Network total: 6 202 240 Thash/s
This is - if you run only ANTMINER S9 with about 13Thash/s
477 100 Miners cost at about 1500$ each
715 650 000 $
This is the floor value of the race teams in total / the hard ware investments of miners (sure it's way higher since the S9 is one of the most efficient miner today)
Why is anybody non mining but thinking he could 'serve' this pools stable with a rasp pi still ?
Why is anybody non mining but thinking he could tell miners what software to install ?
Why is anybody non mining but thinking he is a user of all that not just a consumer / side line watcher ?
Topic: Definition 1: A Real Bitcoin USER is a MINER / RACER! (Read 1013 times)
Ah, and what would you say, if some people try to build in cheap waggy tracks into that high end's car race game?
Means, does running a Rasp PI make really sense, rather than supporting the game by buying some shares == bitcoin?
Means, does running a Rasp PI make really sense, rather than supporting the game by buying some shares == bitcoin?
Sorry guys - this is definition just a bit too abstract for some....
I try to tell it better in a nice race-car story came into my mind with that. Try to find you in that story.
Some designer, sitting in his little house in a very quiet village, thought about an open race contest, to get some fun for all the few people in the neighborhood.
So he founded a 'racing company' with max 21 Mio shares, designed rules and also realized a flexible racing track, 1-2 cars to race on and some loge for the visitors that should be able to bet on the cars.
These people can only bet with parts of their shares and needed to be seated around the track. Seats were limited to 1 Mio for what reason ever...
The race was started every 10 min repeatedly, the people had to pass control gates to be seated always new into the limited betting-loges, place the bets (+fees) by throwing their shares onto the track, the cars had to collect as much as possible and the winner takes all fees and gets new 50 shares on top, than all betting shareholders have to exit and queue them again...
There is no rule on how the cars should look like, and first cars where just cheap as possible. First year there were only 2-3 friends, building up competitive teams, cars and stuff around, but mostly doing that race alone, mostly without any betting shareholders, mostly because it was fully unknown.
After some time more and more people joined that 'community', since it was good open fun and simple rules.
More and more racing teams appeared building better cars that were faster and could collect the bets faster.
And also the Chinese joined with 'infinitive' men power and energy resources...
The people came to watch from outside, to join (buy shares) & bet on the cars, trade the shares, helped to build new cars, improve the tracks. But finally it was clear that only a limited number of distinct racing teams could survive the material fight, and it is pretty much clear that you need at least 10-20 different teams to have a real race & bet condition, attracting more and more people. Who want's to watch just 3 cars ?
Only design issue still: The limited seats for the inner circle to bet on the race.
Who should be in charge to change things here? Who sits in the old design office (having no own team in the race anymore)? Who has most at stake and risk their lives and cars on any decent but crappy change?
Where are you seated?
Most of us are simple share holders - no real race-team owners or track supporters, no REAL BITCOINERS, with lots to loose and hard to get out the game.
These full teams I try to define as the real users in charge. Not just a simple shareholder that can sell all his shares in a minute....
I try to tell it better in a nice race-car story came into my mind with that. Try to find you in that story.
Some designer, sitting in his little house in a very quiet village, thought about an open race contest, to get some fun for all the few people in the neighborhood.
So he founded a 'racing company' with max 21 Mio shares, designed rules and also realized a flexible racing track, 1-2 cars to race on and some loge for the visitors that should be able to bet on the cars.
These people can only bet with parts of their shares and needed to be seated around the track. Seats were limited to 1 Mio for what reason ever...
The race was started every 10 min repeatedly, the people had to pass control gates to be seated always new into the limited betting-loges, place the bets (+fees) by throwing their shares onto the track, the cars had to collect as much as possible and the winner takes all fees and gets new 50 shares on top, than all betting shareholders have to exit and queue them again...
There is no rule on how the cars should look like, and first cars where just cheap as possible. First year there were only 2-3 friends, building up competitive teams, cars and stuff around, but mostly doing that race alone, mostly without any betting shareholders, mostly because it was fully unknown.
After some time more and more people joined that 'community', since it was good open fun and simple rules.
More and more racing teams appeared building better cars that were faster and could collect the bets faster.
And also the Chinese joined with 'infinitive' men power and energy resources...
The people came to watch from outside, to join (buy shares) & bet on the cars, trade the shares, helped to build new cars, improve the tracks. But finally it was clear that only a limited number of distinct racing teams could survive the material fight, and it is pretty much clear that you need at least 10-20 different teams to have a real race & bet condition, attracting more and more people. Who want's to watch just 3 cars ?
Only design issue still: The limited seats for the inner circle to bet on the race.
Who should be in charge to change things here? Who sits in the old design office (having no own team in the race anymore)? Who has most at stake and risk their lives and cars on any decent but crappy change?
Where are you seated?
Most of us are simple share holders - no real race-team owners or track supporters, no REAL BITCOINERS, with lots to loose and hard to get out the game.
These full teams I try to define as the real users in charge. Not just a simple shareholder that can sell all his shares in a minute....
Glossary
This race picture should help to understand how bitcoin really works in terms of the game theory and who are the major gamers.
Designer is Satoshi
Race cars are the mining pool's hardware equipped with the chips as engines, fuel is electric power
Racing teams are mining pools or solo miners
Tracks are connection nodes and the lenght of the tracks are auto-adjusted to have average time of 10min race periods
Transactions are the bets thrown on the tracks, collected by the cars by proof of work
Bets are done by placing shares + fees nominated all in bitcoin
The VIP lounges are the bet blocks, controlled by gates to a max limit of betters
The history of the victory incl the bets is the blockchain held by the track owner
Potential betters have to be share owners, bitcoin owner, consumers of the show
Have I missed sth?
Does this make sense for beginners how bitcoin works having no tech interests?
To me that picture helps a lot to see that also the big race teams have no real interest of doing the race allone!
There is inherent repulsion power to have shared the powers equally distributed, or the game collapses fastly.
Very intersting to me would be a value picture, where everybody could see, how the investmenst are distributed through the participants. That would show, where the decision power is located finally.
Full user definition should be easier to get than what you are suggesting. A full user can be anyone who has invested 20 dollars to buy 0.01 bitcoin as a beginning, is reading a lot about bitcoin and is a great supporter of bitcoin in the society where he lives. If he knows how to do mining that is even better but a full user should be anyone believing and supporting bitcoin.
I tried to distinguish between consumer = low level hodler = low level supporter
And
Big player = miner = race car team and track owner = full bitcoin game user
Sure, 'user' is totaly meaningless w/o proper context. And sure, there are many degrees left in the middle.
Full user definition should be easier to get than what you are suggesting. A full user can be anyone who has invested 20 dollars to buy 0.01 bitcoin as a beginning, is reading a lot about bitcoin and is a great supporter of bitcoin in the society where he lives. If he knows how to do mining that is even better but a full user should be anyone believing and supporting bitcoin.
So in order to be a "full user", you have to be rich (own more than 1 BTC, ASICs which cost a good 0.3-4 BTC or so, and run a full node which you are happy to be more expensive to run), and participate in basically every single element of the network.
I find this mentality really irritating.
The FIAT FULL users are FEDs on the planet.
Anyone who spends fiat is a real fiat user. I think you're playing around with meaningless terms in order to elevate yourself above poorer people. People who actually spend their coins on goods are the real users. Despite agreeing with you, even franky1 has corrected basically every element of your topic, because you did no research and considered no information before loudly stating your hyperbolic opinion.I find this mentality really irritating.
Sorry, where could you read in what category I am?
In that case, why are you insulting people for expressing their views without being all of those things? Am I confused or are you just a massive hypocrite?
And one duty is secure all coins and their value and usability...independly who owns them.
SPV client users might not have the same security that full nodes have, but they sure as hell still own their coins, and when they spend them they are being a real user of Bitcoin.Maybe you should retract your wording and start saying "to run a properly trustless wallet, you need to run a full node". The other stuff it seems you pulled out of your arse.
Hmm. Not sure what all stuff you wanna know and wanna say here. I d say it just dont matter much.
I'm just drawing pictures, projections from the reality down into text and post it for open fair discussion...
So in order to be a "full user", you have to be rich (own more than 1 BTC, ASICs which cost a good 0.3-4 BTC or so, and run a full node which you are happy to be more expensive to run), and participate in basically every single element of the network.
I find this mentality really irritating.
The FIAT FULL users are FEDs on the planet.
Anyone who spends fiat is a real fiat user. I think you're playing around with meaningless terms in order to elevate yourself above poorer people. People who actually spend their coins on goods are the real users. Despite agreeing with you, even franky1 has corrected basically every element of your topic, because you did no research and considered no information before loudly stating your hyperbolic opinion.I find this mentality really irritating.
Sorry, where could you read in what category I am?
In that case, why are you trying to discredit people for not being all of these things? Am I confused or are you just a massive hypocrite?
And one duty is secure all coins and their value and usability...independly who owns them.
SPV client users might not have the same security that full nodes have, but they sure as hell still own their coins, and when they spend them they are being a real user of Bitcoin.Maybe you should retract your wording and start saying "to run a properly trustless wallet, you need to run a full node". The other stuff it seems you pulled out of your arse.
ok simple questions about all those who falsely believe having funds alone is meaningful
1. satoshi has ~800k coins does that mean we should stay strictly to the rules of his 0.3 implementations
2. i have a few thousand. does that automatically mean just by having coin that my opinion means more then others who have less
or..
do people care more about the content of people opinion and the context of what people thoughts on future direction have on other users.. rather than their wallet holding
....
in my view bitcoin protocol does not care who is the owner of said coins. its pseudonymous afteral. the protocol is about CODE security which is only secured by nodes, asics and pools.
bitcoin is not secured by stake.. and many people need to realise. bitcoin is not a weak PoS coin.
1. satoshi has ~800k coins does that mean we should stay strictly to the rules of his 0.3 implementations
2. i have a few thousand. does that automatically mean just by having coin that my opinion means more then others who have less
or..
do people care more about the content of people opinion and the context of what people thoughts on future direction have on other users.. rather than their wallet holding
....
in my view bitcoin protocol does not care who is the owner of said coins. its pseudonymous afteral. the protocol is about CODE security which is only secured by nodes, asics and pools.
bitcoin is not secured by stake.. and many people need to realise. bitcoin is not a weak PoS coin.
Just to make sure, when you say funds and stake you mean just bitcoin, no hardware or other stake?
ok simple questions about all those who falsely believe having funds alone is meaningful
1. satoshi has ~800k coins does that mean we should stay strictly to the rules of his 0.3 implementations
2. i have a few thousand. does that automatically mean just by having coin that my opinion means more then others who have less
or..
do people care more about the content of people opinion and the context of what people thoughts on future direction have on other users.. rather than their wallet holding
....
in my view bitcoin protocol does not care who is the owner of said coins. its pseudonymous afteral. the protocol is about CODE security which is only secured by nodes, asics and pools.
bitcoin is not secured by stake.. and many people need to realise. bitcoin is not a weak PoS coin.
1. satoshi has ~800k coins does that mean we should stay strictly to the rules of his 0.3 implementations
2. i have a few thousand. does that automatically mean just by having coin that my opinion means more then others who have less
or..
do people care more about the content of people opinion and the context of what people thoughts on future direction have on other users.. rather than their wallet holding
....
in my view bitcoin protocol does not care who is the owner of said coins. its pseudonymous afteral. the protocol is about CODE security which is only secured by nodes, asics and pools.
bitcoin is not secured by stake.. and many people need to realise. bitcoin is not a weak PoS coin.
So in order to be a "full user", you have to be rich (own more than 1 BTC, ASICs which cost a good 0.3-4 BTC or so, and run a full node which you are happy to be more expensive to run), and participate in basically every single element of the network.
I find this mentality really irritating.
The FIAT FULL users are FEDs on the planet.
Anyone who spends fiat is a real fiat user. I think you're playing around with meaningless terms in order to elevate yourself above poorer people. People who actually spend their coins on goods are the real users. Despite agreeing with you, even franky1 has corrected basically every element of your topic, because you did no research and considered no information before loudly stating your hyperbolic opinion.I find this mentality really irritating.
Sorry, where could you read in what category I am?
And yes, sure, you have to invest on a decent level to have enough skin in the game AND keep the things up and running.
There is a term called 'possession oblieges' or so, this means big owners have more duties than the poor. In bitcoin also that works very fine having a good Nash equilibrium.
And one duty is secure all coins and their value and usability...independly who owns them.
So in order to be a "full user", you have to be rich (own more than 1 BTC, ASICs which cost a good 0.3-4 BTC or so, and run a full node which you are happy to be more expensive to run), and participate in basically every single element of the network.
I find this mentality really irritating.
The FIAT FULL users are FEDs on the planet.
Anyone who spends fiat is a real fiat user. I think you're playing around with meaningless terms in order to elevate yourself above poorer people. People who actually spend their coins on goods are the real users. Despite agreeing with you, even franky1 has corrected basically every element of your topic, because you did no research and considered no information before loudly stating your hyperbolic opinion.I find this mentality really irritating.
So in your view, to be a true fiat user, you have to work at a bank or have a government job at the reserve bank? What is the most important for
you? A : Running a FULL node and competing with the likes of Jihan or one of these massive mining farms OR B : Running a business that
accepts bitcoins as a payment option.
you? A : Running a FULL node and competing with the likes of Jihan or one of these massive mining farms OR B : Running a business that
accepts bitcoins as a payment option.
More or less - correct. The FIAT FULL users are FEDs on the planet.
Civils are just share holders and convert the shit in 5 min into bitcoin. We do not decide on the interest rules, color, .....
We are CONSUMERS.
If you wanna be a decider in any place, you need to do proper investments FRONT UP.
Exactly, and that was the reason why I asked the question. Some people wants to be knee deep into the politics and some people just want to be
a consumer or a merchant supporting the network. All of them have a big role in the whole ecosystem/community of the Bitcoin network as a
whole. Bitcoin will be nothing without users and it will be worthless if no merchants accepted it as a payment option, but it also needs people who
wants to vote on changes. We are all important to make Bitcoin a success.
Sure, but major tasks to attract consumers, ensure security of products,... are not in consumers hands at first place.
Risk takers do that and need to decide where to keep consumers happy.
Nope, anyone who owns Bitcoin is already a Bitcoin user. Period. It doesn't matter if you run a full node, mine or just hodl, what really matters is the market, people will judge what chain is worthy, and miners will have to mine it if they want to operate in profit. So, if August 1st will result in a split, users will decide what chain is the real Bitcoin, not some privileged miners. What you are proposing here is just increase of centralization, and the current situation is already not very good.
having coin on a privkey and thats it.. is meaningless.. no matter what the vote is your always going to have 'coin'
having coin makes no difference to the network structure direction or security.
it definitely doesnt make you as important as being a miner, pool, economic or active node.
EG if there was a split. even satoshi who has not been around for 7 years will have 'coin' on both sides
That's right, users can't prevent any splits, but what they can do is trade on the exchanges, and this will form the price for both chains, and ultimately miners will have to mine the coin with the highest price, because in the end miners only care about USD profits. Forkers will try to prevent this by not releasing replay protection, so people can't split their coins, but it will get fixed eventually.
Do you think it's 2009-2012 where bitcoiner could mine bitcoin from home and earn profit ? Mining for regular bitcoiner is impossible because ASIC and crazy chinise miners with crazy investment.
Maybe you should make BIP to enable bitcoiner could mine bitcoin from home and earn profit again by change bitcoin mining algorithm which only can be mined with CPU , but your race-car story is great.
I think own bitcoin and participate in bitcoin community/economy are enough for someone to be real bitcoin users.
Maybe you should make BIP to enable bitcoiner could mine bitcoin from home and earn profit again by change bitcoin mining algorithm which only can be mined with CPU , but your race-car story is great.
I think own bitcoin and participate in bitcoin community/economy are enough for someone to be real bitcoin users.
Thx - I'm not good in writing this up also not in my mother lang.
And no - I'm very fine with bitcoin needs most expensive high end comp tech stuff at the planet -> this is bitcoins floor security!
If you go back to CPU- what does that get you? Sure 'more' miners - but easy switch to other stuff - this is intrinsic value of a CPU.
ASIC miners do not have other usage / no intrinsic value. As long bitcoiner you know, that's great!
> That means pretty much, your shit hot expensive race car can only be used on bitcoin tracks - so go and keep the show up and play with the rules!
So in your view, to be a true fiat user, you have to work at a bank or have a government job at the reserve bank? What is the most important for
you? A : Running a FULL node and competing with the likes of Jihan or one of these massive mining farms OR B : Running a business that
accepts bitcoins as a payment option.
you? A : Running a FULL node and competing with the likes of Jihan or one of these massive mining farms OR B : Running a business that
accepts bitcoins as a payment option.
More or less - correct. The FIAT FULL users are FEDs on the planet.
Civils are just share holders and convert the shit in 5 min into bitcoin. We do not decide on the interest rules, color, .....
We are CONSUMERS.
If you wanna be a decider in any place, you need to do proper investments FRONT UP.
Exactly, and that was the reason why I asked the question. Some people wants to be knee deep into the politics and some people just want to be
a consumer or a merchant supporting the network. All of them have a big role in the whole ecosystem/community of the Bitcoin network as a
whole. Bitcoin will be nothing without users and it will be worthless if no merchants accepted it as a payment option, but it also needs people who
wants to vote on changes. We are all important to make Bitcoin a success.
So in your view, to be a true fiat user, you have to work at a bank or have a government job at the reserve bank? What is the most important for
you? A : Running a FULL node and competing with the likes of Jihan or one of these massive mining farms OR B : Running a business that
accepts bitcoins as a payment option.
you? A : Running a FULL node and competing with the likes of Jihan or one of these massive mining farms OR B : Running a business that
accepts bitcoins as a payment option.
More or less - correct. The FIAT FULL users are FEDs on the planet.
Civils are just share holders and convert the shit in 5 min into bitcoin. We do not decide on the interest rules, color, .....
We are CONSUMERS.
If you wanna be a decider in any place, you need to do proper investments FRONT UP.
Or
As I've posted long time ago in a invest & risk thread, if you want to invest big in bitcoin today, your hired risk manager will tell you to invest a decent share of your investment into mining power / infrastructure - in order to reduce the systemic / operational risks of your bitcoin owning. Simple as that.
So in your view, to be a true fiat user, you have to work at a bank or have a government job at the reserve bank? What is the most important for
you? A : Running a FULL node and competing with the likes of Jihan or one of these massive mining farms OR B : Running a business that
accepts bitcoins as a payment option.
you? A : Running a FULL node and competing with the likes of Jihan or one of these massive mining farms OR B : Running a business that
accepts bitcoins as a payment option.
In the bitcoin economy, and no unnecessary links. For the normal existence of needs and users and miners. This argument recalls the dispute about what is more important, the chicken or the egg. We cannot exist without each other and it would be foolish to argue. You need to negotiate.
Sure. But in an exponential growth process lots of the small stay small, some could get big. A few do the big game = race.
Since there is a proper Nash equilibrium in place (pre-SewgWit), the thing is rock -save and ensures small's saving perfectly.
You do not need to scare. The big ones will take care and scale it.
Only proper help we all can do is buy little bitcoin, and pay for the show.
You could also try to compete with better code / solutions - and hope the big will pick it up.
In the bitcoin economy, and no unnecessary links. For the normal existence of needs and users and miners. This argument recalls the dispute about what is more important, the chicken or the egg. We cannot exist without each other and it would be foolish to argue. You need to negotiate.
ow yea...
then miners should be limited to use BTC only for them selves and not selling them ...
miners they don't do shit to btc price but they dump all time that is all.
And people who are prooviding initiatives for those miners are real users who buy those BTC.
BTC miners doesn't need BTC they want just USD how they fuck you are calling them only users.
I would called them full dumpers. Economy is like it is and miner =/= user.
Miners provides service for users. Your definition is fuked up.
Without users you won't have any miners, because no one will pay you for electricity.
Without miners users we can live we ca go back to descop mining i don't see it that bad.
then miners should be limited to use BTC only for them selves and not selling them ...
miners they don't do shit to btc price but they dump all time that is all.
And people who are prooviding initiatives for those miners are real users who buy those BTC.
BTC miners doesn't need BTC they want just USD how they fuck you are calling them only users.
I would called them full dumpers. Economy is like it is and miner =/= user.
Miners provides service for users. Your definition is fuked up.
Without users you won't have any miners, because no one will pay you for electricity.
Without miners users we can live we ca go back to descop mining i don't see it that bad.
Wow, miners aren't allowed to recover the cost of mining?
Miners secure the network and that provides value, otherwise BTC will stay under £100.
Wow, Chinese use USD!!! who would have thought. You do realised that China has a currency of their own?
Jump to: