Bitcoin halving to be canceled? - page 19.

Amph

legendary

Activity: 3248

Merit: 1072

Quote from: deisik on November 27, 2015, 10:46:38 AM

Quote from: Amph on November 27, 2015, 06:22:20 AM

Quote from: deisik on November 27, 2015, 03:27:57 AM

Quote from: Amph on November 27, 2015, 02:53:52 AM

Quote from: deisik on November 26, 2015, 03:10:21 PM

It seems that your definition of efficiency is heavily lopsided. My understanding of efficiency is entirely economic, i.e. I don't care about power consumption and hashrates as such. All I care is the balance of costs and revenues. In other words, the miner that incurs less cost and brings in more revenue is more efficient (i.e. does more with less) than the one that does the opposite...

That's what all technical parameters ultimately boil down to

my definition is different, talking about the initial investment as efficiency is a no-sense, the efficiency is only related to consumption, and the s7 consume half of the s5, so x2 efficiency

The problem is it doesn't in the least guarantee that with an s7 you will profit twice as much as with an s5 given only its half as much power consumption. Initial investment (aka capital expenditure) as a part of fixed costs defines your break-even point. You still have to shell out on the equipment first, whether you love it or not. Your personal opinion (lol) that you can sell your miner is not related to this, and I highly doubt that you will get for it the same price which you bought it at after a few months of operation (and more so before the halving)...

Even if you personally will be lucky to sell your device at its original price tag

in fact the profit is much higher than a s5, becuse you need also more psu for the s5 since it consume more

i've done the math about it and it was highly in favor of the s7

Okay, but the question was not about "weighing" the new devices (s7) against the old ones (s5) in the current conditions in the industry. The question was whether the new miners will be as profitable after the halving as the old miners are today, i.e. before the halving...

To put it differently, will the new equipment make up for the loss of revenue due to halving?

yeah it will, and by a by far, i've done a good post about this in the speculation section, the result was 75 in profit for the s7 even after the halving

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.13083425

deisik

legendary

Activity: 3514

Merit: 1280

English ⬄ Russian Translation Services

Quote from: Amph on November 27, 2015, 06:22:20 AM

you can actually be lucky and sella bove the market price with new equipments, there are cases of this happened already in the mining section

because there is a high demand for new asic

You yourself said that s5 is nothing new, but you can still sell it for the same price which you bought it at when it was top notch and ahead of the pack. And now you talk about new devices only. Who is going to buy the old equipment that will be pretty much useless after the halving?

deisik

legendary

Activity: 3514

Merit: 1280

English ⬄ Russian Translation Services

Quote from: Amph on November 27, 2015, 06:22:20 AM

Quote from: deisik on November 27, 2015, 03:27:57 AM

Quote from: Amph on November 27, 2015, 02:53:52 AM

Quote from: deisik on November 26, 2015, 03:10:21 PM

It seems that your definition of efficiency is heavily lopsided. My understanding of efficiency is entirely economic, i.e. I don't care about power consumption and hashrates as such. All I care is the balance of costs and revenues. In other words, the miner that incurs less cost and brings in more revenue is more efficient (i.e. does more with less) than the one that does the opposite...

That's what all technical parameters ultimately boil down to

my definition is different, talking about the initial investment as efficiency is a no-sense, the efficiency is only related to consumption, and the s7 consume half of the s5, so x2 efficiency

The problem is it doesn't in the least guarantee that with an s7 you will profit twice as much as with an s5 given only its half as much power consumption. Initial investment (aka capital expenditure) as a part of fixed costs defines your break-even point. You still have to shell out on the equipment first, whether you love it or not. Your personal opinion (lol) that you can sell your miner is not related to this, and I highly doubt that you will get for it the same price which you bought it at after a few months of operation (and more so before the halving)...

Even if you personally will be lucky to sell your device at its original price tag

in fact the profit is much higher than a s5, becuse you need also more psu for the s5 since it consume more

i've done the math about it and it was highly in favor of the s7

Okay, but the question was not about "weighing" the new devices (s7) against the old ones (s5) in the current conditions in the industry. The question was whether the new miners will be as profitable after the halving as the old miners are today, i.e. before the halving...

To put it differently, will the new equipment make up for the loss of revenue due to halving?

SebastianJu

legendary

Activity: 2674

Merit: 1083

Legendary Escrow Service - Tip Jar in Profile

Quote from: deisik on November 25, 2015, 11:48:35 AM

Quote from: zodiac3011 on November 25, 2015, 11:02:23 AM

Quote from: ridery99 on November 25, 2015, 10:17:22 AM

I'm against the halving too. I think all major pools should fork bitcoin to not-halving version which will be supported in the future to maintain miners profits.

I don't see why you want to do that at all? Lower supply means higher demands for bitcoin so the price will increase which pumps the price of it

The falsity of this assumption has been explained many times already (me included). Quoting myself again:

I think he refers to inflation and deflation. Stopping block reward completely would mean there would be less bitcoins in existance than the targetted 21million. Which would be deflation and would raise the value of each bitcoin. Though when you produce more bitcoins than 21 million then it would mean inflation. It's the same when the central bank of a country starts to produce more and more fiat money in order to pay their bills. The total worth of each currency unit would effectively diminished the more they print.

SebastianJu

legendary

Activity: 2674

Merit: 1083

Legendary Escrow Service - Tip Jar in Profile

Quote from: deisik on November 25, 2015, 11:36:46 AM

Quote from: Amph on November 25, 2015, 10:22:54 AM

Quote from: deisik on November 25, 2015, 04:02:54 AM

Quote from: HarryKPeters on November 24, 2015, 04:11:41 PM

It is a mandatory step in the development of the network and prosperity of bitcoin. So yes it won't be cancelled.

The title is misleading and since it suggest a eventual cancellation which is not true. A better title would be. Should the halving be cancelled?

That's what I think should happen and assume will happen ("unless miners want to kill bitcoin"). My logic is flawless, lol. If the halving is so beneficial for the "prosperity of bitcoin", why not cancel the miners reward altogether?

Fly me to the moon

because satoshi wanted that the reward was spread in a long time to permit adoption to take off, and to permit the efficiency to catch the reward itself

Okay, Bitcoin took off (at least, that's what they all say), so its time to cancel the halving? Or did it?

If it didn't make it, what is the metric we should look at?

The fee. Bitcoin took off but only slightly. The current status surely is not the target already. When adoption is so high that the fees are high enough to reward miners and at least make the network secure a couple of times then we would not need block rewards beside fee anymore. But we have a long way to go till that.

SebastianJu

legendary

Activity: 2674

Merit: 1083

Legendary Escrow Service - Tip Jar in Profile

Quote from: ridery99 on November 25, 2015, 10:17:22 AM

I'm against the halving too. I think all major pools should fork bitcoin to not-halving version which will be supported in the future to maintain miners profits.

Let me guess... you are a miner, right? Roll Eyes

That would be a stupid idea because even though you would get more bitcoins as a number, you would crash bitcoin because it would mean that bitcoins would be created indefinitely. Which means every bitcoin in existence will lose worth constantly. It's named inflation and happens when you print more and more money.

Thankfully satoshi knew the risks of inflation and made a hard cap. It will never be removed. If it will then bitcoin price would crash anyway. That's why the pools never would be stupid enough to enforce it with forking.

SebastianJu

legendary

Activity: 2674

Merit: 1083

Legendary Escrow Service - Tip Jar in Profile

Quote from: deisik on November 25, 2015, 04:02:54 AM

Quote from: HarryKPeters on November 24, 2015, 04:11:41 PM

It is a mandatory step in the development of the network and prosperity of bitcoin. So yes it won't be cancelled.

The title is misleading and since it suggest a eventual cancellation which is not true. A better title would be. Should the halving be cancelled?

That's what I think should happen and assume will happen ("unless miners want to kill bitcoin"). My logic is flawless, lol. If the halving is so beneficial for the "prosperity of bitcoin", why not cancel the miners reward altogether?

Fly me to the moon

Because halving was implemented to give an initial reward for miners to provide their service. This reward brings bitcoins into existence too. Though it is only temporary until bitcoin adoption is so high that the fees are high enough to compensate miners.

Well, if the ones that want to keep 1 megabyte blocks win then this won't work out. The fees could not rise anymore because we have more and more adoption, adoption would be stopped because only a certain amount of transactions could be confirmed. Instead they would try to make bitcoin transactions more expensive by everyone competing to get his transaction confirmed. That obviously will make bitcoin very unattractive.

SebastianJu

legendary

Activity: 2674

Merit: 1083

Legendary Escrow Service - Tip Jar in Profile

Quote from: deisik on November 24, 2015, 04:43:40 AM

Quote from: SebastianJu on November 23, 2015, 05:13:42 PM

You are right... the asic tech is not much further to develop i think. So it might be that alot miners will be switched off. Though when at past times more and more miners were switched on, leading to shorter conf time for some days, then it would be ok when the same happens in the other direction. What i doubt is that everyone will switch off instantly. That never happened and will not most probably

That would take just a few mining pools to "cooperate". Didn't exactly this we see last summer going on when thousands of unconfirmed transactions got stuck in queue? What happened back then tells us two important things. First, that they can easily work in sync (i.e. efficiently coordinate their actions whatever their ends might be), and, second, that they do actually control Bitcoin...

And none of this bodes well in the long term, by any means

There definitely are risks and yes miners control the network. I was surprised to read that satoshi foresaw that situation and wasn't concerned about it.

At the end the miners can't be too brutal. Otherwise user would fork and that's it. The real power is with the users.

Amph

legendary

Activity: 3248

Merit: 1072

Quote from: deisik on November 27, 2015, 03:27:57 AM

Quote from: Amph on November 27, 2015, 02:53:52 AM

Quote from: deisik on November 26, 2015, 03:10:21 PM

It seems that your definition of efficiency is heavily lopsided. My understanding of efficiency is entirely economic, i.e. I don't care about power consumption and hashrates as such. All I care is the balance of costs and revenues. In other words, the miner that incurs less cost and brings in more revenue is more efficient (i.e. does more with less) than the one that does the opposite...

That's what all technical parameters ultimately boil down to

my definition is different, talking about the initial investment as efficiency is a no-sense, the efficiency is only related to consumption, and the s7 consume half of the s5, so x2 efficiency

The problem is it doesn't in the least guarantee that with an s7 you will profit twice as much as with an s5 given only its half as much power consumption. Initial investment (aka capital expenditure) as a part of fixed costs defines your break-even point. You still have to shell out on the equipment first, whether you love it or not. Your personal opinion (lol) that you can sell your miner is not related to this, and I highly doubt that you will get for it the same price which you bought it at after a few months of operation (and more so before the halving)...

Even if you personally will be lucky to sell your device at its original price tag

in fact the profit is much higher than a s5, becuse you need also more psu for the s5 since it consume more

i've done the math about it and it was highly in favor of the s7

Quote from: deisik on November 27, 2015, 03:47:05 AM

Quote from: Amph on November 27, 2015, 02:53:52 AM

the fact that it cost more, does not mean anything, you can always sell it for the same value even after many months, guaranteed

If the equipment still brings in cash, it makes no sense economically to sell it (prior to break-even at least). Otherwise, you would be better off by not buying it in the first place (all other things being equal). But if it stops bringing in enough revenue at some point (negative cash flow), you won't be able to profitably sell it...

If only out of pure luck to some goof, lol

it's a strategy used to reach roi faster nothing else, there is a big part of trading in mining as well, it's not mining only, anymore

you can actually be lucky and sell above the market price with new equipments, there are cases of this happened already in the mining section

because there is a high demand for new asic

deisik

legendary

Activity: 3514

Merit: 1280

English ⬄ Russian Translation Services

Quote from: Amph on November 27, 2015, 02:53:52 AM

the fact that it cost more, does not mean anything, you can always sell it for the same value even after many months, guaranteed

If the equipment still brings in cash, it makes no sense economically to sell it (prior to break-even at least). Otherwise, you would be better off by not buying it in the first place (all other things being equal). But if it stops bringing in enough revenue at some point (negative cash flow), you won't be able to profitably sell it...

If only out of pure luck to some goof, lol

deisik

legendary

Activity: 3514

Merit: 1280

English ⬄ Russian Translation Services

Quote from: Amph on November 27, 2015, 02:53:52 AM

Quote from: deisik on November 26, 2015, 03:10:21 PM

It seems that your definition of efficiency is heavily lopsided. My understanding of efficiency is entirely economic, i.e. I don't care about power consumption and hashrates as such. All I care is the balance of costs and revenues. In other words, the miner that incurs less cost and brings in more revenue is more efficient (i.e. does more with less) than the one that does the opposite...

That's what all technical parameters ultimately boil down to

my definition is different, talking about the initial investment as efficiency is a no-sense, the efficiency is only related to consumption, and the s7 consume half of the s5, so x2 efficiency

The problem is it doesn't in the least guarantee that with an s7 you will profit twice as much as with an s5 given only its half as much power consumption. Initial investment (aka capital expenditure) as a part of fixed costs defines your break-even point. You still have to shell out on the equipment first, whether you love it or not. Your personal opinion (lol) that you can sell your miner is not related to this, and I highly doubt that you will get for it the same price which you bought it at after a few months of operation (and more so before the halving)...

Even if you personally will be lucky to sell your device at its original price tag

Amph

legendary

Activity: 3248

Merit: 1072

Quote from: deisik on November 26, 2015, 03:10:21 PM

Quote from: Amph on November 26, 2015, 02:38:16 AM

Quote from: deisik on November 25, 2015, 04:06:07 PM

The quick search on Google reveals that "the S5+ antminer offers nearly 3,000 more GH/s than the announced S7". How's that? Besides, the S5 uses 60 chips per miner while the S7 uses 162, so is this new miner in fact more efficient? Efficiency is not only about power consumption (operating costs), you should also take into account capital expenditures. In this way, if the new miner consumes half but costs twice as much (or even the same if it has the same hashrate), then you would still be less profitable at 12.5 BTC with it than with the old miner at 25 BTC per block per same price...

That's why Bitcoin halving may have devastating effects on its future (too many factors need to be "upgraded")

i was talking about the old s5, the s5+ was released with the s7 basically, but it's still not efficient liek the s7, it's a bulky version of the s5 with a slightly more better efficiency

It seems that your definition of efficiency is heavily lopsided. My understanding of efficiency is entirely economic, i.e. I don't care about power consumption and hashrates as such. All I care is the balance of costs and revenues. In other words, the miner that incurs less cost and brings in more revenue is more efficient (i.e. does more with less) than the one that does the opposite...

That's what all technical parameters ultimately boil down to

my definition is different, talking about the initial investment as efficiency is a no-sense, the efficiency is only related to consumption, and the s7 consume half of the s5, so x2 efficiency

the fact that it cost more, does not mean anything, you can always sell it for the same value even after many months, guaranteed

deisik

legendary

Activity: 3514

Merit: 1280

English ⬄ Russian Translation Services

Quote from: Amph on November 26, 2015, 02:38:16 AM

Quote from: deisik on November 25, 2015, 04:06:07 PM

The quick search on Google reveals that "the S5+ antminer offers nearly 3,000 more GH/s than the announced S7". How's that? Besides, the S5 uses 60 chips per miner while the S7 uses 162, so is this new miner in fact more efficient? Efficiency is not only about power consumption (operating costs), you should also take into account capital expenditures. In this way, if the new miner consumes half but costs twice as much (or even the same if it has the same hashrate), then you would still be less profitable at 12.5 BTC with it than with the old miner at 25 BTC per block per same price...

That's why Bitcoin halving may have devastating effects on its future (too many factors need to be "upgraded")

i was talking about the old s5, the s5+ was released with the s7 basically, but it's still not efficient liek the s7, it's a bulky version of the s5 with a slightly more better efficiency

It seems that your definition of efficiency is heavily lopsided. My understanding of efficiency is entirely economic, i.e. I don't care about power consumption and hashrates as such. All I care is the balance of costs and revenues. In other words, the miner that incurs less cost and brings in more revenue is more efficient (i.e. does more with less) than the one that does the opposite...

That's what all technical parameters ultimately boil down to

Amph

legendary

Activity: 3248

Merit: 1072

Quote from: deisik on November 25, 2015, 04:06:07 PM

Quote from: Amph on November 25, 2015, 02:27:46 PM

i was thinking that the halving would have been useless if bitcoin had risen enormously in value in the past and within the first 3-5 years

but even satoshi didn't believe in it to skyrocket so fast

Quote from: deisik on November 25, 2015, 02:03:14 PM

Are the new chips twice as efficient?

yes they are, s7 is x2 more efficient than the s5 antminer

The quick search on Google reveals that "the S5+ antminer offers nearly 3,000 more GH/s than the announced S7". How's that? Besides, the S5 uses 60 chips per miner while the S7 uses 162, so is this new miner in fact more efficient? Efficiency is not only about power consumption (operating costs), you should also take into account capital expenditures. In this way, if the new miner consumes half but costs twice as much (or even the same if it has the same hashrate), then you would still be less profitable at 12.5 BTC with it than with the old miner at 25 BTC per block per same price...

That's why Bitcoin halving may have devastating effects on its future (too many factors need to be "upgraded")

i was talking about the old s5, the s5+ was released with the s7 basically, but it's still not efficient liek the s7, it's a bulky version of the s5 with a slightly more better efficiency

btckold24

sr. member

Activity: 434

Merit: 250

★Bitvest.io★ Play Plinko or Invest!

isnt it built into the system to halve? also who is this "they" that would be able to make a decision like that

anyzhugo789

newbie

Activity: 1

Merit: 0

Quote from: deisik on September 22, 2015, 01:38:16 PM

Quote from: spazzdla on September 22, 2015, 01:03:59 PM

Quote from: deisik on September 22, 2015, 11:49:14 AM

Quote from: ?? on ??

What?

Who has the most power over Bitcoin? Right, these are mining pools. Who is most interested in preserving the current block reward? The same mining pools...

Who gives a fuck what the pools do, it's what the miners do.

Mining pools act on behalf of the miners. Besides, do you understand that the miners will be the first to welcome the cancellation of halving?

deisik

legendary

Activity: 3514

Merit: 1280

English ⬄ Russian Translation Services

Quote from: n691309 on November 25, 2015, 02:20:52 PM

Quote from: deisik on November 25, 2015, 02:09:55 PM

Quote from: USB-S on November 25, 2015, 01:44:12 PM

If we were to cancel the halving, can we remove the 21mil hard cap as well?

The latter follows from the former

If the supply is unlimited then how much would cost a bitcoin? it is better to have restriction and a limit on supply as the price should be increased year by year until there are a small amount in market.

I have created another topic which discusses this issue in particular. Short version, the higher price (due to limited supply) turns Bitcoin into a Ponzi scheme, which would kill it eventually...

deisik

legendary

Activity: 3514

Merit: 1280

English ⬄ Russian Translation Services

Quote from: Amph on November 25, 2015, 02:27:46 PM

i was thinking that the halving would have been useless if bitcoin had risen enormously in value in the past and within the first 3-5 years

but even satoshi didn't believe in it to skyrocket so fast

Quote from: deisik on November 25, 2015, 02:03:14 PM

Are the new chips twice as efficient?

yes they are, s7 is x2 more efficient than the s5 antminer

The quick search on Google reveals that "the S5+ antminer offers nearly 3,000 more GH/s than the announced S7". How's that? Besides, the S5 uses 60 chips per miner while the S7 uses 162, so is this new miner in fact more efficient? Efficiency is not only about power consumption (operating costs), you should also take into account capital expenditures. In this way, if the new miner consumes half but costs twice as much (or even the same if it has the same hashrate), then you would still be less profitable at 12.5 BTC with it than with the old miner at 25 BTC per block per same price...

That's why Bitcoin halving may have devastating effects on its future (too many factors need to be "upgraded")

Amph

legendary

Activity: 3248

Merit: 1072

Quote from: GannickusX on November 25, 2015, 03:26:01 PM

Quote from: USB-S on November 25, 2015, 01:44:12 PM

Quote from: deisik on November 25, 2015, 01:19:49 PM

Quote from: Amph on November 25, 2015, 12:14:53 PM

Quote from: deisik on November 25, 2015, 11:43:09 AM

Quote from: Amph on November 25, 2015, 10:22:54 AM

if it was done (the halving) every year, right now miners would be fucked basically

So how does it change the things now, before the next halving? If the halving weren't as rare as it is, would the miners have already been fucked by now? If they would (which seems to be your point), I see no reason why they won't be ruined by this halving...

What goes around comes about

it change the thing because they had time to improve the efficiency, now they have a better efficiency and can sustain the halving even with a <<<$100 price, if the halving was every years they would still be with the efficiency of 2011....

A better efficiency is fully accommodated over time by the rising difficulty, so we are effectively time-invariant in the long run (efficiency vs difficulty), i.e. the halving interval is irrelevant if we still hit the efficiency wall before the halving. In other words, your assumption would hold true only if (and for as long as) the efficiency outpaces the difficulty. Previously, this condition had been satisfied by the new more efficient equipment hitting the market on a pretty regular basis...

But now we seem to be well past that point

What are you talking about?
New chips hit the market just this summer. Give them some time if you already want new chips. However current chips are pretty effective at around
0.25 J/GH

If we were to cancel the halving, can we remove the 21mil hard cap as well?

How would we cancel the halving exactly? I thought that was something built in the system itself and couldn't be stopped, pretty much in all coins. Last one that got halved was litecoin and the price wasn't really affected at all by it. I Hardly doubt there is a way to remove the 21mil cap.

miners consensus above a certain % with the help of other people can potentially hard fork bitcoin and cancel the halving

it's all about consensus + hard fork, after all many alt coin are hard fork of bitcoin...

GannickusX

hero member

Activity: 490

Merit: 500

Quote from: USB-S on November 25, 2015, 01:44:12 PM

Quote from: deisik on November 25, 2015, 01:19:49 PM

Quote from: Amph on November 25, 2015, 12:14:53 PM

Quote from: deisik on November 25, 2015, 11:43:09 AM

Quote from: Amph on November 25, 2015, 10:22:54 AM

if it was done (the halving) every year, right now miners would be fucked basically

So how does it change the things now, before the next halving? If the halving weren't as rare as it is, would the miners have already been fucked by now? If they would (which seems to be your point), I see no reason why they won't be ruined by this halving...

What goes around comes about

it change the thing because they had time to improve the efficiency, now they have a better efficiency and can sustain the halving even with a <<<$100 price, if the halving was every years they would still be with the efficiency of 2011....

A better efficiency is fully accommodated over time by the rising difficulty, so we are effectively time-invariant in the long run (efficiency vs difficulty), i.e. the halving interval is irrelevant if we still hit the efficiency wall before the halving. In other words, your assumption would hold true only if (and for as long as) the efficiency outpaces the difficulty. Previously, this condition had been satisfied by the new more efficient equipment hitting the market on a pretty regular basis...

But now we seem to be well past that point

What are you talking about?
New chips hit the market just this summer. Give them some time if you already want new chips. However current chips are pretty effective at around
0.25 J/GH

If we were to cancel the halving, can we remove the 21mil hard cap as well?

How would we cancel the halving exactly? I thought that was something built in the system itself and couldn't be stopped, pretty much in all coins. Last one that got halved was litecoin and the price wasn't really affected at all by it. I Hardly doubt there is a way to remove the 21mil cap.

Topic: Bitcoin halving to be canceled? - page 19. (Read 33769 times)