By mining on their pool, with their device, your tx will always have high priority against all other tx from others users.
You have paid for this, and you will maintaining the pool and then the priority.
Exactly, and more importantly: you likely won't have to pay for transactions fees. |
|
|
|
It's also funny that you can't buy it with bitcoin (yet...) because they don't think bitcoin should be used for purchases like this.  Someone give me 50 million dollars, I can come up with terrible ideas all day long for half the price of these guys. These are some of the brightest minds in Silicon Valley, give us a break...It's clear you are simply too simple to process what they're trying to do. |
|
|
|
The mining chip in all of this still doesn't make any sense, though  Neither the rasberry Pi hardware... why not simply release a marketplace which allows decentralized micropayments that eventually hit the blockchain? It only makes sense if we assume that the mining chip allows people to get bitcoin without the hassle of buying it and their objective is to grow and strengthen the bitcoin ecosystem by decentralizing mining and increasing node count. Remember alot of these investors are bitcoin bagholders too and are probably concerned about the centralization of mining and node drop off... That's the point. The device as it stand is a pilot, eventually the mining chips will be embedded right into your computer's motherboard.  |
|
|
|
https://21.co/ [Suspicious link removed]j.com/moneybeat/2015/09/21/21-inc-releases-first-product-a-bitcoin-computer/  A wobbly Raspberry Pi? Can someone explain to me why this isn't the dead end I think it is? This is more of a prototype, according to the article. A proof-of-concept, something for the devs to tinker with. The finished product would have a real, full-featured OS (Windows), and a real, robust payment system (Visa/$). And why would anyone buy the finished product? I thought they were going to integrate their chips or their chip-tech into standard PC chipsets, not make their own computers. I don't see a market for such a product. If it weren't for the mining bit I would think all of this could be done in software. Actually, I don't really see the point of this chip at all. The amount of coins it will be able to mine is so minuscule that it would make more sense for the users to just bite the bullet and buy some coins. In fact, what we need is (please don't shoot the messenger) the option of exchanging fiat for BTC directly through our online banking solutions. It's quite simple: it enables true micropayments on the Bitcoin blockchain by making access to mining ubiquitous. Eventually their chips will be integrated into PCs. As the person you quoted above mentioned, this is the pilot version. The amount of coins mined is negligible from a financial standpoint but not if someone is concerned with interoperable communication by devices using the Bitcoin protocol. |
|
|
|
There are reasons why that is not possible and that would be a hack anyway.
By participating hashing power to 21inc mining pool (as negligible as it could be) they will aggregate all of their embedded chips and Bitcoin computer devices micropayments and include them into blocks they mine.
If that is the case , that is a creative solution that also allows bitcoin to scale more (If and only if the process is decentralized and acting like a caching layer). They are really horrible about explaining this simple idea in their marketing I do say. Nope it does not work at all. Its like having a webserver at your home so you can host your own cheap websites. Think about it. The economical method is to offer services to dust tx at a fixed monthly fee. ..... tada.... webhosting service..... lol fuck off you troll. |
|
|
|
You are wrong.
Miners today get a hash from their pool and they try to solve. It doesn't matter if this hash is part of a 20 MB block or an empty block. It is all the same to them.
If they solve it, they send it back to their pool.
I'm not sure what you are referring to that I'm wrong about...please specify. As far as your Miners comment...everybody knows that. As of right now, if the blocks were increased to 20 MB, those blocks won't be filled because the network doesn't have enough transactions to fill them yet for years. In the future, when transaction volume multiplies tenfold, the miners will need a lot more hashing power than they have today. However, with the bitcoin halving next year, the difficulty will definitely increase and the rewards may not be worth it for small mining pools. As a result, they will fold and only the largest and wealthiest mining pools will survive, thus centralizing the bitcoin network even further by depending on fewer pools. On another note, I would like to ask you if you believe that the hashing power from a few thousand ASICs currently used to support the network would be more powerful and cheaper in the long run than hundreds of thousands of peers mining with their CPUs and GPUs? That statement is wrong. Hashing power has nothing to do, with the amount of transactions in a block. An empty block takes the same amount of hashing power, a full block does. I think block reward halving will reduce hashing power, since less efficient ASICs will not be profitable anymore and will shut down. The last question, I can not really answer. I think, someone with more knowledge than me, could make a calculation about that. My guess is, that the ASICs win, but that is just a guess. This is correct, increasing the blocksize would not lead to increased mining centralization whatsoever. Since miners do not run full nodes, the pools do instead. GPU's and CPU's will never be able to mine Bitcoin profitably again, even outdated ASIC's are far more efficient. There are currently hundreds of thousands of workers running on the Bitcoin network, much more then mere thousands, so ASIC's do and will indeed always win. No, this is wrong on several points. Miners absolutely run full nodes. If you are only hashing and pointing it to a pool you are not a miner. Blocksize will necessarily increase mining centralization for reasons repeatedly stated which I won't bother explaining again because you have an irritating tendency not to be honest in your debates anyway. |
|
|
|
How else do you enable true micropayment possibilities than by allowing ubiquitous access to mining?
These folks are very, very clever.
So you are suggesting their definition of microtransactions is less than 10 cents which is prohibitively expensive to send right now with fees being 2 pennies? What does this hardware have to do with sending dust, why not just use one of many services like changetip to send microtransactions or is this going to be a decentralized caching layer for micro-transactions that doesn't use an off the chain solution(like the lightning network)? Yes, I am honestly unsure about the specifics but I'm confident your second statement is close to what they're doing. See my reply above and yes indeed the microtransactions they refer to will be less than 10 cents. We're likely talking satoshis here. |
|
|
|
How else do you enable true micropayment possibilities than by allowing ubiquitous access to mining?
Bring back ability to send dust without fees maybe? There are reasons why that is not possible and that would be a hack anyway. By participating hashing power to 21inc mining pool (as negligible as it could be) they will aggregate all of their embedded chips and Bitcoin computer devices micropayments and include them into blocks they mine. |
|
|
|
|
How else do you enable true micropayment possibilities than by allowing ubiquitous access to mining?
These folks are very, very clever.
|
|
|
|
I really don't think anyone with any knowledge would buy this purely on the mining factor, and I don't think that's what they are pushing for.
I understand, but they are extremely vague as to what makes this device unique vs any other marketplace where one can sell their goods and services for bitcoin with their regular computer. The only thing that would make sense is if these devices had some unique advantage where they were given privy to directly sell excess bandwidth to Qualcomm devices. then why add mining chip that would just be a pure loss?
The only purpose of the mining chip is to facilitate non-bitcoin users the ability to use the bitcoin blockchain without buying bitcoin. Unfortunately this device isn't marketed for this demo so is very puzzling indeed. Perhaps they intended to create routers and utilities but after testing couldn't pull off their vision so had to release something. It is not a marketplace. It is a platform for internet content monetization and device-to-device micropayments. The device is here to lubricate payments flow by enabling device to speak together using the Bitcoin protocol by having them absolutely tiny amounts (satoshis). |
|
|
|
Still very vague. I can't seem to udnerstand how will this facilitate Bitcoin payment integration in websites, as it apparently does. Why should a merchant opt for this instead of BitPay, Electrum payment functionality, just giving out an address, etc? |
|
|
|
Re: 12.5% yearly.
What if something or other suddenly starts driving bitcoin adoption wildly? It doesn't leave the market open to a dev team hashrate coup like XT (as the miners roundly disfavoured that much disruption/uncertainty), but a competing cryptocoin that can handle the spike might try to make an opportunity out of that kind of situation.
So what is the plan? What level of wild bitcoin adoption do you expect? You do realize that "wild" metric implies "wild" block size increase as well? Where does that get us? |
|
|
|
I think we will start to see some of the very first commercials for Bitcoin miners and mining soon.
Nop. |
|
|
|
This is amazing  |
|
|
|
Here is my constructive comment: unless a hard cap limiting the increase over a certain period of time is coupled to this proposal, any such scheme is utterly broken and can be trivially gamed by miners intent on controlling the blocksize.
Any such proposition is not viable given that it provides no consideration for the externalization of the cost to the nodes and our focus on keeping Bitcoin decentralized.
The consideration given is that, unlike the original proposal, this one doesn't double the blocksize. It's a measured and more conservative increase, which will allow nodes to keep pace, which is what you want. This is what cuts to the heart of your misunderstanding; no-one knows which rate of blocksize increase "will allow nodes to keep pace", there are too many variables and too many unknown events yet to take place. If your approach is based on faulty modeling/assumptions, I don't know why you would expect people to take it any more seriously than the most egregious other examples of the same mistake (including BIP100, 101, and 103). I think the misunderstanding is even deeper than this. Flexcap proposal in general are an attempt to accommodate demand and optimize fees for miners. This to me is a non-starter when attempting to design the system with security and decentralization as our main focus. |
|
|
|
The consideration given is that, unlike the original proposal, this one doesn't double the blocksize. It's a measured and more conservative increase, which will allow nodes to keep pace, which is what you want. I've even stated that the 12.5% part is open to negotiation, but it is a hard cap. It means precisely that the blocksize can't increase (or decrease) by more than that amount over a period of time. The period of time in question is also negotiable. This gives you everything you're asking for, we just need to decide what the limit should be and over how long a timeframe.
12.5% YOY sounds on par with Pieter Wuille proposal. I honestly wouldn't mind it I'm pretty sure that we would be much better off if we had a dynamic block size limit (with the correct parameters). BIP101 is probably too big, and 12.5% YOY might be too low, both of these would eventually cause issues. As DooMAD said, it is still a hard cap which can't be changed without another fork. If we had a dynamic block size then we would not need to worry about this (unless someone tries to game the system). I've always been against making pointless predictions as we can not know what is going to happen in the future. We can't expect any fixed solution to be the right call. Not sure where the YOY part came from, heh. That's a little too conservative for my tastes. 12.5% per month at a stretch, maybe. But again, the increase/decrease would only occur if a) the miners agree and b) the traffic is actually there (or not there as the case may be) If anything, the blocksize limit would likely reduce at first if we aren't currently filling 1MB blocks. But the important part is we don't suddenly hit a wall where a backlog of transactions can't be cleared and we preserve decentralisation by not making it prohibitively expensive to run a full node. Happy compromise all round. That's a little naive  Large miners could trivially spam transactions to force system to reach threshold they are comfortable with knowing it would eliminate a certain portion of their competition. You may not have read this piece yet so allow me to insist: by preserving decentralization we mean that one should be able to run his node through tor if he chooses too. Therefore, any increase that would effectively surpass the bandwidth growth of anonymous internet access should not be considered. http://www.truthcoin.info/blog/measuring-decentralization/ |
|
|
|
To get rich? (I mean, really rich) To change the world? You have to think outside the box. You think Buffet got so rich by following the rules? No! He invented modern value investing; he was doing it when no one else was, and that's why he had his advantage. You think Bill Gates got where he is by avoiding breaking eggs and giving a fuck what mainstream investors thought?
People who are heavy into crypto now are eschewing all the rules, and either the greatest technological innovation since the internet just *goes away somehow* or we will be the new financial elite eventually, same as those who got in on the ground floor of the dot-com boom and made good decisions (yes, if you go all in on Pets.com or BBQCoin you are going to lose your shirt).
The future is not a safe place. It is a wild and crazy place, full of unexpected turns and twists.
It will not belong to the safe.
It will belong to the bold.
the idea of crypto is an alt currency to fiat, its not about getting rich. for any crypto to be successful its about adoption, you can think outside the box (though i am yet to see anything it crypto thinking outside the box) go the road less travelled, be bold, be uniquely innovative; but you'll be using this amazing innovative currency alone and therefore its next to completely useless. 0 to 3.5B$ market cap in 5 years is not too bad adoption is it? Americanpegasus' point is that if your "trader" buddies wait until Bitcoin is at 1T$ market cap chances are they might just miss the boat  |
|
|
|
The consideration given is that, unlike the original proposal, this one doesn't double the blocksize. It's a measured and more conservative increase, which will allow nodes to keep pace, which is what you want. I've even stated that the 12.5% part is open to negotiation, but it is a hard cap. It means precisely that the blocksize can't increase (or decrease) by more than that amount over a period of time. The period of time in question is also negotiable. This gives you everything you're asking for, we just need to decide what the limit should be and over how long a timeframe.
12.5% YOY sounds on par with Pieter Wuille proposal. I honestly wouldn't mind it I'm pretty sure that we would be much better off if we had a dynamic block size limit (with the correct parameters). BIP101 is probably too big, and 12.5% YOY might be too low, both of these would eventually cause issues. As DooMAD said, it is still a hard cap which can't be changed without another fork. If we had a dynamic block size then we would not need to worry about this (unless someone tries to game the system). I've always been against making pointless predictions as we can not know what is going to happen in the future. We can't expect any fixed solution to be the right call. The purpose here is not to make predictions based on demand, which would indeed be pointless, but to make block size growth a function of the most conservative estimate of technological advances (mainly bandwidth). This is more manageable and a 10-15% increase would be in line with that. |
|
|
|
Here is my constructive comment: unless a hard cap limiting the increase over a certain period of time is coupled to this proposal, any such scheme is utterly broken and can be trivially gamed by miners intent on controlling the blocksize.
Any such proposition is not viable given that it provides no consideration for the externalization of the cost to the nodes and our focus on keeping Bitcoin decentralized.
The consideration given is that, unlike the original proposal, this one doesn't double the blocksize. It's a measured and more conservative increase, which will allow nodes to keep pace, which is what you want. I've even stated that the 12.5% part is open to negotiation, but it is a hard cap. It means precisely that the blocksize can't increase (or decrease) by more than that amount over a period of time. The period of time in question is also negotiable. This gives you everything you're asking for, we just need to decide what the limit should be and over how long a timeframe. 12.5% YOY sounds on par with Pieter Wuille proposal. I honestly wouldn't mind it |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
