Search content
Sort by

Showing 20 of 130 results by bitchess
Post
Topic
Board Beginners & Help
Re: What would you do with 1000$?
by
bitchess
on 24/05/2013, 23:40:01 UTC
Buy two ipad 2s, write an istore mining app, start mining at 2 x .08 Mh/s, spend the rest on beer.
Post
Topic
Board Mining speculation
Re: Post if your GPUs still profitable to operate?
by
bitchess
on 24/05/2013, 23:26:50 UTC
5.5 Gh/s with 7 6990s. $325/month in electricity, about 7.2 BTC gross a month. (~4 BTC profit per month, at current prices.)

nice!  price of those cards probably have spiked with bitcoin.
Post
Topic
Board Beginners & Help
Re: Selling Ripples at Bitmit!
by
bitchess
on 24/05/2013, 23:18:15 UTC
Still selling Ripples head on over to https://www.bitmit.net/en/item/29024-2500-xrp-ripples

Cheapest on the market!

do you work for opencoin?
Post
Topic
Board Beginners & Help
Re: Why such agreement that Deflationary currency is a bad thing
by
bitchess
on 01/05/2013, 14:20:45 UTC
i think it's not so much about "deflationary spiral" as it is about the simple fact that there is going to be significantly less investment in a deflationary economy. every project would have to have an enormous return on investment in order to be feasible

This is completely wrong. the % return is presumably unaffected by this in Real terms. One can be more sure that projects undertaken are likely the right ones because this 'deflationary' currency is not subject to interest rate manipulations of central planners, which likely result in mal-investment due to incorrect signals (i.e. interest rates that do not reflect individual preferences and are therefore unsustainable).

Thinking about the housing bubble as an example. In the absence of a credit-based flexible money supply would it have played out the way it had?  i think the answer is obviously 'no' because 'yes you are right that interest rates probably would have been higher.' 

That's different than saying that there would be less investment!!  Probably capital would have been invested in more useful activities than building McMansions....

imo, the housing bubble was caused by 1. greenspan being overly generous and keeping interest rates too low for too long following the internet bubble burst 2. lack of regulation and craziness in the mortgage market through the early 2000s.  this was in part due to the incorrect credit ratings given to cdos and clos by the ratings agency.
Post
Topic
Board Beginners & Help
Re: Why such agreement that Deflationary currency is a bad thing
by
bitchess
on 01/05/2013, 04:06:15 UTC
(& that action contributes to decreasing overall money supply which propagates a deflationary spiral.)

And that is where I believe you are wrong.  In bitcoin land, paying back a loan does not reduce the supply of money, so there is no deflationary spiral.  In bitcoin land, paying back a loan simply means that those bitcoins are once again available to be loaned out. 

Just plain old deflation, which is good for savers and bad for debtors (the exact opposite of inflation, which is good for debtors and bad for savers).

once you pay back the loan, nobody will take out another loan, based on the preceding argument.  the drying up of all lending activity starts the spiral.

i am assuming that BTC is the only currency that exists.  in the real world, people would just continue to loan in USD, which we trust the banks to keep at stable low inflation rates.

the point of the conversation is to highlight why BTC needs to address the limited supply issue before it will achieve stability and potential to truly become a widespread currency like the dollar.

I think that your assertion is likely how things will develop. The Fiats won't disappear, rather BTC will act as a check on a currently unchecked group of central banks. People will no longer stand for negative savings rates. People will take their loans in fiat and keep their savings in BTC.

If  company wants a loan they certainly won't want it in BTC, they will ask for it in Dollars, Yen etc. The return on investments will be competing with the return on savings (read BTC) just as it always has. This will serve as a winnowing process with the less attractive investments failing to achieve funding. This may also have the effect of reducing the endless phenomenon of recurring bubbles as excess money sloshing around looks for a home. People will flock to a store of value that is much more liquid than gold; BTC.

In the end, BTC won't be the only currency in existence; the likely position of BTC will be to take over a large portion of what economists call M1 - the most liquid portion of the entire money supply.

The only thing is you can apply the same argument against btc spending as you can with btc loans.

Why spend your btc now if you know you can hoard BTC instead while spending fiat?

In the end btc goes into deflationary spiral and explodes to zero even while assuming usd exists.
Post
Topic
Board Hardware
Re: ASICMINER: Erupter Blades. Review, comments, photos, and discussion!
by
bitchess
on 29/04/2013, 23:53:32 UTC
Its silly how much people pay for the Erupter Blades. I don`t support their practice of auctioning everything out either since they know demand is skyhigh. They don`t do it to help people make a good deal since it can never be a good deal. They do it to earn the most money on each Blade.

55 BTC for one Blade is just too much. Thats $7800 in todays price. It will take people about 3 months to just come out even. With BFL shipping units each day, with the many DYI Avalon projects out, its a really big risk.

First, ASICMINER is a business. It is their goal to make money. They aren't twisting our arms for BTC. I trust that soon they will sell their blades at a fixed price. For now they are just trying to acquire as much profit as possible.

Second, the blades are expensive but it is a gamble. I am gambling that I will make more BTC with this blade than I could by ordering from BFL or Avalon. In reality I will likely order from both companies once their shipping times become predictable.

Well I dont care that they are a business. I don`t support their methods. Their actions is created to make a buzz, not to mention high price. They are actually shipping out the blades, I give them that though.

For 8000 USD you could purchase 20 * 7970s, have a hashrate of 15GH/s (4GH/s more than Blades), have the possibility to resell them after you are done with them. Or shift to Litecoins.
With Erupter Blades you are kinda stuck since they can`t be used for Litecoins. Its all or nothing


Understandable on not supporting it, that is fair. 75 BTC didn't seem reasonable after looking at organofcorti's estimates on BTC/day. 45-50 BTC was my cutoff for this auction and I scraped by at 50.5 BTC. The next auction, if it happens in 3-4 weeks, would have a cutoff around 30-35 BTC for myself I suspect.

Re: HD 7970s, I would love to see how you are racking 20 7970s @ $400/GPU. I think 7950s make more sense and even with them you are looking at a minimum of $400/GPU when factoring in MB/CPU/PSU/RAM/risers and something to house this rig. I did the GPU thing(ran a 14-15 GH/s farm for 6 months) and I'm tired of them. I'll run my remaining GPUs into the ground and keep up the hunt for more ASICs. I'm not too concerned about the blades being limited to BTC. If BTC fails I'm confident LTC will fail with it. By the time BTC's difficulty makes the blade a negative earner, I will have replaced it and I am gambling it will have hit ROI at least 2x.


someone's going to start racking ASICs once they start supplying more.  The interesting thing here is trying to determine what comes first

does the increase in BTC value, increase the overall attraction to mining and the rise in difficulty

OR

does the increase in the overall attraction to mining increase the value of BTC
Post
Topic
Board Beginners & Help
Re: Why such agreement that Deflationary currency is a bad thing
by
bitchess
on 29/04/2013, 23:30:53 UTC
 (& that action contributes to decreasing overall money supply which propagates a deflationary spiral.)

And that is where I believe you are wrong.  In bitcoin land, paying back a loan does not reduce the supply of money, so there is no deflationary spiral.  In bitcoin land, paying back a loan simply means that those bitcoins are once again available to be loaned out. 

Just plain old deflation, which is good for savers and bad for debtors (the exact opposite of inflation, which is good for debtors and bad for savers).

once you pay back the loan, nobody will take out another loan, based on the preceding argument.  the drying up of all lending activity starts the spiral.

i am assuming that BTC is the only currency that exists.  in the real world, people would just continue to loan in USD, which we trust the banks to keep at stable low inflation rates.

the point of the conversation is to highlight why BTC needs to address the limited supply issue before it will achieve stability and potential to truly become a widespread currency like the dollar.
Post
Topic
Board Altcoin Discussion
Re: http://ripplescam.org/
by
bitchess
on 29/04/2013, 13:56:49 UTC
Thanks.  The "real values" part is the part that I find not feasible to put in an algorithm but let's see what the future holds.

Your ideas are very well reasoned and elucidated. Again, I encourage you to:
1) Introduce yourself here.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=179918.0

2) Create a new thread that puts forth the ideas you've expounded here. Also, include the parts you think are infeasible. All of us are doing that.

Perhaps an odd combination of each of our ideas will turn out to be feasible. Please put [StableCoin] in the title of your new thread. That way like minded forum users will be able to find it when they search for the topic.

ok I know, I'm talking about a topic that deviates from the thread subject.  My bad...  I'm just responding to responses to prior posts.
Post
Topic
Board Altcoin Discussion
Re: http://ripplescam.org/
by
bitchess
on 29/04/2013, 12:41:41 UTC
The magic number would be correlated with long term real economic growth rate.  Trying to set the money supply growth constant at 2% is likely closer than setting it to 0% yet it has the same flaw that if your number is lower than the observed monetary demand, you will get deflation, if your number is higher you will have built in inflation.

The fractional reserve system allows banks to react to deviations from equilibrium as numbers are observed

If the algo to set money supply growth rate can take in real values of what is transacted on a regular basis then it would solve the problem completely.  Not sure if this is feasible.

i like the way this sounds

+1

Thanks.  The "real values" part is the part that I find not feasible to put in an algorithm but let's see what the future holds.
Post
Topic
Board Hardware
Re: ASICMINER: Erupter Blades. Review, comments, photos, and discussion!
by
bitchess
on 29/04/2013, 12:28:50 UTC
76BTC for 10Gh/s.  At $130/BTC that's $9880.

Or even 40btc for 10Ghps, the most recent auction price.



How many 7970s would you trade for a blade?  

ASICMINER is so smart in auctioning off supply like this.  It really allows them to charge the highest price for these.
Post
Topic
Board Hardware
Re: ASICMINER: Erupter Blades. Review, comments, photos, and discussion!
by
bitchess
on 29/04/2013, 12:16:25 UTC
76BTC for 10Gh/s.  At $130/BTC that's $9880.

Buying 15 7970s would cost around $6150.  Also buying 15 7970s would draw 3750 watts per hour or $13.5/day (at .15 per kW/h).  Running 3750 watts per hour for a year equates to about $4927.5.

Thus buying the blade for $9880 is equivalent to buying 15 7970s and running for over a year.

Of course you wouldn't be able to use the Blade to create 15 separate gaming PCs.


Post
Topic
Board Beginners & Help
Re: Why such agreement that Deflationary currency is a bad thing
by
bitchess
on 29/04/2013, 11:14:29 UTC
...

...If you can't afford one now, what makes you think you can afford two in 24 years?  

....
If you won't be able to afford it in 24 years, how do you plan to pay the loan in the first place?

The definition of getting a loan is you receive not pay money on day 1.  If you expect the value of money to be higher in the future, that means your loan gets exponentially more expensive to pay back.

Also, one thing that I didn't mention is whenever the rate of deflation increases, the value of all your outstanding debt goes up in value accordingly.  What this means is if you already owe $100,000 on your mortgage (perhaps you took out the loan when there was steady inflation).  Then if the environment shifts toward deflation, you find that your wages are going down, buying houses now are much cheaper in nominal terms, eg the resale value of your house is dropping, yet you still owe the same $100,000.  Because of this event, your net worth decreases in real terms.  Furthermore, if you think more deflation is to come, you immediately do everything you can to pay off the loan now.  (& that action contributes to decreasing overall money supply which propagates a deflationary spiral.)

The main point is, in a deflationary environment, it is irrational to take out any loans or leave pre-existing loans outstanding.  In an inflationary environment or exact money stability, loans are ok to initiate or leave open.
Post
Topic
Board Altcoin Discussion
Re: http://ripplescam.org/
by
bitchess
on 29/04/2013, 10:26:37 UTC
The magic number would be correlated with long term real economic growth rate.  Trying to set the money supply growth constant at 2% is likely closer than setting it to 0% yet it has the same flaw that if your number is lower than the observed monetary demand, you will get deflation, if your number is higher you will have built in inflation.

If the algo to set money supply growth rate can take in real values of what is transacted on a regular basis then it would solve the problem completely.  Not sure if this is feasible.

What variables would need to taken in?

For example take a look at Bitcoin mining with the massive resources being put towards it. This is clearly a case of huge monetary demand, would the perfect algorithm increase or decrease the supply based on that demand? Would it be better to disallow mining altogether and use another variable, perhaps unique transaction info? In that case only transactions between aged unique wallets might allow for a input to allow for inflation or deflation. (aged wallets that are only transferring between other unique wallets that do not have too many connections to determine that they do not belong to the same person)

This is what the fed uses as a baseline: http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taylor_rule
But it assumes that you have the existence of a prevailing fed funds rate you can adjust (and a banking system as well)

You can't simply look at transaction volumes because people could just sell an apple to themself and control that number.  The demand for money must be linked to real economic activity.
Post
Topic
Board Altcoin Discussion
Re: http://ripplescam.org/
by
bitchess
on 29/04/2013, 08:33:56 UTC
If the algo to set money supply growth rate can take in real values of what is transacted on a regular basis then it would solve the problem completely.  Not sure if this is feasible.

A solution to a hard problem like this may very well allow a crypto coin to overtake Bitcoin, do you agree?

Yes and it would have the potential to eliminate inflation and deflation altogether as well as the need for a central bank.
Post
Topic
Board Altcoin Discussion
Re: http://ripplescam.org/
by
bitchess
on 29/04/2013, 03:16:58 UTC
The magic number would be correlated with long term real economic growth rate.  Trying to set the money supply growth constant at 2% is likely closer than setting it to 0% yet it has the same flaw that if your number is lower than the observed monetary demand, you will get deflation, if your number is higher you will have built in inflation.

The fractional reserve system allows banks to react to deviations from equilibrium as numbers are observed

If the algo to set money supply growth rate can take in real values of what is transacted on a regular basis then it would solve the problem completely.  Not sure if this is feasible.
Post
Topic
Board Beginners & Help
Re: Why such agreement that Deflationary currency is a bad thing
by
bitchess
on 29/04/2013, 00:28:14 UTC
We have far too many inflationary currencies. So it feels right to have something different for people who believe that reasonable deflation is in fact a good thing. Spending and investment is not always good. It can lead to malvestment or spending "just for the spending". People will think twice, maybe three times before spending and they will buy only goods they really need. Loans would be possible but naturally discouraged.
If bitcoin gains wider adoption then there surely will be projects how to inflate it. There will be fractional reserve, loans and therefore "false bitcoins" in the form of "promises of real bitcoins". There will be far more promises than bitcoins used in backing. I have no problem with that as long as th following works:
If the BTCbank issuing false BTC goes bankrupt (unable to provide real BTC for the promises) then no one will be able to reimburse people by creating some new real BTC for them. Those people will have to decrease their standard of living (some of them might even lose their houses). And they will have to face the consequences of their mistargeted trust into BTCbank. So will all the merchants accepting false BTC from them. If this works and more reasonable "hoarders" are not forced to help them by a single bitcent then I am OK with all that. It might be that the BTCbank will never go bankrupt. Then the people and merchants will of course benefit from increased money supply. I am also OK with that as long as no one is forced (nor forbidden) to accept false bitcoins.

This fight between Keynesian/classical view on economics and Austrian school seems like neverending story. Such as fight between supporters of "giving people more freedom" and "doing right things for the people and perpetrate good even if it means forcing them".

I agree with this way of approaching the thread.  Well stated and agree, moral hazard must be avoided in the solution
Post
Topic
Board Beginners & Help
Re: Why such agreement that Deflationary currency is a bad thing
by
bitchess
on 28/04/2013, 16:18:22 UTC
TLDR:

. Some people here need to read up on history that isn't from the point of views of government sponsored/regulated schools and texbooks ( seriously, they lie to your face )

. In an unregulated and deflationary economy employers couldn't drop the wages so low that people would be forced to work for longer without consequences to them personally, that and the limited nature of deflationary currencies wouldn't allow for it mathematics wise

I guess you have less trust in economics textbooks (and wikipedia) than I do.  or pehaps you have a significant level of distrust that you are biased toward ideas that conflict with such textbooks.  to each their own.  I suppose the recent macroeconomic instability has contributed toward your distrust, but in my view that is somewhat short term reactionary

are you talking about real or nominal wage?  if BTC can buy 2 apples instead of one.  your employer will pay you half the BTC after deflation.  in the end he's still paying you one apple.  The important caveat is why would he buy your labor anyway if hoarding his BTC can give him/her a better return?  it's not a switch, but this effect starts small, then snowballs
Post
Topic
Board Beginners & Help
Re: Why such agreement that Deflationary currency is a bad thing
by
bitchess
on 28/04/2013, 16:00:07 UTC
Quote
Remember that in deflationary systems, wages fall as well as prices. So you'll still have to work as long! We're in a semi-deflationary period now, with minimum wages frozen and zero hours contracts and juicy salaries only available to the elites.

Something tells me you don't really know what you're talking about and I found the answer with the history you cited, the depressions experienced during that time were a result of massive hyper-inflation of the likes you saw in the great depression later on towards World War 2 both involved massive amounts of money printing of the kind that you saw the Weimar Republic churn out in the hopes of fixing the economy. The problem is money printing does nothing, it temporarily causes prices to rise and wages to rise and then everything comes crashing down. While this is deflation it is deflation and inflation that has been artificially created by central banks which because of the scale causes the massive and total collapses that you see of economies because rather than letting the poorly run companies etc. go out of business they steal everyone else's wealth to keep them going and of course because they are poorly run everyone ends up losing out entirely and the paper becomes worthless.

The idea of deflation is that prices go low and you guy buy things with much less currency than you would normally have to if the currency was inflationary, with deflationary economies you shouldn't be able to have prices going so low they are worth nothing because in a deflationary currency like with Bitcoin there is a limited supply so they will be valued to someone at a given time, gold and silver is also like this which is why they have been used as currencies for centuries. As for wages in general, if the wages go that low and the employer is forcing their employees to work for longer than that is a bit like what central banks are currenctly doing with inflation and interest rates, anyone with sense is going to find someone else to work for in that situation but unless they banded together there is no way the wages in a deflationary economy could go that low people would have to work much longer without them noticing.

Adding to that, deflationary wise I can start providing examples of deflation with real life examples, I calculated that if I sold silver Jewellery I'm making in Bitcoin I would be able to make far more profit than if I did it in paper and it was because Bitcoin, after all the fuss and rants of neo-keynesians is still having much more value than paper. For sure, inflationary paper money causes nothing but grief and is nothing more than an extremely clever way devised by ultra rich central bankers to steal other peoples wealth without getting into trouble.

In short, your history is wrong, you need to study what isn't just in school textbooks and told to you by teachers.

the outcome of the deflationary ccy issue is volatility in the ccy.  sorry your post is not concise enough to address point by point, can you highlight your main idea?

with regard to your last paragraph, you are stating a trivial truth which i agree with, if ccy1 (BTC) experiences deflation, while ccy2 (USD) experiences inflation, it will take more of cc2 to obtain the same amount of cc1
Post
Topic
Board Beginners & Help
Re: Why such agreement that Deflationary currency is a bad thing
by
bitchess
on 28/04/2013, 15:48:49 UTC
Bitcoin would continue to appreciate to infinity while an economy would shrink because nobody spends.

what if satoshi is an alien sent from his planet to conquer the earth and bitcoin is basically.... like a memetic virus created to destroy civilization with a tulup bubble that never crashes, it just inflates and inflates until everyone dies.

that alien will fail because btc would simply never reach widespread use and everone continues to use fiat.

the endgame with a deflationary currency is that its value grows exponentially and then explodes to zero.  just like tulip mania.

this might be why btc is so volatile these days.

Anyway it's not at zero now because the jury is still out on if btc can address the fixed 21million supply in 2140.  it might be addressable by instituting a fractional reserve/lending system.  of course, the ability to create one in a decentralized environment has yet to be proven.



rofl. Sure the deflationary nature creates wild swings but thats only because speculators have no experience with a deflationary currency. They will eventually learn how to price this stuff in. and sure bitcoin may explode into a value of 0 a hundred years from now but so what, think of how many trades it will have facilitated by then.

how do you price a deflationary currency?  let's be very clear with an example

For simplicity sake, it is defined to rise 3% in real value each year.  how many apples would you trade for it today?  it is defined, that you'll be able to buy more apples in the future. conversely would anybody ever accept a 0% interest loan from you?  in short, you wouldn't trade, you wouldn't lend, you would stop transacting, and that would create a reinforcing feedback cycle, then nobody transacts at which point the ccy is explodes to 0.

Post
Topic
Board Beginners & Help
Re: Why such agreement that Deflationary currency is a bad thing
by
bitchess
on 28/04/2013, 15:36:50 UTC
Bitcoin would continue to appreciate to infinity while an economy would shrink because nobody spends.

what if satoshi is an alien sent from his planet to conquer the earth and bitcoin is basically.... like a memetic virus created to destroy civilization with a tulup bubble that never crashes, it just inflates and inflates until everyone dies.

that alien will fail because btc would simply never reach widespread use in that scenario and everone continues to use fiat.  the prevention for "being tricked" is people like me and many economists raise the deflationary spiral concern.

the endgame with a deflationary currency is that its value grows exponentially and then explodes to zero.  just like tulip mania.

this might be why btc is so volatile these days.

Anyway it's not at zero now because the jury is still out on if btc can address the fixed 21million supply in 2140.  it might be addressable by instituting a fractional reserve/lending system.  of course, the ability to create one in a decentralized environment has yet to be proven.