Topic: I'm joining the fun! - page 2. (Read 7831 times)

Live in a cold  climate and use it to heat your home.

cooling and power... how do you do it? I coudln't imagine finding a way to deal with the heat from THAT many GPU's.

and how many motherboard's do you have?

and how many power supply?

and what was your cost for all the hardware you bought

Around 75 GPU. I have those models:
5770, 5830, 5850, 5870, 5970, 6770, 6950

how many cards have you got?

and what model's

+1. I guess that sums it up.

Liquidity and fungability aren't the key I don't think.

To me it seems the key is, collateral should hold value or maybe even tend to go up in value, whereas transmission method maybe doesnt even matter much its volatility as it will very very soon be converted into what the borrower wants to purchase with the borrowed buying-power. So the transmission medium needs to be liquid and the collateral should be good at retaining or increasing value.

-MarkM-

I think I get it. However, the whole scenario only makes sense if there is a difference in liquidity or fungibility between the collateral and the stuff provided in the loan. correct?
If both the loan and the collateral have the same level of liquidity or fungibility in the context important to me, the whole scenario doesn't make sense?

It has nothing to do with mixing, it has to do with holding collateral when making a loan.

If you put your car up as collateral, it does not make much sense for me to ship you your car as the form in which I transmit to you the buying-power you are borrowing.

On the contrary, I want your car safe and sound in my pound so I can sell if if you fail to pay back the loan, so I use something else as the medium of transmission when I transmit to you the buying-power that you are using your car as collateral to borrow.

Okay maybe a car is a confusing example.

How about a bar of gold.

You want to borrow some buying-power to buy something, I don't care what, could be anything.

You give me your bar of gold to hold as collateral, to sell it to make good if you fail to pay back the loan.

It makes no sense for me to hand you (the or any) gold to go buy what you wanted to buy, as gold is what I am holding as collateral.

Instead it makes sense for me to hand you a what you wanted token, or a bunch of fiat, or some cryptocoins, or basically anything other than gold.

(And preferably something that does not go up in value as fast as gold does, aka goes down in value faster than gold does, aka goes down in value as compared to / relative to gold.)

In order to be able to do that kind of thing with all the convenience of cryptocurrencies, I need there to exist at least two, and preferably more in case of only two their going up or down in relative value qualities do not happen to match my needs.

(Basically I need some that go up or down in value at different rates than others.)

-MarkM-

Sorry if I didn't fully understand the scenario in detail, especially I didn't understand the "need" to change denotation.
However, am I correct that you describe a "mixing service", where the escrow takes your bitcoins and uses existing funds in another cryptocurrency to facilitate the trade? This has the obvious advantage that the coins cannot be traces directly (only inferred through statistical analysis). And if that mixing service only operates on cryptocurrencies it can exist outside of any jurisdiction, correct?

There are applications that find it useful to have more than one type of asset / more than one currency / more than one type of coin.

For example, it can be useful to have something to deposit or escrow or lien as "collateral" and something to borrow.

It seems sometimes to make more sense that the thing that serves as collateral be a different asset / currency / thing than the thing that one borrows "against" that collateral.

Thus for example General Credit Corporation finds it makes sense to them to hold someone's bitcoins as collateral and transmit to them litecoins or ixcoins or i0coins or devcoins or groupcoins or coiledcoins or bbqcoins or whatever the heck other than bitcoins as the transfer medium by which the borrower will cause the buying power borrowed to manifest itself at the location where they want to use that buying power.

It seems to them to make less sense to hold bitcoins as collateral then transmit bitcoins to the borrower as the transmission method the borrower will use to move the borrowed buying-power to the location where it is to be applied.

For example consider someone who wants to borrow buying-power to buy a rice-paddy to grow rice. Even if General Credit Corp loans them buying power denominated in bitcoins it can make more sense to them to transmit that buying-power to, say, Cambodia or wherever the rice paddy is to be bought in the form of something other than bitcoins than to transmit bitcoins, due to their seeing it as useful to not transmit the collateral they are holding (bitcoins belonging to the person thinking of buying a rice paddy) but, rather, to transmit buying-power per se, unclothed in the stuff of which the held collateral consists.

So they for example might hold 1000 bitcoins as collateral, and transmit $10,000 worth of some other kind of coin, which the borrower will then sell on an exchange to obtain whatever the seller of the paddy actually wants in return for their paddy...

This approach could obviate the perceived need to have the infrastructure in place to actually implement a lien against the paddy, which could require soliders or lawyers or gosh knows what and possibly also present some potential threat to the anonymity of the loaner.

-MarkM-

+1. Of all the knock-offs in 2011, it's the one which actually has potential.

Partially, region is just one example of community. Bitcoin itself is a community too. Don't take these words too literally.

Confidence and trust are the foundations of cryptocurrencies. The longer a alt-chain exists, the harder it is to destroy these two precious commodities. LTC community has shown pretty good resiliency and growth potential as far as I can see. 

From your confusing answer I deduce that with "regional" you refer to "community" in a sense of people with dedicated needs. Am I correct?

What are you suggesting LTC is?
nothing, right?
Do you understand the concept called "community "?

are you suggesting LTC fits the profile of regional/smaller/specific currencies ?

It has been long predicted that Bitcoin will eventually become a "meta currency" in the cryptocurrency world, with other regional/smaller/specific currencies being more actively used for smaller transactions.

We may be seeing this happening.

i heart LTC

I sense contempt. What are you trying to say? People should hang on to their money and avoid scams?
As far as the 7% figures per week/day/hour go I agree. Even 1% per year is bullshit if there is no business model.

I guess a lot of people got overwhelmed by the sudden exposure to unsecured investment opportunities. It's usually something only bank employees have.

Wealth isn't leaking from bitcoin, it is being thrown away dirt cheap on fiat exchanges by miners and hackers.

There isn't a lot of point in buying half a million bitcoins hoping they will rise in price if everyone else is meanwhile throwing away half a million bitcoins to hackers or scammers to be sold dirt cheap.

Until people actually value their bitcoins instead of dumping them having lots of alternatives is good, especially if there enough alternatives that no particular one of them seems real tempting to hackers nor even worth mining to miners whose only goal is to dump.

-MarkM-