fungus among us
I think your right,left nut
Topic: The last month is among us.. (Read 12183 times)
Yes. I hope on buying a former mining GPU for cheap. I plan to use it for it's intended purpose of gaming.
I'm still a bit skeptical if BFL is really going to ship... They have been pushing back and delaying a lot. Just my opinion.
fungus among us
yeah, i will mine litecoin, but for bitcoin i suppose it's gg by then
the bitcoin algorithm can be switched
in some scenarios, sha-256 ASIC hashing will congregate to a few select players effectively centralizing bitcoin creation within a few months, switching the algorithm can and will currently alleviate that
I have heard the 'centralizing' projection SOOOO many times but have yet to hear a persuasive argument as to what is going to cause said centralisation. Care to elaborate?
It wasn't a serious speculation. It was an obviously thread starter to spur discussion, and anyone who got butt hurt or took it seriously should look up the definition OF speculation.
yeah, i will mine litecoin, but for bitcoin i suppose it's gg by then
the bitcoin algorithm can be switched
in some scenarios, sha-256 ASIC hashing will congregate to a few select players effectively centralizing bitcoin creation within a few months, switching the algorithm can and will currently alleviate that
Scenario: community votes to change Bitcoin to script algorithms, rendering ASICS useless... all ASICs get sold out to the community, community votes to switch back to SHA. with the ASICS being cheap and decentralized.
Not gonna happen, but interesting thought
yeah, i will mine litecoin, but for bitcoin i suppose it's gg by then
what do we mean by 'gg' ?
Good Game.
OP was so wrong its hilarious.
yeah, i will mine litecoin, but for bitcoin i suppose it's gg by then
what do we mean by 'gg' ?
yeah, i will mine litecoin, but for bitcoin i suppose it's gg by then
the bitcoin algorithm can be switched
in some scenarios, sha-256 ASIC hashing will congregate to a few select players effectively centralizing bitcoin creation within a few months, switching the algorithm can and will currently alleviate that
yeah, i will mine litecoin, but for bitcoin i suppose it's gg by then
nah, we still have at least all the summer, then it's gg for sure
Have ever heard of scrypt?
nah, we still have at least all the summer, then it's gg for sure
For GPU miners, we have our last month of profitability on the menu.
that was wrong
LAWL
Maybe he lives in Bhutan[1] or some other subsidized country.
[1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electricity_pricing#Global_electricity_price_comparison
[1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electricity_pricing#Global_electricity_price_comparison
According to that page, electricity in the country called "United States" is between 8 and 17 cents per kW/h.
I guess you better let them know about your good deal.
Is that 2 cents per kWh the price of maintaining an extension cord from your neighbor's outdoor outlet to your house?
Maybe he lives in Bhutan[1] or some other subsidized country.
[1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electricity_pricing#Global_electricity_price_comparison
[1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electricity_pricing#Global_electricity_price_comparison
I calculate profitability after the split with my GPUs,
You would be in the extreme minority then.
What do you pay for electricity?
I ran the numbers and find that about $0.11 per kWh is breakeven on the most efficient GPU configurations. So unless you are paying like $0.07 per kWh or less there's no point in GPU mining after block 210,000 (unless difficulty takes a dive from other GPU miners dropping out).
I pay only $.023 per kWh, and that's set to be the peak power in the middle of winter. So I'll continue mining with my 7970s
Nice to live in the boonies with cheap power How does that work? You live in the "boonies" but putting miles of electric lines out to your neck of the woods makes electricity literally dirt cheap for you?
2 cents per kWh would put you off the charts. Are you sure that price includes generation & transmission fee as well? That's usually the other 50% of your per kWh cost.
If it's really 2 cents per kWh you could have a drafty house, turn the A/C down to 70, and still pay just $100 a month for electricity. Talk about negative incentive to be energy efficient!
I think I'd leave my fridge open if electricity were that cheap...
Anyhow, pics (scan of your last elec bill -- go ahead and black out your name, etc.) or I call BS.
I calculate profitability after the split with my GPUs,
You would be in the extreme minority then.
What do you pay for electricity?
I ran the numbers and find that about $0.11 per kWh is breakeven on the most efficient GPU configurations. So unless you are paying like $0.07 per kWh or less there's no point in GPU mining after block 210,000 (unless difficulty takes a dive from other GPU miners dropping out).
I pay only $.023 per kWh, and that's set to be the peak power in the middle of winter. So I'll continue mining with my 7970s
Nice to live in the boonies with cheap power 
I'm sorry, but no, he is not even one iota correct, except by the most abstract approach to viewing the world. One does not just get to play semantic equivocation with definitions for no reason. This is why I asked snidely if he was a plant. As a plant, CarbonDioxide is your fuel, and Oxygen is your waste product. However, unless some things have changed, most plants do not get on the internet and make stupid little posts about coal power and post pretty and inane pictures. We are humans, and we view things from an anthrocentric perspective, and that is how we define things.
Humans are perfectly capable of taking other views, for a example a more general view, like that of "earth". With such a perspective "waste" would certainly mean something different (the definition might be the same: maybe "something of no use to someone". So for a human, CO2 can be "waste", for the earth it certainly isn't. The "waste" of earth might be the radiation it is dissipating or the odd piece of man-made machinery that manages to leave its orbit.
Of course we are capable, but we do not do so on an every day basis, so as to undermine the foundations of our basic communications. If we had to rewrite the definition of the words we used every time we had a conversation in order to accept every and all viewpoints everyone brought to the table, communication would be literally impossible (or at least improbable/burdensome).
Excepting specific case-by-case basis where there is a NEED to use common terminology in an unaccepted way, to make useful conversation we are constrained, this is why we agree to use certain words in specific ways. In the case of this thread the concept of redefining waste because it does not apply to plants is stupid and only done to serve the purpose of those who are either trolling, or for some reason seriously believe dumping toxic (to humans I now have to define) gases in unlimited quantities into our atmosphere is at worst a neutral event, and feel that "waste" is a negative propaganda term.
I still question why you would defend this viewpoint. As you mentioned yourself earlier, by viewing "waste" either as "something which is not useful to someone", or as "something which not useful to anyone", you make the word worthless, as it now applies to everything, or nothing, respectively.
...humans breathe out CO2, and Plants metabolize it...
I love this discussion process. I just went to do a little research to get my facts straight before criticising those who were saying plants metabolise CO2 only to find my idea of metabolism was erroneous 
I had been assuming the releasing of energy through the breakdown of sugars with Oxygen was metabolism whereas photosynthesis, being the creation of sugars from energy and CO2 was not metabloism. I discover instead both are metabolic processes, the former being catabolic (desctructive) metabolism and the latter anabolic (creative) metabolism. Awesome Many people assume plants only use CO2 and through photosynthesis turn it into Oxygen whilst we animals respire turning Oxygen back into CO2. The point I wanted to make is that plants also respire, that they use the energy of the sun to provide them with the sugars and oxygen they need to respire. The Oxygen released is that which is surplus to the plant's own requirements.
But reading the comments I'd intended to correct I find there was no such misconception evident there. That 'plants metabolize CO2' is, I now understand, correct
Thank you! +1Learning is cool
Jump to: