Cryptocoin Mining?

[Silverforce11]

Where did someone's fat finger get mentioned? The guy invested money for coins which lost their value. Lost real $$. If he invested it on a GPU he could still be mining another profitable coin. What exactly is so hard to comprehend?

But feel free to spout your nonsense that mining is as risky as buying coins.. nobody here but you believe that.

 

[blackened23]

I don't know if BTC will recover this time:

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/19/b...nminbi-deposits.html?hpw&rref=technology&_r=0

And all of the altcoins are ultimately based in value off of BTC.

 

[Silverforce11]

I don't know if BTC will recover this time:

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/19/b...nminbi-deposits.html?hpw&rref=technology&_r=0

And all of the altcoins are ultimately based in value off of BTC.

There's plenty of other countries that havent even heard of bitcoins before all this, now they would have. Its publicity regardless of the chinese pull out. It should drop back to where it was before the spike happened (with every "expert" technical analysis claiming that).. but it hasn't. Too many new investors now know about it thanks to this event. On BTC-E, as soon as BTC hits 500 USD, there's a massive spike in buying. Too many new greedy people want a cut.

 

[xodusgenesis]

I can see many people around the world adopting crypto currency. Especially countries where the inflation rate is astronomical, such as Zimbabwe. They could use bitcoin to convert to dollars or just trade in bitcoin

 

[nwo]

Thanks for the tip, hated that netcodepool has been wonky all day, especially on the day I get my new card D:

I'm still mining on netcodepool non stop. I just have no access to my coins and cannot transfer them until their site comes back up.

 

[SimianR]

I'm getting some odd behavior with throttling/fan speeds when I'm using CG Miner. If I set the fan speed to 0-100 and set auto fan to true, I still get gpu throttling when it reaches the target temp and the fan doesn't ramp up enough to compensate even though I've set the cap at 100%. The fan will sit at 52% roughly and then the gpu clock drops to 920 or so when I have it set at 950. I've also got power tune set to +30%. Any idea what I'm doing wrong here?

 

[blackened23]

There's plenty of other countries that havent even heard of bitcoins before all this, now they would have. Its publicity regardless of the chinese pull out. It should drop back to where it was before the spike happened (with every "expert" technical analysis claiming that).. but it hasn't. Too many new investors now know about it thanks to this event. On BTC-E, as soon as BTC hits 500 USD, there's a massive spike in buying. Too many new greedy people want a cut.

So you're saying that any press is good press? Not so sure I agree. Ultimately, for BTC to thrive as the new form of e-commerce currency, banks and governments must back it. So far, several banks and governments are outright hostile to bitcoins. Although several of these banks are working on their own universal form of e-commerce currency, there's an obvious conflict of interest there. Yet, the end result is the same: several banks will not support BTC nor will they allow accounts to be used for mass purchases/sales related to any form of BTC. (JP Chase in particular)

If governments and banks are closing accounts and seizing BTC related funds, I don't see that can be considered good for the longevity of BTC. I mean, how can BTC ever be considered "legitimate" as a replacement for e-commerce if governments and banks can't back it? The entire idea of BTC is for it to become the new standard for e-commerce funds so everyone can purchase what they want over the internet with it. So far that doesn't seem to be happening.

 

[Attic]

I'm getting some odd behavior with throttling/fan speeds when I'm using CG Miner. If I set the fan speed to 0-100 and set auto fan to true, I still get gpu throttling when it reaches the target temp and the fan doesn't ramp up enough to compensate even though I've set the cap at 100%. The fan will sit at 52% roughly and then the gpu clock drops to 920 or so when I have it set at 950. I've also got power tune set to +30%. Any idea what I'm doing wrong here?

Is this on a 290 or 290x?

 

[SimianR]

Is this on a 290 or 290x?

This is on an MSI 290 (non-x).

 

[blastingcap]

Where did someone's fat finger get mentioned? The guy invested money for coins which lost their value. Lost real $$. If he invested it on a GPU he could still be mining another profitable coin. What exactly is so hard to comprehend?

But feel free to spout your nonsense that mining is as risky as buying coins.. nobody here but you believe that.

You just keep ignoring power and depreciation like you have all thread.

And you use one guy as an anecdotal example and you wrote "user buys coins with euros, made a calculation error" which is HIS mistake. Whether it's the proverbial fat finger or a calculation error, it's HIS mistake and thsu HIS fault, not the system's fault. Furthermore, as I already argued, if he got lucky instead of unlucky and made a fortune, would we then conclude that buying is always better than mining? Of course not. It's just one (un)lucky guy. So we should not conclude that mining is always better than buying, or vice versa, based off one guy.

(I have never advocated for buying trashcoins btw, those are even riskier than bitcoin and litecoin. Only a completely reckless risk-lover would blow his whole wad on one risky bet on trashcoins. They are all correlated with bitcoin anyway so if you want to invest in cryptocurrency it's probably best to just stick with buying bitcoin and ignoring the rest.)

I crunched the numbers earlier and using YOUR numbers, assuming average USA power prices, you'd have to spend about $7.5k to get 50,000 litecoins if you had started mining on Jan. 1, 2013 through December 2013. (YOU estimated 50k coins, I was skeptical but we used your optimistic numbers.) If you had instead spent $7.5k on litecoins instead, you would have gotten over 714,000 litecoins. Which is more: 50,000 litecoins via mining, or 714,000 litecoins via direct purchase? You can do similar calculations for previous years as well like 2012. Miners made some money, but those who simply buy and hold made 10-20 times more money than miners. And they didn't even take on that much risk... in the example above, you could spend $700 on LTC and simply hold them, or you could spend $7.5k and painstakingly mine them as difficulty went up, and you'd wind up with the same result. Except the guy who bought them would not have to deal with mining headaches like heat, power bills, replacing broken parts, and assuming liability should anything go wrong.

The breakeven point for risk is about a month of mining, for a typical small-scale mining operation at average USA power prices. At that point you no longer have new GPUs to sell or return so you already have some depreciation, and you just ate a month's worth of power costs. After that point, if coins somehow go to zero, you are just as screwed as the guy who bought the coins directly (remember you only need to buy $700 directly to get the equivalent of $7.5k worth of mining), and possibly even more screwed depending on how much you pay for power. This is due to the high upfront costs of mining equipment, plus monthly unrecoverable power costs. It gets even worse if you have to pay rent or replace broken equipment. And obviously catastrophic mining failure can claim rigs, homes, or even lives, whereas there are no catastrophic buying failures. Even the wallet risk is the same either way--either you get hacked or you don't, regardless of whether you are a buyer or a miner.

 

[Attic]

So you're saying that any press is good press? Not so sure I agree. Ultimately, for BTC to thrive as the new form of e-commerce currency, banks and governments must back it. So far, several banks and governments are outright hostile to bitcoins. Although several of these banks are working on their own universal form of e-commerce currency, there's an obvious conflict of interest there. Yet, the end result is the same: several banks will not support BTC nor will they allow accounts to be used for mass purchases/sales related to any form of BTC. (JP Chase in particular)

If governments and banks are closing accounts and seizing BTC related funds, I don't see that can be considered good for the longevity of BTC. I mean, how can BTC ever be considered "legitimate" as a replacement for e-commerce if governments and banks can't back it? The entire idea of BTC is for it to become the new standard for e-commerce funds so everyone can purchase what they want over the internet with it. So far that doesn't seem to be happening.

It would give more financial power and control to the people at the expense of government control and manipulation of currency. A quantifiably good thing for the people.

I personally don't think it will be tolerated because of the control shift it means away from government. Interesting time. Hope BTC gets more traction in american marketplaces so we can see how our government responds. The wild swings are rough, but coin base allows merchants to avoid price spikes/dumps in BTC and still get a dollar value they intend out of sales if they want to convert BTC to dollar ultimately.

 

[Kosmic1]

From that NYT article, as spouted by a Hierarchical Centralist Control Freak:

At the time, a spokesman for the central bank took issue with describing Bitcoin as a currency: “It is not issued by a central monetary authority, it does not have the properties of legal currency and it is not a currency in the real meaning of the word.”

Ignore all except the first 9 words: IT IS NOT ISSUED BY A CENTRAL MONETARY AUTHORITY. That is what has them all afraid, so they WILL do whatever they can to monkeyhammer BTC, and other coins that start to gain traction.

They will fight, but they are going to lose eventually. And ultimately, it will be a good thing for humanity, but it's going to be a bumpy, ugly ride.

By all means, when (if) BTC goes back up, take some profits, but keep the longer game in mind.

 

[IEC]

Lol. We have an explosive initiator dumping and a precious metal pumping, as well as a new poster.

Let's try to keep this from falling to the level of the BTC-e chatbox and keep things factual, shall we?

 

[SunnyD]

And doge is back down to "uninteresting" levels again.

 

[hitmanx2]

You just keep ignoring power and depreciation like you have all thread.

And you use one guy as an anecdotal example and you wrote "user buys coins with euros, made a calculation error" which is HIS mistake. Whether it's the proverbial fat finger or a calculation error, it's HIS mistake and thsu HIS fault, not the system's fault. Furthermore, as I already argued, if he got lucky instead of unlucky and made a fortune, would we then conclude that buying is always better than mining? Of course not. It's just one (un)lucky guy. So we should not conclude that mining is always better than buying, or vice versa, based off one guy.

(I have never advocated for buying trashcoins btw, those are even riskier than bitcoin and litecoin. Only a completely reckless risk-lover would blow his whole wad on one risky bet on trashcoins. They are all correlated with bitcoin anyway so if you want to invest in cryptocurrency it's probably best to just stick with buying bitcoin and ignoring the rest.)

I crunched the numbers earlier and using YOUR numbers, assuming average USA power prices, you'd have to spend about $7.5k to get 50,000 litecoins if you had started mining on Jan. 1, 2013 through December 2013. (YOU estimated 50k coins, I was skeptical but we used your optimistic numbers.) If you had instead spent $7.5k on litecoins instead, you would have gotten over 714,000 litecoins. Which is more: 50,000 litecoins via mining, or 714,000 litecoins via direct purchase? You can do similar calculations for previous years as well like 2012. Miners made some money, but those who simply buy and hold made 10-20 times more money than miners. And they didn't even take on that much risk... in the example above, you could spend $700 on LTC and simply hold them, or you could spend $7.5k and painstakingly mine them as difficulty went up, and you'd wind up with the same result. Except the guy who bought them would not have to deal with mining headaches like heat, power bills, replacing broken parts, and assuming liability should anything go wrong.

The breakeven point for risk is about a month of mining, for a typical small-scale mining operation at average USA power prices. At that point you no longer have new GPUs to sell or return so you already have some depreciation, and you just ate a month's worth of power costs. After that point, if coins somehow go to zero, you are just as screwed as the guy who bought the coins directly, and possibly even more screwed depending on how much you pay for power. This is due to the high upfront costs of mining equipment, plus monthly unrecoverable power costs. It gets even worse if you have to pay rent or replace broken equipment. And obviously catastrophic mining failure can claim rigs, homes, or even lives, whereas there are no catastrophic buying failures. Even the wallet risk is the same either way--either you get hacked or you don't, regardless of whether you are a buyer or a miner.

Generally I agree that buying coins is better than mining coins, but there is a "VC approach" way to take advantage of mining. If you can get into every new crypto currency (un-premined, non-scam) and mine the hack out of it between difficulty 0 to 10 with a non-trivial hashrate (preferably 5Mh/s or more for Scrypt based crypto), you will probably be doing pretty ok because there are always pump and dump coins like feather, quark, world, doge, etc. And some of these pump and dump even retain some value after a few months. However, doing this kind of "VC approach" of mining coins early is very time sensitive.

Just my 2c

 

[Torn Mind]

From that NYT article, as spouted by a Hierarchical Centralist Control Freak:


Ignore all except the first 9 words: IT IS NOT ISSUED BY A CENTRAL MONETARY AUTHORITY. That is what has them all afraid, so they WILL do whatever they can to monkeyhammer BTC, and other coins that start to gain traction.

They will fight, but they are going to lose eventually. And ultimately, it will be a good thing for humanity, but it's going to be a bumpy, ugly ride.

By all means, when (if) BTC goes back up, take some profits, but keep the longer game in mind.

So, how is Bitcoin, from a usability standpoint, superior to any other currency?

Simply because it isn't under control does not mean it is immune to behaving in accordance with macroeconomic principles.

And Bitcoin resembles cash in many of its properties, except that it is vulnerable on any computer connected to the Internet

 

[Torn Mind]

It would give more financial power and control to the people at the expense of government control and manipulation of currency. A quantifiably good thing for the people.

I personally don't think it will be tolerated because of the control shift it means away from government. Interesting time. Hope BTC gets more traction in american marketplaces so we can see how our government responds. The wild swings are rough, but coin base allows merchants to avoid price spikes/dumps in BTC and still get a dollar value they intend out of sales if they want to convert BTC to dollar ultimately.

People put too much emphasis on government control of currency. They control it through monetary policy, and it is when do unsound monetary policy that that bad stuff happens, like hyperinflation, deflation. But that doesn't make Bitcoin immune to currency crises.

 

[Kosmic1]

So, how is Bitcoin, from a usability standpoint, superior to any other currency?

Simply because it isn't under control does not mean it is immune to behaving in accordance with macroeconomic principles.

And Bitcoin resembles cash in many of its properties, except that it is vulnerable on any computer connected to the Internet

Bitcoin is only superior in that it is not debt-based. Every fiat dollar in existence is on LOAN into the economy. Not so with bitcoin.

In simple terms:

It's the people's currency, if they want it to be.

VS the dollar which is the slave's currency because slave-masters TOLD US THAT IT IS OUR CURRENCY.

Debt-based fiat = slavery.

Bitcoin = our latest attempt to get out of slavery.

It's a start, and it has only just begun.

 

[KlokWyze]

[redacted]. I CANNOT for the [redacted] life of me get these 2x 7950's to work on the same mobo. [redacted]. there is no error info. cgminer just sits there. DURPDURPDURP

Warning issued for profanity.
-- stahlhart

 

[MrDark]

[redacted]. I CANNOT for the [redacted] life of me get these 2x 7950's to work on the same mobo. [redacted]. there is no error info. cgminer just sits there. DURPDURPDURP

If the card has no out-going signal try just plugging an HDMI/DVI/VGA cable into it (it shouldn't actually have to go to a monitor) and see if it starts to work.

 

[taq8ojh]

So are you trading doge on Cryptsy instead? I see exactly the same ratio to BTC as on Coinedup... I am confused!

 

[Silverforce11]

Cryptsy is just much more responsive and isn't prone to crashing..

 

[Kallogan]

actually it is rising well right now. Give it a week at least, it won't jump in one day.

 

[hitmanx2]

actually it is rising well right now. Give it a week at least, it won't jump in one day.

Exactly, if the demand stays, then DOGE can go much higher because:

1.) Difficulty is spiking.

2.) Inconsistent block output, right now each block's expected reward is something like RAND(0,1000000), which mean on average you should get about 500,000 DOGE coins per block, but you can easily see blocks with 100,013 coins, 234,590 coins, 890,320 coins, etc... As a miner, I would much rather to have DOGE to give 500,000 coins/block from block 0 to 100,000. That also makes DOGE much more risky to mine in small pool.

 

[Kallogan]

dat 46 millions sell order