It's a free attack for a miner, and can arbitrarily kick anyone off the network (even if temporarily) who doesn't have sufficient bandwidth or ultimately enough disk space.
It's not free. The larger the block, the higher chance it has to be orphaned. No miner is going to inflate his blocks to reduce his chance to win a block race. |
|
|
|
|
Filing complaints is a nice start, but it has no real "bite". If you really want your money back, you'll have to file a Small Claims case.
|
|
|
|
Perhaps another way of looking at this problem is the gitbhub thread below. If, as the chief scientist G.A. claims, it was only due to the heroic efforts of two people to downgrade to a earlier version of the BTC blockchain that saved the bitcoin P2P network from disaster, then it stands to reason that bitrot could cause a repeat of this incident, in that a 'buggy' version of the bitchain is adopted (namely, one with bitrot) and if there's no heroic people to step in, the system crashes.
Another way of looking at it: RAID systems have on rare occasions had bit rot that propagates, bringing down the whole system. In theory this is impossible, but in practice it is not. Might the same thing happen with bitcoin? Time will tell. I'll leave the last word to somebody else.
You cannot corrupt the blockchain. The hashes in the blocks make that impossible. The only reason those 2 people downgrading worked was because the majority of the miners also downgraded and verified that their copy of the chain was identical to the everyone elses. It only worked because thousands upon thousands of miners verified it as correct. Bitrot is impossible. |
|
|
|
At the risk of putting words into his mouth (for which I apologize if I'm wrong), gavin sees it as a technical anti-DOS measure: to prevent miners from DOSing voting enthusiasts out of the network.
But that's a very costly attack, yet it doesn't accomplish anything. |
|
|
|
As a side note, Syke is lying again about BFL. Who knew? Oh wait... Everyone, cause that's all he does.
Let me quote my own post and you can point my lies: Be sure to click on that URL and see if what I posted was in fact true. Waiting... |
|
|
|
Unless I'm reading it wrong, it's not necessary for all copies to have bit rot, just the canonical copy that either Palatinus or Marsee had. Perhaps you are correct if by 'downgrading' it means the existing nodes out there--the 10000 copies you mention--would, by nature of the P2P network, becomes the majority again, but it's not clear since the mere fact that Palatinus and Marsee uploaded their nodes with a post-0.8 chain made the chain unstable. So it implies that two people--Palatinus and Marsee--had control of the entire bitcoin network by virtue of having a canonical node(s). Thus if these two nodes had bit rot, they would break the system.
No, because that's where the mining process comes in. Every block is validated with the hashes. Any "rot" would invalidate one person's chain and someone else's copy of the chain would be used. |
|
|
|
A maximum block size which is too small will naturally lead to more off-chain activity; folks/entities will not be denied the ability to transact.
A maximum block size which is too big thwarts participation by bandwidth-starved nodes. So?
I propose we set MAX_BLOCK_SIZE to the maximum functional value possible today and walk away trusting the future to the caretakers then. If any idiot/malicious bad actors try to take advantage of it and attack then Bitcoin was vulnerable to that already anyways.
+1 No one is even filling up the current 1MB blocks with self-dealing transactions as it is. Remind me again why it was lowered?
Now it would be very expensive to flood the network. When there was no specified limit (the effective limit was 32 MB), someone could have flooded the network with junk transactions for virtually no cost. |
|
|
|
Fine and good, thanks, but consider this: there was a 'canonical' pre-0.8 chain. Do a 'thought experiment': what happened if this pre-0.8 chain had bit rot?
There are something like 10,000 copies of the chain. It would be impossible for all copies to have the same bit rot. |
|
|
|
WHY does Tony Serrata keep posting negative things about us on a daily basis?
Because you ripped him off. |
|
|
|
You do a fantastic job of using FUD to make 'perfect' and 'best' the mortal enemy of 'good enough.'
Any mining back then was well worth it. You can snivel about how your baby was the cutest, but the point is that we may still be in that situation, so you could well be wrong about HF being a "horrible" choice.
Numbers scare you, don't they. Let me make this simple for you. Buy Bitmain: Get more bitcoins. Buy bitcoins: Get more bitcoins. Buy HF: Get less bitcoins. More bitcoins vs less bitcoins. The choice is yours. |
|
|
|
Yes, that was great advice when you told ztex not to mine hundreds of BTC with an FPGA, because of your overweening risk aversion. Typical performance should be 850 MH/s. (The prototype achieves 870 MH/s.)
Prices are:
1..4 units: 999 EUR (1355 USD)
It's great to see a quad board, but... 850 MH/s @ $5 per btc = $82/month (ignoring power costs). $1355/82 = 16.5 months to break even... but it gets worse, in 8 months the btc reward will drop in half. Unless the price of bitcoins doubles when the reward drops, this product will need roughly 2 full years to break even, even without taking into consideration power costs. You are clearly the master of FUD and we should all listen to your wisdom!  You really wanna go there? Ok. Watch and learn. 1x ztex: $1355 for 850 MH/s in Apr 2012. $1.6/MH 2x Icarus: $1138 for 760 MH/s in Feb 2012. $1.5/MH Icarus boards were cheaper and started mining months in advance of ztex. Ztex was overpriced and late. Hmm, just like HF now. No wonder you like ztex. PS: A ztex board would have mined about 100 btc over its life. Had you purchased bitcoins instead you would have had over 200 btc. ztex again was the loser. PPS: GPUs were getting double the performance for the same price with plenty of resell value afterwards. That's who got all the bitcoins back then. |
|
|
|
See? There's that Manichean hero/villain classification system I just warned you about.
Since you have no actual arguments, you must be conceding that I was right all along. Thanks. |
|
|
|
Unless Bitmain has some problem with components, logistics, customs, certifications, firmware, drivers, etc. (IOW all the things that cause HF and the rest to delay).
I understand that Bitmain currently still enjoys a shiny new reputation, but you need to realize that every new ASIC company was seen as the savior until they inevitably dropped the ball on something.
And to think I almost put you on ignore. You are hilarious! There's nothing "new" about Bitmain. They've done multiple generations of chips and shipped so many units you can't comprehend. No one does logistics better than they do. The few times they did drop the ball they fessed up and offered compensation. |
|
|
|
The power supply is the sunshine ap188, has a CE logo on the sticker, for what it's worth.
Which CE mark? Real one or the fake China one:  And shouldn't a PSU in the US have FCC certification? |
|
|
|
Why not order from both HF and Bitmain?
Because you lower your profitability. But hey, if you've got so much money that you don't care about profitability, they go for it! You're the perfect HF customer. |
|
|
|
That's just your opinion. You only represent yourself, not the rest of the market.
It's obvious that your personal feelings are causing you to exaggerate. I could sell 700GH miners on ebay for $250 all day.
Unlike you, I'm an impartial potential customer. Sorry to break the truth to you, but Bitmain and Spondoolies have far superior products. You'd have to be stupid to pass them up and buy HF. HashFast is offering the most bang/buck and you're going to regret mocking them instead of ordering on-sale Sierras.
LOL. The people who did buy those "on-sale Sierras" are the ones regretting it. |
|
|
|
The price isn't "horrible" just because you can name one supposedly superior Bitmain product which may be shipping soon.
Bitmain is shipping sooner, has better power efficiency, is lower cost, comes fully assembled. HF loses on all accounts. There's no intelligent reason to chose HF over Bitmain. That makes it a horrible choice. |
|
|
|
By the price being right, I mean that it's the lowest possible that can be offered without having the Chinese manufacturer loosing money in this too.
Then it's DOA. There's no place in the market for it. |
|
|
|
It's not that "simple" but we understand that it may appear so to your simple minds.
Oh, but it is that simple. A year ago they had a decent plan, but they just couldn't finish it. Now it's just a power hungry, obsolete, uncompetitive product. The fact is that HF is finished. It's over. Accept it and move on. |
|
|
|
It seems as though these two were part of a later batch - the main backplane even being dated in july 2014. The allegedly not needed green capaciters were never installed. These are missing the lcd screen - but the circuit that drives the machine appears to be the same. The power supply is the sunshine ap188, has a CE logo on the sticker, for what it's worth.
Plugged them booted them up - went to the Prospero control panel and saw that they were mining for minersource.net at btcguild.
Checked the hash history and they were run for exactly 1 hour the week before.
Wow, now they're shipping incomplete miners? http://minersource.net/blogs/news/15011905-x1-x3-now-shipping-with-lcd-screensAll Further X1/X3s Shipped from Friday 8/1/14 now include the LCD Screen!
Does anyone have the old power supply? Are these any different? |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
