Topic: Bitcoin Shrinking - The Long View - page 2. (Read 19400 times)

No need, you can see retail pricing on digikey.com for FPGAs.  The development boards are irrelevant.  Not only for for Xilinx but also Altera and Lattice and Atmel.   Pricing is dependent on how many logic elements are on the chip.  And the number of logic elements is related to hash rates.  For example, an Altera chip with 114480 logic elements capable of ~110 Mhash retails for $315 at digikey.  The dev board with the same chip is $600.

I won't go into retail pricing for 1 unit vs 1000, 10,000 or 100,000+ unit direct pricing on products like these, you'd probably just spew obscenities instead of learning something.

TL;DR: For someone who claims to be making a living off the chipmaking business you are the one not making a whole heaping helping of sense.  

Edit: I suspect the Xilinx LX150T (spartan 6) is the chip used on at least one of these logic boards.  How's $180 retail for 100 mhash sound?

Holy. Fucking. Shit.

How do you people STAY like this?!

You go through amazing tribulations to wrap your head about Bitcoin and all the relevant secondary minutiae directly related to your profitability,  and then you completely drop the ball like a retarded puppy wanting a treat when someone throws around some magical thinking about hardware...

DUDE, FPGAs ARE FUCKING EXPENSIVE! DO YOU IDIOTS THINK THIS ENTIRE MOTHERFUCKING BITCOIN COMMUNITY HAS ANYWHERE NEAR THE NUMBERS TO MAKE FPGAs CHEAPER THAN LEGITIMATE FPGA DEVELOPERS AND OEMS? NO, YOU DON'T.

FOR FUCKS SAKE, CALL UP XILINX AND ASK THEM THEIR BULK UNIT COST FOR THEIR CHEAPEST FPGA BOARD.

Jesus fucking god in the goat ass donkey....

I can elaborate on that.  Nothing wrong with being protective of your ideas.  The problems are, you're so negative all you can offer is reasons why you CAN'T do something.

That's of no value.  If something is not here then there's no value in you telling me it's not happening.  A can-do attitude and average skill is 1337 times more valuable than "unrecognized genius" that remains so as a result of pessimism.

While I agree with you that the bitcoin was designed to over-reward "early adopters" (with less than 14 months separating the "haves" from the "have nots" for a project meant to last decades -- in order to obtain 10,000 bitcoins I'd have to invest several new car's worth of currency, while a mere 14 months before I joined the bitcoin ecosystem a pizza went for that much) the underlying principle is brilliant, the math is sound, and the implementation is very very good.  I don't think the rest of the world is ready to make Satoshi a multi-billionare just yet, but that may happen in time.

You can believe what you wish about FPGA and ASIC miners.  I know the FPGA ones are here now (and knowing cablesarus sells nothing at less than 60% margin I estimate cost to build a 200 mhash @ 15 watt USB device at around $200).  The ASIC miners will be the next incremental improvement after GPUs are obsoleted by FPGA miners.   If bitcoin survives and we continue on the current trend of increasing difficulty and decreasing payout GPUs will not be part of the bitcoin future.  $500 for 5 gigahash @ 60 watt ASICs will be (estimated availability: late 2012 to mid 2013).

All I know is over the past 3 months bitcoins have given me some free hardware plus a windfall of unexpected pocket change.  I have 2 free video cards and an additional $600 to spend on toys (or an ASIC miner when it becomes mainstream) not to mention entertainment, knowing a bit more computer security, cryptography, global finance and statistics.  How about you?

I don't think it could change the world as we know it, it might be a novel payment processor and alternative currency, but just as Bitcoin isn't, neither will ?coin be anything but a chance for the public to decide if it's a modern convenience that enriches their lives. I've never been and never will be a zealot thinking my idea would topple evil banks and liberate oppressed moon-bats from their self-absorbed financial delusions.

I'm not a brilliant man. For whatever reason, I was just able to look at Bitcoin, see it's failings, and come up with novel and clever ways that it could be improved. If I were a brilliant man, you never would have known I existed.

 The USPTO process is a joke, and I did just enough research to realize it was time wasted.

Most importantly, I can't actually code at the skill level in compiled languages necessary to bring a project like this to fruition, though I can do basic things. I certainly wouldn't feel comfortable programming something so critical and with so much at stake.

It's not OK to profit as an "early adopter" because the entire proof of work scheme of Bitcoin that enriched them is a farcical joke on a bunch of patsy bag-holders. If the Satoshi entity wanted compensation, that's fine, he got his coins. However, I find it patently absurd that anyone posess enough market power to collapse an emerging market on a whim. The creator does not deserve to have this power. That's why I don't believe in giving myself or any "early adopters" ANY advantages over anyone that comes afterward, unless it's through REAL economic activity.

?coin was an obsession because I am an obsessive personality, but I'm fickle. I've already put away my ?coin papers, and these explorations are one again simply for entertainment value. I can be insulted, ignored, or venerated, it doesn't matter to me. If some kind of collaboration results, then so be-it. If not, nothing of value was lost, as I have more important concerns than being some transaction processing savior.

Let me get this straight -

Item A) Synaptic has in his head an idea for something that would totally change the world as we know it, benefiting billions of people, but he won't even bother to write it down publicly because then he won't profit from it.

Item B) He hates Bitcoin in part because early adopters profited.

Item C) He is soo amazingly brilliant that he's created this idea in his head which solves all the problems of Bitcoin, creating something so perfect as to "not even require peer review," and yet he's not brilliant enough to figure out a way to profit from it.

Item D) He's not even smart enough to spend an hour reading patent law and realize that if he has a "process invention" that is unique and valuable, that it is 100% patentable and he could spend a few thousand dollars to make that happen, then release his idea to the world and make millions.


All taken together, it appears Synaptic won't even invest a few thousand bucks into what would be the most revolutionary technology the world has ever seen, and instead prefers to insult a wide community of Bitcoin enthusiasts who are actually doing things and building an amazing system, and his main gripe is that those enthusiasts who did stuff early on have made money from doing so.

And according to his ethical system, it's not okay to profit as an "early adopter" who is actually performing actions, but it is okay profit as an early "ponderer" who thinks of stuff but refrains from action.

What a champ. It saddens me that a man of his intellect and moral fortitude is not a Bitcoin ally.

Well, not trivial, speculative things anyhow. I own and operate one business already, and I'm comfortable.

Devoting myself to such a nebulous project isn't really of paramount concern.

However, just for fun and speculation sake, I created a thread about this in the altcrypto forum.

I don't see how protecting my IP is an excuse for....protecting my IP?

People like you are my only friends.  It's tragic, tragic...

I really shouldn't associate with such scum, I'm just self-loathing I guess.

It breaks your heart, doesn't it. Such abysmal failure at life resulting in anger, despair, and the self-delusion that somehow posting his ramblings here gives his life a shade of meaning.

So sad.

Which is why I personally won't open source my code, because I believe in compensation for my work...

Now you can re-read the rest of my post about how OTHER PEOLE make ther OSS projects profitable, and how that's contrasted with my hypothetical project and how it wouldn't result in me profiting from open sourcing it without compensation or a being able to release a complete program that I could monetize with associated services.

BTW, I WOULD open source the code upon release of course, but not until I had a set of associated services ready to be implimented based on the product. So, that would necessitate having a complete product in the first place.

I don't think so.  I practically steal OSS code everyday in my line of work, without attribution, and I have zero qualms about it.  I love OSS< don't get me wrong. I believe it's an amazing ecosystem that drives real innovation.  But, it's not conducive to profits unless you have a system in place to capitalize on your code. Look at RedHat for example, or on a smaller scale, Magento e-commerce. They take seeds of OSS and build a support infrastructure around it, and become profitable. Most amateur OSS projects are not ever meant to be directly profitable by the code alone. Either there are benefits to allowing contribution (like a robust plug-in community, increasing adoption, and thus potential "enterprise" support contracts, or custom development, etc), or benefits to having attribution (a student or freelancer building a portfolio, etc. OSS is great free publicity).

My project would benefit from none of those things, or rather, my pocketbook wouldn't.  In my system, even the creator doesn't have the opportunity to exploit the "early adopter" loophole. Technically, I suppose I could write myself some value of coins as a "payment" for development, but that would be counter-productive to the egalitarian basis of the blockchain itself, and I have more integrity than that.

Fuck the Satoshi entity and all of it's little cock sucking cronies and "early adopter" ilk who think that simply being the first on the mining bandwagon should impart tremendous wealth, for what?

"Oh, that's their reward for bootstrapping the Bitcoin economy."

Piss off...

I do believe in compensation for work, but not in the Bitcoin fashion.  This whole ecosystem is sick, from balls to bones.

If you want something done but don't know how to do it, opensource is sometimes a decent way to accomplish the goal.  If your idea is totally great and solves a bunch of problems that you want solved, there is some chance that it will for others as well and it will be picked up and run with.  Then you get an awesome merchant friendly solution (rather than a lonely spot under your bridge.)  As a bonus, you will be know forever more as the father of the miracle of 'synapiccoin' and venture capital will probably be pounding down your door.  Win/win!

In fact, I would be willing to create a website and publish all of my ideas if someone could explain all the relevant copyright and patent info to me that would allow me to publicly publish while still maintaining my rights over it.

I only care about the US market too, as I'm aware that the EU and surrounding countries are all mostly first-to-file, and I'm certainly not interested in going through the trouble of filing there.

If someone wants to work to assure me I could maintain my rights by publishing, or what steps I could take to publish and maintain rights in the US, that aren't expensive or complicated, I'd appreciate the help.

Otherwise, I'll be here under my bridge.

About my blockchain idea:

Firstly, it's totally unlike these pathetic clones that have popped up of late. While my chain wouldn't be a complete rewrite, it would indeed be a substantial revision of the core functionality, not just some minor tweaks to what are completely arbitrary and asinine parameters of systemic functionality.

And there-in lies the quandary of ever bringing my idea to fruition. It's not easy work for me.  I'm just just a web-developer, I know very little about client applications written in compiled languages.

I considered releasing an .odf document with all of my ideas, but then I would receive absolutely nothing in return.

It's disappointing really, because it could potentially be a game-changer, and not just some fad.

Why would it be a game changer?  

Because it's everything a merchant would want from a payment processor, and still retain all the stuff the moon-bats like about cryptocurrencies too. As a merchant myself, I approached every systemic revision and addition from that perspective. So, it's inherently stable, fast, and available, as well as maintaining the ability to be pseudo-anonymous, and of course, decentralized and cryptographically secure.

In my system, the proof of work scheme is completely revised in a way that benefits everyone equally.  There is zero opportunity for there to be "early adopters" that control vast marketshare for little reason other than being there first.

Why? Because fuck them, that's why.  The rate of generation should be as close to 1:1 with the necessity of adoption as possible, and the block rewards are directly pegged to economic indicators.

That's about all the magic I'm willing to part with.  Maybe someone else could reflect on these ruminations and arrive at some of the same clever methods as I have, but the rest of my ideas I will keep to myself.

Sufficed to say, Bitcoin still sucks shit, and is in my mind irrecoverable as a viable cryptocurrency, and I'm enjoying watching it die as it and it's community deserve.

Showing users of bitcoin what fools they are? 

Lol, what?

I just mean, I can't even imagine what it's more difficult for you to buy with USD, unless you're talking about black market goods....
[/quote]

Pick anything with the following properties:

 1) Not physically within my ability to hand USD to, and

 2) anything where I would prefer to remain anonymous and not linked to.

Since I value remaining as link-less as possible, that pool of potential transactions is quite large.

Aside from the fact that it's based on strong cryptography, it's NOT quite good.  It's fucking ridiculous, really.

And the fact that they don't give a flying fuck about the wider community gearing adoption doesn't surprise me at all, because they're just amateurs anyhow.