Topic: $500,000 per Bitcoin, baby. The math behind it. - page 9. (Read 23668 times)

Not really, go to their github and read their code. Also they posted all their hardware specifications and builds.

why is trezor so secure in your opinion?  isnt that hard to prove?

1. Pretty cheap and getting cheaper all the time - though not material to adoption in any way
2. Trezor is very secure and $119.  You may not consider this cheap but, of course, the price will drop over time.
3. Not quite there yet.

Adding BTC to E-bay serves a lot of purposes.  It increases awareness, it increases the number BTC circulated, it increases liquidity options, it increases the number of people holding BTC, and likely there are some other "increases" that I am forgetting at the moment... 

Kind of agree with you.  I am saying that power consumption is a function of price.  I never said that power consumption is a function of target hash rate.  Efficiency is defined as the relationship between hash rate and power: Efficiency (Hashes/Joule) = (Hashes per second/Watts) there is nothing more to the relationship between power consumption and target hash rate.  That relationship:

(the system wide average number of hashes per second) / (the system wide average power consumption)

is the system wide efficiency (Hashes/Joule or Hashes/kWh).

Can you give any examples of when stocks were lost due to a brokerage failing? If so then why is holding stocks in certificate form sufficient?

Again, efficiency does not matter.

Look at it this way:

Assume every block is worth $50,000.

The amount of power that can be consumed to produce that block is $50,000 minus some overhead number (real estate, cost of hardware, labor, profit, etc.)  The higher the price the more power can be consumed.  Power consumption is directly proportional to price regardless of efficiency.

The more efficiently the power is used the higher the hash rate and difficulty of the network can and will be.  Efficiency drives difficulty and hash rate, price drives power consumption.

Sure some miners are better situated (cheaper power, cheaper cooling, better hardware, etc.) so they are more profitable than other miners.  This extra profit allows them to afford to buy even more hardware - pushing out the less efficient miners who will be losing money.  As new hardware comes on line and old hardware is retired the power consumption remains proportional to price.

Also, I am looking at the overall averages for the entire network and looking at estimating the power consumption of the entire network.  Local variations do not matter when looking at overall averages.

Couple of things:

1) That assumes an even distribution of "most efficient" mining hardware, and that access to available power is uniformly distributed. Right? I don't think that's likely - and "When more efficient mining hardware hits the market miners will just buy more of it until they consume the same amount of power as before" is assuming that anyone can get their hands on the capital/BTC to keep upgrading, and that they'll never be told "nope, no more power for you" from the electric company. It's more likely that people who would be otherwise be spending lots on power will be able afford very efficient mining hardware that doesn't use much power, and the rest will use inefficient hardware and soak up as much power as they can get. I think this makes it hard to predict how much power consumption is for a certain target hash rate. At least I think that's true... check my logic please?

2) Morgan Stanley's just released a report re: Tesla and home solar, suggesting that available power will increase by 39GW a year through 2020. http://forms.greentechmedia.com/Extranet/95679/Morgan%20Stanley%20Solar%20Power%20&%20Energy%20Storage%20Blue%20Paper%20July%2029%202014.pdf  So new power is coming online all the time apparently


(Though if I'm right, then this means Russia / Saudi / China / some other major energy producer and user will have to a) replace their dependence on using and selling existing fuels with new technologies and b) shift a ton of their new surplus power straight to mining BTC... like, mining would have to happen on the nation-state or Google/Apple corporate level. We're not getting this much power from nerds with asics anymore, it's gotta be datacenters in remote cold locations where energy can be spent solely on mining and not on cooling...)

If I were Putin I'd open a colo in Siberia and send 10% of Gazprom's reserves straight to it to power my ASIC farm /conspiracy

Mining is largely irrelevant at this stage. Even with cheap ASIC hardware the average Joe won't mine enough to care or matter.

Good hardware wallets and getting paid in BTC would both be a fairly big deal. #2 is starting to happen. #3 is not even in sight.

Have to agree, eBay adding Bitcoin doesnt change much, only those having Bitcoin already might use it at eBay.

This is my thinking of Bitcoin adoption:

1. cheap ASIC mining hardware
2. cheap secure hardware wallets for average Joe
3. over 10% of Employess worldwide getting paid in Bitcoin

I think first step getting very close...

No there are not.
Don't just believe, do research

It isn't a wash for the reason explained earlier. During the period of time of the transaction and potentially for some time thereafter (if the conversion back isn't immediate) there is additional demand for Bitcoins. There are only a fixed number of bitcoins (about 13 million now). Imagine using BTC for payment on eBay (and elsewhere) becomes so popular that there are 13 million of these transactions in progress at any given time, and the average size of such a transaction is 1 BTC. That would tie up every single Bitcoin in existence. Because people want Bitcoins for other reasons, in reality what would have to happen is the price of BTC goes up so the average transaction size (in BTC) goes down so the number of Bitcoins tied up in this way also goes down.

Your ownership in stocks really is as secure as you need it to be. Having your trading record embedded into the blockchain really is overkill. There are enough regulatory and internal controls that you can be certain that your shares are safe (you always have the risk that the share values go down).

Oh, well, that is a perfectly fine reason.

At this moment you could literally walk into a small business convention and invest into small cap firms directly

I don't hate companies! I hate the empty promises made by stockbrokers.
Because you don't own the stocks which you think you own.
The day that stock ownership is hard-coded in the bitcoin blockchain I'm all in! (well, not exactly all-in, but you get my point)

That is a rather radical point of view.

I agree that knowledge and education and experience is the most important thing, but I don't get your hate against companies. Investing directly in companies is no option for you either?

I wish I could dump them all but too bad that worthless shit is locked in a mortgage and pension fund.
I would love to convert all paper assets to anything else than paper.
I don't need/want the paper promises which cannot be fulfilled.
I rather invest in knowledge. Knowledge and experience cannot be taken away from you unless you become mentally ill.

If it even gets close to 100k in my life time, I will be thrilled.

Stocks are not ultimately dependend on FIAT. Sure they would suffer extremely, but not like FIAT itself. Not having stock in your portfolio would be a huge mistake.

The net result of that transaction is neither increase or decrease. It's a wash!

In your E.g., I need to buy something on eBay for BTC0.10 so I convert $60 to BTC0.10 to buy my good. If the seller than converts the Bitcoin he received for USD again there would be no price (or supply/demand) consequence.

Perhaps eBay get's more people buying BTC to hold for future purchases, but why? If I can buy in BTC and USD and I get paid by my employer in USD, what's the reason for me to transfer to BTC? It wouldn't be more convenient. It wouldn't guarantee me a better price.

eBay BTC acceptance is good for greater adoption but that doesn't lead to "6 figure clouds" price per BTC (in USD.) There's no correlation.

There WOULD be correlation if the Winklevoss boys get there investment fund going.