I wish we could see some data showing how much btc id used in a particular country before a ban, and then after a ban. That would be interesting to see
The data would be empty because there are no countries that have banned Bitcoin. Quoted for truth. This. And...  |
|
|
|
|
M1 Bolivia $7,320,000,000.00 vs
M1 Bitcoin $7,692,792,399.50
They are just sore losers.
|
|
|
|
This coming from the guy who analyzes charts and daytrades more than anyone lol.
I know that I'm a trader but I acknowledge that Bitcoin is about much more than trading. Underdog on the other hand, makes posts implying that every other bitcoin participant is a trader so everyone who is selling is doing so out of a weak trading strategy. QFT It is a good point you make here. As one who is at least as much a user than a trader, the changing value of what is left over in the cashier's till is nice. That this value improves more durably due to the volume of commerce than the volume of traders is a point that some might miss due to its authorship. |
|
|
|
Time to mention another reseller, who just reordered our Bitcoin (and Litecoin) Keychains! If you haven't checked out Crypto Anarchy's web store out yet, give it a look: http://www.cryptoanarchy.com/storeI will be at the Bitcoin in the Beltway convention http://bitcoinbeltway.com/ this weekend with a table. When people see this keychain in person it sells! The look and quality really impress. You can pick one up with no shipping cost and get a free sticker as well. ...confirmed. |
|
|
|
Why join the pool to attack it, while it is better to leave the pool and join another one to balance the power. I don't think Crashing a pool so yours gets better hash rates maybe?
is the reason for performing such attack, because it will never outweight the gain from your's and the attacker may not even have pool, but ... If you have enough power and you solomine - the next difficulty jump will compensate the power you have added and your return will drop, but if you join a pool and never submit solutions - you keep the difficulty lower than it should be, while still being paid. For a longer (enough) period you will get more even if you are mining at a loss, because you are not adding to the pool your solutions. Lets say you have 1% of the network and join a pool which is 10% of the network. Together you have 11%, but get only 10% of the blocks - 14-15 per day instead of 15-16 = you loose 1 block per day, but your share in the pool is 10%, so you only loose 2.5 BTC per day (36.25 instead of 38.75 BTC), but after the next difficulty change (lets assume no other power is added): If you submit solutions now the pool has 9.9% and gets 356.4 BTC per day from which you only get 10% or 35.64 If you do not submit your solutions - you still get 36.25, so start getting 0.61 BTC for each difficulty change and after 4 you start getting more and more than you could have otherwise. If we must consider reasons, and desire to include economics and math, the more important calculation might be the p-value of spend on anger-management therapy. |
|
|
|
I think it is the least artificial use of a protocols currency for fundraising, well basically it is the currency's practical use case.
A good suggestion, and proof of concept rolled into one. |
|
|
|
The economy could use some work but that can be said about any coin I'd say. All I know is I wish I had bought on the last dip. Just like any other coin timing is everything!
Until proven otherwise you should assume you have no timing edge and just use dollar cost averaging to buy in. It works. This is good advice. Also consider what constitutes proof of timing edge. |
|
|
|
Selfish mining and block withholding switched back to actual mining? |
|
|
|
Btw: Funny how the discussion rolls on, while the guy who opened this thread seems to have disappeared....
He vanished right around the time everyone realized that not only were we owed the 200+ BTC that were held back, but also the 400+ BTC or more that he was paid for mining when he was not contributing. That or his so called "mining partners" told him to shut the hell up before he got them banned from all the major pools. His gear represents a true threat to all pool mining. So far no one has offered a method to prevent bad luck attacks to their pool... A solo fork for a pool works but and a big but not very attractive to the smaller miners. Pretty sure the bigger pools see and understand the threat of a bad luck attack. I can see this to be a real issue from now on. To any pool op out there besides a solo fork what other solutions are there for us? At New liberty thanks for seeing and mentioning my ideas value. for me I make money mining and selling and setting small guys up to run a small mining op. I offered this: When a block is found, send the winning nonce to other large miners and see if one doesn't return it. |
|
|
|
So I ask again since a solo fork option stops the attack why do all big pools refuse to offer the fork???
Even the "big pools" are operated like start-ups. They do not accommodate litigation risk into the profit/survival model. Your suggestion is a very good one and ought be a consideration for those pools that want to still be in business in a year or two. It is easy to implement and shifts the risk to the miner from the pool operator. Another option for the individual would be to use a service like APICoin.io which will run your bitcoin node in the cloud and solo mine using that. It is much less expensive than running a high availability server node on your own, and offers many other advantages. |
|
|
|
centralization of mining pools are not a technical problem, its a people problem
In my experience it is easier to fix technology than to fix people. Make the technology easier (such as adding the p2p pool options to cgminer and guiminer as suggested above) and that fixes lots of people, when the issues are understood. Adding in merge mining options, and other profit generating activities that the pools can offer and it become easier and more rewarding. People are more inclined to do the right thing when the right thing is not too hard for them, and doesn't cost too much. |
|
|
|
Couldn't they just "destroy" [the SR bitcoins], as they do for illegal stuff like drugs ? (send them to a random address and not store the private key)
The fact that they sell them instead of destroying them has a strong meaning.
Bitcoins by themselves were never declared illegal, and by allowing trade etc the USG has already made that clear. Moreover the IRS has already declared them property with value (hence taxable), so they could not destroy them -- they would be destroying valuable public property. That is a point that people seem to miss: the philosophy behind govenment auctions. Any seized property belongs, by right, to the US citizens as a whole; the government is supposed to be merely its custodian. The sale of seized property exchanges it for dollars; these dollars then belong to the US citizens as a whole, and therefore are collected by the Treasury or other government branch, suposedly to be used for the public good. The government's motivation for exchanging property for dollars is that dollars are easier to manage and use rationally than random property. The exchange has to be done by public auction to ensure that no citizen gets an undue advantage over other citizens.You should know better. Asset sales get outsourced. Such corrupt. Big grabs. This from the Madoff asset sales, which had even more spotlights on it at the time than bitcoin does now: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/14/nyregion/auditors-find-chaos-in-us-marshals-asset-sales-record-keeping.html?_r=0The lack of basic records, including final sale data, made it impossible to determine whether the Marshals Service properly valued or sold the assets, which sold for $1 million to $49 million, according to the report....assets were sold without public notice or competitive bidding and that Mr. Briskman assessed the value of certain assets and found buyers through his business contacts. The thing with bitcoin is that any transfer becomes public record forever. We get our audit. "basic records" come built in. If only all liquid assets which required auditing were on a block chain... He thought he could get away with this scam, no jail time, because dollars. |
|
|
|
I think Pool ops need to add to the User Agreement that users found to be selfish mining forfeit any non-dispersed mining funds and are contractually obligated to return their ill-gotten gains. Most other users would support this.
The problem is how can you prove it statistically except for looking at massive deviations (like 6 magnitudes off).
I am not totally sure how mining works now, but couldn't a pool spot check miners by giving them work known to contain a valid block solution every now and then? I'd be easy to get evidence this way. How, by sending a winning nonce to all the largest miners in their pool to see if one doesn't return it? |
|
|
|
If CEX can double spend, or 51% attack or whathave you......the problem seems to be with bitcoin itself, not any one user. CEX seem to be good guys, what happens if bad guys develop the same power.
Good or Bad, they are subject to coercion. Centralization of power is bad for bitcoin, it destroys its value, it adds trust relationships where they don't belong. CEX is unwise for allowing themselves to get to this point, that alone, even if it doesn't make them "bad" and "untrustworthy", they need to be better than this. They do not have the power to resist the coercive forces at play in the world, and either have too much hubris to see the truth of that, or are already compromised. Either way, there are evidently necessary improvements needed. Yes, in the protocol, as well as in the wisdom and responsibility of those that would hold its reins. |
|
|
|
|
When observable conditions are consistent with what would be expected during an exploit attempt, and those conditions normally happen only about once a year as you have calculated, is it not sensible to report those conditions, even ahead of determination that an exploit is underway?
Information is a good defense against irrational fear, and the alert may stimulate some research into the matter? Thank you to the OP for raising the notice.
|
|
|
|
Why the HELL someone with Petahash needs pool at all? They should have been mining solo since start.
BitFury/CEX/GHash are all the same. They are three branches of the same vertically-integrated operation. Rather than sell their ASIC chips wholesale, they use CEX to attract retail buyers and point all that hashing power at their own pool. Perhaps the move provides a false sense of security as mining control remains centralized. GHash will likely attract others due to the perceived risk reduction. |
|
|
|
|
bruCEXie
Thank you for adding more interesting information.
|
|
|
|
Just wanna ask, does the documentary also talks about the whole logic on Bitcoin? We would like people to watch the film, esp not Bitcoiners. And except from what is the history of Bitcoin, we need them to learn the full logic and sense of what Bitcoin is, how it works etc. So that it can suits Bitcoiner and other people who doesn't really know Bitcoin.
I believe Bitcoin: The End of Money as we know it. Does answer some of that need. The logic on bitcoin, the reasons for its inception, its function and necessity in the world. Its been in production for many months, the Kickstarter just launched though. https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/bitcointheendofmoney/bitcoin-the-end-of-money-as-we-know-it |
|
|
|
its the same 50,01% that 99%
why the fukers ghash are playing with this?split the fu}[;'ng coounts NOW
There's no point in getting mad at GHash. They're doing what they think is in their economic interests. Sooner or later someone is going to do that, whether it's GHash or not. If bitcoin can't survive this, and we also can't fix it, it's fundamentally broken. If it's fundamentally broken, it's better that we find that out sooner rather than later. I reserve the right to get mad at GHash.io. It is irresponsible. It is also unwise. Those combinations can be maddening. Imagine that there might be some folks that want Bitcoin to fail. Imagine that they care more than a little about that goal. Imagine that those folks might do things, perhaps involving violence. Maybe things like starting wars and such. Might something simple like coercion be used to do things with bitcoin mining that we would prefer not happen? So if any of that imagined stuff is true, then ghash.io is unwise in that they are setting themselves up for such coercion. In the movies the bad guy would put a knife to the throat of a loved one, but it could take just about any form. They would be wise to scale back and DECENTRALIZE. |
|
|
|
hate the game not the player
Ultimately the game, is the game of life. Some choose not to hate life, but reserve that for those that waste their lifetime, and that of others, doing the unethical. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
