371–380 of 382 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You can't create a business out of pirated content (anymore). You can maybe create such a network, but not gain money or stay out of prison. Filecoin to my knowledge has or will have no capabilities of sharing files. It's dumb end-to-end encrypted decentral storage (which is a good thing!).
So basically, Pied Piper plus a coin?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Is it me or is the elephant in the room like "get paid to put pirated movies, games, music, software on the network" Obviously, no one is going to admit it because then your network is tainted but every file sharing outfit ultimately ends up do pirated. I've been mining lbry and it seems lot more ahead of these others. https://lbry.io/
If the society is collectively willing to pay for storage mostly to host pirated content, that tells you a lot about what the real (rather than publicly expressed) social consensus is wrt piracy.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not really wasting in this case. There is at least that.
true, at least it's just storage space instead of spinning thousands of servers at 100% all the time and wasting huge amounts of electricity. At least, assuming that people don't start creating miner farms with huge amounts of space like they do with GPUs at the moment. I don't know how filecoin ties to the storage requirements of the customers though so that might be handled by market forces.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, that's the point. To compete against them directly. Get enough funding to override their advantage. > And you’ll be starting from scratch. I haven't built a mining ASIC (yet), but I built the first open source code for mining FPGAs. I wouldn't be starting from scratch. It'll take a little bit of re-architecture to update that code to multi-core designs (the FPGAs were single core, fully unrolled loops), but that…
The inherent challenge, as I see it, is that if you manage to produce e.g. an electric car that’s not quite as good as a Tesla, you still have a car that can transport people from A to B. And if you have trouble selling your cars, you just lower the price until all your cars are sold. With mining chips, if you have a chip that’s just half as efficient as the best one, your customers have zero incentive to buy your pr…
Efficiency isn't actually all that matters; it's total cost versus revenue. Every mining device has some sort of lifetime to it. Its total cost is cost of the device itself + (electrical costs + maintenance + cooling) * lifetime. Its revenue is a function of its hashrate.
So, all else being equal, if someone makes a mining chip with less efficiency than the best, they simply have to sell the chip for less $/TH.
But usually all else _aren't_ equal. Say you're mining in the far northern regions of the planet. You can take advantage of the colder climate to reduce your cooling costs, so you don't have to expend money designing chips and hardware with good cooling. But you can't take advantage of hydro or solar power, so power efficiency becomes more important.
Or, let's say you mine near the equator. Now you can probably build out a solar farm and get cheaper power than anyone else. But cooling is a major issue. You have to spend more on good chip packages and thermal designs.
On top of that, the design of the chip itself can dictate a lot of cost. For example, when I designed my FPGA miners, I made it so that the FPGAs could be both programmed and communicated with by a single, cheap FTDI chip. This made the boards super simple and cheap.
Basically, it's a complex equation that can't be boiled down to simple power efficiency.
I listened to this YC podcast[1] twice with Juan Benet. Listening to Juan talk about a lot of historical information and the correlations he drew was fascinating. When he tried to explain the need for Filecoin to Dalton, I just didn't hear it. Dalton kept asking him over and over what the point was and he kept giving non-answers (at least in my opinion which doesn't mean much to be honest). I understand the goal of t…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The entire Internet
I don't know if this just sounded like a zinger to you when you wrote it, but "the Internet" is a prime example of anything but a solution in search of a problem.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The inherent challenge, as I see it, is that if you manage to produce e.g. an electric car that’s not quite as good as a Tesla, you still have a car that can transport people from A to B. And if you have trouble selling your cars, you just lower the price until all your cars are sold. With mining chips, if you have a chip that’s just half as efficient as the best one, your customers have zero incentive to buy your pr…
Good points. Efficiency isn't actually all that matters; it's total cost versus revenue. Every mining device has some sort of lifetime to it. Its total cost is cost of the device itself + (electrical costs + maintenance + cooling) * lifetime. Its revenue is a function of its hashrate. So, all else being equal, if someone makes a mining chip with less efficiency than the best, they simply have to sell the chip for les…
Have you considered leasing as a way to reduce risk for operators? So, rather than mining operators needing to take the risk of standing with outdated hardware, you — as the manufacturer — would take on that risk by allowing mining operators to stop the lease if it becomes unprofitable.
This changes the incentive structure so that you stand with a loss if your hardware becomes obsolete.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I find this offensive in many ways. The chance of winning the lottery might be minuscule, but minuscule is still infinitely larger than zero. On top of that, you don't have to hit the jackpot to win life-changing money. Powerball odds for a 10k/250k prize are 1 in 913K, and for a 1M/2M prize, 1 in 11M - much better than the jackpot prize's odds of 1 in 292M. Many people are totally okay with coughing up $2 every now…
You are offended by what, exactly? That lotteries are a tax on the poor (who often cite gambling as a legitamit retirement investment option!)? And you actually DON'T raise your chances, at all. The odds are actually in favor of you lowering your standard of living by whatever you are spending on lottery tickets. Look at the statistics on where the bulk of the money comes from for lotteries -- the poor, often people…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You are offended by what, exactly? That lotteries are a tax on the poor (who often cite gambling as a legitamit retirement investment option!)? And you actually DON'T raise your chances, at all. The odds are actually in favor of you lowering your standard of living by whatever you are spending on lottery tickets. Look at the statistics on where the bulk of the money comes from for lotteries -- the poor, often people…
I'd be very curious about what kind of statistics you have that show a significant decrease in standard of living for $2 lottery tickets.
For people who make 100k a year they spend about $300 a year on lotteries.
Many states generate more revenue from lotteries than by taxes, so this is a regressive hidden tax effectively.
States also tax ticket sales for lotteries at close to 40% so it's also the worst investment tax around.
Lotteries are used by states to generate money from vulnerable poor populations and move that money back up to support other programs that wealthier folks enjoy.
Here is an indepth article outlining more. Unfortunately some of the links are broken, but I will update you if I find the base research studies mentioned.
http://www.alternet.org/hard-times-usa/disturbing-facts-abou...