Currently on Reddit he is getting a well deserved beat down! pure joy seeing a troll getting a beat down .... Sit back and enjoy!  The beatdown has not actually even started. I am not sure that reddit troll post is even worth responding to, but if MNW does respond, we will see the REAL beatdown.  It will not be pretty for the reddit OP. |
|
|
|
The problem is... how do you recognize "evil" blocks? What properties do they have that make them unique from other blocks?
If such a system was in place, a list maintainer (or some other entity) could issue something to build into the block as an identifier of origin. That's just the first idea which came to mind and there are probably other ways to do it (if network analysis by the list maintainers were not sufficient for the task.) list maintainer= central point of failure/control/attack Let me say again, ASIC is inevitable. That is not the problem. The problem is that it is too soon. Right now it is doomed to failure for the INVESTORS. The price of bitcoin is just too low and the ASIC miner (in the hands of one entity) will undermine confidence in bitcoin and make the price even lower. The investors will not get their money back and bitcoin will be damaged. ASIC mining will make sense when the market cap of bitcoin is greater and it would be harder for one ASIC miner to control 50%. The odds of a single entity going to a reasonable share of mining without surpassing it are quite low. At 20% the network will exist just as it does today, but once you pass 40% confidence will start to erode and you will be acting as a 'tax' on bitcoin by driving so many of time mined coins to be exchanged for fiat. |
|
|
|
Looks cool. Lots of bitcoin swag!  Might have to get me some stickers - are there bulk discounts? Site's ToS is missing (at least in my browser) bitcoin logo T in black would be on my list fo sho. There are discounts on many items. If there is something you want and there is no discount past 10, let me know and I will create one. |
|
|
|
Seems to me that a decent solution to any class of 51%-ish problems (including evilvladmirinc or evilnsagov) would be to have any interested group publish white or black lists. If a majority of users choose find a particular list credible for some reason, chains with the offending blocks would be rejected by the majority and the blocks would be valueless (no matter what hardware they were generated on.) Under such a scenario, anyone who had the interest could support then network to their hearts content but if they pissed off the natives, they, and their investment, gets voted off the island.
I've mentioned before that having such a solution developed, tested, and in place would be in my opinion a prudent defensive tool and one who's very existence would almost guarantee that it would never need to be used. The complexity (although rather modest compared to the 'supernode cluster architecture' needed for Bitcoin scaling) and increased latency would be a nuisance, but I doubt that it would be much more than that.
The problem is... how do you recognize "evil" blocks? What properties do they have that make them unique from other blocks? Right. You can not. The only thing close is things like the 1 trans blocks from MM. You can not 'vote' or try to blacklist as that is very easy to get around as long as there is money at stake. The only thing you can do (which is actually quite do-able) is change the hashing algorithm. |
|
|
|
Thinking out loud. what happens if existing miners decide to "fork" and switch to a different algorithm, like scrypt, but building on the existing blockchain? Most existing miners have everything to lose from competition like the OP, but switching to a different algorithm would likely render those ASICs useless. All we need is 51%. Whos with me? For a fork 51% has no relevence. You could fork the blockchain right this second with 0.00001% is you want. Actually a 51% fork is a worst case scenario and likely means the death of Bitcoin. Coins will exist and be spendable on both sides of the fork. People will have wallets, and tx on both sides so merchants may accept BTC1 and some accept BTC2. Some mining on BTC1, some mining on BTC2. In a fork you want one side to have overwhelming support of the ecosystem (i.e. installed clients, developers, nodes, exchanges, merchants, etc). If the original fork has 90%+ support then the new fork dies off. If the new fork has 90%+ support the old fork will die off. Having a roughly 50/50 split is going to create massive chaos. True. It is also much more about the majority of users and businesses, not the majority of miners. If the next version of bitcoin set a change date of Jan 1, 2013 (well not really a date, but a block #) past which all blocks would be mined with a different protocol, it would matter more which fork the users and businesses recognized. After such a fork, people are going to be on the side where the exchanges, businesses and developers are, even if the hash rate was 1/3 of the other side. |
|
|
|
cool product, what is the size of the buttons?
1.25" |
|
|
|
Thinking out loud. what happens if existing miners decide to "fork" and switch to a different algorithm, like scrypt, but building on the existing blockchain? Most existing miners have everything to lose from competition like the OP, but switching to a different algorithm would likely render those ASICs useless. All we need is 51%. Whos with me? That brings up another ASIC problem. Entrenchment. If we find a weakness in SHA2 or in the bitcoin protocol itself and need to upgrade it, the ASIC miners may not be able to do the upgrade. Even FPGA miners can switch up protocols pretty flexibly (unless it is specifically designed to keep them out), but ASIC miners can not switch as easily. A bitcoin ASIC that was MOST flexible would probably be just an SHA2 engine. At least flexible it would have even more of the protocol built into the ASIC and be harder to change. So going to another hashing formula would be out of the question for most ASIC designs. So a needed protocol change ur upgrade would be veto'd by the ASIC miners. |
|
|
|
|
This type of action unfortunately will hurt bitcoin. I can not say it will kill it, but it will not be a positive thing. And it will not be a positive thing for the investors in this company.
One of the strengths of bitcoin is that the block reward is distributed through the community. People like me spend or trade almost their entire mining proceeds in the community. Having more bitcoin (from mining) encourages me to spend more even more in the community.
While the owners of this ASIC company could act the same as I do, I really doubt that will happen. They will be turning in their bitcoin at the trading houses and depressing the value of bitcoin. They will not be helping others that accept bitcoin do business, they will just be mining and selling.
Slowly as the price/difficulty ratio gets worse, miners like me will drop out. We can not switch to FPGA as the difficulty will be so high that it will not be worth it even if electricity as free.
In the end you will have a massive centralization of bitcoin AND less economic activity. How can this be good? The price of bitcoin will drop and the INVESTORS of this company will get screwed as well.
Simply put.... we are at least two years too early for ASIC mining. Bitcoin has not grown enough for this yet. The investors will not make their money back.
|
|
|
|
|
Maybe if the owner of that site pays off all of the other past bitcoin HY scams then we can have a ponzi scam of ponzi scams.
|
|
|
|
If you are trying to say that progress in some ways stopped in the 70's....
Oh, and the farthest man has ever traveled from Earth - that happened from 1969 to 1973. Today we can't seem to get past low earth orbit. (USA centric) Even worse... we need to take a Russian taxi to get there. |
|
|
|
|
Something that incorporates a bitcoin logo. Should be made for a bumper sticker size 3" x 10" in a vector format. Will pay at least 5 BTC.
|
|
|
|
If you are trying to say that progress in some ways stopped in the 70's.... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XozHLoqwp_4 << one of the greatest aviation advertisements And the fastest plane is from the 70's. We were going twice as fast then as we are now. I know the reasons why the Concorde program ended, high costs, high danger.... but we could do better. |
|
|
|
It looks a lot more official then mine. Mine is similar paper, dot matrix printed, with one signature and could be forged with minimal effort. So what? We know what hospital he was born in, all of the records match up, and his birth announcement was placed in a local paper. Please people, obsess over something real. There is a lot of bad shit out there, much worse then this, done by politicians on both sides of the isle. |
|
|
|
|
While the strip search is not ok and that is what they ruled on.....
He was put in jail for not paying a traffic fine... (Really, come on. That is just plain wrong!)
that he did actually pay....... (wait.... this really stinks!)
and he showed the officer official proof of payment before the arrest that the officer did not accept!
At what point should someone be allowed to sue the government for lost time, inconvenience and gross incompetence?
|
|
|
|
|
Time to invade the Falklands again to distract the populace!
Coming from a US citizen I know.... Pot. Kettle. Black.
|
|
|
|
Cool! You made the website I wanted to make, but didn't have time for...! 20% seems like an awful lot. What sites are you comparing to when you say it is a competitive rate? I do think 20% is fair. Considering the amount of development and hosting required it makes sense. I do not know of any type of site that charges less, and as others have pointed out almost everyone charges more. |
|
|
|
|
The site also (still) fails for me. I am running noscript though.
|
|
|
|
|
I ordered four boxes of these caramels after trying them at BitCon San Antonio. I just love the taste!
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
