sdifox
No Lifer
- Sep 30, 2005
- 94,968
- 15,106
- 126
He forgot the key detail, with grant moneyLOL you still remember
Cappuccino
Diamond Member
- Feb 27, 2013
- 4,027
- 726
- 126
pete6032
Diamond Member
- Dec 3, 2010
- 7,473
- 3,025
- 136
pete6032
Diamond Member
- Dec 3, 2010
- 7,473
- 3,025
- 136
VirtualLarry
No Lifer
- Aug 25, 2001
- 56,327
- 10,035
- 126
VirtualLarry
No Lifer
- Aug 25, 2001
- 56,327
- 10,035
- 126
That's... a bit of an extreme comparison.Good job, brah. You paid $320 for a ~$150 card.
I remember RX 470 4GB cards hitting as low as $150 new on Newegg. I tried snagging several, at least three different times, finally got two (one for me, one for a friend).
That was a fire-sale though, because they were phasing out the 470, and bringing out the 570.
I assuming that prices on current-model cards will drop at retail, when any next-gen cards come out (in the same price or performance category).
SKORPI0
Lifer
- Jan 18, 2000
- 18,406
- 2,309
- 136
VirtualLarry
No Lifer
- Aug 25, 2001
- 56,327
- 10,035
- 126
destrekor
Lifer
- Nov 18, 2005
- 28,799
- 359
- 126
The author is quite the reductivist. He may well be right but it has to be understood that something like Proof of Work (PoW) is not a permanent fixture. I don't doubt that BTC may very well adopt Proof of Stake (PoS) or something similar once mining stops. And even if they don't, when we reach the maximum limit in BTC, introducing a permanent deflationary state, the mathematical/financial theories nearly ensure value of individual units of the asset become more valuable due to the scarcity factor (so long as the asset is still valued in some fashion, something I assume to be true, at least for this argument). So long as the asset value rises, fee returns will grow as well.
Due to the cost/reward factor once no more coin is generated, the number of mining operations will dwindle and difficulty variable will drop as a result of reduced computational activity on the blockchain. The overall computational load would eventually reach an equilibrium where those miners that stay will eventually see a positive return for their service while many others may flee due to a net negative return. While it may be unfortunate that that most likely results in mining consolidation, it has been witnessed in the past that when any single miner -- or singular entity operating as a pool of miners -- gets dangerously close to a 51% majority of computational shares, the miner community responds to quickly avert the threat due to the very risk that poses to the entire blockchain. I'd expect that as the mining load drops and some entities start consolidating the total amount of shares, other entities will respond in earnest.
But I also strongly expect, perhaps hope, that the developers will begin to start pushing to move on from PoW as the core metric. Whatever they get will surely help give Bitcoin a chance to stick around for the long haul, so long as it's not PoW till the end. The instinctual hunch is to assume the major mining players and pools will fight any such change from what currently exists, but there will come a time where it may very well mean the death of the entire Bitcoin project if they remain the course and that may scare enough miners to vote for change so that their current holdings don't tank in the future. Protecting their own investment may very well scare enough miners to seemingly vote against their own interests, but that's only considering one aspect of their overall interests.
Personally, I think I'm more a fan of Proof of Importance (PoI) over PoS, but it remains possible to convince me otherwise. No matter what, PoW has no long-term opportunity for survival. Until there is free power from something like fusion.
DrMrLordX
Lifer
- Apr 27, 2000
- 21,620
- 10,830
- 136
One wonders how much he/she/it knows about all the other blockchain/crypto projects out there. The article makes it sound like very little.
SKORPI0
Lifer
- Jan 18, 2000
- 18,406
- 2,309
- 136
Yep. Right now cryptocoins and blockchain are mysterious new technologies that naive investors are treating as magic and "the next Amazon or Google"
Once they understand that bitcoin is more of an early and flawed proof of concept like Alta Vista than the dominant implementation of Google the "value through scarcity" idea could completely fall apart. There is no technical reason to prefer bitcoin over any new and easily created coin.
destrekor
Lifer
- Nov 18, 2005
- 28,799
- 359
- 126
While that is a big assumption on my part for the argument, there's a point that needs to be in focus: the whole basis of the article does not discuss a bubble, nor did I. Whether it's a bubble or not has nothing to do with the fundamentals of Bitcoin itself or of the author's argument. It's all about economic theory and what happens next for Bitcoin assuming everything else stays the same. The total market variable isn't discussed because that's a dynamic that cannot be neatly discussed like what happens when no more BTC is generated during mining.
destrekor
Lifer
- Nov 18, 2005
- 28,799
- 359
- 126
Now this, this is the more likely outcome. What happens once we reach BTC's final scarcity situation is unlikely to be the decisive factor for Bitcoin. Unless Bitcoin undergoes some significant code changes, it's just not a strong candidate for long-term success.
Which is why I laid out the fact that blockchains aren't static - they can be adjusted, forked, etc. An entire code swap is possible, like NEM, where the blockchain development code is switching from Java to C++. Just like how Ethereum has a plan to switch from PoW to PoS. PoW is the biggest limitation to any blockchain, it's not a solution that is workable for the long-haul. The theory of PoW is beautiful, but I think it was unpredictable that it would become the monster that it is today or threatens to become tomorrow.
If Bitcoin exists solely as a hedge or speculative investment vehicle, I don't think it survives. It may for some time as solely that, but outside of the PoW cost, it wouldn't have a natural value. As long as Bitcoin has utility, it can survive as a speculative asset, assuming there are changes to the algos and/or they move away entirely from PoW, as otherwise I agree that it is unworkable as a long-term solution.
DrMrLordX
Lifer
- Apr 27, 2000
- 21,620
- 10,830
- 136
Yeah, figures. He likely knows a lot less than he thinks.
Exactly. Makes me wonder why anyone would even bother contemplating the moment when Bitcoin will mine out nothing, when the greater questions are about its long-term technical feasibility as a unit of cryptocurrency. With so many other projects doing more than Bitcoin and doing a better job of it, who really cares about Bitcoin's "maximum moment"?
My new favorite website:
https://www.stateofthedapps.com/
Most dApps are in progress to varying degrees, while others are proof-of-concept. Also there are a ton of CryptoKitty-type collectible card dApps (including some NSFW ones) and a lot of junk apps (like in any app store), but still interesting to see what's being developed.
https://www.stateofthedapps.com/
Most dApps are in progress to varying degrees, while others are proof-of-concept. Also there are a ton of CryptoKitty-type collectible card dApps (including some NSFW ones) and a lot of junk apps (like in any app store), but still interesting to see what's being developed.
ultimatebob
Lifer
- Jul 1, 2001
- 25,135
- 2,445
- 126
It looked interesting... right up to the point where I got the security warning for installing the MetaMask browser plugin.
Umm... after all of the warnings that I've seen about keeping your Etherium keys private and offline, that plugin just seems like a REALLY BAD idea.
I don't know how secure it is, I assume it's doing the encryption/decryption locally like MEW/MyCrypto do, however I don't keep any significant amount of ether in MetaMask. Primarily I've used it for CryptoKitties (not playing that anymore) and EtherDelta. If there are any other dApps I find that I want to use I'll probably use it for that.
It's ideal to have a mix of cold storage and hot wallets if you aren't a pure HODLer/speculator. There are definitely a large number of phishing sites and Twitter accounts targeting MetaMask, though, so it's wise to be wary.
Red Storm
Lifer
- Oct 2, 2005
- 14,233
- 234
- 106
Interesting thought occurred to me the other day. If two crypto companies have their own token, and one company buys the other, what happens to the tokens (and subsequently, the holders of those tokens) for the company that got bought? I guess if they use the same platform (like ETH) it wouldn't be so hard to change the tokens into one or something, but what if they run on different platforms?
Not really expecting an answer to that question here, but it is interesting to think about crypto becoming mainstream and buyouts and mergers between companies.
Not really expecting an answer to that question here, but it is interesting to think about crypto becoming mainstream and buyouts and mergers between companies.
VirtualLarry
No Lifer
- Aug 25, 2001
- 56,327
- 10,035
- 126
ultimatebob
Lifer
- Jul 1, 2001
- 25,135
- 2,445
- 126
I get disappointed every time I see a story like this, because every new mining operation that gets set up means that it's going to become that much tougher for everyone else to make a profit mining Bitcoin.
We're soon going to get to the point where you'll need to steal your electricity for it to be profitable. I'm sure that the power companies are going to LOVE that.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 9K
-
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 7K
-
Facebook
Twitter