I'm not seeing miners leave in hordes...

[dree12]

If hypothetically bitcoin fell to <$5 and stayed CONTINUALLY under $5 for 30 days (long enough for miners to get next electric bill) you likely would see some behavior change.

That's the key right there.  Most people will stick it out at least until the next power bill hits and maybe even for two bills, hoping to see a turnaround in price or drop in difficulty that will keep mining profitable.  There's definitely some people out there that will continue to mine regardless, but I bet some of the power goes dark after a while.  For example, I'm running 11 GH or so and it's costing about $500/month with a great .085 cents/kwh power rate.  If it gets unprofitable for me I'll still probably keep a GH or two running to help the network, but I can't afford to throw $400-$500 at it each month with no return for very long.

You mean you're not one of those Folding @ Home guys, whose idea of fun is to spend their extra money on hardware to crunch numbers? 

I'm not such a (what's the most derogatory word for geek or nerd?) that I'd spend even $20 on electricity for some silly distributed computing project.
I'd rather take my wife out to dinner or ANYTHING I can actually enjoy. I guess I have a life...

And what is that number-crunching going to? I consider it a donation to charity.

[1713560213]

1713560213

[1713560213]

1713560213

[1713560213]

1713560213

[AngelusWebDesign]

If hypothetically bitcoin fell to <$5 and stayed CONTINUALLY under $5 for 30 days (long enough for miners to get next electric bill) you likely would see some behavior change.

That's the key right there.  Most people will stick it out at least until the next power bill hits and maybe even for two bills, hoping to see a turnaround in price or drop in difficulty that will keep mining profitable.  There's definitely some people out there that will continue to mine regardless, but I bet some of the power goes dark after a while.  For example, I'm running 11 GH or so and it's costing about $500/month with a great .085 cents/kwh power rate.  If it gets unprofitable for me I'll still probably keep a GH or two running to help the network, but I can't afford to throw $400-$500 at it each month with no return for very long.

You mean you're not one of those Folding @ Home guys, whose idea of fun is to spend their extra money on hardware to crunch numbers? 

I'm not such a (what's the most derogatory word for geek or nerd?) that I'd spend even $20 on electricity for some silly distributed computing project.
I'd rather take my wife out to dinner or ANYTHING I can actually enjoy. I guess I have a life...

And what is that number-crunching going to? I consider it a donation to charity.

More like donating to science at best. If you really want to donate to charity, find someone LOCAL who needs the money and help them out. Charity from-a-distance is like government from-a-distance: fraught with waste. Charity is best done at home.

Anyhow, the chance of "donating $20 to science via distributed computing" doing any actual good is pretty slim. You'd be better off donating the $20 to some cause you believe in -- a scientific foundation if you prefer.

There's a lot of overhead in distributed computing projects, and only certain problems can be broken down into segments where reliability and resiliency aren't important. Remember, any piece of the puzzle can go "poof" if the person with that slice decides to quit. So the pieces of the puzzle can't depend on each other too much.

Many number-crunching scenarios could never be written for a distributed computing platform. Too much memory is required, the calculation can't be easily split up, etc.

[cbeast]

I'm mining at a loss. I don't do it to make money, bitcoin will do that on its own... eventually. I mine in protest to the derivative-based (formerly fractional reserve) global banking system.

[Grinder]

I'm mining at a loss. I don't do it to make money, bitcoin will do that on its own... eventually. I mine in protest to the derivative-based (formerly fractional reserve) global banking system.

It would be more helpful if you bought the coins instead. Then miners with cheaper electricity could add more hashing power than you can for the same amount.

[fastandfurious]

I'm mining at a loss. I don't do it to make money, bitcoin will do that on its own... eventually. I mine in protest to the derivative-based (formerly fractional reserve) global banking system.

It would be more helpful if you bought the coins instead. Then miners with cheaper electricity could add more hashing power than you can for the same amount.

I think that your thinking isn't right. I think that if the majority of the miners thought as cbeast, Bitcoin would have been a success right now. More people like him is needed. He and others that think like him doesn't need to mine with very expensive rigs, but lets say if everyone with cbeast thinking mined with 0,2-2 Ghash/s Bitcoin no matter what price in fiat currency, Bitcoin would have build a very strong foundation. This is what Bitcoin is all about, not greedy miners that want fiat currency asap, and are selling at the exchanges as soon as they can. I am telling you, the way to kill the fiat lovers is by doing what they are doing to the Bitcoin Economy, make them make less in fiat/USD. The good part is that Bitcoin is in a high inflation environment so this is plausible. Just sell wait for the inflation to kick in and buy back more cheaper bitcoins. By doing this you have also f***ed the fiat lovers.

[BkkCoins]

I'm mining at a loss. I don't do it to make money, bitcoin will do that on its own... eventually. I mine in protest to the derivative-based (formerly fractional reserve) global banking system.

It would be more helpful if you bought the coins instead. Then miners with cheaper electricity could add more hashing power than you can for the same amount.

I think that your thinking isn't right. I think that if the majority of the miners thought as cbeast, Bitcoin would have been a success right now. More people like him is needed. He and others that think like him doesn't need to mine with very expensive rigs, but lets say if everyone with cbeast thinking mined with 0,2-2 Ghash/s Bitcoin no matter what price in fiat currency, Bitcoin would have build a very strong foundation. This is what Bitcoin is all about, not greedy miners that want fiat currency asap, and are selling at the exchanges as soon as they can. I am telling you, the way to kill the fiat lovers is by doing what they are doing to the Bitcoin Economy, make them make less in fiat/USD. The good part is that Bitcoin is in a high inflation environment so this is plausible. Just sell wait for the inflation to kick in and buy back more cheaper bitcoins. By doing this you have also f***ed the fiat lovers.

If money isn't an issue and helping Bitcoin is, then the way to do it is by solo mining. That way you add another node to the network and help it become less centralized. Just mining for a pool only adds your hashing power to an existing node - which isn't really of any strategic benefit, except making more steady income.

The fact that there are only about 3-4 big pools indicates that miners are mostly going for the money and not the concept of supporting distributed accounting. Decentralization is probably the most interesting aspect of Bitcoin and yet the least supported in actuality.

[stryker]

strangely enough the changes to solidcoin may facilitate this.... interesting

[Grinder]

It would be more helpful if you bought the coins instead. Then miners with cheaper electricity could add more hashing power than you can for the same amount.

I think that your thinking isn't right.

You are of course free to think whatever you like, but this and your negative attitude to greed is the same as saying that market economy is a bad idea. You would basically rather get less hashing power than give money to those greedy capitalists mining for profit.

[RandyFolds]

It would be more helpful if you bought the coins instead. Then miners with cheaper electricity could add more hashing power than you can for the same amount.

I think that your thinking isn't right.

You are of course free to think whatever you like, but this and your negative attitude to greed is the same as saying that market economy is a bad idea. You would basically rather get less hashing power than give money to those greedy capitalists mining for profit.

I agree with you. I really don't get why profit is looked down upon so harshly. Fucking A, man...everyone wants to get rich. The market will react to such, and everything will work itself out in the end.

[bitplane]

And what is that number-crunching going to? I consider it a donation to charity.

More like donating to science at best. If you really want to donate to charity, find someone LOCAL who needs the money and help them out. Charity from-a-distance is like government from-a-distance: fraught with waste. Charity is best done at home.

Anyhow, the chance of "donating $20 to science via distributed computing" doing any actual good is pretty slim. You'd be better off donating the $20 to some cause you believe in -- a scientific foundation if you prefer.

There's a lot of overhead in distributed computing projects, and only certain problems can be broken down into segments where reliability and resiliency aren't important. Remember, any piece of the puzzle can go "poof" if the person with that slice decides to quit. So the pieces of the puzzle can't depend on each other too much.

Many number-crunching scenarios could never be written for a distributed computing platform. Too much memory is required, the calculation can't be easily split up, etc.

Protein folding is something that can be distributed though, and it produces real results. A no-hassle, $20 a month donation to a distributed computing science project is IMO a worthy cause. Due to the waste and expense of distributed supercomputing your $240 a year only buys you a fraction of a letter in one of those papers, but nobody can undo the science that has been done.

[phorensic]

LED lamps:

too expensive, price will come down.
many are poorly designed and lack of customization options, that is why DIY is still popular.
pretty darn butt ugly hanging above a tank in many cases compared to ATI T5 for example.
buying now means you are stuck with a model that may very well be improved in many ways in the next 1-3 years.
resale value will be poor as price comes down leaving you with undesirable older model.

but that is just my opinion. i still prefer ATI kits and bulbs. proven track record and stylish.
eventually i will go LED in the future.

I tend to agree with this assessment. LEDs on the whole, aren't there yet, especially for marijuana. I have never seen a halfway decent bud flowered out of LED, but they're fine for cloning and small scale vegging, especially if you are in a tight space.

Plasma lights might fly for ganj, but their spectral output is totally wrong for aquaria. I am curious to see where that technology leads, cause it has some serious potential.

I thought the graphs I saw for the plasma lights looked great.  You could even change the spectrum by dimming it.  So far I've only seen one person use it on an aquarium and they never reported back as to growth, etc.  I know they use plasma on public aquariums, but I'm assuming those are fish only displays.  I really want to see where plasma goes too.  I've seen enough LED setups that just don't look natural due to multiple point sources creating funky shimmering colors.

[JBDive]

I'm mining at a loss. I don't do it to make money, bitcoin will do that on its own... eventually. I mine in protest to the derivative-based (formerly fractional reserve) global banking system.

I don't buy that unless you just recently started mining. By dollar cost averaging your cost per BTC is not what it cost today but what your average is since you started mining. Any miner from months back would have to be ahead and even more so if they sold some house money when the price spiked.

[RandyFolds]

LED lamps:

too expensive, price will come down.
many are poorly designed and lack of customization options, that is why DIY is still popular.
pretty darn butt ugly hanging above a tank in many cases compared to ATI T5 for example.
buying now means you are stuck with a model that may very well be improved in many ways in the next 1-3 years.
resale value will be poor as price comes down leaving you with undesirable older model.

but that is just my opinion. i still prefer ATI kits and bulbs. proven track record and stylish.
eventually i will go LED in the future.

I tend to agree with this assessment. LEDs on the whole, aren't there yet, especially for marijuana. I have never seen a halfway decent bud flowered out of LED, but they're fine for cloning and small scale vegging, especially if you are in a tight space.

Plasma lights might fly for ganj, but their spectral output is totally wrong for aquaria. I am curious to see where that technology leads, cause it has some serious potential.

I thought the graphs I saw for the plasma lights looked great.  You could even change the spectrum by dimming it.  So far I've only seen one person use it on an aquarium and they never reported back as to growth, etc.  I know they use plasma on public aquariums, but I'm assuming those are fish only displays.  I really want to see where plasma goes too.  I've seen enough LED setups that just don't look natural due to multiple point sources creating funky shimmering colors.

Yeah, you can pay for a 2000w plasma light, run it at 25%, and have yourself a $4000 metal halide that you could have gotten for $150.

None of the major public aquariums use plasma on their large displays, to my knowledge. Maybe they run some as an experiment, but they don't offer any real electrical savings at this point. Steinhart is one of the leading research aquariums in the world and they use only 1000w MHs in their 200,000 gallon reef display and grow 'high-light' SPS corals down to about 15' depth.

I agree that LEDs look like a friggin epileptic seizure waiting to happen. I will stick with halides or T5s for the time being.

[cablepair]

If hypothetically bitcoin fell to <$5 and stayed CONTINUALLY under $5 for 30 days (long enough for miners to get next electric bill) you likely would see some behavior change.

That's the key right there.  Most people will stick it out at least until the next power bill hits and maybe even for two bills, hoping to see a turnaround in price or drop in difficulty that will keep mining profitable.  There's definitely some people out there that will continue to mine regardless, but I bet some of the power goes dark after a while.  For example, I'm running 11 GH or so and it's costing about $500/month with a great .085 cents/kwh power rate.  If it gets unprofitable for me I'll still probably keep a GH or two running to help the network, but I can't afford to throw $400-$500 at it each month with no return for very long.

You mean you're not one of those Folding @ Home guys, whose idea of fun is to spend their extra money on hardware to crunch numbers? 

I'm not such a (what's the most derogatory word for geek or nerd?) that I'd spend even $20 on electricity for some silly distributed computing project.
I'd rather take my wife out to dinner or ANYTHING I can actually enjoy. I guess I have a life...

your wife was in the room with you when you typed that right? hahahhaha

[AngelusWebDesign]

If hypothetically bitcoin fell to <$5 and stayed CONTINUALLY under $5 for 30 days (long enough for miners to get next electric bill) you likely would see some behavior change.

That's the key right there.  Most people will stick it out at least until the next power bill hits and maybe even for two bills, hoping to see a turnaround in price or drop in difficulty that will keep mining profitable.  There's definitely some people out there that will continue to mine regardless, but I bet some of the power goes dark after a while.  For example, I'm running 11 GH or so and it's costing about $500/month with a great .085 cents/kwh power rate.  If it gets unprofitable for me I'll still probably keep a GH or two running to help the network, but I can't afford to throw $400-$500 at it each month with no return for very long.

You mean you're not one of those Folding @ Home guys, whose idea of fun is to spend their extra money on hardware to crunch numbers? 

I'm not such a (what's the most derogatory word for geek or nerd?) that I'd spend even $20 on electricity for some silly distributed computing project.
I'd rather take my wife out to dinner or ANYTHING I can actually enjoy. I guess I have a life...

your wife was in the room with you when you typed that right? hahahhaha

Nah -- taking my wife out to dinner involves A) quiet time with my wife away from the kids, B) good food, and C) improved mood for both my wife AND myself. 
So what's not to like about that?

I just don't see the benefit of spending electricity on something of dubious value. Scientists have access to all sorts of computers, including clusters of off-the-shelf PCs connected by ETHERNET, as well as actual supercomputers. They don't need my $20 in wasted electricity per month. Besides, I'm firmly convinced that cancer has been cured several times over. They just won't let us have the cure, since chemotherapy is so profitable. And let's not forget that the Georgia Guidestones call for a world population of only 500 million people -- curing a killer like cancer would be counter-productive to that goal.

Long story short -- I'm not a sucker. They don't need my computer, or my electricity.

[cablepair]

i was just joking.

If you search around the forums a bit you can find all sorts of stories of relationships ended or stressed out because of Bitcoin. As a married man my self I find that sort of thing funny. Sorry!

[Meatball]

I just don't see the benefit of spending electricity on something of dubious value. Scientists have access to all sorts of computers, including clusters of off-the-shelf PCs connected by ETHERNET, as well as actual supercomputers. They don't need my $20 in wasted electricity per month. Besides, I'm firmly convinced that cancer has been cured several times over. They just won't let us have the cure, since chemotherapy is so profitable. And let's not forget that the Georgia Guidestones call for a world population of only 500 million people -- curing a killer like cancer would be counter-productive to that goal.

Long story short -- I'm not a sucker. They don't need my computer, or my electricity.

That's kinda silly if you ask me.  If people want to donate their electricity/power towards whatever project they want, be it SETI, Folding, etc., what is wrong with that'?  It's no different than someone wanting to send a donation into the ASPCA or Red Cross, or sticking a few bucks into a donation box.  People donating their electricity/processing power do help a lot of these projects that would never be able to analyze the data or crunch the numbers that they have with their budgets.

If that's not for you...it's all good, and it's awesome that you get enjoyment out of spending your money elsewhere, but don't knock these projects as 'dubious projects' just because you don't think it's worth your money.

And please don't go off on some conspiracy theory tangent that all this is just some plan of government/corporation X.  I have a hard enough time reading through all your "BITCOIN IS DOOMED!" posts as it is

[JBDive]

I just don't see the benefit of spending electricity on something of dubious value. Scientists have access to all sorts of computers, including clusters of off-the-shelf PCs connected by ETHERNET, as well as actual supercomputers. They don't need my $20 in wasted electricity per month. Besides, I'm firmly convinced that cancer has been cured several times over. They just won't let us have the cure, since chemotherapy is so profitable. And let's not forget that the Georgia Guidestones call for a world population of only 500 million people -- curing a killer like cancer would be counter-productive to that goal.

Long story short -- I'm not a sucker. They don't need my computer, or my electricity.

Why remain ignorant.  If you don't want to fold then don't but why make up claims that are false.

Folding isn't dubious.  It has already resulted in numerous breakthroughs.

Building and running a supercomputer is expensive insanely expensive.  Folding has a combined computational power of 6404 TFLOP.

To put that into perspective the most powerful supercomputer in the world is ~8000 TFLOPs.  The 2nd largest is ~4700 TFLOPS.

No international medical research program in the world even makes the top 100 supercomputer list ( sub 80 TFLOPs).

Simply put without access to Folding @ Home the computational power available to protein researchers would be maybe 1% of what they have access to.  The amount of simulations completed this year w/ Folding program would have taken a century.   More likely without access to computational power that would lead to discovers in a researcher's lifetime the research would never even be undertaken.

The downside, once a major cure is found from one the results that thousands of people put their computer to work on there will be some big pharma outfit come in, patent the drug or process and then turn around and charge those same helping hands a 5000 percent markup for access to the cure.

[PatrickHarnett]

After catching up on this thread, I stumbled on this news story, seems fitting to post it into the discussion.

http://www.gameinformer.com/b/news/archive/2011/09/19/foldit-users-solve-baffling-problem.aspx

[mikethebodacious]

After catching up on this thread, I stumbled on this news story, seems fitting to post it into the discussion.

http://www.gameinformer.com/b/news/archive/2011/09/19/foldit-users-solve-baffling-problem.aspx

Yeah, us gamers sure are awesome