|
Agree with the two previous posts.
When I was arrested the prosecution asked that I be incarcerated without a bond hearing for the maximum time allowed under the Patriot act, six days. One of the reasons for this pre-bond hearing incarceration was to make sure I did not move my funds before they had a chance to find them. They were very concerned that I might move my Bitcoins out of seized wallets on seized computers before they had a chance to find them all and move the Bitcoins to their own wallet.
ASSIDE: I found out later that their wallet was a Trezor that they had seized in another case.
The judge initially granted the prosecution's request for a six day hold before the bond hearing. My attorney, after getting his mandatory $50,000 cash retainer, did successfully argue this and I was given a bond hearing and got out on bond after only four days and three nights in jail. I assume I would have survived another few days being bored to death in solitary confinement but it would have totally sucked.
By the time I was released on bond they had found and had moved most of my Bitcoins, the Bitcoins I was holding for my non-tech savvy parents, and some other Bitcoins that were not mine (was holding for a friend until he got his own Trezor.
|
|
|
|
more transactions does not mean more power is used.
the amount of miners it irrelevant to the amount of transactions. No matter if you have 1 or 1 million transactions, you only need 3 miners. (actually only 1 but than it wouldn't be decentralized).
More miners just means more security because of more decentralization.
You are correct that there is no correlation between number of transactions and power consumption. You are correct that there is no correlation between number of miners and number of transactions. Then you make a statement about the minimum number of miners which I do not completely follow. I guess it is true that the network could survive with a very small number of mining companies but that is not relevant to the fact that this small number of mining companies would consume as much power as they could afford. The number of mining companies has no correlation to the amount of power the miners use. Power consumption is proportional to price no mater how many miners do the mining and consume the power. |
|
|
|
I've also read that the company who makes these things gets a commission from seized funds, which I find rather "odd"...
meaning whether innocent or guilty you're 7.7% worse off the moment the card is swiped and if found guilty later in court. the police get to keep the other 92.3% unless you can prove the funds not guilty.I interpret that in a different way: 100% of your funds are swiped/seized, 7,7% goes to the company who made these readers, 92,3% goes to the police, and if eventually you manage to prove yourself your money not guilty you get those 92,3% returned. That's what I understood, at least. You are both saying basically the same thing. Fixed typos there. However, I actually believe that if you do manage to prove your funds are innocent you will get them all back and the government would take the 7.7 loss or get it back from the vendor. Once they do finally decide to give you back what they decide to give you back you do get it back. The real loss to you would be the $50,000 in attorney's fees it will cost you to get it back. |
|
|
|
I've also read that the company who makes these things gets a commission from seized funds, which I find rather "odd"...
meaning whether innocent or guilty your 7.7% worse off the moment the card is swiped. and if found guilty later in court. the police get to keep the other 92.3% This sharing of the loot with the vendor is actually par for the course. Remember that traffic light cameras are often operated with a cut going to the vendor and the rest going to the government. Also here is another example, also from Oklahoma, of a vendor getting a cut of the loot: In January last year, David hired himself and his top trainers out as a roving private interdiction unit for the district attorney’s office in rural Caddo County, Okla. Working with local police, Desert Snow contract employees took in more than $1 million over six months from drivers on the state’s highways, including Interstate 40 west of Oklahoma City. Under its contract, the firm was allowed to keep 25 percent of the cash. The entire article is worth a read and is very chilling: http://www.washingtonpost.com/sf/investigative/2014/09/07/police-intelligence-targets-cash/ASIDE: you can see if Desert Snow has recently or will soon be training the cops in your area here: https://desertsnow.com/conferencesThese trainings have drawn crowds of protesters in the past and it might be fun to organize a protest at one near you if that is your kind of thing. As for the phone with Bitcoins, they risk ending up with a wallet without any funds when they eventually get to be able to spend them.
yep store bitcoins on your phone with a phone keypad lock. store your private keys at home in a way that they wont find it if they raided your house. then when they are trying to bruteforce the phone hopefully you or a relative can move the funds making the old private keys useless other advice if your using a online wallet app on your phone. set up 2 accounts.. if ever asked to log in to display balance. only log into the account with least funds, should you be in a threatened situation where they wont back off unless they move funds in your presence,making you unable to move funds secretly Some very good advice there. However you need to keep in mind a second, most foul, area of law that comes in to play. Together with the insane "civil asset forfeiture" laws the other insane area of law is the "contempt of court" laws. First off, the presence of a Bitcoin wallet on a phone can probably be claimed to be evidence of possibly criminally obtained funds. This means that in a traffic stop if they get your phone from you and see a wallet on the phone with a password they can just seize the phone. Second, having seized a wallet with a password they can just keep it until you prove it is innocent. Yes, you can move your funds off the phone and let them have the phone and just walk away with your Bitcoins and replace your phone. However there are two scenarios in which this is not the case: 1) if you are arrested at the time of the seizure 2) if they manage to find out you moved their new funds off their new phone after they seized the phone If you refuse to give them the password or the moved funds you can be charged with contempt of court and be placed in jail until you give them the password or the funds. This is a pretty big hassle for them and a lot more work than just taking cash, pre-paid cards, unprotected Bitcoins, etc. so they would have to think the possible profit worth the effort so the amount of, or their perception of, the amount comes in to play. The "good" news is that this would involve having to arrest and charge you with something so you start to have some rights in the process, can hire an attorney, go to court, etc. The bad news is that contempt of court charges can not be appealed. Also for all practical purposes there is no time limit for a contempt of court charge. They can give you 30 days, bring you back to court, if you refuse again - another 30 days, rinse and repeat as long as they want. |
|
|
|
|
No. Short term you lose money. Long term you lose even more money.
Bitcoin mining is all about using the cheapest possible energy. Solar costs a lot more than coal. If that ever changed then all miners would use solar.
|
|
|
|
From the document, it doesn't look like this was from simple face to face transactions using localbitcoins... it looks like he was somehow involved with running an exchange.
Yes, I was charged for simply trading Bitcoins on localbitcoins.com. It did not matter that it was face-to-face or that it was for cash. They claimed my trading activity on localbitcoins.com was a business. I claimed it was not a business. After about $300,000 and several months of negotiations by my attorney we basically agreed to disagree on whether it was a business or not and they agreed to drop all the criminal charges against me and all the civil charges against all my stuff they had seized for a one time donation to their civil asset forfeiture slush fund. BTW the cops have always been able to and motivated to ask you if you have any cash in the car when they stop you. If you say yes and they think it is "too much" cash they can just take if from you without any charges being filed. It is then up to you to prove that the cash they took from you is totally innocent of any criminal activity. If you can prove that your cash is innocent then they might give it back to you. I just saw that they now have a new weapon in their war on the people: not only can they seize any cash you happen to have on you they can now take all the value off any type of pre-paid card you happen to have on you or in your car: http://boingboing.net/2016/06/09/oklahoma-cops-can-use-scanners.htmlNice. Now you have to prove your pre-paid Appplebee's or Amazon card is innocent of criminal activity in order to get your money back! It won't be long before they can take your phone from you during a traffic stop and see if you have a Bitcoin wallet on your phone. If you do they will then confiscate your phone and you will have to prove your Bitcoins are innocent (and your phone is innocent) before they will consider giving your phone and Bitcoin wallet back to you. When they arrested me they took my phone, all of my Bitcoins, all my computers, etc. It was only after they dropped all the civil charges against my stuff - and I paid them the donation of cash and Bitcoins they squeezed out of me - that I got my phone and wallet back. |
|
|
|
Has anyone actually traded with richfund tried contacting them through lbc but they seem flaky.
Not finding any easy marks for their scam in this thread they (JEON and his obvious sock puppet Everan426) slithered back under the rock from whence they came. |
|
|
|
Hahaha well that really is the irony of mining, thats why we needs to purchase high-number pieces of technology to lessen power consumption.
I bet the power consumption over all won't go down if we buy always the newest hardware but the speed of hashing increases like we can see in difficulty again and again Unlike all you clueless "we just need more efficient mining equipment" signature campaign thread spammers, Real-Duke figured it out. |
|
|
|
That will only happen because the dollar will suffer a great deal of inflation, not a good thing for everyone and everything except the Bitcoin versus "house of cards government issued fiat currencies" exchange rate.
FIFY |
|
|
|
Hahaha well that really is the irony of mining, thats why we needs to purchase high-number pieces of technology to lessen power consumption.
What on Earth? Purchase more equipment to reduce power consumption? No. Factoring in the technological improvement in ASIC, the power consumption efficiency is getting higher and higher with the cost of the equipment. This can help to reduce power consumption. Solar power and renewable energy would probably be more developed and widely used by then.
Again NO. Power consumption is not affected by mining efficiency. Mining efficiency only affects difficulty. Again NO. The source of the power used does not affect power consumption. Using 100 GW of solar power is the same as using 100 GW of coal power. It is the same amount of power. Eventually, technological advances will lower the cost of resources required to mine Bitcoins. You are not addressing that with your math. I will post more detailed calculations later.
i will wait for your post about calculations. I also am waiting with baited breath for your math showing how the cost of resource used to mine Bitcoins will be going down. Are you expecting a breakthrough in cold fusion? BTW if the cost of power were to actually go down then the Bitcoin network would adjust by using more power until it again consumed the maximum power it could afford. So if the cost of power goes down the Bitcoin network would consume even more power - not less.Note that the cost of power (c) is in the denominator in the power estimation formula meaning that the lower the cost of power the higher the power consumption: P = (6(50/2 e) + f)(x)(1 - g)/c [kW] where: x = exchange rate [USD/BTC] e = era [0..32] (we are currently in era 1) f = average fees per hour [BTC/hour] c = cost of energy [USD/kWh] g = average gross profit margin [unitless ratio] |
|
|
|
|
If you post here or PM me the destination Bitcoin address and/or the transaction ID I might be able to help you.
|
|
|
|
By that time (2020), more people should be using solar power in a major way. And the equipment for this type of energy source should be cost efficient because right now, only few have been using this due to its price being costly. Using solar power is also a great form of investment because it will provide more benefits in the long run (in terms here, for the miners/farms of BTC).
If you are trying to say that massive energy consumption by Bitcoin mining will drive energy prices up to the point that renewable energy will become cost competitive then... maybe. So basically burning through all of our non renewable natural resources will cause us to switch to renewable sources of power. Your point really has nothing to do with whether or not Bitcoin mining is using "too much power". |
|
|
|
|
Yes, I agree that Bitcoin should be attacked constantly and it is attacked constantly.
If everyone started burning coins like I did then it would not break Bitcoin.
It causes the unspent transaction list to be filled with unspendable and unprunable entries.
This increases the amount of memory needed to store the unspent transaction list.
Not a real big issue. Just an expensive, unprofitable and ineffective attack. Basically just an annoyance.
If you want to throw your coins away no one is going to stop you. Go for it.
But if you choose to be nice, not flush your own coins down the toilet, and not create a bunch of baggage for the blockchain then don't do it.
Better?
|
|
|
|
First time I talked about mining with a friend he asked me wondered: You burn power to earn money? Yes for some reason it sounds bad  I think it is more technically correct to say you burn energy to secure the Bitcoin network. You get paid to secure the Bitcoin network, burning energy is your cost, the difference between what you get paid to secure the network and your energy cost is your profit. An attacker would need to burn more energy that us (the current miners), the high cost of the energy they would need to burn is the cost of the attack. The more energy burned the more secure the network. That is PoW in a nutshell. |
|
|
|
|
57% BULLSHIT. More like 0.57%
Most businesses do not know what Bitcoins are, what ransomware is, or would go to all the trouble of buying BTC just to hold them in case they get hit by something they do not care about.
If 57% of businesses were buying and holding BTC the price would be a lot higher than it is now.
|
|
|
|
|
I am so sick of hearing that if you use solar power it is somehow not using power. Power is power. If you build a coal fired power plant the power produced can be used for Bitcoin mining or something else. If you build a solar or wind or tide or geothermal plant then the power produce can also be used for Bitcoin mining or something else. Power consumption is power consumption. Renewable energy is not free, in fact it costs more than coal or natural gas.
Solar power is not some sort of "magical" energy that if you use it you are not using energy so that your mining equipment uses less energy. Bullshit.
|
|
|
|
2020 will be a year of the bitcoin everybody is saying that but if you want to know with year is for the bitcoin you have to see it by your self so i dont think it would happen in just 3 years that take time.
Just curious, what is your native language? |
|
|
|
After July, the bock reward is reduced to 12.5. So that will just be 15% of the world power generation. After a few more halving, it will be even lower.
Correct and true! That is why I said "in this era" So, in order to keep our power consumption under about 2% of world wide power production, we cannot/do not want the price to get to $500,000 before era 6, which is about 2033 or so. Using my previously derived formula for the power consumption: P = (6(50/2 e) + f)(x)(1 - g)/c [kW] where: x = exchange rate [USD/BTC] e = era [0..32] (we are currently in era 1) f = average fees per hour [BTC/hour] c = cost of energy [USD/kWh] g = average gross profit margin [unitless ratio] we can look at the power consumption in each era assuming a price of $500,000 per BTC. In order to make it simple I will make the following assumptions: x = $500,000 per BTC f = fees per hour will keep the coinbase above 6 BTC/hour (1 BTC/block) in all eras c = $0.10 per kWh g = 0.1 miner gross profit margin Original target Subsidy Est Fees Power % of total world
Era starting year BTC/block BTC/hour GW power production
--- --------------- ----------- ---------- ----- ----------------
0 2009 50.00000000 0.00000000 1,350 58.41%
1 2013 25.00000000 0.00000000 675 29.20%
2 2017 12.50000000 0.00000000 337 14.60%
3 2021 6.25000000 0.00000000 169 7.30%
4 2025 3.12500000 0.00000000 84 3.65%
5 2029 1.56250000 0.00000000 42 1.83%
6 2033 0.78125000 1.31250000 27 1.17%
7 2037 0.39062500 3.65625000 27 1.17%
8 2041 0.19531250 4.82812500 27 1.17%
9 2045 0.09765625 5.41406250 27 1.17%
Of course this is a vast oversimplification since the values of the USD the price of electricity vary over time and it is very hard to predict miners fees over time and to know the average gross profit margin of mining. |
|
|
|
I think in the future you will no bitcoin mining tools are more sophisticated and power-saving course. Because of the growing popularity of bitcoin there will be more innovations to develop mining hardware, and of course in 2020 you will use less electricity to mining  hehe Just my opinion, Thank you NOPE. By design the Bitcoin network will use as much power as it can afford. More efficient mining equipment does not change the amount of energy consumed. Yeah that would happen cause the hardware mining are continuing its production, Many will try to mine bitcoins by hardware miners, The energy will decrease because many miners are using hardware
Wrong again. Power consumption is driven by only one thing: price. The energy used will go up if the price goes up. The only thing that will reduce the amount of energy consumed is a decrease in price. Im hoping by 2020 the machines (asics) are using very little power so
everyone can mine coins
being in california I had to stop because power was so expensive I was
losing money.
Wrong again. You will never be able to make a profit mining no matter how efficient the mining equipment becomes unless you are the only one with access to the more efficient equipment. If everyone has access to the more efficient equipment then those with the cheaper power will make a profit and those, like yourself, with more expensive power will always lose money. Sorry. Denmark is a very small country, so not very alarming. Freedom as a cost. And can you remember how many electricity banks are consuming just with all the ATMs by the World ? That's just another anti-Bitcoin argument without any base.
Kind of. Since the power consumption is driven by price there is a price at which the power consumption would become excessive. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=694401.0For example if BTC were to go to $500,000 in this era it would cause a catastrophic mining bubble: $500,000 x 25 = $12,500,000 per block = $75,000,000 per hour$75 million per hour would drive the mining to attempt to use 675 GW. This is about 30% of all the power generated on the planet. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
