|
onis_uk (OP)
|
 |
October 17, 2013, 09:40:10 PM |
|
I was thinking today, with the way the total hashing power of the network is growing exponentially, what was once a "decentralised" currency is now becoming ever more centralised....hence the irony...! It was once spread across millions of "geeks" hashing away in the mega hash range with cpu's and gpu's.... this network must have been vast. Now as the cost and power needed to mine effectively is either 1: pricing the average Joe out of the mining market, or 2: requiring so much power that its becoming almost impossible to reasonably mine at your home, due to power usage, heat and noise ! So how will the network look going out from here?! First we saw the advent of pools, to errr "pool" our resources....and now we are seeing more and more hardware companies offering shares in a mining outfits on a grand scale, sever rooms filled with powerful ASIC's running 24/7 that you just "rent"...this is clustering the hashing power in certain areas....thus making its more centralised! What kind of computing power will be needed to mine the last few 100,000 BTC??? how much electricity is being used to hash all of these coins?! doesnt seem to green to me ..... Also I know the difficulty can and will go down as people drop out of mining but again this just gives way to ever more powerful mining hardware. P.s. these are just my misguided views and would appreciate a logical and unemotional response, no flaming or typical forum douchebagness.... thanks for reading  |
|
|
|
|
justusranvier
Legendary
 Offline
Activity: 1400
Merit: 1013
|
|
October 17, 2013, 09:45:25 PM |
|
would appreciate a logical and unemotional response Done.  |
|
|
|
|
Kluge
Donator
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1218
Merit: 1015
|
|
October 17, 2013, 10:00:54 PM |
|
Difficulty won't go down. Growth might slow down in a few months. No argument from me on centralization. "Greenness" is contentious (and I doubt Bitcoin ever had a million unique miners going at once - maybe 50K), though with the current situation, almost all the network's costs are upfront in hardware, where electricity cost isn't significant (thus, it's extremely "green"), but this will change - hashpower on the network will eventually again be determined by electricity costs and BTC price (instead of how quickly ASIC manufacturers lower their prices) - there's a ton of energy spent with conventional payment methods (printing cards, literally tons of paper, B&M branches + loads of employees, computing power processing transactions). Between Bitcoin's storage, bandwidth, and actual mining energy costs - it's hard to determine what Bitcoin's overall energy consumption will be when/if it scales to a point where it's comparable with a conventional financial institution. You can kind of forecast it now, but it couldn't be very accurate given the current technological changes in mining hardware and all the other variables which can become huge when you're doing 1/500,000 the volume of, say, VISA.
|
|
|
|
|
|
onis_uk (OP)
|
|
October 17, 2013, 10:21:05 PM |
|
I started to look at each point individually, but then I realized that just about everything the OP said is false.
Millions of CPU miners, LOL...
OP, you should do some fact checking.
oooh here we go straight away  ....just reading what you want to read ! where exactly did i say that ?! Millions of miners using gpu's and cpu's is what I actually said, but seeing as you have trouble reading...... I personally had over 6 gfx cards running at one point, I constantly saw rooms and racks of mb's with 4 gfx cards on each one... so the total network must have been made up of lot of individual mining units ......maybe in the millions... |
|
|
|
|
tvbcof
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 4760
Merit: 1282
|
|
October 17, 2013, 10:26:21 PM |
|
Mining consolidation was never more than an irritation to me. It can be done off on an island somewhere without impacting the integrity of the value store as long as a lot of full nodes are checking the results. Ya, interference with a semi-centralized mining framework can fuck performance and expectations all to hell (witness teracoin) but it is unlikely to result in permanent loss of value.
The thing that is 'ironic' to me is the globally accessible ledger in a solution which is supposed to promote privacy. Of course the conundrum was supposed to be dealt with by dis-associating individuals with private keys, and full nodes which were configured properly were only analyzable by transaction counting, and this was obviously unfeasible because nobody could possibly be tapping the global WAN...Doh!
|
sig spam anywhere and self-moderated threads on the pol&soc board are for losers.
|
|
|
Fiyasko
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1428
Merit: 1001
Okey Dokey Lokey
|
|
October 17, 2013, 10:26:49 PM |
|
would appreciate a logical and unemotional response Done. pfffff AHAHHAHAHA wow. honestly though, i agree with the OP bitcoin is a littlebit ironic |
|
|
|
justusranvier
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1400
Merit: 1013
|
|
October 17, 2013, 10:29:19 PM |
|
pfffff AHAHHAHAHA wow.
honestly though, i agree with the OP bitcoin is a littlebit ironic
The ignore was for starting a new thread instead of using the search feature so that we wouldn't need to rehash the exact same points yet again. |
|
|
|
|
|
onis_uk (OP)
|
|
October 17, 2013, 10:33:03 PM |
|
"Greenness" is contentious Comparing it to the current banking system isn't logical because that system is inherrently wastful and uses megawatts of power to run, but it doesn't make BTC coin mining any more green ! As the network grows so does its power needs....most of which comes from "un-green" sources... With companies now offering units in the terrahash range using well over 1kwh of power its becoming a rather power hungry thing.... |
|
|
|
|
|
onis_uk (OP)
|
|
October 17, 2013, 10:35:13 PM |
|
I started to look at each point individually, but then I realized that just about everything the OP said is false.
Millions of CPU miners, LOL...
OP, you should do some fact checking.
oooh here we go straight away ....just reading what you want to read ! where exactly did i say that ?! Millions of miners using gpu's and cpu's is what I actually said, but seeing as you have trouble reading...... I personally had over 6 gfx cards running at one point, I constantly saw rooms and racks of mb's with 4 gfx cards on each one... so the total network must have been made up of lot of individual mining units ......maybe in the millions... Millions of CPU and GPU miners, LOL.... Congratulations on your well balanced and thought out reply, you are either a 14 year old boy or a very sad man whom I pity greatly.... |
|
|
|
|
DeathAndTaxes
Donator
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1218
Merit: 1079
Gerald Davis
|
|
October 17, 2013, 10:41:20 PM |
|
It was once spread across millions of "geeks" hashing away in the mega hash range with cpu's and gpu's.... this network must have been vast. Now as the cost and power needed to mine effectively is either 1: pricing the average Joe out of the mining market, or 2: requiring so much power that its becoming almost impossible to reasonably mine at your home, due to power usage, heat and noise ! Power heat and noise? Guess you have never seen or heard 48 GPU cores running. The power and noise for 1/1000th of the network is significantly lower today than under the GPU era. The peak of GPU mining was probably ~20 TH/s. GPU rigs requires about 500 J/GH, so 20 Th/s is 10,000 KW or 10 MW of power. Today the network is ~2,500 TH/s but the average ASIC is ~1 J/GH making total power usage ~ 5 MW. Of course the network is going higher but GPU weren't any less power hungry. The network will always reach equilibrium where the power consumed is roughly equal to the value of BTC produced with a small margin for capital cost, risk, and profit. Also there never were millions of miners. Never. Not once, not a single day in the history of Bitcoin. At the peak there was something like 20 TH/s of GPU miners. The output per card varies but lets take a middle of the road card the 6870 which is about 300 MH/s. 20 TH/s is ~65,000 HD 6870 graphics cards. That puts the number of miners in the tens of thousands max. |
|
|
|
|
justusranvier
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1400
Merit: 1013
|
|
October 17, 2013, 10:45:29 PM |
|
Is that the BitcointalkPlus thingy showing post count near activity?
No, there's checkbox in the profile settings somewhere that you can turn on to show both. Looks under "Forum Profile Information" near the bottom. |
|
|
|
|
|
onis_uk (OP)
|
|
October 18, 2013, 06:48:14 AM |
|
This is key to your observations. Everything you said basically hinges on this single point. Please show some evidence that there were millions of Bitcoin miners before ASIC devices were introduced. We can go from there.
Why don't you ditch the personal attacks as well?
Look stop arguing semantics like a child (Google it I know you don't know what that means) Try stepping back from the individual words and discuss from there on the wider picture. |
|
|
|
|
|
r3wt
|
|
October 18, 2013, 06:50:40 AM |
|
pfffff AHAHHAHAHA wow.
honestly though, i agree with the OP bitcoin is a littlebit ironic
The ignore was for starting a new thread instead of using the search feature so that we wouldn't need to rehash the exact same points yet again. maybe the "onis" was on him |
My negative trust rating is reflective of a personal vendetta by someone on default trust.
|
|
|
|
onis_uk (OP)
|
|
October 18, 2013, 07:02:29 AM |
|
It was once spread across millions of "geeks" hashing away in the mega hash range with cpu's and gpu's.... this network must have been vast. Now as the cost and power needed to mine effectively is either 1: pricing the average Joe out of the mining market, or 2: requiring so much power that its becoming almost impossible to reasonably mine at your home, due to power usage, heat and noise ! Power heat and noise? Guess you have never seen or heard 48 GPU cores running. The power and noise for 1/1000th of the network is significantly lower today than under the GPU era. The peak of GPU mining was probably ~20 TH/s. GPU rigs requires about 500 J/GH, so 20 Th/s is 10,000 KW or 10 MW of power. Today the network is ~2,500 TH/s but the average ASIC is ~1 J/GH making total power usage ~ 5 MW. Of course the network is going higher but GPU weren't any less power hungry. The network will always reach equilibrium where the power consumed is roughly equal to the value of BTC produced with a small margin for capital cost, risk, and profit. Also there never were millions of miners. Never. Not once, not a single day in the history of Bitcoin. At the peak there was something like 20 TH/s of GPU miners. The output per card varies but lets take a middle of the road card the 6870 which is about 300 MH/s. 20 TH/s is ~65,000 HD 6870 graphics cards. That puts the number of miners in the tens of thousands max. Yes no doubt that gups were less efficient by a very large factor. But then they werent designed to hash cryptographic algos specifically. With the power now required by asics we are nearly back at the same point. Some of the units needing to dissipate over a kilowatt of power in a small space, that's no easy feet! My old BFL miner running full tilt was probably louder than when I had two gfx cards to start with.... Anyway we seem to be hitting that infection point again. Is there a way to estimate the power needed to mine the last few coins when we get there.... Will the network be in the exahash range.....!? I've sold my miners now but it will be fun to just sit back and see how it plays out, much like Satoshi must be doing... I'm a currency trader by day and would love to trade my coins like I do other currency's but haven't found a decent "trustworthy" site yet.... |
|
|
|
|
|
onis_uk (OP)
|
|
October 18, 2013, 07:04:32 AM |
|
pfffff AHAHHAHAHA wow.
honestly though, i agree with the OP bitcoin is a littlebit ironic
The ignore was for starting a new thread instead of using the search feature so that we wouldn't need to rehash the exact same points yet again. maybe the "onis" was on him The word you're reffering to is spelt "onus" you retard ! |
|
|
|
|
|
r3wt
|
|
October 18, 2013, 07:05:10 AM |
|
pfffff AHAHHAHAHA wow.
honestly though, i agree with the OP bitcoin is a littlebit ironic
The ignore was for starting a new thread instead of using the search feature so that we wouldn't need to rehash the exact same points yet again. maybe the "onis" was on him The word your reffering to is spelt "onus" you retard ! no shit genius, hence the parentheses indicating a play on words... |
My negative trust rating is reflective of a personal vendetta by someone on default trust.
|
|
|
|
onis_uk (OP)
|
|
October 18, 2013, 07:18:08 AM |
|
pfffff AHAHHAHAHA wow.
honestly though, i agree with the OP bitcoin is a littlebit ironic
The ignore was for starting a new thread instead of using the search feature so that we wouldn't need to rehash the exact same points yet again. maybe the "onis" was on him The word your reffering to is spelt "onus" you retard ! no shit genius, hence the parentheses indicating a play on words... I'm sorry it was such a lame attempt at a quip it must have washed over me....plus I know what you Americans are like with the English language.... But I think I'll give up here, even with the added line at the bottom of my op, it just proves my point that forums are full of jumped up kids who cannot discuss anything without an ego getting in the way, which is sad, very sad. Maybe I should just stick to talking to people in the real world. Because the kind of person people become online is distorted and pathetic.... |
|
|
|
|
|
r3wt
|
|
October 18, 2013, 07:21:05 AM |
|
the kind of person people become online is distorted and pathetic....
Did you just project yourself? seriously dude it was just a joke. maybe you need to grow a bit thicker skin. this is the internet |
My negative trust rating is reflective of a personal vendetta by someone on default trust.
|
|
|
|
pand70
|
|
October 18, 2013, 07:35:37 AM |
|
2: requiring so much power that its becoming almost impossible to reasonably mine at your home, due to power usage, heat and noise !
I wish it was the noise the biggest reason average Joes can't follow up with mining... |
|
|
|
|
onis_uk (OP)
|
|
October 18, 2013, 07:47:58 AM |
|
Its nothing to do with being thick skinned, its to do with never being able to discuss anything on a form without people becoming instant dicks.....or arguing about semantics, or people who live on the forum going around like some kind of jumped up forum police! ....not everyone is online 24 hours a day, if its a repeated thread....here's two option's for you 1: dont read it, 2: dont reply! Its that easy!!!!!!
See this has already taken us way off topic.....
|
|
|
|
|
|
