Would Bitcoin be at 10 000$ if it was ASIC proof?

[porcupine87]

I always read here that coins with ASIC proof algorithms will go through the roof when scrypt ASICs will appear eventually. But why? What makes a crypto currency valuable? That you can mine it with old unspecialized hardware? Or is it because of transactions time, transaction cost etc.?

Tell us your opinion.

In my opinion we have here the classic flaw of the Marx's objective value or Labor theory of value. So that the work to make a product decides how much worth it is. Am I right?

PS: And don't fall for this that because of ASIC not everyone can participate in mining. I have no chance to mine Litecoin, Vertcoin or even Darkcoin with my Notebook. 24h full power would bring me 1-2 cents in profit. Yeah.

[bountygiver]

It is more about the market volume/liquidity than hashrates....
Since there are plenty of bitcoin investors profit by trading instead of mining, don't think the impact is big enough to bring it to $10K

[porcupine87]

Its the old supply vs demand argument isnt it?

The more ASIC miners there are, the more supply of said coin, and therefore downward pressure on price.

So in answer to your question, I would have to say yes it would have reached those heights, maybe more.

The supply of coins is not affected of the hashrate. There are 25 new bitcoins every 10min, 21mio. in total. How can anyone with 250 posts not know that?

[sadface]

it wouldnt

[DubFX]

10k is a bit too mutch mut yeah maybe it would have way bigger value.

[nagatlakshmi]

It should be!

[xstr8guy]

Its the old supply vs demand argument isnt it?

The more ASIC miners there are, the more supply of said coin, and therefore downward pressure on price.

So in answer to your question, I would have to say yes it would have reached those heights, maybe more.

The supply of coins is not affected of the hashrate. There are 25 new bitcoins every 10min, 21mio. in total. How can anyone with 250 posts not know that?

WAHAHAHA!

[LongAndShort]

Would Bitcoin be at 10 000$ if it was secured by gpu only!?

[minecrew]

It would be more chances, if there are no ASICs... Then it would be fairly distributed.

Even scrypt-coins that starts now not fairly distributed. Because somebody already have 200+ Mh/s versus your 1-10 MH/s at the start. So, this year will be interesting for everybody who mine cryptocoins.

[iGotSpots]

Its the old supply vs demand argument isnt it?

The more ASIC miners there are, the more supply of said coin, and therefore downward pressure on price.

So in answer to your question, I would have to say yes it would have reached those heights, maybe more.

The supply of coins is not affected of the hashrate. There are 25 new bitcoins every 10min, 21mio. in total. How can anyone with 250 posts not know that?

lol you are joking right?

funny guy

He's 100% right. Do you not understand how the network works...?

[g4c]

Its the old supply vs demand argument isnt it?

The more ASIC miners there are, the more supply of said coin, and therefore downward pressure on price.

So in answer to your question, I would have to say yes it would have reached those heights, maybe more.

The supply of coins is not affected of the hashrate. There are 25 new bitcoins every 10min, 21mio. in total. How can anyone with 250 posts not know that?

lol you are joking right?

funny guy

[coinerer]

It would be more chances, if there are no ASICs... Then it would be fairly distributed.

Even scrypt-coins that starts now not fairly distributed. Because somebody already have 200+ Mh/s versus your 1-10 MH/s at the start. So, this year will be interesting for everybody who mine cryptocoins.

What does it mean term fairly distributed coins? Which is its influence on the price?


I don't respect big premine, IPOs and overrated new coins (almost all of them) only.

[eightspaces]

btc would be at $14059252352385 if BCX wanted it to be

[wasamata]

Its the old supply vs demand argument isnt it?

The more ASIC miners there are, the more supply of said coin, and therefore downward pressure on price.

So in answer to your question, I would have to say yes it would have reached those heights, maybe more.

The supply of coins is not affected of the hashrate. There are 25 new bitcoins every 10min, 21mio. in total. How can anyone with 250 posts not know that?

Ah I was mistaken i admit it. What a fool I am! lol
Did not know that.

[iamreddy44]

btc would be at $14059252352385 if BCX wanted it to be

After the crash he caused today, i'm beginning to think he doesn't want that

[iGotSpots]

Its the old supply vs demand argument isnt it?

The more ASIC miners there are, the more supply of said coin, and therefore downward pressure on price.

So in answer to your question, I would have to say yes it would have reached those heights, maybe more.

The supply of coins is not affected of the hashrate. There are 25 new bitcoins every 10min, 21mio. in total. How can anyone with 250 posts not know that?

Ah I was mistaken i admit it. What a fool I am! lol
Did not know that.

That's day one information. Please read up before investing

[wasamata]

[/quote]

That's day one information. Please read up before investing
[/quote]

 
Thanks, i know i deserved that.
We know Asic miners tend to rapidly depreciate in value (compared with say, a gpu rig).
So is there not a greater urge of asic miners to dump their coins rather than hold them
1. to get a ROI and 2. to keep playing the asic arms race?

[hellscabane]

I personally don't think Bitcoin would have ever gotten to the price without ASICs. The moment specialized research went into Bitcoin (for both a security and profit motive) into creating unique geometries that are in-built into the ASIC chips and modifications to optimize mining software needed to be developed was the moment that the price would start to dramatically increase. Even though it isn't intended to do so, whenever specialized technology goes into something (especially in the hardware realm), it tends to bring a substantial increase in price (at least in terms of a linear scale).

It's kinda like the invested money has to cycle back somehow right?

If everyone kept using GPUs, there wouldn't have been the same magnitude of invested money.

[eightspaces]

I personally don't think Bitcoin would have ever gotten to the price without ASICs. The moment specialized research went into Bitcoin (for both a security and profit motive) into creating unique geometries that are in-built into the ASIC chips and modifications to optimize mining software needed to be developed was the moment that the price would start to dramatically increase. Even though it isn't intended to do so, whenever specialized technology goes into something (especially in the hardware realm), it tends to bring a substantial increase in price (at least in terms of a linear scale).

It's kinda like the invested money has to cycle back somehow right?

If everyone kept using GPUs, there wouldn't have been the same magnitude of invested money.

+420

[markm]

Without specialised hardware there is no commitment, miners run off after any stupid meme or fad that comes along.

When people invest millions into dedicated hardware it indicates they are more serious about actually securing a blockchain than when a bunch of gamers decide to leave their gaming rig running between game sessions to grab themselves some lunch money.

-MarkM-