Pages:
Author

Topic: ► ► ►HashFast Endorsement - page 16. (Read 36924 times)

legendary
Activity: 1764
Merit: 1002
August 12, 2013, 05:27:22 PM
they have said that there should be some info today on the HashFast Miner Protection Program.

i think you'll like it.

They err...may want to be careful what they promise and how that is perceived, I mean this seriously;

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-08-12/n-y-regulator-subpoenas-firms-over-bitcoin-crime-risks.html

2/3 down...ouch!

stop with your FUD.  it was pointed out to you several times in your "shit" thread that there was no mention of mining anywhere in that article.   Roll Eyes
hero member
Activity: 532
Merit: 500
August 12, 2013, 05:21:12 PM
they have said that there should be some info today on the HashFast Miner Protection Program.

i think you'll like it.

They err...may want to be careful what they promise and how that is perceived, I mean this seriously;

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-08-12/n-y-regulator-subpoenas-firms-over-bitcoin-crime-risks.html

2/3 down...ouch!
legendary
Activity: 1652
Merit: 1067
Christian Antkow
hero member
Activity: 692
Merit: 500
August 12, 2013, 05:01:24 PM
they have said that there should be some info today on the HashFast Miner Protection Program.

i think you'll like it.

http://dot-bit.org/tools/nextDifficulty.php
Difficulty to increase 36.7% today
legendary
Activity: 1764
Merit: 1002
August 12, 2013, 12:16:30 PM
they have said that there should be some info today on the HashFast Miner Protection Program.

i think you'll like it.
legendary
Activity: 1764
Merit: 1002
August 11, 2013, 11:02:11 PM
i mentioned to Simon today that the community was concerned about who would get priority, IceDrill or BabyJets.  i emphasized to him that if possible the BabyJets should at least be delivered simultaneously to the IceDrill chips, if not before.  he agreed that the small miner is very important to Bitcoin and it's decentralization and would do what he could to not disadvantage them.  Eduardo has said so as well.

full member
Activity: 238
Merit: 100
August 11, 2013, 06:14:34 PM
Any bank will be able to afford it's own ASIC designs, if it wants them.
Take a look at the asset sizes of, say, JP Morgan, or BNP Paribas, or Industrial and Commercial Bank of China, or of Mitsubishi/Bank of Tokyo.  Compare that with the total value of all bitcoin outstanding, or that will ever be outstanding.

And remember, the total hourly network "yield" is around 150 coins each worth around $100.  Compare this with the fact that they earn two dollars for every ATM transaction made by their customers on other banks' machines, and two dollars for every transaction made on their ATM's by other banks' customers.  And a couple percent of the amount of every credit card purchase.  And ... and ...
full member
Activity: 238
Merit: 100
August 11, 2013, 04:39:28 PM
There is nothing wrong with monopolies if entry into the market isn't stopped coercively and they only got their monopoly status by out-competing their competitors.

What's wrong with a monopoly if it's providing the service you ask for at the more efficient price?

"Freedom of Entry" is the most important thing in any market, not decentralization.

http://mises.org/freemarket_detail.aspx?control=384

sounds good in principle but what if you're a bank who has access to free money who decides to setup a mine?  

which, btw, is another good reason why asic rig makers should only accept BTC.

Any bank will be able to afford it's own ASIC designs, if it wants them.
legendary
Activity: 1764
Merit: 1002
August 11, 2013, 04:15:22 PM
As edifying as your discourse on monopoly may be, wtf does it  have to do with HasFast?
Fair enough... I just don't like to let those things go. Cheesy
Carry on..

I think we're seeing the issue from very different angles, but your input is very much appreciated.

Either way, moving on!

both of your input is helpful and i like being philosophical. Wink
legendary
Activity: 3122
Merit: 2178
Playgram - The Telegram Casino
August 11, 2013, 03:47:55 PM
As edifying as your discourse on monopoly may be, wtf does it  have to do with HasFast?
Fair enough... I just don't like to let those things go. Cheesy
Carry on..

I think we're seeing the issue from very different angles, but your input is very much appreciated.

Either way, moving on!
sr. member
Activity: 433
Merit: 267
August 11, 2013, 12:59:31 PM
As edifying as your discourse on monopoly may be, wtf does it  have to do with HasFast?
Fair enough... I just don't like to let those things go. Cheesy
Carry on..
full member
Activity: 210
Merit: 100
August 11, 2013, 12:56:58 PM
As edifying as your discourse on monopoly may be, wtf does it  have to do with HasFast?
sr. member
Activity: 433
Merit: 267
August 11, 2013, 12:46:53 PM
That is assuming the entity becoming a monopoly being and staying a good actor.

No, it isn't at all assuming that. Freedom of entry means that if a monopolist acts dishonestly, a competitor can unseat him.

A government monopoly is an entirely different animal from a free market monopoly. Government monopolies hold their position through the use of coercion. Free market monopolies (Which never have 100% market share) hold their position by outcompeting anyone that tries to take their market share.

The old fallacy that you might bring up is that a monopolist can push their prices to the floor in order to undermine their competitor, but by definition this action must hurt the monopolist more than the competitor because the monopolist has a much greater market share.

An action that a competitor can take against this is to simply  buy the product the monopolist sells low, wait for the monopolist to raise prices again, and then sell.

Suffice it to say that this is a deep subject, and the ghosts and gouls that surround the concept of "monopoly" are mostly just that; ancient and pernicious myths and legends. With one exception! Government enforced monopolies are a bad thing.

I encourage you to study monopolies at the Mises institute. Here's a fresh video from Thomas DiLorenzo, it's like destiny, or something!*
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WSVR9xJ-1Vc

*Edit: Fresh from last year haha.
legendary
Activity: 3122
Merit: 2178
Playgram - The Telegram Casino
August 11, 2013, 12:31:40 PM
sounds good in principle but what if you're a bank who has access to free money who decides to setup a mine? 

which, btw, is another good reason why asic rig makers should only accept BTC.

I don't think ASIC rig makers should only accept BTC. To keep the network healthy and Bitcoin growing, you need easier access for new people to join the fun.

If you're big money and want to start a big mine you don't have to go the ASIC rig maker route anyway. You can very well just fund your own development and production.
legendary
Activity: 3122
Merit: 2178
Playgram - The Telegram Casino
August 11, 2013, 12:25:20 PM
There is nothing wrong with monopolies if entry into the market isn't stopped coercively and they only got their monopoly status by out-competing their competitors.

What's wrong with a monopoly if it's providing the service you ask for at the more efficient price?

"Freedom of Entry" is the most important thing in any market, not decentralization.

http://mises.org/freemarket_detail.aspx?control=384

That is assuming the entity becoming a monopoly being and staying a good actor.

I'm sorry to get philosophical here, but decentralization is the key aspect of Bitcoin. It was developed to get currency out of the hands of monopolistic entities (ie. goverment / central banks) and into the hand of a decentralized network of people. Shedding Bitcoin of decentralization kills its purpose. In case of focused hardware power it will kill Bitcoin quite literally, actually.

Luckily we're still far way from that. Let's not ruin this beautiful experiment in digital currencies.
legendary
Activity: 1764
Merit: 1002
August 11, 2013, 12:18:56 PM
There is nothing wrong with monopolies if entry into the market isn't stopped coercively and they only got their monopoly status by out-competing their competitors.

What's wrong with a monopoly if it's providing the service you ask for at the more efficient price?

"Freedom of Entry" is the most important thing in any market, not decentralization.

http://mises.org/freemarket_detail.aspx?control=384

sounds good in principle but what if you're a bank who has access to free money who decides to setup a mine? 

which, btw, is another good reason why asic rig makers should only accept BTC.
sr. member
Activity: 433
Merit: 267
August 11, 2013, 12:05:45 PM
There is nothing wrong with monopolies if entry into the market isn't stopped coercively and they only got their monopoly status by out-competing their competitors.

What's wrong with a monopoly if it's providing the service you ask for at the more efficient price?

"Freedom of Entry" is the most important thing in any market, not decentralization.

http://mises.org/freemarket_detail.aspx?control=384
legendary
Activity: 3122
Merit: 2178
Playgram - The Telegram Casino
August 11, 2013, 03:15:19 AM
Fair enough. I agree that the big mining company models make the most sense. The company will work for its own survival and if making their own chips, strategically they can control there future and not be held hostage by a third party asic producer.

No arguments there. My problem is that it leans to centralization which I philosophically dislike. I am a bit of a lone wolf miner and prefer to solo mine and enjoy the sysadmin challenges it poses.  Though you are right, the smart money is on the mining companies that can roll their own chips.  I may be anachronism at this point, still driving the solo mining truck while everyone else is piling into the mega farm trains.

I wish you luck, though I think you won't need it.  I hope you wish me the same. Smiley

It's kinda sad, really, that the next step after solo and pool mining seems to be huge cooperations. Here's hoping that the mining world won't get monopolized.

And to you, kind sir, i have to say:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gRoLgBE9AOs&t=0m44s
sr. member
Activity: 490
Merit: 255
August 11, 2013, 12:05:57 AM
Fair enough. I agree that the big mining company models make the most sense.  The company will work for its own survival and if making their own chips, strategically they can control there future and not be held hostage by a third party asic producer.

No arguments there. My problem is that it leans to centralization which I philosophically dislike.   I am a bit of a lone wolf miner and prefer to solo mine and enjoy the sysadmin challenges it poses.  Though you are right, the smart money is on the mining companies that can roll their own chips.  I may be anachronism at this point, still driving the solo mining truck while everyone else is piling into the mega farm trains.

I wish you luck, though I think you won't need it.  I hope you wish me the same. Smiley
full member
Activity: 238
Merit: 100
August 10, 2013, 11:49:29 PM

On the off chance of what? Every other company completely failing?

That they succeed in early November or fail to January. 

I guess you are advocating sitting on the sidelines until March?  Probably a more prudent strategy... But I have been minerless since around March and not really wanting to go a whole year.  Itchy trigger finger I guess.  Undecided

Eh, I invested in some Labcoin stock, and I think I might try some BTCGarden as well - those companies will be able to mint their own chips at $2/Gh.

Obviously there's the trust issue, there wouldn't be much recourse if they run off with your chips and bitcoin, or embezzle money.  But at least that way you're an actual investor, getting an ROI based on how well the company does overall, as opposed to being an "investomer" who can end up losing all your money while the company makes tons of it

That's the biggest problem, IMO - with a typical investment if the company does well you do well, and you lose all your money it's because the company as a whole failed, and the principles didn't make much either.

On the other hand, with a pre-order you have a situation where the company can "fail" to deliver their units on time, or oversell them or whatever, and all their customers lose all their money, but the company keeps everything.

Now obviously these virtual stock exchanges have the same, or higher risk of being a straight up scam where they run off with your money, or cheat their shareholders.

But at least the incentive structure is correct.
Pages:
Jump to: