So dev changed the rule to make an airdrop on every full moon.
This is not good, I bought many byteballs and see the prize falling every week.
To get the promised byteballs and blackbytes for this was a nice compensation for the big loss.
Now i seriously think about selling this coin, because i made my investment under wrong preconditions, a pity.
Please sell all of them and move along to a more short term pump/dump ICO or shit coin. |
|
|
|
Wow, managed to find a clean thread with exactly the information I was looking for.
Thanks BurtW.
Of course the price has exploded and the maximum consumption is almost double but that is just a simple variable easy to change.
I'm more interested in the 50% spend on energy from the total revenue.
At 10 cents per kw, an S9 will cost you around 100$ per month.
With a tag price of 1400$ wouldn't that mean it will take you 14 months to ROI ?
That is far too long in my opinion.
And it is getting worse if we consider 0.2 cents and cost of 30$ month , 30$ in the pocket.
Or am I wrong somewhere? High probability...
The thing is I try to figure how those "journalists" have arrived at enormous hundred or so Twh consumption and I can't figure it out.
Using current and your numbers: x = $16,000 per BTC
f = 1.856 BTC/block
c = $0.10 per kWh
r = 0.5 (50%) of total income spent on energy P = 6(50/2 2 + 1.856)(16000)(0.5)/0.1 = 6(12.5 + 1.856)(16000)(0.5)/0.1 = 86.136(16000)(0.5)/0.1 = 6,890,880 kW = 6.890 GW GW is in units of power. To convert to units of energy (TWh) as you are asking about we need a time frame, for example one year. Since a year has 365.25 * 24 = 8,766 hours: Burning 6.89 GW for one year will use 60.4 TWh of energy. |
|
|
|
@Developer:
Will it be possible to pair my true SegWit btc wallet for the next distributions?
Any new info on distribution? (website still says mid November).
Thanks.
As mentioned many times before in this thread. This is not an issue with Byteball or the Byteball client. The issue is that currently there is no standard for signing messages with SegWit addresses. This is a Bitcoin standards issue, not a Byteball issue. Someone needs to propose a standard and then everyone would need to adopt and use it. I am sure as soon as a standard is created Byteball will use it. Move your coins to a standard address some time before the next distribution (in March) so you can sign a message. |
|
|
|
Few moths ago I also found a site that looks like a directory of btc address private key which could be import to wallet, I try to pick random wallet keys there around 50-70 address out of thousands listed on the said site but no wallet has balance on them off course the one who listed the directory maybe had already withdraw all btc on those address I just think..lol
Is this the site you are talking about: http://directory.io/If so that is simply a web page that calculates a group of sequential private keys based on the "page number" and then calculates the two possible Bitcoin addresses for each of the private keys on the page. Nothing special or new there. |
|
|
|
How comes Blockchain.info generates private keys using block hashes or tx id instead of random numbers. Who had the privilege to change the key generation methods?
The do not. Stop spreading FUD. Don't be an idiot, read the thread. What I am saying who put those code there and why Blockchain.info did not aware that the key generation program had been modified. You are a noob so I will give you the benefit of my doubt: Are you confusing blockchain.info with "the blockchain"? |
|
|
|
My mistake yesterday, I sent my Bitcoin to Bitcoin cash. I didn’t realize until it never posted.
I was withdrawing from Brittrex over to Polonienx.
I’ve tried contacting both of them via support help, but no response.
Will they help, does anyone have advice or know how to fix this.
I had over $5000.00 in that account.
Why do they allow that to happen, when it’s not correct?
Why isn’t there an error message saying you can’t transfer unless it’s bitcoin to bitcoin?
You sent BTC from Bittrex to a BCH address at Poloniex, correct? Contacting Bittrex is pointless, they cannot do anything to help you. Your only hope is to contact Poloniex, explain the situation to them, and hope they eventually return the BTC to you. If they do not return them to you then they are lost. I would say something like: I accidentally sent BTC to one of your BCH addresses. The BCH address I sent BTC to is: xxxxxxxx
When you get a chance please recover the BTC from the private key of your BCH address xxxxxxx and sent them back to me at my BTC address yyyyyyyyyy And make sure that the address yyyyyyy you give them is a BTC address in one of your BTC wallets not a BCH address. You could use your (next) BTC address at Poloniex to make it easier for them. |
|
|
|
I do not really understand and understand the issue of miners, but it seems to me that soon bitcoin will replace a more promising and profitable currency. Which will be more profitable to mine. For example, such currency as Bitshares.
Both reported as spam sock puppets. |
|
|
|
Hope to develop a smart contract to stop payments
What the heck are you talking about? Please describe. |
|
|
|
I imported private keys from someone's peeled coins that they took a picture of, uploaded to Imgur, and linked in #bitcoin-otc as a giveaway. Then they swept their BTC wallet(s) for CLAM digs months later (AFTER I had told them I took the ones on the coins & how they could dig for CLAM with the rest of their BTC), so the ones they had indian-given disappeared from my CLAM wallet.
A non-fucktarded CLAM client would have always swept private keys to a randomly-generated CLAM keypair & not left anything on the original private keys.
Yes, this is basically the same issue I had. The main thing I am trying to harp on and make sure everyone knows is that after all this happens you probably ended up with these swept CLAM address in your receive address list so LABEL THEM so you never accidentally use them again like I did. So a client improvement suggestion would be that when importing private keys the client would: 1) sweep the CLAM to a randomly generated internal address. 2) do not put the swept CLAM address in the receive CLAM address list 3) maybe even delete the entire key pair and all references to the swept key pair and address from the client. |
|
|
|
Number of connections 0
Last block time Tue Nov 28 02:30:40 2017
Current number of blocks 1792910
What console command do I use to get fucktarded v1.4.17 synced before all my CLAM gets swept out from under me like BurtW?
Unless you imported well known publicly known private keys into your wallet you do not have to worry about your CLAM being swept. Most people are not as, umm, "creative" as me and they will not have any issues with this. |
|
|
|
By repeating an address, you mean address collision, where you generate an address that is already in use. That is possible, but the changes are so small that winning a lottery 100 times in a row is much more likely.
Assuming 10^7 addresses in use, the odds of address collision are 10^7/2^256, or roughly 10^-70. Assuming a lottery with 10^-8 odds of winning, the odds of winning a lottery 100 times in a row are 10^-800. You're WAAAAAAAAAAAAYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY off :-( His estimate of 100 lotteries is off by even more that that: the number of possible Bitcoin addresses is 2 160, not 2 256. |
|
|
|
How comes Blockchain.info generates private keys using block hashes or tx id instead of random numbers. Who had the privilege to change the key generation methods?
The do not. Stop spreading FUD. Don't be an idiot, read the thread. |
|
|
|
With the power requirements to run the BTC network continually increasing... what is the long term solution? It doesn't seem viable that it can go on forever like this. Anyone have good insight? It's easy to just assume... "well there will be cheaper energy in the future" or "BTC will just switch to POS".... I guess I'm looking for answers with a little more substance and detail. Thanks!
I do not really understand and understand the issue of miners, but it seems to me that soon bitcoin will replace a more promising and profitable currency. Which will be more profitable to mine. You obviously purchased your "Hero" account. You have no idea what you are talking about. |
|
|
|
With the power requirements to run the BTC network continually increasing... what is the long term solution? It doesn't seem viable that it can go on forever like this. Anyone have good insight? It's easy to just assume... "well there will be cheaper energy in the future" or "BTC will just switch to POS".... I guess I'm looking for answers with a little more substance and detail. Thanks!
Maybe it the remaining Bitcoins will be mined the price will be extremely high also for the fees. But remember that Bitcoin will be so much expensive than right now. The higher the price of Bitcoins the more energy the mining sector will attempt to use. Raising the price of Bitcoins over time make the problem (total power consumption) worse, not better. See: ttps://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2465881.0 |
|
|
|
The sustainability of bitcoin to me is nonnegotiable. According to what I have read its going to take nothing less than 100 years from now or the last bitcoin to be mined which then suggests that until after that, we can then begin to have the discussion surrounding sustainability which several of us might not even be alive to see that happening.
On the issue of power which is something of concern, 100 years is enough to have land breaking technological advancement that could either make power much more cheaper or new ways to mine bitcoin with less power. Put all this together, point to the fact that the future is very much secure.
The block subsidy ends in about 2140. So about 123 years. However in the last four years the block subsidy will only be 0.00000001 BTC per block, the four years before that 0.00000002 BTC per block, etc. So the block subsidy will become insignificant a long time before 2140. In fact if you look at this chart: https://www.smartbit.com.au/charts/transaction-fees-per-block?from=2017-11-5&to=2017-12-5You can see that we are paying about 1.25 BTC in fees per block right now. If this stays the same (which it probably will not) then in less than 20 years the miners will be making more from fees than they will be from the block subsidy. Again you restate "new ways to mine bitcoin with less power". You cannot be more wrong here. Go back and read this again: Read this sentence very carefully: By design mining efficiency has no effect on the overall power consumption. None.I am so tired of the "in the future miners will be more efficient" lie. Over and over. By design miners will consume all the energy they can afford. Power efficiency only affects difficulty not power consumption. See: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2465881.0 |
|
|
|
Well it's not like power is really going to be a problem with Bitcoin, as we know more and more people are going to innovate when it comes to the ASICS which are used to mine Bitcoin. So power efficeny is going to be something that is hopefully (and probably) fixed by this time in the future. Renewable energy will be on the rise, and it will probably be cheaper to use -- as traditional power sources fade away (given if these companies let this happen)
Bitcoin can be sustained, it just must innovate to keep going and who knows if it's going to be able to do that. People don't want to pay high fees nor deal with 51 percent attacks. And I don't think normal users want their coin to be a traders coin, as that it pretty much what it is now.
Read this sentence very carefully: By design mining efficiency has no effect on the overall power consumption. None.I am so tired of the "in the future miners will be more efficient" lie. Over and over. By design miners will consume all the energy they can afford. Power efficiency only affects difficulty not power consumption. See: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2465881.0Another non-argument is that miners can use renewable energy sources. Sure, they will use them if they are cheaper but they will still use a huge amount of power - renewable or not. |
|
|
|
With the power requirements to run the BTC network continually increasing... what is the long term solution? It doesn't seem viable that it can go on forever like this. Anyone have good insight? It's easy to just assume... "well there will be cheaper energy in the future" or "BTC will just switch to POS".... I guess I'm looking for answers with a little more substance and detail. Thanks!
I'm not sure what you're getting at, exactly. Bitcoin's difficulty algorithm is meant to adjust to waxing and waning levels of miner investment. As Bitcoin becomes less profitable to mine, rational marginal miners will start shutting down their operations. By the same token, hash rate continues to trend upwards because of heightened speculation on the future price of BTC. It's a "gold rush" so to speak. It will eventually die down when profitability drops (maybe because of miner oversaturation or a long term bear market), and difficulty will adjust accordingly. Just as difficulty has been trending upwards for so long, it's okay for it to trend downwards. We just don't want to see a sudden, drastic drop in hash rate that puts security at risk by allowing old generation mining equipment to attack the network. As long as fees rise to replace the block subsidy, that risk should be mitigated. The concern isn't the difficulty adjustment or anything having to difficulty. The concern, which I think is valid, is the total amount of energy being consumed by all the miners added together. It is a lot. If the price goes to $45,000 per BTC as some predict then the amount of energy used to mine will go up by a factor of about 4.5 and the network will consume even more power. The question being asked is "what can be done about the total power consumption of the entire Bitcoin system". It is a fair question. Unfortunately there is no answer without fundamental changes to Bitcoin (POS instead of POW as one example) because it is working exactly as designed: miners will burn as much energy as they can afford to burn in order to secure the system. |
|
|
|
Despite knowing that you should never send Bitcoin (BTC) to a Bitcoin Cash (BCH) address or vice versa, whilst in a rush on a very busy day I accidentally sent some BCH from my exchange account to a BTC address on my Trezor.
The BTC address was Segwit and according to the customer service of both the exchange (CEX) and the wallet (Trezor), it’s not possible to access the coins.
Do you know if there’s anything I can do to get my coins back?
thanks in advance!
Yes, you will be able to recover your coins. Don't worry, your money is lost. Just follow the process posted above. I just read up on the details of this fiasco and the procedure I outlined will not work. It is much more complicated than that. What it will take to get your funds back is a benevolent miner setting up a system to reclaim these funds that feeds directly into their mining system - kind of like their transaction accelerators. Theoretically they could or would charge a fee for this service. Now the bad news. Reclaiming these funds requires your public key, yes, public key not private key. So, if you have exposed the public key anyone with that public key can reclaim the funds (assuming they can talk a miner into mining the non-standard transaction needed to claim the funds). So, if you are in this situation do not expose your public key. That means you do not want to spend BTC from that address - that will expose the public key. To avoid doing that do not sent BTC to the SegWit address! |
|
|
|
With the power requirements to run the BTC network continually increasing... what is the long term solution? It doesn't seem viable that it can go on forever like this. Anyone have good insight? It's easy to just assume... "well there will be cheaper energy in the future" or "BTC will just switch to POS".... I guess I'm looking for answers with a little more substance and detail. Thanks!
This is actually a very valid concern though we have to realize that all industries are consuming electricity and Bitcoin is not exempted, of course. However, further developments have to focus on how to turn those mining rigs to consume less power. I am sure that later on there would be mining rigs that are already power-efficient because there is a demand for this. We need to have those mining equipment replacing the ones we are currently using. We also have to encourage more miners to use sustainable energy sources as a way to lessen the Bitcoin impact to the environment as should all industries we have globally. Making "mining rigs to consume less power" has no effect on the total amount of energy used by the Bitcoin system because miners will just buy more rigs. See https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2465881.0Also note that miners will always use the cheapest form of energy. If electricity from renewable sources is cheaper they will use that. If electricity from burning coal is cheaper they will use that. If the cheapest electricity comes from nuclear power plants they will use that. |
|
|
|
5 Since I imported well know private keys into my wallet this created little "time bombs" in my receive key list.
6 At some point I transferred CLAM on to these "time bomb" addresses.
? Why did you reuse addresses, particularly ones that you didn't originally create? AFAIK there is no easy way, from the GUI, to see if a receive address in the list is an address generated by the program or is an address generated from a private key import. Since they look exactly the same from the GUI, I received CLAM on to an address I thought/assumed was an address generated by the program. [...] QUESTION: Is there a way using the console to see if a CLAM receive address was generated by the program from a random private key generated by the program OR if it was generated from a private key import? I haven't used the CLAM GUI client for some time, so I'm probably used to the way Bitcoin Core works - you "Request Payment" which involves generating a new address (and optionally adding a label, amount, message etc). How does the CLAM client work? I'm assuming you don't use labels for your addresses, which is why you ended up accidentally (re)using one of the imported ones? No, I did not put a label on it because I did not know it was not an automatically generated address. The way the GUI works is you go to the Receive tab and there is a list of addresses there. You pick one, label it, and then use it. That is just what I did. But, as stated above, some of the addresses there were generated when I imported bogus private keys. I used the Receive tab the way it was intended. The thing I did wrong was to import bogus private keys with no coins at the time of the airdrop - so they looked just like any other address that is generated by the client. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
