|
If you knew anything about statistics, Atroxes, you'd know that even right now there's already a good chance his pool finds a few blocks in a row, 51% is a myth.
Even with 40% he will get 6 blocks in a row 0.41% of the time meaning he only needs 244 attempts to succeed once. Is that in any way shape or form good for the health and security of Bitcoin? I seriously doubt Satoshi would be happy if he saw a client have this much of the total hashing speed, and it even arguably defeats the whole point of mining.
EDIT: And I understand that everyone is participating voluntarily it's just that I don't want to see us suffer even a single fraud attack which could potentially bring the whole thing down.
|
|
|
|
"What is problem?"
The risk implications of this:  |
|
|
|
|
Right ok, I see your blinded with greed. I guess you'll have to learn the hard way.
|
|
|
|
|
Your analogy is flawed in that Intel has absolutely nothing to gain from trying to be less competitive where in your case if the network gets compromised because your pool got too big and you get hacked it could severely shake the confidence in Bitcoin and it is in your best interest not to allow that to happen.
And don't tell me you can 100% guarantee the safety of your server.
|
|
|
|
The Senators don't seem to understand how Silk Road works; Bitcoin will be an even bigger stretch for them. Help them see that Bitcoin isn't about drugs and money laundering.
It's worth a try.
They do however understand not to type the name Bitcoin or Tor anymore because they know the more people find out about it and start using it the more resilient we get  |
|
|
|
|
Tycho, would it kill you if you had a limit on how big your pool in relation to the total hash rate of the network is and maintained it below say 40%?
|
|
|
|
* sigh * well, no such thing as bad publicity... I thought we all knew this sort of sensationalist publicity about Bitcoins being used to buy/sell illegal stuff was inevitable??  |
|
|
|
|
Can you please fix the "forgot password" button, it doesn't seem to work and I've already forgotten what I used when I wanted to briefly try it last night..
|
|
|
|
|
Of course it wouldn't, nothing short of Bitcoin losing it's properties would.
And I suggest you try the forum search function because this topic has been beaten to death several times.. Money does not commit crimes, people do.
|
|
|
|
|
Hmm I'm so confused looking at the 5 options currently available. First I only see the type, not the quantity so I have no idea how that works.. Second I don't understand how I can buy an option. Third I don't understand where my money is going to be held and how I can withdraw dollars. And finally I'm really new to this and the whole layout of the sheet is super confusing to me.
Maybe it's just me and it's just something I wont be trading in?
|
|
|
|
|
Really awesome, but could you make it so that both type of offers are measured in the same currency, preferably dollars on both sides of the y axis?
|
|
|
|
from the wiki page: Criticism
D-Wave has been heavily criticized by some scientists in the quantum computing field. According to Scott Aaronson, a Computer Science professor at MIT who specializes in the theory of quantum computing, D-Wave's demonstration did not prove anything about the workings of the computer. He claimed a useful quantum computer would require a huge breakthrough in physics, which has not been published or shared with the physics community.[21] Dr. Aaronson has maintained or updated his criticisms on his blog.[22] See [23] for a reaction to Scott Aaronson's criticisms by Dr. David Bacon, a professor at the University of Washington.
Umesh Vazirani, a professor at UC Berkeley and one of the founders of quantum complexity theory, made the following criticism:[24]
"Their claimed speedup over classical algorithms appears to be based on a misunderstanding of a paper my colleagues van Dam, Mosca and I wrote on "The power of adiabatic quantum computing." That speed up unfortunately does not hold in the setting at hand, and therefore D-Wave's "quantum computer" even if it turns out to be a true quantum computer, and even if it can be scaled to thousands of qubits, would likely not be more powerful than a cell phone."
Wim van Dam, a professor at UC Santa Barbara, summarized the current scientific community consensus in the journal Nature:[25]
"At the moment it is impossible to say if D-Wave's quantum computer is intrinsically equivalent to a classical computer or not. So until more is known about their error rates, caveat emptor is the least one can say." I'll assume we're no where near to actually worry about it. |
|
|
|
|
Joe Rogan mentioned them in his latest podcast at around the 1 hour mark.
|
|
|
|
I thought I'd bump this just because of all the new people around.. I think it explains the technical side quite well but again will create a strong urge to start mining in people instead of using BTC as currency. Maybe make sure that not everyone has to mine, mining is not the only way of getting hold of some BTC and it won't pay off to buy a computer just to do mining in most cases.
Took your advice and changed it up a bit. |
|
|
|
I am also trying to be a responsible spokesperson for bitcoin. I will be presenting at a prestigious business school in August and I am very aware of the importance of words. As eluded to above, bitcoin will be delivered to the masses as a story. We can shape that story now, but perhaps not later. Do you want bitcoin known as a convenient, private way to buy and sell on the Internet, or as anonymous drug money for terrorist?
Actually, bitcoin should be known for neither. Bitcoin is a nonpolitical decentralized cryptocurrency with user-determined anonymity and transaction irreversibility. Most people are happy transacting on the Internet with VISA/MC/AMEX when it comes to plane tickets, hotels, etc. Terrorists and drug dealers already use $100 bills but that is not the fault of the innocent $100 bill. I believe that, in the media, bitcoin needs to be positioned as a way to restore financial privacy to the individual: 1. Secrecy does equal concealment, but rather secrecy equals privacy; 2. Large-scale private value transfer should not be impeded across national boundaries (money laundering is a pejorative term); 3. Freedom from confiscation and tax levies; 4. Freedom from money being used to track identity; 5. Protection from the depreciating nation-State political currencies subject to constant debasement. Why not copy what the FED does when they defend their secrecy! Call it independence!! Bitcoin gives the consumer back the independence from big banks and large fees! |
|
|
|
1. Bitcoin is anonymous.
2. Anonymous is anonymous.
3. Anonymous are hackers.
4. Herp
5. Derp
6. Therefore, Bitcoiners are hackers.
Can a news outlet quote you on that?  BTW Joe Rogan mentioned Silk Road and Bitcoin in his latest podcast or so I heard on twitter, listening to it now to find out and will report after. http://www.ustream.tv/recorded/15103286 (around the 1 hour mark, only briefly) |
|
|
|
Sure, as long as you provide a translation between Austrian words and their English equivalents.  Austrian = German (dialect), not a seperate language He was trolling me.. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
