I see a nice drop in the last few days:
http://bitcoin.sipa.be/speed-lin-10k.png
Or is that deepbit being offline? Website is down, no idea about the mining. Anyone can confirm?
Ente
Topic: Three days out, and network hashrate unaffected? - page 2. (Read 7211 times)
I think it's hard to let go... It definitely will be for me too when ASIC kill my FPGAs (speculation x12.5 higher difficulty makes them unprofitable and ASIC brings x40 MH/W so I expect atleast x40 difficulty!)
Or, you know most bitcoiners don't sit and watch their rigs 24/7 So they aren't in a rush to turn them off instantly. The ones switching to alt chains did it before the drop. Most are taking a wait and see and going for what they can get before asics hit.
We'll maybe the traders are really good at math and the price of bitcoin has the reward halving included in it? Maybe our awesome summer profits was a pre block halving bonus that will only happen every four years. And scraping by is the norm.
Several miners have used that phrase "playing chicken".
Yes, playing chicken -- with a train.
You have to get off the road when you get close to that train (ASICs) anyhow, so why not get off a month or so early, and reclaim the space (quiet, money, etc.) used by the mining operation?
Yes, playing chicken -- with a train.
You have to get off the road when you get close to that train (ASICs) anyhow, so why not get off a month or so early, and reclaim the space (quiet, money, etc.) used by the mining operation?
I will react to it when the first ASIC is verified and out in the wild. When and if.
Ente
* ckolivas can't resist saying
Choo choo
Yes I agree the train is coming. I guess we will really see how bad people's math is soon enough!
the reason people aren't stopping is they suck at math. We had our net income cut in half not profits! So people may have been making 20 dollars a day and now think, I'm only making 10 dollars a day when it reality its more like $5. They also are not figuring in their hardware is losing value about as fast as they are making money. They are also a few people like me who are playing chicken. But at this point I think I'm close to done. Maybe I can beat the fire sales to ebay.
i don't think the hashrate will ever drop.
people still want a piece of the pie -
however small that is.
they are all chasing a possibility, a probability -
a chance
for the same reason people have mined gold at a loss -
for centuries.
i don't think the hashrate will ever drop.
people still want a piece of the pie -
however small that is.
they are all chasing a possibility, a probability -
a chance
for the same reason people have mined gold at a loss -
for centuries.
Several miners have used that phrase "playing chicken".
Yes, playing chicken -- with a train.
You have to get off the road when you get close to that train (ASICs) anyhow, so why not get off a month or so early, and reclaim the space (quiet, money, etc.) used by the mining operation?
the reason people aren't stopping is they suck at math. We had our net income cut in half not profits! So people may have been making 20 dollars a day and now think, I'm only making 10 dollars a day when it reality its more like $5. They also are not figuring in their hardware is losing value about as fast as they are making money. They are also a few people like me who are playing chicken. But at this point I think I'm close to done. Maybe I can beat the fire sales to ebay.
i don't think the hashrate will ever drop.
people still want a piece of the pie -
however small that is.
they are all chasing a possibility, a probability -
a chance
for the same reason people have mined gold at a loss -
for centuries.
i don't think the hashrate will ever drop.
people still want a piece of the pie -
however small that is.
they are all chasing a possibility, a probability -
a chance
for the same reason people have mined gold at a loss -
for centuries.
i don't think the hashrate will ever drop.
people still want a piece of the pie -
however small that is.
they are all chasing a possibility, a probability -
a chance
for the same reason people have mined gold at a loss -
for centuries.
I'm curious if any one knows how long it will take to show a hash rate drop if indeed there is one.
That's quite a good question. Basically, if the change is greater than your upper or less than your lower confidence interval bounds, then you can say the network hashrate has changed by at least the amount it exceeds the upper or lower bounds, with such - and - such confidence.Your choice of confidence interval directly determines how large the the upper and lower bounds are, and how long it takes to reduce them.
I'll post an example when I can.
I'm curious if any one knows how long it will take to show a hash rate drop if indeed there is one.
I think there are some people legitimately shutting down but I think there's *just* been a lot of talk, perhaps to convince others to do the same?
I think there's a bit of a game of chicken going on now.
If others shut down I won't have (Halve) to...
Also you could buy BTC OR you could make them at the cost of electricity.
Maybe it is a good thing people are so optimistic about BTC prices that they are willing to mine at a loss?
But adding hardware to network at a loss? that's just crazy.
I think there are some people legitimately shutting down but I think there's *just* been a lot of talk, perhaps to convince others to do the same?
I think there's a bit of a game of chicken going on now.
If others shut down I won't have (Halve) to...
Also you could buy BTC OR you could make them at the cost of electricity.
Maybe it is a good thing people are so optimistic about BTC prices that they are willing to mine at a loss?
But adding hardware to network at a loss? that's just crazy.
I agree with your mathematics and reasoning, but still...
With variance like that, who needs people adding more capacity to the network?
With variance like that, who needs people adding more capacity to the network?
Sorry, I don't follow. Did you mean "who knows if more people are adding capacity to the network"?
I was paraphrasing the saying, "With friends like this, who needs enemies?"
In other words, a 5% diff increase is pretty significant, especially when margins are razor thin. It doesn't really matter WHY it happened, even if it's raw chance.
If variance can jack up difficulty by 5%, it doesn't matter that no one is adding capacity.
I find it odd that variance isn't just-so-happening to bring the total hashrate DOWN, even though several people have stated their rigs are now silent.
I personally took 5 GH/s off the network several days ago, and others have done the same.
Ok. I think you were misunderstanding me. When the 95% confidence interval is included, if difficulty goes up by say 4%, this could be the result of:
* no change in network hashrate, and all due to variance (network was "lucky")
* a 4% increase in hashrate and average luck
* an 8% increase with really poor luck.
* a 0.6% decrease in hashrate with really good luck.
All it means is that we can't know if the network is stable, decreasing a little, increasing or really increasing hashrate. The network hashrate is just not a very accurate indicator of what miners are doing in the short term.
Perhaps an analogy might help. When mining on vardiff at say 15SPM the variance over a day is low, but per hour your hashrate bounces all over the place since you aren't sending in solutions very often. The network is receiving solutions at the rate of 0.1 per minute, so the hashrate is going to have even more variance.
It evens out in the long run, it's just more of an issue for miners now that most are mining on very thin margins.
I agree with your mathematics and reasoning, but still...
With variance like that, who needs people adding more capacity to the network?
With variance like that, who needs people adding more capacity to the network?
Sorry, I don't follow. Did you mean "who knows if more people are adding capacity to the network"?
I was paraphrasing the saying, "With friends like this, who needs enemies?"
In other words, a 5% diff increase is pretty significant, especially when margins are razor thin. It doesn't really matter WHY it happened, even if it's raw chance.
If variance can jack up difficulty by 5%, it doesn't matter that no one is adding capacity.
I find it odd that variance isn't just-so-happening to bring the total hashrate DOWN, even though several people have stated their rigs are now silent.
I personally took 5 GH/s off the network several days ago, and others have done the same.
Since there's been less than 140 blocks produced in the last 24h, I would say that the hashrate is going down.
I had about 3 GPU rigs running at one point, then it became unprofitable for me, but I still had one rig running in the garage. It went on for months and months, and then one day it just died. And that was the end of the mining for me. Have been thinking about getting some new gear, but at the moment I haven't ordered anything.
I agree with your mathematics and reasoning, but still...
With variance like that, who needs people adding more capacity to the network?
With variance like that, who needs people adding more capacity to the network?
Sorry, I don't follow. Did you mean "who knows if more people are adding capacity to the network"?
organofcorti --
Impressive charts and all, but one can't deny that difficulty is set to rise 4.86% as of the current estimate right now. And we're talking halfway to a reset, which is a pretty accurate reading.
You can't write off a 5% rise in difficulty averaged over 7 days to "variance".
Impressive charts and all, but one can't deny that difficulty is set to rise 4.86% as of the current estimate right now. And we're talking halfway to a reset, which is a pretty accurate reading.
You can't write off a 5% rise in difficulty averaged over 7 days to "variance".
I can.
The 95% confidence interval for 1008 blocks is 0.94 to 1.063. I think you'll find a 5% increase is contained within those limits. Even the difficulty change can be affect by variance - the 95 % confidence interval for the hashrate mean over 2016 blocks is 95.7 to 1.044.
A difficulty change mostly reflects a change in network hashrate, but if the change is in the 95% confidence interval, then we can't be certain that any of that change is due to a change in network hashrate.
I agree with your mathematics and reasoning, but still...
With variance like that, who needs people adding more capacity to the network?
organofcorti --
Impressive charts and all, but one can't deny that difficulty is set to rise 4.86% as of the current estimate right now. And we're talking halfway to a reset, which is a pretty accurate reading.
You can't write off a 5% rise in difficulty averaged over 7 days to "variance".
Impressive charts and all, but one can't deny that difficulty is set to rise 4.86% as of the current estimate right now. And we're talking halfway to a reset, which is a pretty accurate reading.
You can't write off a 5% rise in difficulty averaged over 7 days to "variance".
I can.
The 95% confidence interval for 1008 blocks is 0.94 to 1.063. I think you'll find a 5% increase is contained within those limits. Even the difficulty change can be affected by variance - the 95 % confidence interval for the hashrate mean over 2016 blocks is 0.957 to 1.044.
A difficulty change mostly reflects a change in network hashrate, but if the change is in the 95% confidence interval, then we can't be certain that any of that change is due to a change in network hashrate.
The hashrate is actually increasing, the difficulty is estimated to increase by about 5-6% at the next retarget. Though that estimate seems to be decreasing... People probably haven't turned off yet because they haven't gotten their power bills, or maybe most of the network doesn't pay for their electricity, or maybe they believe in Bitcoin and don't want to leave it just because they wouldn't be profiting.
Jump to: