How come japan has so much M1 money?! 
6.735 trillion USD ?!
6.735 trillion USD ?!
They have a lot debt.
Debt = money in the fiat world.
Topic: Parity watch -> Who's next? - page 15. (Read 68261 times)
They have a lot debt.
Debt = money in the fiat world.
How come japan has so much M1 money?!
6.735 trillion USD ?!
6.735 trillion USD ?!
Any ETA for when we arrive in the G77, G20?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Group_of_77
Could ask for a "seat at the table" of UN for the lulz ...
or the G-24 ??
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Group_of_24
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Group_of_77
Could ask for a "seat at the table" of UN for the lulz ...
or the G-24 ??
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Group_of_24
Quote
The Group of 24 (G24), a chapter of the G-77, was established in 1971 to coordinate the positions of developing countries on international monetary and development finance issues and to ensure that their interests were adequately represented in negotiations on international monetary matters.
I'm already there representing Bitcoin, don't worry
I'll take a picture on Wednesday.
Any ETA for when we arrive in the G77, G20?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Group_of_77
Could ask for a "seat at the table" of UN for the lulz ...
or the G-24 ??
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Group_of_24
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Group_of_77
Could ask for a "seat at the table" of UN for the lulz ...
or the G-24 ??
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Group_of_24
Quote
The Group of 24 (G24), a chapter of the G-77, was established in 1971 to coordinate the positions of developing countries on international monetary and development finance issues and to ensure that their interests were adequately represented in negotiations on international monetary matters.
YAY quickly skipped Niger, briefly visited Cambodia and Suriname, watching for Laos now
Cambodia
Suriname:
Laos, you are the next stop
Cambodia
Suriname:
Laos, you are the next stop
Laos has been surpassed. You need to update the parity values based on latest number of total coins (10978925 atm)
Looks like we're aiming for Laos now.
So, how many countries have we passed so far?
Update to Cambodia!
What about the idea of comparing transaction volume to other payment processors?
Paypal has a transaction volume of about 16 billion US$ per year.
Bitcoin's current transaction volume is about 300,000 BTC per day. If we assume a market price of 90$ that would add up to about 10 billion US$ per year.
So if Bitcoin usage and price stays at least at the current level then it is already 62% of Paypal.
The parity price for Paypal (assuming transactions stay at least the same) would be:
147$
Of course a significant amount of usage for Bitcoin is exchanging for Fiat currency while Paypal is almost all for goods and services.
Paypal has a transaction volume of about 16 billion US$ per year.
Bitcoin's current transaction volume is about 300,000 BTC per day. If we assume a market price of 90$ that would add up to about 10 billion US$ per year.
So if Bitcoin usage and price stays at least at the current level then it is already 62% of Paypal.
The parity price for Paypal (assuming transactions stay at least the same) would be:
147$
Of course a significant amount of usage for Bitcoin is exchanging for Fiat currency while Paypal is almost all for goods and services.
This is off by an order of magnitude. It is $165 billion USD per year.
oops...
so x10
so parity price would be about 1470$
What about the idea of comparing transaction volume to other payment processors?
Paypal has a transaction volume of about 16 billion US$ per year.
Bitcoin's current transaction volume is about 300,000 BTC per day. If we assume a market price of 90$ that would add up to about 10 billion US$ per year.
So if Bitcoin usage and price stays at least at the current level then it is already 62% of Paypal.
The parity price for Paypal (assuming transactions stay at least the same) would be:
147$
Of course a significant amount of usage for Bitcoin is exchanging for Fiat currency while Paypal is almost all for goods and services.
Paypal has a transaction volume of about 16 billion US$ per year.
Bitcoin's current transaction volume is about 300,000 BTC per day. If we assume a market price of 90$ that would add up to about 10 billion US$ per year.
So if Bitcoin usage and price stays at least at the current level then it is already 62% of Paypal.
The parity price for Paypal (assuming transactions stay at least the same) would be:
147$
Of course a significant amount of usage for Bitcoin is exchanging for Fiat currency while Paypal is almost all for goods and services.
This is off by an order of magnitude. It is $165 billion USD per year.
oops...
so x10
so parity price would be about 1470$
What about the idea of comparing transaction volume to other payment processors?
Paypal has a transaction volume of about 16 billion US$ per year.
Bitcoin's current transaction volume is about 300,000 BTC per day. If we assume a market price of 90$ that would add up to about 10 billion US$ per year.
So if Bitcoin usage and price stays at least at the current level then it is already 62% of Paypal.
The parity price for Paypal (assuming transactions stay at least the same) would be:
147$
Of course a significant amount of usage for Bitcoin is exchanging for Fiat currency while Paypal is almost all for goods and services.
Paypal has a transaction volume of about 16 billion US$ per year.
Bitcoin's current transaction volume is about 300,000 BTC per day. If we assume a market price of 90$ that would add up to about 10 billion US$ per year.
So if Bitcoin usage and price stays at least at the current level then it is already 62% of Paypal.
The parity price for Paypal (assuming transactions stay at least the same) would be:
147$
Of course a significant amount of usage for Bitcoin is exchanging for Fiat currency while Paypal is almost all for goods and services.
This is off by an order of magnitude. It is $165 billion USD per year.
What about the idea of comparing transaction volume to other payment processors?
Paypal has a transaction volume of about 16 billion US$ per year.
Bitcoin's current transaction volume is about 300,000 BTC per day. If we assume a market price of 90$ that would add up to about 10 billion US$ per year.
So if Bitcoin usage and price stays at least at the current level then it is already 62% of Paypal.
The parity price for Paypal (assuming transactions stay at least the same) would be:
147$
Of course a significant amount of usage for Bitcoin is exchanging for Fiat currency while Paypal is almost all for goods and services.
Paypal has a transaction volume of about 16 billion US$ per year.
Bitcoin's current transaction volume is about 300,000 BTC per day. If we assume a market price of 90$ that would add up to about 10 billion US$ per year.
So if Bitcoin usage and price stays at least at the current level then it is already 62% of Paypal.
The parity price for Paypal (assuming transactions stay at least the same) would be:
147$
Of course a significant amount of usage for Bitcoin is exchanging for Fiat currency while Paypal is almost all for goods and services.
A lot of those BTC are change too.
I already selected the statistic from blockchain.info which attempts to subtract out the change sent back to the sender.
What about the idea of comparing transaction volume to other payment processors?
Paypal has a transaction volume of about 16 billion US$ per year.
Bitcoin's current transaction volume is about 300,000 BTC per day. If we assume a market price of 90$ that would add up to about 10 billion US$ per year.
So if Bitcoin usage and price stays at least at the current level then it is already 62% of Paypal.
The parity price for Paypal (assuming transactions stay at least the same) would be:
147$
Of course a significant amount of usage for Bitcoin is exchanging for Fiat currency while Paypal is almost all for goods and services.
Paypal has a transaction volume of about 16 billion US$ per year.
Bitcoin's current transaction volume is about 300,000 BTC per day. If we assume a market price of 90$ that would add up to about 10 billion US$ per year.
So if Bitcoin usage and price stays at least at the current level then it is already 62% of Paypal.
The parity price for Paypal (assuming transactions stay at least the same) would be:
147$
Of course a significant amount of usage for Bitcoin is exchanging for Fiat currency while Paypal is almost all for goods and services.
A lot of those BTC are change too.
What about the idea of comparing transaction volume to other payment processors?
Paypal has a transaction volume of about 16 billion US$ per year.
Bitcoin's current transaction volume is about 300,000 BTC per day. If we assume a market price of 90$ that would add up to about 10 billion US$ per year.
So if Bitcoin usage and price stays at least at the current level then it is already 62% of Paypal.
The parity price for Paypal (assuming transactions stay at least the same) would be:
147$
Of course a significant amount of usage for Bitcoin is exchanging for Fiat currency while Paypal is almost all for goods and services.
Paypal has a transaction volume of about 16 billion US$ per year.
Bitcoin's current transaction volume is about 300,000 BTC per day. If we assume a market price of 90$ that would add up to about 10 billion US$ per year.
So if Bitcoin usage and price stays at least at the current level then it is already 62% of Paypal.
The parity price for Paypal (assuming transactions stay at least the same) would be:
147$
Of course a significant amount of usage for Bitcoin is exchanging for Fiat currency while Paypal is almost all for goods and services.
haha: http://rt.com/news/bitcoin-challenge-dollar-currency-121/
this "idea" of comparing bitcoin "market cap" to money floating around in various currencies is making the round.
this "idea" of comparing bitcoin "market cap" to money floating around in various currencies is making the round.
We can never know the true efficiency distribution of all miners, but if you take a straight line from zero to one, on a chart where you display efficiency of all miners, sorted by efficiency, you would get total surface of 0.5, and if you start from an assumption that the most efficient miner is at 0.5, you would get total of 0.75 under the curve. Thus my assumption for total miner efficiency of 0.5 to 0.75. In practice, it could be higher, but if it is lower, it would be a temporary situation.
I think you forget, many people are willing to mine at a loss due to the prospect of long term Bitcoin ownership.
Spend $100 in electricity and get 0.5 BTC, or spend $100 on Bitcoins and get 1.0 BTC. The choice should be obvious. Mining at a loss is never a good (financial) idea.
I should have been more clear. I meant a loss after the cost of the rig was subtracted.
Guys, please let us stay on topic.
Unfortunately electricity is not the only cost of mining. There are many costs associated with it. Some of these are minor (pun not intended), for example:
- Storage
- Tax
- Maintenance
I was just keeping it simple.
However, you are ignoring what is easily the second-greatest cost to mining: hardware depreciation. ASICs are useful for mining and only mining.
I think you misunderstood the main point of my argument, and that is that there is a feedback between bitcoin price and the running cost of all the miners, and that this running cost will tend to a non trivial part of the amount of USD you get when you multiply the price of bitcoin with the awards. I estimated this to be 0.5 to 0.75 of the awards. And this amount of money has to be balanced with the new speculative investments for the price to be stable.
Modeling a lifetime of a single ASIC is a more complicated way to do it, simply because your less and less efficient miner starts its life with less competition, and then ends it with more. But I am looking only one point in time, and the distribution of costs (electricity and all) of all miners.
And that distribution is the only thing you need for the argument to work. The initial cost of miners, if bought with USD does not effect the price of BTC simply because it does not go trough the exchanges. (If you bought it with BTC, I'm sure a large part of that will get out of BTC at some point)
This is how you construct the picture. Take the cost of running each miner in BTC per BTC mined, sort them, lower to higher. The area under that curve is the number we are interested in.
We might get something like this:
Code:
1 x
xxx
xxxxx
xxxxxxxx
0xxxxxxxx
And the idea is that the real distribution tends to something with the properties:
-no miner is free of running costs -> the curve does not start at (0,0), but at (0,x) where x > 0
-the last miner will be marginally profitabile, -> the curve ends at (n,1)
If the price jumps, the curve could temporary look like this:
Code:
1
0xxxxxxxx
But this means that mining is hugely profitable, and market forces will push it in this direction:
Code:
1
0xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
and then the difficulty will adjust:
Code:
1 xxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
0xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
(I took my estimates as lines (0,0.5 to n, 1) -> 0.75, and (0,0 to n,1) -> 0.5.)
However, you are ignoring what is easily the second-greatest cost to mining: hardware depreciation. ASICs are useful for mining and only mining.
A great and overlooked truth, that. It's why I quit mining in August, and went to straight buying.
I sold off my mining equipment by putting together a few awesome gaming machines at very competitive prices, for some people I know who are into that.
Can't do that with ASICs... so I'll let the people who want to go pure pro deal with mining. I'll pick up some little ASIC miner one of these days, when you can actually buy one and get it in a few days - just to support the network - and solo mine for the hell of it. I could get lucky.
This. When ASICS are $1/TH (or whatever they get to when they are on the same process size as top of then line CPUs) I'll be cashing out a few BTC for mining hardware. Until then, I'll run some GPUs in the winter to keep warm and hold any satoshis I can eek out.
However, you are ignoring what is easily the second-greatest cost to mining: hardware depreciation. ASICs are useful for mining and only mining.
A great and overlooked truth, that. It's why I quit mining in August, and went to straight buying.
I sold off my mining equipment by putting together a few awesome gaming machines at very competitive prices, for some people I know who are into that.
Can't do that with ASICs... so I'll let the people who want to go pure pro deal with mining. I'll pick up some little ASIC miner one of these days, when you can actually buy one and get it in a few days - just to support the network - and solo mine for the hell of it. I could get lucky.
Jump to: