|
I am laughing my ass off at you.
You think you can undermine demand?
Seriously?
The amount of coins I will make in the next week because of you jackhats, LMAO.
Get off the internet if you don't know how blowback aka the Streisand effect works.
Last thread I'll post for a while.
|
|
|
|
I've been having trouble getting cgminer to work... I can get reaper to mine LTC at faster speeds (still not as fast as it should be), however I prefer to use cgminer because it has many more features. Cgminer will mine bitcoins at proper speeds, getting over 2.5 Gh. However when I launch cgminer, I am stuck at really slow speeds (10-15Kh per core of a 5970).
5 BTC goes to anyone that can get me running at full speeds.
Specs:
Three 5970s & Two 5870s
Windows 7
Installed the latest version of AMD APP SDK & latest AMD drivers
Using 2 powered extenders and dummy plug resistors on all cards.
4Gb RAM (I tried up to 8Gb, but it made no difference)
What am I doing wrong? I've tried everything I can think of.
See me on IRC on freenode - I get 770 khash overnight (desktop unusable, just enough to change cgminer settings in the morning) at aggression 20 on linux |
|
|
|
|
Cryptocoin security is dependent on:
Strength of algorithm
Distribution of mining resources
Difficulty
Network strength
Strength of algorithm:
Scrypt is so much more expensive in terms of resources to purchase, lower hashrate creates an upper bound of attack strength.
It cost so much more money to increase attack strength in Litecoin that it becomes a very strong wall against attacks.
Hashrate is not the measurement of strength. Hashrate * Strength of algorithm is.
Compare a flood of millions of gallons water to thousands of larger boulders. The damage done by the boulders can be more even though the count is less.
Distribution of mining resources:
The distribution issue is not linear. It's parabolic (high imbalance at low and high ends of spectrum).
High jumps from one technology to the next has the same effect as low difficulty.
High jumps balkanize the mining power in the hands of people who do not spend.
If big miners don't buy carrots via bitcoin, then the bitcoins are useless to carrot farmers.
Difficulty:
The difficulty is lower in litecoin right now, but in reality litecoin is the same as bitcoin 5 years from now because of the algo strength.
Network strength:
It takes less work to get the same security in litecoin as it does in bitcoin.
Scrypt creates a tough ceiling for new tech to overcome.
Bigger bat is just as good as faster bat in physics.
All in all litecoin is a more secure network because no new technology can come in all of a sudden and surprise the network and undermine security even if only temporarily.
|
|
|
|
|
Those computers use much more power when mining than when idle.
We have this absent minded notion of "leaving the lights on" when we think about computers.
My computer idle consumes less than the 3 incandescent lights in this room. Until I start mining.
This is the problem with rhetoric. It allows to try reasoning without the numbers.
|
|
|
|
|
Jesus fuck.
I'm gonna be so fucking busy this fall with my crews dealing with this shit.
OpTrapWire, MintChip.
Fine. Expect us.
|
|
|
|
|
Wow. That didn't take long.
Working on MasterCoin type things...
Man this place lights up when summer is over just like Anons.
Well the hive has ideas, I guess we can find some common ground.
|
|
|
|
So while driving across Wyoming today my mind wandered to proof-of-stake. And whether or not it would be possible to attack a proof-of-stake system by repeatedly sending expensive to verify but invalid proofs of stake.
I think you could.
Example: if the proof-of-stake involves creating a bunch of valid signatures using private keys that you own, then an attacker could buy or create a few thousand keys (e.g. buy 10,000 units of currency and then split them into 10,000 addresses) and submit a proof-of-stake where 9,999 signatures are valid and the last one is invalid.
The proof-of-stake will fail, but it will cost the victims approximately the same CPU time to find that out as it takes the attacker to generate the signatures. If the attacker can repeatedly send the same proof-of-stake, and the victims don't cache the work of checking the signatures, then you've got the basis for a great denial-of-service attack.
Proof-of-work doesn't suffer from this attack, because it is MUCH easier to validate proof-of-work (one hash operation) than to generate it. I haven't thought deeply about whether or not you could come up with a proof-of-stake that has the same "hard to generate, easy to validate" property. I suppose you could require that a proof-of-stake have a small, limited number of signatures-- requiring that stakeholders maintain a small number of large-balance addresses. That's bad for privacy and security, though.
You could disconnect/ban peers that submit invalid proofs-of-stake; an attacker would have to mount a Sybil attack using lots of IP addresses to get around that. That might be a problem in an IPv6 world of essentially infinite IP addresses, though...
A hybrid system that requires proof-of-work AND proof-of-stake might work. You'd have to be careful to tie the proof-of-stake to the proof-of-work, though, otherwise an attacker might be able to re-use the same proof-of-work over and over.
I'm curious: if you've been working on a proof-of-stake system, is this kind of attack the kind of thing you've already thought about and solved?
I'm proposing a 4 point proof-of-substance system: http://litecoinforums.org/index.php?/topic/22-cartel-wars/Proof of work corresponds to mining. Proof of stake corresponds to 'hoarding'. Proof of reach corresponds to pools. Proof of value corresponds to exchanges. Each of these contexts has a weakness deeply connected to its fundamental nature. There is a solution but it will be a combination of all these proofs. Work prevents inflation without substance. This is solved. Stake prevents massive attacks on the network. However, quite a few idio... individuals think low balance holders should not be able to participate. Any pool of people carrying a given load of coins should be able to participate in proof of stake. Proof of reach would encourage pools to branch out and serve different kinds of communities. Proof of value would help demonstrate initial value to new cryptocurrencies without the initial 2 to 4 year lead time. I'm particularly concerned that there's an attitude here that high balance is equivalent to the productive potential of the individual, a fallacy even Ayn Rand didn't subscribe to. I sometimes think it's an innate fear that beyond the high asset holdings there's nothing to stop a smarter person from becoming more prominent, and that scares some people. This is why I choose to support litecoins. Aside from the technical superiority, the infinitely smaller degree of paranoia among litecoiners makes litecoin a saner community. |
|
|
|
Let me get this straight OP, you don’t like trolls so you bring your argument to THIS forum to complain? You are a complete shit for brains. LOL
LMAO. To be fair, bitcoiners has said some decent and useful things, but there's nothing I can't stand more than someone wanting a stuffy necktie-too-tight-for-blood-flow environment because big important people might not like it. Seriously, wake the fuck up. Big important necktie autoerotic asphyxiation lovers are making decisions on Wall Street and wrecking everything they think is giving them a sideways wink the wrong way. Long live trolls. They're the only ones who won't destroy everything they touch. Maybe pinch you a little. |
|
|
|
Here's the btc-e chat regarding this post right now.  Oh no, you have me quoting that I think NASDAQ/Security Cult is scary for his extreme opinions (such as telling you to die in a fire) and then saying I need money for prostitutes in Spanish. Not much of that had to do with this thread at all. Die in a fire is an old Internet meme. It's not an actual threat lol. Also all hail prostitutes who don't have any pimps telling them when to screw, who to screw, and what percentage they get of the proceeds. |
|
|
|
People who want to get rid of the trollbox, want to feel like there's a black Jennifer Lopez coming to them for their every need while they hand mastur... calculate possible trading strategies without the commoners talking to them.
Yup. That's why you hate the box. It means average people have access to the same resources you are using. You're the joke. You're the one who needs a suit n tie (why do I feel like a hypocrite??) and a room with a marble desk to feel comfortable.
Please die in a fire, you elitist waste of electrons and H2O.
Fuck professionals. Only the amateurs and experts ever invent anything.
All the pros and armchair generals ever do is hype their pump and dump schemes.
Keep going. I want this saved for posterity. Nice community. Please be sure of this: I normally don't post here, but when decent communities get shit on by people who would rather walk around with blinders on and pretend no one else is around to question their self importance, I tend to be a bit more present. You are not an investor. You just have a trading habit. If you were an investor, you would enjoy shooting the shit with the trolls after placing your long term bets on prices low and high. You're just afraid no helicopter millionaire is going to grace this community with their presence so you can feel like one of the big shooters. You're the one who needs to shut out the chatbox (the community) to feel better about yourself. You want that new car, antiseptic, minty fresh, airport gate feel only without the other people there for you to look down at. Seriously, you're on an exchange. All you have to do is punch numbers and push buttons. Check out vircurex. Granted it's sometimes slow, but they allow trading of almost every alt coin. The volume is an absolute joke. There's no community in the site. |
|
|
|
|
People who want to get rid of the trollbox, want to feel like there's a black Jennifer Lopez coming to them for their every need while they hand mastur... calculate possible trading strategies without the commoners talking to them.
Yup. That's why you hate the box. It means average people have access to the same resources you are using. You're the joke. You're the one who needs a suit n tie (why do I feel like a hypocrite??) and a room with a marble desk to feel comfortable.
Please die in a fire, you elitist waste of electrons and H2O.
Fuck professionals. Only the amateurs and experts ever invent anything.
All the pros and armchair generals ever do is hype their pump and dump schemes.
|
|
|
|
YAY! POLARIZED INEFFECTIVE TROLLING COMMENCING! MORE IDEOLOGICAL EGO STROKING! BAN GUNS! BAN TRIGGERS! BAN PEOPLE! BAN BANNING! I WANT MORE OF THIS UNTIL WE ALL PUKE OR GET STRUCK BY LIGHTNING BY GEORGE CARLIN. WE NEED MORE SENSELESS BLOGGING AND DEBATE! |
|
|
|
That's funny because so far every proof-of-stake proposal I've seen says "Minimum X (large) coins and peasants get to fill out napkin size complaint form". There are 2 proposals (see https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Proof_of_Stake, also linked in the OP) and none of them say anything about a minimum. The "minimum" that may be needed in practice is on the order of magnitude of dollars. I think you might be confused with the SolidCoin system. Well so far someone has actually suggested that the peasants would have "accountability and a feedback process" with regard to proof-of-stake. So there's already the second tier meme in play even if not in the design. |
|
|
|
There is no special tier in StakeCoin, no thresholds. Everyone can participate, big or small.
That's funny because so far every proof-of-stake proposal I've seen says "Minimum X (large) coins and peasants get to fill out napkin size complaint form". |
|
|
|
|
Um. "MicroCash it's just better."
Sounds like he's selling cheap beer in Hicksville.
|
|
|
|
So far those proposing proof-of-stake have failed a simple test:
I haven't heard of one proposal that allows pools of peasants to be stake miners. Effectively these would function as cryptocities as there would be an incentive to keep cryptocoins within communities. This would create feedback loops and self-propelled microeconomies.
From the wiki (myths): In more pragmatic terms, "fairness" is an arbitrary concept that is improbable to be agreed upon by a large population. Establishing "fairness" is no goal of Bitcoin, as this would be impossible.
I'm not talking about fairness. I'm talking about proof-of-stake that includes everyone who pulls an equal amount of weight. There's no difference between premining and early adopters building bunkers. One versus a few still leaves many in a second class category. If you think you can push special tier privileges and expect ppl to go along with it, you're delusional. If you think there's nobody who can repeat the success of bitcoin, you're blind. |
|
|
|
It needs some kind of incentive to get people to sign the checkpoints.
PoS is better than relying on one developer to lock the chain.
This is a fair point, however it doesn't allow the masses to participate. Therefore for all practical purposes, one tyrant or a few oligarchs results in the same situation. At least you can talk to a tyrant. Oligarchs are paranoid fucks who need to be spoonfed incentives. The incentive is: it keeps their (bit|lite)coins from becoming worthless. When you have or control a significant portion of the total supply of coins, that is no small incentive.
The checkpoints also affect low stakeholders. In an effort to gain more control, high stakeholders can pay for attacks (including psychological) which create chain forks that send money from low stakeholders to them. Incentivism is a futile exercise in trying to motivate the lazy. There's an undercurrent in the bitcoin and litecoin communities that will throw off the dead weight of fat wankers who need an incentive to tie their own shoes never mind create. So far those proposing proof-of-stake have failed a simple test: I haven't heard of one proposal that allows pools of peasants to be stake miners. Effectively these would function as cryptocities as there would be an incentive to keep cryptocoins within communities. This would create feedback loops and self-propelled microeconomies. It was a simple extension that never crossed anyone's mind. Fail. Failing this simple test does not give me confidence in proof-of-stake models. The people looking to add this feature are still thinking in terms of maintaining value rather than creating value. You guys are not thinking forward and it scares me to death. There's a thread here that is going to cover the whole gamut of proof types that could make cryptocurrencies work. http://litecoinforums.org/index.php?/topic/22-cartel-wars/ |
|
|
|
|
The dumbest theory I ever saw: Trust the rich to protect the network.
From the guy who said litecoin was irrelevant. So irrelevant that 2 exchanges are going up in response to the btc-e hack.
The rich are rich because of their connections and backroom deals not because of their holdings.
NO FEDERAL RESERVE (trusted nodes) IN THE CRYPTOCOIN WORLD!
Go away scammers.
|
|
|
|
|
OpenID sign up says bad request.
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
