Tarnished image

[silvergoldandbitcoin]

The way I see it paranoia will be the destruction of Bitcoins. Everyone has NO TRUST in ANYONE.

If that were the case, all trade via bitcoin would cease. There has to be some level of trust for any trade at all.

[Eri]

mooc I get it, so listen and dont take offence to this. youve been around long enough to think you understand enough of bitcoin but you dont. you think youve done enough research but you havnt. your at the point of disillusion and frustration but there is light at the end of the tunnel. Learn more and research more, Dont get down in the dumps due to your current level of understanding, as you learn more that will change. Do yourself a favor and dont get too focused on the ideas you have now where you have to defend them to the death because i can almost guarantee everyone here has been wrong about allot of stuff relating to bitcoin at some point in time. This rise in the hash rate has been expected from the start and its still got another 700-800TH/s to go before it will even have a chance of leveling out. ultimately prices of asics, competition and efficiency will weigh in on this. but for now we have a unknown number of random people pre ordering asics for an unknown profit margin in the future. people are guessing they will be able to make a profit or are planning on waiting for prices to go up more to sell those bitcoins. its all about research ans risk assessment. Personally i chose not to ride that crazy train, too much risk for me.

I hope you stick around and find something else to focus on. there is allot to bitcoin, certainly allot more then just mining.

[LostDutchman]

Do not buy bitcoins at the current low price.

You mean: leave more for me?

Exactly!

[veteranBtc]

The way I see it paranoia will be the destruction of Bitcoins. Everyone has NO TRUST in ANYONE.

This is very true!

[wachtwoord]

The way I see it paranoia will be the destruction of Bitcoins. Everyone has NO TRUST in ANYONE.

This is very true!

Say this would be true. How will this destroy anything?

[dexX7]

You can get 5GH for only $350, so ASICs aren't only for a handful of people.

Yes I understand that but do you understand that with difficulty jumping at 24% every 2 week the time from profit to break even will be shorter. Its not like GPU's took over a year to realize you need equipment. Every time a new technology shows up the diff shoots faster and high than before. It will come a time that the money you make will be needed to purchase new equipment and after all has been said and done you end up playing a zero sum game. This will also get to a point where instead of many miners it will be fewer miners and so on.

What do you expect? Free money for everyone? You need to step up your game, if you want an edge. Why should you be previleged in contrast to any other miner? If you want to earn, you why have to stand out. Even with an increse of 24 % there will by ways. Why do you dislike chip sell and groupbuys? It's the cost efficient and best technology you (and almost any other miner) can buy right now, so your "share" should be "fair".

Higher difficulty will decrese miners? So will the difficulty afterwards, which makes that argument invalid.

Anyway, I feel your frustration and if you don't want to invest in something risky as mining, you could invest in mining companies like ASICMiner for example. They have a great history and honor transparency, without much effort you should be able to see, that they actually pay most of the mined coins to their shareholders.

Many may say we all should still consider ourselfs as the lucky ones, who saw the oppertunity Bitcoin early enough, even if it's already 2013.

[MooC Tals]

mooc I get it, so listen and dont take offence to this. youve been around long enough to think you understand enough of bitcoin but you dont. you think youve done enough research but you havnt. your at the point of disillusion and frustration but there is light at the end of the tunnel. Learn more and research more, Dont get down in the dumps due to your current level of understanding, as you learn more that will change. Do yourself a favor and dont get too focused on the ideas you have now where you have to defend them to the death because i can almost guarantee everyone here has been wrong about allot of stuff relating to bitcoin at some point in time. This rise in the hash rate has been expected from the start and its still got another 700-800TH/s to go before it will even have a chance of leveling out. ultimately prices of asics, competition and efficiency will weigh in on this. but for now we have a unknown number of random people pre ordering asics for an unknown profit margin in the future. people are guessing they will be able to make a profit or are planning on waiting for prices to go up more to sell those bitcoins. its all about research ans risk assessment. Personally i chose not to ride that crazy train, too much risk for me.

I hope you stick around and find something else to focus on. there is allot to bitcoin, certainly allot more then just mining.

To be honest I don't take offense to someone who has an opinion on things and delivers it this way. I also don't want to create the image of me being angry or fustrated or like acting like a 6 YO. I was only trying to say I see a trend of the way bitcoin was moving. I see this spurt of technology as a necessity but where I see a problem is the amount of technology as the disruptive type.

I find if they came out in a slower pace and gave people time to digest it it would have been even better for manufactures and bitcoin. Instead of coming out with Ths units made them the same and gpu's without the power consumptions of a gpu. Making small increments of power and slowly drawing more people in to the bitcoin community. This would strengthen the base.

What they are doing here is more harm than good.

I see in the future the miners that are jumping in now will need to get a second generation asic before the 1st gens have paid off. the jumps are just too quick and will be to often.

heh If I was a conspiracy guy I would almost think it was intentional to weaken bitcoin. Then again it could just be greed and lack of regulation of bitcoin and just plain human nature.

I really am not much for conspiracies.

Here take a look at some of the history






We have no restrictions on price and no restrictions on power consumptions and this next ride up will be 3x higher and 3x faster. So I believe you will need to invest 3x more hardware to stay relevant (notice I did not say profitable)

This will only mean less decentralization and counter to what bitcoin is (ideology or not)

[Explodicle]

Bitcoin is designed to make mining a zero sum game. Saving/exchanging is more profitable when you use a currency with a lower miner surplus.

That's simply false.

Care to elaborate?
This post elaborates the concept pretty well. Based on what I've read here for the last couple years it looks like a consensus that mining profits tend towards zero and that's a good thing.

How far are you extrapolating? If BTC ends up anything like gold, IMHO there would be plenty of miners:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gold_mining#Business
http://www.24hgold.com/english/listcompanies.aspx?fundamental=true&commodity=PL

Gold value doesn't depend on existence of miners for its value.  No miners -> gold value goes up.  No miners -> Bitcoin value crashes.

"No miners" is hyperbolic. Would a single firm would be able to organize itself efficiently enough to eliminate even anonymous illegal foreign competitors? I can understand if you don't already have an exact projection, but what order of magnitude are you seriously suggesting this will reach? 10, 100, 1000 firms?

Basically I don't think we don't need to be as decentralized as possible, just decentralized "enough" as defined by the consumer market for cryptocurrencies.

That's false in many ways.  The most obvious being that the market can't "define" anything.  The only way for a market to signal dissatisfaction is through lowered interest (lowered demand -> lowered value).  That's simply not eloquent enough -- a huge dump on MtGox crashing Bitcoin prices doesn't scream "decentralize!"

Sure it does! ASIC-related security problems would be a clear reason to dump Bitcoin and buy Litecoin, and you'd see the two prices change relative to one another. Right now LTC/USD closely follows BTC/USD, but that's because ASICs aren't really a problem yet and they're both equally influenced by FinCEN and Cyprus. You'd also see a lot of Bitcoin users pushing for a hash algorithm switch, and the chain would fork - before block X we use the unfairly exploited old SHA256, and afterwards we use scrypt. Mining cartels would obviously support the old chain, but be unable to 51% attack the new one. If you were asleep when it forked you'd own coins in both chains, and then vote with your wallet as to which security model is better.

There are plenty of other coins that are ASIC-resistant if and when this becomes an issue. If you think there's a systemic risk in BTC's security model that is less pronounced in other coins, you might want to convert a portion of your savings.

A frightening argument, that.  Along the lines of "when the boat starts sinking, just buy a different boat."  (Protip:  The best time to sell your Titanic is *before* it hits an iceberg.)

Are you suggesting people shouldn't diversify because accepting the truth that BTC isn't a 100% reliable investment is frightening? Use today's best coin as your means of exchange, and tomorrow's possible coins as your store of wealth. Many brick and mortar merchants already hedge their bitcoins in local fiat currency, so they'd be largely unaffected until they switched to whichever new cryptocurrency their customers want.

[crumbs]

Bitcoin is designed to make mining a zero sum game. Saving/exchanging is more profitable when you use a currency with a lower miner surplus.

That's simply false.

Care to elaborate?
This post elaborates the concept pretty well. Based on what I've read here for the last couple years it looks like a consensus that mining profits tend towards zero and that's a good thing.

If it's not self-evident, the difference between "zero-sum" and "Tend[ing] toward zero" is the difference between making nothing and making something.  To make this clearer, repeated an infinite number of times, the first gets you (zero times infinity) equals zero, the second gives you ... you guessed it, no need to write it out -- infinity.

How far are you extrapolating? If BTC ends up anything like gold, IMHO there would be plenty of miners:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gold_mining#Business
http://www.24hgold.com/english/listcompanies.aspx?fundamental=true&commodity=PL

Gold value doesn't depend on existence of miners for its value.  No miners -> gold value goes up.  No miners -> Bitcoin value crashes.

"No miners" is hyperbolic. Would a single firm would be able to organize itself efficiently enough to eliminate even anonymous illegal foreign competitors? I can understand if you don't already have an exact projection, but what order of magnitude are you seriously suggesting this will reach? 10, 100, 1000 firms?

Either you misunderstood me or vice-versa.  I'm not exaggerating, i quite literally mean "no miners."  If mining is not profitable, and we discount fetishists who enjoy spending huge sums of money on specialized silicon in hopes of eventually breaking even, we can assume there'll be no miners.  Don't you agree?  
If there are no gold miners, goody for gold.  If there are no Bitcoin miners?  No Bitcoin.  That's all.  Nothing hyperbolic.

Basically I don't think we don't need to be as decentralized as possible, just decentralized "enough" as defined by the consumer market for cryptocurrencies.

That's false in many ways.  The most obvious being that the market can't "define" anything.  The only way for a market to signal dissatisfaction is through lowered interest (lowered demand -> lowered value).  That's simply not eloquent enough -- a huge dump on MtGox crashing Bitcoin prices doesn't scream "decentralize!"

Sure it does! ASIC-related security problems would be a clear reason to dump Bitcoin and buy Litecoin, and you'd see the two prices change relative to one another. Right now LTC/USD closely follows BTC/USD, but that's because ASICs aren't really a problem yet and they're both equally influenced by FinCEN and Cyprus. You'd also see a lot of Bitcoin users pushing for a hash algorithm switch, and the chain would fork - before block X we use the unfairly exploited old SHA256, and afterwards we use scrypt. Mining cartels would obviously support the old chain, but be unable to 51% attack the new one. If you were asleep when it forked you'd own coins in both chains, and then vote with your wallet as to which security model is better.

Wait.  You're saying that an exodus of Bitcoin user base to Lightcoin, accompanied by dumps & hard forks, is just the market's way of saying "hey, perhaps some change might be nice"?  You're suggesting that what comes out of the wash -- a totally different coin relying on scrypt -- is *still Bitcoin* (or, rather, *two distinctly different Bitcoins*)?  And if that fails too, and people go back to paper money, would that too be called "Bitcoin"?
Arguing in the alternative, the forking panic caused by forking will abso-forking-lutely fork the value of Bitcoin.  The streets will be littered with paper wallets, and street sweepers will praise their patron saint, Mr. Clean, for virtual currencies not printed on paper.  TL;DR:  Won't be smooth or pretty.

There are plenty of other coins that are ASIC-resistant if and when this becomes an issue. If you think there's a systemic risk in BTC's security model that is less pronounced in other coins, you might want to convert a portion of your savings.

A frightening argument, that.  Along the lines of "when the boat starts sinking, just buy a different boat."  (Protip:  The best time to sell your Titanic is *before* it hits an iceberg.)

Are you suggesting people shouldn't diversify because accepting the truth that BTC isn't a 100% reliable investment is frightening? Use today's best coin as your means of exchange, and tomorrow's possible coins as your store of wealth. Many brick and mortar merchants already hedge their bitcoins in local fiat currency, so they'd be largely unaffected until they switched to whichever new cryptocurrency their customers want.

If you're arguing that Bitcoin's not 100% reliable as investment, you're arguing with the wrong guy.  I'm not even sure if it's a *sound* long-term investment, though that's another topic.  I'm simply saying that it's unreasonable to assume that selling will always remain an option.  With no security flaws in sight, unloading just a few grand on Gox will send the price plummeting.  Now imagine the panic a fundamental security flaw would cause.  A real clusterfork.
Finally, i'm just not buying the "many brick & mortar Bitcoin merchants hedging Bitcoin with fiat."  My first gripe is with the word "many."  If there aren't many B&M Bitcoin merchants, there couldn't be many that hedge their bets.  

Digging a bit deeper, these Bitcoin merchants you've mentioned are no more Bitcoin merchants than the carnival hucksters are "ticket merchants."  Yeah, a carny huckster accepts tickets for rides & plushy toys, but in the end of the day, he exchanges those tickets for $$$.  When he services the rides & pays for gas & electricity, he pays in $$$.  Just like your B&M Bitcoin merchant accepts Bitcoin, but when it's time to stock up & pay the bills ... that's right, $$$.  Something like that.  

[xan_The_Dragon]

Check out alternate cryptocurrencies section for alternatives, almost too many coins there, id only bother with thise still actve a month after release

[Explodicle]

Crumbs -

Since you think there will someday be no Bitcoin miners, for reasons that won't hit Litecoin for years, let's bet on whether or not Bitcoin will exist in X months (your choice) and denominate the bet in Litecoins. That way you'll get paid for being right, and I'll pay for a lesson the hard way. Does that sound fair?

IMHO someone will probably find a weakness in SHA256 someday and we'll have to switch hash algos anyways. Without getting all "Ship of Theseus" on you, I don't care what we call it so long as it works similar to how Bitcoin does now. Everyone freaking out and throwing their paper wallets on the street just seems kind of silly to me; BTC is no stranger to crashes.

If any merchants reading this are actually worried, you might want to read this:
https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/How_to_accept_Bitcoin,_for_small_businesses#Setting_Prices
BitPay for example can hedge your BTC/USD risk with minimal hassle.

[crumbs]

Crumbs -

Since you think there will someday be no Bitcoin miners, for reasons that won't hit Litecoin for years, let's bet on whether or not Bitcoin will exist in X months (your choice) and denominate the bet in Litecoins. That way you'll get paid for being right, and I'll pay for a lesson the hard way. Does that sound fair?

That sounds more than fair if you're trying to judge how easily i'm tempted into betting, though i'm not sure what my tendency to gamble has to do with this discussion.
I get paid for being right in other ways, and, having never met you, i've absolutely no interest in making you pay -- the hard or any other way.  If this is the level of debate offered by an average Bitcoin supporter, Bitcoin's future is shakier than i guessed.

IMHO someone will probably find a weakness in SHA256 someday and we'll have to switch hash algos anyways. Without getting all "Ship of Theseus" on you, I don't care what we call it so long as it works similar to how Bitcoin does now. Everyone freaking out and throwing their paper wallets on the street just seems kind of silly to me; BTC is no stranger to crashes.

  I was being hyperbolic there.

If any merchants reading this are actually worried, you might want to read this:
https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/How_to_accept_Bitcoin,_for_small_businesses#Setting_Prices
BitPay for example can hedge your BTC/USD risk with minimal hassle.

Don't worry, it's a safe bet that no merchant is. (that's a figure of speech, a colloquialism -- i ain't betting)   Oh, gox looks like it's back up!  Joy!  I gets to live another day

[Explodicle]

Crumbs -

Since you think there will someday be no Bitcoin miners, for reasons that won't hit Litecoin for years, let's bet on whether or not Bitcoin will exist in X months (your choice) and denominate the bet in Litecoins. That way you'll get paid for being right, and I'll pay for a lesson the hard way. Does that sound fair?

That sounds more than fair if you're trying to judge how easily i'm tempted into betting, though i'm not sure what my tendency to gamble has to do with this discussion.
I get paid for being right in other ways, and, having never met you, i've absolutely no interest in making you pay -- the hard or any other way.  If this is the level of debate offered by an average Bitcoin supporter, Bitcoin's future is shakier than i guessed.

Gambling is such harsh term. Think of it like insurance. Since we can't trust each other I'd be perfectly willing to agree on an escrow or something similar. I can't speak for other Bitcoin supporters, but I'm willing to actually put my money where my mouth is when predicting (or denying) zero miners. Perhaps Bitcoin's future would be less shaky if I were all FUD like you?

I mean this with all due respect, but it sounds like you have no idea what you're talking about. You're waving your hands talking about zero and infinity, unwilling to quantify a useful real-life prediction.

[crumbs]

Crumbs -

Since you think there will someday be no Bitcoin miners, for reasons that won't hit Litecoin for years, let's bet on whether or not Bitcoin will exist in X months (your choice) and denominate the bet in Litecoins. That way you'll get paid for being right, and I'll pay for a lesson the hard way. Does that sound fair?

That sounds more than fair if you're trying to judge how easily i'm tempted into betting, though i'm not sure what my tendency to gamble has to do with this discussion.
I get paid for being right in other ways, and, having never met you, i've absolutely no interest in making you pay -- the hard or any other way.  If this is the level of debate offered by an average Bitcoin supporter, Bitcoin's future is shakier than i guessed.

Gambling is such harsh term. Think of it like insurance. Since we can't trust each other I'd be perfectly willing to agree on an escrow or something similar. I can't speak for other Bitcoin supporters, but I'm willing to actually put my money where my mouth is when predicting (or denying) zero miners. Perhaps Bitcoin's future would be less shaky if I were all FUD like you?

I mean this with all due respect, but it sounds like you have no idea what you're talking about. You're waving your hands talking about zero and infinity, unwilling to quantify a useful real-life prediction.

Of course.  That's why i'm going to offer you two possible alternatives as to why you can't make heads or tails of what i'm saying:
One possibility is i'm a babbling boob spouting gibberish, so there's nothing to get.
The other (protip: this is the right one1!) is you're simply not bright enough.  I mean that with all the respect due you. 
Good night.

[MooC Tals]

You guys make me laugh. lol It always end up the same way when two people argue. Its not important who is right or wrong. What is important is we offer opposing opinions on a forum to exchange idea's. I don't expect anyone to accept what I say and it would be even more idiotic to believe I can force someone to accept what I say as fact.

If we can't convince the other person I won't hold it against anyone. You guys need to kiss and make up. lol or I'll bust a gut laughing.

[crumbs]

You don't really think that we're growling & spitting at our monitors as we type, do you   or 

[QuestionAuthority]

Suck it up buttercup. You can't be a milk toast and expect to play in this sandbox.

[darkmule]

Either you misunderstood me or vice-versa.  I'm not exaggerating, i quite literally mean "no miners."  If mining is not profitable, and we discount fetishists who enjoy spending huge sums of money on specialized silicon in hopes of eventually breaking even, we can assume there'll be no miners.  Don't you agree?  

So you mean "literally no miners," but then your definition of "no miners" means you just ignore miners if they include people you disparage.  That would not be "literally no miners" in any sense normally understood.  That would be a small number of miners.  If there were a small number of miners, the supply would be reduced.  If any demand remained, that would increase the price by simple, inflexible laws of supply and demand.  Eventually, the price would be enough to encourage people to mine again, or the remaining miners to step up their game and do more mining, at which point they wouldn't be "fetishists."

So long as anyone is actually mining, you can't have a "literally no miners" situation without changing the meaning of the words.

[cp1]

If nobody is mining then the difficulty will be so low that I'll start solo mining and clean up.

[Cyberdyne]

If nobody is mining then the difficulty will be so low that I'll start solo mining and clean up.

Solo mining at 19m difficulty would likely take you many years just to find that first 25 BTC.