Topic: rpietila Calling the Bottom - page 10. (Read 45299 times)

He didn't change the content.  The original could be seen HERE.  If a post is edited, the date gets underlined (see pic):



If you hover the mouse pointer over the date, you will see the date of the last edit.  Handy.

Actually, this is a fairly decent point.  

I have NO problem with people (or Bots, if Risto were a Bot, which I tend to doubt  ) making BTC predictions and communicating their predictions on this forum and even getting their predictions wrong - b/c who really fucking knows what is going to happen with bitcoin prices, except for perhaps some Whale manipulator(s), and even probably Whale manipulators have some considerable difficulties knowing whether their attempts at manipulation BTC prices are going to be successful.

Regarding calling the bottom, we gotta go by the date of the OP and the prices on that date, yet I remain quite uncertain whether Risto changed the contents of OP.  Personally, I believe this is a problem with this forum that allows the editing of previous posts, b/c it is much more difficult to pinpoint historically what people said b/c they may have changed the contents of their post(s).  OP  does seem to talk about $340 as a 10x bouncing point, so maybe it remains a little unclear whether Risto was calling $340 as the bottom or the prices on August 15?  

I do NOT really give a flying fuck if Risto got his prediction wrong, but I would be concerned if Risto were to change the contents of his post or the title of this thread  in order to weasle out of his original prediction.  To date, I do NOT really have evidence to establish with any level of confidence that Risto engaged in any such weasling conduct in connection with this calling the bottom prediction or this thread.

He called it at $500 and changed the thread title.  Lame

Just look at the date of OP aug 15 and look what happened on that date.  Big drop to 500 and bounce.

Flash crash didnt happen til aug 18

yes, you're about 2 years late for that.

it would have been profitable 2 or 3 years ago, but right now, even if you hack into all supercomputers simultaneously, you'd barely even make a dent compared to the global hashrate.

Yeah, I also agree with this opinion.

His call was that the bottom would be the $340 low of April 10. He is so far correct. I happen to agree that $340 was the bottom.

I usually don't feed the trolls, but Chuckee, fallllling, antibitcoin... etc. are just littering their excrement all over the place. I figured I'd make a small contribution in trying to keep it in check.

Obvious trolls like you certainly aren't.

Usually I trust him, but no one can be perfect except falliiiing.





joking!

Risto wrong yet again. Does anyone actually take this guy seriously?

If you have a botnet you'll mine something other than a sha256 coin. Not even scrypt, probably some obscure "asic/gpu-proof" coin like ethereum, lol .

Bitcoin botnet mining is not going to net anything substantial even if you don't compare to the other options you have with a botnet. Difficulty is just too insanely high for this to make sense, even if you have access to gpu.

This is probably near zero at the moment, but stories will hang around in the media for decennia.

Somewhere i did read that bitcoin (or crypto at least) is the perfect transfer coin (replacing fiat) into "Third Worlds" like Africa. Transfering fiat to those poor nations is done by using big banks like Westurn Union, they take too much advantage. Imagen how easy crypto coins will set a role in there. All what is needed is a way to turn crypto into fiat over there. People will pick up bitcoins, transfer them, keep a small amount, etc.. if millions will do that then a value like rpietila wrote will be possible, if just the evil twin brothers will sell first.

Every now and again you read a news story about a botnet mining bitcoins. They do not have to pay electricity bills or buy hardware, so they must be able to profit at today's difficulty. What percentage of bitcoins on the market are likely to have been mined by botnets?

Hi   (not that new being a Senior Member thru)

I would say there is some "inertia", hardware that was ordered months ago, produced recently and coming online in the future of today where it's (non) profitability wasn't predicted...there is a sunk cost of hardware that they have no option to try to get back because a total loss of capital is not acceptable. Look to ASICMiner's latest chips for evidence of this. They fizzled because by the time they were released they had no financial incentive left in them. They literally can't produce new chips that are efficient enough, fast enough to stay ahead of the increase in difficulty.  

There is also a silent war of attrition going on...the mining group that has the newest hardware can hold out the longest and will hopefully extend profitability as the competitors shut down old hardware that is losing way too much.

There is also a race to try to produce something more and more efficient...but we are running out in that arena as well.
The most efficient miners on the market are only about twice as efficient as my KNC was last October, the difficulty increase though has gone up a lot more than double.

It is the law of diminishing returns kicking the mining industry in the ass...racing each other to bankruptcy.

Hmm... I miss the newbies

Yeah, I figured you likely did all the math fully several years ago. Just figured I'd use the opportunity to put a little more of it out there explicitly for the benefit of newbies who maybe haven't thought along these lines yet.

Yes, I'm aware. Thanks for pointing that out and for presenting the math. In my defense: I had actually edited the "50%" to "10%", then "~15%". Then I realized people might subconciously associate a "10% chance" with "10-bagger", so I left it at 50%, which is more in line with my expectations ;-). I'm growing increasingly aware of the fact that there exists an enormous suggestive potential "between the lines" and I'm trying to work with that, even if it means making an assertion less strong than it could be made.

It's even more asymmetric than that. If there's >10% chance of a 10x, it makes sense to hold. And that's assuming 90% chance of going to $0.

For example, let's say there's a 20% of 10x, and 80% chance of complete failure:

( 0.20 )( 10 * 660 ) + ( 0.8 )( 0 ) = $1320 + 0 = $1320

That obviously doesn't include opportunity cost or time-value-of-money considerations, but the guts of the bitcoin investment thesis (like many investment theses with longish time-horizons) has always been, and still is, a simple weighted-avg expectation calc on the possible outcomes.

Noone knew how high it would go... you did pretty well I'd say.