no one can touch bitcoin, enough said!!!
They can, they can put it up in sky and fuck it right through between if they have the power to. They will only have power if there is no strong support behind them. We need to be that strong support.
Topic: At what point do we stop kidding ourselves? Bye Bye mining farms. - page 2. (Read 4459 times)
June 26, 2015, 11:48:25 AM
They can, they can put it up in sky and fuck it right through between if they have the power to. They will only have power if there is no strong support behind them. We need to be that strong support.
June 26, 2015, 11:46:37 AM
When doing these calculations one has to take into consideration that the bitcoin system may replace large bank datacenters , ATM machines , millions of big power hungry cash registers . CC terminals and scanners will eventually all be replaced by low power tablet devices. Plus , no longer the expenses of producing , securing , transporting cash , all of these are very expensive so ultimately alough bitcoin mining requires a lot of energy once it goes mainstream the overall energy consumption will be way less than the current fiat value transfer systems we use today.
While I do agree with this you have to consider banks are already doing this themselves. They want to cut costs as much as we do. Every chance they get they move to more electronic ways of doing things. Idk about you all but i already rarely if ever have cash on me or need to go to an atm. I have direct deposit like most people so i also rarely physically make deposits. Hell even back in 2008 i had a completely electronic bank of america account. Banks are not nearly as far behind as you would suggest.
June 26, 2015, 11:42:05 AM
Another post inspired by the psuedo-science of global warming. Carbon footprint is irrelevant...I don't care if the network uses 1.21 GW of energy, if it makes Bitcoin more secure.
We have proved here in this thread that centralized mining regardless of hashrate does not increase security it decreases it. Please read comments. I would say that it partially increases the security, because if someone new decides to do a 51% he would need many more miners. Although the downside here is obviously that a farm which is close to the necessary amount of hashrate for an attack could go rogue.
I do not see a way for mining to become decentralized again?
Thank you!
I agree that it a sense it increases security by dictating that a 51% attack would require that much more hashing power from a new party, but yes in the sense that an Existing farm make an attack having already had a good portion of the net hash makes it less. So its a give and take depending which argument you wish to follow.
How do we DE-centralize this trend? Or at least slow this trend down? We would need hardware available at competitive rates when they are still at competitive speeds or it will never happen. Produce ONLY one type of miner? Which would increase the hell out of competition. Idk i'm all for input. ASIC was a huge mistake imo. It should have never been allowed on the network. As I look over at my S5's shaking my head lmao.
June 26, 2015, 11:27:43 AM
The total cost of mining is usually similar to the block rewards.
It is still cheaper than cost of maintaining today's banking system, many many folds.
It is still cheaper than cost of maintaining today's banking system, many many folds.
then why governments are not adopting bitcoin, it would be a win win situation for them, if the cost are vastly cheap, is only regualtion that prevent this? or there is somethign else...
i think they just don't like to not have the control over money
Actually they are trying to find ways to use the blockchain technology because it is cheaper for them. I wonder how much power banks waste compared to Bitcoin?
Exactly. Also, governments are controlled by people with money, the bankers.
June 26, 2015, 11:16:48 AM
In short, mining is really unprofitable now and wasting this amount of electricity is uneconomical too.
June 26, 2015, 11:07:51 AM
When doing these calculations one has to take into consideration that the bitcoin system may replace large bank datacenters , ATM machines , millions of big power hungry cash registers . CC terminals and scanners will eventually all be replaced by low power tablet devices. Plus , no longer the expenses of producing , securing , transporting cash , all of these are very expensive so ultimately alough bitcoin mining requires a lot of energy once it goes mainstream the overall energy consumption will be way less than the current fiat value transfer systems we use today.
June 26, 2015, 10:47:54 AM
Another post inspired by the psuedo-science of global warming. Carbon footprint is irrelevant...I don't care if the network uses 1.21 GW of energy, if it makes Bitcoin more secure.
We have proved here in this thread that centralized mining regardless of hashrate does not increase security it decreases it. Please read comments. I would say that it partially increases the security, because if someone new decides to do a 51% he would need many more miners. Although the downside here is obviously that a farm which is close to the necessary amount of hashrate for an attack could go rogue.
I do not see a way for mining to become decentralized again?
June 26, 2015, 10:42:22 AM
Satoshi predicted these events.
He said that btc could one day increase costs of things to sustain it.
I say let it run
He said that btc could one day increase costs of things to sustain it.
I say let it run
June 26, 2015, 09:52:06 AM
Another post inspired by the psuedo-science of global warming. Carbon footprint is irrelevant...I don't care if the network uses 1.21 GW of energy, if it makes Bitcoin more secure.
We have proved here in this thread that centralized mining regardless of hashrate does not increase security it decreases it. Please read comments.
June 26, 2015, 09:49:10 AM
Another post inspired by the psuedo-science of global warming. Carbon footprint is irrelevant...I don't care if the network uses 1.21 GW of energy, if it makes Bitcoin more secure.
June 26, 2015, 09:13:28 AM
It is illegal in the usa to run any form of private currency. Cite the liberty dollar experiment that went south back in 2008.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/25/us/liberty-dollar-creator-awaits-his-fate-behind-bars.html?_r=0
This just goes to show, if it gets big enough, and it threatens what congress has set in place... they will slap the hammer down. We can't even get politicians to audit our IRS nor our federal reserve to see how much gold we actually have. To expand our 'federal reserve' that holds gold and prints money, is a private bank, with strong interest in this country. I'm not saying they are unbeatable but they will put up a huge fight. Considering they are basically holding our country hostage right now...
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/25/us/liberty-dollar-creator-awaits-his-fate-behind-bars.html?_r=0
This just goes to show, if it gets big enough, and it threatens what congress has set in place... they will slap the hammer down. We can't even get politicians to audit our IRS nor our federal reserve to see how much gold we actually have. To expand our 'federal reserve' that holds gold and prints money, is a private bank, with strong interest in this country. I'm not saying they are unbeatable but they will put up a huge fight. Considering they are basically holding our country hostage right now...
June 26, 2015, 09:10:11 AM
if the wattage will go down because of a better efficiency, then more miners will be added = the same result as today(with more hashpower, but same consumption), you can't escape from that equation
the only thing to reduce it would be that bitcoin will remain at current price(after the halving), therefore miners need to shut down 50% of the total hash, unless they manage to double their efficiency in 1 year
so there is a percentage of possibility that nothing will change with the reward(besides the difficulty), highly unlikely though
the only thing to reduce it would be that bitcoin will remain at current price(after the halving), therefore miners need to shut down 50% of the total hash, unless they manage to double their efficiency in 1 year
so there is a percentage of possibility that nothing will change with the reward(besides the difficulty), highly unlikely though
The total cost of mining is usually similar to the block rewards.
It is still cheaper than cost of maintaining today's banking system, many many folds.
then why governments are not adopting bitcoin, it would be a win win situation for them, if the cost are vastly cheaper, is only regualtion that prevent this? or there is something else...
i think they just don't like to not have the control over money
Well take america for example... We print money to cover debt. Which further increases inflation and the national debt, which we in turn print more money to cover. It's a vicious circle. But on that basis alone, america would be unable to adopt bitcoin as currency (with the inability to print it at will) without going completely bankrupt We don't want that along with every country that we do business with. Now like its been mentioned it's possible they backbone on the blockchain... this still doesn't eliminate USD and it wont.
June 26, 2015, 08:26:25 AM
Here we go again. In fact bitcoin mining is no more harmful than the wastefulness of mining gold out of the ground, creating gold bars from in, and then putting it back in banks again.
Not to mention the building cities or creating other things is the waste of energy as well. Printing and minting all the various fiat currencies, guarding it with people who could do something else etc.
I would say that as far as mediums of exchange go, bitcoin is actually quite economical of resources, compared to others.
Not to mention the building cities or creating other things is the waste of energy as well. Printing and minting all the various fiat currencies, guarding it with people who could do something else etc.
I would say that as far as mediums of exchange go, bitcoin is actually quite economical of resources, compared to others.
Mining Gold is infinitely more expensive, both monetary and environmentally. The impact on the terrain can make huge damage to anything that lives close to it. The annoying noise of the machines which cannot be covered inside a building.. etc etc. BTC mining is nothing compared to that.
June 26, 2015, 07:56:47 AM
The total cost of mining is usually similar to the block rewards.
It is still cheaper than cost of maintaining today's banking system, many many folds.
It is still cheaper than cost of maintaining today's banking system, many many folds.
then why governments are not adopting bitcoin, it would be a win win situation for them, if the cost are vastly cheap, is only regualtion that prevent this? or there is somethign else...
i think they just don't like to not have the control over money
Actually they are trying to find ways to use the blockchain technology because it is cheaper for them. I wonder how much power banks waste compared to Bitcoin?
June 26, 2015, 03:45:01 AM
if the wattage will go down because of a better efficiency, then more miners will be added = the same result as today(with more hashpower, but same consumption), you can't escape from that equation
the only thing to reduce it would be that bitcoin will remain at current price(after the halving), therefore miners need to shut down 50% of the total hash, unless they manage to double their efficiency in 1 year
so there is a percentage of possibility that nothing will change with the reward(besides the difficulty), highly unlikely though
the only thing to reduce it would be that bitcoin will remain at current price(after the halving), therefore miners need to shut down 50% of the total hash, unless they manage to double their efficiency in 1 year
so there is a percentage of possibility that nothing will change with the reward(besides the difficulty), highly unlikely though
The total cost of mining is usually similar to the block rewards.
It is still cheaper than cost of maintaining today's banking system, many many folds.
then why governments are not adopting bitcoin, it would be a win win situation for them, if the cost are vastly cheaper, is only regualtion that prevent this? or there is something else...
i think they just don't like to not have the control over money
June 26, 2015, 12:10:20 AM
Hashrate will rise to an almost unprofitable state,
already happened.
https://blockchain.info/charts/hash-rate
How? I suppose its a matter of interpretation. It's still quite profitable in my area as well as many areas. Undervolted I would be over 50% profitable.
how? it's already risen to the 400,000,000 level three months ago and hasn't moved beyond it. as you said, it's 'almost unprofitable' (or else it would be rising further). it may do so later , for example of the btc price rises, but for now, it ain't.
Dude.
http://www.coinwarz.com/calculators/bitcoin-mining-calculator
I already cited my predictions thread. You can't sit here and tell me its 'barely' profitable when one of the original profitability calculators is spelling out that it's (mining) is 200% profitable over electricity cost. Places like washington (all hydro power) are like 400% profitable. Unless you live in the EU or New York.. you should do just fine for while yet. I don't anticipate a jump in hashrate until the block reward halves. It's possible it might slightly pick up before then but i doubt it. I think the price of bitcoin will drop slightly over the next few months going into Q3 and when Q4 hits i expect KNC to launch whatever shenanagins they have planned and then we will see some action. Using the last 180 day horizon as reference we are lucky to have seen a 4% increase in hashrate per month, with 3-4 drops in diff. I think this is attributed to people changing out less efficient miners for more efficient miners. People have actually decreased hash power but with a lesser electricity cost so its more over profitable in the long run.
June 26, 2015, 12:01:38 AM
It's a free market。 In China, miner work in the remote frontiers because low electricity fee.
June 25, 2015, 11:43:51 PM
Fortunately, it seems that miners are concentrating in places that have hydroelectric power. I would imagine that any environmentally responsible person who was mining Bitcoin in an area that is serviced with electricity from other-than wind, solar or hydro-electric generating stations has already shut down their miners or bought sufficient carbon credits to offset their output. Gov'ts don't need to concentrate their efforts specifically on shutting down Bitcoin mining, they only have to make any industry that uses fossil fuel prohibitively expensive by adding the carbon tax and it's already happening.
June 25, 2015, 10:58:01 PM
Hashrate will rise to an almost unprofitable state,
already happened.https://blockchain.info/charts/hash-rate
Shhhhhh
June 25, 2015, 10:54:09 PM
No, it is not responsible as human beings to waste electricity.
The Sun wastes about 3.846 × 1020 MW. I don't see why humans must bear responsibility for such an piddling amount.
Jump to: