|
thanks steve, d&t, ribuck... i'm not really a miner at all so sometimes i just talk out my ass when it comes to how these things work.
|
|
|
|
If this becomes more prevalent, the longer confirmation times will start to noticeably diminish the value of bitcoin.
but isn't counting confirmations somewhat a placeholder for counting time? eg. longer wait between blocks = more confidence in each block. eg2. if blocks came every ~5 minutes, mtgox might wait for 12 confirmations on deposits... if blocks came every 20 minutes, they might only wait for 3. |
|
|
|
|
you'd want at least 512mb ram... can be done on 256mb but you're really on the edge.
i don't think 'making a transaction' takes much cpu at all... like sending an email.
|
|
|
|
A$$hat is dropping transactions to get the block reward faster
Making more work for legit mining pools
You don't hash any faster if you don't include other transactions from the P2P network. Also only the Merkle Root is part of the header so there is not more work for any miner if he includes 1, 10 or 1 million transactions. The only explanation I currently have for this behaviour is that this is someone mining with a custom client who didn't bother just for ~1 BTC/block or often even less to (re)implement all that transaction verification stuff. Also it makes communication with minig clients much easier - only notify them of new blocks and if they solve a block, publish it to the network. No need to relay transactions, listen to them, verify them, keep blockchains and account balances and whatnot. As this would benefit a botnet (low communication overhead), some argue it could be that this miner is a botnet. In fact, noone can know and if the transaction fees were 100 BTC instead of 1 BTC per block, I bet it wouldn't pay off to mine empty blocks. Could someone explain this to me? I've read a lot of conflicting reports. Does it take more work to include transactions or not? Rather, does the overall average time to solve a block increase by including transactions? Does the communication overhead impact how quickly (on average) a block is solved? According to the wiki.... "The body of the block contains the transactions. These are hashed only indirectly through the Merkle root. Because transactions aren't hashed directly, hashing a block with 1 transaction takes exactly the same amount of effort as hashing a block with 10,000 transactions."... While there is apparently no additional work involved to do the (indirect) hash of a 10,000 transaction block, there is obviously added work involved in building and processing a 10,000 transaction block. A miner ignoring transactions would appear have some advantage over a miner including transactions. With the relatively small number of transactions per block processed currently, the amount of extra work may be negligible, and not produce any practical advantage. what about broadcasting the block once you're done with it? probably negligible too, but the more tx, the more kb you have to send out. if you're racing against other miners, milliseconds might be the difference between 50 btc and an orphan. |
|
|
|
Wasn't Litecoin supposed to be CPU exclusive? Whatever happened to that?
there's no reason why an application-specific integrated circuit couldn't be a type of central processing unit. |
|
|
|
A 'lock address' function could help. The address locks the moment is it pasted into the field. No unlock (except cancel).
or just a regular confirmation dialog... Are you sure you want to send 1 million bitcoins to 1ffjfitetwrexjf...? YES / NO |
|
|
|
Not right now, I'm not asking for an increase tomorrow. But in around 9 months, miners will have their payday cut by half. I'm not going to do the "good thing for Bitcoin" if I'm stuck paying from my pocket because of low fees. And it will be the same for a bunch of miners there, if they can't profit, they close the rigs. What happen if they close their rigs? Well, solominer is going to have a bigger % of the network and because of the drop of miners, blocks will take a longer time to solve, slowing even more the flow of transactions. you forgot maybe solo-miner also closes his rigs at this point. Yeah, but other people with the same idea could do the same thing. ...and people without the same idea could also jump back in. nice balancing effect, huh?  |
|
|
|
That's CRAZY!!!
That IP is mine, I have a bitcoind running there but not only are the generation addresses not mine but also I have never found a block there that I can remember.
So... what's going on?
If it is truly your IP it was probably relayed through you. AKA the block was sent through his bitcoind to your bitcoind which further sent it to blockchain.info (there might have been people inbetween you and the miner but you were the one who finally sent it to blockchain.info's bitcoind) (pretty sure this is how blockchain.info gets their ip, kind of weak method) or.... his pc has been infected by the botnet.... dun dun dun. |
|
|
|
I believe what you meant to say was: "If there is a Litecoin GPU miner, then Litecoin FPGAs/ASICS are also possible"
Um no. Actually there is no prerequisite of having a GPU miner in order for ASICs to exist for Litecoin. The whole point of an ASIC is that it is APPLICATION SPECIFIC (not GPU specific). Having a GPU miner only makes the hashing faster (like 10 times or whatever). People can still hash on a cpu, they dont need a GPU. Anyways did you have anything intelligent to say instead of attempting to correct my perfectly logical OP. If so, I'd like to hear your thoughts, otherwise please dont post. There is enough drama on this forum already, don't need anymore BS. Thanks!  My post's aim was not to critique your grammar or anything like that. I apologize if that was the impression I gave you. that's not the impression you gave him. you gave him the impression that ASICs are only possible if GPU mining is possible... but GPU mining has nothing to do with it. |
|
|
|
Not right now, I'm not asking for an increase tomorrow. But in around 9 months, miners will have their payday cut by half. I'm not going to do the "good thing for Bitcoin" if I'm stuck paying from my pocket because of low fees. And it will be the same for a bunch of miners there, if they can't profit, they close the rigs. What happen if they close their rigs? Well, solominer is going to have a bigger % of the network and because of the drop of miners, blocks will take a longer time to solve, slowing even more the flow of transactions. you forgot maybe solo-miner also closes his rigs at this point. |
|
|
|
My experience could also be a contest with a prize.
I tried (and succeded as it turned up) to withdraw an astronomic amount of 61.58$ on my bank account via international wire. My account is in euro but that is of no importance.
Can you guess how much of the 61.58$ made it to the account?
...
...
wait...
....
5.54euro which is almost 7.33$.
on my last "attempt" of 28$ before a long time (june 2011), 20 made it...
what is happening? is this common practice that i am not aware of? Do people know that and i somehow missed it?
I can understand that its "petty cash" for a great deal of people in here but... i cannot find the words to describe this situation without swearing...
your thoughts?
i'm curious to know what would have happened if you had tried to withdraw $54. would you get $0 or would you be asked to pay the extra 25 cents? |
|
|
|
We should fix the economic incentives
i don't think anything needs to be done or changed... we're already heading towards a partial fix in december, then continual adjustments to 'economic incentives' after that. |
|
|
|
Decide "Yes" or "No" for Product Manuals: Manufacturer Information Who is the Manufacturer of this product?(required)
Manufacturer is the maker of the product (e.g. Fujitsu). If you cannot find the manufacturer in our list, enter NOT FOUND.
if you enter NOT FOUND or not found or Not Found or nOt FoUnD, some javascript empties out that field when you hit submit and it subsequently tells you the field is required. there seems to be no way of getting past it if you don't have a manufacturer name. also, posting here because crowdflower support tells me i need to sign up, but couldn't be bothered. |
|
|
|
In the US, I believe it is a requirement for a bank to provide you your funds by cheque if your account is closed or suspended for any reason. Is this not the case here?
so, when the doj freezes your assets, they cut you a cheque to cover it? someone should let kim dotcom know. Were his asset frozen by the government? kim's or andre's? i realise now that you must have meant 'for any reason other than the government'. |
|
|
|
In the US, I believe it is a requirement for a bank to provide you your funds by cheque if your account is closed or suspended for any reason. Is this not the case here?
so, when the doj freezes your assets, they cut you a cheque to cover it? someone should let kim dotcom know. |
|
|
|
|
i use the very last one before the interface got 'upgraded'.
and that's why.
|
|
|
|
i'll just leave this here... NSFWseems matthew gets all the luck. That was me in frame 8. if i were chinese, i'd see what you did there. |
|
|
|
i'll just leave this here... NSFWseems matthew gets all the luck. |
|
|
|
one small query is that my 13th March payment was 0.4167 BTC less than all the others & while it's too little to make a fuss over I can't work out why that may be
that happened to me too... apparently it was a DST thing; we got paid for 23 hours on one of the days. |
|
|
|
Calculating how much was received by addresses that are not your own (i.e. transactions that are not in your wallet) would require either a full blockchain rescan, or an index with the balances of all addresses to be kept. Since this information is not needed in normal operation, such an index is not implemented.
Short answer: currently not possible with the reference client.
so i'm guessing then, merchants who generate a pool of addresses offline using bitaddress.org and then import them into a db to give out to customers (instead of generating addresses on-the-fly), just use the blockexplorer api to check for incoming payments. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
