 Show Posts
|
|
Pages: « 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 »
|
|
I have posted all the NFL games for this weekend for anyone interested.
|
|
|
|
Even better would be a configurable list of donation addresses.
That is a great idea! |
|
|
|
|
I have been using and enjoying Armory, but I can't make donations anywhere close to the 1 BTC suggested by the software if you click "Donate to Armory Developers!" button. Instead, each time I make a spend, I send Armory an amount that matches the fee amount. Miners get a fee, client gets a fee. This requires extra steps each time I make a spend.
I have a development suggestion which could make this more widespread. Include a config option that can be toggled on or off which automatically adds a donation to each transaction which matches the transaction fees. It adds a tiny amount to each transaction, but could significantly improve donations made for Armory development. I trust that would encourage more development.
This is the least invasive way I can think of to make regular donations easy and affordable.
|
|
|
|
Very true, there are about 14,000 accounts on PD and our house edge is only 1% so there are a large amount of people who have made a lot off a small deposit. Some people have 100x'd their deposit.
OMG, why couldn't that have been me?? |
|
|
|
|
The argument is based on the assumption that BTCUSD exchange rate is based on transaction volume (specifically, the likelihood of BTC replacing USD for various transactional sub-economies). If the transaction volume that BTC can handle is limited, the exchange rate is likewise limited.
Dots well enough connected for you?
I don't accept the underlying assumption, so I'm not overly concerned.
|
|
|
|
12 days till drawing, make sure you get your entries in! If anyone has any suggestions on how the drawing should be done I'm certainly open to them. Or any suggestions on how to make it "provably fair"
Make sure you follow all the terms of this on page 1, if someone wins and did not follow some of the terms (30 posts) etc they will be disqualified and a new winner will be drawn.
Assign each entrant a number range based on number of entrants (0-0.69, 0.70-1.38, etc.) and then do a roll on PrimeDice.com to determine the winner.  Post the address list with the number ranges in the thread in advance, and post the user-name of the Primedice account making the roll. Since players can pull up other players' roll histories, that makes it provably fair, as long as the information is all posted in advance of making the roll. Edit: If this is not an intuitive enough explanation, I would be happy to provide clarification. |
|
|
|
|
I also responded to that at the bottom of page 1. I think it got missed somehow.
I like the chart, though. It's a very good illustration of the points I was trying to make.
|
|
|
|
The most reasonable reason regard to this instantly drop of hashpower ,is Friedcat ...
I'm going to disagree. The most reasonable reason is variance. The hashpower is unchanged, but the luck is a little bad for a few hours. The charts calculate hashpower based on blocks found, not based on actual hashpower. A decline in luck for AM can easily correspond with an increase in luck for a major pool. Now, for the last time, can we stop discussing why hashpower changed over any period shorter than 3 days? If you think hashpower changed, ask yourself what time period the change is over. If it's less than 3 days, the MOST likely explanation is variance. If it's greater than 3 days, then you can start speculating about hardware being moved, planned slowdown before difficulty reset, etc. It feels like we have this discussion every 7-10 pages in this thread. Variance. Again, variance. Again, variance. |
|
|
|
I still see 2140 given as the date for new bitcoins to run out, in all kinds of places.
Why is this date so prevalent and so stuck in people's heads?
Do people not understand the way difficulty readjustments work? Every difficulty increase happens because 2016 blocks were found in shorter time than projected. The timeline is based on 10 minute per block projection. Every difficulty increase moves forward the date when all new bitcoins have been minted, unless we have some future difficulty decreases that compensate for the difficulty increase.
So why do we keep saying 2140? Closer to 2100 is more accurate, IMHO.
fail. based on a 10 minute timeframe the total 21mill bitcoins will be found beyond 2200, but the dates at which the block reward decreases to such a small amount of satoshi's per block to even be worthy of mining, will come sooner but before we get to that lets address the quoted fail.. lets say based on todays difficulty. a number of ASICS far surpass the estimate of the last difficulty increase and so blocks are now found in 9 minutes or less.. the next change will push the difficulty to a 12 minute rate per block solution to ensure that the solving of blocks stay on their 4 year half life cycle. and lets say there was a period where miners never exceeded the estimate. then the difficulty would not increase. it would stay the same or decrease, ensuring that at the end of the 4 year the allotment of coins for that 4 year period were rewarded. what you will find is that in 2037 each 10 minute reward would be worth 1 satoshi meaning unless extra decimals are added, the end would be 2141 for reward mining. even though there is still only 20,999,999 btc in existence (not quite finished). alot of miners will think its time to end mining in 2029-2033 when the reward moves from just over 1.5btc to 0.7812500 per 10 minutes but thats because they are basing the profitability etc on todays value and hypertheticals This is false. From the wiki: Every 2016 blocks (which should take two weeks if this goal is kept perfectly), every Bitcoin client compares the actual time it took to generate these blocks with the two week goal and modifies the target by the percentage difference. This makes the proof-of-work problem more or less difficult. A single retarget never changes the target by more than a factor of 4 either way to prevent large changes in difficulty. Following this explanation, time should be 1209600 seconds. if time is actually 1000000 seconds, retarget would be 1209600/1000000 = 1.2096 giving new difficulty of current_difficulty*1.2096 = new_difficulty. That would project forward 1209600 seconds for the next 2016 blocks, based on the average finding time of the previous 2016 blocks. If this is wrong, show me code-blocks, not extrapolation. As for the 10% every 2 weeks for a century... agreed. Nothing grows at that rate forever. Mean reversion suggests we will stabilize between 5-10% annually at some point. The moving forward of the date which has already occurred, though, is unlikely to ever be reversed. |
|
|
|
But what happens if you have very good luck and then the difficulty goes up?
Then you don't notice, because... because many people tend to see the negatives. So sad. We try so hard to be more objective, but our innate psychological foibles keep tripping us up! |
|
|
|
The Mayans predicted all the Bitcoins would be produced on December 21, 2012
+1 |
|
|
|
|
Leader board is still broken. Do you need the errors it shows, or you already have it?
|
|
|
|
|
Is your grading and payout automated or manual?
|
|
|
|
|
I actually agree with you that the end of coin date is irrelevant. The point where transaction fees consistently exceed new coins in the block reward is much more important, and much harder to predict.
And I think you have a point that the difficulty of predicting that point is why people talk about the end of new coins date instead, but it still doesn't explain why we keep saying 2140 when everyone who understands difficulty adjustment knows it will be sooner than that.
|
|
|
|
|
Is the rewards chart outdated? It says share difficulty 1 for BTC, but I'm mining on the pool right now and cgminer is targeting 8.
|
|
|
|
2140 is right!
Oh, I know. I've seen the time-tables. My question is why do we keep insisting on that? Is it because the unknown variable of new coins running out weighs heavy on everyone, so we keep the date of its occurrence as far away as conceivable? |
|
|
|
Someone made a study that it's closer to 2050.
come the next generation of asics, it might be within the next 3-10 years imo. i'm curious to know what happens to the value once mining has ended. does it die because of lack of miners, or does the value increase? If >90% happens once within a block adjustment, difficulty will ratchet up, and move the end date forward 12 days. If it doesn't happen again the next adjustment, things will settle out and we're back on the slow march. I see 2050 as possible if we have constant ramp-up in hash power, but not 3-10 years. For it to be 3-10 years we would have to have CONSTANT increases in hash power of >90%. I just don't see that happening. If we move forward 2 days every difficulty adjustment (average difficulty adjustment of ~15%) that moves the end date forward by about 18 years. 3 days each adjustment (average difficulty increase of ~21%) would move the end date forward by about 27 years. |
|
|
|
Aside from temporary distortions caused by excessive hash rate increases over short periods of time, the number of blocks solved (and therefore btc mined) remains constant over time, this is precisely the function that increasing difficulty performs.
That's correct, and difficulty increases to normalize the number of blocks solved. But continuously rising difficulty happens because the blocks are found in shorter periods of time. My point is more about the assumptions people make, versus the calculations they make. You can't assume rising difficulty and constant revenue at the same time. If you assume difficulty changes, you have to update your revenue projections accordingly, because rising difficulty happens because blocks are being found too quickly. (More blocks than projected over each period.) |
|
|
|
|
I still see 2140 given as the date for new bitcoins to run out, in all kinds of places.
Why is this date so prevalent and so stuck in people's heads?
Do people not understand the way difficulty readjustments work? Every difficulty increase happens because 2016 blocks were found in shorter time than projected. The timeline is based on 10 minute per block projection. Every difficulty increase moves forward the date when all new bitcoins have been minted, unless we have some future difficulty decreases that compensate for the difficulty increase.
So why do we keep saying 2140? Closer to 2100 is more accurate, IMHO.
|
|
|
|
I do not see how anyone gains by a DDoS attack on a pool, because the hashing just gets directed elsewhere temporarily.
This. Wherever the hashing gets directed benefits. A lot of bitminter people use the java client, so their hashing doesn't get redirected, it just goes idle until the pool is back up and they reconnect their miner. In that case, again they are just wasting their time because they only cause a disruption for the seconds it takes to connect to a backup pool. If the backup pool is taken out at the same time, their hashing would also go idle. The scenario given was an attack against several pools simultaneously. To avoid the scenario, you could have a long string of backup pools, but in most cases one or two backups are sufficient and most miners don't have more. Edit because DrHaribo posted while I was writing: No, reducing the global hashrate doesn't have any immediate impact, as the difficulty is still the same.
Your chance to make blocks is only affected by your own hashrate and the current difficulty.
If they ddos a substantial amount of the global hashrate for a substantial amount of time then it may affect the next difficulty adjustment. You would have to ddos a lot to have any noticeable effect. Doesn't seem to be a likely reason for the attacks, unless the attackers are confused about how difficulty works.
This is a good point. You don't find any more blocks, your opponents just don't find them. It could prolong the next block readjustment a little, allowing you to find more blocks before difficulty readjusts. I don't think this is what is happening, though. |
|
|
|
|
