Overall, the hash rate is increasing pretty quickly at the moment. We only passed 100 PH/s a few days ago and are already pushing 120. Maybe miners buying new or extra hardware just happen to be using other pools? Difficult to say for sure what the cause is, but the effect is welcome either way. It doesn't worry you that 20PH just pop up in just a couple of days? |
|
|
|
|
OK,
so we had a 51% hashrate the other day belonging to GHash and their hashrate was at 40PH +/- 3
which is exactly what they have now.
So what happened?
PHs appeared out of the blue everywhere so 40PH+ is only 32% now?
That doesn't make sense....
|
|
|
|
Argentina should take a leaf out of America's book.
Repay the 'debt' by printing a load of Pesos at the current US$ exchange rate.
I might be wrong but I think the Federal Reserve print their money too. So, they wont accept it. |
|
|
|
Am i the only one who sees the "Cyprus 2011" story here ?  No, I see it too coz I lived it  |
|
|
|
I agree that finding private keys via brute force is not possible But what if an agency such as the NSA simply goes ahead and reserves all 1,461,501,637,330,902,918,203,684,832,716,283,019,655,932,542,976 addresses for themselves? That would kill BTC wouldn't it?  Sorry you lost me. What do you mean? Actually generating all these addresses? ? That wont happen. Basically the reason I asked this question is that I am working on a project that uses a new (disposable) address for each transaction. I wanted to know what are the chances of..... The chances are well, non existant. |
|
|
|
Yeah, try explaining to Cypriots (after what happened with Neo-Bee) that BTC is safe...
It's already got a bad name here man.
What does Neo-Bee have to do with mining hash rates? Even if you could keep mining pools from gaining more than 50% of the hash power, it wouldn't prevent things like Neo-Bee. If that's what has people concerned about the safety of Bitcoin, then you need to focus your attention on increasing transparency in business, not in regulating mining pools. And I am working on a couple of projects to promote BTC but I need to feel a bit more confident that I can get people to trust it.
If you know what I am saying.
It's not easy after what happened with Neo-Bee.
People look at me as if I am trying to scam them.
Magically keeping mining pools from gaining more than 50% of the hash power isn't going to make people who are concerned about Neo-Bee trust it. You're focusing your attention in the wrong direction. And yes I explain everything, but unfortunately even though technology is not far behind here, the majority of people are...
If you know what I mean....
If people aren't willing to take the time to understand why it's safe, then regulating miners isn't going to fix it for you. I was referring to the educating people part..... Hash rate is part of the 51% attack problem. |
|
|
|
IMO, if we can't trust miners and hashers to avoid concentrating hash-power, then Bitcoin has failed.
Despite comments up-thread, we are not dealing with complete imbeciles here. If you can handle making sure you don't exceed 12amps of continuous draw on a 15amp circuit; you can handle checking if your pool appears to have a dangerous amount of hash-power.
That's my argument here. We want a trustless system yet we have to depend that nobody will screw us over. I do not belive that there should be ANY kind of regulation or central authority, but since the dev-core team might be having difficulty comming up with a solution maybe we can join heads and create a TRUST-LESS system that prevents accumulation of 51% network hashrate. I know I am being a but pushy here, but I like you have invested in BTC and believe in BTC. And it's things like things that are holding us back.
It is up to each and every miner to avoid concentrating their hashpower on any one particular pool Couldn't agree with you more. That's why - maybe - a solution can be presented that is decentralized and doesn't allow any one pool or individual to accumulate more than a certain % of hashrate |
|
|
|
I think we need to start be figuring out if you are concerned that newcomers don't know that it is safe, or if you yourself are concerned that it isn't safe.
Bro, me personally I am not worried. Great! Then there isn't a problem. Lets not go trying to fix something that isn't broken. Instead, lets work on educating others so that they won't be worried either. However, every single person I have talked to about BTC seemed to be stuck to the "dangers" instead of the benefits.
The 51% attack being the biggets.
Then you should start explaining to them why you aren't worried. Educate them. If people don't understand something, then they fear it. The solution isn't to change the system. The solution is to educate people. They even asked me: how is it decentralized if one entity can control it?
And you explained to them that one person can't control it, right? WHat am I supposed to say?
The truth. That having 51% doesn't allow them to steal your bitcoins. That having 51% doesn't allow them to create more than 21 million bitcoins. That having 51% doesn't allow them to change the size of the block reward. That having 51% doesn't allow them to do very much that they couldn't already do with 49%. Teach them. Inform them. Knowledge is the key to overcoming fear of the unknown. The core-dev team is working on it?
Are they?
Working on what? I thought we just agreed that it isn't something to be afraid of. That is an issue that if resolved - IT WILL - make BTC mainstream.
I agree. A lack of knowledge and irrational fears needs to be resolved. The resolution is education. Yeah, try explaining to Cypriots (after what happened with Neo-Bee) that BTC is safe... It's already got a bad name here man. And I am working on a couple of projects to promote BTC but I need to feel a bit more confident that I can get people to trust it. If you know what I am saying. It's not easy after what happened with Neo-Bee. People look at me as if I am trying to scam them. And yes I explain everything, but unfortunately even though technology is not far behind here, the majority of people are... If you know what I mean.... |
|
|
|
IMO, if we can't trust miners and hashers to avoid concentrating hash-power, then Bitcoin has failed.
Despite comments up-thread, we are not dealing with complete imbeciles here. If you can handle making sure you don't exceed 12amps of continuous draw on a 15amp circuit; you can handle checking if your pool appears to have a dangerous amount of hash-power.
That's my argument here. We want a trustless system yet we have to depend that nobody will screw us over. I do not belive that there should be ANY kind of regulation or central authority, but since the dev-core team might be having difficulty comming up with a solution maybe we can join heads and create a TRUST-LESS system that prevents accumulation of 51% network hashrate. I know I am being a but pushy here, but I like you have invested in BTC and believe in BTC. And it's things like things that are holding us back. |
|
|
|
I had an idea but Danny pointed out that it wont work because there are flaws.
And I accept that.
But something needs to be done.
I, just like you wantg to see BTC go mainstream.
This is holding it back.
Why is people attacking me for asking for this?
People are attacking you because you don't appear to take responsibility for your own actions. Hash-power is of global strategic importance; a munition if you will. Why would you use it without a modicum of monitoring? Why do you think it is irrational to stay off concentrated pools, given the extreme risk to the BItcoin network for failing to do so? This is what I am trying to say. People are attacking me because I have 720GH at GHash - where I have 1.5TH on another pool, but apparently that doesn't matter to them because I am a bad guy. I didn't bring GHash to 40PH+ with my 720GH. That being said, the core-dev team cannot expect every miner to keep an eye on the hash rates when they can jsut sort it out once and for all. People are greedy. It has been proven even after GHash had 51%. - EDIT: YES, me included - I didn't do anything because I wasn't worried They did not move their miners. The hash rate dropped ONLY after the DDOS attack. So, do you want a trustless system or not? Shoudl we trust pools? Should we trust individual miners to point their equipment elsewhere? OR Shoudl we put an end to this now and help make BTC mainstream? What would you choose? |
|
|
|
WHat I want is the ones responsible for the protocol to make sure that it is safe.
EVERYBODY wants that.
Don't you?
I'm so confused. I thought you said that you thought it already WAS safe. You're just concerned that the newcomers don't know it. I think we need to start be figuring out if you are concerned that newcomers don't know that it is safe, or if you yourself are concerned that it isn't safe. Bro, me personally I am not worried. However, every single person I have talked to about BTC seemed to be stuck to the "dangers" instead of the benefits. The 51% attack being the biggets. They even asked me: how is it decentralized if one entity can control it? WHat am I supposed to say? The core-dev team is working on it? Are they? That is an issue that if resolved - IT WILL - make BTC mainstream. |
|
|
|
GHash does NOT worry me.
They would be stupid to risk a MULTI-million dollar businnes to a 51% attack or double spends when the price of BTC is so LOW (and I am saying this because the price of BTC is peanuts compared to what it will be by the end of the summer).
And they know that.
The mere concentration of hash-power harms the network.They are going ahead and amassing >50% of the hash-power because they over-estimated the network hash-rate growth when ordering their miners. The reason is that they at least want to make back their investment before the hash-rate climbs any more. This is short-sighted and will destroy their business. Much like the mortgage-default swaps that caused the 2008 banking collapse. I couldn't agree with you more. I had an idea but Danny pointed out that it wont work because there are flaws. And I accept that. But something needs to be done. I, just like you wantg to see BTC go mainstream. This is holding it back. Why is people attacking me for asking for this? |
|
|
|
...
As far as decentralization goes, once again you are an idiot.
BTC protocol itself is controlled by a team which is control by a foundation run by an accused pedophile (and some suspect the CIA as well).
...
This is totally false by the way. You clearly don't understand how bitcoin works BRO common man, I told you from yesterday I DO NOT want t get into ANY kind of arguments with you. WHat I want is the ones responsible for the protocol to make sure that it is safe. EVERYBODY wants that. Don't you? Jesus, why are we still arguing? |
|
|
|
Your coins depend on them.
That isn't saying anything. Depend on them how? They can't take my coins just because they have hashing power. They'd need my private key to do that. I know exactly what the risks are, but I'm not convinced that you do. You've been acting very concerned about the fact that a pool exceeded some magical 50% number and seem certain that the protocol needs to be "fixed". But I'm not sure that you even understand what a mining pool with 51% can do that a mining pool with 49% can't do. If you can't see that then I have missunderstood you.
I thought you were a VERY smart man.
I never said I was VERY smart. I'm just trying to understand why you think that BTC isn't "safe". OK, maybe I got missunderstood myself. It is not safe to the eyes of newcomers which prevents BTC from becoming mainstream. That's what I meant. And yes your coins depend on the protocol which depenends on the core-dev team. If the protocol is comprimised your coins and private keys mean nothing because your coins will be worthless. |
|
|
|
We BELIEVE in a trustless protocol yet we have to trust that the one with 51% share of the network rate will behave.
Does that sound trustless to you?
You've been quite vocal lately about your concerns related to a mining pool gaining more than 50% of the total network hashing power. I'm curious, do you understand what the risks are? Do you know what they can (and can't) do because of that hashing power? Do you understand what the effective difference is between having 49% of the total hashing power and 51% of the total hashing power? I am not worried about any pool doing anything right now bro. I made that clear. You've stated: "I am having trouble explaining to people that BTC is safe, because really it's not anymore." Explain what you mean when you say it is "not safe". What danger do you think exists? To me IT"S NOT. To newcomers looking into the dangers it is. Is that clear? |
|
|
|
As far as decentralization goes, once again you are an idiot.
BTC protocol itself is controlled by a team which is control by a foundation run by an accused pedophile (and some suspect the CIA as well).
No. It isn't. Where exactly do you see decentralization in this?
Neither the "dev team", nor the "foundation" can make me run a protocol that I don't want to. Your coins depend on them. If you can't see that then I have missunderstood you. I thought you were a VERY smart man. |
|
|
|
We BELIEVE in a trustless protocol yet we have to trust that the one with 51% share of the network rate will behave.
Does that sound trustless to you?
You've been quite vocal lately about your concerns related to a mining pool gaining more than 50% of the total network hashing power. I'm curious, do you understand what the risks are? Do you know what they can (and can't) do because of that hashing power? Do you understand what the effective difference is between having 49% of the total hashing power and 51% of the total hashing power? I am not worried about any pool doing anything right now bro. I made that clear. |
|
|
|
LOL
Have you considered the possibility that you're the one that doesn't understand? You've been trying to get the devs to hard fork meanwhile continuing to point your miners to Ghash. Unbelievable.
If you support decentralization, do not mine at pools with >30% of the network. For the last time, a hard fork is not the answer.
Can I ask you something? Do you even have any miners? Do you own more than 10BTC? If you do then put your mind to work. You do not wanna lose that do you? Neither does GHash (not at this point at least). GHash does NOT worry me. They would be stupid to risk a MULTI-million dollar businnes to a 51% attack or double spends when the price of BTC is so LOW (and I am saying this because the price of BTC is peanuts compared to what it will be by the end of the summer). And they know that. No 51% attack will happen right now and not even within the next couple of years unless the one doing it has invested a shit load of millions just to crash BTC. The only one that can do that is the US gov and they don't and you know why? Because they love the idea of BTC. It's just idiots like you that don't see things clear. BTC gives the CIA the tools they didn't have before in trackng down transactions. As far as decentralization goes, once again you are an idiot. BTC protocol itself is controlled by a team which is control by a foundation run by an accused pedophile (and some suspect the CIA as well). Where exactly do you see decentralization in this? Apart from that: Once again you are an idiot..... You expect EVERY single person on the planet that has a miner to just keep an eye just in case some pool gets 51% hashrate to move their miners. That wont happen. People are greedy. And you are an idiot. And BTC will NOT become mainstream if that is the case. Did I make my self clear? PS: Did I mention your an idiot? |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
