There won't be an incentive for a gpu farm like there is with bitcoin.
Of course there is. But maybe you can force mining to be dispersed in some way. Here's an idea: Require miners to register with you, in person, with a photo ID. Give each miner his own private key, publish the public keys where all the nodes can see them. Modify the software so a miner has to sign a block with his private key, all other nodes can verify with a public key, limit the portion of blocks that can be signed by any individual ID over some time window, and reject the rest. |
|
|
|
A prerequisite for a crypto-currency is trusted (proven correct) computers completely controlled by the users. I don't think this will happen in my lifetime. Since 1996, the trend has been to take control away from the users.
Bitcoin is showing us how to do this, a little. The solution is to make the "your computer" disappear and do the computation as a distributed process between untrusted participants. Currently your private keys are stored on your node/wallet so you have to trust that your own node isn't corrupted. But eventually the entire wallet could be stored "in the network" where only a majority of the nodes could access it without your cooperation. Even corrupting your own node wouldn't work. Not quite there yet, but Bitcoin is a nice step in that direction. |
|
|
|
The whole system is nerd freindly only.
Seriously, if we want to go mainstream, there has to be some sort of user friendly program that can manage everything in a way our grandmother can understand it. Until then, BTC will be used for money laundering and illegal transactions until then.
My paraphrased thoughts.
Your granny can understand it, its simple, go to a site to buy them, enter address, buy them and get money, and to buy something send the money to the address with it and receive product. Still harder than most online shopping. There needs to be some way of paying right from a web site rather than needing do to copy/paste on a Bitcoin address and switching to another application. Probably a browser plug-in. |
|
|
|
Wow, I had no idea! Nice work so far. PM me if you want input at any point. |
|
|
|
[paraphrase source="US Patriot Act" cite=" http://www.scn.org/ccapa/pa-vs-const.html"] The government may search and seize Americans' papers and effects without probable cause to assist terror investigation. The government may jail Americans indefinitely without a trial. To assist terror investigation, the government may monitor religious and political institutions without suspecting criminal activity. The government may monitor conversations between attorneys and clients in federal prisons and deny lawyers to Americans accused of crimes. The government may prosecute librarians or keepers of any other records if they tell anyone the government subpoenaed information related to a terror investigation. Americans may be jailed without being charged or being able to confront witnesses against them. [paraphrase] I rest my case. Don't worry. Only four more years isn't that long. Small price to pay for freedom. |
|
|
|
Someone needs to seriously call out all the senators and representatives that voted for this POS. Props to rand paul.
Don't worry, it's only needed for the war on terror. Once that's over, it will be allowed to expire. |
|
|
|
Especially protection against malicious nodes + share verification, the main reason why servers are used for pools despite being single points of failure in the first place (as you just have to trust the server operator, not everyone in the pool)  Where have I heard this story before? We should stop hijacking this thread though... a distributed pool actually sounds kinda nice!
Agreed. This looks like a nice new pool. Hope it works out. |
|
|
|
This can lead to a nasty surprise for those with low bandwidth caps: even if you don't do a lot of hashing, the protocol will use a lot of bandwidth if it ever really takes off.
This is independent of whether you hash. Low bandwidth requires a lightweight client, not a regular node. The standard client doesn't do that currently. |
|
|
|
When a power station reports a certain number of megawatts or gigawatts of output, is it assumed that is per day? Or is there some other scale being used?
No they are talking about power output (continuous rate) not energy output (sum of power over time). Watts are a measure of power. Watt-hours are a measure of energy. A 1 GW power plant operating continuously produces 24 GWh/day. |
|
|
|
Now here's an idea: build a peer-to-peer pool using cryptography, so is no central pool host to attack.
This would require miners to install software additionally to the mining software. P2P applications also very often require forwarded ports (current mining software just does some [imho highly inefficient] HTTP requests as far as I've understood) and it would also require bandwidth as well as introducing latency issues. In the end, light takes half a second to travel around the globe, you can't transmit data faster than that. All the P2P stuff you mention (ports, etc.) is no worse than Bitcoin itself. As for bandwidth and latency, I wasn't talking about the hashing itself as much as sharing the reward (which is what a pool does). If there were some way to collaboratively agree on a transaction block that gave the rewards to the miners in some sort of fair approximation of their effort, then there wouldn't be a need for a pool server; whichever miner found the block would just submit it and the rewards would be shared. Some implementation details left out. |
|
|
|
It's always going to be on the side of hobbyist miners over more serious operations: in most cases the hardware is paid for, in many the electricity cost is a low concern. Hobbyists would mine, even at a loss.
Yup. People don't really understand what "hobbyist" means, or they are deliberately misusing it. Anyone who claims "hobbyist" means making a big investment in hardware, building out a farm of mining machines, worrying about the relationship between electricity costs and BTC earned, and generally hoping to consistently make a lot of money needs to reexamine his assumptions. If the income matters to you, you aren't a hobbyist. |
|
|
|
Why would somebody loan out bitcoin to someone else to buy capital, when there's little certainty about its value when the loan is repaid?
Sounds like dollars to me. |
|
|
|
come to think of it, it would be a really bad idea if i released it. pool hopping relies on the fact that other people will still mine, and won't jump out. if everybody was pool hopping, then all pools will be stuck at 40%. sorry guys, i guess i will have to be greedy, and keep my programs private.
If you want to be greedy, keep it private. Nothing wrong with that. If you want to help the network, release it so all the pools will be forced to drop proportional payouts that reward a small number of aggressive gamers over the larger population of casual miners. Nothing wrong with that either. You have to decide on your own values. |
|
|
|
I wish the origin of these attacks were known so a majority of users could just shun these idiots.
It's entirely possible the owner of the pool has nothing to do with it. Pool participants can become very competitive and protective of their "team." Any one idiot with a botnet who becomes emotionally attached to "their" pool is going to try this. All just part of the cost of doing business on the Internet. Now here's an idea: build a peer-to-peer pool using cryptography, so is no central pool host to attack. |
|
|
|
Also, i don't htink that i'm talking about mining. I am talking about network overhead. Why does the network "need" miners, or people to receive a tx fee. Just who does that 1 bc fee go to... (bc is bitcent...BC is bitcoin)
Mining and processing transactions are the same thing. That's how Bitcoin processes transactions. People are too stuck on the whole "free Bitcoins" aspect of mining, but that's not the reason mining exists. The system would work just fine without any free Bitcoins, although it probably would have been harder to bootstrap without the gold rush. (Though overall I'm not sure this was a good thing.) |
|
|
|
I recall reading somewhere about the BC network that in the future, when mining becomes very unprofitable (say beyond 2014), that transaction fees would support the processing of payments. I don't get it. We have big fat cpus sitting there on whatever box is running the client, else how could you send a tx? why doesn't the idle client utilize a slice of cpu for processing txs?
Also, why does it take so long for payments to post. I can ping just about anything in under a second, hell even 100ms. Why does it take so long for the network to post a single tx confirm? This is a major stumbling block to the visa/mastercard network. They authenticate in seconds. Will this be better in the future?
The GPU is much better at it; CPU mining is pretty much obsolete at this point. Yeah, but many of the machines running the client have GPU's as well. It would be better for the network if every client ran a GPU miner by default, even at a low duty cycle like 1-3% (which could be changed in the preferences). It would encourage uptake of the transaction client as well. People don't really know the difference between 1 in 1000 and 1 in a 1,000,000. If there is some chance of having free money drop into your account, that will motivate people. Now we have the long tail working for us instead of mining flowing where it is most efficient (one miner, generally). No one has implemented GPU mining in the client, but there isn't really any reason why it can't be done. If we get to the point when GPU's are forced out by some magic hash brownie chips, we can think of something else. |
|
|
|
Assuming the mixer is not keeping logs
And you know this because? There may be better ways to build anonymity on top of Bitcoin but this one isn't great. |
|
|
|
You (and I) didn't get on this train early enough. Shit happens. Get over it.
Not clear at all. Depends what happens in the future. If BTC goes up to $10 million, the move from $0 to $8 will be totally irrelevant. |
|
|
|
Don't know about power and business and all that jazz, but as a hobby miner with 67Mh/s, im still in the game. It's all about the pool.
Anyone who's complaining about people with nGh/s killing their profits, and the profitability vs electricity costs and all that other jazz aren't really "hobby" miners anyways.
With my 5570 and 67Mh/s my electricity bill has gone up somewhere like $5 over my normal PC usage, and even i can manage to make 4-5btc a month, even at the current difficulty level in a decent pool.
Long story short, anyone who got forced out was either too serious about bitcoins and too broke to do anything about it, or, well, thats all i can i think of, because as a hobbyist, nothing has hurt me really, and the guys with the capitol to invest in larger mining operations, well they arent complaining either.
Ding. We have a winner. Either that, or you could just solo mine and hope to get lucky and score $400 block (at current prices). $5 worth of electricity isn't going to kill anyone. It's a perfectly reasonable way to play the lottery ( way better odds than state lotteries in fact). |
|
|
|
|
There is no "built in" price deflation in Bitcoin. Anyone who is sure BTC will be worth more will buy it now, capitalizing that into the current price. Anyone who is sure it will be worth less will sell it now, again capitalizing that into the current price.
The current price is ~$8 because that is the consensus expectation of future price, factoring in the structural inflationary and deflationary factors. If the price goes up, it's because Bitcoin becomes seen as more useful or desirable, not the "built in" deflation.
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
