Cryptocoin Mining?

[taltamir]

Which is why I mine day to day and sell my coins if they are at a profitable price.

Mining to sell when its profitable is a wise thing to do. Absolutely no reason not to do so.

EDIT: You know what would be neat? the ability to tie bitcoin mining to your house thermostat to automatically mine only when temp falls below desired.

 

[philipma1957]

looks like asicminer has its 700,000 plus setup online



http://bitminter.com/livestats/big


top of the list at 789,000

at 7:50 am eastern standard time sun the 17th


and the overall networks is at 34tb .


bit coins still around 26.25 usd

 

[f1sherman]

and the overall networks is at 34tb .

either half of 1st Avalon's batch is already assembled and mining,

or Butterfly Labs are... testing your ASICS be4 shipping them :twisted:

 

[philipma1957]

either half of 1st Avalon's batch is already assembled and mining,

or Butterfly Labs are... testing your ASICS be4 shipping them :twisted:

At first I thought that.. But if you are a gamer and have a 7970 or a 7950 running the rig while you are not gaming has become very attractive. 1 7970 can hash at 500 easy underclocked not hot. it will earn close to 2 coins a month while burning under 20 bucks. here in the usa you will even get some heat from the setup.

so if coins sell for 25 or more it is 30 a month since jan 17 or 18th. I have to think a lot of gpus have started mining since the price got over 20 usd.

still in less then 2 -3 months 34 tb for the network will be the good old days. I figure 45tb by feb 28th. 100tb by march 31 200tb by some time in may.

 

[Chiropteran]

As useless as jewelry is, even if a precious metal/stone has 0 manufacturing uses and its sole use is jewelry it is still a physical good that (stupid) people want because its shiny and rare physical good, it has an actual demand beyond being a currency.
Bitcoins do not, they are absolutely valueless for anything but being a currency which strongly undermines their value AS a currency.

I disagree, but you are welcome to your own opinion. As far as "intrinsic value", I don't agree with the definition you are using. In the definition of "fiat", "intrinsic value" means that the currency has a value of it's own, not an arbitrary value set by a government. In which case bitcoins fully qualify as having intrinsic value, as the value of bitcoins is entirely market and user driven, and not arbitrarily set by any government in the ways that the USD or Euro or any other government currency is. Much like gold or silver, the value of bitcoins is simply determined by what users are willing to pay, and can not be directly manipulated by any government like their fiat currencies can.

The definition of intrinsic value used above by yourself is such that technically nothing has any actual intrinsic value, which makes the term rather useless and IMO is obviously not the intended usage.

>Bitcoins do not, they are absolutely valueless for anything but being a currency

Perhaps, yet they also have incredible uses as currency, above and beyond what is possible with ANY other currency. It's a unique situation.

 

[Mir96TA]

Difficulty is now 3651012

 

[philipma1957]

Difficulty is now 3651012

yes and at the same time the network hash rate dropped from 34Th to 28Th.

I am sure it will go back up to 34Th and beyond .

more importantly coins are selling at 27 usd .

 

[taltamir]

In the definition of "fiat", "intrinsic value" means that the currency has a value of it's own, not an arbitrary value set by a government. In which case bitcoins fully qualify as having intrinsic value, as the value of bitcoins is entirely market and user driven, and not arbitrarily set by any government in the ways that the USD or Euro or any other government currency is.

You keep on You are confusing current value with intrinsic value.

Everything is valued by how much people are willing to pay for it (barring governments introducing ceilings/floors/fixes) even if it has no intrinsic value in of itself.

Google is one of the most successful companies in the world and they deal almost entirely in products with no intrinsic value. That is because just because something has no intrinsic value doesn't mean it doesn't have current value which you can capitalize on for great profit.

Bitcoins have VALUE, they don't have an intrinsic value.

As I have said before, having no intrinsic value weakens their position as a currency, but it is not a death sentence.
Every single bill you are issue by any government out there has an insignificant near-0 intrinsic value (its intrinsic value is an insignificant amount of fire kindling) yet they still have value.

 

[Chiropteran]

Everything is valued by how much people are willing to pay for it (barring governments introducing ceilings/floors/fixes) even if it has no intrinsic value in of itself.

Please describe an object with "intrinsic value" based on your definition of it, exclusive of what people are willing to pay for it.

Food? Show me an example of bartering your food to buy a new PC, please do. Food has zero effective value in most cases, and no intrinsic value except in the special case of someone starving.

Shelter, or land? Again, it's all about what people are willing to pay. Land in a desert in the middle of nowhere has no value, land in a highly desirable city local has a huge value, but this is simply because of demand and market forces, not any "intrinsic value" as you define it.

Fact: such objects do not exist. Nothing in this world has a value in the absence of what others are willing to pay for it.

Your definition is interesting philosophically, but it is useless for real discussion because nothing actually fits in it.


Also, as a simple test, look at gold. Gold has no intrinsic value based on your definition, so is gold fiat as well? You are arguing an absurd argument IMO.

The term "fiat" is used to distinguish the difference between government established currency with no backing vs naturally occurring currency that backs itself, such as gold or silver or now bitcoins.

Bitcoins have VALUE, they don't have an intrinsic value.

Your opinion. I disagree. They have a tremendous intrinsic value in allowing distant near-instant transactions without requiring trust of any central 3rd party. This is incredibly valuable, and handles a need that can not be fulfilled by any prior technology or physical product.

 

[taltamir]

Food? Show me an example of bartering your food to buy a new PC

New PCs are only sold by stores which do not have the means to evaluate or liquidate food being bartered to them.

Heck, 99.9% of PC stores refuse to accept gold or jewelry or even foreign legal tender (whatever foreign is to them).

Fact: such objects do not exist. Nothing in this world has a value in the absence of what others are willing to pay for it.

Fact: you just made a strawman. Hopefully due to a misunderstanding.

Please describe an object with "intrinsic value" based on your definition of it, exclusive of what people are willing to pay for it

Its not exclusive of what people are willing to pay for it, both intrinsic value and current value are based on what people are willing to pay for it.
Any delta between intrinsic and current value is an ephemeral and transient thing which may incur bubbles and collapses due to rapid public opinion shifts. This does not mean it should never be used. I use dollars despite the fact they have no intrinsic value.

Intrinsic value is the value the currency has for being used for anything OTHER then being a currency. The more diverse and alternative uses a currency has the more robust its intrinsic value is. The numerical evaluation of the intrinsic value is absolutely 100% what people are willing to pay for it. The key is that people ARE willing to pay for it for things OTHER then currency.

Intrinsic value =! can pay with it instead of cash to buy a new computer at the store
Intrinsic value =! stable value
Intrinsic value =! has value independent of human needs and desires.

The intrinsic value of a paper bill is practically 0 (kindling for fire)
The intrinsic value of a bitcoin hash is 0. (there is absolutely nothing you can do with it except making a bitcoin)
The intrinsic value for gold is its manufacturing uses (which could ALSO go to zero if advanced technology collapses) and its jewelry uses (which could go to 0 if human tastes change or if it becomes sufficiently plentiful). As far as intrinsic values go gold is actually pretty mediocre for currencies (not as bad as mathematical hashes) but it makes up for it by lasting a really long time (your oil stores on the other hand go rancid and land is not easily transported)
The intrinsic value for food is that people need it to survive. (yes, if humanity goes extinct then you no longer need food. but at that point you don't need money either).

 

[Chiropteran]

Intrinsic value is when your currency has a use beyond being a currency. The more valuable such uses are, and the more such uses exist, the better it is for the currency.

Would you be willing to trade a pound of gold to me for a pound of nails? The nails have many uses beyond that of being a currency, and are therefore better.


Anyway I give up, in your world bitcoins are a fiat currency, cool. Feel free to continue being wrong, I won't try to correct you further.

 

[taltamir]

Would you be willing to trade a pound of gold to me for a pound of nails?

1. Gold has intrinsic value as I explicitly stated in the post you quoted.
2. The intrinsic value of 1 lbs of gold is far far higher then 1 lbs of nails.
3. The current value of 1 lbs of gold is far far higher then 1 lbs of nails.
4. I explicitly stated that even though they have no intrinsic value they can still have value as both the intrinsic value and the current values are based entirely on human willingness to pay for them for various reasons. I wouldn't trade you 1 bitcoin for 1 lbs of nails because even though bitcoins have 0 intrinsic value their current value is higher then that of 1 lbs of nails.

You fail at reading and are making a strawmen

The nails have many uses beyond that of being a currency, and are therefore better.

I would quote myself but its just THERE ABOVE YOUR POST!
Its even bolded and underlined. FFS read my post before spewing forth a response.

 

[birthdaymonkey]

Taltamir has it right in this debate. When talking about currency, intrinsic value is all about the practical utility of a currency unit. This can be completely disconnected from its market value, although there can also be some interplay between the intrinsic value and what people are willing to pay for a currency.

The best way to think of intrinsic value is to imagine the history of currency. At one time, there was no such thing as currency--people were only interested in goods that had a practical value, and when they traded they bartered for other goods that they needed. In some cultures, in order to facilitate trade certain goods began to have a symbolic (monetary) value that was separated from their practical (intrinsic) value. In many cultures, animals took on this role. In fact, etymologically the word "cattle" comes from a latin word that means "property" (cf. chattel) and is also the precursor of capital (money). Thus a cow would have an intrinsic value (it's a cow--it makes milk, you can eat it) and a monetary value (what people were willing to trade for one). Thus, in many cultures past and present, livestock has been used as a currency that has both intrinsic and monetary value.

Over time, it seems there has been a progression from currencies with a lot of intrinsic value (cattle), to currencies with less intrinsic value (silver/gold... it's shiny!), to currencies with almost no intrinsic value (paper money), to currencies with no intrinsic value (bits in the computers at your bank, and BTC).

 

[Chiropteran]

Taltamir has it right in this debate. When talking about currency, intrinsic value is all about the practical utility of a currency unit. This can be completely disconnected from its market value, although there can also be some interplay between the intrinsic value and what people are willing to pay for a currency.

The debate was whether or not bitcoins are a fiat currency, they are not.

As far as intrinsic value, you seem to share talt's opinion. However, fact is that is not what the term means.

One example, wikipedia:
In finance, intrinsic value refers to the actual value of a company or stock determined through fundamental analysis without reference to its market value. It is also frequently called fundamental value. It is ordinarily calculated by summing the future income generated by the asset, and discounting it to the present value.

Or if you prefer, the dictionary definition of intrinsic:
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/intrinsic

Includes this "gem"- Examples of INTRINSIC
the intrinsic value of a gem

You and talt can go on and on using his definition, but as long as you are using custom definitions of words instead of the standard actual correct definition officially recognized in dictionaries or encyclopedia then your argument has no external support.

>intrinsic value is all about the practical utility of a currency unit

A thousand years ago, maybe. Please cite some current examples. What are you going to do with your gold if the value drops? Or silver? Yes, these elements have practical applications in industrial uses, but what are YOU actually going to use them for? The intrinsic value needs to be based on real practical utility, and the only possible utility of the item in question applies only to mass manufacturing process, the *practical* value for an individual is zero. If you want to use this (fake) definition of the term, then you need to prove that doesn't actually apply to everything in the world. Talt couldn't come up with a single example of anything that actually has an "intrinsic value", I doubt you can either.

 

[Chiropteran]

1. Gold has intrinsic value as I explicitly stated in the post you quoted.
2. The intrinsic value of 1 lbs of gold is far far higher then 1 lbs of nails.
3. The current value of 1 lbs of gold is far far higher then 1 lbs of nails.
4. I explicitly stated that even though they have no intrinsic value they can still have value as both the intrinsic value and the current values are based entirely on human willingness to pay for them for various reasons. I wouldn't trade you 1 bitcoin for 1 lbs of nails because even though bitcoins have 0 intrinsic value their current value is higher then that of 1 lbs of nails.

1- Explain. You are stuck on a desert island, you have a sack of gold. What are you going to do with it? Eat it? I know full well that there is industrial uses for gold as a conductor, but that isn't a practical use as you could never use gold that way yourself directly, you could only sell it or trade it to someone who can, which again limits you to the value which others place on it.

2- Nonsense. In the absence of external value, a pound of nails has practical value while a pound of gold doesn't.

3- And what does that have to do with the price of tea in china?

4- That is nice, but irrelevant. Points 1 & 2 are relevant, but you got them wrong.

Its not exclusive of what people are willing to pay for it, both intrinsic value and current value are based on what people are willing to pay for it.
.

Ah! So in your mind, there is no difference whatsoever between the two terms? What are you even arguing about then?

 

[blastingcap]

Can you guys take this Monetary Theory discussion to Politics and News or some other place, please?

 

[chimaxi83]

Can you guys take this Monetary Theory discussion to Politics and News or some other place, please?

Seriously, this. Bitcoins value to me is almost the whole cost of the 7970 Lightning I recently got. There, I win the value discussion, kinda gtfo :thumbup:

 

[philipma1957]

Seriously, this. Bitcoins value to me is almost the whole cost of the 7970 Lightning I recently got. There, I win the value discussion, kinda gtfo :thumbup:

I just sold 2.72 bitcoins for an amazon gift card. I got 78.55. I don't care about the definitions just the payouts.

 

[KlokWyze]

While I realize I'm really late to the party, I pulled the trigger on 1x Jalepeno. Was about to get an entry level GPU, but looked at the has rate comparisons to ASIC devices. No thanks.

Hopefully they can ship it to me inside 6 months... after the bubble bursts again, probably twice.

 

[zephyrprime]

Mining to sell when its profitable is a wise thing to do. Absolutely no reason not to do so.

EDIT: You know what would be neat? the ability to tie bitcoin mining to your house thermostat to automatically mine only when temp falls below desired.

Well thermostats control temperature by definition. If you start pumping out heat from your computer, the thermostat will regulate down your furnace activity so basically everybody is already doing what you describe whether they know it or not.

 

[Chiropteran]

Irrationally, I have set some buy orders for $4 $1 and $.10, to catch some bitcoins in case of a crash. Not that I have any reason to believe there will be a crash.

$29.87 recent high, I'm curious to see if $30 is a bit of a barrier or if the value blows right past it.

 

[zephyrprime]

(your oil stores on the other hand go rancid and land is not easily transported)

Crude oil does not go rancid like common cooking oil does. After all, it has existed for millions of years in the ground without going rancid. Over long periods of time, it would probably decompose into methane and condense into coal.

This argument is silly since it's just an argument of semantics. There has never been a currency like bitcoin so existing word definitions do not fit. It's like a fiat currency without the government but of course, government involvement is the defining characteristic of the word "fiat" currency. Bitcoin is like a crypto fiat or mathematical fiat or whatever.

 

[taltamir]

Crude oil does not go rancid like common cooking oil does. After all, it has existed for millions of years in the ground without going rancid. Over long periods of time, it would probably decompose into methane and condense into coal.

I was talking about cooking oil not petroleum

This argument is silly since it's just an argument of semantics. There has never been a currency like bitcoin so existing word definitions do not fit. It's like a fiat currency without the government but of course, government involvement is the defining characteristic of the word "fiat" currency. Bitcoin is like a crypto fiat or mathematical fiat or whatever.

The government definition is a stupid one. An alternative definition already exists and isn't just something I am pushing.
Under that definition fiat currency is a currency with no intrinsic value. And Intrinsic value is the value the currency has for being used for anything OTHER then being a currency.

The fact that bitcoin is completely new is irrelevent to the argument of those definition. To call a semantics argument stupid because its nothing but semantics is rather redundant.
Beyond the semantics argument there is the argument on the stability. Which was unfortunately mostly strawmen after strawmen with me spending most of my time pointing out the strawmen (only to watch a new one be erected) rather then actually having conductive debate... until I had enough of that and just started ignoring him.

I would also like to point out that I do mine bitcoins. I just have realistic understanding of the currency.

 

[taltamir]

delete

 

[Chiropteran]

Under that definition fiat currency is a currency with no intrinsic value.

But in your post earlier you said dollars had some intrinsic value, because you could burn the paper as kindling. So USD isn't fiat based on your definitions and argument, yet bitcoins are?

Face it, your definitions and the logical end of your argument results in a worthless term which describes nothing useful.

Using the more standard definition, bitcoins are not fiat, neither is gold or silver, but USD or any other country's non-backed currency is. Fiat currency are currency without backing. Bitcoins are backed by proof of work, which you may think is nothing but the difference is it means they are not just produced freely or at the will of any government, which is the key difference between them and fiat currencies. Bitcoins can not hyper-inflate through over-printing.

But go ahead, continue to call them fiat, even though they share none of the defining characteristics or negatives of fiat currency.