|
Cute.
I moved all the coins I had created for my players to Open Transactions, because blockchains are just too insanely, ridiculously expensive to even begin to pretend that there is some slight chance of being able to secure them.
(Miners want to be paid every coin that will ever exist, plus transaction fees on top of that?!?!? How insane is that??!?)
The intent is that someday, when the problem of whether alernative blockchain can in fact be secured and if so how they can secured has been solved, they can migrate back to blockchain form.
GrouPcoin is their "canary in the mine", but even if it does turn out to be feasible to secure GRouPcoin (that is, if it does turn out to be possible to get a large enough amount of bitcoin mining to add GRouPcoin into its merge, which first requires convincing them to merged mine any coin(s) at all as even those who do merged mine usually are not merging the full collection of merged mined coins), it still might not be feasible to secure any arbitrary other chain because whatever arguments end up convincing most bitcoin miners to include GRouPcoin in their merge might not apply to some all or any other chains.
Maybe really GRouPcoin is not the best canary even because look at how reluctant miners still are to include CoiLedCoin and GeistGeld in their merge.
Those that merge at all, that is. Are most bitcoin mining rigs merged mining at all? Or is most of the hashpower still not merging anything alongside bitcoin at all?
Until we can be very confident that we can secure a blockchain it would be something along the lines of criminally negligent to expose those coins to the risks of deploying them in the form of blockchains.
-MarkM-
|
|
|
|
|
I have no problem with using RIpple, I would have fired up gateways for many coins and assets myself when the rippled source code was released were it not that I was warned/advised that the gateway code that was released was not fit/intended for real use.
-MarkM-
|
|
|
|
|
Holding the one coin that has over 50% of the hashpower makes a lot of sense, and even holding both of the coins that have 50% each makes a lot of sense, It is when you start to think about holding a third coin that it goes way downhill real fast since of any three it is a mathematical certainty that at least one of them has less than half of the hashpower.
So if DOGE was adopted to replace the one that had previously been number three or number two that would make sense. Just keep de-listing whichever of three is the one that had less than half...
But so far Vircurex has not dropped any, which leads to worry that simply by doing a quick hype yet another could get on there, and over time more and more no longer anywhere near half the hash rate coins could end up accumulating so it'd gradually accumulate more and more crap...
-MarkM-
|
|
|
|
|
An issuer. Riiiiight.
Please correct the thread-title.
Something like "Datacoin IOUs to be traded on distributed exchange" or, better,
"Datacoin IOUs to be traded on Ripple network".
(Are you so ashamed of Ripple you need to conceal the fact the thread is about using Ripple?)
-MarkM-
|
|
|
|
Bitcoin couild finally start to explode if we got rid of all this crap that is giving blockchain based currencies a bad name. Take a look at the plots at http://galaxies.mygamesonline.org/digitalisassets.htmlSee how some assets went up above bitcoin in value? Or to put it another way, that bitcoin dropped in value relative to them? That should never have happened. Bitcoin was theoretically a much more appealing asset. None of them should ever even have caught up with bitcoin, let alone surpassed it. For example bitcoin was realistically looking like it might actually manage to secure a blockchain, whereas those others realised that trying to secure a blockchain was an insanely expensive undertaking and that they would no way be able to realistically accomplish it given the reluctance of bitcoin miners to merged mine other coins alongside bitcoin. It might well be the constant demonstrations by altcoins of the fact that blockchains are incredibly ridiculously expensive to secure, and all the resulting "forks" of their chains so many of them kept demonstrating and which new ones keep on demonstrating, undermining confidence in the whole blockchain concept, that suppressed bitcoin's value so much that those other assets were able to overtake it in value. -MarkM- |
|
|
|
|
Oh a joke, of course, yeah, this thread is a satire of the Mastercoin project...
-MarkM-
|
|
|
|
|
Unfortunately, as far as I know, the "gateway" source code provided by the Ripple team is not recommended for real use, and I have not yet heard of any better gateway code having been released yet.
Otherwise I would have had gateways up and running for several coins as soon as the ripple server source was released.
-MarkM-
EDIT: "snow" gateway code is released but I do not know if that is really ready for real-world use with other people's money yet either. Maybe it is?
|
|
|
|
|
Both coins have one blockchainfull of "goods".
DMD is simply more "granular" than bitcoins, that is, when you chop it up into the smallest pieces you can, you run out of smallness sooner with DMD than with BTC, so you need to change the format in which the values are stored on the blockchain sooner with DMD than you do with BTC.
So basically the difference is that DMD is going to obsolete its blockchain format sooner than BTC is, which is actually more of a problem than a feature.
Luckily neither of them is likely any time soon to reach the point where that fix will be needed.
-MarkM-
|
|
|
|
|
Terminal fail. Goodbye.
-MarkM-
|
|
|
|
And even more bullshit, did you even read it? It is talking about transaction-denial attacks. So basically Gavin is saying that if you have over 51% it would be stupid to do a transaction denial attack because it would be very obvious and the code could easily be fixed to insist that blocks contain transactions. So if you do get 51% of the hashing power, it would be much more profitable to do one of the other things that someone with the majority of the hashpower can do than it would be to deny all transactions other than your own or to not include transactions in blocks. Wow so much fail, I hope no one imagines this guy knows what he is doing. -MarkM- |
|
|
|
hey blakecoin evangelist guy who keeps posting the same copy-pasted info:
What value does "hashing faster" actually provide? block retargeting means that we can stick to whatever time-per-block we want, so why does checking a bunch more nonces for the target per second have any inherent value?
Or do you just like to spam that because people are easily wowed by big numbers?
the larger the hash set the better mean average for block find e.g more guesses of block hash at a given difficulty the Blakecoin network/wallet retargets every 20 blocks to try and keep a 3 minute per block 1 cpu miner could keep Blakecoin alive compared with Scrypt based coins More bullshit. One CPU miner did keep BBQcoin (an scrypt coin) alive sometimes, as people would come and go during the year it was being CPU-mined. As long as one core was mining it, it was alive, so that others could fire up their client to do a transaction and turn it back off again and the transaction would still go through; and if they chose to have mining enabled during those few minutes it took to post a transaction they would likely find one or more blocks since until they fired up their client, possibly defaultign to using more than one core, the network had been plugging along on just one core. Usually more than one was mining it though, just because hey it costs almost nothing and could be valuable someday. (Those people who CPU mined it that year did in fact get rewarded very well when the coin came back into the limelight, far more money than a few GPUs made mining other coins that year.) -MarkM- |
|
|
|
I could put ip block ban or drop addresses from being valid with rules so it is limitless, making them work without bugs is the hard bit
Okay now you have proven that you do not grok. Please, go do your homework. I will go read that now, or possibly go discover what thing that I already have read you are imagining indicates tracking/blocking IP addresses will help. -MarkM- EDIT: Here is the content found at that link: Responsible disclosure. And email spam.
The "development" page at bitcoin.org got a section on Responsible Disclosure of security vulnerabilities a few months ago.
So, of course, the email address that is used to report vulnerabilities has been getting more spam these days. Not a big deal, it just means two minutes of work once a week to make sure there are no real reports and delete the 5-10 spam messages.
One spam message caught my eye today, just because a security researcher just might start their email with "I have reviewed your website":
From: "Paul" <PaulWilsire@gmail.com>
To: "Bitcoin-security"
Date: Wed, 2 Oct 2013 14:32:55 +0100
Subject: [SPAM] Website Evaluation
I've reviewed your website and would love to setup some time to go through my findings with you (no cost). You could be ranked considerably higher in the search engines for the keywords that matter to your business.
I found errors in your websites code (on-site optimization) as well as a lack of substantial, quality backlinks (links pointing to your website from sources with authority). These two primary issues are holding you back from the top spots in Google that your competition is currently holding.
Paul Wilsire is a big fat liar-- there is no way he reviewed our website. Google "bitcoin" and the first result is Wikipedia. The second is bitcoin.org.
If you're thinking of hiring somebody to do search engine optimization for you, then google their name, and see how well they've done SEO'ing themselves. "Paul Wilsire" doesn't seem to exist, according to Mr. Google....
Posted 3rd October by Gavin Andresen
Weird. But not helpful. |
|
|
|
Scarcity has nothing to do with it. Your advice is false economy.
Ok, here's some Economics 101: The price of any good in a competitive economy is determined only by two factors: supply and demand. Scarcity means supply is smaller, so it has EVERYTHING to do with it. If demand for BTC was exactly the same as demand of DMD, then 1 Diamond would be worth 5 BTC or $3,500 at today's prices. The fact that a DMD is today worth 3 thousandths of a BTC suggests only one thing (ok, apart from price distortions): that demand for DMD is today in the order of ten-thousandths of that of BTC. If awareness for Diamond raises to any decent level at the crypto-community, you can do the math and figure out how much DMD is potentially worth. All the above are not meant to say that Diamond WILL rise. It merely suggests that any crypto-currency that manages to solve the demand part of the equation has a great chance of succeeding, especially those (like DMD) that are scarce as well, so they've already solved the supply part of the equation. And this is the reason why I'm urging the community to do more to support the coin. The recent takeover, pools, and block chain explorer have managed to raise the price 100fold (it used to be around 3,000 satoshis and now it's more than 300,000). Imagine the potential if the dev team support continues. Imagine your 100 DMD worth 500 BTC  Merry Xmas to all! That is almost totally pure unadulterated bullshit. The demand for a currency has almost nothing to do with how many decimals or how many trailing zeroes the currency has. 1/21000000th of all the DMD that will ever exist, or 1/2100000 of all the bitcoins that will ever exist, or of all that do exist at a given moment, is totally independent of how many digits it takes to write down the number. Basically if the total demand for a currency happens to be demand for enough currency to buy a loaf of bread, for example, then regardless of whether a loaf of bread's worth of the currency is 1.00 such as in, say, dollars, or a larger figure, such as that same value aka demand might look when expressed as Yen, or the far far larger number that it might be when expressed in DeVCoins or in Zimbabwe hyperinflation dollars, one loaf of bread worth of a currency is one loaf of bread worth of the currency. The only way a currency is "rare" is if the entire total amount of that currency, all of it that exists, is not enough to buy that loaf of bread. So basically in order to be rare, a currency has to be so rare that the entire pile of it ever minted is not enough to buy what is demanded, such as a loaf of bread. In short, the less a currency is worth the "rarer" that currency is. -MarkM- |
|
|
|
That doesn't protect against 51%, all it does or even tries to do is lower the chance of selfish mining being used to allow even less than 50% to sucessfully attack.
-MarkM-
that why I say any problem add new rules to the wallet and I do have the recommendations here somewhere You seem to imagine you can prevent 51% vulnerability by adding a few rules to the client? Now you are seeming like you outright do not even grok how blockchains even work. -MarkM- |
|
|
|
|
Wouldn't it be simpler, and more supportable going forward, to simply use bitcoin's fee code with the numbers such as how many satoshis consititutes dust all multiplied by 1000 ? Isn't that what we did originally? Or did we put in anti dust before bitcoin did?
(Even if we did though, using bitcoin's code might be easier to keep up with new bitcoin code versions going forward?)
-MarkM-
|
|
|
|
|
That doesn't protect against 51%, all it does or even tries to do is lower the chance of selfish mining being used to allow even less than 50% to sucessfully attack.
-MarkM-
|
|
|
|
you don't need Asic against 51% can set rules in wallet
You can? I didn't know that. Link to the whitepaper? -MarkM- |
|
|
|
The approach to mining that is described at http://www.devtome.com/doku.php?id=cpu_mining works fine on laptops, using very little system-resources, heck even on old Windows-95 laptops you could run many workers if you chose to. A raspberry pi or a beaglebone would likely be more efficient as in use less electricity per worker or end-result-earnings but a laptop should be fine. -MarkM- |
|
|
|
|
Expect more different types of hashing, it was extremely predictable that the scammers / crooks would start adapting to the "if there are two using the same hash it is extremely unlikely that neither of them has less than half the hashpower" argument by routinely changing the hashing type or even using combinations, sequences, and so on in order to increase the number of different hashings so they can continue to churn out many new scams a day yet still have them all use different hashing.
That has been happening since way back with Quark for example, of course, but day by day the IQ a scammer needs in order to finally catch on goes down so expect even the most stupid scammers to catch on eventually.
It doesn't so much matter which hash or hashes are used as whether they can get more than half of the hardware that is capable of doing that type of hashing to secure their chain.
Which basically means they each need an ASIC unique to their chain.
-MarkM-
|
|
|
|
|
When bitcoin changed its fees way back when, was that a "when a certain block is reached, these new different free go into effect" change?
Or is it actually okay to arbitrarily change the fee calculations without having such a spot on the chain at which the change comes into effect?
-MarkM-
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
