It's Happening .... The secrets of 21 inc revealed, and its what we hoped for. - page 6.

OBAViJEST

hero member

Activity: 714

Merit: 500

Quote from: futureofbitcoin on May 08, 2015, 04:08:37 PM

Quote from: OBAViJEST on May 08, 2015, 03:56:18 PM

Props for turning a discussion into an argument; extra points for starting if off with an insult!

Semantics aside of whether something is a discussion or argument, I'm sorry if that came off as an insult. I just find that in such discussions/arguments, people often get too deep into it, trying to "win", and eventually everyone loses sight of the big picture and it becomes completely derailed from the original topic. Happens to me too.

Hehe no worries man! I just wanted to bring things back to baseline Grin

Regarding what you've just said - that's an ability few people have, to 'take a step back' and look at the situation from a different angle...you have my respect!

Cheers Grin

fdylstyx

full member

Activity: 158

Merit: 100

Quote from: ?? on ??

Quote from: fdylstyx on May 08, 2015, 05:26:30 PM

Big thread, I actually read it all and the question that just kept coming at me is why don't they (whoever "they" may be) just work a deal with the electricity providers. A asiac chip in every meter. A slight raise in rates across the board will benefit both the mining and the electric companies.

The paying customers accept that some of the power they buy is a good thing. Even though they don't understand decentralization any better than they understand why some places experience brownouts and others never do but they do understand less banking fees and naturally want to get them even if it means another card in their wallet or an app on their phone.

fdyl

Maybe they'll just throw out a ton of water powered turbines in the ocean that use the waves to generate power and have an air tight container for large miners that run ocean water through to cool themselves. In all reality they aren't going to do anything crazy amazing or out there without public knowledge, investors aren't going to throw down money on what ifs.

That seems more centralized, but a great idea just the same. Until some diver is paid to attach a few strategically placed charges. I thought the idea of decentralization was spreading the wealth as far and wide as possible.

fdylstyx

full member

Activity: 158

Merit: 100

Big thread, I actually read it all and the question that just kept coming at me is why don't they (whoever "they" may be) just work a deal with the electricity providers. A asiac chip in every meter. A slight raise in rates across the board will benefit both the mining and the electric companies.

The paying customers accept that some of the power they buy is a good thing. Even though they don't understand decentralization any better than they understand why some places experience brownouts and others never do but they do understand less banking fees and naturally want to get them even if it means another card in their wallet or an app on their phone.

fdyl

Edit: I forgot to mention the rebate that the customers would get each quarter. Each according to their average usage. Win, win, win.

futureofbitcoin

sr. member

Activity: 322

Merit: 250

Quote from: OBAViJEST on May 08, 2015, 03:56:18 PM

Props for turning a discussion into an argument; extra points for starting if off with an insult!

Semantics aside of whether something is a discussion or argument, I'm sorry if that came off as an insult. I just find that in such discussions/arguments, people often get too deep into it, trying to "win", and eventually everyone loses sight of the big picture and it becomes completely derailed from the original topic. Happens to me too.

TheRealSteve

hero member

Activity: 686

Merit: 500

FUN > ROI

Quote from: ?? on ??

Patent trolls are a scumbag thing that will disappear when we change our [...] laws

Let's hope so - at least in the U.S. there seems to be bipartisan support. And yes, that was definitely an extreme end example

Quote from: futureofbitcoin on May 08, 2015, 03:49:31 PM

And at this point, I think any company that isn't a complete scam, like a ponzi or whatever is probably good for bitcoin, because it means that there are more use cases (or more choices). Even if it doesn't necessarily benefit all bitcoiners (or even a majority of them).

Oh yeah, in those terms, definitely a good thing - even speculation, to an extent, is a good thing as at least it keeps people interested

OBAViJEST

hero member

Activity: 714

Merit: 500

Quote from: futureofbitcoin on May 08, 2015, 03:19:22 PM

In an effort to seem intelligent, your argument misses the point to begin with.

Props for turning a discussion into an argument; extra points for starting if off with an insult!

Quote

Which pretty much necessarily

...although I'd refrain from calling other people idiots from now on.

futureofbitcoin

sr. member

Activity: 322

Merit: 250

Certainly I wouldn't expect VCs, especially ones like Marc Andressen to invest in something like that.

Of course, to begin with, what is "good for public" anyway. Quite hard to define.

In the particular case for bitcoin, since I am not one of those libertarian ideologists, I don't mind more centralization or government control or whatever. As long as bitcoin goes mainstream and goes up in VALUE (real value, not necessarily just against fiat) I say it's a good thing. And at this point, I think any company that isn't a complete scam, like a ponzi or whatever is probably good for bitcoin, because it means that there are more use cases (or more choices). Even if it doesn't necessarily benefit all bitcoiners (or even a majority of them).

TheRealSteve

hero member

Activity: 686

Merit: 500

FUN > ROI

Quote from: futureofbitcoin on May 08, 2015, 03:19:22 PM

In an effort to seem intelligent, your argument misses the point to begin with. No matter what reason an investor makes the investment, a necessary truth is that this investor believes the company won't go bankrupt, at least not before he gets what he wants. Which pretty much necessarily means the company will need costumers. Which pretty much necessarily means that the company is providing something that some people want to use.

So in the end, it doesn't matter why an investor wants to invest. By the act of investing, especially such a large amount like in 21 inc., chances are the company is something that potentially many people will want to use.

"In an effort to seem intelligent" - thanks for that

If the point is that people will invest because they expect to make money - sure enough. I can invest in a patent troll providing funds to bolster their portfolio, for example, expecting to make money by having them do the legwork of finding potential infringing parties and threatening to sue them. They, too, provide a service that some people want to use - even if it's primarily themselves. Would you equate that with something that is 'good for the public' as well?;

Let me put it slightly differently... 'good for the public' may well apply - but people here, the investors, the company, etc. may not all agree on what constitutes 'the public'.

futureofbitcoin

sr. member

Activity: 322

Merit: 250

Quote from: TheRealSteve on May 08, 2015, 03:03:31 PM

Quote from: ?? on ??

What is good for investors is usually something that is in demand or a problem for the public, if there is no public demand or want for something it will waste money and die.

That's not necessarily true. For example, an investor in Snapchat might really not give a hoot about people wanting a platform on which they can exchange semi-temporary pictures with captions - but they could be very interested in the 'anonymized' database that this establishes and the potential for selling that 'aggregrate' data down the line. That said investment money may be what keeps something like Snapchat operating could be considered 'good' for the public, but that's more of a symbiotic relationship between 'good fors' than that they overlap or are to be considered the same.
Similarly - just as an example - the multiple investment rounds in BitFury are good for the public because it means that there's at least one more major player mining away on the network - but it's done nothing for the public at large in terms of availability of their product (be that chips, miners, contracts, etc. - setting aside whatever consumer transactions device they were talking about). The investments reflect this, as the interest is in having an entity with mining power around which other services can be built.

In an effort to seem intelligent, your argument misses the point to begin with. No matter what reason an investor makes the investment, a necessary truth is that this investor believes the company won't go bankrupt, at least not before he gets what he wants. Which pretty much necessarily means the company will need costumers. Which pretty much necessarily means that the company is providing something that some people want to use.

So in the end, it doesn't matter why an investor wants to invest. By the act of investing, especially such a large amount like in 21 inc., chances are the company is something that potentially many people will want to use.

TheRealSteve

hero member

Activity: 686

Merit: 500

FUN > ROI

Quote from: ?? on ??

What is good for investors is usually something that is in demand or a problem for the public, if there is no public demand or want for something it will waste money and die.

That's not necessarily true. For example, an investor in Snapchat might really not give a hoot about people wanting a platform on which they can exchange semi-temporary pictures with captions - but they could be very interested in the 'anonymized' database that this establishes and the potential for selling that 'aggregrate' data down the line. That said investment money may be what keeps something like Snapchat operating could be considered 'good' for the public, but that's more of a symbiotic relationship between 'good fors' than that they overlap or are to be considered the same.
Similarly - just as an example - the multiple investment rounds in BitFury are good for the public because it means that there's at least one more major player mining away on the network - but it's done nothing for the public at large in terms of availability of their product (be that chips, miners, contracts, etc. - setting aside whatever consumer transactions device they were talking about). The investments reflect this, as the interest is in having an entity with mining power around which other services can be built.

TheRealSteve

hero member

Activity: 686

Merit: 500

FUN > ROI

Quote from: crazyivan on May 08, 2015, 01:05:29 PM

This still does not tell us much about them. However, having in mind the size of the investment, this must be something really good.

Must it? In the space of Bitcoin, google around to see what companies got VC investment, and see where they are now / how they're conducting business. What's potentially good for investors is not necessarily good for the public.

crazyivan

legendary

Activity: 1652

Merit: 1007

DMD Diamond Making Money 4+ years! Join us!

This still does not tell us much about them. However, having in mind the size of the investment, this must be something really good.

gentlemand

legendary

Activity: 2590

Merit: 3015

Welt Am Draht

Quote from: R2D221 on May 08, 2015, 10:02:06 AM

So, the “ASICs for everyone” idea came from the The Register author? How did they come up with it, anyway?

Because all the stupid shit did was copy the FT writer's total guesswork.

R2D221

hero member

Activity: 658

Merit: 500

Quote from: Zangelbert Bingledack on May 08, 2015, 05:11:33 AM

Quote from: gentlemand on May 07, 2015, 12:22:29 PM

So The Register writes an article about an article from the Financial Times.

One of the opening lines from the FT is "All we do know is that the company, headed by Matthew Pauker, has raised more than $116m worth of venture funding"

There are no facts, no quotes from anyone from 21 or anyone who has a bleeding clue.

Their guesswork sounds like a pretty dumb idea. It's worth calling it a dumb idea if the people they're guessing about actually confirm it.

Exactly. Everyone in this thread (and the other recent one) is arguing over a Financial Times writer's speculation about what 21 Inc. might do, based on almost no evidence. That writer just happened to phrase her speculation in such a self-assured way that a writer for The Register thought she was actually reporting facts.

Here's how it happened. This in the Financial Times:

Quote

All we do know is that the company, headed by Matthew Pauker, has raised more than $116m worth of venture funding

Became this in The Register:

Quote

But the Financial Times tells us that that is not the plan. And this was published on April 30, not 1.

The core business plan it turns out will be embedding ASIC bitcoin mining chips into everyday devices like USB battery chargers, routers, printers, gaming consoles, set-top boxes and — the piece de resistance — chipsets to be used by Internet of Stuff devices.

And now people think it's a fact. It's simply a reporter's idle speculation reported as fact by another reporter. It may be an interesting idea, but it has nothing to do with any released plan by 21 Inc.

So, the “ASICs for everyone” idea came from the The Register author? How did they come up with it, anyway?

gentlemand

legendary

Activity: 2590

Merit: 3015

Welt Am Draht

Quote from: SebastianJu on May 08, 2015, 08:10:49 AM

Overall i cant believe that they got so many investments. Is there a trick behind or was the idea simply so convincing?

It's moronic speculative twaddle. We still know nothing about 21's plans.

NUFCrichard

legendary

Activity: 1218

Merit: 1003

It does sound like a mine field to me. On the one hand, they need to put ASICs in everyday electronics, do I then get the electronic cheaper as they will profit from my mining, or does it cost more, because of the chip inside? If it's cheaper, can I just remove the ASIC and have a cheap electronic?

Is it going to work through mobile internet or WLAN? Do you trust foreign objects using your WLAN that you can't control?

Will 21 inc only sell to places that have cheap electricity, or are they happy to mine at a loss as long as I am paying for the electricity?
Do I need to sign a contract with them for a toaster/microwave/kettle? Will it only mine when in active use, or whenever it is plugged in?

Lots of questions, they could all have elegant answers, but I will be surprised if it works well!

SebastianJu

legendary

Activity: 2674

Merit: 1083

Legendary Escrow Service - Tip Jar in Profile

I dont see this succeeding. Those miners wont be very effective because they arent build as sole miners and you have to make compromises which will lower hashrate.

Next thing is... they want to make the product cheaper because the seller will get part of the profit? So will the seller give you a contract that you have to have the device enabled for the next month? He cant make sure that the miners will run so he wont make a sure profit.

Saying that... these chips arent cheap too. They have to be used effectively.

And next thing is the power cost that most buyers wont take into account.

Overall i cant believe that they got so many investments. Is there a trick behind or was the idea simply so convincing?

Troonetpt

sr. member

Activity: 322

Merit: 250

No matter how they can produce low cost ASIC, the result is the same.
If we can produce low cost ASIC and can embed it into everyday devices, the cost much be very very low.
And if i want make profit from mining, i have to and i could buy lots of asic miner, the hashrate will rise to make the everyday devices hardly to mine any bitcoin.

Zangelbert Bingledack

legendary

Activity: 1036

Merit: 1000

Quote from: gentlemand on May 07, 2015, 12:22:29 PM

So The Register writes an article about an article from the Financial Times.

One of the opening lines from the FT is "All we do know is that the company, headed by Matthew Pauker, has raised more than $116m worth of venture funding"

There are no facts, no quotes from anyone from 21 or anyone who has a bleeding clue.

Their guesswork sounds like a pretty dumb idea. It's worth calling it a dumb idea if the people they're guessing about actually confirm it.

Exactly. Everyone in this thread (and the other recent one) is arguing over a Financial Times writer's speculation about what 21 Inc. might do, based on almost no evidence. That writer just happened to phrase her speculation in such a self-assured way that a writer for The Register thought she was actually reporting facts.

Here's how it happened. This in the Financial Times:

Quote

All we do know is that the company, headed by Matthew Pauker, has raised more than $116m worth of venture funding

Became this in The Register:

Quote

But the Financial Times tells us that that is not the plan. And this was published on April 30, not 1.

The core business plan it turns out will be embedding ASIC bitcoin mining chips into everyday devices like USB battery chargers, routers, printers, gaming consoles, set-top boxes and — the piece de resistance — chipsets to be used by Internet of Stuff devices.

And now people think it's a fact. It's simply a reporter's idle speculation reported as fact by another reporter. It may be an interesting idea, but it has nothing to do with any released plan by 21 Inc.

louise123

sr. member

Activity: 462

Merit: 250

Quote from: NattyLiteCoin on May 07, 2015, 03:59:52 PM

I don't know why everyone's hung up heating shit is even in the discussion. I doubt the intent is to integrate a 2Th/s miner in a fuckin' toaster, moreso a collection of 20GH/s devices in multiple appliances in households across the world. Imagine living in a world where literally every one of your neighbors and friends is contributing to the security of the BTC network and not even thinking about it.

I'm for this. I really hope this happens.

I can most certainly imagine that.
We the consumers contribute to keeping the Bitcoin network secure and 21 Inc's pockets full.
Hmm, I think I 'll pass.

Topic: It's Happening .... The secrets of 21 inc revealed, and its what we hoped for. - page 6. (Read 11643 times)