Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

[hdbuck]

Pile of Shit coins can not go anywhere because you can not stop progress. Daily superior technology hits the market endlessly diluting the market. Software is cheap and easy to replace starting a new chain is no effort. It is akin to a parallel system, start again and again.
With Bitcoin progress is made too with new better miners hitting the market the technology is hardware based the chain stays the same, akin to a serial system keep building atop of the foundation.  

In software we tend to 'lock in' (excellent analysis here: http://www.amazon.com/You-Are-Not-Gadget-Manifesto/dp/0307389979) but on the other hand first mover advantage is highly overestimated too (netscape, myspace, etc).

It is difficult to know the result because Bitcoin is both asset/currency/commodity/store of value etc AND software.

I guess we will learn sooner or later!

I agree but bitcoin software is about to hit the hardware limit regarding mining devices. Best Chips are 28nm so far and there is room for 22nm but it wont be as profitable beyond those nodes (intel just released their 14nm chips). My guess is that quantity should take on from there, tappering the network's overall power (hashrate). What will be the effect on btc price is puzzeling.

More centralization in the mining.

Cue the integrated asic mining chip in personal computers as some premium feature.

@hunyadi arf my bad but i guess my point is still valid, not going to argue for 2nm ^^ The development & running cost for sub20 nm is unlikely to ever ROI. Could be beautiful but not very scalable. Maybe in 10 years when intel releases their 7nm chip and the technology had matured enough?!

[1714207748]

1714207748

[1714207748]

1714207748

[cypherdoc]

Bitcoin is going down.

Gold is not fallling.

Upside down world.

Nasty ass reversal:

[cypherdoc]

we got a rejection going so far off ceiling resistance:

[manfred]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-29221372

[Hunyadi]

Cue the integrated asic mining chip in personal computers as some premium feature.

@hunyadi arf my bad but i guess my point is still valid, not going to argue for 2nm ^^ The development & running cost for sub20 nm is unlikely to ever ROI. Could be beautiful but not very scalable. Maybe in 10 years when intel releases their 7nm chip and the technology had matured enough?!

Yes, I think 20nm will be the best chip in bitcoin mining for many years to come. Also, there wasn't even very big improvement in the performance compared to 28nm.

[cypherdoc]

Cue the integrated asic mining chip in personal computers as some premium feature.

@hunyadi arf my bad but i guess my point is still valid, not going to argue for 2nm ^^ The development & running cost for sub20 nm is unlikely to ever ROI. Could be beautiful but not very scalable. Maybe in 10 years when intel releases their 7nm chip and the technology had matured enough?!

Yes, I think 20nm will be the best chip in bitcoin mining for many years to come. Also, there wasn't even very big improvement in the performance compared to 28nm.

once the chip set size becomes standardized, at least for a while, the prices for miners should come down.

[cypherdoc]

the Nash Equilibrium continues to equilibrate:

[notme]

Cue the integrated asic mining chip in personal computers as some premium feature.

@hunyadi arf my bad but i guess my point is still valid, not going to argue for 2nm ^^ The development & running cost for sub20 nm is unlikely to ever ROI. Could be beautiful but not very scalable. Maybe in 10 years when intel releases their 7nm chip and the technology had matured enough?!

Yes, I think 20nm will be the best chip in bitcoin mining for many years to come. Also, there wasn't even very big improvement in the performance compared to 28nm.

once the chip set size becomes standardized, at least for a while, the prices for miners should come down.

Exactly.  Once they stop pushing to newer processes, they quit spending huge development effort on each run and just start rolling out the proven design.  Marginal cost on just the chip should be around $5, but with the first few generations, they had to pay for development costs in one run.

[STT]

Bitcoin is going down.

Gold is not fallling.

Upside down world.

Nasty ass reversal:

It shouldnt correlate on a daily basis anyway.  Its a basic technical analysis rule that the longer time frames are more accurate and easier to predict then one off occurances like daily trading.   The minimum really is weekly bars due to the weekend forcing day traders to flush their positions (every short is a buy eventually )  Obviously there are bigger fisher and most options are quarterly but I take weekly as minimum for proper comparison personally

Cue the integrated asic mining chip in personal computers as some premium feature.

Shouldnt we expect a distributed network to eventually become commonplace not a tendency towards specialisation as bitcoin mining has currently lent towards

[cypherdoc]

You are so full of FUD.

I am leaving this thread then. Please stay in your blissful ignorance.

you ditch out after the most important question of all?  i'll ask again given that gvt's are the fundamental unit of organization that has the ability to point a gun at mining centers:

"so which gvt are you talking about? The US? China? Russia? Or all of them together since they all seem to get along so well?"

[Peter R]

once the chip set size becomes standardized, at least for a while, the prices for miners should come down.

Exactly.  Once they stop pushing to newer processes, they quit spending huge development effort on each run and just start rolling out the proven design.  Marginal cost on just the chip should be around $5, but with the first few generations, they had to pay for development costs in one run.

And once those chips become commodities, there will be very little advantage of "vertical integration" in the style of BitFury/GHash.io.  This will open the door to smaller mining hardware companies, because competition will move away the ASIC design and towards less capital-intensive system design and supply-chain management.  Cypher's Nash equilibrium will be equilibrating for a while still….

[devphp]

You are so full of FUD.

I am leaving this thread then. Please stay in your blissful ignorance.

you ditch out after the most important question of all?  i'll ask again given that gvt's are the fundamental unit of organization that has the ability to point a gun at mining centers:

"so which gvt are you talking about? The US? China? Russia? Or all of them together since they all seem to get along so well?"

Any and all of them can do it, separately or together. Bitcoin is a threat to them all, they could agree on this single point, I don't see why they would not. Not immediately, because it's not a threat yet, also they could wait till it gets even more centralized, which is inevitable, that will make it an easier target.

[cypherdoc]

You are so full of FUD.

I am leaving this thread then. Please stay in your blissful ignorance.

you ditch out after the most important question of all?  i'll ask again given that gvt's are the fundamental unit of organization that has the ability to point a gun at mining centers:

"so which gvt are you talking about? The US? China? Russia? Or all of them together since they all seem to get along so well?"

Any and all of them can do it, separately or together. Bitcoin is a threat to them all, they could agree on this single point, I don't see why they would not. Not immediately, because it's not a threat yet, also they could wait till it gets even more centralized, which is inevitable, that will make it an easier target.

your arguments are basically a never ending series of buts; but, but, but...

at some pt you have to make an assessment of what is likely and plausible.

[STT]

That argument can apply to the internet itself.  Its decentralised but easy to argue it can be attacked, it is on a daily basis by various collectives ?    Does it fail easily, or would BTC collapse;  I think in both cases it would reform and redistribute more thinly, processing times would suffer and difficulty would have to change

[Peter R]

I personally think bitshares x has a better product than nxt with a truly decentralized AND collateralized market.  I believe this achievement is being overlooked because this is the first time in human history that any asset on earth can be traded with actual collateral backing up the trade (btsx) and enforced automatically by an algorithm instead of people.  This is NOT an IOU for an asset, which has been the only option in markets until now.  Also, the DPOS model will be great if it stands the test of time because of the 10s confirmation times. 

Bitcoin and nxt have both been tested with bailouts/qe/inflation with Mt gox and bter repectively and both have passed the test.  The question remains; is work truly required to give a money it's value?  This is more of a socionomic question and a bit harder to predict but I don't think so.  I believe we will see 3 to 5 dominant chains emerge with Bitcoin being the primary POW, or digital gold.  Other chains will provide other uses but their associated currencies will act as money in many cases.  The alternative is for Bitcoin to survive as the sole form of money with open transactions, side chains, or some type of m of n oracle system to provide collateralized markets with Bitcoin being collateral. 

Is not the alternative (bolded) more likely?  Is this a true statement?:

   The features of any appcoin can be emulated by a m-of-n oracles system that uses tokens pegged to bitcoin as fuel.  

If that is true, I don't see why, should some useful "app" actually emerge, that the equivalent systems that use bitcoin wouldn't outcompete the appcoins that use proprietary tokens.  Which, like Cypher said, suggests that the value of these proprietary tokens should trend to zero.  

[devphp]

at some pt you have to make an assessment of what is likely and plausible.

I only post what I think is very plausible and put my money where my mouth is.

[cypherdoc]

That argument can apply to the internet itself.  

this is the argument.  

i've always argued that the internet has been built to handle a nuclear blast wiping out a significant part of the country.  it will route around that kind of damage.  the worse case scenario is for the US to block the internet here to stop Bitcoin to defend the USD's world reserve status.  even in that unlikely event, Bitcoin should be able to route around the damage via other countries.  let's see how the banking system fairs with that.

we know that China and Russia are doing what they can to undermine the USD.  they've headed towards gold as their strategy.  for all the arguments i've made since Gold: I smell a trap, i doubt that will work.  point being, cooperation with the US to block Bitcoin seems very unlikely.  as long as a few countries accept it, Bitcoin should survive.

[cypherdoc]

here's a counter 51% argument from someone i respect very much, sgornick:

http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/2gjkpv/is_this_the_reason_the_bitcoin_price_is_not/ckjs5l6

[FNG]

we know that China and Russia are doing what they can to undermine the USD.  

Hedge against it's certain death

[cypherdoc]

oh my:

https://twitter.com/jgarzik/status/511928969000943616