Topic: Is this a bubble? (Read 3172 times)
Yes but its still long way to go before it pops. another 1 year at least.
If the price goes to $1 I will be switching off my miners for sure.
And I will not be willing to buy any more coins.
And I will not be willing to buy any more coins.
Buying coins has nothing to do with it (btw, you would buy them at todays price, but not at $1? I sure as hell would).
And you may shut down your inefficient miners, but even at $1/BTC today those 28nm asics would still earn more than they cost in electricity.
Now $1 is pretty extreme, but you get my point.
Not really, it depends entirely on how many of "those 28nm asics" are hashing on the network. Given the halving of the btc rewards available each four years or so and the ever diminishing returns compounded by more/better asics it's a hiding to nothing.
The only way this $1 scenario works is if you're the one who stays switched on and hashing and a lot of other people switch off.
This isnt the same as price rise. This is technology becoming more efficient over time.
Uh I'd rather not have a plague or asteroid impact or WW3. I'm not sure why you'd hope for headlines "Billions die"
7-8 billion will die over the next century no matter what; including you and me.
My hope is just that it wont be 25 billion in the century thereafter. Our planet is simply not big enough. If this population explosion cant be brought under control, there are no ways to prevent starvation, war or epidemics as being the cause of those deaths rather than natural death.
The title of this video isnt much of a stretch, if you have some time, watch it through to the end:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=umFnrvcS6AQ
here is one of the more relevant parts:
http://youtu.be/umFnrvcS6AQ?t=13m32s
Quote
Hopefully it *IS*
Uh I'd rather not have a plague or asteroid impact or WW3. I'm not sure why you'd hope for headlines "Billions die"
End times after that peak.. ugh ... revalations?>!?!?!?! Nooooooo... 
Hopefully this is also not a bubble:
Hopefully it *IS*
Hopefully this is also not a bubble:
No but you could say the speed increase we've enjoyed over the past decades will hit a brick wall.
The point is that CPU speeds won't suddenly fall, because they aren't in a bubble.
OK.
Can you show me some similar real life graphs?
I mean graphs with something to be gained from.
Can you show me some similar real life graphs?
I mean graphs with something to be gained from.
Here are some other things that are also not bubbles:
Number of cell phones in US
http://i2.cdn.turner.com/money/2011/10/12/technology/cellphones_outnumber_americans/chart-wireless.top.gif
Number of cars registered
http://www1.eere.energy.gov/vehiclesandfuels/images/facts/fotw438.gif
World internet access
http://www.theawl.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/Screen-shot-2010-08-17-at-2.11.10-PM.png
Number of websites
http://media.nngroup.com/media/editor/alertbox/web-growth-chart.gif
None of these things are bubbles either. At no point will the cellphone "bubble" "pop" and everyone will go and throw away their cell phones.
This is not a bubble. It isn't even anything remotely related to the bubble. It's as far from a bubble as possible. It might as well be the opposite of a bubble.
So this is an antibubble?
This is not a bubble. It isn't even anything remotely related to the bubble. It's as far from a bubble as possible. It might as well be the opposite of a bubble.
Moore's law states that transistor density doubles every 18 months (he actually said 24 months, but whatever). Thats what has given rise to exponential increases in computing power. Its not up for debate that this will stop, it will stop due to fundamental laws of physics, the only question is when. Once it does stop, you can not maintain exponential growth with parallelism, parallelism is linear.
Thanks to smaller transistors, which also means lower power consumption and higher clockspeeds, In the past 5 decades, we have roughly seen a billion fold increase in computing power per $. To maintain that through parallellism would mean in 5 decades, your PC would cost a billion times more, have to use a billion chips and consume a billion times more electricity. Not gonna happen
Thanks to smaller transistors, which also means lower power consumption and higher clockspeeds, In the past 5 decades, we have roughly seen a billion fold increase in computing power per $. To maintain that through parallellism would mean in 5 decades, your PC would cost a billion times more, have to use a billion chips and consume a billion times more electricity. Not gonna happen
Are the cpu speeds that we enjoy today a bubble?
No but you could say the speed increase we've enjoyed over the past decades will hit a brick wall. In so far it hasnt already. And moore's law is running out of steam too. IIRC on some chips we are down to feature sizes that are just a dozen atoms wide, transistor size is approaching atomic levels. It just doesnt get smaller than that. We are not there yet, still a few shrinks that are probably feasible but the end is in sight.
Even if speed increases hit a brick wall (which I disagree with), the total computing power on the planet will still go up, as it has, at an exponential rate.
Even if asics hit a "brick wall" in terms of process (at 28nm) and then hit another brick wall in terms of design optimization, the hash rate can still go up significantly due to parallelism. More of the most efficient asic will be brought online. More efficient hashing power will displace less efficient hashing power. Yes, the rate of increase in the hash rate will certainly go down - it's unsustainable. But hash rate will continue going up for a very long time, unless bitcoin price crashes.
Are the cpu speeds that we enjoy today a bubble?
No but you could say the speed increase we've enjoyed over the past decades will hit a brick wall. In so far it hasnt already. And moore's law is running out of steam too. IIRC on some chips we are down to feature sizes that are just a dozen atoms wide, transistor size is approaching atomic levels. It just doesnt get smaller than that. We are not there yet, still a few shrinks that are probably feasible but the end is in sight.
Moore's law itself does scale further, though there is walls with gains and prices.
You just need to add more chips for Moore's law to work. Though this is costly and gains aren't very good beyond some point.
It can pop, but that is when bitcoin goes out of use. As said, it's not a bubble as in financial bubbles.
Saturating is not the same thing as crashing.
A bubble, by definition pops (i.e. crashes).
A bubble, by definition pops (i.e. crashes).
Nothing goes up forever. Question is what play should you execute to take advantage of an unsustainable rise and timing of course.
Are the cpu speeds that we enjoy today a bubble?
No but you could say the speed increase we've enjoyed over the past decades will hit a brick wall. In so far it hasnt already. And moore's law is running out of steam too. IIRC on some chips we are down to feature sizes that are just a dozen atoms wide, transistor size is approaching atomic levels. It just doesnt get smaller than that. We are not there yet, still a few shrinks that are probably feasible but the end is in sight.
Jump to: