EDIT: This reply was deleted from a moderated Vcash discussion thread. It is otherwise unmodified. Because it is actively getting fudded by the "old boys network". They saw the threat of it and started to shout that he was stealing code, while he made it from the ground up. They never gave any proof, but because the old boys were saying it, people started to believe it. But wat he is done right now is already revolutionary to the whole alt world. And now they are going to implement his code into theirs. How ironic.
It is incorrect that no one gave proof. The proof is quoted here, including numerous specific code examples, including bugs that were copied along with the original reformatted code, and people with no obvious agenda besides not wanting to see basic disrespect of other people's work calling him out. I don't know what more "proof" than that there could be. Vcash risks being thrown off exchanges as soon as one of the Bitcoin developers gets annoyed enough with it to have a cease and desist letter written by a lawyer instructing the exchange to stop using the code in violation of the license. Investors then risk holding the bag. But it's all a gamble, for now the Bitcoin devs are ignoring it, and the coin could pump first and you could get out with a profit. Have fun! It is also certainly false (see above) that he made it "from the ground up". By stating that you are scamming investors who might believe you and then lose money. |
|
|
|
That paper does not demonstrate any party is necessarily operating out of a Nash equilibrium. Selfish mining is detectable, so mining pools, being visible and identifiable entities, face reputational costs for engaging in it. That very plausibly makes it unprofitable. Also, some forms rely on network conditions that may not exist. If there were some sort of undetectable or unattributable selfish mining known to be compatible with the current network conditions, and we could tell that weren't happening then you could correctly make the argument you did, but that is a contradiction. I guess one time we might see a valid experiment would if a big pool does an exit scam. Under the reputational-cost theory, such a pool should selfish mine right before the exit, though it still might not be worth the trouble to actually implement for relatively modest gains. |
|
|
|
Even at $3000, mining might expand enough to marginalize China. That is a numbers question and we don't have the numbers.
Smooth I suspect you've been busy doing other s/w work lately bcz you've been quiet and also because you don't totally have your mind immersed in this right now. At 12.5 coins per block, 75 BTC per hour, and at $3000 that would be $225,000 per hour. At 4 cents per KWH, that is 5.6 million kilowatts. Google tells that "China's power consumption in 2015 rose 0.5 percent from a year earlier to 5.550 trillion kilowatts". That means in your scenario, Bitcoin would only be consuming one millionth of the electrical generation capacity of China. Sorry the increase in the value of Bitcoin can't overwhelm China's ability to subsidize the electricity. Actually it is closer to a hundredth. 5.6 gigawatts power draw run for a year is 40 50 TWh and China's total is around 5550 TWh/year. Either way, that's a silly analysis because we both know that most of the electricity being produced in China is actually being used for important things like actual factories and cities. Only a relatively small portion is redirected to cheap Bitcoin mining. We have no idea of the scalability of that latter portion. |
|
|
|
Neither Smooth or I agree with AnonymintTPTB_need_war (aka sockpuppet1) about BTC mining having a predictable endgame. It's entirely plausible that commoditization of sha256d could make most big mining farms extinct, with the only miners remaining being people that use the waste heat to power some other type of utility: water heaters, central heating, industrial use, etc.
I destroyed this logic fail from smooth in the past. Did you miss it? Electricity is nearly an order-of-magnitude less efficient way to create heat. No one is going to compete with nearly free electricity in China (due to corruption) by paying more to heat their homes. Even if Chinese mining farms were not getting political favors in exchange for promising to follow the government's edicts on regulation of mining (which of course they will do as any rational person will do because if they don't someone else will avail of the offer from the government and of course the government of China wants to control Bitcoin, duh!), it would still be the case that Chinese mining farms will always have greater economies-of-scale which will make it impossible to compete with them by getting part of the electricity for heating your home for free, because again you could heat your home in much more efficient ways especially factoring in the capital cost of the latest generation competitive ASIC mining equipment, as compared to for example adding better insulation to your walls or double paned windows, etc.. I think you are wrong about this, but only to the extent that current huge subsidies in various forms (I'm including likely corruption) in China become less significant, and also probably assuming ASIC commoditization.* Eventually you get to a point where even though the waste heat is worth less than the electricity that goes in (as your comments correctly state), using it still adds to you efficiency and not using it will be uncompetitive. * You and I both view ASIC commoditization is significantly less likely in the foreseeable future than r0ach believes. I may differ from you in that I don't completely rule it out longer term. |
|
|
|
There are so many talented developers out there, but most of them see no point in working in CC True, CC is a backwater. whereas, with my programming language and app browser initiatives I may be able to pull in top developers from outside of CC Yes, but most likely not without a lot of funding. You seem more interested in doing it cheaply, as you have in the past developing a successful product living a nipa hut. Few top developers will go there these days. Even in the past, people who built major successes pre-funding (at least got them off the ground) have tended to be very young and inexperienced. They may be very talented "top developers" in a sense, but you will have extreme trouble finding and connecting with them. Close to literally impossible. Possibly, you find and connect very strongly with someone who is an identifiable top developer and it becomes their passion as much as it is yours, and they share your vision of building it on a low budget. Otherwise, you will likely just have to build to point of relative maturity yourself, then bring in others (and still, some sort of funding). I have a feeling that does not discourage you, which is good. |
|
|
|
I believe smooth's 1000x halving estimate is a little high. I was looking at a probabalistic model of $1000, $1600, or $3200 peaks, although Realsolid claims $5000.
That wasn't my halving estimate, it was at best a 5-halving estimate, but not even that, more of a hypothetical. Even at $3000, mining might expand enough to marginalize China. That is a numbers question and we don't have the numbers. |
|
|
|
There is one cattle farmer in China who said he is investing in a mining farm large enough to mine 30% of all BTC
FTFY If someone who is well known to be mining say 10% of Bitcoins says he's going to expand and mine 30%, that might be pretty credible, but when someone is supposedly mining 1% and claims his new mine is going to mine 30%, be skeptical. Is he soliciting investors by any chance, selling cloud mining contracts, etc.? Agreed but irrelevant. If not him, then the next guy, because it is quite profitable for the corrupt to charge electricity to the collective and take profits from raping our BTC for themselves. It is just a matter of organizing the various power players such as those who authorize discounts on electricity for factories. You scratch my back, I'll scratch yours, is precisely how everything is organized in China. The Chinese are masters of top-down organization. No one here can argue that flies won't eat honey. The opportunity exists, and so it will be availed of. Bitcoin becoming relevant as an alternative to fiat means its value will go up 1000x or more. Even 5 halvings from now that would be a minimum of a 30x larger mining industry. If people are thinking about reset/moon event sooner than 20 years, mining would need to be even bigger than that. Electricity in China and corrupt access to it are both limited, and both compete with other uses (including corrupt ones). So such growth would very likely would not be concentrated in China and we really have no idea what it will look like, though all kinds of likely and unlikely theories could be thrown out. Very insightful attempt at a retort, I am impressed. Thanks. But the scaling will come offchain with Lightning Networks and thus no mining. The Chinese mining cartel has been consulting with the core developers (i.e. Blockstream) about this issue. If you are implying the price of Bitcoin will increase 1000X, then I have bridge to nowhere to sell you. I'm not predicting such a price increase, though r0ach might be. It won't be globally relevant without some sort of increase in that neighborhood though. Yes, you will be able to complete your dark market drug purchases more quickly using Lightning network. |
|
|
|
How we can mining IT in Windows? Tnx
There is no Windows build. Your alternatives are: 1. Figure out how to compile the source code on Windows using msys2 or something. 2. Run Linux in a VM (VirtualBox, etc.) |
|
|
|
There is one cattle farmer in China who said he is investing in a mining farm large enough to mine 30% of all BTC
FTFY If someone who is well known to be mining say 10% of Bitcoins says he's going to expand and mine 30%, that might be pretty credible, but when someone is supposedly mining 1% and claims his new mine is going to mine 30%, be skeptical. Is he soliciting investors by any chance, selling cloud mining contracts, etc.? Agreed but irrelevant. If not him, then the next guy, because it is quite profitable for the corrupt to charge electricity to the collective and take profits from raping our BTC for themselves. It is just a matter of organizing the various power players such as those who authorize discounts on electricity for factories. You scratch my back, I'll scratch yours, is precisely how everything is organized in China. The Chinese are masters of top-down organization. No one here can argue that flies won't eat honey. The opportunity exists, and so it will be availed of. Bitcoin becoming relevant as an alternative to fiat means its value will go up 1000x or more. Even 5 halvings from now that would be a minimum of a 30x larger mining industry. If people are thinking about reset/moon event sooner than 20 years, mining would need to be even bigger than that. Electricity in China and corrupt access to it are both limited, and both compete with other uses (including corrupt ones). So such growth would very likely would not be concentrated in China and we really have no idea what it will look like, though all kinds of likely and unlikely theories could be thrown out. |
|
|
|
There is one cattle farmer in China who said he is investing in a mining farm large enough to mine 30% of all BTC
FTFY If someone who is well known to be mining say 10% of Bitcoins says he's going to expand and mine 30%, that might be pretty credible, but when someone is supposedly mining 1% and claims his new mine is going to mine 30%, be skeptical. Is he soliciting investors by any chance, selling cloud mining contracts, etc.? |
|
|
|
When the great reset happens, we're all going to watch TV? I have no opinion on unprofitable PoW. IOTA will very likely never turn off the checkpoints (but will continue to promise to do so "in the future" as Peercoin has for years) and will work well enough for what it is, which is a type-ICO altcoin-MMO gambling token, and TPTB's thing is nebulous vaporware that can't be evaluated. Ethereum sort of functions. It doesn't do anything at all useful as far as I can tell, beyond being another altcoin-MMO gambling token, granted one that reaches a somewhat wider and likely richer set of gamblers. |
|
|
|
Worth watching. Very nice thin wallet concept, with some interesting features like xmr.to integration (send right to BTC addresses from your XMR wallet). |
|
|
|
If you start simplewallet with --daemon-host node.moneroworld.com , it will connect to a random node thats part of the Moneroworld Network.
Nice service. Ignoring some privacy issues, using a random node (possibly broken or malicious) to send coins is basically 100% safe. The worst case is mostly that your transaction gets eaten (lost), after which you can rescan your wallet, recover your coins and try again (with a different node). Where more caution is needed is using a random node to receive coins, since you could be spoofed (node gives you fake blockchain information, indicating you received coins when you really didn't). For example, if you are buying Monero OTC and send the Bitcoins after "receiving" Monero, only to find later that you didn't really receive the Monero, you could get scammed. The risk is relatively small especially since you are connecting to a random node. The attacker would have be running a lot of nodes and hope you connect to one of those while at the same time arranging a trade with you. You can further mitigate the risk by double checking any txids you think you have received via a random node against an independent chain explorer to make sure they actually exist and were mined. Of course to get the full benefits of privacy and security you should run your own node, but with some caution, a random remote node can be used relatively safely. |
|
|
|
Interesting info about the Vcash node network: How much nodes exist right now and what amount of vcash is needed to run one?
Currently there are about 340 nodes, 312 of them incentivised.. you needed 10k xvc to run one.. |
|
|
|
Haven't mined any Aeon since mining algorithm changed sine there was no miner to use for Amd cards at the time .Is there anything that works with Amd card's yet for mining Aeon I have four rigs each one is loaded with four AMD 390x's
Yes there is. I was surprised to find just now that the links to the modified miner never got added to the OP. If someone can repost them I will add to the OP for easy reference. |
|
|
|
There will probably be huge currency wars during Trump era since he seems to be pro-tariffs.
First, he has to overcome worse-than-even odds to get elected, but the shifting probabilities may move markets a lot over the next six months. |
|
|
|
It's not that bad business practice to sell miners for less than they could feasibly earn. That would guarantee you a lot of market demand which means quick sales which gets your investment cost (plus profit) back pretty quickly. You lower the requirements for breakeven ROI, which can bring a lot of folks back to the game who would otherwise be cut out, which again increases your sales in addition to helping network distribution.
And compared to self-mining on machines instead of selling (or selling slowly due to high prices), it offsets the entire risk to the buyer, returns your investment instantly instead of drawing it out over the next year, and then you don't have the additional headache of establishing and maintaining your own mega farm.
That's how I'd do it.
The problem with miner sales hasn't so much been that people are charged too much. The real problems happen when people are charged about the right amount, and then when the gear arrives six months too late and the diff has doubled. Or when it doesn't arrive at all. If folks felt ripped off by the upfront price of gear they wouldn't buy it. The problem is when what was purchased isn't delivered at all or is delivered so late (or, as noted in this thread, delivered far out of promised spec) it ends up having less (or zero) worth compared to sales promises. "You can't cheat an honest person" makes no sense. You can; it's called "deception".
That's a nice theory (not really). Now look at the real world where most mining is now some form of self mining (including profit sharing) and even a lot of the machines that were ever supposedly sold to independent miners in the past were self-mined first. When confronted with evidence that contradicts your theory, deny the evidence or reevaluate your theory. In this case, I'll keep it simple for you, your theory is just wrong. The real problems happen when people are charged about the right amount, and then when the gear arrives six months too late and the diff has doubled. Yes, and what do you know, often those miners were mining for the manufacturer "for testing" during that six months. |
|
|
|
"You can't cheat an honest person"
People got "ripped off" on ASICs because they thought someone was going to sell them a magic money machine for less than the amount of money said machine would magically create. #fail
Yah! I was so stupid for buying those knc machines back in 2013. #fail I bought ASICs and made good money on them too (AntMiner S1). Even at the time I knew the game that was being played and assessed my risk accordingly, which included getting out of the game at the right time. Not on topic for this thread though, except that last phrase. Also on topic from the point of view of an observer reading these claims (including mine) about having done well buying magic money machines: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-card_Monte#Drawing_a_player_in |
|
|
|
"You can't cheat an honest person"
People got "ripped off" on ASICs because they thought someone was going to sell them a magic money machine for less than the amount of money said machine would magically create. #fail
Some people did, yeah. The rest, however, got "ripped off" on ASICs because they thought the people selling would actually deliver something near promised spec sometime near promised deadline. Or, you know, at all. Yes that happened, in addition to thinking someone was going to sell them a magic money machine for less than the amount of money said machine would magically create. "You can't cheat an honest person". A very few people ordered miners thinking they would break even or lose money because they wanted to mine altruistically to support the network. Those are indeed potential innocent victims. A tiny number, though. |
|
|
|
|
"You can't cheat an honest person"
People got "ripped off" on ASICs because they thought someone was going to sell them a magic money machine for less than the amount of money said machine would magically create. #fail
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
