Topic: A bitcoin miner in every hand - page 4. (Read 8153 times)
I must live in the wrong state (Minnesota) or the wrong country (USA). My electric company is doing numerous things to REDUCE power consumption, not add 10W per meter. They have so many other pressing matters to deal with (e.g. pollution, regulation distribution infrastructure, future plant builds), that adding on a "Bitcoin Meter" will look silly to them. You won't be able to dazzle them with Power Point slides once they figure out the actual costs involved and the impact to their operation. This is a complete non-starter for my electric company. Maybe your electric company is different.
Do they really have to though? If they can talk other people into paying for the chips, and other people pay for the electric, does it really matter what they spent to put the chips in there? All they have to do is get reimbursed on the chip cost (by selling the product with a slight markup, easy to do when you can capitalize on trends) and then sit back and watch while every customer sends them free bitcoins. A 50GH miner next year won't be bringing in near as much as a 50GH miner today, but if it's still running in a year (on someone else's dime) and their costs on it are breakeven just by selling it, diminishing profits from day one are still profits from day one.
Qualcomm will never do this unless they want to destroy their name brand in the name of a retarded experiment where their users can earn fractions of a penny over the lifetime of their several hundred dollar devices.
Qualcomm has absolutely nothing to lose. Bitcoin mining is an embarrassingly parallel job and it's very easy to add some hashing cores to any existing chip with no added cost to the manufacturer (except the design cost) or to the customer. The hundred dollar devices aren't hundred dollar devices because of the added bitcoin mining functionality. It's their normal cost. And I'm assuming you are referring to the gaming consoles because the routers or the printers aren't that expensive. The people buying those devices will not care about how much will the device earn in its lifetime. This was repeated for several times in this topic.
You're right, Qualcomm has absolutely nothing to lose.*
*Besides millions of dollars, months of wasted time, and their reputation
That's not how I understand it. According to the slides here: http://imgur.com/a/q9cbL it looks like the $35 includes a: $10 controller, $5 wifi connector, $5 hardware wallet, $5 case, $2 charger, $8 chip. (numbers obviously made up but you get the point) It doesn't say the $35 is a single chip unlike the $8.
Well you got me here. I studied the slides again and I see no mention of a kit that has a controller, wifi connector, hardware wallet and so on. Please show me or explain me how did you got to that break-down.
How could a "usb charging hub" miner work without all of those components?
What else could the $35 capex mean for the USB charger?
Quote
You got it wrong again 
We both know how big is the bitcoin mining market or at least have some idea. We know the estimate of how many players are, how much money do they have and how much are the willing to invest/spend at these prices. If you take them and put them in direct conflict of interests with the masses it's clear that the masses will win. If only 10% of s1gs3gv's prediction will materialize then those that you are talking about have no chance. His prediction is ".05w/ghs. So, ten watts would be 200ghs per meter and 250 million electricity meters would be get you, umm … 50 ehs (exa-hashes/second)". Let's say we have only 25 million households for a whooping 5 EH/s. There is no direct competitor for those hashrates. Right now we are mining at 50Ph/s and we all know the hassle to get to this point.
We both know how big is the bitcoin mining market or at least have some idea. We know the estimate of how many players are, how much money do they have and how much are the willing to invest/spend at these prices. If you take them and put them in direct conflict of interests with the masses it's clear that the masses will win. If only 10% of s1gs3gv's prediction will materialize then those that you are talking about have no chance. His prediction is ".05w/ghs. So, ten watts would be 200ghs per meter and 250 million electricity meters would be get you, umm … 50 ehs (exa-hashes/second)". Let's say we have only 25 million households for a whooping 5 EH/s. There is no direct competitor for those hashrates. Right now we are mining at 50Ph/s and we all know the hassle to get to this point. Pseudo-economics at it's finest.
You've completely ignored the main point which is that there will never be a scenario where it makes sense to double your capex and opex without increasing revenue.
Saying "well if they sold 10 billion toasters using chips that use 0.001 w/gh they would have 100 zetahash" doesn't make their plan any more economically viable.
Quote
Do you think big mines can expand that much? I don't think so because it will be very hard to gather all the money and to setup the power requirements while having this decentralized mining power is very easy to setup and to maintain.
5 EH/s at 0.05 w/gh is 250 MW. KNC had plans to build a 100 MW datacenter and Bitfury built a 20 MW datacenter from scratch and had running within weeks.
Do you think 21 inc could install millions of miners in electricity meters/usb hubs/xboxes within a few weeks? I don't.
Apologies in advance if this is a duplicate post, but it is worth a listen
https://soundcloud.com/elux-1/21-inc-embedded-engineer-on-whaleclub-teamspeak
Parts of this are kinda 'out there', but the idea of creating new services using bitcoin generated by micromining is central to the talk.
https://soundcloud.com/elux-1/21-inc-embedded-engineer-on-whaleclub-teamspeak
Parts of this are kinda 'out there', but the idea of creating new services using bitcoin generated by micromining is central to the talk.
RoadStress gets it.
Qualcomm will never do this unless they want to destroy their name brand in the name of a retarded experiment where their users can earn fractions of a penny over the lifetime of their several hundred dollar devices.
Qualcomm has absolutely nothing to lose. Bitcoin mining is an embarrassingly parallel job and it's very easy to add some hashing cores to any existing chip with no added cost to the manufacturer (except the design cost) or to the customer. The hundred dollar devices aren't hundred dollar devices because of the added bitcoin mining functionality. It's their normal cost. And I'm assuming you are referring to the gaming consoles because the routers or the printers aren't that expensive. The people buying those devices will not care about how much will the device earn in its lifetime. This was repeated for several times in this topic.
That's not how I understand it. According to the slides here: http://imgur.com/a/q9cbL it looks like the $35 includes a: $10 controller, $5 wifi connector, $5 hardware wallet, $5 case, $2 charger, $8 chip. (numbers obviously made up but you get the point) It doesn't say the $35 is a single chip unlike the $8.
Well you got me here. I studied the slides again and I see no mention of a kit that has a controller, wifi connector, hardware wallet and so on. Please show me or explain me how did you got to that break-down.
Also the slides show those costs as being CapEx so these are the costs that 21inc has. We don't know yet if they plan to share that with Qualcomm or any of their partners or if it will be transferred to the customers either fully or partially.
The $/gh is not important for the customer, but 21 inc. If 21 inc can breaks even with double the $/gh, then their competitors have doubled their money by that point. (assuming they have equivalent chips)
The w/gh is important to 21 inc but only if their plan is not to steal electricity from ignorant users. If they intend on giving their users at least enough btc to cover electricity costs then they are essentially just paying residential rates for electricity while their competitors are paying industrial rates.
I think Jtoomim is right when he said this isn't their real business plan. This is just their plan to suck in the VC money from people who can't/won't do the math so they can produce Intel 14nm chips to put in a massive 20MW datacenter.
The w/gh is important to 21 inc but only if their plan is not to steal electricity from ignorant users. If they intend on giving their users at least enough btc to cover electricity costs then they are essentially just paying residential rates for electricity while their competitors are paying industrial rates.
I think Jtoomim is right when he said this isn't their real business plan. This is just their plan to suck in the VC money from people who can't/won't do the math so they can produce Intel 14nm chips to put in a massive 20MW datacenter.
You got it wrong again
We both know how big is the bitcoin mining market or at least have some idea. We know the estimate of how many players are, how much money do they have and how much are the willing to invest/spend at these prices. If you take them and put them in direct conflict of interests with the masses it's clear that the masses will win. If only 10% of s1gs3gv's prediction will materialize then those that you are talking about have no chance. His prediction is ".05w/ghs. So, ten watts would be 200ghs per meter and 250 million electricity meters would be get you, umm … 50 ehs (exa-hashes/second)". Let's say we have only 25 million households for a whooping 5 EH/s. There is no direct competitor for those hashrates. Right now we are mining at 50Ph/s and we all know the hassle to get to this point. Do you think big mines can expand that much? I don't think so because it will be very hard to gather all the money and to setup the power requirements while having this decentralized mining power is very easy to setup and to maintain.Big mines will hash only for companies that have hashing power needs for their services.
As for their plan to be a lie, well everything is possible. It can be, but judging by the names involved into this project I would like to think that they aren't that stupid to not be able to do the math. They got too far and too big by having damn good math skills, but yes everything is possible in bitcoinland.
This plan to increase btc adoption through mass advertising/giveaways sounds a lot like something Josh Garza would come up with.
Here's my idea to increase adoption: what about creating services/features for bitcoin that people actually want to use?
Here's my idea to increase adoption: what about creating services/features for bitcoin that people actually want to use?
I see this as being a different type of advertising/giveaways. And they are creating services/features for bitcoin and they plan to make the masses use them. Their plan is to allow customers to remove ads or to add mobile data to their cell phones with their mines satoshis. They haven't specified if this will be denominated in fiat or if it will be some sort of token based economy like give me 10 satoshis and you have no ads for 1 day which would be totally awesome and groundbreaking. It's not much, but it is a start and it's the most than anyone has ever tried until now.
In fact, if 21 inc is already in possession of a significant % of bitcoin (and they might be since they were mining the last two years), and once millions of devices are distributed, they can run a promo whereas they distribute, say, 1-5% (or even more) of their stash in one go, like a super-faucet, giving few million people $1-5 in btc, thereby endowing a large market. With a proper ad campaign it would be an impressive feat.
This plan to increase btc adoption through mass advertising/giveaways sounds a lot like something Josh Garza would come up with.
Here's my idea to increase adoption: what about creating services/features for bitcoin that people actually want to use?
what people? 10K miners?
internet: create new services, but people can use "old" money(credit cards)
Bitcoin: create new services, but people can only use "new" money 9bitcoin). solution: give most people a direct opportunity to get bitcoin
What's wrong with USD? Why can't we have both Bitcoin AND USD?
1. you cannot transmit actual dollar over the internet.
2. you can program bitcoin, but not a dollar
you can use USD to much of other things, of course, hence there are many tens if not hundred of trillions worth of $$ and only $3 bil worth of bitcoin.
So your goal is to have Bitcoin take over a currency that existed since the beginning of time? I don't necessarily disagree with what you said, but maybe you'd like to rethink what you said. We have a long time before our main currency is digital.
read my post below to see what Reid Hoffman, CEO of LinkedIn, a company that might have helped you to get a job, or will help to get a job in the future, said:
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/bitcoin-is-now-cryptocapital-not-just-crypto-currency-1067631
direct link
http://www.wired.co.uk/magazine/archive/2015/06/features/bitcoin-reid-hoffman/viewall
In fact, if 21 inc is already in possession of a significant % of bitcoin (and they might be since they were mining the last two years), and once millions of devices are distributed, they can run a promo whereas they distribute, say, 1-5% (or even more) of their stash in one go, like a super-faucet, giving few million people $1-5 in btc, thereby endowing a large market. With a proper ad campaign it would be an impressive feat.
This plan to increase btc adoption through mass advertising/giveaways sounds a lot like something Josh Garza would come up with.
Here's my idea to increase adoption: what about creating services/features for bitcoin that people actually want to use?
what people? 10K miners?
internet: create new services, but people can use "old" money(credit cards)
Bitcoin: create new services, but people can only use "new" money 9bitcoin). solution: give most people a direct opportunity to get bitcoin
What's wrong with USD? Why can't we have both Bitcoin AND USD?
1. you cannot transmit actual dollar over the internet.
2. you can program bitcoin, but not a dollar
you can use USD to much of other things, of course, hence there are many tens if not hundred of trillions worth of $$ and only $3 bil worth of bitcoin.
So your goal is to have Bitcoin take over a currency that existed since the beginning of time? I don't necessarily disagree with what you said, but maybe you'd like to rethink what you said. We have a long time before our main currency is digital.
In fact, if 21 inc is already in possession of a significant % of bitcoin (and they might be since they were mining the last two years), and once millions of devices are distributed, they can run a promo whereas they distribute, say, 1-5% (or even more) of their stash in one go, like a super-faucet, giving few million people $1-5 in btc, thereby endowing a large market. With a proper ad campaign it would be an impressive feat.
This plan to increase btc adoption through mass advertising/giveaways sounds a lot like something Josh Garza would come up with.
Here's my idea to increase adoption: what about creating services/features for bitcoin that people actually want to use?
what people? 10K miners?
internet: create new services, but people can use "old" money(credit cards)
Bitcoin: create new services, but people can only use "new" money 9bitcoin). solution: give most people a direct opportunity to get bitcoin
What's wrong with USD? Why can't we have both Bitcoin AND USD?
1. you cannot transmit actual dollar over the internet.
2. you can program bitcoin, but not a dollar
you can use USD to much of other things, of course, hence there are many tens if not hundred of trillions worth of $$ and only $3 bil worth of bitcoin.
Considering their partnership with Qualcomm
We do not know the terms of that partnership. 21.co may use Qualcomm parts and/or expertise, rather than the other way around. Doesn't Qualcomm have a project for self-configuring public wifi routers? That may require some automatic micropayment system, so their interest in 21.co may be about that, rather than mining per se.
Who said that Qualcomm is interested in the mining? This is not only about the mining. And yes, in order to integrate and use the micropayment system Qualcomm will put hashing cores into their chips and will try to get people used with the micropayment system so they can use it.
Qualcomm will never do this unless they want to destroy their name brand in the name of a retarded experiment where their users can earn fractions of a penny over the lifetime of their several hundred dollar devices.
Phone chargers sell for ~$2 on Aliexpress so I'd guess they are made for ~$1. No sane company is going to add ~$20 worth of components and an $8 chip.
How can they possibly remain competitive while paying double the $/gh and double the $/kwh?
This sort of reminds me of when utorrent decided to include a hidden CPU miner in their software so they could earn dollars per day while costing their users thousands of dollars in electricity.
How can they possibly remain competitive while paying double the $/gh and double the $/kwh?
This sort of reminds me of when utorrent decided to include a hidden CPU miner in their software so they could earn dollars per day while costing their users thousands of dollars in electricity.
You are way off the track. Their plan is to use 35$ chips for USB charging hubs which are more expensive than regular phone chargers. The 8$ chip will be used in routers, gaming consoles etc. They will remain competitive by using the approach of many consumers paying the price who will not care about the double $/gh or the double $/kwh because the amounts are very small for them. We are talking about a few dollars, not about thousands.
That's not how I understand it. According to the slides here: http://imgur.com/a/q9cbL it looks like the $35 includes a: $10 controller, $5 wifi connector, $5 hardware wallet, $5 case, $2 charger, $8 chip. (numbers obviously made up but you get the point) It doesn't say the $35 is a single chip unlike the $8.
The $/gh is not important for the customer, but 21 inc. If 21 inc can breaks even with double the $/gh, then their competitors have doubled their money by that point. (assuming they have equivalent chips)
The w/gh is important to 21 inc but only if their plan is not to steal electricity from ignorant users. If they intend on giving their users at least enough btc to cover electricity costs then they are essentially just paying residential rates for electricity while their competitors are paying industrial rates.
I think Jtoomim is right when he said this isn't their real business plan. This is just their plan to suck in the VC money from people who can't/won't do the math so they can produce Intel 14nm chips to put in a massive 20MW datacenter.
sorry, but it does not compute because if they accumulated all that bitcoin, but there is NO market (sellers with no buyers) and bitcoin is at $20, then they just lost all of their investment.
In fact, if 21 inc is already in possession of a significant % of bitcoin (and they might be since they were mining the last two years), and once millions of devices are distributed, they can run a promo whereas they distribute, say, 1-5% (or even more) of their stash in one go, like a super-faucet, giving few million people $1-5 in btc, thereby endowing a large market. With a proper ad campaign it would be an impressive feat.
This plan to increase btc adoption through mass advertising/giveaways sounds a lot like something Josh Garza would come up with.
Here's my idea to increase adoption: what about creating services/features for bitcoin that people actually want to use?
what people? 10K miners?
internet: create new services, but people can use "old" money(credit cards)
Bitcoin: create new services, but people can only use "new" money 9bitcoin). solution: give most people a direct opportunity to get bitcoin
What's wrong with USD? Why can't we have both Bitcoin AND USD?
In fact, if 21 inc is already in possession of a significant % of bitcoin (and they might be since they were mining the last two years), and once millions of devices are distributed, they can run a promo whereas they distribute, say, 1-5% (or even more) of their stash in one go, like a super-faucet, giving few million people $1-5 in btc, thereby endowing a large market. With a proper ad campaign it would be an impressive feat.
This plan to increase btc adoption through mass advertising/giveaways sounds a lot like something Josh Garza would come up with.
Here's my idea to increase adoption: what about creating services/features for bitcoin that people actually want to use?
what people? 10K miners?
internet: create new services, but people can use "old" money(credit cards)
Bitcoin: create new services, but people can only use "new" money (bitcoin). solution: give most people a direct opportunity to get bitcoin
In fact, if 21 inc is already in possession of a significant % of bitcoin (and they might be since they were mining the last two years), and once millions of devices are distributed, they can run a promo whereas they distribute, say, 1-5% (or even more) of their stash in one go, like a super-faucet, giving few million people $1-5 in btc, thereby endowing a large market. With a proper ad campaign it would be an impressive feat.
This plan to increase btc adoption through mass advertising/giveaways sounds a lot like something Josh Garza would come up with.
Here's my idea to increase adoption: what about creating services/features for bitcoin that people actually want to use?
Considering their partnership with Qualcomm
We do not know the terms of that partnership. 21.co may use Qualcomm parts and/or expertise, rather than the other way around. Doesn't Qualcomm have a project for self-configuring public wifi routers? That may require some automatic micropayment system, so their interest in 21.co may be about that, rather than mining per se.
Who said that Qualcomm is interested in the mining? This is not only about the mining. And yes, in order to integrate and use the micropayment system Qualcomm will put hashing cores into their chips and will try to get people used with the micropayment system so they can use it.
Qualcomm will never do this unless they want to destroy their name brand in the name of a retarded experiment where their users can earn fractions of a penny over the lifetime of their several hundred dollar devices.
Phone chargers sell for ~$2 on Aliexpress so I'd guess they are made for ~$1. No sane company is going to add ~$20 worth of components and an $8 chip.
How can they possibly remain competitive while paying double the $/gh and double the $/kwh?
This sort of reminds me of when utorrent decided to include a hidden CPU miner in their software so they could earn dollars per day while costing their users thousands of dollars in electricity.
How can they possibly remain competitive while paying double the $/gh and double the $/kwh?
This sort of reminds me of when utorrent decided to include a hidden CPU miner in their software so they could earn dollars per day while costing their users thousands of dollars in electricity.
You are way off the track. Their plan is to use 35$ chips for USB charging hubs which are more expensive than regular phone chargers. The 8$ chip will be used in routers, gaming consoles etc. They will remain competitive by using the approach of many consumers paying the price who will not care about the double $/gh or the double $/kwh because the amounts are very small for them. We are talking about a few dollars, not about thousands.
That's not how I understand it. According to the slides here: http://imgur.com/a/q9cbL it looks like the $35 includes a: $10 controller, $5 wifi connector, $5 hardware wallet, $5 case, $2 charger, $8 chip. (numbers obviously made up but you get the point) It doesn't say the $35 is a single chip unlike the $8.
The $/gh is not important for the customer, but 21 inc. If 21 inc can breaks even with double the $/gh, then their competitors have doubled their money by that point. (assuming they have equivalent chips)
The w/gh is important to 21 inc but only if their plan is not to steal electricity from ignorant users. If they intend on giving their users at least enough btc to cover electricity costs then they are essentially just paying residential rates for electricity while their competitors are paying industrial rates.
I think Jtoomim is right when he said this isn't their real business plan. This is just their plan to suck in the VC money from people who can't/won't do the math so they can produce Intel 14nm chips to put in a massive 20MW datacenter.
^^^^nicely put, and I am very much in agreement.
Considering their partnership with Qualcomm
We do not know the terms of that partnership. 21.co may use Qualcomm parts and/or expertise, rather than the other way around. Doesn't Qualcomm have a project for self-configuring public wifi routers? That may require some automatic micropayment system, so their interest in 21.co may be about that, rather than mining per se.
Who said that Qualcomm is interested in the mining? This is not only about the mining. And yes, in order to integrate and use the micropayment system Qualcomm will put hashing cores into their chips and will try to get people used with the micropayment system so they can use it.
Phone chargers sell for ~$2 on Aliexpress so I'd guess they are made for ~$1. No sane company is going to add ~$20 worth of components and an $8 chip.
How can they possibly remain competitive while paying double the $/gh and double the $/kwh?
This sort of reminds me of when utorrent decided to include a hidden CPU miner in their software so they could earn dollars per day while costing their users thousands of dollars in electricity.
How can they possibly remain competitive while paying double the $/gh and double the $/kwh?
This sort of reminds me of when utorrent decided to include a hidden CPU miner in their software so they could earn dollars per day while costing their users thousands of dollars in electricity.
You are way off the track. Their plan is to use 35$ chips for USB charging hubs which are more expensive than regular phone chargers. The 8$ chip will be used in routers, gaming consoles etc. They will remain competitive by using the approach of many consumers paying the price who will not care about the double $/gh or the double $/kwh because the amounts are very small for them. We are talking about a few dollars, not about thousands.
The difference from utorrent is that the consumers will know while those idiots put it hidden.
The claim that the intent is to steal power from the consumers is not mine; it is being made by several people in the forums. I still haven't seen confirmed basic data about the chip: power consumption and hashes/sec.
Someone on reddit who seems familiar with chip design claims that the 21.co chip is 500 mm^2 in area (~22 x 22 mm), which means it cannot be integrated in CPUs etc.
Someone on reddit who seems familiar with chip design claims that the 21.co chip is 500 mm^2 in area (~22 x 22 mm), which means it cannot be integrated in CPUs etc.
If several people claim one thing it doesn't automatically makes it correct! I find that claim to be very stupid. They will not steal the power. The consumers will know about this and it will be done with their consent while they will receive something back. It's like saying that Facebook is stealing our privacy. Yeah right, but we tolerate it and we like it. So that's why I think that this is a stupid claim. There are far more important things to worry about than this stupid steal of power of the stupid ROI from the mining.
I've thought this for a while now. However, I focused on devices that are constantly plugged in, and connected to the internet (obv). Any sort of firewall/router/switch/AP could have a 10W chip in them, and no one would ever know. Well, some people would find out, but most consumers wouldn't know the difference.
They will know! It's very easy to monitor the traffic and to see what is going on especially if we are talking about routers. I say it will be done with consent.
They must have mined a lot of bitcoins; but have they kept them, or have they sold them already? They must have sold some of them to pay their bills. If they kept the rest as bitcoins, they must be in very bad financial shape, like other entities that did so (such as the Bitcoin Foundation).
When you get investments "far north" of 116M$ I am sure that you don't need to sell bitcoins to pay for the power. Especially if your plan is to boost bitcoin.
I still think that most of us here are focusing on a less relevant thing (using your own electricity).
Right now bitcoin is mired in 100K transactions a day, which is a miniscule number.
If properly implemented, can 21 inc approach dramatically increase bitcoin market and reach many millions?
I think that it can, and the alternative of 4 hardware makers mining, then dumping coin is nothing but a disaster as we have seen in the last 15-18 mo.
Right now bitcoin is mired in 100K transactions a day, which is a miniscule number.
If properly implemented, can 21 inc approach dramatically increase bitcoin market and reach many millions?
I think that it can, and the alternative of 4 hardware makers mining, then dumping coin is nothing but a disaster as we have seen in the last 15-18 mo.
However, if those transactions will use freshly mined bitcoins, they will not generate any new demand on the market. Eventually, those mined bitcoins will find the way to the markets, just as if tehy had been mined in bulk. So those chips will not change the supply or demand.
Moreover, those additional millions of transactions will involve very small amounts and minimal fees. One big dark cloud in the bitcoin horizon is the question of how the network will be supported once the block rewards become insufficient. The hope was that commercial transactions would increase to the point that (a) the price would increase exponentially, thus preserving the dollar value of the block rewards, and/or (b) the transaction fees would become significant and compensate for the reduction of the block rewards. Those millions of micropayments and tiny miner payouts from the 21.co chips will not help either (a) or (b).
Quote
In fact, if 21 inc is already in possession of a significant % of bitcoin (and they might be since they were mining the last two years),.
They must have mined a lot of bitcoins; but have they kept them, or have they sold them already? They must have sold some of them to pay their bills. If they kept the rest as bitcoins, they must be in very bad financial shape, like other entities that did so (such as the Bitcoin Foundation).
Any thoughts on how long it will take to see which "vision" is the closest to reality? Will it take longer than 18 months to know if the VC guys were "super brilliant" or just "suckered in"? I can't believe it will take even 24 months to know.
I still think that most of us here are focusing on a less relevant thing (using your own electricity).
Right now bitcoin is mired in 100K transactions a day, which is a miniscule number.
If properly implemented, can 21 inc approach dramatically increase bitcoin market and reach many millions?
I think that it can, and the alternative of 4 hardware makers mining, then dumping coin is nothing but a disaster as we have seen in the last 15-18 mo.
In fact, if 21 inc is already in possession of a significant % of bitcoin (and they might be since they were mining the last two years), and once millions of devices are distributed, they can run a promo whereas they distribute, say, 1-5% (or even more) of their stash in one go, like a super-faucet, giving few million people $1-5 in btc, thereby endowing a large market. With a proper ad campaign it would be an impressive feat.
Right now bitcoin is mired in 100K transactions a day, which is a miniscule number.
If properly implemented, can 21 inc approach dramatically increase bitcoin market and reach many millions?
I think that it can, and the alternative of 4 hardware makers mining, then dumping coin is nothing but a disaster as we have seen in the last 15-18 mo.
In fact, if 21 inc is already in possession of a significant % of bitcoin (and they might be since they were mining the last two years), and once millions of devices are distributed, they can run a promo whereas they distribute, say, 1-5% (or even more) of their stash in one go, like a super-faucet, giving few million people $1-5 in btc, thereby endowing a large market. With a proper ad campaign it would be an impressive feat.
I've thought this for a while now. However, I focused on devices that are constantly plugged in, and connected to the internet (obv). Any sort of firewall/router/switch/AP could have a 10W chip in them, and no one would ever know. Well, some people would find out, but most consumers wouldn't know the difference.