While I would like to see more final destinations like BTC seems to be, it is a bit of a headache for exchanges to put every coin against every coin, and potentially an interface confusion for consumers/users. I think the best thing to do would be to add a couple more coins to value comparatively... the problem with that is deciding which, as 99% of them are extremely unstable and fluctuate in their own value by the hour. There's a couple that are becoming more stabilized, but need a bit more time to see if they settle in. http://www.coinwarz.com/cryptocurrency shows stability, but that's up for interpretation and bias. It's possible coins like WorldCoin and DigitalCoin might get to that point, just probably not yet. TL;DR I agree more coins should be traded against others, but that's hard to do and/or confusing... for now. When some of these new coins stabilize, they should be able to convert to whatever (including fiat) without going through BitCoin first. Ultimately when trading N coins with each other, the user interface is what suffers, just look at the long page of options on vicurex. You need a way of presenting all the permutations, not just a linear list or rows of buttons. I quite like the way Bter are doing it with a pop down menu for each coin, each having a list of coins it can be traded with. |
|
|
|
you are not very intelligent are you? In my opinion BTC-e did exactly what they should have done. Why would you want to allow FAKE shares onto your network? If they did that then we could relate them to the US Government and their currency for allowing places like North Korea to print US Dollars on their own printing presses (instead of their own) just to deflate their enemies valuation and freely spend it.  Shares? The fake blocks are still in the chain, nothing has changed, all that BTC-e did was inconvenience their customers. All they needed to do was suspend deposits, look at the nature of the attack, then act accordingly. It was obvious within minutes that the attack was a high speed injection of fake blocks with no transactions riding on them. All this could be seen in the block explorer. As a side note, it looks like most other coins can be attacked in this manner, the investigation is underway. It wasn't a 51% attack as the blocks were generate within seconds, so some fake difficulty had to be used. |
|
|
|
There are also no new info about their 50 GH/s or 25 GH/s miners. Have they exhausted all their wafers, so they prefer to ship just the Jalapenos? I can't also see a word about their trade-ins, which should cost them even more money.
There is plenty of new info on them, just not in this thread. |
|
|
|
Butterfly Labs @ButterflyLabs 1h http://ow.ly/i/2kckq 60 GH/s Retweeted by Unofficial BFL News Expand reg: tips: 1HuDKnHJy73CC2QjbqRrixTEzHd3EFEfRs Image shows 269 watts vs 320w expected for 60gh/s? We only had figures previously for the 50GH/s version, that was 250watts at the wall. |
|
|
|
Yes. With 10 estimated employees, 4-5 million dollars in costs towards development through subcontractors, I call it money problems.
10 employees at around 25-30k if they are not so well paid, makes for another 360.000. Lets say they burnt the first batches of chips, blew a lot of cases.... blew lots of chips, have to pay health insurance. Another 300.000.
I have calculated an ASICs business, since I have no idea what to do there. I called up contractors and specialists for everything, since I thought if BFL makes millionaires, why not become one myself?
As it turned out, some of the more prestigious development companies asked between 1.5 and 2 million EURO in advance for initial development and estimated a timeframe of one to two years until serial production could start.
Of course you wouldn't have a clue. This is utter BS. you don't know about investors or revenue from their FPGA sales or nothing about them, it's just a really obvious smear attempt. Most of the pre-orders were placed after the the wafers and design were done, which kind of blows your revenue wild guesses. |
|
|
|
When the dominant fork emerges, the devs will need to release a new client with a check point,
Which they did. So now the attackers moved to DDoS the web site. Someone REALLY doesn't like FTC. But like any attack on Bitcoin, it won't last forever. Probably the people that pointed the feathercoin.org page to the yacoin.org site. I know some yacoin people talk about using botnets to CPU mine. |
|
|
|
They got at least $7million in pre-order payments if you can believe http://bfl.ptz.ro/ which I don't. Is that what you call money problems? Then they should have hired professionals to do their design work for them in the first place. Actually they could do it right now, and maybe get a good second-gen product out of the door before they lose too many customers. Or perhaps Josh is just looking to buy an island using the pre-order stash? Loose customers yeah lol, like the 7million came from thin air did it? I would say they have at least 7mill worth of customers. The ASIC is designed, they work, and they are shipping fast. If you are trying to make a point about some other ASIC they may make in the future fair enough, if not then I suspect you are just trolling. The latter is more likely from the tone of your BS. |
|
|
|
Lol no BTC-e is the only sensual exchange on here. When a 51% attack is taking place, one should not continue 'business as usual'.
What makes you certain that they know what to do during a 51% attack? Like they have a lot of expertise in dealing with that lol. It sounds like a knee jerk reaction rather than a sensible decision to me. The 180 fake blocks injected into the chain had no transactions on them, so nothing to effect BTC-e and the attack was over before they increased the confirmations to 100. |
|
|
|
Please don't say BTC can't get 51%, of course it could.
If the government or some really rich person dropped a few million into ASIC's, Bitcoin would be done.
And the public would cry that it was an act of terrorism. I think if any authorities or students looking for a PhD paper idea, are reading this thread they should consider as an exorcise to investigate the attack on FTC, and develop the tools and techniques for tracking down the offender just in case your country decides to adopt a crypto currency down the track. |
|
|
|
|
As I have pointed out in other threads, BTC-e are quite obviously hostile to FTC deposits. They are the only exchange asking for 100 confirms.
Cryptsy, Bter, Vicurex are all business as usual, nice and fast,
|
|
|
|
It explains why they would have money problems though, GF isn't really the "cheapest" place. They are among the best, though.
They got at least $7million in pre-order payments if you can believe http://bfl.ptz.ro/ which I don't. Is that what you call money problems? |
|
|
|
stopped reading half a year ago, cause it always is like in the next few weeks we will be...
Then you must not have heard about all the units that have shipped. |
|
|
|
what about sending out all those singles and stuff ?
What about it? Do you read any of their posts? |
|
|
|
Yawn, the attack finished about 15 hours ago I think that was when the last string of orphans was reported.
There has also been a FTC client release 0.6.4.1 with checkpoints added that I suggest you grab.
This is a troll thread, sounds more like the opposition in an election campaign speech, more than a genuine concern.
Obviously BitcoinEXpress is trying to spread FUD as this is the second thread he has started on the topic now.
so do we grab release 0.6.4.1a or 0.6.4.1b?  There isn't an a or b. Perhaps you should mine CNC and leave FTC to the adults. |
|
|
|
|
There was no direct gain to me made in the attack, the generated blocks are useless, therefore it can only be to drive people away from the coin, and you can bet it will be for some indirect financial gain, ie holding a competing coin or receiving bribes from someone.
|
|
|
|
|
Yawn, the attack finished about 15 hours ago I think that was when the last string of orphans was reported.
There has also been a FTC client release 0.6.4.1 with checkpoints added that I suggest you grab.
This is a troll thread, sounds more like the opposition in an election campaign speech, more than a genuine concern.
Obviously BitcoinEXpress is trying to spread FUD as this is the second thread he has started on the topic now.
|
|
|
|
BTC, is pretty much impossible to 51% attack. Would take too much $$, to attack it in the first place, and to keep 51% up for any length of time, would cost even more $$
LTC, is the strongest Alt coin, with the most support. It is THE alt coin. If LTC fell, it wouldn't effect BTC at all, but it would kill every Alt coin below it. If LTC could be taken down so easily, with such a large global hashrate, what hope do the smaller coins have? Who would trust them?
There are no alt coins below LTC, they are all beside LTC, one does not depend on the others existence, it's not merge mining. |
|
|
|
One mistake in your proposition is to assume that the delivered 'mix' is a fair representation of the yield.
I think BFL is perfectly capable of keeping a significant portion of the grade A chips for themselfs.
They (will) have many products to support and i can easily imagine they don't want to put lower grades in their devices. They also made promises to their customers about hashrtes and power so they actually need the higher grade chips.
So it would seem natural for them to want to sell off as much of the lower grades as possible.
So i don't think we can say anything about their actual yield of grade A chips.
Considering the ASIC's haven't even been ordered yet, as BFL are still ascertaining the final numbers before they pace the order, you have no idea what the yield will be. The process might have improved dramatically since the last wafers. They may not be able to deliver the low grade chips in volume. |
|
|
|
+1 As well, if needed, there are many more GH/sec, pointed at other Alt coins right now, that, I'm sure, most miners would divert in a heart beat, to protect LTC. Afterall, LTC falls, they all fall...
I don't understand what you mean, LTC is not THE important coin, BTC is. If LTC failed the other coins would go on. |
|
|
|
Orphan? Give-Me-FTC withdrawals reaches Cryptsy without problems so we are in the same chain. p2pool.org is not working. Have they 3 GH/s?
I tried give-me-ftc yestarday Check out this https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=195851.msg2423282#msg2423282Is this pool working correct now? It wrote on site that * * * NOTICE * * *
To limit the increase on hashrate and a possible 51% attack on FTC, we have temporarly increased the number of confirmations required to 30 and the pool fee to 7%. Automatic and manual payouts are also temporarly disabled.
but now I tried to withdraw and recieve my FTC very quickly Is it finding blocks? Is it profitable? The number of confirms was fair enough, though not needed now that the block rate is back to normal. The 7% fee is just a money grab by the operator, they don't have to pay out until they are happy it's confirmed, there is no risk it's not PPS. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
