Wall Observer BTC/USD - Bitcoin price movement tracking & discussion

[ChartBuddy]

Explanation

[1715455637]

1715455637

[1715455637]

1715455637

[1715455637]

1715455637

[1715455637]

1715455637

[jonoiv]

Does anybody also have a bad feeling about this? The Chinese will continue dumping for years...
At least we know now who the wall guys are.

http://www.thecoinsman.com/2014/08/bitcoin/inside-one-worlds-largest-bitcoin-mines/

3600 coins are 3600 coins, and it doesn't matter whether they are mined on some guys phone or a wall of silicon a mile high.  But the guy who has to buy the mountain of silicon is a lot less likely to sell them for peanuts.

Even one location like this is NOT going to mine all of the coins... maybe 30% at best, no?

It's possibly 18% IE the "unknown" mining operation.   However some could be minded via a pool, to hide the true hash power.  Or it could be discus fish.


https://blockchain.info/pools

O.k. From our understanding, the article was referring to a bitcoin mining location that was NOT even open yet; however, the bitcoin mining location was anticipated to contain four warehouses full of mining equipment and to be "one of" the largest in China. 

 I know that this is the speculation thread and all, but really,  if the location is one of the largest, but there are more similar sized ones, we have no real knowledge of how much of the bitcoin mining it currently takes nor how much mining power it will take 6 months from now or 1 year from now.  They seemed to indicate that each warehouse took about 30 days to put into place, but in the end, I remained unclear about whether any of the mining locations, at that spot were currently operational. 

Even when it is all open, could such a location mine more than 30 % of the bitcoins, unless it is conglomerated with other locations?

Well the article states that the temperature is reasonable at  25 "degrees (77 °F)."  That seems to suggest it's running.   and certain clues as to the GH/s of the entire setup can be made from the info given.   The simplest being $1,000,000 a month in electric.   If you say the best asics are at 0.7 Watts per GH.  and the older Asics are about 3 Watts per GH,  then you could assume an average of 1.5 Watts per GHs.  all you need then is the pric of electricity in China and to have a ball park figure.

Another way would be to say from the picture and the mix of machines, you could estimate maybe approx 3TH per square meter  @ 3000 would be very roughly 9PH.  So 4 warehouses would be 36PH / 20% of total hash (close to the 18%)

It's very unlikely that the vast majority of the asics are not already running.  As there is a good chance many of the asics are already run at a loss.  turning them on at the same time makes no sense.  Also there is a good chance some of the photos are shopped.  ". I was asked not to post photos of the construction."   additionally the writer says "150 meters in length, by perhaps 20 meters wide" of the photos look like the buildings are about 7 x 21 meters making 150 square meters.  

On further reading I say the article is just BS.  If genuine, and each "3000" square meter warehouse has inside, $60,000,000 of EQ.  so in total it's about $250,000,000 setup currently run at a loss.  

Maybe it's real but I don't buy it. Especailly as if "secret" in China, it would send out a massive heat signature and the authorities would think they are growing cannabis in those buildings.  

[JorgeStolfi]

Thanks for the thought, but indeed I am profoundly uninterested on any vote-from-home proposal.  That is like a water-powered car or a gamma-ray fly killer: a bad idea in itself, independently of the technical details.  I will not waste time reading such proposals.

It's not clear to me why you seem to think that this technology could only be used to vote from home.

Not in general, but in many cases that is a necessary goal (because, if votes were to be cast only in special voting places, such systems have few advantages over the existing paper-backed e-voting systems, and several disadvantages).

People learn to trust technology they don't understand all the time, both from necessity and from convenience.  Most people don't understand ANY technology, really.

That is what the TSE always says: "if people trust ATM machines and home banking, why shouldn't they trust DRE machines"?

The point, of course, is that people do not trust those technologies, they trust the entities that manage them (the banks).  Customers believe that their bank is committed to preventing fraud and prosecuting hackers.  They believe that the bank itself will take good care of their passwords and will not tamper with their accounts to steal their money (since it has plenty of fully legal ways of doing the latter  )

In an election, on the other hand, one cannot blindly trust the entity that runs the system.  The stakes are so big that, if insider fraud is possible, it will almost certainly happen.

More generally, people trust technology that they do not understand (from cars to smartphones), in the physical sense of not blowing up, because the experience of many people have proved them to be physically safe.  Such "empirical"' certification does not exist for e-voting systems. 

[Omikifuse]

Around 1k bitcoins dump to reach the sub 500 level, while huge walls prevent us to reach the up 515 level.

Seems we are in the dance over a tiny frozen lake mode again.

[jl2012]

As there is a good chance many of the asics are already run at a loss.  

This is statement is unfounded at all. Electricity could be very cheap in some part of China

Maybe it's real but I don't buy it. Especailly as if "secret" in China, it would send out a massive heat signature and the authorities would think they are growing cannabis in those buildings.  

So what? The police will just find a computer farm instead of a cannabis farm.

[xyzzy099]

Thanks for the thought, but indeed I am profoundly uninterested on any vote-from-home proposal.  That is like a water-powered car or a gamma-ray fly killer: a bad idea in itself, independently of the technical details.  I will not waste time reading such proposals.

It's not clear to me why you seem to think that this technology could only be used to vote from home.

Not in general, but in many cases that is a necessary goal (because, if votes were to be cast only in special voting places, such systems have few advantages over the existing paper-backed e-voting systems, and several disadvantages).

People learn to trust technology they don't understand all the time, both from necessity and from convenience.  Most people don't understand ANY technology, really.

That is what the TSE always says: "if people trust ATM machines and home banking, why shouldn't they trust DRE machines"?

The point, of course, is that people do not trust those technologies, they trust the entities that manage them (the banks).  Customers believe that their bank is committed to preventing fraud and prosecuting hackers.  They believe that the bank itself will take good care of their passwords and will not tamper with their accounts to steal their money (since it has plenty of fully legal ways of doing the latter  )

In an election, on the other hand, one cannot blindly trust the entity that runs the system.  The stakes are so big that, if insider fraud is possible, it will almost certainly happen.

More generally, people trust technology that they do not understand (from cars to smartphones), in the physical sense of not blowing up, because the experience of many people have proved them to be physically safe.  Such "empirical"' certification does not exist for e-voting systems.  

Well, the whole point of blockchain-based technology is precisely that it takes trust out of the equation completely.  I think maybe you really should read up on this and try to understand it - you are a CS guy primarily, right?

I realize that I resolved to leave you alone on this issue earlier, so now I will be true to my word.  I think there is really something here that you might find interesting if you would but deign to look into it seriously, but I will not press the issue further.

[findftp]

We just gettin' started, don't panic.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sVReXN2sFck

What a bunch of shit sounds mixed together.
If a waste bin could make noise, this would be it.

[adamstgBit]

is it ever going to pop? O_o

so exciting

[CoinsCoinsEverywhere]

It's very unlikely that the vast majority of the asics are not already running.  As there is a good chance many of the asics are already run at a loss.  turning them on at the same time makes no sense.

Just because running older ASICs results in a loss right now doesn't mean that it would end up being a loss later.  If you really believe that the price of bitcoin is going to go up significantly, running old hardware now still makes sense as a speculative bet.

[adamstgBit]

It's very unlikely that the vast majority of the asics are not already running.  As there is a good chance many of the asics are already run at a loss.  turning them on at the same time makes no sense.

Just because running older ASICs results in a loss right now doesn't mean that it would end up being a loss later.  If you really believe that the price of bitcoin is going to go up significantly, running old hardware now still makes sense as a speculative bet.

makes more sense turn them off and buy tho.

[jonoiv]

As there is a good chance many of the asics are already run at a loss.  

This is statement is unfounded at all. Electricity could be very cheap in some part of China

Maybe it's real but I don't buy it. Especailly as if "secret" in China, it would send out a massive heat signature and the authorities would think they are growing cannabis in those buildings.  

So what? The police will just find a computer farm instead of a cannabis farm.

http://translate.google.co.uk/translate?hl=en&sl=zh-CN&u=http://www.360doc.com/relevant/212102353_more.shtml&prev=/search%3Fq%3D%25E4%25B8%25AD%25E5%259C%258B%25E9%259B%25BB%25E5%258A%259B%25E6%2588%2590%25E6%259C%25AC%26client%3Dfirefox-a%26hs%3Dzmj%26rls%3Dorg.mozilla:en-US:official%26channel%3Drcs

1.00 USD    =    6.14322 CNY

1 CNY = 0.16 cent

very low cost electricy in china is about 0.5 CNY (8 cent per KW/h)

even if the price of EQ is $2000 per TH and it the most effienet machine @ 0.7 watts per GH then it's still run at a loss and at current rates would never break even.  Even if the EQ was free, and it's the most efficient Asic available it would still only be making $12 a month by December (at current difficulty increase).   Similar conditions (only more extreme) than October last year.  BTC is very undervalued.


As for the authorities, finding such an operation I suspect the tax man might be interested, I doubt they would just walk away after finding a 1/4 of a billion $ setup.  

[ChartBuddy]

Explanation

[NotLambchop]

...
Well, the whole point of blockchain-based technology is precisely that it takes trust out of the equation completely...

He brought up several interesting points which you might have missed.  I'll try to put them in different wrappers, hopefully not losing the meaning in the process.

1.  Assume a magical black box which, when the "press" button is pressed, prints out the *exact* result of an election.  Also assume that it is the definitive Black Box--while the result is [by definition] invariably correct, no one knows how it works.  It's a hypothetical, accept everything above as a given.
What do you think the odds of such a thing becoming the accepted method of national elections?  

2.  People do not trust technology--they don't understand it.  They do not understand most of modern technology, including simple stuff like ATMs, but they do not need to trust it--they trust the agencies behind it (banks, in case of ATMs).  This may be absurd, but that's how it is.  There is no similar agency backing the blockchain, and Joe Sixpack has a natural distrust of eggheads.

3.  Recounts.  There is little to suggest that a recount in conventional elections would produce results more accurate than the initial tallying.  But it makes people feel better.  Those tangible slips of paper, as ridiculous and flawed as they are, are used even when a purely digital apparatus recording choices directly from a keyboard to electronic storage (like a hugely-redundant RAID or something) would be cheaper, more convenient, and [provably] more reliable.  Go figure, but that's how it is.

[rebuilder]

The coinsman article says the operation currently accounts for "perhaps 5 % of the total network". Taking that claim at face value, that's 180 BTC per day, or 5400 a month, 2,700,000 USD at current rates. Minus electricity, 1,700,000 USD is left to cover other costs and startup expenses if the price remains stable (ha!). Is that reasonable? I don't know.

[adamstgBit]

the count down never stopped, wall be damned.
4

[jl2012]

As there is a good chance many of the asics are already run at a loss.  

This is statement is unfounded at all. Electricity could be very cheap in some part of China

Maybe it's real but I don't buy it. Especailly as if "secret" in China, it would send out a massive heat signature and the authorities would think they are growing cannabis in those buildings.  

So what? The police will just find a computer farm instead of a cannabis farm.

http://translate.google.co.uk/translate?hl=en&sl=zh-CN&u=http://www.360doc.com/relevant/212102353_more.shtml&prev=/search%3Fq%3D%25E4%25B8%25AD%25E5%259C%258B%25E9%259B%25BB%25E5%258A%259B%25E6%2588%2590%25E6%259C%25AC%26client%3Dfirefox-a%26hs%3Dzmj%26rls%3Dorg.mozilla:en-US:official%26channel%3Drcs

1.00 USD    =    6.14322 CNY

1 CNY = 0.16 cent

very low cost electricy in china is about 0.5 CNY (8 cent per KW/h)

even if the price of EQ is $2000 per TH and it the most effienet machine @ 0.7 watts per GH then it's still run at a loss and at current rates would never break even.  Even if the EQ was free, and it's the most efficient Asic available it would still only be making $12 a month by December (at current difficulty increase).   Similar conditions (only more extreme) than October last year.  BTC is very undervalued.


As for the authorities, finding such an operation I suspect the tax man might be interested, I doubt they would just walk away after finding a 1/4 of a billion $ setup.  

If that's true no one in China (and most parts of the world, actually) should be mining, as they could get more bitcoin by simply buying from the market.

[xyzzy099]

...
Well, the whole point of blockchain-based technology is precisely that it takes trust out of the equation completely...

He brought up several interesting points which you might have missed.  I'll try to put them in different wrappers, hopefully not losing the meaning in the process.

1.  Assume a magical black box which, when the "press" button is pressed, prints out the *exact* result of an election.  Also assume that it is the definitive Black Box--while the result is [by definition] invariably correct, no one knows how it works.  It's a hypothetical, accept everything above as a given.
What do you think the odds of such a thing becoming the accepted method of national elections?  

I don't know the answer to that question.  It may be unlikely, or maybe not so much.  It may very well be that people will never accept such a thing, but clearly, blockchain-based voting is at least worth exploring.  The potential upside is truly free and fair elections.  The potential down side is that every thing stays the same.  I know there are plenty who would fight to maintain the status quo, even if this technology was 100% proven and workable, so it will definitely be an uphill battle.

2.  People do not trust technology--they don't understand it.  They do not understand most of modern technology, including simple stuff like ATMs, but they do not need to trust it--they trust the agencies behind it (banks, in case of ATMs).  This may be absurd, but that's how it is.  There is no similar agency backing the blockchain, and Joe Sixpack has a natural distrust of eggheads.

I disagree.  First of all, I'd say that ATMs are really kind of a bad example.  People mostly just use them to access cash they already own, and there is not a lot of trust required.  I know lots of people who still will not deposit money in an ATM, because they specifically DON'T trust them.

People trust their experience, and the anecdotal experience of others, when it comes to technology.  I don't particularly trust banks, and I have actually had at least one bad experience where an ATM network problem caused debits to be charged against my account, when I tried and failed to withdraw money several times, even though I did not receive any cash - but I still feel pretty confident using ATMs, because, in my experience, and the experience of most everyone I know, an ATM will do what I expect it to do 99.9% of the time.

3.  Recounts.  There is little to suggest that a recount in conventional elections would produce results more accurate than the initial tallying.  But it makes people feel better.  Those tangible slips of paper, as ridiculous and flawed as they are, are used even when a purely digital apparatus recording choices directly from a keyboard to electronic storage (like a hugely-redundant RAID or something) would be cheaper, more convenient, and [provably] more reliable.  Go figure, but that's how it is.

See above.  Maybe it will never work - maybe you are right that no one will ever trust it, maybe the current powers-that-be will never allow a system they cannot control.  But it is a no-brainer for those of us who would honestly like to see 100% free and fair election that it is something that should be explored.

[oda.krell]

...
Well, the whole point of blockchain-based technology is precisely that it takes trust out of the equation completely...

He brought up several interesting points which you might have missed.  I'll try to put them in different wrappers, hopefully not losing the meaning in the process.

1.  Assume a magical black box which, when the "press" button is pressed, prints out the *exact* result of an election.  Also assume that it is the definitive Black Box--while the result is [by definition] invariably correct, no one knows how it works.  It's a hypothetical, accept everything above as a given.
What do you think the odds of such a thing becoming the accepted method of national elections?  

2.  People do not trust technology--they don't understand it.  They do not understand most of modern technology, including simple stuff like ATMs, but they do not need to trust it--they trust the agencies behind it (banks, in case of ATMs).  This may be absurd, but that's how it is.  There is no similar agency backing the blockchain, and Joe Sixpack has a natural distrust of eggheads.

3.  Recounts.  There is little to suggest that a recount in conventional elections would produce results more accurate than the initial tallying.  But it makes people feel better.  Those tangible slips of paper, as ridiculous and flawed as they are, are used even when a purely digital apparatus recording choices directly from a keyboard to electronic storage (like a hugely-redundant RAID or something) would be cheaper, more convenient, and [provably] more reliable.  Go figure, but that's how it is.

Or, to summarize all the points: Let's not try to improve living conditions through rational insight, because the irrational fears of what is possibly a majority of the population would be offended by the improvements at first.

(Not attacking you, NotLambchop. Just the message you relay :D)

[ChartBuddy]

Explanation

[xyzzy099]

...
Well, the whole point of blockchain-based technology is precisely that it takes trust out of the equation completely...

He brought up several interesting points which you might have missed.  I'll try to put them in different wrappers, hopefully not losing the meaning in the process.

1.  Assume a magical black box which, when the "press" button is pressed, prints out the *exact* result of an election.  Also assume that it is the definitive Black Box--while the result is [by definition] invariably correct, no one knows how it works.  It's a hypothetical, accept everything above as a given.
What do you think the odds of such a thing becoming the accepted method of national elections?  

2.  People do not trust technology--they don't understand it.  They do not understand most of modern technology, including simple stuff like ATMs, but they do not need to trust it--they trust the agencies behind it (banks, in case of ATMs).  This may be absurd, but that's how it is.  There is no similar agency backing the blockchain, and Joe Sixpack has a natural distrust of eggheads.

3.  Recounts.  There is little to suggest that a recount in conventional elections would produce results more accurate than the initial tallying.  But it makes people feel better.  Those tangible slips of paper, as ridiculous and flawed as they are, are used even when a purely digital apparatus recording choices directly from a keyboard to electronic storage (like a hugely-redundant RAID or something) would be cheaper, more convenient, and [provably] more reliable.  Go figure, but that's how it is.

Or, to summarize all the points: Let's not try to improve living conditions through rational insight, because the irrational fears of what is possibly a majority of the population would be offended by the improvements at first.

(Not attacking you, NotLambchop. Just the message you relay )

+1

I agree with this post