a ver si se ve....

Taberna

From Wiskipedia

(Difference between revisions)
(shupenla)
Line 1: Line 1:
-
hey there and thank you for your info – I’ve definitely peckid up anything new from right here. I did however expertise some technical points using this site, since I experienced to reload the web site a lot of times previous to I could get it to load properly. I had been wondering if your hosting is OK? Not that I am complaining, but sluggish loading instances times will often affect your placement in google and could damage your high quality score if advertising and marketing with Adwords. Well I’m adding this RSS to my e-mail and can look out for much more of your respective intriguing content. Ensure that you update this again very soon..
+
== uBeyQhpKiBpMcqnNvg ==
 +
 
 +
Except that is very clearly is, if not a pyiamrd scheme, a scheme which gives certain powerful and wealthy individuals absolutely disproportionate profits through the work of others who receive only a minute fraction of them.I am not talking (only) about the sickest miners with the best rigs. Besides, they used and paid for their electricity. The problem is the control exerted by the pool operators.It is easy to see how enormously the pool operators profit. They claim the fee of 2-3% (which translates to 1-1.5 BTC) is required to maintain the pool. However, a simple calculation reveals a single operator of a major pool makes hundreds or thousands of dollars' worth of bitcoins daily by maintaining it. One does not need these kinds of amounts of money to maintain a server or even a dozen.The thing is, I am perfectly fine with this. Everyone is a voluntary participant and is able to track his/her profits (or usually lack thereof) virtually in realtime. Besides, what people are contributing here is some computation time, getting big electricity bills. Compared to the massive Ponzi schemes where people lose their lifetime savings and their houses this is just another nice little game on the Internet for most. One doesn't really lose anything of substance even though he might not (and most likely will not) profit from mining, be it pooled or solo.We still shouldn't delude ourselves by thinking that this doesn't follow the same path as any  money for free  scheme: the early bird gets the worṃ (gets the easiest bitcoins and ends up having the most of them). Additionally, as in any scheme seen so far, the ones early in the game get to use the others to further increase their profits, usually maintaining a faster rate of profit than any of the people who entered the game later. We are already past the point when this starts happening and we can easily observe it happening right now thanks to the extensive market data and statistics. It can't be stopped. It is just the nature of this beast.

Revision as of 19:44, 23 January 2009

uBeyQhpKiBpMcqnNvg

Except that is very clearly is, if not a pyiamrd scheme, a scheme which gives certain powerful and wealthy individuals absolutely disproportionate profits through the work of others who receive only a minute fraction of them.I am not talking (only) about the sickest miners with the best rigs. Besides, they used and paid for their electricity. The problem is the control exerted by the pool operators.It is easy to see how enormously the pool operators profit. They claim the fee of 2-3% (which translates to 1-1.5 BTC) is required to maintain the pool. However, a simple calculation reveals a single operator of a major pool makes hundreds or thousands of dollars' worth of bitcoins daily by maintaining it. One does not need these kinds of amounts of money to maintain a server or even a dozen.The thing is, I am perfectly fine with this. Everyone is a voluntary participant and is able to track his/her profits (or usually lack thereof) virtually in realtime. Besides, what people are contributing here is some computation time, getting big electricity bills. Compared to the massive Ponzi schemes where people lose their lifetime savings and their houses this is just another nice little game on the Internet for most. One doesn't really lose anything of substance even though he might not (and most likely will not) profit from mining, be it pooled or solo.We still shouldn't delude ourselves by thinking that this doesn't follow the same path as any money for free scheme: the early bird gets the worṃ (gets the easiest bitcoins and ends up having the most of them). Additionally, as in any scheme seen so far, the ones early in the game get to use the others to further increase their profits, usually maintaining a faster rate of profit than any of the people who entered the game later. We are already past the point when this starts happening and we can easily observe it happening right now thanks to the extensive market data and statistics. It can't be stopped. It is just the nature of this beast.

Personal tools