What happened to all the money that he took in? That, I have no clue on...
|
|
|
This thread has 179 posts with 7080 views to date. Why is there only 12 votes total in the poll? I'm finding this tidbit rather odd. Maybe because not everyone wants to sue Tom? You'd be getting nothing if any other business folded... at least he's trying to refund everyone. Did he file for bankruptcy protection? Maybe he should have. Obviously trying to send customers refunds ASAP isn't making people happy. If he intends to pay everyone back, then people may want a judgement to secure that promise. If he is paying back everyone, what is taking so long if he did in fact hold all the btc? The claim that he held Bitcoins is a troll myth. I'm not aware of any evidence he did. Fair enough. If he then used the btc and has no product how does he intend to pay everyone back? I have no interest involved other than curiosity. If what you say is true then in my opinion legal action may be a good course of action to protect ones interests. I don't have any inside knowledge. From what I understand, he's been mining to pay people back.
|
|
|
This thread has 179 posts with 7080 views to date. Why is there only 12 votes total in the poll? I'm finding this tidbit rather odd. Maybe because not everyone wants to sue Tom? You'd be getting nothing if any other business folded... at least he's trying to refund everyone. Did he file for bankruptcy protection? Maybe he should have. Obviously trying to send customers refunds ASAP isn't making people happy. If he intends to pay everyone back, then people may want a judgement to secure that promise. If he is paying back everyone, what is taking so long if he did in fact hold all the btc? The claim that he held Bitcoins is a troll myth. I'm not aware of any evidence he did.
|
|
|
This thread has 179 posts with 7080 views to date. Why is there only 12 votes total in the poll? I'm finding this tidbit rather odd. Maybe because not everyone wants to sue Tom? You'd be getting nothing if any other business folded... at least he's trying to refund everyone. Did he file for bankruptcy protection? Maybe he should have. Obviously trying to send customers refunds ASAP isn't making people happy.
|
|
|
This thread has 179 posts with 7080 views to date. Why is there only 12 votes total in the poll? I'm finding this tidbit rather odd. Maybe because not everyone wants to sue Tom? You'd be getting nothing if any other business folded... at least he's trying to refund everyone.
|
|
|
Can't the bitcoin clients make it impossible to make transactions of less than, for example, 1/10 of a cent worth of BTC. IMO it wouldn't make much difference for the daily user and the limit can be lowered gradually in steps as BTC rises in value. Or am i missing something?
That's something miners have to do, basically. And most of the big ones are already neglecting to care, so good luck with that :/
|
|
|
Friedcat said in his last update, the only reason for giving samples to the community is that it has been promised before. There used to be technical and economical reasons, but those are gone. I simply have to say "because it has been promised before" is no valid reason to give away value owned by shareholders for free. A lot of things that have been promised had to be adjusted to unforeseeable situations. Can you really make an exception here? The one and only appropriate way to give away free sample boards is, because it creates vale for shareholders and definitely not "because it has been promised before". Well, I don't have the list of sample board recipients, but I'm pretty sure this is the same list providing boards for development to at least myself (for BFGMiner support), Kano (for cgminer "support"), and Diablo-D3 (for DiabloMiner support?). Providing hardware to the people responsible for supporting it in software is generally considered standard practice in the industry. From the shareholder perspective, there is value in having these device supported for the day when they finally begin shipping.
|
|
|
How about a third option? Enlightened self interest ![Tongue](https://bitcointalk.org/Smileys/default/tongue.gif) But seriously, I would look at whether the person needed it. If some corporation or rich did it, i'm not inclined to return it as I likely need it more than they do. If however it was just some dude who messed up, and actually needs the money, yeah I'd return it. The answer you're looking for is "keeping the coins". Your decision whether to make a charitable donation or not based on your evaluation of the sender, is unrelated. Why do you think this is so? Taking $1000 from somebody who makes $1000 a month and can't buy food if it isn't returned is of course an entirely different moral situation than taking that $1000 from somebody who makes $20000 a month and to whom it would be merely a minor inconvenience. No, it is no different.
|
|
|
This is true of centralized pools (like the ones ASICMiner is currently using.. why??), but decentralized pools allow the miner to do their own realtime auditing. https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Getblocktemplate#Decentralization Sounds good. If thats not fakeable then this should be Standard for pools i think. At least if the >50% attack problem is taken serious. I mean in internet its easy to have fake-accounts and so on. If it can be prevented with this technique that a single person becomes a threat because he silently owns some pools or maybe even hacking could be a possibility. So if the minersoftware would automatically check if it works on the real thing and stops the work once something is wrong then this should be done. But i wonder if it isnt fakeable. I mean mining means only hashes, salts and so on. And these things are presented from the pool as a solominer. I believe to remember that the groundhash was something like the last hash plus the transactions that are taken into the new block. If all transactions are given to the miner so that he can calculate the hash it should be safe. The salt wouldnt matter then. But im not so deep into it. Maybe im incorrect here. But at least it sounds like an interesting thing. So if its secure than bitcoin foundation should enforce this... Correct, the transactions are sent to the miner who then builds the block from it. Mining software can then do various automated checks against other pools, a local bitcoind, etc. Bitcoin Foundation cannot enforce anything. Miners need to "vote" by choosing where and how to mine.
|
|
|
[troll]
Let me get that [ignore] for you. And yes, the SHA256 fork (this original one) will always be compatible. So if someone hacks SHA256 (not in our lifetimes) these current BITCOIN ASICs will be worthless. Seeing as SHA1 has already been compromised I expect we'll live to see SHA256 compromised, that if unless you happen to be 80+. It could take 10 years, or 10 minutes but I'm quite convinced I'll live to see it. You need to compromise SHA256d, not just SHA256.
|
|
|
No: - This is biased to support SatoshiDice's DDoS attack against Bitcoin. Instead of "transaction discrimination", it should be "anti-flooding filter quality"
I disagree. If the standard previously was to include all sources of tx, then the change would be to refuse to include some tx based on the source. This is not the previous standard behaviour. I'm not pushing one point of view over another. If you have a serious suggestion about how to name the category- for example "source filtering" would be ok - then try again. No, the behaviour of bitcoind has always been to try to filter out floods/spam. To date, the algorithms used in releases include coin age, output sizes, transaction data size, and fees included. - There is no such thing as "Standard" transaction fee.
This is the tx fee as recommended by the standard client. I didn't make that at all clear, sorry about that. That varies by branch/version, especially on the miner end. - The chart presupposes bitcoind 0.8 logic.
Could you clarify that response? It presupposes I know what the hell you're talking about ![Wink](https://bitcointalk.org/Smileys/default/wink.gif) While "maximum block size" has a well-defined meaning, the others do not. "Minimum block size" by its literal meaning is obviously something like 140 bytes for all pools - so I presume you mean something else. "Priority block size" makes no sense until you define what "priority" is - and this is (intentionally) not well-defined even in bitcoind.
|
|
|
p2pool is the only decentralized pool. How is this even a discussion?
No, it isn't.
|
|
|
Regarding the pools i still think they are a bigger risk. Of course the hashingpower is temporarily given. But thats enough to combine the hashingpower and make an attack. The miners wont notice that you use the hashingpower to make a for. You wouldnt be able to attack constantly anyway so it doesnt matter when the poolminers are taking away their power after the attack. Because an attack only can work once. After that its noticed and the accounts are closed where the btc should be sold or similar. The same goes for a single person with asics. Bitcoin foundation would simply change the algo and the asics are useless. So i still think that pools are the easier way to attack. Simply create or buy silently some pools, attract miners with a good offer and you could attack if you wish. The pool miners only would notice when it already happened.
This is true of centralized pools (like the ones ASICMiner is currently using.. why??), but decentralized pools allow the miner to do their own realtime auditing. Until you let miners exclusively add/remove what transactions they mine in your pool, you're not decentralized. Last I checked, that isn't available on your pool. Miners have the freedom to "add/remove" transactions by hopping to another pool when they see a double spend (or anything else) in the template. Sure, it's not as ideal as it could be, but it's still decentralized.
|
|
|
some small exception 2013-03-10 22:33:10,264 JSONRPCHandler ERROR Error during JSON-RPC call (UA=b'cgminer 2.10.5', IP=::ffff:82.160.xxx.xxx): doJSON_submitblock['020000000xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx', {}] Traceback (most recent call last): File "/home/xxx/jsonrpcserver.py", line 200, in _doJSON_i rv = getattr(self, method)(*params) File "/home/xxx/jsonrpc_getblocktemplate.py", line 99, in doJSON_submitblock self.server.receiveShare(share) File "/home/xxx/eloipool18.py", line 646, in receiveShare checkShare(share) File "/home/xxx/eloipool18.py", line 476, in checkShare othertxndata = cbtxn.disassemble(retExtra=True) File "/home/xxx/bitcoin/txn.py", line 52, in disassemble self.version = unpack('<L', self.data[:4])[0] AttributeError: 'Txn' object has no attribute 'data'
eloipool works perfect but sometimes above message appears in log file cgminer bug.
|
|
|
No: - This is biased to support SatoshiDice's DDoS attack against Bitcoin. Instead of "transaction discrimination", it should be "anti-flooding filter quality"
- There is no such thing as "Standard" transaction fee.
- The chart presupposes bitcoind 0.8 logic.
|
|
|
Regarding the pools i still think they are a bigger risk. Of course the hashingpower is temporarily given. But thats enough to combine the hashingpower and make an attack. The miners wont notice that you use the hashingpower to make a for. You wouldnt be able to attack constantly anyway so it doesnt matter when the poolminers are taking away their power after the attack. Because an attack only can work once. After that its noticed and the accounts are closed where the btc should be sold or similar. The same goes for a single person with asics. Bitcoin foundation would simply change the algo and the asics are useless. So i still think that pools are the easier way to attack. Simply create or buy silently some pools, attract miners with a good offer and you could attack if you wish. The pool miners only would notice when it already happened.
This is true of centralized pools (like the ones ASICMiner is currently using.. why??), but decentralized pools allow the miner to do their own realtime auditing.
|
|
|
Luke, BFL's updated protocol document 2.2.0 (March) added ‘Z0X’ to ‘Z5X’ FAN control commands. Any plans to support these in BFGMiner? Run-time fan speed control for these devices would be a nice feature.
I wasn't planning on acting on these commands until after the 3.0 release (to avoid delays needed for testing properly), but maybe I can expose a simple "change the fans" in the RPC.
|
|
|
Luke-jr: Would you ever change any of the core principles of bitcoin:
1) The limited supply 2) The decentralised nature
A yes or no will do, there are no inbetweens to take on that. No. Bitcoin has been "sold" to everyone as a specific limited supply, and without a centralized bank. Changing either attribute without the unanimous consent of everyone owning Bitcoins would be basically fraud IMO.If someone wants to experiment with different rules of this nature, they can/should make/join a new altcoin (like Freicoin did). Unfortunately this is not how things work in the real world. The bigger bitcoin becomes the more we get into a situation where majority vote will be the only realistic option because it become more and more impropable that you can even ask everyone for consent, never mind get an answer. No, that's the point. Bitcoin is already big enough that changing these unanimous-consent things is impossible.
|
|
|
Luke-jr: Would you ever change any of the core principles of bitcoin:
1) The limited supply 2) The decentralised nature
A yes or no will do, there are no inbetweens to take on that. No. Bitcoin has been "sold" to everyone as a specific limited supply, and without a centralized bank. Changing either attribute without the unanimous consent of everyone owning Bitcoins would be basically fraud IMO. If someone wants to experiment with different rules of this nature, they can/should make/join a new altcoin (like Freicoin did).
|
|
|
Note that doing this will break all applications using the standard driver...
BFL doesn't have a special driver, it uses the standard FTDI driver installed automatically when you plug it in.
actually the FTDI drivers isnt a "standard" usb driver, which is why it needs to be installed for many, if not most windows users. from their driver page (the one BFL links to): http://www.ftdichip.com/Drivers/VCP.htmVirtual COM port (VCP) drivers cause the USB device to appear as an additional COM port available to the PC. Application software can access the USB device in the same way as it would access a standard COM port. if anything, seems that driver would break stuff, as it treats the that specific usb chip as serial device, not usb device. if anything else used that chip in a standard usb way, it would break. It is a serial device. Windows is supposed to automatically install it from Windows Update when you plug it in - why that didn't work for you, I don't know.
|
|
|
|