It means that very few, if any, miners can make money at this price.
So, some miners will be forced to quit unless the price goes back up.
Igorr is of the mind that the price will continue to go down.
$200 is his prediction if I recall correctly.
I have one question about that though, if miners quit because its not profitable to mine, would that not open up the network and make it that much weaker? I mean easier to attack is what I am getting at... so would that not be counter productive? Yep, lower hash rate = less security. |
|
|
|
|
It means that very few, if any, miners can make money at this price.
So, some miners will be forced to quit unless the price goes back up.
Igorr is of the mind that the price will continue to go down.
$200 is his prediction if I recall correctly.
|
|
|
|
|
Very funny post. You are a comic genius. Thanks for the belly laugh.
|
|
|
|
|
The fee is 1%, paid by the advertiser. That is fair, keeps them in business and not too high as far as most people are concerned.
|
|
|
|
This sounds so much better. I hope bits have as much value as cents in the future.
Not quite. The idea is that when we use bits for prices the prices will have this familiar format: 1,234.56 bitsThe partial part of the bits (the 0.56 part) is in satoshis so in the future bits will be analogous to the "dollars" part and the fractional part, the satoshis, will have the value of "cents". People would eventually say something like "That will be one thousand two hundred thirty-four bits and fifty-six satoshis." This is a great idea I think. Using the traditional two places behind the decimal place as satoshis. So it would break down to traditional units as: 1 cent = 1 satoshi 1 dollar = 1 bit ... 1 bar of gold = 1 bitcoin At the point 1 bit = 1 USD then 1 BTC would be one million dollars. So are you predicting that one bar of gold will be one million USD at that time? Could be. |
|
|
|
Can you please clarify if it can be read?
Yes, it can be read. So it can be read, disassembled, and the public key replaced. |
|
|
|
Private keys are intended to be one-to-one with public keys, so that would certainly be a flaw in ECDSA if two private keys correspond to one public key It will be flaw in basic arithmetic, not in ECDSA. X * 7 = 28How many values of X do you know? Two? Give me both, please! but since you turn the 256 bit public key into a 160 bit digest, it would just be incredibly unlikely, not impossible, for an ideal hash function to map two different inputs 256 bit to a single 160 bit output.
What's wrong with my understanding?
That is correct. There is 296 addresses for each private key. No problem.No. On average there approximately 2 96 key pairs mapped to each Bitcoin address.Your statement has it backwards. To spend the BTC at a Bitcoin address you need to have one of the approximately 2 96 possible key pairs that will properly map to that Bitcoin address. |
|
|
|
|
I too like the idea of Thorium reactors. A bit off topic though since the title of this thread is "Estimating the energy/power consumption of the Bitcoin Network"
|
|
|
|
THANKS! I wonder about the data, perhapse there is a couple of bugs? 1) The sum of the first column (number of address ever in each bin) is 48,297,867 and that seem right. However the sum of the second column, the number of active addresses, is only 345,558. That seems low to me. That would indicate that all of the BTC in existence are stored on only 345,558 unique addresses? 2) This is a nit but there are only 195,111 rows. The last row for bin 1zzz is missing. I did a quick sort on the number of currently active addresses in each bin and the top ten are:
Index Bin Ever Now
------ ---- ----- ---
32543 1Ag6 852 106
32542 1Ag5 842 82
9852 13vs 760 71
32541 1Ag4 879 56
23402 17xV 666 51
32593 1Agx 837 48
684 11Co 45 35
35159 1BTC 1551 34
0 1111 374 33
1548 11Th 50 32 There does seem to be a lot of them in the 1Ag range but this is easily explained by Casascius because the way he created his coins skews the addresses into certain bins. For example he created 1786 addresses starting with 1Ag in this batch of coins alone: http://casascius.uberbills.com/?type=1&status=active I also did a quick sort on the number of addresses ever in each bin and the top 20 are:
Index Bin Ever Now
------ ---- ----- ---
116804 1bit 12043 6
35159 1BTC 1551 34
68892 1MUo 1148 5
36069 1Bit 892 27
36712 1Buy 883 1
32541 1Ag4 879 56
32571 1Aga 869 4
32572 1Agb 867 8
32539 1Ag2 866 3
32592 1Agw 863 7
32538 1Ag1 859 7
32595 1Agz 856 5
32543 1Ag6 852 106
32594 1Agy 846 25
32542 1Ag5 842 82
32593 1Agx 837 48
75469 1PSC 834 9
66967 1Luc 819 16
37550 1CAR 813 13
34187 1BAS 807 31 Again, vanity addresses obviously skew the distribution. |
|
|
|
Hi, In last time i regulary got from somebody one satoshi (0.00000001 BTC) if i use new address for input bitcoin I think it's new spam (addresses from bitcoins have a comment at blockchain.info) in bitcoin. Example of same address (who sends) is: https://blockchain.info/en/address/16JLbXYe5xmxGNX8hiqooyTUJnhitNNqThBut problem is that the Trezor doesn't use like these small inputs (0.00000001 BTC) for outputs of new transaction. I got 2x same 0.00000001 BTC in two other addresses of one BIP44 account in the Trezor. After this i tried to move all money from account but i cannot move all moneys. The maximum allowed sum by myTREZOR.com for money moving from account was "full balance - 2 * 0.00000001" BTC. When i did a payment from account i saw addresses in account where were addresses with one satoshie. It's annoying and can cause problems with people not understanding - "why i cannot use all money?". Can the Trezor use all inputs for outgoing transactions? I think there (myTREZOR.com) is minimum for transaction inputs. You should be able to send the entire balance of your Trezor off to another wallet and it should pick up all the small inputs as long as the total you are sending is larger and you pay the fee. I had a very small amount stuck once so I added 1 BTC to the wallet then sent the entire balance of the wallet (the one BTC I added plus the dust) out to another wallet and was able to "clean up" the entire wallet. At that point I reinitialized the whole Trezor and started over. Can the Trezor use all inputs for outgoing transactions? I think there (myTREZOR.com) is minimum for transaction inputs.
It's not worth using them. It creates a bigger transaction and you'll end up paying more in the end (because the transaction fee will be higher). I know it was silly to pay more than the value of the dust in order to clean it up, but that is what I did. Probably some sort of weird character flaw. |
|
|
|
onverges to 100% expenditure on hardware
b) mining converges to 100% expenditure on energy.
The reality will be in between. I doubt there will be a fixed factor between both bounds (eg 0.5 spent on new miners, 0.5 on power)
can't all hardware expenditure be estimated as energy? I like. So then, in addition to an estimate of how much the miners spend on energy versus equipment we would also need to estimate the amount of energy that goes into the NRE, manufacture and delivery of the finished equipment to the miners. Then again it might be easier to "average this all out" into a single g factor of say 0.1  |
|
|
|
Just a quick extension.
if we assume a churn on hardware to counter the decay of individual units your model can be reduced to two bounds
[edit] removed asymptotically, does not have to be that way
a) mining converges to 100% expenditure on hardware
b) mining converges to 100% expenditure on energy.
The reality will be in between. I doubt there will be a fixed factor between both bounds (eg 0.5 spent on new miners, 0.5 on power)
I agree. The model can be made more accurate if we get a better estimate or calculation for the system wide average value of g. Then it could be made even more accurate if we could calculate or estimate g(t) or g(e). |
|
|
|
|
Game over. We have a winner! Congratulations to 11cea-1h
|
|
|
|
|
raid_n:
Your entire argument is: BurtW, your estimate for g of 0.1 is too low, I think the value of g is higher than that.
So, just change the value of g to what you estimate it should be.
What do you think it should be? 0.5? 0.6?
You don't have to write walls of text to tell us the value I picked out of the air in my example is wrong. If you could calculate and justify an actual value for g - that would be interesting.
|
|
|
|
The deciding factor of which branch of the blockchain to select in a fork is to look at the total difficulty of all blocks summed up and select the chain with the highest total difficulty. In your proposed attack scheme, the attacker may generate a longer chain, counted by the number of blocks, but it will have a lower total difficulty than the chain the rest of the network is using and the attack will fail.
Unless after lowering it, the attacker cranks the hashrate up to match to the network's when he joins back. Let me see if I understand what you are saying: Make a bunch of low difficulty blocks Crank back up to the network difficulty Make a few blocks at the network difficulty Can you see that the sum of that work will be less than the sum of the work done by the rest of the network while you were farting around = you lose? Now if you can: Match the network Crank up to above the network Produce a few blocks above the network Then you can win, but we are just back to the tried and true 51% attack for the most part. Go read: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=596892.0it discusses this it totally gory detail. |
|
|
|
I had forgotten about this thread: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=596892.0That was a great one to try to follow and understand. One of those threads where I was hanging on by my fingernails trying to keep up - I like those. OP: go read that thread and report back. |
|
|
|
The people yet to adopt Bitcoin do not care if Bitcoin is PoW or PoS.
Right. Average noob user does not know what the hell you are talking about and does not care as long as it works for them. Now noob miners are another thing. They do care, find out what is going on, get bummed out that they can't get money for doing nothing and then start crying about PoW versus PoS. More than that, to me and thousands, POW means Prisoner of War. We should not use this term. Coincidentally POS also means Piece of Shit which, it turns out, is totally appropriate. Sorry but both PoW and PoS are in general use and the fact they have other meanings will probably not stop their use. But we can say: PoW does not make you a POW PoS is a POS |
|
|
|
Exactly. If someone was serious about it they would branch Bitcoin with a PoS alt version instead of creating another separate alt. But of course they will not do that because PoW versus PoS is not really what they are about. What they are about is creating a new separate PoS alt in order to pump-n-dump it and get rich quick. All of you people that claim to be so concerned about it: get together and create an actual branch, otherwise you are just blowing smoke. As far as privacy goes: stop reusing addresses! The people yet to adopt Bitcoin do not care if Bitcoin is PoW or PoS.
Right. Average noob user does not know what the hell you are talking about and does not care as long as it works for them. Now noob miners are another thing. They do care, find out what is going on, get bummed out that they can't get money for doing nothing and then start crying about PoW versus PoS. |
|
|
|
|
Quit talking about it and create a POS branch and see how it goes. All I ever see about this is talk, talk, talk. If you are so convinced that a POS version of Bitcoin would be so much better then do it.
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
