Bitcoin Forum
November 19, 2017, 02:56:57 PM *
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 ... 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 1280 1281 1282 1283 1284 1285 ... 1558 »
  Print  
Author Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.  (Read 2009310 times)
TPTB_need_war
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420


View Profile
May 21, 2015, 01:59:18 AM
 #24681

I still shudder when I remember trying to navigate your self-referential hyper cross-linked information hell you used to produce  Cheesy

I can visualize that.

Indeed I remember my posts and then cross-link them to a hell similar to this map of the owners of our financial world (and yet you all claim you know how they are not fooling you  Huh):

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21228354.500-revealed--the-capitalist-network-that-runs-the-world.html


1511103417
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1511103417

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1511103417
Reply with quote  #2

1511103417
Report to moderator
1511103417
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1511103417

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1511103417
Reply with quote  #2

1511103417
Report to moderator
1511103417
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1511103417

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1511103417
Reply with quote  #2

1511103417
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.
1511103417
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1511103417

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1511103417
Reply with quote  #2

1511103417
Report to moderator
1511103417
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1511103417

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1511103417
Reply with quote  #2

1511103417
Report to moderator
smooth
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1596



View Profile
May 21, 2015, 01:59:44 AM
 #24682

I obviously don't agree to that, it has to be economically viable to exist.

No, no no. A million times no.

e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pets.com

Quote
Are you suggesting a big con?

It could be a good business plan, or a mistake, or a con. You're excluding the middle.
Peter R
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1064



View Profile
May 21, 2015, 02:06:06 AM
 #24683

So again, can the 21's plan for mining compete with large scale mining? Small scale mining can be and is continually tested, what they bring to the table is a new chip. So can the new chip revive small scale mining?

People are focusing too much on the cost that these chips will produce bitcoins for.  That's not the play I'm imagining.  The play I'm imagining is to create some hype and then get a bunch of phones out across the world with these chips in them!

Once the phones are out there, they'll start generating bitcoins.  It doesn't matter at that point whether they do so cost-effectively or not (we're only talking a few bucks a year anyways).  As long as 75% (or whatever %) of the coins flow back to 21 Inc and partners, the cost of the electricity used to produce those coins doesn't matter very much to their revenue .  

From the perspective of the end-user, once they've bought the phone, they are going to use it for a few years, and thus mine bitcoins for 21 Inc. and partners.  They're not going to throw out a $100+ phone because it consumes a few extra dollars per year in electricity.

I obviously don't agree to that, it has to be economically viable to exist. Are you suggesting a big con?


I'm not suggesting that the phones will necessarily consume more $ in energy than $ in bitcoins they produce.  I just saying that even if the do mine inefficiently (e.g., once the network hash rates grows), that 21 Inc and partners will still earn revenue as long as the phones are out there.  

The next question is then:  Can 21 Inc and partners get a bunch of phones out in the field?  It's an interesting marketing problem, for sure, but imagine that during the next bitcoin bull run all this excitement gets created for the new "Samsung Mining" phone.  What would happen?  I think a bunch of people might think it's a really cool idea!  Especially if there's a chance they'll mine bitcoins that appreciate in price.  In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if phones with a bitcoin mining/wallet chip inside sell for a premium.  Heck, I'd pay an extra $100 for a phone with a secure mining/wallet chip factory installed!  I don't care that $2 per year of my electricity goes back to 21 Inc.  That's negligible to bank fees that can run $20 per month.    

Run Bitcoin Unlimited (www.bitcoinunlimited.info)
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
May 21, 2015, 02:09:49 AM
 #24684

The price of mining a bitcoin tends to approach the price of a bitcoin, so the question is rather is 21's approach equal to or better than large scale mining.

"Tends to approach" is vague.

In the short term, the marginal cost of mining almost exactly equals the price of a Bitcoin (excluding, possibly, some short transition periods when the price of a Bitcoin is just so high and/or increasing so fast that it is hard to catch it), but if you are below marginal cost, then you are more efficient than the marginal miner and you make a operating profit, which may or may not cover your investment. In the long term, that's the time horizon when investments pay off, or don't. Nothing lasts forever.


No, tend to approach is the correct term. There cost will never exactly reflect the price, due to speculative errors from the miners when they decide to expand or contract, therefore the cost will be different also between miners. So again, can the 21's plan for mining compete with large scale mining? Small scale mining can be and is continually tested, what they bring to the table is a new chip. So can the new chip revive small scale mining?


Edit: You can never know in advance, but I would guess that if the chip is good in a random small scale device, it is even better if you pack a few hundred in a dedicated device with proportionally designed power supply, fans the rest of the stuff that is needed. Is it possible to construct a chip that is better than current mining, and at the same time can not be used large scale?

You can not rely on persons with experience in funding. Stranger projects have been started, a company with million dollar donut cars, selling for 100K per car and losing 900K per car comes to mind.


from what i've read, 21 is not new to mining.  apparently they've been at it for at least 2 yrs with pretty impressive BTC yields.  can't remember the specifics.

with that experience, they've designed a new chip for small devices like smartphones.  you'd think they've done extensive R&D before taking this leap.
TPTB_need_war
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420


View Profile
May 21, 2015, 02:12:43 AM
 #24685

So again, can the 21's plan for mining compete with large scale mining? Small scale mining can be and is continually tested, what they bring to the table is a new chip. So can the new chip revive small scale mining?

People are focusing too much on the cost that these chips will produce bitcoins for.  That's not the play I'm imagining.  The play I'm imagining is to create some hype and then get a bunch of phones out across the world with these chips in them!

Once the phones are out there, they'll start generating bitcoins.  It doesn't matter at that point whether they do so cost-effectively or not (we're only talking a few bucks a year anyways).  As long as 75% (or whatever %) of the coins flow back to 21 Inc and partners, the cost of the electricity used to produce those coins doesn't matter very much to their revenue .  

From the perspective of the end-user, once they've bought the phone, they are going to use it for a few years, and thus mine bitcoins for 21 Inc. and partners.  They're not going to throw out a $100+ phone because it consumes a few extra dollars per year in electricity.

I obviously don't agree to that, it has to be economically viable to exist. Are you suggesting a big con?


I'm not suggesting that the phones will necessarily consume more $ in energy than $ in bitcoins they produce.  I just saying that even if the do mine inefficiently (e.g., once the network hash rates grows), that 21 Inc and partners will still earn revenue as long as the phones are out there.  

The next question is then:  Can 21 Inc and partners get a bunch of phones out in the field?  It's an interesting marketing problem, for sure, but imagine that during the next bitcoin bull run all this excitement gets created for the new "Samsung Mining" phone.  What would happen?  I think a bunch of people might think it's a really cool idea!  Especially if there's a chance they'll mine bitcoins that appreciate in price.  In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if phones with a bitcoin mining/wallet chip inside sell for a premium.  Heck, I'd pay an extra $100 for a phone with a secure mining/wallet chip factory installed!  I don't care that $2 per year of my electricity goes back to 21 Inc.  That's negligible to bank fees that can run $20 per month.    

That is the way more sophisticated users of such a mining phone can view the economic proposition. The vast majority of naive mobile phone users in the developing world (especially females) won't even need that level of sophisticated analysis (women don't typically analyse anything). Rather for them it is simple. They get a discount on the device and/or they get these cute ringtones and other walled garden upsells for these "bitcoiny" things the phone gives them. And it is "free", uncomplicated to use (all automated), they won't have to "pay" anything for this. Thus it is a no brainer for them.

TPTB_need_war
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420


View Profile
May 21, 2015, 02:16:31 AM
 #24686

Edit: You can never know in advance, but I would guess that if the chip is good in a random small scale device, it is even better if you pack a few hundred in a dedicated device with proportionally designed power supply, fans the rest of the stuff that is needed. Is it possible to construct a chip that is better than current mining, and at the same time can not be used large scale?

Probably irrelevant. The users won't care nor notice the electricity used. No one here in the Philippines studies their electric bill to see how much their smartphone charging was.

NO ONE. NO ONE. NO ONE.

Capice?!


Now, my phone gets pretty warm when it's charging so the new mining chip can't draw that much more power.  But then again, a lot of times my phone is plugged in and already fully charged, and so the mining chip might as well be running.  So let's say that 21 Inc. can boost the yearly energy consumption of the typical smart phone from $0.50 to $3.00 before people start to complain about "hot phones."  $2.50 goes to mining bitcoins…

Thankfully there are some rational engineers on this board.

smooth
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1596



View Profile
May 21, 2015, 02:20:14 AM
 #24687

Edit: You can never know in advance, but I would guess that if the chip is good in a random small scale device, it is even better if you pack a few hundred in a dedicated device with proportionally designed power supply, fans the rest of the stuff that is needed. Is it possible to construct a chip that is better than current mining, and at the same time can not be used large scale?

I think it's fair to assume, given competent designers, it will be essentially equivalent to what is otherwise available, with the difference being that it is specialized. For example 21 is promising a design that can be incorporated into existing chips. That could possibly fit in dark silicon and mine only when the thermal envelope of the rest of the chip is low enough, among other potential synergies.

cypherdoc, "experience with mining" is not a guarantee of anything.

The CEO of pets.com (which was backed by amazon.com, who also knew a thing or two about e-commerce): "At this time she had almost 20 years of experience with software, technology and consumer-product industries"

Bad investments happen. I don't know if 21 is a bad investment. Experience is no guarantee it isn't.
TPTB_need_war
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420


View Profile
May 21, 2015, 02:28:09 AM
 #24688

brilliant analysis peter. Smiley didnt realise that their plan would be that lucrative. would these chips not reduce the battery life of phones though?

Increase the battery size slightly.

Phones are too thin now. Female users here don't care that much about slight increases in thickness as evident by the phone case monstrosities they wrap onto their mobile phones. Do not forget those monstrosities that females cart around a.k.a. purses or shoulder bags. They obviously have different innate priorities than we men do, namely carting around a baby on their shoulder.


Peter R
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1064



View Profile
May 21, 2015, 02:29:30 AM
 #24689

That is the way more sophisticated users of such a mining phone can view the economic proposition. The...majority of...mobile phone users...won't even need that level of sophisticated analysis... Rather for them it is simple. They get a discount on the device and/or they get these cute ringtones and other...upsells for these "bitcoiny" things the phone gives them. And it is "free", uncomplicated to use (all automated), they won't have to "pay" anything for this. Thus it is a no brainer for them.

That's a good point.  

Run Bitcoin Unlimited (www.bitcoinunlimited.info)
TPTB_need_war
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420


View Profile
May 21, 2015, 02:36:33 AM
 #24690

The analyzis is flawed, in that it does not take into account all cost. The price of mining a bitcoin tends to approach the price of a bitcoin, so the question is rather is 21's approach equal to or better than large scale mining. If you suppose the chip is free, the design is free, the electricity is free and the management of the device for the mining purpose is free, then it can compete. But none of those things are free.

For the heating appliances then using older lithography makes the mining hardware component of the device nearly free relatively speaking, and the electricity is indeed free because the heat is being consumed.

For the phones, smooth's point has been the chipset makers might be able to fit this onto excess or underutilitized silicon. The electricity is "free" because the users don't count such small portions of their electric bill (and they charge at relatives' and friends' houses too, everything is open house and more shared in the developing world).

The design and mgmt cost can be amortized over this huge scale of billions of unbanked users in the developed world who are eager to have a smartphone.

The competition will be essentially nil, because of the economies-of-scale and cartel level relationships (e.g. Samsung, telcoms in every nation so the device can always send mining shares with no user interaction) required to pull this off in an opaque device that just works on auto-pilot. Once you have eliminated the other miners, you can raise txn fees to any level you want that the market will bear (return of the credit card companies!) and even adjust difficulty to your desired level without a fork by modulating the number of devices you sell into the market
(think it out).


Thus the valuation looks fine to me.


TPTB_need_war
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420


View Profile
May 21, 2015, 02:49:51 AM
 #24691

Not sure if game players want to pick an unnecessary fight with the government.

Sometimes I feel you should have some acid to relieve yourself of the irrational fear of government (it helps).

I have personally recommended acid to him many months ago. He could finally have a chance to see through his ego and perhaps give him real insight into all the things he now only thinks he understands. I think he is too old and scared anyway and really thinks he doesn't need it, lol.

I for a free market in drugs on the internet, but I am strictly anti-drug in my life and local community. I approve of the death penalty for repeat drug pushers who refuse (after multiple warnings) to reform or leave our local community of Davao City, Mindanao and our vigillante mayor who makes it so we have the safest city in the Philippines. I am for free markets. The drug pushers are welcome to go form their own communities else where. I am welcome to avoid their communities if I so choose.

PenguinFire
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 154


That Darn Cat


View Profile
May 21, 2015, 02:51:47 AM
 #24692

Question: When gold "collapses" how long is it usually for?  Weeks to months?  I have not been trading long and was just curious.

TPTB_need_war
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420


View Profile
May 21, 2015, 02:53:12 AM
 #24693

Users mining in algorithm where pools are impossible is positive for decentralization of mining.

This is an interesting question. I've seen the counterargument that preventing pools increases the incentive for large farms (including, I suppose, the distributed sort of farms that involve devices in disparate locations but centrally controlled). That might be negative for decentralization of mining broadly, since at least with pools as they mostly exist today, the actual miners can switch pools (often cypherdoc makes this argument). I'm not sure.

I have in mind a cryptographic means of preventing pools. One of the fundamental design errors for PoW mining has been the simultaneity requirement that leads to orphans. It is essentially an aliasing error on consensus. That will give you a big hint as to what the big breakthrough in my design solution is. And it turns out I can retrofit it to a non-PoW algorithm that doesn't suffer from PoS's weaknesses, thus our recent discussion on 21 Inc has proven to be very lucrative for me. As usual I (and the community) benefit greatly from discussions with you. How will I repay you?

PoW is now a dead-end (due to the 21 Inc economics) except it has value in attaining the widest spread initial distribution for a coin.

Thus Bitcoin (and apologetically Monero) are dead ends in terms of a decentralized future. I will fork the community and bring in a somewhat orthogonal userbase of the most intelligent Libertarians. My plan is now solidified.

I am preparing to go silent. Any questions or comments?

kazuki49
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 350



View Profile
May 21, 2015, 03:24:00 AM
 #24694

I have in mind a cryptographic means of preventing pools. One of the fundamental design errors for PoW mining has been the simultaneity requirement that leads to orphans. It is essentially an aliasing error on consensus. That will give you a big hint as to what the big breakthrough in my design solution is. And it turns out I can retrofit it to a non-PoW algorithm that doesn't suffer from PoS's weaknesses, thus your recently discussion on 21 Inc has proven to be very lucrative for me. As usual I (and the community) benefit greatly from discussions with you. How will I repay you?

PoW is now a dead-end (due to the 21 Inc economics) except it has value in attaining the widest spread initial distribution for a coin.

Thus Bitcoin (and apologetically Monero) are dead ends in terms of a decentralized future. I will fork the community and bring in a somewhat orthogonal userbase of the most intelligent Libertarians. My plan is now solidified.

I am preparing to go silent. Any questions or comments?

I'm looking forward, dont keep us all in the dark!
NewLiberty
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1162


Gresham's Lawyer


View Profile WWW
May 21, 2015, 04:39:45 AM
 #24695

...
21's plan, as stated, is pure bullshit. The only question is whether they know it or not.

Let's do an order-of-magnitude calculation…

An article from Life Hacker reports that it costs about $0.50 to keep your phone charged-up for a year:



...

  ~= $107,000,000 per year

This means that the expected revenue is not insignificant.  

...and this analysis is only considering phones rather than all the other devices that could also be set up with this.

The > 43% of hashpower centralized in a single entity might concern folks.

FREE MONEY1 Bitcoin for Silver and Gold NewLibertyDollar.com and now BITCOIN SPECIE (silver 1 ozt) shows value by QR
Bulk premiums as low as .0012 BTC "BETTER, MORE COLLECTIBLE, AND CHEAPER THAN SILVER EAGLES" 1Free of Government
shmadz
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1498


@theshmadz


View Profile
May 21, 2015, 05:31:24 AM
 #24696

As a guy that's been mining for a few years now, I can get behind the idea of mining space heaters. I even wanted to place a small mining farm in the furnace room and then control the vents with individual thermostats to distribute the heat, dumping excess heat as needed.

But mining on a phone, it's just not reasonable. You could put the same chip on a USB stick and it would perform better.

Serious mining makes for some serious heat. If I'm 21 the household heating market is where I would target.



"You have no moral right to rule us, nor do you possess any methods of enforcement that we have reason to fear." - John Perry Barlow, 1996
Erdogan
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 812


View Profile
May 21, 2015, 05:51:42 AM
 #24697

The price of mining a bitcoin tends to approach the price of a bitcoin, so the question is rather is 21's approach equal to or better than large scale mining.

"Tends to approach" is vague.

In the short term, the marginal cost of mining almost exactly equals the price of a Bitcoin (excluding, possibly, some short transition periods when the price of a Bitcoin is just so high and/or increasing so fast that it is hard to catch it), but if you are below marginal cost, then you are more efficient than the marginal miner and you make a operating profit, which may or may not cover your investment. In the long term, that's the time horizon when investments pay off, or don't. Nothing lasts forever.


No, tend to approach is the correct term. There cost will never exactly reflect the price, due to speculative errors from the miners when they decide to expand or contract, therefore the cost will be different also between miners. So again, can the 21's plan for mining compete with large scale mining? Small scale mining can be and is continually tested, what they bring to the table is a new chip. So can the new chip revive small scale mining?


Edit: You can never know in advance, but I would guess that if the chip is good in a random small scale device, it is even better if you pack a few hundred in a dedicated device with proportionally designed power supply, fans the rest of the stuff that is needed. Is it possible to construct a chip that is better than current mining, and at the same time can not be used large scale?

You can not rely on persons with experience in funding. Stranger projects have been started, a company with million dollar donut cars, selling for 100K per car and losing 900K per car comes to mind.


from what i've read, 21 is not new to mining.  apparently they've been at it for at least 2 yrs with pretty impressive BTC yields.  can't remember the specifics.

with that experience, they've designed a new chip for small devices like smartphones.  you'd think they've done extensive R&D before taking this leap.

Again, trust in the people. I am not so sure, stupid projects are suggested all the time. If it is going to work, there has to be something in there that is not yet revealed.

Erdogan
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 812


View Profile
May 21, 2015, 05:54:56 AM
 #24698

I obviously don't agree to that, it has to be economically viable to exist.

No, no no. A million times no.

e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pets.com

Quote
Are you suggesting a big con?

It could be a good business plan, or a mistake, or a con. You're excluding the middle.


I hate selective quoting. The con part, that is viable only on a small scale.

Okay, I didn't follow it. What's the con?


I was too quick, your comments were ok, I deleted my post, but too late.

Somebody suggest that people would buy these phones for extra, use extra power, not knowing they earned money for the company only. That a con.

shmadz
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1498


@theshmadz


View Profile
May 21, 2015, 06:13:45 AM
 #24699

I obviously don't agree to that, it has to be economically viable to exist.

No, no no. A million times no.

e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pets.com

Quote
Are you suggesting a big con?

It could be a good business plan, or a mistake, or a con. You're excluding the middle.


I hate selective quoting. The con part, that is viable only on a small scale.

Okay, I didn't follow it. What's the con?


I was too quick, your comments were ok, I deleted my post, but too late.

Somebody suggest that people would buy these phones for extra, use extra power, not knowing they earned money for the company only. That a con.


Ok, I'll try again... why put that chip in the phone if you could just include it in the charger cable? Or charging pad for wireless charging?

Battery life, size, weight, efficiency are all competing qualities for phones and putting a bitcoin miner in your phone is not going to make it more competitive.

(Secure enclave type wallet on the other hand = no brainer)

"You have no moral right to rule us, nor do you possess any methods of enforcement that we have reason to fear." - John Perry Barlow, 1996
dropt
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1512



View Profile
May 21, 2015, 06:29:27 AM
 #24700

For the people clambering on about phone mining, listen to this:

https://m.soundcloud.com/elux-1/21-inc-embedded-engineer-on-whaleclub-teamspeak
Pages: « 1 ... 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 1280 1281 1282 1283 1284 1285 ... 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!