Topic: Please Read!! Help Stop This Madness. - page 2. (Read 7683 times)

Are you assuming a constant rate of BTC/TH or BTC/PH?
Thats the beginners mistake, as long as difficulty increases you will have a decline. And 20PH for 108M? Now, lemme se, where do you get 20PH for $108M? Or 20GH for $108, or 0.18GH/$ or 5.55$/GH.
Yeah, thats what you get on pre orders. And checking mining calculators like genesisblock those devices might, or might not, ROI. And given that current devices, and lets face it, 90%+ of current hasing power comes from asics, the devices in use currently are mostly first gen asics. Only the early orders are gonna ROI. Quite a couple of people are gonna have to pay for the privilege of mining.
But thats actually pretty irrelevant, since the mining industy will obviously converge towards the profit generated from mining. If mining equipment generates money out of nothing you buy it. If it generates less than you pay for it, you dont. The only mining equipment that still has a chance of profiting is pre orders, which is basicly the same as gambling. The size of the hardware mining industy is pretty excactly the same as the profit generated from mining. Yes, things are that simple at times.

Fundamentally, you are trying to argue in favor of Austrian economic theory in a school for Keynesian theory. It's the economics equivalent of an evolutionist going to a Catholic school and trying to convince them that creationism is wrong. Don't risk failing your project because you are sticking to your guns. Worse case scenario is that your professors don't think you've learned anything in four years of school and think you shouldn't get your degree.

I was talking about the cost of miners , and not electricity.
Compare the first avalons with the knc miners and with the cointerra version
The price of getting the equal amount of hash the network has is dropping each month.

Also please let me know how much PH will that 108M/month buy. Around 20PH? 3 times more than we have?

Whether this guy is right or wrong, you are paying to learn from your profs.  Obviously, they didn't have bitcoin when they got their degrees.  Study something else to get the most education for your coin    

Energy efficiency isnt the issue here. Its the bitcoins being generated by mining. 25 per block every roughly ten minutes. Or, in numbers 25BTC/block*6 blocks/hour*24hours/day*30days/months. Thus 108K BTC/month.
And yeah, sorry, that $7.2M/month was an old figure, checked an old version of a spreadsheat. The current numbers are far worse.
So basicly, since the network generates those 108K BTC (or, at current rates ~$108M) per month and most mining hardware barely breaks even nowadays even at those extremely high bitcoin prices its pretty fair to assume that this is the real cost is run the network.

Or to increase efficiency of mining , we already see cost per GH dropping to 5$ form 100 in the past.
And where did you get that 7.2 M/Month?

Thats a very good way of putting it.
And to answer the questions. It has to be sustainable. At current rates the maintance costs are $7.2M/month. Thats 25 BTC/block at block/10 minutes with BTC at ~$1K. In the long term the transaction fees have to pay the maintance cost, since no more BTC are "printed" or "mined" or however you want to call it.
The income from transactions fees is still very low, not enough to maintain the network at current rates by far. The options are either to increase transaction volume by a large amount in the mid term or reduce the amount of miners, thus decreasing overall security.

And the most important question that you somehow left out of consideration here is what does this all have to do with economics?

1) How exactly being deflationary would cause it to fail?
    Is that according to some economic theory for currency?
    Whatever that theory is - it does not apply.
    Explanation: https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Deflationary_spiral

2) Yes, most people hoard, but some spend.
    Those who spend are enough to gave it growth.
    Being able to transfer value electronically, creates market by itself

3) 80k transactions a day is hardly "nothing"
    Not Mainstream=Not real -> It is correct for "standard" currency.
    But Bitcoin is not standard, it is not "default" currency of any state
    Therefore, requirement of being "mainstream" does not apply.

In general, it would seem that your professors are applying the same conditions to Bitcoin as to "government issued" currency.
It is not. And because it is not, most of current economic theories, regarding currencies, do not apply to Bitcoin.
I think the word "currency" triggers a set of prejudice limitations in their heads.
I would rather use "electronic value storage and transfer system" instead of currency.
That would instantly nullify their "growth", "adaptation", "deflation" claims.
Because how do these claims apply to the "electronic value storage and transfer system" (EVSTS) as opposed to "currency"?
Does the EVSTS need to be mainstream to succeed?
Does the EVSTS need to grow to succeed?
Does the EVSTS need all of its members sending money all the time?

It is not for no reason that economics is known as the dismal science.

Recently i read the reason why economic teachers are among the highest paid ones among the academic society. Because we want them to stay on campus. 

No offense , but this one was better

I think is thread has derailed a bit. We went from madness to some economical arguments , jokes and now this.
Tend to agree to your post , but the fact that was I guess pointed is that there is something you can do other that trade with bitcoins and it can't be with some alt coins.
Which altcoins , there are too many for me right now to understand which is better and which is a failure.

A group of economists was hiking in the Alps. After several hours they became hopelessly lost. One of them studied the map for some time, turning it up and down, sighting distant landmarks, consulting his compass and the sun's location for that time of day. Finally he said, "OK, see that big mountain over there?"

"Yes," answered the others eagerly.

"Well, according to this map, we're standing on top of it."

Actually, in real life it makes no significant difference. There is infinity between 1 and 0 (especially if you try to calculate how many times one is bigger than zero), but if you need a million there's not much difference between them though...

And then the deer went to a bank and got a new mortgage.

Three economists went out hunting and came across a large deer. The first economist fired, but missed, by a meter to the left. The second economist fired, but also missed, by a meter to the right. The third economist didn't fire, but shouted in triumph, "We got it! We got it!"

I wish I could go on and  live that long.

We could debate this till the end of the world, I suggest we take a rest