It is cheap right now because people get it "free" with their bitcoins namecoins and devcoins when they mine at bitparking's merged mining pool.

But if bitparking and who-ever else is securing its chain keep on mining it once it no longer mints coins, all of a sudden the "free" Ixcoins supply will drop to a trickle, the transaction fees. Hopefully people who have been hoarding it all these years will see the value in continuing to secure the chain in order to secure their hoard, so it could get interesting.

Also bear in midn that for most people ASICs are not really here yet, so lots of people who have all along intended to secure the merged mined chains have kep putting off doing so because they didn't want to spend money on GPUs or FPGAs while BFL's ASICs were due to arrive in only two more weeks...

-MarkM-

And it's not really a reset per-say, rather when they come out with a new version of Bitcoind they change the genesis block so people with the new bitcoind jump onto a new testnet chain. The old one still exists.

You don't really need to look at it, its obvious.

But again, all coins had premines of some sort

That doesn't really make sense.

Hi again Jubalix ,

Let me take your points one at a time:

1. There is a misunderstanding here, EMA does not attempt to travel into the future and apply the information to the present. Rather, it takes historical data, processes it through its algorithm and applies this information to attempt to identify a trend in the present. I am not aware of any system that attempts to time travel into the future and convey the data into the present, because that is, well, impossible. Best case, you can take present data and attempt to make an estimation of the future. To repeat though, EMA takes historical data and processes it to try to identify trends in the immediate present, which strikes me as perfectly reasonable.

2. I agree that this wouldn't apply as not everyone is using EMA, but also, when you consider the day trading bots large banks and clearinghouses use, you realize that it's not a matter of how many people adopt it but rather a matter of how much of the market these people can move, even with a perfect (theoretical) system. Bitcoin is a billion dollar market, I don't think we could put together enough players within any system to effect the market, even assuming a theoretical, perfect system which does not exist. When you realize that the market is very large to move and that no system is perfect (effective systems tend to be profitable, not infallible), it becomes clear this is a moot point.

3. This isn't true for the same reasons discussed in point 2. Furthermore, you seem to be discounting all trading systems, not just EMA. It is a point of fact that there are effective trading systems (again, effective does not mean infallible which you seem to assume), even a cursory review of Gomboo's thread, which I believe I linked before, would reveal to you a whole host of effective trading systems. Commercial banks and clearing houses have devoted their existences to trading systems. Yes, there have been big issues with these, but overall most of the systems used have been profitable when measured over time, otherwise this institutions would not exist, furthermore, traders would not exist as the whole market would be a large casino.

Please let me know if I may be of service in any other way .

Pablo.

You can't just change "Bitcoin" because you can't stop the old/existing fork from running.  All you can do is fork the network.  

Once again because this seems to be a reality that is misunderstood.

"Bitcoin" is by consensus the protocol as it exists today.  You can fork that protocol but you can't force a change to that protocol.


That greatly limits the types of changes which will be accepted.  Many people (myself included) never want to see a permanent split for any reason unless absolutely unavoidable.  So if you (or the GPU miner's alliance) propose a fork (and yes ANY breaking change is a fork) that switches the hashing algorithm I (and many others) won't support it.  A permanent fork would be massively disruptive, would destroy value, and would split the resources of the community.   I would only change sides if I felt doing so would help to kill off one of the forks.

BTW I no longer mine and probably never will so this isn't some personal view to protect my own profit margins.  It is just that having two "Bitcoins" each calling themselves "Bitcoin" and supported by a large group of people would be a worst case scenario.  It is chaotic, will hamper adoption, and ultimately everyone losses.

It is highly unlikely (bordering on nearly impossible) that a core element of Bitcoin will be changed.

By a core element I mean things like:
1) Transactions are irreversible (even in cases of obvious fraud or theft)
2) Coins never "expire", there is no such thing as recycling coins (which is just another form of reversibility).
3) The network computes difficulty every 2016 blocks, has an expected time between blocks of 10 minutes.
4) Consensus in disputes (double spends) is enforced by a proof of work using the SHA-256 algorithm
5) There will never be more than 21M coins and the block subsidy schedule will be followed (50 BTC halving every 210K blocks)

The only scenarios I could see where a large enough consensus forms (among miners, bitcoin holders, merchants, developers, service providers, exchanges, etc) to change the hashing algorithm is either
a) Bitcoin is continually 51% attacked
b) a flaw in SHA-256 is found making preimage attacks possible

Essentially the network changes because not changing likely means a complete loss of all value and utility.

Hi Jubalix ,
   It's not really "if" the bot works, the math behind the bot is solid and EMA is a well known algorithm. We have based the bots logic behind "Gomboo's Thread" which is one of the most respected trading discussions of EMA as applied to Bitcoin anywhere by one of the most respected members of the Bitcoin community. The thread has a complete explanation of the math behind the bot and why it is profitable over time.

Please take a look here:  https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=60501.0

As to why we sell it: We are a service provider. Why does ASICMINER sell shares when they are clearly profitable on their own? To raise capital for continued development. We use our own product, one which we continually upgrade and work on. Like ASICMINER, we would make money by trading on our own but providing the B-Bot service allows as to develop the bot beyond what we otherwise could for our benefit and the benefit of all the members of our community.

Please let me know if I may be of service in the meantime .

Pablo.

0.08btc buys you 10,000pps pointed at your account on ypool.net for 24 hours.
I removed the 0.01btc bitmerch button because they only forwarded 0.003btc for a 0.01btc payment. I will honor the payment don't worry. Just going to have to work it out with bitmerch.
If you want anything under 10,000pps PM me to arrange the deal.


Please set a random username and password for a new miner on ypool.net and include in the comments section of the checkout.
Include your email address if you would like an email notification when the miner is started and stopped.

If you would like more speed pm me and we can work out a better deal.

make me nervous about my money in coinlenders now. my heart jumped when i first read it

getblockcount will tell you the current block index
then getblockhash <index> will output the hash

Odd how Cryptsy can add a coin 3 seconds after it's ANN thread, but it takes Gox years to accomplish the same.