Where will the mining industry be in the long term?

[ssbn506]

I would put Quantum computers next to free energy machines as not going to happen in our lifetime. I hope I am wrong about Quantum computers.

Well, if you get your hands on one of these tell me how many PH/s (EH/s?) you can get out of it.

Lot of skepticism if it is a true quantum computer and if there speed clams are true. You buy one first and let me know how it works out

[1714788081]

1714788081

[1714788081]

1714788081

[1714788081]

1714788081

[1714788081]

1714788081

[1714788081]

1714788081

[1714788081]

1714788081

[An amorous cow-herder]

Lot of skepticism if it is a true quantum computer and if there speed clams are true. You buy one first and let me know how it works out

Yeah, i know. But those arent the only ones, other scientists have predicted quantum computers are just 5-10 years away, well that would basicly be more like 3-8 years now considering the age of the article. And well, 3-8 years doesnt sound much worse than the average pre-order to delivery time a lot of asic producers have ..

[krampus]

The manufactures have to be careful they don't make the hardware they sold 6 months ago worthless by selling new hardware that will make it worthless.

This is wrong. There are zero hardware manufacturers (whether related to Bitcoin or not) who have even the slightest concern for whether the new product will obsolete the old product. In fact, the opposite is true -- the more obsolete the old product, the more money they make.

I would think the next step would be the manufactures will start limiting production as to not cannibalize their current customers.

That's ridiculous on the face of it. Any manufacturer that limits production will simply provide an opportunity for someone else to sweep in and steal market share. In a capitalist economy, the scenario you've outlined Does Not Exist.

[An amorous cow-herder]

This is wrong. There are zero hardware manufacturers (whether related to Bitcoin or not) who have even the slightest concern for whether the new product will obsolete the old product. In fact, the opposite is true -- the more obsolete the old product, the more money they make.
That's ridiculous on the face of it. Any manufacturer that limits production will simply provide an opportunity for someone else to sweep in and steal market share. In a capitalist economy, the scenario you've outlined Does Not Exist.

Not quite right. A hardware manufacturer is very much concerned if the old product is obsolete if he produced more than he could sell. E.g. BFL now has 25GH/s and 230GH/s miner from the 65nm line in stock. Those devices are obsolete, no one in his right mind would buy those. That may be ok if the company sold like 90% of the items produced and margins were high enough. If the company totally overproduced and only sold like 10% of the items produced the company would go bankrupt.
So yes, limiting to production to a size you are fairly certain you can sell makes sense.

[Bicknellski]

The manufactures have to be careful they don't make the hardware they sold 6 months ago worthless by selling new hardware that will make it worthless.

This is wrong. There are zero hardware manufacturers (whether related to Bitcoin or not) who have even the slightest concern for whether the new product will obsolete the old product. In fact, the opposite is true -- the more obsolete the old product, the more money they make.

Umm we are certainly concerned about miners going obsolete too quickly and that is why we are trying produce a modular miner that can mitigate that to some degree for people who will potentially buy or manufacture them.

[ssbn506]

The manufactures have to be careful they don't make the hardware they sold 6 months ago worthless by selling new hardware that will make it worthless.

This is wrong. There are zero hardware manufacturers (whether related to Bitcoin or not) who have even the slightest concern for whether the new product will obsolete the old product. In fact, the opposite is true -- the more obsolete the old product, the more money they make.

I would think the next step would be the manufactures will start limiting production as to not cannibalize their current customers.

That's ridiculous on the face of it. Any manufacturer that limits production will simply provide an opportunity for someone else to sweep in and steal market share. In a capitalist economy, the scenario you've outlined Does Not Exist.

What you are revering to is Cannibalization (marketing) but you wrongly assert it is the only way manufactures operate and that it works in every case.

[krampus]

What you are revering to is Cannibalization (marketing) but you wrongly assert it is the only way manufactures operate and that it works in every case.

Cannibalization only applies to products that are still being manufactured. The application of the word "cannibalization" to something that is merely in stock is questionable, at best. But regardless of what you want to call it, any manufacturer that delays the Next Big Thing in order to stabilize sales of the Previous Big Thing is an idiot. They might not want to cannibalize their own product, but their competitors are most assuredly willing to cannibalize their sales for them.

[krampus]

Umm we are certainly concerned about miners going obsolete too quickly and that is why we are trying produce a modular miner that can mitigate that to some degree for people who will potentially buy or manufacture them.

Apples to oranges. You're developing a product that has a selling point (a feature, if you will) that resists obsolescence. And that's great. But your effort is driven by good will, not by profit. I applaud that. Publicly-held companies rarely pay anything more than lip service to good will, for the simple reason that their shareholders expect them to put profit ahead of public service. Even the privately-held companies are, by and large, driven by profit. Reducing obsolescence is only a viable strategy when you're the underdog and you want to steal market share from someone else, and then only for a short period of time.

[An amorous cow-herder]

Umm we are certainly concerned about miners going obsolete too quickly and that is why we are trying produce a modular miner that can mitigate that to some degree for people who will potentially buy or manufacture them.

Apples to oranges. You're developing a product that has a selling point (a feature, if you will) that resists obsolescence. And that's great. But your effort is driven by good will, not by profit. I applaud that. Publicly-held companies rarely pay anything more than lip service to good will, for the simple reason that their shareholders expect them to put profit ahead of public service. Even the privately-held companies are, by and large, driven by profit. Reducing obsolescence is only a viable strategy when you're the underdog and you want to steal market share from someone else, and then only for a short period of time.

Geez, you are american? Allways thinking about short term profit?
You know, there are companies producing modular miner, e.g. Bitmine.
Upgradeability isnt just good will or environment consciousness. It also about getting repeat customers. Someone already paid 2k for a miner? Quite possibly more likely to buy another 2k for upgrades later on than purchase from a competitor.
And even in markets where people can buy competing parts (e.g. normal computer business) standards vor upgrading hardware are common.
After all, the customer is the king, vote with your wallet, e.g. i wouldnt buy a smartphone with a non-replaceable either. But well, if customers are dumb enough to put up with stuff like that and buy anyway its their fault.

[krampus]

Geez, you are american? Allways thinking about short term profit?

Capitalism isn't solely an American concept.

You know, there are companies producing modular miner, e.g. Bitmine.

Fantastic. And if Bitmine at any point holds back their next, faster product because they still have previous models in stock (or worse, because they're still making the previous model) do you honestly believe that the miners who currently own a modular Bitmine product won't jump ship to a faster product from someone else? I mean, we're talking about mining here, where hashing power drives difficulty, rendering smaller hashing power obsolete very, very quickly. We're also talking about a community that willingly gives ghash.io enough hash power to get close to 51%, because they are entirely driven by greed and care not a single iota for the health of the community, let alone the environment or any of the other bullshit reasons that you're fantasizing about.

So go on: try to tell me how all the miners will just wait for Bitmine to get their act together, even while other manufacturers produce better product.

But I call bullshit.

[An amorous cow-herder]

Fantastic. And if Bitmine at any point holds back their next, faster product because they still have previous models in stock (or worse, because they're still making the previous model) do you honestly believe that the miners who currently own a modular Bitmine product won't jump ship to a faster product from someone else?

Are you really serious? I mean, sure, we will have to wait and see if the next gen boards will fit into the same slots (the rest is basicly just power supply and a Rasberry Pi controller board), but even BFL produces PCI-E cards (those Monarchs), not even a controller or power supply. You can reuse the same computer once the next gen cards ships. Doesnt really get more modular than that, or does it?
Not like thats a big difference from an financial point of view, most of the hardware in those miners are cheap standard components anyway, the big markup are those custum hashing chips. But that still doesnt mean it makes sense throwing the rest away.

[krampus]

But that still doesnt mean it makes sense throwing the rest away.

You need to stop smoking crack before posting. No, seriously. Put down the crack pipe.

The companies selling hardware only care about re-usability if -- all other things being equal -- they perceive it will give them some temporary edge against a competitor. Hey, it might even shorten their production lead times for the next product.

But if you think manufacturers are holding back for any reason other than they can't ship the product, you're smoking crack. The notion that they're holding back to avoid obsoleting their own product is the most mind-numbingly stupid thing I've heard this week.

[An amorous cow-herder]

But that still doesnt mean it makes sense throwing the rest away.

The companies selling hardware only care about re-usability if -- all other things being equal -- they perceive it will give them some temporary edge against a competitor. Hey, it might even shorten their production lead times for the next product.

Right, so upgradeability has an actual benefit. Not only to the customer, even to the manufacturer.

But if you think manufacturers are holding back for any reason other than they can't ship the product, you're smoking crack. The notion that they're holding back to avoid obsoleting their own product is the most mind-numbingly stupid thing I've heard this week.

I didnt argue about that part anywhere, just upgradeability. Possibly you are the one smoking crack if you are implying that i stated that manufacturers shouldnt ship new products.
Not that that doesnt actually happen in the real world often enough, e.g. cars not being as fuel efficient as they could be etc, but i didnt argue that asic manufacturers should do that as well.

[ssbn506]

What you are revering to is Cannibalization (marketing) but you wrongly assert it is the only way manufactures operate and that it works in every case.

Cannibalization only applies to products that are still being manufactured. The application of the word "cannibalization" to something that is merely in stock is questionable, at best. But regardless of what you want to call it, any manufacturer that delays the Next Big Thing in order to stabilize sales of the Previous Big Thing is an idiot. They might not want to cannibalize their own product, but their competitors are most assuredly willing to cannibalize their sales for them.

Like has been pointed out to you before if you have existing stock you may need or want to sell that first. I do think you are correct that would be a bad strategy. hmmm I wonder if you could somehow figure out how to sell existing product but still sell new product without competing with existing product. What would that be called something like pre orders. No I don't actually think that is happing it won't work. All of my post have been just speculation and I wanted to se if people agreed with me or not and why. For whatever reason you are angered by this and have to insult everyone.   I encourage you to join the conversation and make your points but se if you can be civilised about it we are all just trying to understand the BTC economy.

[coinits]

Quantum Bitcoing mining, anyone?  

If Quantum Computers show up we'll got a huge problem SHA256 as encryption will not be safe.

I would put Quantum computers next to free energy machines as not going to happen in our lifetime. I hope I am wrong about Quantum computers.

You are wrong. The world's first quantum computer is already running. It was developed by a Canadian company on Canada's west coast.

Guess who the two biggest investors are?

1) CIA
2) Jeff Bezos - Head of Amazon.com

Quantum computing is a reality.

http://www.dwavesys.com/en/dw_homepage.html

~ C

[ssbn506]

Quantum Bitcoing mining, anyone?  

If Quantum Computers show up we'll got a huge problem SHA256 as encryption will not be safe.

I would put Quantum computers next to free energy machines as not going to happen in our lifetime. I hope I am wrong about Quantum computers.

You are wrong. The world's first quantum computer is already running. It was developed by a Canadian company on Canada's west coast.

Guess who the two biggest investors are?

1) CIA
2) Jeff Bezos - Head of Amazon.com

Quantum computing is a reality.

http://www.dwavesys.com/en/dw_homepage.html

~ C

Rich people and off all people the government can be misinformed and mislead. I accept they may or could exist but will hold off asserting it until a reproducible test happens or they do something quantum with it. Just because a company exists and people invest in it is not evidence it is anything yet.  I will do a bit of digging to se if their is anything their with that company yet. Last time I looked their wasn't but that was a few years ago now.

[Rival]

Quantum computing will not exist as useful platform for at least another century, if ever. We knew cold fusion was possible for at least 100 years, and it still only exists as a theoretical. We knew room-temperature superconductors were possible for 60 years, yet the drawing board is the only place it exists. I am still waiting for the flying car they promised me that everyone would be using by now. You are better off working on building a time machine so that you can go back to 2011 and solo-mine some coins with a graphics card than you are waiting for quantum computing.

The only folks touting quantum computers are wonk-heads looking for more government grants. No one alive today will ever see one do anything besides add a few bits, and they will certainly not see them break bitcoins.

[krampus]

No one alive today will ever see one do anything besides add a few bits, and they will certainly not see them break bitcoins.

"Computers in the future may weigh no more than 1.5 tons."
– Popular Mechanics, forecasting the relentless march of science, 1949

"We don’t like their sound, and guitar music is on the way out."
– Decca Recording Co. rejecting the Beatles, 1962.

"640K ought to be enough for anybody."
– Bill Gates, 1981