899400+ entries in 0.657s
mircea_popescu: otherwise, it'd have been better
to not sell
them at all.
mircea_popescu: there's a finite loss
to be
thus funneled into investor pockets.
mircea_popescu: ThickAsThieves inasmuch as
the machines are sold for more
than
they're worth,
the people buying are making a loss
mircea_popescu: ThickAsThieves
that's pretty much
the only actual alpha scenario here.
mircea_popescu: the value of
the sweing machines is strictly in cutting its
textile market
ThickAsThieves: the life of
the mining hardware sales market is surely longer
than
the mining farm efforts
furuknap: mp, I
think I also spoke
to
that no later
than
today somewhere :-) Look, I
think I understand what you mean, and if I do, my analysis follows
that suit, albeit with likely different evaluations of risk and hope.
ThickAsThieves: the benefit is
that AM both sells
textiles AND sewing machines
mircea_popescu: ThickAsThieves
the problem is not
that.
the problem is
the maintenance cost of
that dominance
mircea_popescu: it's fascinating
to me
to see
that it's mostly
the idnependents falling in it.
mircea_popescu: as a way
to even
the playing field (figuring moneyed interest will fall in, independent geeky
types will avoid it)
mircea_popescu: i am personally convinced
that satoshi deliberately created
the mining
trap
ThickAsThieves: but can
they not stay a leg up for
the foreeable future?
furuknap: The commoditizaion is why I want
to look at profitability in mining companies over
the long
term, and
thus why I sold out of AM earlier.
ThickAsThieves: the quote is great insight, but we don't know WHEN
that will happen
mircea_popescu: worse
than fx issues, worse
than
the abundance of scammers,
furuknap: I've read it previously. I was attending
that
thread a bit later on.
jborkl: A very
technically proficient operator with poorer equipment, can still do well. You have
to be good
though
furuknap: I also know
that, I'm a big fan of numbersd, remember? :-) I've run
the scenarios so many
times I see Excel sheets in
the back of my eyelids when I blink.
jborkl: The quality of
the mining operator, makes a huge difference. A
technically challenged person will have a very hard
time- even with good equipment
furuknap: Oh, I know
that. Mining is an investment in dropping prices. I hate it every
time I see BTC go up because I hold some mining
mircea_popescu: furuknap you seem so unaware of
the fundamental problems of mining for some reason
furuknap: This is
the halving effect I've been
touting for
the past few weeks in practice. We know
that once a more powerful bond comes online,
the less powerful bonds will drop in dividends. It's simple math, plus and minus. So why aren't anyone even noticing
this?
ThickAsThieves: at least with AM, you know
they will hold a % of
the network
ThickAsThieves: personally i dont understand why anyone would buy a fixed-hash mining asset, unless
they were
trying
to short-term speculate
to sell
furuknap: You would somehow expect
that if PAJKA (or any other bond, really, I'm not picking on
them) would be dropping in price
to match
the value of
the share once more powerful bonds like 100TH (or anyone, really and I'm not praising
them either) come online.
jurov: ...and while everyone is expertly smelling and analyzing mining
turds, never before seen pattern emerges unnoticed: *both* s.mpoe and btcusd go up... causes me goosebumps.
furuknap: Then
there's 100TH, which granted isn't delivering yet, but let's just forego
that and chalk it up
to risk and look at expected revenue. 100TH is fixed at 200MH/s, and if
things go according
to plan,
that will be operational sometime
this summer, let's sau August
to pick a date.
furuknap: However,
they are capped now at 3MH/s per share and will forever be capped at 15 MH/s when
their new ASICs arrive. Which is fine. It's a fixed rate, people should know what
they're buying.
furuknap: PAJKA bonds are nice little animals run by a seemingly honest person
that has been chugging along nicely and yielding a reasonable profit.
furuknap: Let me
take one example, not very
taken out of
thin air, and not meant
to
talk anyone or
thing down...
furuknap: I would argue mad, and by mad I mean
that
there is no correlation between numbers and decisions and people seem
to not notice in
the least.
deadweasel: i
think
the whole of BTC are borderline personalities
furuknap: Yeah, and
that includes me
too :-)
furuknap: Miners
themselves are even more crazy.
deadweasel: i've spent more
time and money setting up my miners
than I'll EVAR get back.
furuknap: The mining asset market is completely bonkers. Absolutely insane. Its investors are equally utterly and undeniably mad. Most likley,
that includes me.
There, now I said it. Carry on.
jborkl: the bitbet on diff. what digit determines
the even number?
furuknap: Bah,
tytus...
That _was_ an honest mistake...
furuknap: Bot market
trading is really just
the first step of
the battle of man versus machine. Soon,
they'll start developing weapons and our bodies will be props in
the next
Terminator movie.
jborkl: I will also be selling O.USD.C170N = Same
terms as above. bot price * 0.75 = my price
inhies: knowing
the
trading patterns of other bots, when
the mean bot saw
that
the nice bot was gonna start buying, mean bot buys first and
then sells
to nice bot at a markup
inhies: read an article
that
touched on
that
qxzn: yes, but you won't beat my bots
that way :)
qxzn: there are ways
to game bots if you are clever, and
the bot isn't defensively enough written
ThickAsThieves: i imagine stock exchange bots could also be gamed
then
qxzn: bot writers have
to be careful about not having
their house completely cleaned out
mircea_popescu: person knowing it's really 2/3 rather
than 50-50 could basically
take all
the bot's liquidity
qxzn: I sorta
throw all
that into my case #3
mircea_popescu: but
then it's discovered
the code is bad and odd is
twice as common as even
mircea_popescu: just like
the bot
that went deeply into
the bitbet bet
thinking it's 50-50
qxzn: well yes,
there are some particular cases where you can beat
the bot
qxzn: There are a couple reasons
to
trade. 1: you are investing. In
that case, you don't care about bots. 2: you are arbing/providing liquidity. in
that case, you should have bots because it's more efficient in
terms of human labor. 3: you are speculating / doing "thinky" fundamentals
trading. see case 1.
jborkl: I anyone is interested, O.USD.P125N < I will sell
these puts starting
tomorrow = bot current price * .75 = my price
ThickAsThieves: can you not picture an envorinment where people say "I dont
trade on X,
too many f'n bots"
mircea_popescu: <qxzn> eh, I'm skeptical of
the valuable of having a bunch of novice
traders bouncing around
these exchanges <<
ThickAsThieves: an exchange doesn
tcare what kind of experience you have
qxzn: eh, I'm skeptical of
the valuable of having a bunch of novice
traders bouncing around
these exchanges
qxzn: but if you are
trying
to
take liquidity, you might be glad
there are bots
qxzn: if you are
trying
to provide liquidity on a stock exchange without a computer, you're going
to be frustrated
mircea_popescu: if he knows a bot will cover
to 18-18
then he knows he gets fair odds
qxzn: then
they like
them
qxzn: except when
they are capable of creating
their own, of course
ThickAsThieves: it would be hard, but I wish
there was a way
to study it
qxzn: mircea_popescu
this is a losing argument