|
oh come on, stop getting excited with a +50% spike. Wake me up when it reaches parity with USD, then I'll break out the Champagnes.
|
|
|
|
|
Just a suggestion: add LTC mode like satoshiroulette.com
benefits:
* 4x faster 1st confirmation.
* decrease the transaction spam on the bitcoin chain, now it can be shared by 2 chains. To give developers more time to work on the block and chain size issue.
* LTC value is more stable than BTC historically
* more convenience/choice for your customers, for example I have both BTC and LTC and I really prefer LTC for gambling, the experience is simply smoother due to the 4X faster confirmation time.
|
|
|
|
Yes they get destroyed.
We tried to find a way to transfer XRP to validators as an incentive to validate but couldn't come up with any scheme that didn't either require a central authority or that could easily be gamed by someone putting themselves on both sides. So we opted to destroy transaction fees. Is it possible that eventually all the xrp could be destroyed ? After about 100k years with 100B transactions per year. |
|
|
|
Now that ltc use gpu too, there are some currency that is still CPU based?
I think it's not possible to make a coin CPU only, since GPUs are essentially also CPUs. Intel's new architecture even put both CPU and GPU on the same die. |
|
|
|
If the market can be moved that heavily with seemingly not a whole lot of effort, what's to stop a person or group of people with a big enough bankroll from putting up bogus bids/asks and slowly stepping the market price up to a certain point, then cashing out? Is this what is referred to as a "pump and dump"?
Thank you all for humoring me.
The cashing out would be the hard part - you can make the market price move up just by spending cash. But you can't make people put up bids - and there's usually very few bids up. And as you're seeing right now, as soon as someone starts selling, the buyers all stop putting up bids. And yes - that would be a pump and dump attempt. Why is the market so illiquid? in other words, why do buyers not appear even when shares are being offered at discounted prices? Isn't that bearish for S.DICE overall, if no one will allow the price to rise by buying into rallies? Because recently Bitcoin price is constantly rising, so the bid side is very difficult(asset value is constant, but underlying currency's value keep going up, so it's better to just hold the currency), you have to monitor your orders 24/7, otherwise a 20% run up in BTC price will make your bid order a joke. Therefore many people, including me simply don't put any bid up, or put them very low. |
|
|
|
|
when will the vote end? and when will the IPO first start selling?
|
|
|
|
|
with 50k XRP worth 1BTC+, it's a pretty lucrative gig. I wish I could have predicted that people can be so dumb to give away XRP on the forum. I could easily register 100+ accounts.
|
|
|
|
|
How come when I mine on ozcoin pool, my cgminer consistently report about 1150KH, and when I'm mining at your pool, cgminer consistently report about 930KH?
|
|
|
|
I think ASICs are the beginning of bitcoin being a serious system.
For a large entity with the agenda of overpowering the network, without ASIC the system is a cheap combination bike lock.
When all asics come on line the hashpower makes overpowering the chain much more challenging.
This will be reflected in bitcoins worth. what is worth more? a 4 barrel combination bike lock or a bank vault?
More hashpower means more security. worth of a storage facility is proportional to its security.
After the first genesis block was laid, when difficulty was 1, had you been privvy to the network you could have overpowered it with trivial computing power. Would you prefer it stay like that, just so you can mine easier?
Sorry but the needs of the network outweigh the needs of the nodes. There will come a point when mining is not profitable, but hashing transactions will be a steady earner.
much challenging how? surely the "large entity" can just order ASICs just the same as everyone else. In fact I think ASIC makes it easier (once they become readily available). With GPU mining, if you wants to acquire a large amount of GPU in a short time, you have to compete with regular gamer demand, it's very difficult to do, as we have seen previously with all the top AMD GPUs sold out everywhere during the 2011 bubble. With ASIC mining, the "large entity" only has to compete with other miners, or heck he could invest in building his own ASICs, it's very cheap to mass produce once the initial cost has been invested. If a 22 yr old Chinese guy from Brooklyn could do it in a few months, surely this "large entity" can build it too. Good luck with building your own GPU though. This is why I think Litecoin's scrypt mining is superior, because ASIC for scrypt does not have as big an advantage over GPU due to large memory requirement, so GPU will remain viable to mine. |
|
|
|
so dollar wise this is another record month right?
By my calculations the profit went up from 5 334 3.121178 to 66676.3674579 this month, a gain of 1 3333.2462799 BTC. At $ 33.50/BTC that's $44 6663 for the month. That's a lot of 333's and 666's. Oh, and to answer your question, last month was something like 20021.263926 BTC * 20.6 $/BTC = $412438. So yes. That's pretty impressive considering February only has 28 days vs 31 days in January |
|
|
|
A faucet is a total non starter. Anyone with Tor and a script could continually pump out new Ripple addresses and connect from different IPs, to loot the faucet.
The only reason that the faucet marginally worked with Bitcoin is because Bitcoin was the first cryptocurrency and people didn't quite understand how big it would get. Now that Bitcoin has won the hearts and minds, there will be a million greedy mouths trying to suck at the Ripple faucet for a second chance at "get rich quick."
Did you miss the Captcha part? unless you have created a De-Captcha algorithm that is 100% effective, the Faucet will work. |
|
|
|
|
I'll send one to you for $2 or 0.06 BTC
|
|
|
|
|
Isn't that like more than 2 BTC? who would do such a deal?
|
|
|
|
Uh I remember using yahoo in 1996 or something, for searching so it definitely had search engine capabilities before google came along.
Yes it had search, but so does bitcointalk, you wouldn't call it a search engine. Yahoo was a directory site at its foundation, not a search engine. yahoo in 1996:  |
|
|
|
In hardware, and to a lesser extent software, yes the first mover rarely have the last laugh. But on the web, it's a different story, first mover has significant advantage. Case in point->Youtube, I can't see how another video site can topple youtube's dominance. or Google the first site to build a good search engine in 2003, is still the dominant search engine 10 years later. or Facebook, first real name SNS from 2004, still the dominant real name SNS 9 years later.
When having these discussions, people usually bring up Facebook on the other side of the argument, as the supplanter of MySpace. Could you go into more detail of how Facebook was something new, rather than just a better version of MySpace? Also, Google is usually said to have replaced Yahoo as the dominant search tool, could you elaborate on that too? Yahoo was never a real search engine, it started as a directory site, and added search as an after thought. It never had true search engine capabilities. After Google's success, Yahoo tried to compete by purchasing the search company "overture", but then it ran that to the ground, now it just uses Microsoft's Bing.com engine, Yahoo doesn't even have its own search engine now. Google on the other hand started as a true search engine and built many things on top of that, but search is the foundation of Google. Myspace is just an upgraded version of Friendster, both lacked a large amount of essential SNS functionality that Facebook later developed. Basically, MySpace and Friendster were early, but they lacked function, they do not even utilize ajax, which Facebook heavily used. I could send message to my friends, post status updates, upload pictures without ever refreshing my Facebook page, impossible to do with MySpace. Also MySpace allowing the user upload insane amount of crap on their page, didn't help. I remember 90% of MySpace page were littered with autoplay mp3 and video, flashy effects and colorful backgrounds. Google was right, speed is King. The average MySpace page took 5-10 seconds to fully load, on the other hand Facebook was lightning fast to load and use. |
|
|
|
Part of it might be that the early investors you speak of are all but cashed out.
Source to back up your generalizing statement? I have no source. Which is why I used the word "might". I was speculating, like everyone else in this thread. I think it's 99% true, the early guys got in at $0.001/BTC, and when BTC hit $10, any sensible guy will cash out for a 1000X profit, even if BTC reach $100 that's just 10X more profit, why would they risk it all for 10X more profit, when they already got 1000X. Because then they'd have 10,000x profit? Sounds great to me. You don't understand, going from 1000X to 10000X is only a 10X profit, while the risk is extremely high. Any sane person would cash out majority of his holdings at 1000X, instead of wait for 10000x |
|
|
|
As a newbie to Crypto Currency I am being reminded of the Linux Distro wars by all this name calling! Red Hat, Slackware, Debian, Ubuntu and Android all started from the same place, but each lead to the next, and with some real commercial thinking, ended up in the mainstream minus most of its idealism and technical issues!  The point I am trying to make is that in the grand scheme of things, its very rare that the inventor of a new form of anything becomes the dominant player in the market they create. The names from the past haunt us, Commodore, Atari, Yahoo, Compaq, ICQ, to name just 5 companies who were 1st to market, but are no longer known for doing what they started! Litecoin seems a good idea, and we will all make a little profit from it, but I doubt that either bitcoin or litecoin are going to be the names that pop over the tipping point of mass acceptance. That is going to take a lot of dollars! In hardware, and to a lesser extent software, yes the first mover rarely have the last laugh. But on the web, it's a different story, first mover has significant advantage. Case in point->Youtube, I can't see how another video site can topple youtube's dominance. or Google the first site to build a good search engine in 2003, is still the dominant search engine 10 years later. or Facebook, first real name SNS from 2004, still the dominant real name SNS 9 years later. |
|
|
|
Part of it might be that the early investors you speak of are all but cashed out.
Source to back up your generalizing statement? I have no source. Which is why I used the word "might". I was speculating, like everyone else in this thread. I think it's 99% true, the early guys got in at $0.001/BTC, and when BTC hit $10, any sensible guy will cash out for a 1000X profit, even if BTC reach $100 that's just 10X more profit, why would they risk it all for 10X more profit, when they already got 1000X. |
|
|
|
i've been trying to find the litecoin network hash rate.. http://www.litecoinpool.org/statshttps://vircurex.com/these 2 sources indicate its about 0.5 Ghash/s.... that seems really low... like 1 GPU for the whole network? please explain where i'm messing up cuz i assume i'm wrong here. Litecoin uses scrypt algorithm, which is roughly 1000X slower, so 0.5 Ghash/s is actually about 500GH in Bitcoin term, BUT there's another twist, scrypt not only require processing power, but also memory, for each GPU, you'll need roughly 512mb - 1GB of RAM per GPU depending on your GPU power. So it is slightly more expensive in this aspect, so I believe 0.5 GH is more like 750GH in Bitcoin terms, given that significant amount of fast RAM investment is required to mine. |
|
|
|
wait....there's a backdoor in uTorrent?  There's adware by default, wouldn't surprise me if utorrent had a backdoor and sell out all your info to RIAA/MPAA |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
