13-primes has been conquered! block: 159217 chain: 2CC0d origin: 2157379196749861922279323942438489646066518556204460081290289105121926523847387 648204577131520 primorial form: 1075675072070019538039769718844817846011572546711177146887584296472384435455501 6704*31# Didn't expect this to occur this fast, I was expecting by the end of the year. Cheers!  (I will update the record posts when I get around to it  ) If only there was a optimized GPU miner, then the records would really start dropping like flies. |
|
|
|
|
May be time for a new poll.
|
|
|
|
Sorry if this rant is too off topic, its a pet peeve of mine.
It's also a peeve of mine, and it very much is ontopic. The people just fitting random formulas to the hashrate and making predictions are producing BS numbers that obscure better analysis (e.g. ones factoring in published shipping schedules or profitability over power costs) and make everyone dumber. Also exponential functions are present in very much everything self organised. And humans are bloody good at self organising...
All living men are mortal. Socrates is mortal. Therefore, Socrates is alive! Sorry, you can't just wave some hands and some things that have some vague commonality. Good reasoning requires at least arguing for a causal relationship. I can argue how increases in hashpower encourage decreases in the rate of increase— higher hashpower makes every bit of marginal increase in hashpower less profitable— but not the opposite. what difficulty do you think it takes until we see a flood of hashrate on altcoins? I mean there are more and more sha256 alts over time. So many alt-coins that the gpu miners are being diluted as they leave bitcoin mining. I actually doubt any gpu miners left mining BTC at this point anyway. My guess is LTC has been the main beneficiary |
|
|
|
Apparently I missed quite the show. Dr. Lee had the site down to 5600 BTC profit (he was ahead about 900+ BTC). Then he martin-failed. Still walked away with 200+ BTC profit. Still this had gotta hurt:  |
|
|
|
These numbers are true, there is one thing to keep in mind: Any attempt to do so *is* visible to miners. The second a pool tries to start a fork and reverse a transaction, miners can see the prevblockhash on the pool no longer matches the main bitcoin network. While this isn't unusual in the case of an orphan race, the only time it has ever happened for more than 2 blocks in a row that I can recall was when we had a hardfork starting.
It's visible only in a purely abstract way. Deepbit was frequently "eating its own tail" due to running multiple bitcoin daemons which would end up on competing forks and then load balancing miners between them (if it doesn't do this anymore its only because it doesn't solve enough blocks). Not a single person in the world noticed this until Luke-Jr, bless his occasionally trolly heart, added code to BFGMiner to refuse to mine when a pool appeared to be forking itself. But not many people run that code. Moreover, it's only a very partial solution: Say the network is on block A, you don't include the transaction you want to conflict in A. Then then another miner solves A and the network moves on to A+1 but you stay on A. Eventually you solve A'+1+1+1 ... and with some luck reverse the transaction. Miners never see any self-forking, and so the protection in BFGminer cannot help. Performing the attack in this way simply constrains when you can start the attack (only right after another pool found a block), it does not reduce the success rate. Additionally, an unsuccessful attempt would be completely apparent to miner's because their earnings would plummet [unless the pool continued to pay miners for the fork blocks]. Since BTC Guild's earnings can be audited down to the block hashes that generated payouts, this would be obviously false due to the blocks that were paid not existing on the blockchain. A number of years ago your pool delivered earning of something like 40% of expectations for months. A number of people were convinced that you were a thief because of it (that something was subtly broken, or there was some witholding attack seems like a more likely explanation, in my view), but that hasn't inhibited you from having the largest pool by far. I cannot believe that many people would notice or care about a decline in revenue on the timescale of a single day or two. Maybe they would. But thats a big maybe to stake the future of Bitcoin on, especially with people trying to open up new markets that allow them to take short positions. A substantial successful attack would dramatically undermine confidence in Bitcoin: The existence of major hashpower consolations already defeats the security assumptions, but its a theoretical weakness and until an attack happens many don't believe what incredibly shaky ground we are on here. BTC Guild is gaining on % of the network again, and I've stated in the past I think this is something that will always happen. A zero-sum method of earning Bitcoins will always lead to natural monopolies as people prefer to get a steady income over a lottery.
Control over mining is orthogonal with pooling payments. There is no reason that a pool couldn't simply hand out coinbase transactions to miners and credit them for any remotely sane looking shares that includes the requested coinbase transaction. The pool would then only be a consolidation of miners payments and would have no risk for consolidating control of the blockchain consensus. Miners would become miners again, and not just people selling computing services for coin. The risk that miners would intentionally have some junk transactions that get blocks orphaned would be strictly less than the block withholding risk which cannot be eliminated, as you could still ask miners to occasionally send whole blocks. Had Satoshi though of this in 2010 I believe we would have a very different world today. |
|
|
|
These numbers are true, there is one thing to keep in mind: Any attempt to do so *is* visible to miners. The second a pool tries to start a fork and reverse a transaction, miners can see the prevblockhash on the pool no longer matches the main bitcoin network. While this isn't unusual in the case of an orphan race, the only time it has ever happened for more than 2 blocks in a row that I can recall was when we had a hardfork starting.
It's visible only in a purely abstract way. Deepbit was frequently "eating its own tail" due to running multiple bitcoin daemons which would end up on competing forks and then load balancing miners between them (if it doesn't do this anymore its only because it doesn't solve enough blocks). Not a single person in the world noticed this until Luke-Jr, bless his occasionally trolly heart, added code to BFGMiner to refuse to mine when a pool appeared to be forking itself. But not many people run that code. Moreover, it's only a very partial solution: Say the network is on block A, you don't include the transaction you want to conflict in A. Then then another miner solves A and the network moves on to A+1 but you stay on A. Eventually you solve A'+1+1+1 ... and with some luck reverse the transaction. Miners never see any self-forking, and so the protection in BFGminer cannot help. Performing the attack in this way simply constrains when you can start the attack (only right after another pool found a block), it does not reduce the success rate. Additionally, an unsuccessful attempt would be completely apparent to miner's because their earnings would plummet [unless the pool continued to pay miners for the fork blocks]. Since BTC Guild's earnings can be audited down to the block hashes that generated payouts, this would be obviously false due to the blocks that were paid not existing on the blockchain. A number of years ago your pool delivered earning of something like 40% of expectations for months. A number of people were convinced that you were a thief because of it (that something was subtly broken, or there was some witholding attack seems like a more likely explanation, in my view), but that hasn't inhibited you from having the largest pool by far. I cannot believe that many people would notice or care about a decline in revenue on the timescale of a single day or two. Maybe they would. But thats a big maybe to stake the future of Bitcoin on, especially with people trying to open up new markets that allow them to take short positions. A substantial successful attack would dramatically undermine confidence in Bitcoin: The existence of major hashpower consolations already defeats the security assumptions, but its a theoretical weakness and until an attack happens many don't believe what incredibly shaky ground we are on here. BTC Guild is gaining on % of the network again, and I've stated in the past I think this is something that will always happen. A zero-sum method of earning Bitcoins will always lead to natural monopolies as people prefer to get a steady income over a lottery.
Control over mining is orthogonal with pooling payments. There is no reason that a pool couldn't simply hand out coinbase transactions to miners and credit them for any remotely sane looking shares that includes the requested coinbase transaction. The pool would then only be a consolidation of miners payments and would have no risk for consolidating control of the blockchain consensus. Miners would become miners again, and not just people selling computing services for coin. The risk that miners would intentionally have some junk transactions that get blocks orphaned would be strictly less than the block withholding risk which cannot be eliminated, as you could still ask miners to occasionally send whole blocks. Had Satoshi though of this in 2010 I believe we would have a very different world today. |
|
|
|
These numbers are true, there is one thing to keep in mind: Any attempt to do so *is* visible to miners. The second a pool tries to start a fork and reverse a transaction, miners can see the prevblockhash on the pool no longer matches the main bitcoin network. While this isn't unusual in the case of an orphan race, the only time it has ever happened for more than 2 blocks in a row that I can recall was when we had a hardfork starting.
It's visible only in a purely abstract way. Deepbit was frequently "eating its own tail" due to running multiple bitcoin daemons which would end up on competing forks and then load balancing miners between them (if it doesn't do this anymore its only because it doesn't solve enough blocks). Not a single person in the world noticed this until Luke-Jr, bless his occasionally trolly heart, added code to BFGMiner to refuse to mine when a pool appeared to be forking itself. But not many people run that code. Moreover, it's only a very partial solution: Say the network is on block A, you don't include the transaction you want to conflict in A. Then then another miner solves A and the network moves on to A+1 but you stay on A. Eventually you solve A'+1+1+1 ... and with some luck reverse the transaction. Miners never see any self-forking, and so the protection in BFGminer cannot help. Performing the attack in this way simply constrains when you can start the attack (only right after another pool found a block), it does not reduce the success rate. Additionally, an unsuccessful attempt would be completely apparent to miner's because their earnings would plummet [unless the pool continued to pay miners for the fork blocks]. Since BTC Guild's earnings can be audited down to the block hashes that generated payouts, this would be obviously false due to the blocks that were paid not existing on the blockchain. A number of years ago your pool delivered earning of something like 40% of expectations for months. A number of people were convinced that you were a thief because of it (that something was subtly broken, or there was some witholding attack seems like a more likely explanation, in my view), but that hasn't inhibited you from having the largest pool by far. I cannot believe that many people would notice or care about a decline in revenue on the timescale of a single day or two. Maybe they would. But thats a big maybe to stake the future of Bitcoin on, especially with people trying to open up new markets that allow them to take short positions. A substantial successful attack would dramatically undermine confidence in Bitcoin: The existence of major hashpower consolations already defeats the security assumptions, but its a theoretical weakness and until an attack happens many don't believe what incredibly shaky ground we are on here. BTC Guild is gaining on % of the network again, and I've stated in the past I think this is something that will always happen. A zero-sum method of earning Bitcoins will always lead to natural monopolies as people prefer to get a steady income over a lottery.
Control over mining is orthogonal with pooling payments. There is no reason that a pool couldn't simply hand out coinbase transactions to miners and credit them for any remotely sane looking shares that includes the requested coinbase transaction. The pool would then only be a consolidation of miners payments and would have no risk for consolidating control of the blockchain consensus. Miners would become miners again, and not just people selling computing services for coin. The risk that miners would intentionally have some junk transactions that get blocks orphaned would be strictly less than the block withholding risk which cannot be eliminated, as you could still ask miners to occasionally send whole blocks. Had Satoshi though of this in 2010 I believe we would have a very different world today. This last point to me is key - Satoshi knew the dangers of consolidation of mining power and decentralization is central to the design of bitcoin as illustrated in satoshi's whitepaper. However, Satoshi did not anticipate the development of mining pools as structured which has led to essentially to the majority of hashing power being controlled by a small number of key players. A malicious entity with root access to any of these major minor pools could badly shake confidence in bitcoin just by demonstating an intentional forking is possible (even if the damage were only transient and self-limited to the blockchain itself). You make an excellent point with the increasing complexity of trading coming to bitcoin and larger sums of capital involved, their is plenty of motivation and building to execute such a malicious attack with the aim of effecting the price of bitcoin. |
|
|
|
I wonder how many months after the public release it will take until the GPU miner is actually mining at least a bit faster than the CPU Miner.
I'm guessing never. This project was a complete failure and a borderline scam. I don't know about that - just need some good coders who love primecoin to take up the project. Hopefully mtrlt will stay involved and provide leadership. He said borderline. That means not necesarilly but it sure feels like it. Absolutely 0 of the donators got any kind of ROI whatsoever. True but now the primecoin community has a working, albeit buggy and inefficient, gpu miner with source code to serve as a starting point. |
|
|
|
Your notions of security proceed from fundamentally flawed premises. This is why pronouncements on specialist topics by the random forumer are not particularly valuable.
Although none of these things will help if there a security vulnerability that allows root access, it does much to help from the script-kiddie trojan droppers. Yubikey is an excellent method as well, arguably better than google auth. |
|
|
|
I wonder how many months after the public release it will take until the GPU miner is actually mining at least a bit faster than the CPU Miner.
I'm guessing never. This project was a complete failure and a borderline scam. I don't know about that - just need some good coders who love primecoin to take up the project. Hopefully mtrlt will stay involved and provide leadership. |
|
|
|
|
Starting Auction now for next week! Do we hear a opening bid?
Timer removed. End time: 2013-09-23+00:00:00UTC
|
|
|
|
Fible1 wins with a bid of 0.8 BTC! Please provide 468x60 banner and URL to speed uploading of your successful bid. You can either PM Dooglus or you can email him your banner at doog.justdice@gmail.comPayment goes to 132kay5h1A8z7iWRp3oov9CUJVwc1S2LeB |
|
|
|
|
BTC guild can voluntarily limit themselves to 40% or so to help improve safety of the overall network.
|
|
|
|
This post is bullshit, a conclusion without any solid support. No proof, no claim. I'm the proof that doog's site is not rigged.  Yeah, unless you ARE me... sigh, I hope I was you. Then I didn't have to prove to you anything... and I would have a much better "reputation" right now. lol @ the newbies looking here and wondering what the heck is going on. A complicated tale. Thanks for defending Doog's honor. Shouldn't you get back to DDoSing Just-Dice so people will go to your crappy letsdice with its 2% house edge? |
|
|
|
Who actually believe the issues with USD withdrawals are really due to technical issued with their banking partners? I think it is obvious that they are operating a fractional reserve and do not have close to enough funds if everyone wanted to pull out their fiat. A real-life exchange or investment bank is required to put customer funds in segregated accounts, but this is not the case with Mt. Gox.
Honestly, the issue is they do not have the cash and these capital controls are meant to prevent a "run on the bank" which would sink Mt. Gox. They are using customer deposits to pay ongoing legal, regulatory and operational expenses. Considering they missing over 5M being held by the US Government and need to keep a substanial reserve for possible legal settlements, things will not get better anytime soon. It is not conforting they are lying about the real reason (it probably criminal), but I see why they are doing it. They are hoping to "earn" themselves out of this hole and hoping for a settlement in the near term with the US Gov for the frozen customer funds as well as Coinlabs for the Mt. Gox customer funds they are withholding and legal settlements.
Mt. Gox USD is trading at a substanial discount to real USD, hence the "inflated" value of BTC on the exchange as it is the only way to get funds out of Mt. Gox. This is going to end badly and it is dangerous to try to time this. Once Mt. Gox goes bust, there will be lots of missing customer funds, and after a long legal and complicated liquidation process, depositers will get back pennies on the dollar.
You make a lot of assumptions here All reasonable and supported by some known facts and the events which have transpired |
|
|
|
Top bid 0.8BTC by fible1. Less than 24 hours left!
Timer removed. End time: 2013-09-16+00:00:00UTC
Less than 2 hours left! Top bid still 0.8 BTC by fible1 |
|
|
|
|
Who actually believe the issues with USD withdrawals are really due to technical issued with their banking partners? I think it is obvious that they are operating a fractional reserve and do not have close to enough funds if everyone wanted to pull out their fiat. A real-life exchange or investment bank is required to put customer funds in segregated accounts, but this is not the case with Mt. Gox.
Honestly, the issue is they do not have the cash and these capital controls are meant to prevent a "run on the bank" which would sink Mt. Gox. They are using customer deposits to pay ongoing legal, regulatory and operational expenses. Considering they missing over 5M being held by the US Government and need to keep a substanial reserve for possible legal settlements, things will not get better anytime soon. It is not conforting they are lying about the real reason (it probably criminal), but I see why they are doing it. They are hoping to "earn" themselves out of this hole and hoping for a settlement in the near term with the US Gov for the frozen customer funds as well as Coinlabs for the Mt. Gox customer funds they are withholding and legal settlements.
Mt. Gox USD is trading at a substanial discount to real USD, hence the "inflated" value of BTC on the exchange as it is the only way to get funds out of Mt. Gox. This is going to end badly and it is dangerous to try to time this. Once Mt. Gox goes bust, there will be lots of missing customer funds, and after a long legal and complicated liquidation process, depositers will get back pennies on the dollar.
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
