Yeah, its still profitable to run them at a $50 exchange rate. GPU miners will probably shut down though - helping slow the rate of difficulty increasing, and helping out the ASICs a bit.
I disagree on that. I'm certain all currently ordered miner devices would instantly become unprofitable.
I was talking more about ASIC companies themselves. Can they handle a correction; fabricate and sell at a 50% discount and remain profitable?
Avalon has already made a fortune.
AM also already made their fair share and their recent cut in pricing (50% for USB Miners) shows that once R&D has paid off there's a rather wide margin.
BFL... well, lets not talk about BFL.
Metabank's Bitfury Miners are tacked to fiat.
Same for KncMiner.
Did I miss one?
Steady... steady...
It is sad, that bitcoin users might destroy bitcoins with this bullshit.
If you want to have a worldwide currency, that is actually USED, you will need better infrastructure than a C64.
Decentralised doesn't mean you can use your gameboy.
1 mb is definitely to small. Look at the visa transactions.
And we will need a change soon. Or the dream will be over faster than you think.
I don't quite get the argument either.
-) How would increasing the blocksize to, say, 2mb, force the Blockchain into datacenters? Storage space for running a full node is of the least concern.
-) Offchain transactions need centralized entities, the very opposite of keeping Bitcoin decentralized.
Maybe I'm overlooking something, but the only
potential problem I see with larger blocksizes is possible delays in block propagation. Not sure how much this would be an issue though. I'm willing to learn if I missed something tough.
Lol, its at £466, the idiots don't know they are not bidding on real bitcoin.
Later that day:
