Topic: EVERYONE CALM DOWN - page 5. (Read 14341 times)
Problem is we cant use bitcoin as a currency if it is not stable and I do not see a situation where this set up will allow bitcoins to become stable, making it impossible to use a currency, which negates the positives of the bitcoin system.
Someone could've coded GPU mining in any language.
Really Satoshi should have made encryption harder so it's not 256 bit, but 65535 bits.
Really Satoshi should have made encryption harder so it's not 256 bit, but 65535 bits.
Can't forget that Opencl wasn't released until December 2008. How is one supposed to plan for that? You're implying Satoshi could see the future?
CUDA came in November 2006. 
I am defending the picture, the original isn't mine. I simply reinforced the trend it said. I didn't do the math behind it, as I was defending it. Assuming the trend continues, and Bitcoin evens out. I would assume the price would be the mean of the High/low fit at that time. That's only IF the economy puts out the demand for that amount.
... in which case the picture has no relevance whatsoever. The current trend is a downfall, no matter what types of graphs people draw, and it isn't beneficial for the community to draw graphs in hopes of increasing the value of BTC vs USD, aka to manipulate the market. Whether or not it will turn into an uptrend has nothing to do with the past performance, and it would be better for the community if there wasn't actually an "uptrend". No-one wants to use a currency whose value changes 20% per day (Zimbabwe, anyone?) - the best thing for Bitcoin would be for the valuation to level off, so that more serious merchants can step in.
If that doesn't happen, Bitcoin will turn into a speculation commodity, which doesn't predict a long life. And don't take me wrong, I do believe in the project, people are just focusing too much on the BTC/USD exchange ratio instead of the relevant issue, which is to actually use Bitcoin as a currency...
There is no way to predict shit for bitcoin. There is no central authority, no control, anyone can sell as many as they want for whatever price they want at any time, people panic, prices drop ass, no real businesses are accepting bitcoin, and theres really no point in bitcoin. I thought it was a cool concept, and it is, but I cant see any benefit of using it vs any other method online which makes it pointless outside of a fun geeky thing to play with
You my friend, have just made that up. If you look into science, exponential growth does the same thing. It gets High, and then crashed, and again, and again, until it stabilizes or it wipes it's self out.
In for example biology exponential growth slows down because of the carrying capacity of the environment. The same thing happens to bitcoin and everything else, nothing tends to infinity. However, your straight lines in a log scale do. Expand your picture a bit with the same lines; what sort of a value does your lower limit predict? Something like 100-500 USD/bitcoin in one year? How about after two years? 1000-5000 USD/bitcoin? In 10 years, I guess everyone will be really rich if that goes on, because it will be worth... 100-500 * 10^9 USD / bitcoin, so "only" 100-500 billion USD per coin.
That's why "fitting" straight lines into a log curve doesn't work.
I am defending the picture, the original isn't mine. I simply reinforced the trend it said. I didn't do the math behind it, as I was defending it. Assuming the trend continues, and Bitcoin evens out. I would assume the price would be the mean of the High/low fit at that time. That's only IF the economy puts out the demand for that amount.
Also, Bitcoin, let it die, or help it along. Bitcoin needs to die to give a crypto-currency that isn't designed like total shit to arrive and gain a market.
Bitcoin was a great proof-of-concept. It served it's purpose, not let it pass and the next evolution to arrive.
I am tempted to agree; however, if we keep migrating to newer and newer platforms we will never be able to develop a stable economy around one system.Bitcoin was a great proof-of-concept. It served it's purpose, not let it pass and the next evolution to arrive.
And this is how it should be.
Crypto-currency should NEVER catch on in any meaningful capacity until it is 100% ready for it.
check out https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/hypothetical-new-cryptocurrency-version-01-41059 for at least a very promising concept of a future platform.
But what do the green lines represent? Sorry, I'm a bit clueless at finance.
The Green Lines are representing the Highs and lows of the BTC value. It HAS NOT gone outside of those lines, and the lines remain a shallow angle.
And the jagged orange line?
That's the difficulty, which will most likely drop again. (going on 3 in a row)
And the lavender one?
That is the actual price per BTC at MtGox, not to be confused with the high and low
LoL.
Also, fuck Bitcoin, let it die, or help it along. Bitcoin needs to die to give a crypto-currency that isn't designed like total shit to arrive and gain a market.
Bitcoin was a great proof-of-concept. It served it's purpose, not let it pass and the next evolution to arrive.
It isn't that Bitcoin was designed poorly. The deflation theory was bad, but the other problems, that have to do with mining were unforeseen. Satoshi didn't think that GPU's would end up being used to mine BTC, and that is where these problems are coming from.
If Satoshi didn't foresee that GPUs would be used for computing hashes (which is almost as close to their optimal use-case as one can get) even two years ago, then he is definitely the idiot-savant I described.
I prefer the con-man argument, but I digress...
Two years ago, a top of the line Video Card, wouldn't compare to CPU mining of those days. To think that a video card would be better at mathematical equations than a CPU (designed for computing) would be idiotic.
You fucking idiot...
Even the R600 chip from 2006 could out-hash a CPU from the same era.
Any proof? I will believe you, but you also forget to think that there were no ways to mine with gpu's or specifically opencl at the time. It wasn't forseen.
Look at the specification sheet.
There was no GPU hashing until someone wrote the software for it, and OpenCL is a very convenient API for doing so.
However, if the originator of a cryptographically based software is/was unaware of the implications of GPUs, even 5 years ago, then they are total and complete idiots. OpenCL or not.
Can't forget that Opencl wasn't released until December 2008. How is one supposed to plan for that? You're implying Satoshi could see the future?
I'm sorry that you don't understand cryptography and processor architecture. I can understand that to a layman it all seems rather nebulous and disconnected...
just, trust me on this.
Either Satoshi knew that GPUs would eventually dominate hashing, or he was/is a total fool. OpenCL was not a "missing piece of the puzzle."
Also, Bitcoin, let it die, or help it along. Bitcoin needs to die to give a crypto-currency that isn't designed like total shit to arrive and gain a market.
Bitcoin was a great proof-of-concept. It served it's purpose, not let it pass and the next evolution to arrive.
I am tempted to agree; however, if we keep migrating to newer and newer platforms we will never be able to develop a stable economy around one system. Bitcoin was a great proof-of-concept. It served it's purpose, not let it pass and the next evolution to arrive.
You my friend, have just made that up. If you look into science, exponential growth does the same thing. It gets High, and then crashed, and again, and again, until it stabilizes or it wipes it's self out.
In for example biology exponential growth slows down because of the carrying capacity of the environment. The same thing happens to bitcoin and everything else, nothing tends to infinity. However, your straight lines in a log scale do. Expand your picture a bit with the same lines; what sort of a value does your lower limit predict? Something like 100-500 USD/bitcoin in one year? How about after two years? 1000-5000 USD/bitcoin? In 10 years, I guess everyone will be really rich if that goes on, because it will be worth... 100-500 * 10^9 USD / bitcoin, so "only" 100-500 billion USD per coin.
That's why "fitting" straight lines into a log curve doesn't work.
But what do the green lines represent? Sorry, I'm a bit clueless at finance.
The Green Lines are representing the Highs and lows of the BTC value. It HAS NOT gone outside of those lines, and the lines remain a shallow angle.
And the jagged orange line?
That's the difficulty, which will most likely drop again. (going on 3 in a row)
And the lavender one?
That is the actual price per BTC at MtGox, not to be confused with the high and low
LoL.
Also, fuck Bitcoin, let it die, or help it along. Bitcoin needs to die to give a crypto-currency that isn't designed like total shit to arrive and gain a market.
Bitcoin was a great proof-of-concept. It served it's purpose, not let it pass and the next evolution to arrive.
It isn't that Bitcoin was designed poorly. The deflation theory was bad, but the other problems, that have to do with mining were unforeseen. Satoshi didn't think that GPU's would end up being used to mine BTC, and that is where these problems are coming from.
If Satoshi didn't foresee that GPUs would be used for computing hashes (which is almost as close to their optimal use-case as one can get) even two years ago, then he is definitely the idiot-savant I described.
I prefer the con-man argument, but I digress...
Two years ago, a top of the line Video Card, wouldn't compare to CPU mining of those days. To think that a video card would be better at mathematical equations than a CPU (designed for computing) would be idiotic.
You fucking idiot...
Even the R600 chip from 2006 could out-hash a CPU from the same era.
Any proof? I will believe you, but you also forget to think that there were no ways to mine with gpu's or specifically opencl at the time. It wasn't forseen.
Look at the specification sheet.
There was no GPU hashing until someone wrote the software for it, and OpenCL is a very convenient API for doing so.
However, if the originator of a cryptographically based software is/was unaware of the implications of GPUs, even 5 years ago, then they are total and complete idiots. OpenCL or not.
Can't forget that Opencl wasn't released until December 2008. How is one supposed to plan for that? You're implying Satoshi could see the future?
But what do the green lines represent? Sorry, I'm a bit clueless at finance.
The Green Lines are representing the Highs and lows of the BTC value. It HAS NOT gone outside of those lines, and the lines remain a shallow angle.
And the jagged orange line?
That's the difficulty, which will most likely drop again. (going on 3 in a row)
And the lavender one?
That is the actual price per BTC at MtGox, not to be confused with the high and low
LoL.
Also, fuck Bitcoin, let it die, or help it along. Bitcoin needs to die to give a crypto-currency that isn't designed like total shit to arrive and gain a market.
Bitcoin was a great proof-of-concept. It served it's purpose, not let it pass and the next evolution to arrive.
It isn't that Bitcoin was designed poorly. The deflation theory was bad, but the other problems, that have to do with mining were unforeseen. Satoshi didn't think that GPU's would end up being used to mine BTC, and that is where these problems are coming from.
If Satoshi didn't foresee that GPUs would be used for computing hashes (which is almost as close to their optimal use-case as one can get) even two years ago, then he is definitely the idiot-savant I described.
I prefer the con-man argument, but I digress...
Two years ago, a top of the line Video Card, wouldn't compare to CPU mining of those days. To think that a video card would be better at mathematical equations than a CPU (designed for computing) would be idiotic.
You fucking idiot...
Even the R600 chip from 2006 could out-hash a CPU from the same era.
Any proof? I will believe you, but you also forget to think that there were no ways to mine with gpu's or specifically opencl at the time. It wasn't forseen.
Look at the specification sheet.
There was no GPU hashing until someone wrote the software for it, and OpenCL is a very convenient API for doing so.
However, if the originator of a cryptographically based software is/was unaware of the implications of GPUs, even 5 years ago, then they are total and complete idiots. OpenCL or not.
But what do the green lines represent? Sorry, I'm a bit clueless at finance.
The Green Lines are representing the Highs and lows of the BTC value. It HAS NOT gone outside of those lines, and the lines remain a shallow angle.
And the jagged orange line?
That's the difficulty, which will most likely drop again. (going on 3 in a row)
And the lavender one?
That is the actual price per BTC at MtGox, not to be confused with the high and low
LoL.
Also, fuck Bitcoin, let it die, or help it along. Bitcoin needs to die to give a crypto-currency that isn't designed like total shit to arrive and gain a market.
Bitcoin was a great proof-of-concept. It served it's purpose, not let it pass and the next evolution to arrive.
It isn't that Bitcoin was designed poorly. The deflation theory was bad, but the other problems, that have to do with mining were unforeseen. Satoshi didn't think that GPU's would end up being used to mine BTC, and that is where these problems are coming from.
If Satoshi didn't foresee that GPUs would be used for computing hashes (which is almost as close to their optimal use-case as one can get) even two years ago, then he is definitely the idiot-savant I described.
I prefer the con-man argument, but I digress...
Two years ago, a top of the line Video Card, wouldn't compare to CPU mining of those days. To think that a video card would be better at mathematical equations than a CPU (designed for computing) would be idiotic.
You fucking idiot...
Even the R600 chip from 2006 could out-hash a CPU from the same era.
Any proof? I will believe you, but you also forget to think that there were no ways to mine with gpu's or specifically opencl at the time. It wasn't forseen.
You clearly aren't looking at the picture. It consistently hits the line and then goes back up. If it dropped to .01 then the graph wouldn't consistently hit the bottom of the trend and come back up, they would just be dips.
I have to take on this - fitting a line to two points is... quirky to say the least. You can always fit a line with R = 1.0 to two points, it doesn't mean anything. What you are suggesting here is exponential growth, btw, since a straight line in a logarithmic scale corresponds to:
log y / t = k --> log y = k*t --> y = exp(k*t) which yields to infinity when t --> infinity, i.e. the price would approach infinity if your predicted growth would hold up.
If you had drawn these lines before the price information was available (let's say at Nov 2010), there could be something, and even then, straight line just isn't possible in a log curve.
I call bullshit.
You my friend, have just made that up. If you look into science, exponential growth does the same thing. It gets High, and then crashed, and again, and again, until it stabilizes or it wipes it's self out.
But what do the green lines represent? Sorry, I'm a bit clueless at finance.
The Green Lines are representing the Highs and lows of the BTC value. It HAS NOT gone outside of those lines, and the lines remain a shallow angle.
And the jagged orange line?
That's the difficulty, which will most likely drop again. (going on 3 in a row)
And the lavender one?
That is the actual price per BTC at MtGox, not to be confused with the high and low
LoL.
Also, fuck Bitcoin, let it die, or help it along. Bitcoin needs to die to give a crypto-currency that isn't designed like total shit to arrive and gain a market.
Bitcoin was a great proof-of-concept. It served it's purpose, not let it pass and the next evolution to arrive.
It isn't that Bitcoin was designed poorly. The deflation theory was bad, but the other problems, that have to do with mining were unforeseen. Satoshi didn't think that GPU's would end up being used to mine BTC, and that is where these problems are coming from.
If Satoshi didn't foresee that GPUs would be used for computing hashes (which is almost as close to their optimal use-case as one can get) even two years ago, then he is definitely the idiot-savant I described.
I prefer the con-man argument, but I digress...
Two years ago, a top of the line Video Card, wouldn't compare to CPU mining of those days. To think that a video card would be better at mathematical equations than a CPU (designed for computing) would be idiotic.
You fucking idiot...
Even the R600 chip from 2006 could out-hash a CPU from the same era.
You clearly aren't looking at the picture. It consistently hits the line and then goes back up. If it dropped to .01 then the graph wouldn't consistently hit the bottom of the trend and come back up, they would just be dips.
I have to take on this - fitting a line to two points is... quirky to say the least. You can always fit a line with R = 1.0 to two points, it doesn't mean anything. What you are suggesting here is exponential growth, btw, since a straight line in a logarithmic scale corresponds to:
log y / t = k --> log y = k*t --> y = exp(k*t) which yields to infinity when t --> infinity, i.e. the price would approach infinity if your predicted growth would hold up.
If you had drawn these lines before the price information was available (let's say at Nov 2010), there could be something, and even then, straight line just isn't possible in a log curve.
I call bullshit.
But what do the green lines represent? Sorry, I'm a bit clueless at finance.
The Green Lines are representing the Highs and lows of the BTC value. It HAS NOT gone outside of those lines, and the lines remain a shallow angle.
And the jagged orange line?
That's the difficulty, which will most likely drop again. (going on 3 in a row)
And the lavender one?
That is the actual price per BTC at MtGox, not to be confused with the high and low
LoL.
Also, fuck Bitcoin, let it die, or help it along. Bitcoin needs to die to give a crypto-currency that isn't designed like total shit to arrive and gain a market.
Bitcoin was a great proof-of-concept. It served it's purpose, not let it pass and the next evolution to arrive.
It isn't that Bitcoin was designed poorly. The deflation theory was bad, but the other problems, that have to do with mining were unforeseen. Satoshi didn't think that GPU's would end up being used to mine BTC, and that is where these problems are coming from.
If Satoshi didn't foresee that GPUs would be used for computing hashes (which is almost as close to their optimal use-case as one can get) even two years ago, then he is definitely the idiot-savant I described.
I prefer the con-man argument, but I digress...
Two years ago, a top of the line Video Card, wouldn't compare to CPU mining of those days. To think that a video card would be better at mathematical equations than a CPU (designed for computing) would be idiotic.
But what do the green lines represent? Sorry, I'm a bit clueless at finance.
The Green Lines are representing the Highs and lows of the BTC value. It HAS NOT gone outside of those lines, and the lines remain a shallow angle.
And the jagged orange line?
That's the difficulty, which will most likely drop again. (going on 3 in a row)
And the lavender one?
That is the actual price per BTC at MtGox, not to be confused with the high and low
LoL.
Also, fuck Bitcoin, let it die, or help it along. Bitcoin needs to die to give a crypto-currency that isn't designed like total shit to arrive and gain a market.
Bitcoin was a great proof-of-concept. It served it's purpose, not let it pass and the next evolution to arrive.
It isn't that Bitcoin was designed poorly. The deflation theory was bad, but the other problems, that have to do with mining were unforeseen. Satoshi didn't think that GPU's would end up being used to mine BTC, and that is where these problems are coming from.
If Satoshi didn't foresee that GPUs would be used for computing hashes (which is almost as close to their optimal use-case as one can get) even two years ago, then he is definitely the idiot-savant I described.
I prefer the con-man argument, but I digress...
But what do the green lines represent? Sorry, I'm a bit clueless at finance.
The Green Lines are representing the Highs and lows of the BTC value. It HAS NOT gone outside of those lines, and the lines remain a shallow angle.
And the jagged orange line?
That's the difficulty, which will most likely drop again. (going on 3 in a row)
And the lavender one?
That is the actual price per BTC at MtGox, not to be confused with the high and low
LoL.
Also, fuck Bitcoin, let it die, or help it along. Bitcoin needs to die to give a crypto-currency that isn't designed like total shit to arrive and gain a market.
Bitcoin was a great proof-of-concept. It served it's purpose, not let it pass and the next evolution to arrive.
It isn't that Bitcoin was designed poorly. The deflation theory was bad, but the other problems, that have to do with mining were unforeseen. Satoshi didn't think that GPU's would end up being used to mine BTC, and that is where these problems are coming from.
Jump to: