When did L3 caches become 768MB?

The bounty isn't for whether or not GPUs can mine it, the bounty is for whether or not there is a non-linear speed increase available without the memory tradeoff. If GPUs end up being faster, big deal, it isn't going to be an order of magnitude faster unless you have an order of magnitude increase in the memory bandwidth or in the memory available. At least, that is the presumption by my understanding.

I don't know if we're from different planets or if you have the blinders on for the sake bitcoin argument, but you stated under your own presumptions that 500 people now control value equal to a quarter of the world's gold supply--and you call "a small group of people having vast amounts of control" a hyperbole under this scenario? Is based on the caveat you added that they "refuse to ever sell"? Because that is pretty meaningless. Wall Street doesn't "sell" their dollars, they use them to make more dollars.

Does the dramatic draw to bitcoin essentially boil down to "you save visa/mc/forex fees"? It's fine if that is enough for you, but it most definitely does not address the topic--I would almost say it is a red herring.

Argument appears to be thus:

1) Create a new monetary/banking system
2) Give a small group of people vast amounts of control
3)
4) World is saved by innovative idea completely unlike FRB/fiat.

(I know you did not make the point 4 implication, but it is certainly a common theme.)

Well, you didn't get that my post was dripping with sarcasm, and in addition to that, I am designing something completely different that might just tickle the fancy of the 99%. See sig.

PS - Out of principle, I do not own any bitcoins.

Perhaps you should understand the attack before lambasting someone else's misunderstanding of it.

Stop speaking nonsense, the world will gladly want to become slaves to new masters, it's the only way of life they know.

Yes, I could have made the corollary referencing this nonsense, but alas.

This is silliness. If you are looking to pick X random words, take a book--for example, a dictionary--open it to any page and point your finger at any spot. Rinse repeat. Not everything has to be protected by a layer of high-tech gidgetry. Plus the process is simple and adds a physical connection where one might be apt to take it more seriously rather than some randomly generated gibberish on the screen. It also means it will be more memorable.


Well if they didn't before, they do now.

Granted, but this does not address the fact that most public key cryptography, and certainly that used in bitcoin, is based on an unproven premise of seemingly difficult problems far, far below the class of P=NP.


Well, RIPEMD-160 anyway. And I'm not an expert on the bitcoin scripting system, but if it is possible to preimage attack RIPEMD-160, the scripting system could make it fairly easy to avoid any need to break ECDSA. Of course, preimage attacks are much more difficult than hash collisions. However, early versions of bitcoin did not pay to a script hash, only a pubkey: http://blockexplorer.com/address/12c6DSiU4Rq3P4ZxziKxzrL5LmMBrzjrJX, so dormancy is no protection for those early coins in the face of an attack on ECDSA as mentioned in the OP.

How is it unimaginable when the trapdoor is based on math we think is hard? "It hasn't happened before, ergo..." is a logical fallacy. "Modern" cryptography has been primarily based around symmetric crypto which is much simpler and does not rely on trapdoors.


There is definitely value in additional protection. However, I have to agree with hashman that it is essentially the end of any trust in bitcoin as there will be many unprotected addresses, especially a lot of the early coinbase tx that will never be protected by anything added to the protocol later.

Pretty sure that invalidating the de facto transaction is a hard fork.

Doesn't protect against a mining operation that is attempting to subvert signed transactions with its own, which is generally accepted as a requirement needed to (reliably) steal funds from transactions sent into the wild. Unless, as part of the soft-fork, miners are directed to reject blocks containing non-"SPV" transactions after having received an "SPV" one, this is, however, a ridiculously easy way for anyone to troll the network.

Litecoin != litecoin dev team. Probably just mad that favorite clone X is not performing as well as btc...

And why do they owe paper money and not gold?

Riiight, that whole progression from gold to paper money apparently just went right over your head.

Because they completely invalidate the notion that bitcoin is some special butterfly with reserved status like gold. I guess a more accurate way to say it is that the cryptocurrency market aggregate as a whole is a proxy for money. If bitcoin's price is rising it is unappealing to borrow, so some will borrow in LTC or whatever else, reducing the necessity for FRB. It is far more agreeable to borrow real LTC than proxy-BTC, don't you think? Homerism aside, of course.

Is this really what Mr. Greenspan wrote? Because SS has a fairly low maximum cap (~$15k per person per year), and Medicare is less than 3% of income tax, although it recently received a hefty increase. Neither affects capital gains. No, SS is probably not ideal, and no, the SS program did not take well into account increasing lifespans and such, but it and Medicare are hardly the cause of over-taxation of the rich. Sounds more like a call to make the working class work until the day they die.

Seems like you two are arguing over semantic differences more than anything else.


Perhaps not more or less convenient, but potentially more available. If proxies are not available for bitcoin, then the likely result is little lending at all. With or without the proxies, one has to tread a very fine line with bankruptcy risks. However, we know that proxies for bitcoin will exist and they will be plentiful. See: altcoins, the perfect proxy.

I would say that this is a property offered by almost any decentralized currency. Though there is the issue of mining cartels potentially replacing the government's role here, but I think the likelihood will be significantly reduced simply because cryptocurrency is open source, and the proletariat is now capable of fighting back with another currency which will be many magnitudes easier to adopt once one is already in place. This is a drastic option though. And if outside (hashing) power is used to control security and all money entering the system, it will be difficult to start a fledgling currency. If you separated security and mining, and made mining profitable for only short periods of time, you might be really on to a solution to this problem. *cough*


I don't think that this is as necessary as you think. Without being able to print money at will, the governments of the world will have to tell the world that they intend to take your productivity from you, not take it like a thief in the night with no one noticing via inflation. Imagine if Americans started seeing their salaries cut by half or more to fund wars for oil or to bail out wall street.