Quote from: TPTB_need_war on May 20, 2015, 05:01:28 AM

Quote from: Adrian-x on May 20, 2015, 04:56:23 AM

Quote from: TPTB_need_war on May 20, 2015, 04:51:01 AM

Quote from: Adrian-x on May 20, 2015, 04:49:16 AM

Quote from: TPTB_need_war on May 20, 2015, 04:40:24 AM

Quote from: Adrian-x on May 20, 2015, 04:35:57 AM

Quote from: TPTB_need_war on May 20, 2015, 04:26:57 AM

Quote from: smooth on May 20, 2015, 01:11:32 AM

Quote from: TPTB_need_war on May 20, 2015, 01:05:42 AM

His question was not asking about energy efficiency, but rather what is the holistic point of it all. And he is correct that the energy efficiency is scam. The real goal is enslavement of the developing world by loaning a smartphone in exchange for unnoticed electricity usage.

His question was exactly efficiency. I answered both with respect to energy efficiency (much better than the best ASICs as currently deployed, given effectively free electricity) and overall efficiency (likely also, since the chips will likely be very cheap). If I recall correctly I also said I didn't think it was a particularly good idea, regardless of efficiency.

He didn't ask about Larry Summers, etc. That's fair game for you be interested in talking about, but not what he asked.

Quote from: phoenix1 on May 19, 2015, 10:38:32 PM

Is it possible for a toaster/phone + mining chip to be as/more efficient than the best ASIC's on the market, and if it is not, how can this be a cost-efficient way to mine?

Cropping what he wrote doesn't help you. It is clear to me he was asking what the overall economic point is, and he introduced energy efficiency as one of the aspects that doesn't give him a holistic understanding. If you then argue that efficiency is improved in irrelevant and insignificant markets, you create holistic myopia instead of understanding.

Larry Summers participation is irrelevant to whether there is a usage case for the excess heat which makes a significant economic argument. I can't think of one.

That's why we have the halving, the efficiency comes as a byproduct of the protocol. There are no industry's that can not feel a disruption when production costs stay the same and output is halved.

The only ones that will be competitive are the distributed ones with distributed costs.

In that case the price of Bitcoin would plummet, because the efficiency is not registered with the miner and thus they are not a HODLer and rather a seller.

Rather I think you will find there just isn't much interest because there is no significant efficiency gains for the miners and they have opportunity costs on their time, hassle, etc.

This is trying top-down shoehorn something that doesn't fit into a market.

It's the price of bitcoin that driver the energy input needed to secure the value stored on the blockchain it's competition that drives efficiency, utilizing the heat just gives individual miners a relative advantage to be more profitable.

If efficiency a market driven phenomenon causes centralization, that is a reflection of progress, it is not a failure of the protocol. it will still be disrupted every 4 years.

I believe you've missed my point. Users of water heaters don't have an incentive to install these devices.

Just a fiew posts back I gave cypher a reason - free instillation and subsidized electricity (cash in your bank account), to me that's win win.

Sorry I don't have time for that. I will spend $100 on dinner tonight for my guests. Opportunity costs.

Btw, my water heater is already installed. No time to hassle with replacing it just for $50 in monthly Bitcoins that I have to hassle with and figure out how to report on my income taxes, etc..

It isn't my core vocation. I focus on my core vocation of ________ which nets me $4,000+ per month.

Enjoy your dinner, you're describing first world problems, $50 goes a long way in the 3rd world.

:-) Does ________ quality as "digital influencer" it's one of the fiew growth opportunities in the job market at the moment.