Havent fololowed the thread for some time can anyone tell me if there is any specific date when the bitcoin magazine appears?
No, there isn't. Matthew's last update is here. |
|
|
|
Electricity is the major cost of a long-term mining operation.
This is true for GPU:s but not for FPGA:s. The more energy efficient devices we see, the less true it will be. |
|
|
|
The blockchain started at 2009-01-01, the first public bitcoin version was released in march or april i think, so thats 3-4 months 'pre-mine' resulting in 600~800k btc.
The Genesis block was on January 3rd, 2009. Bitcoin v0.1 was publicly released six days later. Link. |
|
|
|
While Electricity Cost < Block Value, miners will keep adding more and more mining power, be it FPGA or whatever, until Electricity Cost = Block Value. Basically, miners will keep adding mining power as long as it's profitable. So the only thing FPGA boards will do is increase the difficulty, not save on power wasted.
It's not actually "Electricy cost = Block value", it's "Electricity cost + amortized hardware costs = Block value". As hardware becomes more energy efficient more money will be spent buying the hardware and less will be spent buying electricity. |
|
|
|
What are people even discussing here? If it had to do with what the law considers it I guess the discussion would make sense, otherwise just call it what you want. I'll call it a currency. Hazek will call it a commodity. Everyone's happy. So while bitcoin's value may be due 99.999% to its usefulness as money, it has some tiny fraction of value beyond that. Does that not then satisfy your commodity definition? A bicycle could also be used as a weapon (by hitting someone in the head with it). So it has value as a weapon. Do people call it a weapon? Most people won't, but the newspaper might do it that day ("His weapon was - a bike!"). That's fine with me. |
|
|
|
I meant to begin by pointing out what an idiot the quoted poster is.
Your posts would be so much better if you stopped insulting people. |
|
|
|
If you create a non-profit mining organization, what should it do? - you could invest some BTC for development bounties to improve the code/protocol of Bitcoin
- and some BTC to buy more equipment
The simplest rule would be to use all funds for mining (electricity + new equipment). I obviously have no idea where that eventually would put an organization like this in terms of hash power. If created as a foundation I guess its purpose could be specified somewhat vague (to allow for some later decisions on how to use the funds) but not too vague. Perhaps something along the lines of "contributing to the security of the Bitcoin network". Also: It makes sense to me to use sth. like P2Pool to reduce the risk of 51% attacks.
I think that solo mining would be fine since variance doesn't really matter that much. |
|
|
|
What's the incentive for making it non-profit?
Why not just make a for-profit business? If you could actually get investors, there's a pretty easy business case that this could have a great ROI.
The problem is that there are not enough people willing to do this (I'm assuming). However, why would making the company "non-profit" make it more attractive to investors/donators?
There's a big difference between setting something up that is supposed to return revenue to investors and setting up a non-profit with a specific purpose. In the first case I would be looking for people who want to make money and try to convince them that this is the best way to make money. In my case I would be looking for people who are willing to donate some money to help keep Bitcoin secure. |
|
|
|
I've thought about this quite often over the past few months. I think it's a fantastic idea.
How would you handle decisions such as the P2SH debate? Would it be up to you, or perhaps some kind of vote from regular donors?
I believe that technical decisions such as P2SH should be made by those who understand it so I would probably suggest that whatever consensus is reached by the developers is followed. Also, I wouldn't want anything in an organization like this to be "up to me". I was thinking that it could be set up as a foundation with a specific purpose. In Sweden (where I'm from) it works like this: A foundation in Sweden (Stiftelse) is a legal entity without an owner. It is formed by a letter of donation from a founder donating funds or assets to be administered for a specific purpose. When the purpose is for the public benefit, a foundation may enjoy favourable tax treatment. A foundation may have diverse purposes, including but not limited to public benefit, humanitarian or cultural purposes, religious, collective, familiar, or the simple passive administration of funds |
|
|
|
|
I think that there is an option missing. "I sometimes buy stuff with Bitcoin". I have bought bitcoins and I'd like to use them to buy stuff but I couldn't possibly say that I do that "regularly", simply because it's not that widely accepted.
|
|
|
|
For profit entities help protect the Bitcoin network too. Sometimes greed is good. The profit motive can be a powerful one.
Someone who has sunk $10K, $50K, $100K into a hashing farm has a very vested interest to protect & promote Bitcoin.
I agree. Still I think many marginal miners are "non-profit" when you include all the costs (equipment, electricity, replacement parts, cooling/AC, maintenance, hourly "wage' spent tweaking and upgrading).  Agree again. Some people even say that would continue mining at a loss - because they love Bitcoin - and I think that the presence of such people is a good thing. It spreads the feeling that Bitcoin will continue to function no matter what. |
|
|
|
Well, if my transaction has not been included in a block yet I have to wait longer before it is.
AND? If there was a rule that a block must have 2+ transaction don't you think he could simply pass 1 satoshi from one of this accounts to another in every single block? Sure, I never suggested such a thing. You have no right to have your transaction in the next block. If you want higher assurances then increase the fee you pay. As block subsidy declines this entity will either need to start including transactions or face dwindling revenue.
I merely opposed your "Who cares?" attitude. If 15% of the blocks never includes any transactions then Bitcoin does not behave as people expect it to and that might hurt Bitcoin's reputation. It's possible to worry a little bit about the state of the network without screaming for protocol changes. |
|
|
|
OP may I suggest an alternative - try capitalism, it really works great!
Capitalism is good. Non-profits are good. I don't see a contradiction. One example of a very successful non-profit would be the Wikimedia foundation, I don't think Wikipedia would have been as successful if it had been run as a for-profit organization. The development of Bitcoin is very much non-profit too. |
|
|
|
|
I had this idea of a non-profit organization with the sole purpose of helping secure the Bitcoin network. It would accept donations, buy mining equipment and use all of its profit to pay off electricity and to buy more mining equipment. With some donations I think it could eventually grow to be a rather big player in the mining business.
People who want to contribute to the Bitcoin network but don't have the time or technical skill to mine or run their own client could instead make donations to the organization. Mining farms could be spread out over the world and run by members of the organization that want to contribute.
I just came up with the idea so I don't have any details regarding anything, just thought I'd throw the idea out there to see if there is any interest or opinions.
|
|
|
|
Who cares if a block is empty?
One more block above your transaction = your transaction 1 confirmation deeper in the block chain.
Well, if my transaction has not been included in a block yet I have to wait longer before it is. |
|
|
|
Shit! It's Twunker. Search for it on this forum. I was so upset, I spell in incorrectly. I searched, but the only results I found were of you complaining about how it was stolen. I'm almost inclined to believe that this feud is totally made up, and has just become a running gag at this point. |
|
|
|
Small bug report. Total bitcoins in circulation in the realtime API is not correct (or I don't know how to interpret the number). I don't think that this is a new problem, it might always have been like this. |
|
|
|
I see now that this is discussed here. |
|
|
|
Looks like there is some miner (mining pool) that doesn't include any transactions at all. http://blockchain.info/blocks/88.6.216.9That discusses why we allow blocks with no transactions. I think that he is asking why there were no transactions in those blocks when transactions were actually performed during that time. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
