I was estatic I was getting 2.0 mhs per machine before the update.
After the update I was getting around 4.8 or so per machine.
Wow, initially more than 10% of the network! I once formatted accidentally over 12,000 BTC.
I'm sorry to hear that. That must have been annoying. |
|
|
|
Can't a crypto coin be developed in which there is a fair and equal distribution  Is there any disadvantage of it "fair" is subjective. In my opinion, a 100% pre-mined coin is fair. The creator of such a cryptocurrency has the best claim to the coins. No-one is forced to buy any of them from him. Rather than lament the absence of a cryptocurrency with an initially uniform distribution across all 7.3 billion people on this planet, I appreciate the incredible amount of work, resources, risk, and patience that many have put into these projects. That I am free to join or leave any of these projects at will is already more than fair as far as I'm concerned. The key disadvantage of a fully equal initial distribution is that it would be unstable. Some people would be keen to acquire more while many others would not care at all about their coins. Market volatility akin to a violent chemical reaction would ensue, ultimately resulting in a Pareto distribution. |
|
|
|
I always thought that having wide distribution has huge benefit to a coin, especially PoS coin.
But recently someone told me that it has only slight benefit.
I thought that widely distributed coin will not have risks of pumps and consequently dumps.
Some debate that AUR was widely distributed and dumped.
I object saying that it was initially pumped only because of poor initial distribution before airdrop and also did not have useful features.
If it had same qualities as Ether or NXT and was not allowed to be traded before airdrop is finished then it would not be pumped dumped.
All else equal, an asset with many holders is far preferable to one with few. A new currency's "pump-and-dump" is not something to be feared or suppressed. Instead, it is a mechanism for moving towards a healthier and more stable distribution. |
|
|
|
May 2010 Setup five Dell Optiplex 745 Core2Duo in May 2010 that I switched over from a SETI project that was run over night and on weekends. By day they were regular office slugs  ~BCX~ Ha, most wise. My spare CPU cycles were dedicated to Folding@Home when I first discovered Bitcoin but I decided to split my limited resources rather than switch over. Do you remember your total khps? (before the significant hashrate-boosting client upgrade later in the year). |
|
|
|
2010-07-12.
I received 5 BTC from Gavin's faucet. I generated my first block the following day.
The question is did you keep it or did you sell it soon after? My first 50 BTC block reward you mean? I quickly used it up giving tips and donations. You gave away 50? wow Yeah, but those 50 BTC were only worth a couple of dollars when I parted with them. I remember giving 150 BTC to my friend to get him started and 200 BTC to torservers.net later in the year. My friend sold all of his bitcoins the following year when I parted with most of mine and he was pleased with the surprising gains. By the way, are the dates in your first post meant to be dd/mm/yyyy or mm/dd/yyyy? Just to clarify: my Bitcoin Birthday is July 12th, not December 7th. PS: You can format a list [list]
[*]foo
[*]bar
[/list]
just as well as [list]
[li]foo[/li]
[li]bar[/li]
[/list]
|
|
|
|
Those 4 bytes have barely consumed over a megabyte in the 300k+ blocks we've mined.
It's copied and stored a million times, why not use the space more economically. Because this entails: - The consumption of some development resources.
- A more complicated protocol.
- A greater potential for bugs.
The costs of dealing with this problem dwarf the potential gain of sparing all nodes 21MB/century of storage. - Are developer resources busy arguing about the lack of capacity on each block? - The protocol will be simpler because there is one field less or what am I missing? - Less complexity reduces the potential for bugs, the implementation, as every change, presents a possibility for error. - Developers are certainly contending different capacity/decentralisation trade-offs and implementations thereof. In this context, 21MB/century is wholly insignificant.
- The blocks would be simpler. The protocol would be more complicated. The protocol must be able to understand all of the blocks in Bitcoin's history.
|
|
|
|
2010-07-12.
I received 5 BTC from Gavin's faucet. I generated my first block the following day.
The question is did you keep it or did you sell it soon after? My first 50 BTC block reward you mean? I quickly used it up giving tips and donations. |
|
|
|
2010-07-12.
I received 5 BTC from Gavin's faucet. I generated my first block the following day.
very large faucet that time ? very sorry not joined at that time  Wow 5 btc
WOW 5 BTC, I wish I could be in your shoes  Great!! 5 BTC from a Faucet? I have bad luck for not finding BTC at that time.
Yeah, it was 5 BTC at the time, protected only by a simple captcha (no e-mail required). Check it out here. However, remember that bitcoins were worth much less back then. The rate at bitcoinmarket.com (Mt.Gox didn't yet exist) was 0.012 USD/BTC, and this was an all time high! (up from about 0.006 USD/BTC at the beginning of the month). One could only trade at this site in multiples of 100 BTC and I bought this minimal quantity later that day using PayPal (1.35 USD in total I think). Trades of 10000 BTC were commonplace (I remember at least one 10000 BTC sell order I could have so easily met but decided not to  ). Bitcoin's difficulty was only about 24. It was not long before it jumped up to 45 but even at this level, and with just 200 khps (0.0002 GH/s), I found my own block on the 13th (50 BTC) and another on the 15th (50.01 BTC). |
|
|
|
Those 4 bytes have barely consumed over a megabyte in the 300k+ blocks we've mined.
It's copied and stored a million times, why not use the space more economically. Because this entails: - The consumption of some development resources.
- A more complicated protocol.
- A greater potential for bugs.
The costs of dealing with this problem dwarf the potential gain of sparing all nodes 21MB/century of storage. |
|
|
|
|
2010-07-12.
I received 5 BTC from Gavin's faucet. I generated my first block the following day.
|
|
|
|
Perhaps we'll see "decade" within Bitcoin's first 10 years. We have 205218 = 00000000000000b30977ce4980488 decade02ace9627955e61f245f845970622 Ha! Very nice. I imagine this is the only instance. |
|
|
|
Just an FYI: the "bits" parameter of block 331816 is 0x181b4861. This value represents the true target and unpacks as
Yeah, I didn't grab nbits so had to make do on the data I had - maybe I'll revisit it, maybe not I see. No worries. 282 block hashes contain beef Tasty Perhaps we'll see "decade" within Bitcoin's first 10 years. |
|
|
|
I keep a dump of the full chain (with a script that simply adds to it by calling bitcoin-cli with one addition, the timestamp converted)
Very cool! I'd be curious to see grep '000000UTC' blocks.all myself. Well yeah but there is of course the issue that the block timestamp is far from accurate. It's simply the timestamp put in the header before hashing it, it doesn't need to be very accurate and can be 7200 seconds (2hrs) ahead in time. Yes, I'm well aware. There's 8 21757,00000000901764e2469aa8e34ccf3688ece4a43f75a6ef876f114c9ebcae6cbb,1,c1f8478a7e46e03b7326e0d55ad6848a7fb1cd8819134d52b88ebaa0752e99e6,1251590400,20090830000000UTC,3593416220,1d00ffff,1.00000000,00000000454e4447e1b3227b6573b610bedb3ae690b7e7862d6b971e4cf51ee5
34274,00000000296e482f492c06e598f35ce9f351f0d1e00220205f11ca932a1b3f8a,1,c1b9332164aed8bb1f9e029463523735c1da10f8548faa13cf6a22810091b17f,1263250800,20100112000000UTC,74552828,1d00c428,1.30506213,0000000013fad98598accf6d68c234b8fb22ab05ae24fb98b043dbd25dc84a6f
84461,0000000000254cb84cbb8ca4b1a2c6f4d15a01af80ccfa9ba243c06a8aba5a46,1,bc6b5309eb0ddf78cf92a6c9d1f93e76b9ed497aa353d3efad41704a8db210c1,1286751600,20101011000000UTC,496010461,1b31b2a3,1318.67005015,0000000000060af2631eb2dc238985d1f8e27279d75a5bfa123febb0f478719e
117090,000000000000a27b8d06b7353e6c1d7f8b0e01449e85cbd4bda93645c6e154f2,1,a7347ce38d6b67ef5459418113af220cb26cb188f366e2d6c9f88ebeb7797057,1302134400,20110407000000UTC,1465509707,1b00cbbd,82345.64411297,000000000000b836fe0c1fcbdaa0229d0608ca7ec9f098871792357b839357c5
160030,0000000000000d575be2b8874bf9ce10c382669a1827ff2e88fae0598eabeba8,1,5b7ca99a397fef3db62397281092b6e444bb0d6fa46c2dfa88534bac7e1a8189,1325372400,20120101000000UTC,2793405837,1a0e76ba,1159929.49722438,0000000000000942122ac20248851ec357b546c4a340eb67392b74202537a299
300936,000000000000000063d5423cadcbdaf25d0e56f2aef3714eb1d55b144f048931,2,56c304bfae885495c28ff7d51249981fca687e8468164c47ffcf1af8b853d584,1400198400,20140516000000UTC,3629228942,187c3053,8853416309.12779999,000000000000000046ca098391e34775ecda24933f56ee1c858e635e2bf12589
321935,00000000000000001533f171b7c1c5d41d734e8ce4c6bce03dfbff6a41c5d862,2,47ee20dd270997423715df7f00daf6f916681964c1c8fb798c2dd03a06dca5f2,1411344000,20140922000000UTC,189477608,1824dbe9,29829733124.04041672,000000000000000017438c1afdbf096d3b763d7f0368407567377d4eec7de7c6
367561,00000000000000000339efa2d9e1c8b7518019b441ba3ad7fbcfbbcd90ff2229,3,798f9f4e4cbd0ffaf7ef26b5e33a526bed0753a44784f350652e3d2406461970,1438214400,20150730000000UTC,634368344,18150815,52278304845.59168243,00000000000000000aa65b2ca4f6a982b5502c86c178cb5b44b0057b0c64e356
Thank you. |
|
|
|
I keep a dump of the full chain (with a script that simply adds to it by calling bitcoin-cli with one addition, the timestamp converted)
Very cool! I'd be curious to see grep '000000UTC' blocks.all myself. |
|
|
|
Block 331816, in those terms, was the luckiest; clocking in 'just barely' under the target:
00000000000000001b48610000000395e67ff70a0effd0718099cc0000000000 : target
00000000000000001b48534ff39bc165477e3b5459b05679bdcf8ce2a3927fe7 : hash
Actually, the above may not be very precise due to potential conversion issues and big number handling. The next four contenders are blocks 270605, 50249, 128228 and 316072
Just an FYI: the "bits" parameter of block 331816 is 0x 181b4861. This value represents the true target and unpacks as | 0x0.1b4861 * 0x1000x18 | | = | 0x1b4861 * 0x1042 | | = | 0x1b4861000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 |
|
|
|
|
We can protest to governments if they really dont using it for infrastructures in our country, but if they really do, then why should we angry. We always using those infrastructures everyday.
Consider a river through a town. Is it good for the government to build a bridge over that river? If so, is it good to build a second bridge a few kilometers further down? How about building hundreds of bridges over the same river, evenly spaced over 10km? Is there some density of bridges, some tax burden past which you would be unhappy with government infrastructure projects? What if, instead of spending $3000 in a year to have your child educated well, $6000 is taxed from you and used to educated your child poorly? Would this not anger you? Correlation does not imply causation. |
|
|
|
|
The aspect of taxation I've always found most curious is the perception of fairness. I've spoken to several people before that admit to being "happy with taxation" in general (even if unhappy with certain implementation details) and, while they concede the immorality of the theft involved, defend the institution as a whole on utilitarian grounds ("necessary evil", "for the greater good", "the ends justify the means"). However, when discussing isolated incidents of tax avoidance/evasion, utilitarian concerns take a back seat to ethical ones. Suddenly it's not about the existence of public services but about people not paying "their fair share".
|
|
|
|
They have to come up with 50 billion euro. Its unlikely that they'll get that even with the sale of all their islands.
If Greece were really selling islands then the Greek government would recognise the buyers as sovereign over the purchased land and we may end up with many new micro-nations. In this case 50 billion euros would be a trivial target. |
|
|
|
I would expect the terms "Bitcoin" and "Silk Road" to be better correlated than "Bitcoin" and "Free Market". "Bitcoin" and "Silk Road" simply ARE closer to one another. They're both new internet things. "Free Market" is an old economic concept. Also, let's not forget the assumption that people using the term "Free Market" on Google think and search in the same way as people using the term "Silk Road". I find it odd that the authors remark clearly on how Bitcoin might be attractive to people that care about anonymity immediately before implicitly assuming that Google Trends accurately captures the efforts by such people to find out more. I'm sure I'm not the only one here that uses DuckDuckGo. I don't think it's unreasonable to assume that the subset of research efforts tracked by Google is representative but the point certainly deserves more attention than "hard-to-observe clientele". Finally, what kind of conclusion is: We find robust evidence that computer programming enthusiasts and illegal activity drive interest in Bitcoin and find limited or no support for political and investment motives.
What fraction of people that search "Free Market" are free-market enthusiasts? What fraction of people that search "Silk Road" are criminals? |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
