Bitcoin Forum

delete

Probably got tired of all the cocks getting shoved into its face. Should just rename it to cock explorer.

So what am I looking at in this blockexplorer that shows it was taken offline?

AWESOME!!!  ;D

Well dpwn!

Relative latency analysis on the even blocks?

Your condoning of the use of bots to attack a network is embarrasing to the entire btc community.

Especially coming from a moderator who knows that BTCX claims to have use LOIC which made me LoL IRL extremely hard.

As for BTCX you are quite obviously a joke. Keep blasting those cannons while they get mitigated with absolute ease artard.

Sincerely,

Someone who isn't a complete noob.

Why should the 'BTC community' be embarrassed that SC has weakpoints?  Or why should the 'BTC community' give two fucks if BCX attacks it observes it being attacked?

Well with enough ddos btc could be taken down theoretically. It's merely the fact that he is applauding the use of ddos that is damaging to the communitys rep.

No it couldn't.  BTC doesn't have a single point of failure.

Worst case scenario everyone solo mines or uses full distributed pool like p2pool.


Luckily satoshi wasn't an idiot to take a nearly perfectly distributed network of peers and replace it with a vulnerable centralized network of trust.

All your comments seem to point to sand in your va...na. Seriously, either you get paid alot by some random authority or you have a senseless gripe against something you werent included in. Btw, there is no membership fee with Solidcoins so you are still welcome, dont be so jealous Angry man.

Technically if you ddosed all the pools and went on to hit individual users with a coordinated strike by multiple botnets, you could then very easily 51% the network.

Oh and ofc you wouldn't be using LOIC to commit those attacks LOLZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ.

No, I'm not.

CoinHunter is the biggest lame ever! He does not see the results of his own actions.

These attacks SHOULD be done! This is the only way to show people how crap is SC2. So, don't touch it!

I see these attacks as some kind of "stress test".

ANY system that can be put on test, should be tested.

Coinhunter says that SC2 is "hacker proof". If BTCX can prove that he is lying, let him do it.

How about we wait till his coordinated attacks is pulled off with his LOIC lololololol. Once it's down. Claim your victory. Until then stfu and keep you warmongering to yourself. Claiming ddos even in the embarrasing form of LOIC as something that should be done isn't good.

OP, man you are dumb.

You do realize we can change a miner ID in a moments notice, or someone might reboot their node at any time. You make broad assumptions... oh and by the way, where is this fork of the SC2 blockchain you were bragging about a week ago? Did it magicaly disappear when the description of how the super nodes work was released? At least a few people on these forums are starting to call BS when they smell it coming out of BitcoinExpress. I wonder how many more lies and criminal behavior you need to spew before the entire community turns against you? But until that day, I would like to thank those individuals who already have called you out.

I see no response to the forked chain comment... can I safely assume you are admitting the forked chain was a lie or do you have a response?

Your comments show that you don't understand what is result orientation and suggest that you do not have any practical experience whatoever.    
In real life (i.e not in your favorite holywood movie) if you can run a 51% attack using a couple thousand threads mining for a few bucks per hour at spot on EC2, then you go for it.
If you have got a handful of 4chaners you can hire to flood your target using LOIC, then you go for it.
You can comment all you want and be pretentious : that won't change the fact that BCX delivers, and you don't.

Yep, thats my Jeep in the driveway. But again, who ever said I ran a public hosting company? More poor assumptions by BitcoinExpress... tsk tsk.

We are now at block 33522 on SC. Did I miss anything here folks?

http://www.google.com/search?q="solidcoin+is+a+scam" (http://www.google.com/search?q="solidcoin+is+a+scam") <--- 5 results
vs.
http://www.google.com/search?q="bitcoin+is+a+scam" (http://www.google.com/search?q="bitcoin+is+a+scam")  <--- 14,500 results

Google tells us that Bitcoin is the real scam.

LOL

And now the cherry:

I did: www.google.com/search?q="Solid+2.0+scam" (http://www.google.com/search?q="Solid+2.0+scam") <-- No results found for "Solid 2.0 scam".

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_dZt6QPJB-jM/SwTRvCbNz3I/AAAAAAAAAmc/pxJzXAZFeMM/s1600/fail.jpg

BitcoinExpress why the fuck are you posting peoples houses on a Public forum. What does this prove you moron? Obviously he wasn't trying to hide the fact that his office was from home, like many professionals do their work during these tough economic times. But you wouldn't know anything about real work would you?

StalkerEXpress on work here dudes, nothing to see, move along!

Genuine question:

Given that the 'trusted nodes' are very critical points of failure in the SC system, why doesn't this bother SC supporters?

Weren't you ignoring me, douchebag?

LOL

You deserve it again:
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_dZt6QPJB-jM/SwTRvCbNz3I/AAAAAAAAAmc/pxJzXAZFeMM/s1600/fail.jpg

No because anyone can become a "trusted node" after they have 1,000,000 Solidcoins, thus keeping the system fully "decentralized".However I am waiting for the source like many others,before we begin to fight back some of the smear campaigning that has been going on...

The process of which one becomes a point-of-failure is irrelevant - it's the danger that points-of-failure bring.

Like the many points-of-failures in Bitcoin?

Edit:If you don't think that a network where the richest people protect the network with their OWN MONEY, isn't the one that has the least points of failures then I don't know what is. This system prevents 51% attacks, and insures that the people with the most money to loose never attack the network. And even if they did attack the network, they would only be one part of a greater decentralized authority.

The psychology of 'protecting the network with their own money' (which is another discussion) is not apart of the protocol.  I'm asking about the protocol.  The protocol says "If you fuck this handful of trusted nodes, the network freezes" - does that not bother anyone?

Yes, the network freezes unitl a super node get a new IP. But no coins are lost in that scenario. As soon as the chain starts moving again, its business as usual.

Right now we have 10 but in the future there will obviously be more. One interesting fact to note is that only the people at the top are the ones who pay the CPF.This CPF is part of the "fee" for being a trusted node and being that essential part of the network.  I mention this because a common misconception here BTCtalk is that everyone on the network pays the CPF. That is simply not true..

Okay, second question:

With how SC is designed around 'trusted nodes', and that's what protects vs a 51% attack... what's the point of mining?

I mean, why can't those trusted nodes simply do all the work to progress the chain?

Edit: I understand mining is a means of distribution.  But in BTC mining serves as distribution AND protection.  If SC has solved the protection with the 'trusted nodes'... why still have mining as a means of distribution?

They could, if everyone decides to buy coins instead of mine them, we could just the the trusted nodes run the chain 100%

see edit above

Even if you could DDoS a lot of the users on btc, its not a long term issue, eventually you wont have enough computers to take down a lot of the users on the network.

He has hardcoded the addresses of the premined trusted nodes... These can't be spent, but every other address with 1mio+ can act as a trusted node if they want and also spend their coins.

You have it wrong, only the original 10 trusted node's wallets can't be spent on the network.

Yes and to add to this point if you go under 1,000,000 you automatically loose super-node status.

Yes, if anyone gets around to answering my distribution question above:  How do ya'll all know this?  Is this what the source says, or just what CH says (honest question)

If you did that yes, but that part is not "very easy". You are talking about denying thousands of nodes instead of mere 10. It's just a matter of scale. The point is not if these networks can survive in their infancy, it's about which technology will be more resilient when they are big enough. That's why BCX's attack is not very useful at proving the point as well. When controlling these networks will be worth enough, DDOS will work for neither, just like DDOS'ing paypal wouldn't. The only point to be made, which is enough in my opinion, is that fewer points of failure is worse in principle. There is nothing stopping powerful entities from physically intervening with these nodes. I wouldn't want my money to be subject to the judgement of a few controlling entities.

Think of it this way... You could create a network of issuers and servers with OpenTransactions. Let's say, there are tens of these. There can be proxies and whatnot to protect their privacy, so the same methods apply. This way, you don't need to waste electricity on proof-of-work at all, and get the same protection of integrity. There are no 51% attacks. No more being subject to the "unfair distribution" argument as well. Distribute the money with free development bounties, so that all will be earned by hard work and issuers won't unjustly make money off of the currency itself. How is this not better?

We know because he said so =O
but we really don't KNOW

Has the code been reviewed by an "independent third party", no it has not. The public will have to wait until the scheduled source release this weekend.

Are you talking about BCX attacks on Solidcoin 2.0?
How do you know they happened?

Lure yourself out of this one...

Also if someone could tell me the 'why' of mining in SC 2.0 - if protection has already been achieved with the 'trusted nodes', why have 'the public' waste all that electricity mining?  Why is distribution still through mining?

Just forget about Solidcoin 2.0... Let people will realize by themselves that this is crap...  ;-)

Let's make the Bitcoin better and better!!

Forget about SC2 BCX!

That decision is up to the public, if they would rather buy the coins instead of mine them, then they are free to do so.

^ and I wasn't

Edit: you'd known that if you looked at who i quoted instead of removing it

Remember these trusted nodes also MINE as well :). If no one else is mining the difficulty stays low and they eat a bigger chunk of the pie.

My weather attack:
1. Season knowledge
2. I said it was going to snow in the winter, right before it did
3. At one point it was very clear that this was because of the low temperature
4. In the spring I raised temperature again, and it stopped to snow!

I see nothing.. Only you talking, nothing more, no proof whatsoever...


Your sarcasm detector is broken, dude... Was that caused by an imaginary BCX attack on your sarcasm neural network?

Don't you think CoinHunter has alot more to loose by not pre-coding that clause into the code, and proving people like you wrong?

I'm asking the rational of the protocol.  Why mining as a means of distribution?

Thats based off of historical facts.

Yeah, you said something... That's it, nothing more...

Because mining controls inflation/deflation of the currency. The more people that sign on to the network, the less the currency inflates. This is a hypothetical 'economic equilibrium" that humanity has never seen before. If 1000 people sign off, the hyper fast algo follows thus allowing the currency to inflate, and makes it psychologically attractive again to "mine". This whole idea that "Deflation is GOOD, or INFLATION is BAD, or vice-versa are just 2 parts to the greater truth. The fact is you need both to run a successful economy, and what could be the best regulator to that test than difficulty itself?

So SC detects the number of users (1000 people sign off), and not just the hash?

If it goes by 'users' (and thats who has to use money - people), then why is it distributed to who has the biggest rig?

Edit:  I mean, if 50% of the SC user base leaves, but one guy puts up a rig that equals those peoples lost hashrate, how is hashrate an indicator of economic deflation/inflation?

Well, I assumed you had already decompiled the binaries. Apparently, this is a bad assumption on my part. If you had, you would probably find 10 addresses listed.


Admittedly, the existence of addresses does not mean there is code using them, but again you should be able to verify that yourself.

I meant to say "hash" sorry :).

FIXED  :D

Atleast you are admitting that the source is valuable to you.  :D

If you have "tremendous resources" why the hell aren't you paying your team to just Build something better than SC? WTH are you doing on here TROLLING if you have "tremendous resources". Shit man you have some work to do lets get going!  :D :D

Tremendous resources = his puppy followers

They bark but they don't bite lol

Again, honest question:  If CH figured out how to negate the 51% attack, shouldn't a more reasonable means of distribution be cake?  Hashrate as an indicator of inflation/deflation seems extremely inefficient, prone-to-manipulation, and a waste of electricity (on the miners part).

Just to make sure I have this straight: Mining in SC is more about monitoring inflation/deflation, and less about distribution.  Would that be correct?

So I take it you have also been applauding the DDoS attacks on the major bitcoin pools a few days ago?
Not sure if everyone here realizes in many countries this is illegal and can lead to up to 10 years (http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2006/48/section/36) of imprisonment. Encouraging that sort of criminal behavior is not helping the reputation of bitcoin.

There is no easy way for me to take SC at the moment. In the future hopefully my company will solve that problem (or RS and SC community).. For now I take BTC and Paypal :).

I agree, decompiling is messy and *very* tedious, but extracting strings is not so difficult.
Everyone take note, BitcoinExpress "knows" the addresses (public keys) are not hardcoded.

Technically no "electric bill" is required to mine SC. You are obviously not using your imagination and thinking of the millions of servers that already use WIND and SOLAR to power the majority of their operations. You obviously have never used the client either, mining in SC is MUCH more efficient than Bitcoin... Why don't you just try the client out and see for yourself? If you don't trust it download a VM. If you don't know how to do so I can help you.

EDIT:I do all my daily operations, and mine SC on all cores and I honestly cannot believe that this thing is even running in the background. I have Core 2 Duo extreme on my gaming laptop, I also put this on my girlfriends laptop and shes generating a nice sum of SC already with her Intel I3. She beats my core 2 duo hands down. I also mine SC on all my BTC mining rigs, I put those CPUS to VERY good use :).

I'm talking about the 'average user' - not the guy running a server farm off of solar power.  That's not the intended distribution demographic is it?

The translation is: you lied most of the time and posted lot of bullshit withouth proof... Why should anyone with some brain believe you again?  ;D

BitcoinEXpress, honest question here:

What's stopping a single trusted node from being behind a proxy and only making outbound connections? Sure, you can DDoS the nodes that the trusted node is connected to, but the trusted node will be able to detect this and make new outbound connections. Essentially, to take down the network, you'd have to DDoS all of the listening nodes.

Now, you're probably going to say that you could do a sybil attack and just wait until the trusted node connects to you. But what if at least one trusted node is located behind a DDoS protection provider that will block and absorb all incoming connections?

"Very easily"?

Using BTC-PoolWatch there are an estimated 14,000 miners who are part of top 15 pools.  That puts total # of miners at roughly 22,000. 

So you are going to DDOS every pool and then find and DDOS 22,000 discrete solo miners (or a significant fraction of them)?  While not impossible I would hardly call that "easy".

Large pools are the weakest point of Bitcoin network.  Concept like p2pool have the potential to completely decentralize pools providing no single point of failure (for each pool).  A network of decentralized pools would greatly harden the network against DDOS attack.

There is something better than ScamCoin it is called Bitcoin.  You know that open source peer to peer network that RealSolid used the source to construct his centralized, digital fiat system.

I love Bitcoins technology aspect, but I hate it's "economic philosophy". We will wait and see what the market favors in the end :).

Which is why the source will probably never be released. CH is hoping that security through obscurity is good enough.

Security through obscurity is never good enough.

WEP, CSS, AACS, SecureRom (and every disc copy protection standard ever made), Mac OS bootloader, Console protection schemes, RSADSI, A5/1 (GSM phone encryption), Diebold.  History has hundreds of examples where dubious security through obscurity methods have been compromised.

If your system is secure then revealing the source code doesn't enable an attack.
If your system is insecure then hiding details may delay an attack but given enough attackers and enough value eventually the system will be compromised.  It merely delays the inevvitable.

Any system which tries otherwise violates Shannon's Maxim:
"The enemy knows the system"

I meant to ask.... as a result of the "attack" I noticed the following:

1) There was a single 1 min stumble on block generation.
2) A different trusted node started producing the even blocks (or is it odd?).

What else?

Am I missing something?

Sorry, too lazy to read the whole thread here :-)

You do realise right that saying that is calling CH an idiot - right?
There is no positive meaning to your statement.

Yes I am, bitcoin too, so what? and don't bother telling me what I am/do.... I already know.

I now wonder that if were typical that it took 40 mins to bring a secure node back up (sounds fair) then you'd have to sequentially find 9 more nodes and successfully take them down in under 40 mins.

I'm just trying to work out if you've proven to the world shock horror a public service can be took down.... or that the 51% measures taken are successful.

Comments?

He must feel the block chain still requires a manual kill switch and manual reorg capability to remove undesirable people from the block chain  :D

Why sequencialy? Why not find them all, in parallel or otherwise, beforehand and then go at them all at once? (possibly also taking the time to map the possible backup ones that are gonna be brought online  beforehand as well, to be ready to get them too if they show up)

By the glorious leader of course.

You'll probably find they are not all kept live at once.... hence you have to track them down sequentially, hence you've got to find and kill 9 of them before the first one is replaced/restored..... dipshit.

Then you make sure your node is the one that replaces it (if you have 1 million coins of course)

The nice thing is you can use your "bad trust node" to reduce the hashing power needed to attack the network by reducing the effectiveness of the "good nodes".  With a normal block chain network you can build a "bad chain" in private and only publish it once you have longer chain than the good chain.  Since every hash has equal chance of finding the solution you can overcome the network with 51% of hashing power.  Eventually the good network's luck will break and your bad chain will be longer and thus trusted by clients.  This is the conventional "51% attack".

Now here is the super cool part.   With solid coin the good network can't start another odd block until the prior even block is signed by a trusted node. When not attacked the even blocks are signed within seconds because they are always 1 difficulty.   One doesn't need to keep the good trusted nodes offline forever; they just need to be slowed down.   If the average even block signing time goes from few seconds to say 60 seconds then that degrades the good network effective hashing power because they need the hash of the prior even block (which is now taking longer) in the header of the next odd block.  In otherwords they have been handicapped 58 seconds in a race towards the next block.

If you have a "bad trusted node" you can sign your bad chain blocks in a few second and thus your bad network can start to work on the next odd block right away gaining a headstart on each block.  Thus with a bad trusted node and rotating DDOS attack on other trusted nodes you could theoretically gain control of the block chain with <51% of network hashing power.  How much less?  Well that depends on how much you can delay/slow the good trusted node blocks (even blocks) in the long run.

Currently even blocks take on average 2 seconds and odd blocks on average 120 seconds to sign the block for a combined time of 122 seconds for each pair. If by attacking trusted nodes you slow down the average signing of even blocks by say 30 seconds then average total time for a pair of blocks is now 152 seconds.  However the bad network signed their even block in 2 seconds giving them 150 seconds to sign the odds block vs 122 seconds for the "good" network.  In that handicapped race the bad network will eventually have the longest chain with only 44% of network hashing power.  

The longer the trusted nodes can be delayed (on average) the more the bad network can handicap the race.  Since bad network can build chain in private you don't need to slow down each even block of the good chain just slow down the average even block signing time. 

Bitcoin's inflation rate is not exponential, it tends toward zero.


So as technology improves and hash rates increase, so will the rate of coin generation? Sounds pretty exponential to me...

When contrasting SolidCoin to Bitcoin you said of SolidCoin "inflation is not exponential". I assumed this to mean that you were saying that Bitcoin's inflation rate is exponential.


Which of X or Y is increased by higher difficulty?


Really? That's quite a claim. Moore's law has held true for about 50 years, and by the time we are no longer able to place more transistors into a 2D space we'll probably be ready to go 3D. So this is a very naive assumption. If difficulty is related to mining technology, and the inflation rate is related to difficulty, then inflation will be exponential.

viper... save your breath m8... the likes of taxes and BCX have no idea that someone can like the two most original digital crypto chains ever...... because given the evidence I've been shown they are kiddie-fiddling winde up merchants..... and for their sad-shit followers... well not really worth the mention really ;-)

Inconveivable or improbable.  

Computing power per unit of cost has been doubling roughly every 2 years for last 4 decades.  That is a million fold increase in last 40 years.  Pretty much the definition of exponential.  The likekilhood of any of your insane scenarios happening in near term (say 1-2 decades) is highly improbable.  What is probable is that Moore's Law will continue for another two decades and continue to see exponential growth in computing power (at least in the near term).

2 decades of doubling every 2 years = 2^10 = 1000x fold increase in computing power.

You must not be aware of the development of three dimensional transistors. They look to bridge the gap to the next major paradigm quite nicely. http://arstechnica.com/business/news/2011/05/intel-re-invents-the-microchip.ars

Exactly.  I think in the near term those scenarios are highly unlikely.  Nothing is impossible.  An undetected long orbit asteroid could hit Earth tomorrow and wipe out all life but that is rather IMPROBABLE.  So while growth may not be expontential  forever it seems probable that will continue in the near term.


We have at least 4 die shrinks before that happens.  That combined with other efficiency improvements (die reorganizations, yield improvements, production effciency gains, etc) means computing power likely will continue to increase exponentially for at least next two decades.   Moore's law has been declared dead many times in the past and yet it still remains

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/00/Transistor_Count_and_Moore%27s_Law_-_2011.svg/667px-Transistor_Count_and_Moore%27s_Law_-_2011.svg.png

So as I originally stated I think the most PROBABLE scenario is that we continue to have exponential growth for near term.  Any economic model should be based on the most probable scenario dot the possible but improbable chance that we see the end of civilization as we know it.

And to give a broader perspective:

https://i.imgur.com/Su2b1.jpg

Unless you assumptions about long term 1000+ future blind you to the reality in short term and the system never lives beyond the short term.   Hate to break it to you but if we go into a technological dark age your ScamCoins aren't going to do your grandkids any good.   Good farming land, a deep well, firearms, and enough muscle to ensure nobody takes it would be worth a lot more.

Who said anything about loss of all technology but crypto currencies are built on top of a pinnacle of increasingly complex technology.

Electrical power -> microprocessors -> personal computers -> global communication networks -> near istantaneous wireless data delivery

The idea that this complex and fragile "tech chain" would survive a technological dark age is dubious even on face value.  Hardened, independent, easily repaired technologies would be the ones which survive.    A catapult didn't require a massive global network of specialized industries to support it.

Global technological dark age = no crypto currencies.

With all due respect, planning thirty years ahead is problematic to the point of intractability.

Planning for hundreds of years ahead borders on  delusional - consider the world of 1911, and you will realize that our not so ancient past is more alien to us that most "alien civilizations" contrived by science-fiction authors (even good authors), and this process is accelerating.

It is not unlikely that our grandchildren will be almost incapable of relating to us and our concerns due to changes in lifestyle and psychology (the inverse will also be true)

Do you believe that we will have as much technological progress from now until 2111 as we did from 1911 until now?

I know it was directed at lemonade man but given technological progress is increasing we should have far more progress in the next century than in the prior one.  A large component of that is the free flow of informations.  From printing press -> mass printing -> digital records -> computer networks the ease at which information can be shared is continually increases.  Social changes like the rise of open source and distributed projects fits into that too.  There is less re-inventing of the wheel, more forward progress. 

Personally I think we are at the Commodore 64 stage in the rise of bio-engineering.  100 years from now people will look back and consider our understanding of bio-chemistry to be so primitive.  I mean look at Pharmacueticals today.  We try a bunch of compounds, most do nothing, some work but not well, others are dangerous maybe 1 in 10,000 is useful and safe enough to market.   The reason why is our understanding of how various compounds affects the body is very limited so it is more a "poke it and see what happens" model of research. 

Really? You think at some point we're just going to say "naaaah, computers are fast enough, let's not bother making them better"?

lol

I think there will be a point where computers will be "infinitely fast".
Or so I have read :).

Yeah utter foolishness.  

The modern world is only possible because computers have gotten 1 MILLION times faster than 8080 microprocessor built my Intel 40 years ago.  Entire tech trees have opened up in every possible field because of that explosion in computations power.  The fact that he considers it is "the frivolity of buying the latest and greatest computer tech" is a luddite point of view.

Those "alternate forms of science" are already ongoing.  Massivelly parallel computing power has lead to better understanding of human brain, mapping the human genome, better understanding of our planets, decoding data from radio telescopes.  Those are just the "grand projects".

My life is improved because I have a Tivo and don't need to time my day around a TV schedule.  Without a million fold increase in computational power even if someone had theorized the idea of a Tivo it would never have been practical or feasible.

The idea that we will STOP DOING THAT COMPUTER THING and concentrate on other stuff is stupid.  Sorry can't think of an nice word.  We have made breakthroughs at an astonsihing rate BECAUSE OF COMPUTING POWER and more (hopefully millions or a billions times more) computing power in the future will enable faster not slower rate of discovery.

Hardly.

1) the entire human race in aggregate is capable of researching more than one thing at a time.  As a % of global GDP the amount of R&D spent on faster chips is a rounding error.  We managed to get a million fold increase in computation power per unit of cost and it didn't require some huge fraction of global research.  

2) The only reason we are even begining to unlock the secrets of bio-engineering is because of massively parallel super computers.  With computers a billion times faster we are MORE likely not less likely to make meaningful breakthroughs.  If anything a stagnation in usable computing power means a stagnation in global research.  Not just in bio-engineering but in dozens of other sciences.


All of which will require more and more and more computing power for cheaper and cheaper and cheaper.


Then again the Fermi Paradox indicates that on a long enough timeline it may not matter (however that is just to depressing so I just choose to discount it)  
;D

Are you talking about your flawed idea of how humans research and develop (faster computers, better models will allow us to develop those other fields better and faster), or your flawed understanding of paradigms of accelerating change (when 2d transistors can no longer be shrunk, we'll be on to the next paradigm)?

If Moore's law is broken it will because of an inability to sustain it not because of a lack of desire.
There are so many things that we could do better if only computers were another million times faster.

I don't think you will find any researcher in any field using parallel computing that would say "yup we would be able to do X faster in the slowed down computer growth and focused on X".

It is because of massive computational growth that we are able to advance X (yes I used a variable because it applies almost universally to any research).  Every potential problem you named if solved FASTER not SLOWER with a massive increase in global computing power.

I didn't imply anything you said human race will turn away from increasing computing performance to persue other things.

I also conditioned that Moore's law wouldn't be broken in the near term.  Eventually we won't be able to sustain it but I think we got another two decades at least.   There is sufficient demand that the prize for faster and cheaper computing power means it will get sufficient resources to solve problems that might derail it.  

Beyond two decades is harder to know because it will require a complete shift from silicon chips to something else.  Still taking this in a complete circle back to the original tangent computing power will continue to grow exponentially over next two decades.  Any economic model that considers otherwise won't survive the short term to reach any long term where computing power growth slows down.

I've been following death and vipers discussion. While I think ya'll essentially agree with the curve Moores Law will take, I also can't wrap my head around how betting against Moores Law in the short-term with SCs inflation algorithm makes any sense.

Actually the interesting (and obvious) issue with Moores law is that of course with a single technology there will eventually be a convergence to some physical limit.
However, the solution to that problem is a change in direction or a change in technology.
CPU's already do have a processing speed limit.
That limit is quite simply, the speed of light.
At 4GHz a wave can only travel ~75mm each cycle thus the paths within a CPU have an upper bound on them that is already close to being necessary to be taken into consideration.
The solution that GPU mining already shows is multiple cores.
The next batch of CPU's from ATI are already out with 8 CPU cores.
The top 69xx ATI GPU's have roughly 1000 cores in them.
That's the current solution to the issue.
Who knows what the next one will be.

I'm thinking 3D chip features.

Also IIRC the propagation speed of electricity in microprocessors is slower than speed of light so that size limit is actually smaller.  Still thanks for reminding me of the propagation limit.  Even if you could take a chip to 6GHz, 8GHz, or 10GHz it would have to be an incredibly small chip to get speeds that high.

Which is why chips likely will stay in the 3GHz to 4GHz range for the next couple generations and use architectural improvements, increase high speed cache, and more cores to COST EFFECTIVELY raise computational power.  Bulldozer has 8/4 cores (8 integer cores and 4 shared floating point cores).  The next gen Bulldozer planned for 2013 will have 12/6 cores. 

People sometimes forget Moore's law is about doubling transistor count AT THE LOWEST COST.  Sure you could make a chip that is 4000 cores running at 6GHz and is the size of a pizza box however that would have nothing to do with Moore's law since the yield would be incredibly bad and the cost would be astronomical.

Actually, Im not so sure. For the past decade I have been waiting for that "killer app" to make use of our computing resources, but it isnt happening. 10 years ago we heard all those promises of voice recognition, AI and what not. Ill see if I can find a funny slide I saw from intel making 10 year predictions, I found it laughable at the time, I think its hilarious now. In reality those problems have proven to be software, not hardware problems, and we havent progressed much since 2000. Basically our PCs are still doing the exact same things they were doing 10 years ago, and a need for faster processing for the most part just isnt there. For the bulk of daily tasks, our current hardware, or even old hardware, is more than fast enough, given efficient software.

Its therefore no surprise to see the current trends are away from highend PCs, towards slower but more mobile, more easy to use and usually, more affordable devices. First the netbook rage, now smartphones, tablets, and upcoming smartbooks. For those tasks these machines are too slow to handle, there is always the cloud. Even gaming is moving to the cloud, look up OnLive or Otoy.

Im willing to bet in 10 years, the majority of us will use computing devices that are barely faster than our current desktops. They might even be slower. They will no doubt be more useful, have better software and connectivity, they will be more portable and tap in to performance remotely when needed. But significantly better raw performance? I doubt it.

Anyway, thats not to say I declare Moore's Law dead yet. It will be used however primarily to obtain better energy efficiency. The same chips that power your iphone  or android phone will end up in huge numbers in datacenters, and those datacenters will do ever more of our number crunching. PCs will become like Unix workstations: rare (and expensive) dinosaurs.

The speed of light might not be the ultimate limit, they still haven't figured out exactly if that neutrino really moved under the known laws or if somthing unexpected took place.

They didn't account for the relative motion of the satellite.

http://www.technologyreview.com/blog/arxiv/27260/?ref=rss

Awn, that's disappointing...

I guess i was getting outdated info...

okay more OT since the original topic is boring anyway:
That report is HIGHLY dubious. To point out just one thing, AFAIK the opera team did not use GPS satellites for timing as claimed by the author; they used atomic clocks on the ground, and these atomic clocks where synchronized by moving a third atomic clock from one location to the other and back. The question of relativistic effects has been raised on the first press conference, and the researchers were adamant ALL effects had been taken in to account. Considering this was a 3 year experiment with highly unusual results, to assume the entire team forgot something as basic as.. relativity, is just not likely. BTW, it also appears (if the internet is to believed) the author is a crackpot. I cant vouch for that, but writing the report alone and working for a "department of artificial intelligence", I wouldnt take this as fact until its confirmed.