For everything else there is the ignore button.
Its true. They're also the ultimate contra indicator. The higher the pitch, the more you buy. Yep. And while they are hating and trolling like tantrum-throwing teenagers right now, years later they will look back and realize what the adults know today. That the dip below $200 was the last opportunity for the ordinary person to load up with BTC in serious quantity. |
|
|
|
This is not a free speech issue, it is the same as the anti-social drunk who shows up in your club and starts abusing the clients, kicking tables and chairs around and defacing defecating on the walls warning people not to come back here ... why do we allow these people to stay here??
FTFY Just got to keep hammering the ignore button. |
|
|
|
LTC TO THE MOON.   |
|
|
|
it's really a simple thing. DO WE NEED IT? Is the current limit affecting us or not? Have we reached a point where it is not enough?
The answer depends upon whether a system is centralized or decentralized. When Psy's Gangnam Style "broke" the download counter on YouTube the developers could easily upgrade it after the event, even though they saw it was going to happen. Centralized system, fixed in one place. Very easy! With Bitcoin, the software is being run on many thousands of computers, owned by thousands of different people who have different opinions, speak different languages, have different priorities. If this change is delayed until it is obvious it is needed, then everyone has to upgrade, at once. Very messy! Remember that a YouTube counter is nothing important, but if large numbers of YouTubers were waiting hours or days to see a video then the service becomes total crap. That is the equivalent to the dismal PR scenario being faced here. |
|
|
|
Anyhow, it also seems Gavin is on the edge here with this whole thing, putting his legitimacy and authority as Bitcoin lead dev at risk if people in the end refuses to cope with the forked software.
Interesting times..
..., there is evidence what Satoshi thought about the max block size limit. Can't quote this often enough, it seems: The threshold can easily be changed in the future. We can decide to increase it when the time comes. It's a good idea to keep it lower as a circuit breaker and increase it as needed. If we hit the threshold now, it would almost certainly be some kind of flood and not actual use. Keeping the threshold lower would help limit the amount of wasted disk space in that event.
Conclusion: Whatever one's arguments for or against raising the limit are, leave Satoshi out of it. From what we can gather, he thought it's a total non-issue, a matter of spam reduction. Doesn't mean he's automatically right of course, but arguing against a relaxation of the limit by appeal to the creator's authority just doesn't fly given the evidence. There is no doubt that when Satoshi handed his role over to Gavin he demonstrated himself to be a very astute judge of character and ability. Gavin is continuing solidly with the vision that Satoshi had for his project. I have admiration for Peter Todd's crypocurrency development skills, but was very disappointed when he published his naive, noobie-fooling video. Greg Maxwell takes a thoughtful, conservative and measured approach, but I really wish he would make it clear whether he thinks Bitcoin should at least scale in line with the general level of improvement in computing technology for high-end home users. |
|
|
|
Some alt-coins are fading from the race. BTC-E is delisting three while it still has 40% of the exchange market in them. Terracoin was one of the earliest. Primecoin hashing was meant to do useful work besides secure its blockchain. https://btc-e.com/news/207 |
|
|
|
Due to its banking partnership, dollars kept on Gemini will be eligible for FDIC (Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation) insurance and are as "safe and secure as they are in your bank account today", the exchange claims."
Hmm... FDIC only insures bank deposits against bank failures, isn't that so? If the clients' dollar deposits are stored in a single bank account, in the name of Gemini (as most exchanges do), the FDIC will not insure the clients against Genesis screwing it up (as MtGOX did). Isn't that so? "FDIC insurance covers all deposit accounts, including: Checking accounts Savings accounts Money market deposit accounts Certificates of deposit FDIC insurance does not cover other financial products and services that banks may offer, such as stocks, bonds, mutual funds, life insurance policies, annuities or securities. The standard insurance amount is $250,000 per depositor, per insured bank, for each account ownership category." As with traditional exchanges what they insure is the balance in USD and not the products. This permits mom and pop to move 25k in RRSP 401k and other funding options. This is huge. And recently: Financial analyst, Ann Barnhardt, says that Citigroup is adding an astounding $10 trillion per quarter to its derivatives portfolio.
In the event of a drop in value, this now is covered by the FDIC, which transfers the high risk of derivatives to US taxpayers.http://investmentwatchblog.com/financial-analyst-ann-barnhardt-says-that-citigroup-is-adding-an-astounding-10-trillion-per-quarter-to-its-derivatives-portfolio/#x9jiOHpTCvEdWWEJ.99 |
|
|
|
It is only its future potential which gives it today's appearance of electronic gold.
No. Yes. Pretty much. Well rationally there is no way the present Bitcoin can win over a higher limit fork:
Step 1:
A. Gavin creates a higher limit BTC fork.
B. Anyone else does it.
Step 2:
Present network can never grow more than it is now, because we are already hitting the limits.
Step 3:
New system takes over by nature of being the biggest - which it cannot avoid becoming because it scales!
If step 3 happens then Bitcoin looks more like Auroracoin than gold. |
|
|
|
On a second thought, its better not hardfork at all, keeping the block limit at 1mb will create a competitive market for transaction and secure Bitcoin place as a pure electronic gold system, on other hand increasing the size of the blocks will mostly certain ensure a humiliating defeat for Bitcoin against a more efficient blockchain for payments and regular transactions.
I think this is a myth at small scales. Bitcoin needs to reach a critical mass first, at least handling the volumes of Mastercard, before it can be an electronic equivalent of gold. It is only its future potential which gives it today's appearance of electronic gold. The reason is that the software is open source, Bitcoin is finite but cryptocurrency is infinite, and there are already hundreds of copies. Not all of Litecoin, Solarcoin, Auroracoin, etc, can be electronic gold. Most will remain junk forever. |
|
|
|
I blacked out, what the hell happened!
The block size issue was resolved and implemented seamlessly. It was boring, don't worry. Yippee! Next stop, the moon.  |
|
|
|
Great stuff. "Since it’s inception, Bitcoin has been operating as if there was no block size limit at all.
If this limit is kept in place, then suddenly Bitcoin will be in uncharted economic territory."Further, since Core Dev is totally focused on making safe changes and testing as much as possible, allowing the block limit to be hit is the antithesis of their development approach. Once the limit is hit the event becomes the equivalent of foisting a massive untested change onto the entire network at once. The height of lunacy. |
|
|
|
 OK Coin Similar to what happened when the bear market ended at $65 after the $266 peak... |
|
|
|
Edit: Fees with different block-sizes (assuming 100µBTC/kB)
1MB=100mBTC
20MB=2BTC
56MB=5.6BTC
Those figures imply the fees won't be be significant until the block reward drops to 12.5 or 6.25 BTC/block. Note that the 2BTC figure is almost 10% at the current block subsidy (but the block-size is limited).
Nice to see your estimates. I have long thought about where the reward/fee crossover point is. Obviously it depends upon rate of tx growth, but 30-60MB seems likely to be the block size range. Agreed also that the block reward is still in the subsidize-to-grow-usage phase, tx fees are really useful just as an anti-spam measure. Beyond that, trying to force tx fees higher at this point only risks driving ecosystem business to alternative cryptocurrencies. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
