Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP. - page 61. (Read 2032266 times)

Well 'Speak of the Devil and he shall appear.'

Details are scarce since they are still in stealth mode but here goes:

https://www.blocktrail.com/BTC/pool/21inc



http://www.coindesk.com/21-inc-confirms-plans-bitcoin-distribution/

yeah, and despite someone explaining to you what went on, you'd rather apply your own judgment biases w/o any investigation or knowledge:

They're arguably one of the major players in the mining industry at the moment so you might want to check your facts...

the sweet smell of deflation:

The key is to hire a talented and proven shill.  If only there were someone like that around here...

oh, but eye surgery allows me to help ppl see the light

On the face of it I'd  agree. But after spending  5y in Bitcoin interacting with devs like you I've  learned that code doesn't write itself. It starts with a bunch of you sitting around a table trying to figure out things like if 2% inflation in an altcoin would be better accepted by the average Joe than 1%, or if Snoor sigs will verify faster than ECDSA to improve waiting times in checkout lines, or the decision to implement p2sh so that multiple parties can split the responsibility of securing the money stored at one address; all those sound like technical problems but they really are ideological and economic beliefs based on assumed human behavior coded into the software. Amir Taaki is one of the only devs who flat out admits this and I am thankful for his honesty.

Even this whole block size debate is based on ideology and economic belief about how human beings will react in a given situation. It's been leaking out much more lately as the Cripplecoiners have been reaching desperately for every argument they can get their hands on. Instead of them being truly technical about their arguments, they instead throw out a bunch of armchair logic without any real data as to why Bitcoin can't scale. The reality is that all of them believe they should be able to run a full node (ideology) and they believe Bitcoin should be a settlement layer (false economics). They want the code to enforce those principles so they blockade any one who disagrees with them with technical sounding FUD. There's even financial conflict of interest entering the picture.

Code doesn't write itself.

I like your skepticism good questions they dont undermine the logic, but I'll oblige anyway.
Yes, my profits are high enough without doing it.
I'm very busy acquiring new skills on some other projects (ones that intersect with the macro economic issues where both iCE and Cypher seem to agree), so I haven't made this a priority. It makes sense to do it now for lots of reasons, I wouldn't be surprised if a company like 21inc is doing it already, so I'm sure lots of entrepreneurs are thinking about it. There will also be a significant first mover advantage should competition emerge, that would also delay the decision to proceed indefinably.

Time and energy being the two resources I lack is the main reason its being delayed. And the wife docent want to see any thing bitcoin in the house. (its not easy explaining the total time logged in on the top of this page to everyone when you not in fount of a screen 24/7.) - its been like this ever since bitcoin hit $1000 and I told her I sold around $10 and bought gold at its peek, I can thank cypher for that I'll blame him for his confrontational debating style.     

I have more than enough mining gear for the RnD process involves, I lack additional controls should I break something, a typical risk but not one I can afford given ASICminer is no more, ultimately all my gear will be converted for a proof of principal and testing however I only need so much hot water and scaling the idea needs me focus on more than just the PoP.

the "further costs" are not as prohibitive as you may think, and they are also fixed costs + R&D, and it's trivial issue in mass production. 

I'll agree it's impractical if it hasn't emerged in the next 4 years. the principal is wast = food, its true in sustainable Eco systems and it's true in sustainable economic systems.

Do you see Bitcoin as purely a software development project?

OK so we're on the same team then? 

Ok, then please do not try to develop software. Let's leave "core devs" doing their job. Everything is going fine.  :-) Eye surgery and software development are two different things.

1) It won't be hard to integrate into hot water heaters when the chips are no longer obsoleted every 6 months or less. That will have to happen eventually.

2) The miner will shut off when the heat is no longer needed. If it continued running it would be at a loss, because the re-use of heat is the only thing keeping it profitable.

You're making this out to be way more difficult than it really is.

No. You're letting your fear of a technical attack (which is unlikely to actually be the attack vector from the orgs I think you fear) cloud your analysis. Granted, there's a balance to be had, but I contend that the greatest chance for longterm success, and global benefit, lies in bitcoin storing and transacting as much wealth and value as possible. Security, political incentives, and positive impact on humanity stem from that.

And you're just not going to get that without an ability to scale. The notion that bitcoin can be a high-market-cap (orders of mag more than today) system under a model of a small number of high-value transactions is really tunnel-visioned. It'd basically just be used by a small number of people such as yourself in that event, which not only entails giving up massive potential for appreciation, but probably falls back to where things were in 2011 and stays there.

That is why I see you guys as the biggest threat that Bitcoin faces.

At this point I think it unlikely that Bitcoin itself will succeed due to folks like you.  I've been mentally prepared for this for a long time and have not given up hope completely, but it seems much more likely than not that your types will bring us down.  As I've said for years, though, Bitcoin has already achieved it's promise drawing in interest to the general concepts of distributed crypto-currencies.  That is to say, it was key in opening up Pandora's box.  That cannot be undone.

Excellent point!  Who could possibly be stupid enough to confuse cheap credit driven bailouts of auto companies with real economic growth, especially when the prevention of badly needed creative destruction is actually exacerbating the TBTF zombie corporation problem?

I don't agree, I see bitcoin, bitcoin mining, and the exchange of bitcoin to fiat, as a near perfect free market.

the fiat money printing system, as we have it now, encourages centralization.  how can that not be more obvious?

money printing funding bailouts of debt ridden companies who've outgrown their competitiveness via cheap credit.  more debt to fix a debt problem, when possible.  if not, print.  printing to fund interest payments is what is driving the Greek problems.  preferred access to cheap credit concentrates wealth into a few hands, like we have today.  wealth concentration leads to better political access to keep it that way.  why do you think many politicians end up in corner offices at financial institutions.  it's called revolving door policy.  

Bitcoin changes all that and suddenly allows hope and opportunity on a permissionless basis in a sound money system where the new entrepreneur doesn't have to worry about that printing variable that can debase his profits or unreasonably encourage competition.  what a relief!  finally a system where one should be judged on his merits, not access or pedigree.  

OMG you sound like the conspiracy idiots at Zero Knowledge.  Don't you know [easy credit * car loans] = [economic growth]?

it's not that hard to figure out.

1) all businesses have a need for capital, retrofiring an electric hot water tank is a fixed cost and can be amortized over time, having conceived of the exact mechanics to do this it can be achieved at a viable cost.
in other words (1) above is a typical business risk not unlike any other production endeavor. Negligible is a relative term in relationship to the total capital investment, I'd say at this point in time the investment risk is negligible.  One of the many reasons I haven't invested more time in the design is my mining equipment is still producing a profit in excess of 50% of the input costs. (so from a business need perspective its cheaper to wast the heat energy at the moment than use it to reduce my overhead by finding a customer willing to pay for my wast product.) worth noting my equipment is running at around 60% capacity to account for the summer heat, and if I chose to reinvest and grow my mining business when others do not, it would be called centralization, and that is a direct result of the subsidy paid to miners.    

2) the concern you point out is valid but not problematic, if the water in the tank is hot, the miner runs but is not used to heat hot water. (so your wast heat is wasted) but for the rest of the time, the cost of hot water is free, or the bitcoin are being mined for free. you can still mine with 100% efficiency 100% of the time and not mine if your efficiency drops below say 99% or whatever your threshold is.

The way I see mining centralization is just a temporary imbalance as a result of the generous subsidies given in exchange to miners for growing the network. We almost got to a centralization saturation point with ASICminer however fryedCat was at a point where mining operations couldn't scale up any larger and he had started to flood the market with cheep efficient ASICs, personally I think that pissed of a lot of the wrong people and it resulted in very unfortunate circumstance for him, no one knows why he disappeared not even his employees or his immediate family, he is either going to great lengths to convince us and his family to think he is dead or he is dead.