Puppet
Legendary
 Offline
Activity: 980
Merit: 1040
|
 |
February 09, 2013, 11:29:41 PM |
|
Unlike me, back in the days, where I thought the market will tolerate reasonable value for the BTC of not more than 100% of the mining cost
You really really dont understand how it works.... Im baffled. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"Bitcoin: the cutting edge of begging technology." -- Giraffe.BTC
|
|
|
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction.
|
Spaceman_Spiff
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1638
Merit: 1001
₪``Campaign Manager´´₪
|
|
February 09, 2013, 11:39:48 PM |
|
OK, it has never been my intention to force my opinion to anyone - I was merely replying to the OP's poll and arguing my view. As I stated, that was my thumb suck, and nothing else.
I am comfortable with my knowledge, I started mining with a single CPU, then moved along with the technology, well, I always ensured to stay way ahead of it. Currently I am mining with FPGAs (very profitably, FYI) and soon I will have considerable hash-rates thanks to the AISCs I will deploy. I've planned that right, and as usual, I will enjoying the results of my plans.
But you people should not worry about me being right or wrong - it is quite easy to determine if I am wrong - you just have to wait a year or two.
Fortunately, most of the ones who called the raise of BTC to over [insert your favourite unreasonable value here] will be long gone by the year end, similar to the ones who "predicted" in June 2011 that the BTC will be worth over $100 before the year end, or the others who stated that the BTC will be worth $millions by the time of the decade and one could buy a house with a single Bitcoin.
Unlike me, back in the days, where I thought the market will tolerate reasonable value for the BTC of not more than 100% of the mining cost - so we ended up with BTC=$5 and I made quite a profit with that.
So I rest my case.
I am quite sure you don't understand what determines BTC prices, or how mining competition works, but good for you that you turned a nice profit. May you continue to do so in the future while securing the network. |
|
|
|
|
Piper67
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1106
Merit: 1001
|
|
February 10, 2013, 12:48:01 AM |
|
OK, it has never been my intention to force my opinion to anyone - I was merely replying to the OP's poll and arguing my view. As I stated, that was my thumb suck, and nothing else.
I am comfortable with my knowledge, I started mining with a single CPU, then moved along with the technology, well, I always ensured to stay way ahead of it. Currently I am mining with FPGAs (very profitably, FYI) and soon I will have considerable hash-rates thanks to the AISCs I will deploy. I've planned that right, and as usual, I will enjoying the results of my plans.
But you people should not worry about me being right or wrong - it is quite easy to determine if I am wrong - you just have to wait a year or two.
Fortunately, most of the ones who called the raise of BTC to over [insert your favourite unreasonable value here] will be long gone by the year end, similar to the ones who "predicted" in June 2011 that the BTC will be worth over $100 before the year end, or the others who stated that the BTC will be worth $millions by the time of the decade and one could buy a house with a single Bitcoin.
Unlike me, back in the days, where I thought the market will tolerate reasonable value for the BTC of not more than 100% of the mining cost - so we ended up with BTC=$5 and I made quite a profit with that.
So I rest my case.
I am quite sure you don't understand what determines BTC prices, or how mining competition works, but good for you that you turned a nice profit. May you continue to do so in the future while securing the network. I'm not sure whether the fact that he'll continue making a profit without understanding how Bitcoin works is good or bad  |
|
|
|
|
Spaceman_Spiff
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1638
Merit: 1001
₪``Campaign Manager´´₪
|
|
February 10, 2013, 12:56:34 AM |
|
I'm not sure whether the fact that he'll continue making a profit without understanding how Bitcoin works is good or bad Another competitor in securing the network. All good in my book. |
|
|
|
|
|
BitcoinRate.com
|
|
February 10, 2013, 09:20:01 AM |
|
Voted between 100 and 500 seeing the general trend of the last months...
|
|
|
|
|
drakahn
|
|
February 10, 2013, 09:22:53 AM |
|
If we extrapolate from the last few weeks to over the next two years... we'll be over 9000 in no time :p
|
14ga8dJ6NGpiwQkNTXg7KzwozasfaXNfEU
|
|
|
|
BitcoinRate.com
|
|
February 10, 2013, 09:25:48 AM |
|
If we extrapolate from the last few weeks to over the next two years... we'll be over 9000 in no time :p
True, but I don't think this January growth can really last for two years  |
|
|
|
|
gopher
|
|
February 10, 2013, 09:49:13 PM |
|
Having (being bored, I guess) participated in this poll, I found the irrational speculation about the price of Bitcoin in two years to be quite meaningless.
To challenge the "intellect" of the people in this tread who know how Bitcoin works, I propose we start speculating on when (month, year) the transactional fee will exceed the block reward.
In my humble view, at that time the average individual-mining-profitability will stop determining the price of the Bitcoin. Instead, the average pool-profitability (solo-miners included) will start determining the price of Bitcoin.
And of course, in time, the transaction fee will exceed the pitiful BTC 25 (or who knows, BTC 12.5? BTC 6.25?) one gets as a reward to solve a block, hopefully reaching the astronomical figures everyone dreams about.
How about 1% transaction fee, and how many transaction could be included into a 1MB block? Everyone should be able to calculate this simple problem. I am sure the people in the know will celebrate that moment like their is no tomorrow!
But hopefully, at that same moment, the Network would have gained good, solid substance and the market-maker traders will decide to join and start playing yo-yo with the (proper size this time) market.
Methinks, good for them.
Too bad for the pigs, though, they will get slaughtered again.
Nothing new under the sky.
|
|
|
|
|
notme
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1904
Merit: 1002
|
|
February 10, 2013, 09:51:41 PM |
|
Having (being bored, I guess) participated in this poll, I found the irrational speculation about the price of Bitcoin in two years to be quite meaningless.
To challenge the "intellect" of the people in this tread who know how Bitcoin works, I propose we start speculating on when (month, year) the transactional fee will exceed the block reward.
In my humble view, at that time the average individual-mining-profitability will stop determining the price of the Bitcoin. Instead, the average pool-profitability (solo-miners included) will start determining the price of Bitcoin.
And of course, in time, the transaction fee will exceed the pitiful BTC 25 (or who knows, BTC 12.5? BTC 6.25?) one gets as a reward to solve a block, hopefully reaching the astronomical figures everyone dreams about.
How about 1% transaction fee, and how many transaction could be included into a 1MB block? Everyone should be able to calculate this simple problem. I am sure the people in the know will celebrate that moment like their is no tomorrow!
But hopefully, at that same moment, the Network would have gained good, solid substance and the market-maker traders will decide to join and start playing yo-yo with the (proper size this time) market.
Methinks, good for them.
Too bad for the pigs, though, they will get slaughtered again.
Nothing new under the sky.
Usually when you want to talk about something completely unrelated to the OP you start a new thread. Instead, you seem to have called this thread pointless and are attempting to start a new topic in its place. |
|
|
|
|
gopher
|
|
February 10, 2013, 10:15:08 PM |
|
Usually when you want to talk about something completely unrelated to the OP you start a new thread. Instead, you seem to have called this thread pointless and are attempting to start a new topic in its place.
Sure, I went on a tangent here. But it was not me who started this off-topic argument. I stayed strictly on-topic until the idiots chirped-in with their [whatever you call that]. My apologies to the OP, I should not have called your tread meaningless, I apologise again. |
|
|
|
|
|
enquirer
|
|
February 11, 2013, 12:09:21 AM |
|
Fair value of a bitcoin = (cost of all mining equipment) * 0.51 / (number of bitcoins in existence) ~= $20M*0.51/11M ~= $1
Because this is what it costs to destroy the bitcoin. Would you risk investing $100 into something that could be destroyed for the cost of $1, without any risk of legal action or war, as with fiat currencies?
Satoshi argued that if anyone had the resources to launch a 51% attack, she will be better off just mining bitcoins and profiting from it. The fallacy here is that profit and double-spending are attacker's only motive. But there could be a lot of more powerful motives to destroy the bitcoin. A competing blockchain. VISA and PayPal. War on drugs. War on tax evasion and money laundering.
|
|
|
|
|
|
meanig
|
|
February 11, 2013, 12:16:50 AM |
|
Fair value of a bitcoin = (cost of all mining equipment) * 0.51 / (number of bitcoins in existence) ~= $20M*0.51/11M ~= $1
Because this is what it costs to destroy the bitcoin. Would you risk investing $100 into something that could be destroyed for the cost of $1, without any risk of legal action or war, as with fiat currencies?
Satoshi argued that if anyone had the resources to launch a 51% attack, she will be better off just mining bitcoins and profiting from it. The fallacy here is that profit and double-spending are attacker's only motive. But there could be a lot of more powerful motives to destroy the bitcoin. A competing blockchain. VISA and PayPal. War on drugs. War on tax evasion and money laundering.
If you wanted to do a 51% attack you'd have to have as much mining equipment as the rest of the network combined. That would change your very tenuous equation to Fair value of a bitcoin = (cost of all mining equipment) / (number of bitcoins in existence) ~= $20M/11M ~= $2 |
|
|
|
|
justusranvier
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1400
Merit: 1009
|
|
February 11, 2013, 12:17:53 AM |
|
The Labor Theory of Value is still wrong.
|
|
|
|
|
|
enquirer
|
|
February 11, 2013, 12:18:28 AM |
|
Fair value of a bitcoin = (cost of all mining equipment) * 0.51 / (number of bitcoins in existence) ~= $20M*0.51/11M ~= $1
Because this is what it costs to destroy the bitcoin. Would you risk investing $100 into something that could be destroyed for the cost of $1, without any risk of legal action or war, as with fiat currencies?
Satoshi argued that if anyone had the resources to launch a 51% attack, she will be better off just mining bitcoins and profiting from it. The fallacy here is that profit and double-spending are attacker's only motive. But there could be a lot of more powerful motives to destroy the bitcoin. A competing blockchain. VISA and PayPal. War on drugs. War on tax evasion and money laundering.
If you wanted to do a 51% attack you'd have to have as much mining equipment as the rest of the network combined. That would change your very tenuous equation to Fair value of a bitcoin = (cost of all mining equipment) / (number of bitcoins in existence) ~= $20M/11M ~= $2 Agree ) |
|
|
|
|
|
enquirer
|
|
February 11, 2013, 12:30:38 AM |
|
Not saying this will always be the case. In distant future maybe bitcoin will become universally adopted, and some very powerful entities will stand to defend it. Mining for profit will no longer be the main motive. In this case, maybe only 1% of miners will be online consuming power, with 99% sitting in reserve ready to divert an attack. And a fleet of F-1515 tachionic interceptors ready to nuke malicious miners ...
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poll
