Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP. - page 323.

lunarboy

hero member

Activity: 544

Merit: 500

Quote from: stereotype on May 21, 2015, 02:46:14 AM

Quote from: shmadz on May 21, 2015, 02:35:10 AM

Quote from: dropt on May 21, 2015, 01:29:27 AM

For the people clambering on about phone mining, listen to this:

https://m.soundcloud.com/elux-1/21-inc-embedded-engineer-on-whaleclub-teamspeak

Thank you. Very interesting. Cool stuff. But...

It still sounds like just processing and relaying transactions. I don't see how these devices would ever find a block, or ever get paid out even if they did.

Doesn't sound like the block rewards are the goal though... Very interesting...

Yep, thats what i got from it.

Sounds like we have fast forwarded to the time we are approaching 21M bitcoins, and this stuff would be the answer to no more block rewards. No?

That's cleared everything up. IT'S NOT A MINER its a massively distributed transactional processing chip, not for making money.

RAM for payments.

Zangelbert Bingledack

legendary

Activity: 1036

Merit: 1000

Re: 21 and mining pools

The whole reason for mining pools is because miners care about variance. But consumers don't, since they don't even know/care the device is hashing. So have each device be a mining node* (not just a hashing machine) but set up so that, in the event that it wins the block reward lottery, the reward all goes to the manufacturer. Either by some automatic hardcoding or by a contractual agreement. (Alternatively, the reward could be split 75/25 or some other way, if consumers are interested in "playing the lottery," though I'm not sure that would be much fun compared to buying a lottery ticket, because the results take years to come in.)

To manufacturers that are big enough or can afford to wait out the variance, it won't matter much.

The only catch is that each machine doesn't have a replenishing supply of satoshis to use for IoT. Still, preload them with a bit or just send satoshis to them from the manufacturer on a monthly basis - the hard problem of them having a Bitcoin wallet to receive them is already solved anyway.

*Or if a node can't be fit on a phone, have some larger home appliance be the node, everything else just hashes.

shmadz

legendary

Activity: 1512

Merit: 1000

@theshmadz

Quote from: stereotype on May 21, 2015, 02:46:14 AM

Quote from: shmadz on May 21, 2015, 02:35:10 AM

Quote from: dropt on May 21, 2015, 01:29:27 AM

For the people clambering on about phone mining, listen to this:

https://m.soundcloud.com/elux-1/21-inc-embedded-engineer-on-whaleclub-teamspeak

Thank you. Very interesting. Cool stuff. But...

It still sounds like just processing and relaying transactions. I don't see how these devices would ever find a block, or ever get paid out even if they did.

Doesn't sound like the block rewards are the goal though... Very interesting...

Yep, thats what i got from it.

Sounds like we have fast forwarded to the time we are approaching 21M bitcoins, and this stuff would be the answer to no more block rewards. No?

Umm, no. I don't think so. The transaction processing is important for the network to function, but the difficulty of finding a block is the key to the security of the whole system.

I guess maybe a billion devices that do maybe a few mega hash every now and then, when they're plugged in, might find some blocks, but I don't think that's sufficient incentive to ensure security.

Zangelbert Bingledack

legendary

Activity: 1036

Merit: 1000

Quote from: necrita on May 20, 2015, 12:11:31 AM

Anyone want to refute this guy:

http://www.clearmatics.com/2015/05/no-bitcoin-is-not-the-future-of-securities-settlement/

Only sort of valid point he brings up is the Sybil attack.

Oooh, that article is a pretty big bombshell (everyone should read it, just because a lot of people will take it seriously). He brings up some interesting points about a shorting attack, but I don't think his argument properly accounts for how Bitcoin will grow as the threat grows. (A common mistake among Bitcoin critics.) See for example:

One of Gavin's proposals on how to mitigate the threat of a 51% attack: http://gavintech.blogspot.jp/2012/05/neutralizing-51-attack.html But this only mitigates the denial-of-service aspect, not the double-spending aspect that the Clearmatics article refers to. Still it seems like if it's for settlement you can just wait a very long time, like 60 confirmations, or 10 hours, or even something like 3 days as it takes now for securities, but save on all the expenses. What are the odds that a 51% goes undetected for that long? It would totally screw up the ledger even if it were detected and legally rolled back, sure, but the premise is that the motivation of the attacker is to double-spend the security, not just to watch Bitcoin burn.

stereotype

legendary

Activity: 1554

Merit: 1000

Quote from: shmadz on May 21, 2015, 02:35:10 AM

Quote from: dropt on May 21, 2015, 01:29:27 AM

For the people clambering on about phone mining, listen to this:

https://m.soundcloud.com/elux-1/21-inc-embedded-engineer-on-whaleclub-teamspeak

Thank you. Very interesting. Cool stuff. But...

It still sounds like just processing and relaying transactions. I don't see how these devices would ever find a block, or ever get paid out even if they did.

Doesn't sound like the block rewards are the goal though... Very interesting...

Yep, thats what i got from it.

Sounds like we have fast forwarded to the time we are approaching 21M bitcoins, and this stuff would be the answer to no more block rewards. No?

shmadz

legendary

Activity: 1512

Merit: 1000

@theshmadz

Quote from: dropt on May 21, 2015, 01:29:27 AM

For the people clambering on about phone mining, listen to this:

https://m.soundcloud.com/elux-1/21-inc-embedded-engineer-on-whaleclub-teamspeak

Thank you. Very interesting. Cool stuff. But...

It still sounds like just processing and relaying transactions. I don't see how these devices would ever find a block, or ever get paid out even if they did.

Doesn't sound like the block rewards are the goal though... Very interesting...

Just doesn't sound like mining as I define it.

Erdogan

legendary

Activity: 1512

Merit: 1005

Quote from: shmadz on May 21, 2015, 01:13:45 AM

Quote from: Erdogan on May 21, 2015, 12:54:56 AM

Quote from: ?? on ??

Quote from: smooth on May 20, 2015, 08:59:44 PM

Quote from: Erdogan on May 20, 2015, 08:49:48 PM

I obviously don't agree to that, it has to be economically viable to exist.

No, no no. A million times no.

e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pets.com

Quote

Are you suggesting a big con?

It could be a good business plan, or a mistake, or a con. You're excluding the middle.

I hate selective quoting. The con part, that is viable only on a small scale.

Okay, I didn't follow it. What's the con?

I was too quick, your comments were ok, I deleted my post, but too late.

Somebody suggest that people would buy these phones for extra, use extra power, not knowing they earned money for the company only. That a con.

Ok, I'll try again... why put that chip in the phone if you could just include it in the charger cable? Or charging pad for wireless charging?

Battery life, size, weight, efficiency are all competing qualities for phones and putting a bitcoin miner in your phone is not going to make it more competitive.

(Secure enclave type wallet on the other hand = no brainer)

Exactly, it is going to be less competitive.

dropt

legendary

Activity: 1512

Merit: 1000

For the people clambering on about phone mining, listen to this:

https://m.soundcloud.com/elux-1/21-inc-embedded-engineer-on-whaleclub-teamspeak

shmadz

legendary

Activity: 1512

Merit: 1000

@theshmadz

Quote from: Erdogan on May 21, 2015, 12:54:56 AM

Quote from: ?? on ??

Quote from: smooth on May 20, 2015, 08:59:44 PM

Quote from: Erdogan on May 20, 2015, 08:49:48 PM

I obviously don't agree to that, it has to be economically viable to exist.

No, no no. A million times no.

e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pets.com

Quote

Are you suggesting a big con?

It could be a good business plan, or a mistake, or a con. You're excluding the middle.

I hate selective quoting. The con part, that is viable only on a small scale.

Okay, I didn't follow it. What's the con?

I was too quick, your comments were ok, I deleted my post, but too late.

Somebody suggest that people would buy these phones for extra, use extra power, not knowing they earned money for the company only. That a con.

Ok, I'll try again... why put that chip in the phone if you could just include it in the charger cable? Or charging pad for wireless charging?

Battery life, size, weight, efficiency are all competing qualities for phones and putting a bitcoin miner in your phone is not going to make it more competitive.

(Secure enclave type wallet on the other hand = no brainer)

Erdogan

legendary

Activity: 1512

Merit: 1005

Quote from: ?? on ??

Quote from: smooth on May 20, 2015, 08:59:44 PM

Quote from: Erdogan on May 20, 2015, 08:49:48 PM

I obviously don't agree to that, it has to be economically viable to exist.

No, no no. A million times no.

e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pets.com

Quote

Are you suggesting a big con?

It could be a good business plan, or a mistake, or a con. You're excluding the middle.

I hate selective quoting. The con part, that is viable only on a small scale.

Okay, I didn't follow it. What's the con?

I was too quick, your comments were ok, I deleted my post, but too late.

Somebody suggest that people would buy these phones for extra, use extra power, not knowing they earned money for the company only. That a con.

Erdogan

legendary

Activity: 1512

Merit: 1005

Quote from: cypherdoc on May 20, 2015, 09:09:49 PM

Quote from: Erdogan on May 20, 2015, 08:31:57 PM

Quote from: smooth on May 20, 2015, 08:16:40 PM

Quote from: Erdogan on May 20, 2015, 07:56:37 PM

The price of mining a bitcoin tends to approach the price of a bitcoin, so the question is rather is 21's approach equal to or better than large scale mining.

"Tends to approach" is vague.

In the short term, the marginal cost of mining almost exactly equals the price of a Bitcoin (excluding, possibly, some short transition periods when the price of a Bitcoin is just so high and/or increasing so fast that it is hard to catch it), but if you are below marginal cost, then you are more efficient than the marginal miner and you make a operating profit, which may or may not cover your investment. In the long term, that's the time horizon when investments pay off, or don't. Nothing lasts forever.

No, tend to approach is the correct term. There cost will never exactly reflect the price, due to speculative errors from the miners when they decide to expand or contract, therefore the cost will be different also between miners. So again, can the 21's plan for mining compete with large scale mining? Small scale mining can be and is continually tested, what they bring to the table is a new chip. So can the new chip revive small scale mining?

Edit: You can never know in advance, but I would guess that if the chip is good in a random small scale device, it is even better if you pack a few hundred in a dedicated device with proportionally designed power supply, fans the rest of the stuff that is needed. Is it possible to construct a chip that is better than current mining, and at the same time can not be used large scale?

You can not rely on persons with experience in funding. Stranger projects have been started, a company with million dollar donut cars, selling for 100K per car and losing 900K per car comes to mind.

from what i've read, 21 is not new to mining. apparently they've been at it for at least 2 yrs with pretty impressive BTC yields. can't remember the specifics.

with that experience, they've designed a new chip for small devices like smartphones. you'd think they've done extensive R&D before taking this leap.

Again, trust in the people. I am not so sure, stupid projects are suggested all the time. If it is going to work, there has to be something in there that is not yet revealed.

shmadz

legendary

Activity: 1512

Merit: 1000

@theshmadz

As a guy that's been mining for a few years now, I can get behind the idea of mining space heaters. I even wanted to place a small mining farm in the furnace room and then control the vents with individual thermostats to distribute the heat, dumping excess heat as needed.

But mining on a phone, it's just not reasonable. You could put the same chip on a USB stick and it would perform better.

Serious mining makes for some serious heat. If I'm 21 the household heating market is where I would target.

NewLiberty

legendary

Activity: 1204

Merit: 1002

Gresham's Lawyer

Quote from: Peter R on May 20, 2015, 06:45:51 PM

Quote from: jmw74 on May 20, 2015, 04:23:54 PM

...
21's plan, as stated, is pure bullshit. The only question is whether they know it or not.

Let's do an order-of-magnitude calculation…

An article from Life Hacker reports that it costs about $0.50 to keep your phone charged-up for a year:

...

~= $107,000,000 per year

This means that the expected revenue is not insignificant.

...and this analysis is only considering phones rather than all the other devices that could also be set up with this.

The > 43% of hashpower centralized in a single entity might concern folks.

kazuki49

sr. member

Activity: 350

Merit: 250

Quote from: TPTB_need_war on May 20, 2015, 09:53:12 PM

I have in mind a cryptographic means of preventing pools. One of the fundamental design errors for PoW mining has been the simultaneity requirement that leads to orphans. It is essentially an aliasing error on consensus. That will give you a big hint as to what the big breakthrough in my design solution is. And it turns out I can retrofit it to a non-PoW algorithm that doesn't suffer from PoS's weaknesses, thus your recently discussion on 21 Inc has proven to be very lucrative for me. As usual I (and the community) benefit greatly from discussions with you. How will I repay you?

PoW is now a dead-end (due to the 21 Inc economics) except it has value in attaining the widest spread initial distribution for a coin.

Thus Bitcoin (and apologetically Monero) are dead ends in terms of a decentralized future. I will fork the community and bring in a somewhat orthogonal userbase of the most intelligent Libertarians. My plan is now solidified.

I am preparing to go silent. Any questions or comments?

I'm looking forward, dont keep us all in the dark!

TPTB_need_war

sr. member

Activity: 420

Merit: 262

Quote from: smooth on May 20, 2015, 06:38:35 PM

Quote from: TPTB_need_war on May 20, 2015, 03:08:43 PM

Users mining in algorithm where pools are impossible is positive for decentralization of mining.

This is an interesting question. I've seen the counterargument that preventing pools increases the incentive for large farms (including, I suppose, the distributed sort of farms that involve devices in disparate locations but centrally controlled). That might be negative for decentralization of mining broadly, since at least with pools as they mostly exist today, the actual miners can switch pools (often cypherdoc makes this argument). I'm not sure.

I have in mind a cryptographic means of preventing pools. One of the fundamental design errors for PoW mining has been the simultaneity requirement that leads to orphans. It is essentially an aliasing error on consensus. That will give you a big hint as to what the big breakthrough in my design solution is. And it turns out I can retrofit it to a non-PoW algorithm that doesn't suffer from PoS's weaknesses, thus our recent discussion on 21 Inc has proven to be very lucrative for me. As usual I (and the community) benefit greatly from discussions with you. How will I repay you?

PoW is now a dead-end (due to the 21 Inc economics) except it has value in attaining the widest spread initial distribution for a coin.

Thus Bitcoin (and apologetically Monero) are dead ends in terms of a decentralized future. I will fork the community and bring in a somewhat orthogonal userbase of the most intelligent Libertarians. My plan is now solidified.

I am preparing to go silent. Any questions or comments?

PenguinFire

full member

Activity: 154

Merit: 100

That Darn Cat

Question: When gold "collapses" how long is it usually for? Weeks to months? I have not been trading long and was just curious.

TPTB_need_war

sr. member

Activity: 420

Merit: 262

Quote from: thelibertycap on May 20, 2015, 02:40:20 PM

Quote from: rpietila on May 19, 2015, 04:10:03 PM

Quote from: TPTB_need_war on May 19, 2015, 03:56:04 PM

Not sure if game players want to pick an unnecessary fight with the government.

Sometimes I feel you should have some acid to relieve yourself of the irrational fear of government (it helps).

I have personally recommended acid to him many months ago. He could finally have a chance to see through his ego and perhaps give him real insight into all the things he now only thinks he understands. I think he is too old and scared anyway and really thinks he doesn't need it, lol.

I for a free market in drugs on the internet, but I am strictly anti-drug in my life and local community. I approve of the death penalty for repeat drug pushers who refuse (after multiple warnings) to reform or leave our local community of Davao City, Mindanao and our vigillante mayor who makes it so we have the safest city in the Philippines. I am for free markets. The drug pushers are welcome to go form their own communities else where. I am welcome to avoid their communities if I so choose.

TPTB_need_war

sr. member

Activity: 420

Merit: 262

Quote from: Erdogan on May 20, 2015, 07:56:37 PM

The analyzis is flawed, in that it does not take into account all cost. The price of mining a bitcoin tends to approach the price of a bitcoin, so the question is rather is 21's approach equal to or better than large scale mining. If you suppose the chip is free, the design is free, the electricity is free and the management of the device for the mining purpose is free, then it can compete. But none of those things are free.

For the heating appliances then using older lithography makes the mining hardware component of the device nearly free relatively speaking, and the electricity is indeed free because the heat is being consumed.

For the phones, smooth's point has been the chipset makers might be able to fit this onto excess or underutilitized silicon. The electricity is "free" because the users don't count such small portions of their electric bill (and they charge at relatives' and friends' houses too, everything is open house and more shared in the developing world).

The design and mgmt cost can be amortized over this huge scale of billions of unbanked users in the developed world who are eager to have a smartphone.

The competition will be essentially nil, because of the economies-of-scale and cartel level relationships (e.g. Samsung, telcoms in every nation so the device can always send mining shares with no user interaction) required to pull this off in an opaque device that just works on auto-pilot. Once you have eliminated the other miners, you can raise txn fees to any level you want that the market will bear (return of the credit card companies!) and even adjust difficulty to your desired level without a fork by modulating the number of devices you sell into the market
(think it out).

Thus the valuation looks fine to me.

Peter R

legendary

Activity: 1162

Merit: 1007

Quote from: TPTB_need_war on May 20, 2015, 09:12:43 PM

That is the way more sophisticated users of such a mining phone can view the economic proposition. The...majority of...mobile phone users...won't even need that level of sophisticated analysis... Rather for them it is simple. They get a discount on the device and/or they get these cute ringtones and other...upsells for these "bitcoiny" things the phone gives them. And it is "free", uncomplicated to use (all automated), they won't have to "pay" anything for this. Thus it is a no brainer for them.

That's a good point.

TPTB_need_war

sr. member

Activity: 420

Merit: 262

Quote from: kodtycoon on May 20, 2015, 06:51:19 PM

brilliant analysis peter.

didnt realise that their plan would be that lucrative. would these chips not reduce the battery life of phones though?

Increase the battery size slightly.

Phones are too thin now. Female users here don't care that much about slight increases in thickness as evident by the phone case monstrosities they wrap onto their mobile phones. Do not forget those monstrosities that females cart around a.k.a. purses or shoulder bags. They obviously have different innate priorities than we men do, namely carting around a baby on their shoulder.

Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP. - page 323. (Read 2032265 times)