Author

Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP. - page 334. (Read 2032265 times)

legendary
Activity: 2968
Merit: 1198
May 19, 2015, 07:12:07 PM
If they are only going to put these in personal driers, then I am not concerned. As you admit, a dated chip's market share declines over time and they are used only intermittently. That is such a low use activity it won't compete with full time mining for market share.

It might if there are enough of them. I don't really know how these numbers work out, considering for example electric water heaters, or every home having several of these chips in different devices (clothes dryer, hair dryer, dishwasher, portable heater, etc.)

Quote
It is the putting of this into phones that alarms me. They are locking in the masses to one money choice (one hashing algorithm at least and we don't know what requirements governments can require these chips to have in the future).

Yes, that's a completely different approach and business model, as I said earlier. There is no free mining to be had on a phone. I'm frankly not too worried (incrementally) because phones are likely already the most thoroughly government controlled and compromised devices in existence.
sr. member
Activity: 420
Merit: 262
May 19, 2015, 07:11:10 PM
Also I have never seen anyone in the Philippines use a heating device for anything but cooking.

Electric water heating has a significant market share world wide, roughly 40%.

Afaik, electric heating of anything is incredibly inefficient compared to natural gas or propane. Thus this isn't making the world more energy efficient. This is for people who don't care about efficiency because they can afford the safey and lack of hassles of not using gas.

That's an strange way of measuring efficiency (yes I know you said "energy efficiency", I just consider that measurement somewhat irrelevant). If it has better safety and fewer hassles, that increases efficiency.

The fact is, for whatever reasons, 40% of the water heater market buys electric. Unless that changes, adding mining chips to that is essentially free mining.

Free for whom? Those who will spend outrageous amount to heat with electricity are receiving an insignificant amount of gain. You can give me 10 free pennies per month and I don't have the time to pick them up off the ground. They are not free for me to pick up.

This doesn't aid mankind in any way unless you argue that getting people to do micropayments with a decentralized model of adoption and choice won't otherwise happen. It is way to lock people into a specific money system, especially one with very long time frames on replacement hardware, thus discouraging any competition on money with the government's coin.

And this is why if we are going to offer any decentralized choice for micropayment distribution, we had damn well better release it tomorrow.
sr. member
Activity: 420
Merit: 262
May 19, 2015, 07:06:48 PM
The chip has to pay back itself in time as it has a limited period of time that it has cutting edge performance.

Not really, no. If the effective efficiency is very close to 100% (which it is), the chip continues to be viable far longer than dedicate mining chips do.

Also, we don't know the cost of the chips, but cheap chips can be very, very cheap (<$1). Part of 21's model is silicon IP that you can license to incorporate into an existing chip design. In terms of production cost for some products that can be literally free (other than IP license fees), if there is extra space on a convenient die size. It will reduce yield but so what, you just ship those as non-mining chips. The ones that work are free.

If they are only going to put these in personal driers, then I am not concerned. As you admit, a dated chip's market share declines over time and they are used only intermittently. That is such a low use activity it won't compete with full time mining for market share.

It is the putting of this into phones that alarms me. They are locking in the masses to one money choice (one hashing algorithm at least and we don't know what requirements governments can require these chips to have in the future).
legendary
Activity: 2968
Merit: 1198
May 19, 2015, 07:04:04 PM
Also I have never seen anyone in the Philippines use a heating device for anything but cooking.

Electric water heating has a significant market share world wide, roughly 40%.

Afaik, electric heating of anything is incredibly inefficient compared to natural gas or propane. Thus this isn't making the world more energy efficient. This is for people who don't care about efficiency because they can afford the safey and lack of hassles of not using gas.

That's an strange way of measuring efficiency (yes I know you said "energy efficiency", I just consider that measurement somewhat irrelevant). If it has better safety and fewer hassles, that increases efficiency.

The fact is, for whatever reasons, 40% of the water heater market buys electric. Unless that changes, adding mining chips to that is essentially free mining.
legendary
Activity: 2968
Merit: 1198
May 19, 2015, 07:02:42 PM
The chip has to pay back itself in time as it has a limited period of time that it has cutting edge performance.

Not really, no. If the effective efficiency is very close to 100% infinite (which it is), the chip continues to be viable far longer than dedicated mining chips do. It doesn't need cutting edge performance.

Also, we don't know the cost of the chips, but cheap chips can be very, very cheap (<$1). Part of 21's model is silicon IP that you can license to incorporate into an existing chip design (obviously it would be a new design, by existing I mean a chip that already does something else). In terms of production cost for some products that can be literally free (other than IP license fees), if there is extra space on a convenient die size. It will reduce yield but so what, you just ship those as non-mining chips. The ones that work are free.
sr. member
Activity: 420
Merit: 262
May 19, 2015, 07:02:39 PM
Also I have never seen anyone in the Philippines use a heating device for anything but cooking.

Electric water heating has a significant market share world wide, roughly 40%.

Afaik, electric heating of anything is incredibly inefficient compared to natural gas or propane. Thus this isn't making the world more energy efficient. This is for people who don't care about efficiency because they can afford the safey and lack of hassles of not using gas.
hero member
Activity: 798
Merit: 1000
May 19, 2015, 07:00:53 PM
EDIT: If the wasted heat from mining can be put to good use in a cost effective way, that would definitely be progress

People are already doing that warming their homes in the winter.

But the problem with the economics is the duty cycle of you use of the mining chip is too low if you put it in a toaster or any other personal care drier. The chip has to pay back itself in time as it has a limited period of time that it has cutting edge performance.

This is not about boosting efficiency of mining.

That was pretty much my original question - the duty cycle of the chips vs life cycle of deomestic appliances and efficiency of the mining
legendary
Activity: 2968
Merit: 1198
May 19, 2015, 06:58:51 PM
Also I have never seen anyone in the Philippines use a heating device for anything but cooking.

Electric water heating has a significant market share world wide, roughly 40%. Obviously there are other such devices, and markets vary. I guess the Philippines won't be hotbed of Bitcoin mining (that makes logical sense given the waste heat issue, conceivably PV might change that at some point).


sr. member
Activity: 420
Merit: 262
May 19, 2015, 06:58:14 PM
EDIT: If the wasted heat from mining can be put to good use in a cost effective way, that would definitely be progress

People are already doing that warming their homes in the winter.

But the problem with the economics is the duty cycle of you use of the mining chip is too low if you put it in a toaster or any other personal care drier. The chip has to pay back itself in time as it has a limited period of time that it has cutting edge performance.

This is not about boosting efficiency of mining.
hero member
Activity: 798
Merit: 1000
May 19, 2015, 06:56:40 PM
Also I have never seen anyone in the Philippines use a heating device for anything but cooking.

And why would someone in the developing world use an electric heating device when these are much less efficient than propane.

Sure, there wil be markets where certain appliances are not going to be used. That's a whole other side of the equation. That's one for the marketing department  Wink
sr. member
Activity: 420
Merit: 262
May 19, 2015, 06:51:22 PM
Also I have never seen anyone in the Philippines use a heating device for anything but cooking.

And why would someone in the developing world use an electric heating device when these are much less efficient than propane.

What I am driving at is the play here is not about free electricity. It is about fooling people who don't count their electricity carefully (which is most of us) and/or getting people locked into one form of money that the government can takeover.

The advantage of a CPU is that you can reuse it for many tasks. You don't have to be locked into the chip design that Larry Summers decides should go into your mobile device. This is incredibly 666 directed. Now we have fascist merger of Treasury Dept of the USA and chipsets for mobile phones.
hero member
Activity: 798
Merit: 1000
May 19, 2015, 06:49:28 PM
Thanks fo your responses guys - I am going to watch this one with interest, armed with much more knowledge than I had an hour ago and increasing by the minute Wink

EDIT: If the wasted heat from mining can be put to good use in a cost effective way, that would definitely be progress
legendary
Activity: 1153
Merit: 1000
May 19, 2015, 06:47:49 PM
I don't agree with Justus's suggestion that altcoin investors are attempting to subvert the basis of money.
Not all of them.

Some of them, and they do as much as they can to encourage others.

Many of the others could be considered unwitting participants.
I want to expand on this a bit.

Consider the modus operandi of David Johnston's Bitangels/Mastercoin mafia.

They rope in mostly young and inexperienced developers via their hackathons that promise (contracts worth up to) large sums of money, then make sure any vaguely interesting idea that emerges gets bolted on to a otherwise-useless appcoin.

They then spend a considerable amount of time promoting the resulting pump and dump. After all possible value has been extracted from the idea they simply move on like a plague of locusts to the next idea. (when was the last time you heard a progress update from APICoin?)

This process generates a large number of accomplices of varying degrees of culpability:

  • The developers who get pulled into the system now have their reputations invested in the viability of the appcoin, not to mention the sunk costs of spending so much time on the projects
  • The aspiring Bitcoin journalists who helped to promote the appcoins and who accepted advertisement money don't want to admit they participated in something shady without doing any due diligence
  • The conference organizers who accepted money from the appcoin project don't want to admit that there are too many Bitcoin conferences to only accept clean money
  • The people who bought into the IPO and didn't get out soon enough don't want to admit their money is gone
  • The businesses who court outside investment know that some of the investors can't tell the difference between legitimate opportunities and P&D scams, and that many of the investors they court get involved in some of those schemes. They don't want the investors to become spooked and leave the space entirely.

I know of at least two different employees of Bitcoin companies who were required to censor their personal social media accounts on pain of termination because they were being publicly critical of scammy startups. In both cases, their employers cited common investors between the two companies as the reason why criticism could not be allowed.

I also heard one episode of a popular Bitcoin podcast where one of the hosts expressed some regret for accepting work from a project that turned out to be a scam and both other hosts immediately leaped into action to stop her attempt to assume some accountability (lest her example illuminate their lack of assuming similar accountability, presumably).

These bad ideas spread like viruses, and it's increasingly difficult to find somebody who isn't infected to some degree or another.

Excellent summary.

I am not surprised to hear about the bold part, but question whether or not this is legal on an employer's part. Employers can (and should) censor employee communication regarding their specific industry (customers, competitors, etc). But they can not censor employee's speech in general. Obviously there are gray areas on where you draw the line and my understanding is from a legal sense the line fairly well defined to a specific & narrow set of firms that an employer interacts with or competes with. Having an investor with an unrelated investment does not qualify.

A bitcoin company does not work with or compete with an altcoin company, they are in separate areas. I would not be happy with an employer who censored me here, and think I would have legal standing to push back on that.
legendary
Activity: 2968
Merit: 1198
May 19, 2015, 06:46:32 PM
There is nowhere else for the heat to go.

Aren't you forgetting that the efficiency of a thermodynamic process is proportional the ratio of the differences in temperature and the ambient. If the Bitcoin mining chip is not as hot as the coils, then it will not be as efficient as the coils were. Also for example a hair dyer needs all the heat transfered within a short period of time, and if the heat transfer is slow not all of the heat may be extracted to the hair and instead wasted to the ambient. So somewhat less than free mining.

No. Work out the actual transfer equations if you like, but it ends up being an equivalence. Energy in = heat out. Or the device self destructs.

I am speaking about the efficiency of transfer on the time domain.

How is it that my hair dyer dries my hair after i turn it off but my mining chip is still hot? You've got have a large heat sink in order to move the heat efficiently in time.

Device doesn't self-destruct if the duty cycle is not greater than what the heat transfer sink can deliver.

Well work out the numbers if you like. The amount of energy stored in the mining chip will be negligible due to its small mass. Or you can use other tricks, like run the chip for a shorter period of time than the typical hair drying cycle (so the chip is usually idle and being cooled before the hair drier is turned off).

The heating chip will be kept relatively cool because first of all it is small and has a low mass, and second of all because it is being cooled by room air at the intake. The latter I can tell you from experience working with air cooled chips. A hair dryer has plenty of airflow to keep even a high power chip cool via air cooling. Worst case you downgrade the chip power if necessary to keep it cool (unlikely), so you get less output. Still (effectively) 100% efficiency, just less output, but that's not the play here.

These are engineering problems and I'm quite certain it won't be hard to dominate dedicated miners in terms of efficiency here. I'm far less confident in 21's investors getting a positive return on their investment, but that's a different story.

Quote
Heat sinks are often the most expensive part of the entire design. And there is a diminishing return. The heat of a mining chip is I believe very concentrated into a few mm2 versus coils which cheaply spread out their heat over a large surface area of air flow.

Just downgrade the chip power. You can air cool it easily without any kind of exotic heat sink, or maybe none at all.

sr. member
Activity: 420
Merit: 262
May 19, 2015, 06:41:26 PM
There is nowhere else for the heat to go.

Aren't you forgetting that the efficiency of a thermodynamic process is proportional the ratio of the differences in temperature and the ambient. If the Bitcoin mining chip is not as hot as the coils, then it will not be as efficient as the coils were. Also for example a hair dyer needs all the heat transfered within a short period of time, and if the heat transfer is slow not all of the heat may be extracted to the hair and instead wasted to the ambient. So somewhat less than free mining.

No. Work out the actual transfer equations if you like, but it ends up being an equivalence. Energy in = heat out. Or the device self destructs.

I am speaking about the efficiency of transfer on the time domain. Of course if there is no time involved, all heat reaches equilibrium. Thermal processes are uninteresting if there is no time domain.

How is it that my hair dyer dries my hair after i turn it off but my mining chip is still hot? You've got have a large heat sink in order to move the heat efficiently in time.

Device doesn't self-destruct if the duty cycle is not greater than what the heat transfer sink can deliver.

Heat sinks are often the most expensive part of the entire design. And there is a diminishing return. The heat of a mining chip is I believe very concentrated into a few mm2 versus coils which cheaply spread out their heat over a large surface area of air flow.

legendary
Activity: 2968
Merit: 1198
May 19, 2015, 06:36:14 PM
There is nowhere else for the heat to go.

Aren't you forgetting that the efficiency of a thermodynamic process is proportional the ratio of the differences in temperature and the ambient. If the Bitcoin mining chip is not as hot as the coils, then it will not be as efficient as the coils were. Also for example a hair dyer needs all the heat transfered within a short period of time, and if the heat transfer is slow not all of the heat may be extracted to the hair and instead wasted to the ambient. So somewhat less than free mining.

No. Work out the actual transfer equations if you like, but it ends up being an equivalence. Energy in = heat out. Or the device self destructs. Certainly true for a room heater. True in practice for a hair dryer, water heater, etc. I'm not so sure about a toaster. That may be a bad application for it.
 
legendary
Activity: 2968
Merit: 1198
May 19, 2015, 06:34:52 PM
Ok, perhaps you can help me understand, as I am really stuck on this one. Is it possible for a toaster/phone + mining chip to be as/more efficient than the best ASIC's on the market ?

Absolutely yes. Phone, maybe not. That's more of monetization play, and a long shot on creating a distribution vehicle for micro-BTC that could be used for micro-payments.

But for any device that produces heat (toaster, portable heater, hair dryer, clothes dryer, towel warmer, dishwasher dry cycle, etc.), the efficiency of mining is infinite.


So, you are saying that any device that has an inbuilt fan/other heat transfer mechanism, and is ordinarily used for heating/drying purposes can utilise the heat created by the mining chip for its usual purpose, as opposed to blowing it out of the building in a mining farm (smart), and that there is a synergy here. I see that. To a point.

No not to a point. Very nearly completely. The electricity at that point is literally free, and the only concern wrt efficiency is the cost of the chips themselves. With extreme mass production that may also be driven down below the cost of dedicated mining chips, especially if the latter is more concerned with operational efficiency. Or even if not, the expectation is that the cost of electricity dominates the cost of chips.


hero member
Activity: 798
Merit: 1000
May 19, 2015, 06:32:15 PM
Ok, perhaps you can help me understand, as I am really stuck on this one. Is it possible for a toaster/phone + mining chip to be as/more efficient than the best ASIC's on the market ?

Absolutely yes. Phone, maybe not. That's more of monetization play, and a long shot on creating a distribution vehicle for micro-BTC that could be used for micro-payments.

But for any device that produces heat (toaster, portable heater, hair dryer, clothes dryer, towel warmer, dishwasher dry cycle, etc.), the efficiency of mining is infinite.


So, you are saying that any device that has an inbuilt fan/other heat transfer mechanism, and is ordinarily used for heating/drying purposes can utilise the heat created by the mining chip for its usual purpose, as opposed to blowing it out of the building in a mining farm (smart), and that there is a synergy here. I see that. To a point. There still has to be a crossover point re the efficiency of the chip that can be installed in such devices, the effiiciency of the heat transfer, and also the upgrade cycle for these domestic appliances. Mining rigs need to be upgraded much more frequently than your average domestic appliance in order to stay competivive.
sr. member
Activity: 420
Merit: 262
May 19, 2015, 06:31:22 PM
There is nowhere else for the heat to go.

Aren't you forgetting that the efficiency of a thermodynamic process is proportional the ratio of the differences in temperature and the ambient. If the Bitcoin mining chip is not as hot as the coils, then it will not be as efficient as the coils were. Also for example a hair dyer needs all the heat transfered within a short period of time, and if the heat transfer is slow not all of the heat may be extracted to the hair and instead wasted to the ambient. So somewhat less than free mining.
sr. member
Activity: 350
Merit: 250
May 19, 2015, 06:31:08 PM
I know of at least two different employees of Bitcoin companies who were required to censor their personal social media accounts on pain of termination because they were being publicly critical of scammy startups. In both cases, their employers cited common investors between the two companies as the reason why criticism could not be allowed.

I also heard one episode of a popular Bitcoin podcast where one of the hosts expressed some regret for accepting work from a project that turned out to be a scam and both other hosts immediately leaped into action to stop her attempt to assume some accountability (lest her example illuminate their lack of assuming similar accountability, presumably).


I got my twitter account suspended because I called out shadowcash little bot that auto-report "undesirable" posters, I self-terminated my account later. I didn't even had an influential voice but the system has no backbone.
Jump to: