 Show Posts
|
|
Pages: [1] 2 3 »
|
On the 4100 orders, there is an estimated total of 4573 Jupiters, 2207 Saturns and 315 Mercury ordered.
What? So on the 4100 orders there are 7095 units...? You think the average order is 1.7 units? |
|
|
|
|
is 5 an absolute minimum? I really want to order 3...
|
|
|
|
|
if it smells like shit....
...it's probably shit.
|
|
|
|
I believe the price is connected to the expense of the total hash rate. recently we had very inexpensive hash rate added to the network.
inexpensive to the end user... very expensive to develop |
|
|
|
Why can't we all just agree on one thing for a change?  I didn't expect my topic to get this deep into discussion. I was merely shouting the obvious. Because weather or not you say they're related, you're wrong... it's splitting hairs really. To call your opinion obvious makes me question your ability to think critically. I think everyone (at least here on these forums) is well enough aware that the price isn't some sort of specific function of difficulty... they're independent systems, but they're extremely codependent correlated... The gold reference is a really good example that is often misconstrued. There is only a fixed amount of gold on the planet (like BTC) Mining techniques and technology limit the availability speed at which we acquire gold. Bitcoin has some significant advantages over gold, as a form of currency, rather than stored value. While large mining farms can be hooked up, just like large real-life mines... nobody can (at this point anyway) lay claim to large veins of gold, and use fences/laws/guns to protect it while they take their sweet time digigng it up. To use a really shitty minecraft reference, it's no more or less likely that you or I find a block with the same tool... what matters is the tools. People would not develop ASIC's if they didn't think they'd get a return on their development. The real geniuses here are the ones selling the asic's for prices that may and/or may not warrant an equal return in BTC... it keeps the idea of buying one tantalizing and so many of us are driven to take big risks for big rewards. To my knowledge, none of the ASIC companies have really revealed the costs involved (which are probably quite large, I am sure) so there is really no way for us to know (aside from speculate) about their profit margins... for all wee know every BFL rig could be turning a 500% profit margin over the R&D and production costs. If they slashed their prices in half, we too might see returns in bitcoin. On the flip side, slashed prices means that the demand for them would be higher, thus they would have to produce more, which would in turn lower their profit margins. Why is all of this related to difficulty? Because the only reason people even fathomed developing ASIC's in the first place was in attempt to combat the rising difficulty. You can't apply conventional economics to a system that strives and is built from the ground up to be absolutely nothing like a conventional economy.... what's beautiful about the price/difficulty ratio is this: Bitcoin price reacts to difficulty, and mining difficulty reacts to price. Since they are both reactionary (for a lot of reasons I won't bore you with listing here) you can see that in the long term and independent of large central authorities (exchanges/online wallet services, which I hope eventually die off) it means the relative value of BTC to physical fiat will keep going up until we've reached near the end of our mining period. |
|
|
|
As a worst case scenario, you could use paypal and use a debit card on paypal (which activates instantly) |
|
|
|
If only there was such a thing as a proxy server to relay communications from remote locations... then perhaps we could make it look like they were all coming from one address...
or perhaps such a technology already exists, and is being used in the opposite manner?!
They are not Tor exit nodes if that is what you are suggesting, I already checked that. I was thinking perhaps someone with the resources to rack up $200K in bitcoin in less than 3 months might be able to host a few boxes around the world to relay block remotely. |
|
|
|
I know who it is  Good work detectives. I bet you don't know, as the block are coming from all around the world. If only there was such a thing as a proxy server to relay communications from remote locations... then perhaps we could make it look like they were all coming from one address... or perhaps such a technology already exists, and is being used in the opposite manner?! |
|
|
|
Some interesting information.... I was able to get bitcoin to paypal in less than 30 minutes... but my paypal transaction wasn't handled by anything that looked even remotely like bitinstant. In fact, look here:  Something fishy is going on... I don't think I'll be using bitinstant until I see more reasoning as to why this place is paying me when I pay bitinstant. Also, I somehow obtained an extra 21 cents (victory!) http://www.virwox.com/paypal has a big no-no to exchange type services, which I did not think bitinstant had portrayed itself to be. However since bitinstant is not the company that initiated this paypal transaction I'm not sure if they're liable if I get boned by virwox. |
|
|
|
Why is it that all of these predictions assume a fixed price per BTC...?
How would your graph look if at 150,000,000 difficulty that BTC is trading at $400/coin?
It's not fixed. You can change the BTC price to whatever you want. It's just defaulted to the current price. Yes but your speculation on loss of profitability stems entirely from using that fixed price point. |
|
|
|
|
Why is it that all of these predictions assume a fixed price per BTC...?
How would your graph look if at 150,000,000 difficulty that BTC is trading at $400/coin?
|
|
|
|
So lets forecast from there shall we! Starting @ 0.0104 BTC and $1.27 profit a day for the first 10 days. 1 month profit $38. 3 month profit $90. 1 year profit $155!
M
And $155 * 45 devices = $6975 presuming the price of bitcion doesn't go up.. (why wouldn't it?) what if it rises to ~250/coin stabily? then his profit margin is that much higher. Or we can even use some psuedo-math and presume that it will generate about 79 cents/hour 24/7/365 at the current price and assuming your difficulty increases. Takes money to make money. |
|
|
|
|
1 BTC is worh some quality 16GB of RAM
|
|
|
|
This was meant to be an interesting (and hostile sometimes) exchange with someone who is convinced bitcoin is a scam because what he reads about economists saying... then he removed all of his comments. So instead, check out this video if it hasn't been posted yet! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v4pJwUeNFk8If this isn't the right section for this, someone please move it. Edit: Oh crap, it seems he's deleted a lot of his comments. Edit2: haha... he's removed them all, what a pity, updated title/OP |
|
|
|
Contrary to your contrary there is no correlation between price and difficulty, there is a correlation between difficulty and price ( in this case order matters ).
You are confused. The word you are looking for is "causation". You want to say that correlation does not imply causation. In other words, the fact that A and B are correlated does not imply that A causes B or that B causes A. Price and difficulty are highly correlated. Just look at the graphs. It is pretty obvious. Keep in mind that totally unrelated things can be correlated (that's called a coincidence).Anyway, it is easy to make the case that price influences difficulty: If the price goes up, more people mine and the difficulty goes up. If the price goes down, less people mine, and difficulty goes down. It is not so easy to make the case that difficulty influences price, though you could make this case: difficulty and price are both influenced by interest in bitcoin. Can you list any other coincidences that have been going on for 4+ years with predictable results? I'm not trying to say that network hashrate specifically dictates BTC trade price (last month's bubble is an obvious example) but to say they aren't related is just bogus. I think you stopped reading when I mentioned that unrelated correlation is the definition of the word "coincidence". I also think it is possible that hash rate and price influence each other (in other words, the causal relationship goes both ways), but I haven't seen a good case made for hash rate influencing price. I believe they are correlated, perhaps even to the point of codependent.... a bit of the chicken/egg conundrum... price is affected by difficulty, and difficulty is affected by price. Discerning difficulty from hash rate is just ignorant, difficulty is defined by hash rate, I just took the extra step out of the equation in the OP. As for them being a co incidence, no I do not think so.. Coincidences are things that happen to occur simultaneously whilst having no codependency or correlation. A coincidence (often stated as a mere coincidence) is a collection of two or more events or conditions, closely related by time, space, form, or other associations which appear unlikely to bear a relationship as either cause to effect or effects of a shared cause, within the observer's or observers' understanding of what cause can produce what effects. EDIT: I realize that systematically, that price and hash rate have no relation... a price is not explicitly set by how much power is on the network.. that's obviously implied |
|
|
|
|
bumping again, i know this card can do 420+mhash...
also turns out what I thought was a 6870 is actually a restickered 5870
|
|
|
|
Contrary to your contrary there is no correlation between price and difficulty, there is a correlation between difficulty and price ( in this case order matters ).
You are confused. The word you are looking for is "causation". You want to say that correlation does not imply causation. In other words, the fact that A and B are correlated does not imply that A causes B or that B causes A. Price and difficulty are highly correlated. Just look at the graphs. It is pretty obvious. Keep in mind that totally unrelated things can be correlated (that's called a coincidence).Anyway, it is easy to make the case that price influences difficulty: If the price goes up, more people mine and the difficulty goes up. If the price goes down, less people mine, and difficulty goes down. It is not so easy to make the case that difficulty influences price, though you could make this case: difficulty and price are both influenced by interest in bitcoin. Can you list any other coincidences that have been going on for 4+ years with predictable results? I'm not trying to say that network hashrate specifically dictates BTC trade price (last month's bubble is an obvious example) but to say they aren't related is just bogus. |
|
|
|
|
I have no doubts the ASIC miners will turn larger profits, but I don't think it will negate GPU mining at all..
The jump from CPU -> GPU in terms of hash rate (not effeciency) was almost literally 100 fold... the jump from GPU's to ASIC's is looking to be only about 10 fold.
In that a ~$300 cpu would get you ~5mhash OC'd to the max, a ~$300 video card would get you ~500mhash OC'd to the max, and these new ~$300 ASIC miners will only get you 5000mhash. In terms from the step up from CPU's it almost seems like a rip off... BTC's price saw a steady jump with the advent of GPU mining as it became more difficult and more $ was invested per btc turned out, in spite of the fact that BTC was still churned out at the same rate.... I think we will see the same with ASIC's.
|
|
|
|
And increating the hash rate doesn't increase the demand?
Increasing the Hashrate will increase the supply which normally lowers prices, but as bitcions are accepted at more places everyday, demand increases which has an upward effect on the price. No, I'm pretty sure the difficulty adjustment is to secure the supply at a fixed rate, it's built that way. I still stand by my hypothesis that more hash rate means more demand because there are more hashes (depend) being put into each block found... thus making each bitcoin effectively more scarce... While the rate of generation is constant, the effort put into them is far greater. Where block/hour remains fairly constant, hash per block goes up. Difficulty 10,000,000. ~90Thash (pulling numbers out my ass) = the preferred 10 mins/block where at difficulty 50,000,000 450 Thash = 10mins/block When you break it down, each has nets you less of a bitcoin... irregardless of power usage/efficiencies. That alone I do believe (especially considering the numerous users who don't even mine, but just trade BTC) will drive the overall price of BTC up. |
|
|
|
|
And increating the hash rate doesn't increase the demand?
|
|
|
|
|
