Bitcoin Forum
November 25, 2017, 08:25:33 AM *
News: Latest stable version of Bitcoin Core: 0.15.1  [Torrent].
 
   Home   Help Search Donate Login Register  
Poll
Question: Will you support Gavin's new block size limit hard fork of 8MB by January 1, 2016 then doubling every 2 years?
1.  yes
2.  no

Pages: « 1 ... 1179 1180 1181 1182 1183 1184 1185 1186 1187 1188 1189 1190 1191 1192 1193 1194 1195 1196 1197 1198 1199 1200 1201 1202 1203 1204 1205 1206 1207 1208 1209 1210 1211 1212 1213 1214 1215 1216 1217 1218 1219 1220 1221 1222 1223 1224 1225 1226 1227 1228 [1229] 1230 1231 1232 1233 1234 1235 1236 1237 1238 1239 1240 1241 1242 1243 1244 1245 1246 1247 1248 1249 1250 1251 1252 1253 1254 1255 1256 1257 1258 1259 1260 1261 1262 1263 1264 1265 1266 1267 1268 1269 1270 1271 1272 1273 1274 1275 1276 1277 1278 1279 ... 1558 »
  Print  
Author Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.  (Read 2014123 times)
lunarboy
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 544



View Profile
May 20, 2015, 07:50:10 AM
 #24561

UBS pays $545m to settle foreign exchange probe BBC - UBS FINE

Quote
US and UK authorities are expected to hand out penalties to major banks totalling about $5bn related to the foreign exchange investigation.

Just remind me again, what's the yearly quantity of money that got manipulated in the global Forex markets???
1511598333
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1511598333

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1511598333
Reply with quote  #2

1511598333
Report to moderator
1511598333
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1511598333

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1511598333
Reply with quote  #2

1511598333
Report to moderator
Join ICO Now A blockchain platform for effective freelancing
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1511598333
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1511598333

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1511598333
Reply with quote  #2

1511598333
Report to moderator
1511598333
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1511598333

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1511598333
Reply with quote  #2

1511598333
Report to moderator
TPTB_need_war
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420


View Profile
May 20, 2015, 07:52:57 AM
 #24562

UBS pays $545m to settle foreign exchange probe BBC - UBS FINE

Quote
US and UK authorities are expected to hand out penalties to major banks totalling about $5bn related to the foreign exchange investigation.

Just remind me again, what's the yearly quantity of money that got manipulated in the global Forex markets???

Let's slap each other's wrist while we are copulating under the table with our other hands. But really can't you see we are smilingsneering (it so vigorous ya) and thus reforming.

TPTB_need_war
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420


View Profile
May 20, 2015, 08:01:18 AM
 #24563

If I recall correctly, the Bitcoin dev team was really excited about Zerocoin, until they saw that computational overhead which rightfully scared them away.

Now a zerocoin sidechain that is merged mined with Bitcoin and only lives off of it's own transaction fees, would enable people to fully clean any coin they have for a modest fee.

I vaguely remember the problem you mentioned and the shared secret needed in the bootstrapping step as the main causes why zerocoin wasn't merged, but I could be wrong.

Now both of them are solved in zerocash, though a merge now is highly improbable for economical, political and technical reasons.

You are confusing the coin and the cash.  Zerocoin had severe scaling issues but less of a threat of unknown money supply (coins can be minted if key compromised but all coins coming out the accumulator are countable). Zerocash reduced scaling issues (but arguably not enough to scale) but added an uncountable money supply along with greater anonymity of every aspect of the transaction including the payment amounts.

Afaik, there was an attempt to fix the process of selecting the master key in Zerocash which is argued to be secure, but afaik there are still detractors who question if that process is secure. Bottom line is you can't count the money supply in Zerocash thus you can not prove whether it was secure or not in the real world.

Also I was worried about how reverted transactions would work in Zerocash with orphaned chains if there was attempt to avoid selfish mining using my math to merge blockchains and pay proportion coinbase (minted coins on) all orphaned chains.

Have there been developments since that?

smooth
Legendary
*
Online Online

Activity: 1610



View Profile
May 20, 2015, 08:05:28 AM
 #24564

With space heating, we don't need 21 Inc. Anyone in the market for space heating with Bitcoin mining, can go buy a used miner on ebay now. Thus if that was a big mass movement market, why hasn't it happened already?

It has. Poke around the mining forums and you see people mentioning constantly that keeping their home warm is part of the value proposition of mining for them.

21 apparently wants to scale out appliance and device mining to the mass market. That hasn't happened yet because no one has done it yet. The mass market isn't interested in (perhaps less than optimally efficient) mining rigs as heating units, but they'll be happy with an integrated plug-in unit that costs them less because it mines for the manufacturer.

Also, there no real tax burden to the manufacturer, mining revenue is taxed essentially the same as product or service revenue, especially if converted to fiat right away. That might well be part of the value-add to a subsidized-product model of mining.




Bagatell
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 722



View Profile
May 20, 2015, 08:09:01 AM
 #24565

UBS pays $545m to settle foreign exchange probe BBC - UBS FINE

Quote
US and UK authorities are expected to hand out penalties to major banks totalling about $5bn related to the foreign exchange investigation.

Just remind me again, what's the yearly quantity of money that got manipulated in the global Forex markets???


"According to the Bank for International Settlements,[4] the preliminary global results from the 2013 Triennial Central Bank Survey of Foreign Exchange and OTC Derivatives Markets Activity show that trading in foreign exchange markets averaged $5.3 trillion per day in April 2013."
TPTB_need_war
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420


View Profile
May 20, 2015, 08:13:11 AM
 #24566

With space heating, we don't need 21 Inc. Anyone in the market for space heating with Bitcoin mining, can go buy a used miner on ebay now. Thus if that was a big mass movement market, why hasn't it happened already?

It has. Poke around the mining forums and you see people mentioning constantly that keeping their home warm is part of the value proposition of mining for them.

I know that. No mass movement.

21 apparently wants to scale out appliance and device mining to the mass market. That hasn't happened because no one has done it yet. The mass market isn't interested in (perhaps less than optimally efficient) mining rigs as heating units, but they'll be happy with an integrated plug-in unit that costs them less because it mines for the manufacturer.

So you are asserting that selling space heaters to individuals didn't work because no one made an integrated plug-n-play process? And the retailers of appliances can make it so resolving connectivity and operational issues  Huh

You don't $116 million to launch that over the internet, unless the point is you need to have it in all retailers and with name brand names on the products.

The only really viable market is space heating thus limited to winter months and cold climates. The other appliance markets are not viable because too small of a ROI for the hassle of installation/maintenance and/or have superior replacements.

Also, there no real tax burden to the manufacturer, mining revenue is taxed essentially the same as product or service revenue, especially if converted to fiat right away.

You are saying the manufacturer will sell the device at a lower price (taking all the mined coins) but the consumer will pay the same electric bill, then bother to keep the miner running well  Huh

Any shell games on who pays the utility bill don't resolve the tax culpability (at least in the USA).

Some people will do it for space heating in cold enough climates. Most people won't, at least not a quick ramp up in the West and third world. China would be the largest market I bet, because of their combination of frugal mindset, engineering and math acumen, I think no income tax, authorities can get top-down things done that align with their global Technocracy goals (Smart electric meters, etc), and developing youthful demographics economy. Again these are likely sales to cash and limited network effects.

The other big target market are the smartphones in developing markets, but again the economics are not very compelling.

TPTB_need_war
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420


View Profile
May 20, 2015, 08:24:51 AM
 #24567

One more point. The extent to which space heated mining is developed could be good for altcoins too and thus is not a lockin, because the barriers to entry are low. You have a CPU-hash focused coin, okay turn on your computer and mine to warm your room. Plug-n-play with temperature control can be Kickstarted.

The smartphone target market is the attempted lockin, but I think it not very economically compelling on a wide scale in terms of BTC micropayments. Might work a bit on subsidizing smartphone adoption without the micropayments network efforts. That isn't really a big threat of lockin then.

smooth
Legendary
*
Online Online

Activity: 1610



View Profile
May 20, 2015, 08:29:08 AM
 #24568

21 apparently wants to scale out appliance and device mining to the mass market. That hasn't happened because no one has done it yet. The mass market isn't interested in (perhaps less than optimally efficient) mining rigs as heating units, but they'll be happy with an integrated plug-in unit that costs them less because it mines for the manufacturer.

So you are asserting that selling space heaters to individuals didn't work because no one made an integrated plug-n-play process? And the retailers of appliances can make it so resolving connectivity and operational issues  Huh

I'm asserting that no one has tried to sell Bitcoin miners as space heaters because it's been too small and too new of a market and no one has developed the technology for embeddable mining. Selling products at consumer price points is very different from selling mining rigs to be used in big farms and data centers.

Quote
You don't $116 million to launch that over the internet, unless the point is you need to have it in all retailers and with name brand names on the products.

Meh, there is a lot of VC money flying around these days, probable an indirect consequence of QE. So you might be surprised at the crap business plans that get funded. But I would guess yes, their appliances may show up with brand names in retailers at some point. They aren't really even launched yet, the only thing they've done at this point is recently reveled some of their plans/technology.

Quote
Also, there no real tax burden to the manufacturer, mining revenue is taxed essentially the same as product or service revenue, especially if converted to fiat right away.

You are saying the manufacturer will sell the device at a lower price (taking all the mined coins) but the consumer will pay the same electric bill, then bother to keep the miner running well  Huh

I guess it won't require effort to keep it running (or the product will likely fail, which is very possible).

Quote
Any shell games on who pays the utility bill don't resolve the tax culpability (at least in the USA).

There's no shell game here. Mining income is taxed the essentially the same as product revenue. If you sell a product for $100 instead of $200 and get $100 worth of mined coins, then you pay tax on $200, just the same as if you had sold the product for $200. If you sell it for $100 instead of $200 and get $200 worth of mined coins, you in fact sold the product for $300 and pay tax on $300 (but have a higher profit margin).

The consumer gets no tax deduction for heating his water/air, in either case.

The barriers to entry aren't incredibly low, for the product itself, but being integrated into products distributed through a supply chain is a reasonably effective form of lock in by bundling. Walmart probably only carries a few lines of space heaters, etc. Altcoins won't have access to the hash rate unless they can convince the manufacturer.
TPTB_need_war
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420


View Profile
May 20, 2015, 08:32:27 AM
 #24569

21 apparently wants to scale out appliance and device mining to the mass market. That hasn't happened because no one has done it yet. The mass market isn't interested in (perhaps less than optimally efficient) mining rigs as heating units, but they'll be happy with an integrated plug-in unit that costs them less because it mines for the manufacturer.

So you are asserting that selling space heaters to individuals didn't work because no one made an integrated plug-n-play process? And the retailers of appliances can make it so resolving connectivity and operational issues  Huh

I'm asserting that no one has tried to sell Bitcoin miners as space heaters because it's been too small and too new of a market and no one has developed the technology for embeddable mining. Selling products at consumer price points is very different from selling mining rigs to be used in big farms and data centers.

Quote
You don't $116 million to launch that over the internet, unless the point is you need to have it in all retailers and with name brand names on the products.

Meh, there is a lot of VC money flying around these days, probable an indirect consequence of QE. So you might be surprised at the crap business plans that get funded. But I would guess yes, their appliances may show up with brand names in retailers at some point. They aren't really even launched yet, the only thing they've done at this point is recently reveled some of their plans/technology.

Quote
Also, there no real tax burden to the manufacturer, mining revenue is taxed essentially the same as product or service revenue, especially if converted to fiat right away.

You are saying the manufacturer will sell the device at a lower price (taking all the mined coins) but the consumer will pay the same electric bill, then bother to keep the miner running well  Huh

I guess it won't require effort to keep it running (or the product will likely fail, which is very possible).

Quote
Any shell games on who pays the utility bill don't resolve the tax culpability (at least in the USA).

There's no shell game here. Mining income is taxed the essentially the same as product revenue. If you sell a product for $100 instead of $200 and get $100 worth of mined coins, then you pay tax on $200, just the same as if you had sold the product for $200. If you sell it for $100 instead of $200 and get $200 worth of mined coins, you in fact sold the product for $300 and pay tax on $300 (but have a higher profit margin).

The consumer gets no tax deduction for heating his water/air, in either case.

The barriers to entry aren't incredibly low, for the product itself, but being integrated into products distributed through a supply chain is a reasonably effective form of lock in by bundling. Walmart probably only carries a few lines of space heaters, etc. Altcoins won't have access to the hash rate unless they can convince the manufacturer.

My implied point was that if the home user is not paying the tax on mined coins, they are not getting (any mined coins and thus not) a discount on their monthly electric bill, thus what incentive do they have to keep the miner running always?

You are saying the manufacturer will sell the device at a lower price (taking all the mined coins) but the consumer will pay the same electric bill, then bother to keep the miner running well  Huh

Any shell games on who pays the utility bill don't resolve the tax culpability (at least in the USA).

smooth
Legendary
*
Online Online

Activity: 1610



View Profile
May 20, 2015, 08:35:45 AM
 #24570

My point is that if the home user is not paying the tax on mined coins, they are not getting (any mined coins and thus not) a discount on their monthly electric bill, thus what incentive do they have to keep the miner running always?

Warm water or air (or toast, possibly)
TPTB_need_war
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420


View Profile
May 20, 2015, 08:37:46 AM
 #24571

My point is that if the home user is not paying the tax on mined coins, they are not getting (any mined coins and thus not) a discount on their monthly electric bill, thus what incentive do they have to keep the miner running always?

Warm water or air (or toast, possibly)

I thought these were going to be sold very cheaply nearly free since the electricity cost is the major cost.

Otherwise what incentive do I have to buy one.

Thus when it stops working, I don't have a strong incentive to hassle with it. I might get tired of the tsuris and just want a heater that works.

My point is that a discount on the space heater is not very compelling. A discount on the ongoing electric bill more so, but then taxes have to be dealt with.

smooth
Legendary
*
Online Online

Activity: 1610



View Profile
May 20, 2015, 08:38:59 AM
 #24572

My point is that if the home user is not paying the tax on mined coins, they are not getting (any mined coins and thus not) a discount on their monthly electric bill, thus what incentive do they have to keep the miner running always?

Warm water or air (or toast, possibly)

I thought these were going to be sold very cheaply nearly free since the electricity cost is the major cost.

Otherwise what incentive do I have to buy one.

Cheaper product cost. It's the subsidized-handset heater business model.

TPTB_need_war
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420


View Profile
May 20, 2015, 08:42:06 AM
 #24573

My point is that if the home user is not paying the tax on mined coins, they are not getting (any mined coins and thus not) a discount on their monthly electric bill, thus what incentive do they have to keep the miner running always?

Warm water or air (or toast, possibly)

I thought these were going to be sold very cheaply nearly free since the electricity cost is the major cost.

Otherwise what incentive do I have to buy one.

Cheaper product cost. It's the subsidized-handset heater business model.

It is not very compelling. A heater is a major home appliance that lasts for 10 years or more. A cell phone is a device you need to replace every 2 years or so, gets lost, gets stolen, gets dropped, etc.

The NAV of a heater is already very low compared to the much higher monthly expenditure.

The barriers to entry to this space heater market were not $116 million. It hasn't been done because it isn't that compelling.

Bitcoin needs to reach at least 10% adoption before it makes much sense.

A free toaster that requires me to maintain internet access is not free. A free toaster that requires me to troubleshoot connectivity issues is not free. Etc..

Also the heater will need to be replaced more frequently than 10 years due to Moore's law.Not if the manufacturer is receiving all the mined coins revenue but the incentive for the manufacturer to continue customer support to keep the device connected and running declines.

TPTB_need_war
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420


View Profile
May 20, 2015, 08:51:38 AM
 #24574

There is another reason this idea of manufacturer taking all the coins can't possibly work. The consumer will demand the heater works even when connectivity is down.

No one wants a heater that only works when the internet is online.

Thus what incentive does the consumer have to maintain connectivity if they aren't getting some of the coins and paying taxes on them?

smooth
Legendary
*
Online Online

Activity: 1610



View Profile
May 20, 2015, 08:53:45 AM
 #24575

My point is that if the home user is not paying the tax on mined coins, they are not getting (any mined coins and thus not) a discount on their monthly electric bill, thus what incentive do they have to keep the miner running always?

Warm water or air (or toast, possibly)

I thought these were going to be sold very cheaply nearly free since the electricity cost is the major cost.

Otherwise what incentive do I have to buy one.

Cheaper product cost. It's the subsidized-handset heater business model.

It is not very compelling. A heater is a major home appliance that lasts for 10 years or more. A cell phone is a device you need to replace every 2 years or so, gets lost, gets stolen, gets dropped, etc.

Sounds like 10 years of lock-in to me. The manufacturer will be getting coins until it breaks down or is replaced. Nice revenue stream.

Quote
The NAV of a heater is already very low compared to the much higher monthly expenditure.

The monthly expenditure is the same whether you mine or not, so it is effectively zero here.

Quote
The barriers to entry to this market were not $116 million. It hasn't been done because it isn't that compelling.

I don't know about the $116 million. As I said I have essentially zero confidence that because VC's invested in something it is actually a good idea or a good business.

But as far as it not being done before I think you just don't understand the mining or silicon IP markets very well. ASIC mining has only been around for 18 months or so. 21 has been funded and working on their embeddable mining (and whatever else) technology for a good portion of that time.

Quote
Bitcoin needs to reach at least 10% adoption before it makes much sense.

Sure, so in that case the $100 million is a long shot bet on what at that point might be an owner of embeddable silicon IP worth many billions if and when BTC adoption is 10%.

Quote
There is another reason you idea can't possibly work. The consumer will demand the heater works even when connectivity is down

That's easy to do. Just mine and burn the hashes. The business case for the subsidy is that the manufacturer will mine a lot of BTC, not that uptime will be 100%.
TPTB_need_war
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420


View Profile
May 20, 2015, 08:59:27 AM
 #24576

Sounds like 10 years of lock-in to me. The manufacturer will be getting coins until it breaks down or is replaced. Nice revenue stream.

Was than a rebuttal? Any factual points? A consumer is going to sign a 10 year lockin on insignificant NAV gain  Huh

ASIC mining has only been around for 18 months or so.

2013 seems like 10 years ago to me I guess. It could have been done with GPUs before that. Miners were very resourceful. They didn't find a market demand. Bitcoin's market isn't that large yet.

Heating is not fungible with mining.

Quote
There is another reason you idea can't possibly work. The consumer will demand the heater works even when connectivity is down

That's easy to do. Just mine and burn the hashes. The business case for the subsidy is that the manufacturer will mine a lot of BTC, not that uptime will be 100%.

You miss the point. The consumer has no incentive to ever connect then.

Sorry heating and mining are not fungible. The overlap where it will work is small and especially tiny in a tiny Bitcoin adoption market.

Solar water heating is 90% cost reduction. What percentage of the population uses it? And it doesn't have to maintain connectivity.

What happens when I move? My heater's subsidized connectivity moves too? (That was Eric Raymond's famous snark question to the IETF when they were proposing only .country domain TLDs and why we have .com now)

I think we've established in this thread who is pragmatic and who is pie-in-the-sky.

smooth
Legendary
*
Online Online

Activity: 1610



View Profile
May 20, 2015, 09:02:41 AM
 #24577

There is another reason this idea of manufacturer taking all the coins can't possibly work. The consumer will demand the heater works even when connectivity is down.

No one wants a heater that only works when the internet is online.

Thus what incentive does the consumer have to maintain connectivity if they aren't getting some of the coins and paying taxes on them?

Look you are envisioning a product that the consumer maintains as a miner, I'm not. It might have a prepaid cellular data chip in it (one of the Bitcoin hardware wallet companies are doing this). The manufacturer might offer free monitoring and service maintenance or some other incentive if you hook it up to your WiFi (which had better be easy, or people won't do it, but it could possibly be made easy using a mobile app or something).

I don't know how the business model will work in practice. I do know there is an enormous amount of electric heating that can be harnessed for mining. Some clever business people will figure out how to do that, sooner or later (assuming PoW mining continues to be done), even if not 21.
worth
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 557


@PlainTech & @BitSeeds on Twitter


View Profile WWW
May 20, 2015, 09:02:56 AM
 #24578

I find the 21 Dot Co. plans to be interesting and potentially pretty exciting. Speak-of efficiency though, I can't help but wonder if this could be achieved more effectively with a different algo like Blake-256 which, to my understanding, is vastly more efficient than SHA-256.  

Efficiency isn't important, it's only important to individuals relative to your competition. Efficiency determines the total hash rate. The amount of energy consumed in PoW is determined by the price of bitcoin. We are in a price zone determined by the physical limitations of available energy space etc. Once we have halved we enter a new zone.

21 are positioning themselves to take advantage of a price spike like the run-up to $1200 when mining with a shitty GPU was more profitable than at any time prior, even more profitable after the more efficient ASICs for a short time. The price dip now has made bitcoin more efficient, not the advancement in tech. That's just given an opportunity to the innovators.

Efficiency is very important in this context (although it doesn't seem like you're using the word efficiency the same way I am).

When you're talking about embedding chips in a wide range of consumer devices from larger household items to mobile devices and even their chargers, you need to do so in a way that is going to be seen as a benefit to the hardware manufacturers who will incorporate the chips into their devices -- and at the same time have it either be invisible to the end user, or be seen as a benefit to them. 

In in most cases this will be a lot more difficult to do if the devices generate noticeably more heat and use a lot more electricity, so anything that can improve this will make it an easier sell.

Yes, you can manufacture more efficient ASIC hardware for SHA-256, but you could also use the same manufacturing techniques to make ASICs designed for a more efficient algorythm and get the same hashrates, but for much less electricity/battery use and at a lower temperature.

A competing startup could potentially challenge 21 just by using a different algo and win more manufacturing partners who don't want to lower the Energy Star ratings of their appliances; or partners who want to sell super light, thin, and quiet (no fan) laptops with long battery life; phone & tablet manufacturers; etc.

There may be more efficient algos than Blake-256 - I'm using it as an example because I've mined a little with it and the white paper mentions the design being specifically suited for lightweight environments.

Here's the white paper:  https://131002.net/blake/blake.pdf

TPTB_need_war
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420


View Profile
May 20, 2015, 09:07:12 AM
 #24579

There is another reason this idea of manufacturer taking all the coins can't possibly work. The consumer will demand the heater works even when connectivity is down.

No one wants a heater that only works when the internet is online.

Thus what incentive does the consumer have to maintain connectivity if they aren't getting some of the coins and paying taxes on them?

Look you are envisioning a product that the consumer maintains as a miner, I'm not. It might have a prepaid cellular data chip in it  (one of the Bitcoin hardware wallet companies are doing this). The manufacturer might offer free monitoring and service maintenance or some other incentive if you hook it up to your WiFi (which had better be easy, or people won't do it, but it could possibly be made easy using a mobile app or something).

I don't know how the business model will work in practice. I do know there is an enormous amount of electric heating that can be harnessed for mining. Some clever business people will figure out how to do that, sooner or later (assuming PoW mining continues to be done), even if not 21.

Offering services to miners is not fungible to offering appliances to consumers.

Different level of profit, NAV expectation, portability expectation, specialization, acumen of the customer, and B2B.

smooth
Legendary
*
Online Online

Activity: 1610



View Profile
May 20, 2015, 09:08:01 AM
 #24580

Sounds like 10 years of lock-in to me. The manufacturer will be getting coins until it breaks down or is replaced. Nice revenue stream.

Was than a rebuttal? Any factual points? A consumer is going to sign a 10 year lockin on insignificant NAV gain  Huh

There's no signing anything. If you buy a product that lasts 10 years, you won't replace it for 10 years. You have bought 10 years worth of utility in advance.

Quote
ASIC mining has only been around for 18 months or so.

2013 seems like 10 years ago to me I guess. It could have been done with GPUs before that. Miners were very resourceful. They didn't find a market demand. Bitcoin's market isn't that large yet.

Correct (although as I said many GPU and ASIC home miners did (and do) in fact view heat as a benefit). Realistically just about any Bitcoin startup is speculation on Bitcoin taking off. I guess the exchanges and a few others might make money before that. Might.

Quote
Heating is not fungible with mining.

The experience of GPU and ASIC miners who do this and have done it for years says otherwise.

Your comments about solar water heaters are irrelevant, because people aren't buying them (in the dominant markets). They are therefore inferior in some way (don't work particularly well in built-up cities for example, which is where populations are moving), in the opinion of the people making the purchases. That's the only opinion that matters, not yours.
Pages: « 1 ... 1179 1180 1181 1182 1183 1184 1185 1186 1187 1188 1189 1190 1191 1192 1193 1194 1195 1196 1197 1198 1199 1200 1201 1202 1203 1204 1205 1206 1207 1208 1209 1210 1211 1212 1213 1214 1215 1216 1217 1218 1219 1220 1221 1222 1223 1224 1225 1226 1227 1228 [1229] 1230 1231 1232 1233 1234 1235 1236 1237 1238 1239 1240 1241 1242 1243 1244 1245 1246 1247 1248 1249 1250 1251 1252 1253 1254 1255 1256 1257 1258 1259 1260 1261 1262 1263 1264 1265 1266 1267 1268 1269 1270 1271 1272 1273 1274 1275 1276 1277 1278 1279 ... 1558 »
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Sponsored by , a Bitcoin-accepting VPN.
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!