From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.192] helo=mx.sourceforge.net) by sfs-ml-4.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1XjEaC-0007Zn-4e for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Tue, 28 Oct 2014 21:45:40 +0000 X-ACL-Warn: Received: from mail-la0-f51.google.com ([209.85.215.51]) by sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.76) id 1XjEaA-0000Jy-94 for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Tue, 28 Oct 2014 21:45:40 +0000 Received: by mail-la0-f51.google.com with SMTP id q1so1457865lam.24 for ; Tue, 28 Oct 2014 14:45:31 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from :date:message-id:subject:to:cc:content-type; bh=eTLzxgvc1yDEnwyTcmIDAFxe1aBC48ECJmAEb97Ooqw=; b=VvR09EkRjmUx24SIRyX05rL7eyyBcRWlqMIYr/OVPOBnGnJf17yCMpl72sGxOmlyVc XeZanC2zMpJTbfqoWMTjYVz1ISfdSityRqjMcd78Xd5d+Kj/N8QWvZmIt5EFtTrxB4wB av1t0Ml+ojyKflve0k1Dxh7KA1cIyB44Fk69fWsd+bOfosybqZwWuP8xV/iZEz22ETIe BKWOzHoUp4Gmrhys/0A+1j9SZ23mDzq9xa81LcWnjNMsqk0C9gPHT9PGYP4J+p3ZMmpC QaYKb7h9az7w3sl9OxJvb6oNFma4qK07ktlFh7auXK8k8u1cFjI8UgS3Z++uFIqDBvrv PwQw== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQl05kLzwrLl9LLPocy1yeR0YJsMdRpVKWB3dghBViZmqk70xqVQt6TJQ+HnpmVv7ZFFQjuk X-Received: by 10.112.135.229 with SMTP id pv5mr6995725lbb.52.1414532731494; Tue, 28 Oct 2014 14:45:31 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Sender: ferdinando@ametrano.net Received: by 10.25.15.158 with HTTP; Tue, 28 Oct 2014 14:44:50 -0700 (PDT) X-Originating-IP: [79.11.148.196] In-Reply-To: References: From: "Ferdinando M. Ametrano" Date: Tue, 28 Oct 2014 22:44:50 +0100 X-Google-Sender-Auth: 3qX5SmRLa3h1ZqENY6fyYLu9V5E Message-ID: To: Neil Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=089e0122930afbfee705068290cc X-Spam-Score: 0.9 (/) X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net. See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details. 0.0 FREEMAIL_FROM Sender email is commonly abused enduser mail provider (ferdinando.ametrano[at]gmail.com) 1.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message -0.1 DKIM_VALID_AU Message has a valid DKIM or DK signature from author's domain 0.1 DKIM_SIGNED Message has a DKIM or DK signature, not necessarily valid -0.1 DKIM_VALID Message has at least one valid DKIM or DK signature X-Headers-End: 1XjEaA-0000Jy-94 Cc: Bitcoin Development Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Fwd: death by halving X-BeenThere: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 28 Oct 2014 21:45:40 -0000 --089e0122930afbfee705068290cc Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 On Tue, Oct 28, 2014 at 10:34 PM, Neil wrote: > Economically a halving is almost the same as a halving in price (as fees > take up more of the pie, less so). > > Coincidentally the price has halved since early July to mid-October, and > we've not even seen difficulty fall yet. > because mining profits are many times operational costs. This might change because of competition, in that case halving in price will become problematic. It amazes me that basic economic considerations seems completely lost here, especially when it comes to mining. We should have learned the lesson of how a small error in the incentive structure has lead from "one CPU, one vote" to an oligopoly which might easily become a monopoly in the near future. --089e0122930afbfee705068290cc Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On T= ue, Oct 28, 2014 at 10:34 PM, Neil <kyuupichan@gmail.com>= wrote:

Economically a halving is almo= st the same as a halving in price (as fees take up more of the pie, less so= ).

Coincidentally the price has halved since early July to mid-October, and= we've not even seen difficulty fall yet.

because = mining profits are many times operational costs. This might change because = of competition, in that case halving in price will become problematic.

It amazes me that basic economic considerations seems = completely lost here, especially when it comes to mining. We should have le= arned the lesson of how a small error in the incentive structure has lead f= rom "one CPU, one vote" to an oligopoly which might easily become= a monopoly in the near future.
--089e0122930afbfee705068290cc--