a plus is that confirmations will be in seconds now with miners running on asics
Well, that would have benefits. But it's not how it works; the whole point of the difficulty adjustments is to ensure that new blocks (confirmations) are generated at a rate of one every 10 minutes, no more, no less, regardless of total network hash rate. |
|
|
|
It's awesome that "anyone can do it" when not very many people are doing it. When more people do what "anyone can do" that's when it gets ruined by all those messy people that are doing it. But ultimately you cannot have it both ways. Either anyone can do it and your efforts are not special, or else only a few can and it will be profitable to each of those few.
Well said. More people need to understand this. |
|
|
|
Is there any way to empty my wallet without having to play "chase the network fee"? Everytime I subtract 0.005 from the amount I want to send, BitcoinSpinner calculates that I need 0.005 more and I don't have enough to send. This has happened through five or six (now eight) iterations, I'm kinda getting fed up.
I ran across this too. If you import the private key into Mycelium, it is able to sweep everything it can into one spend after it calculates the necessary fee. Then you can just archive the key in case someone sends funds to it. |
|
|
|
I haven't noticed this stated explicitly though it seems to mean that it would be the case. Does this latest security issue mean that the Bitcoin address that I have been using from Bitcoinspinner should be retired permanently and not re-imported*?
Short answer: yes, unfortunately. |
|
|
|
And another question...wouldn't it make sense to keep your private key separate from the BTC address that it is associated with? If someone found both, they could drain your account but if all they have is the Private Key, it doesn't seem like they could do anything with it.
This is incorrect. The address you can give out without losing coins; at most, if a malicious entity got ahold of it, you would simply lose privacy. With the private key, a little math is all it takes to get the address as well, not that they'd really need it. If someone gets ahold of the private key, they get everything. |
|
|
|
I feel this already happen in bitcoin world, see those various IPOs
"I will hold the Bitcoin for a Bounty." (for finding 'Tom Williams') - Bruce Wagner |
|
|
|
Maybe an automatic wallet sweep by some of the android wallets?
yes, lets steal money and pay HUGE fees if you dont have to pay that much... someone able to steal the BTCs from the faulty android devices is obviously not that stupid  no i didn't mean the stealer do that, but the updated wallet software automatically moving coins to new safe address. Afaik blockchain for example did this No, the fees are too high for that even. That transaction was under 48K in size. IIRC, it's 0.0001 BTC per 1K, and that's only 0.0048 BTC required for the transaction fee. Far less than even 1 BTC, never mind 15 BTC. It's not that fees have shot up. Someone just made an error (or is doing something else strange, like processing their own large-fee transactions as a way to "mix" their own coins.) |
|
|
|
i am making money with BTC. i have been making money with BTC. i will continue making money with BTC. even if not mining.
however, like many of us i have invested in ASIC. and when the difficulty shits on my return i am well within my right to cry bitch or moan.
Did you buy those ASICs with the expectation that the difficulty wouldn't skyrocket??? Sounds like the problem is with the company you chose to purchase from, not with the devices that offer greater hashing rates for less energy expenditure (since you chose to purchase one.) |
|
|
|
As innovative products emerge, it is critical to take steps that allow new technologies and industries to flourish, while also working to ensure that consumers and our national security remain protected.
...
As such, the Department of Financial Services (DFS) has launched an inquiry into the appropriate regulatory guidelines that it should put in place for virtual currencies. Ignore all the mamzy pamzy anti terrorist nonsense and you get to what they are after: hey we see that our regulatory framework might not best suited for digital currencies and we are afraid to stifle innovation but we are also unwilling to allow illegal activity to go on. Please prove to us you aren't doing anything illegal and tell us how your business works so we can start to figure this thing out. This is the State of New York we're talking about. I don't for one second believe they're as benignly concerned as your post would suggest. The only reason I will stand by my point in this conversation is because I have some (in)direct knowledge about the tech sector here in NY. For the past few (7-9) years quite a bit of discussion has gone on about how to make NY more attractive to technology companies. I even know a guy who spoke on panels on behalf of the tech community in front of state officials regarding this manner. Silicon Alley formed from this. With technology follows money. Lots of it it. Many of the big VCs/angel groups dumping cake into Bitcoin businesses are here in NY, along with many of the companies listed in those subpoenas. These guys aren't they type to sit around and wait for someone to tell them it's okay to do something. They want answers to sure up their investments. A beacon was sent out and this is the first formal response. Huh. That's actually fairly interesting, but I can't help but wonder if they've actually *achieved* their goal of improved tech-industry-friendliness in the last several years. I'm not sure that the formation of a tech-oriented locale actually demonstrates that. Time will tell. |
|
|
|
50 mil difficulty. Way beyond my prediction of 43 mil for this retarget.
The plateau is becoming a myth...
Yep. My guesstimate was 46 million, and I had based my desired price for ASIC miners on a presumed 20% difficulty increase per adjustment. I thought I was being safe and making a conservative estimate. Guess not. |
|
|
|
Worst case, government(s) could ban the purchase, sale, transfer, or possession of Bitcoins, by executive order.
That would be one of the worst things they could do. Plenty of early adopters would love that, as the price for bitcoins in the U.S. would surge as a result. |
|
|
|
|
Looks like a spike in difficulty helped delay this block. 50.8 million. Wow.
|
|
|
|
As innovative products emerge, it is critical to take steps that allow new technologies and industries to flourish, while also working to ensure that consumers and our national security remain protected.
...
As such, the Department of Financial Services (DFS) has launched an inquiry into the appropriate regulatory guidelines that it should put in place for virtual currencies. Ignore all the mamzy pamzy anti terrorist nonsense and you get to what they are after: hey we see that our regulatory framework might not best suited for digital currencies and we are afraid to stifle innovation but we are also unwilling to allow illegal activity to go on. Please prove to us you aren't doing anything illegal and tell us how your business works so we can start to figure this thing out. This is the State of New York we're talking about. I don't for one second believe they're as benignly concerned as your post would suggest. |
|
|
|
Anyone done the math as to the chances of going this long while putting out these CDF numbers? If it continues for much longer, it's going to be a very bad sign.
Last time we hit some bad luck I paid organofcorti to look into it, as some users believed it was statistically improbable. He's very good with statistics and probability and did a very thorough analysis which you can read here: http://organofcorti.blogspot.com/2013/05/131-bitminter-and-luck.htmlIf you really want to look into the bad luck we had just now, please do what he did, don't just look at 3 unlucky blocks and jump to conclusions. Also note how we paid better than most pools even when we had a long period of bad luck. Low fee, transaction fee income and namecoins make a big difference. I apologize if you got the impression I was trying to badmouth the pool. I chose BitMinter for a reason, and the fee arrangement was a key component of that. A little bad luck isn't going to chase me away (as I've stated before in this forum;) that's simply not mathematically sound. That said, thanks for the link. |
|
|
|
Are you also going to get concerned about the 2 weeks of above-average block finding we've had just before this 3-day dry stretch?
I'm sure you're right. I'm sure there's nothing to worry about. |
|
|
|
This rash of extreme delays between blocks, both BTC and NMC, seems like it's starting to become a statistical anomaly. A "that-guy-just-won-the-lottery-for-the-5th-time" level anomaly.
Anyone done the math as to the chances of going this long while putting out these CDF numbers? If it continues for much longer, it's going to be a very bad sign.
Until it gets to about 1000%, it's not really that unlikely. When you are finding hundreds of blocks a month, you'll hit really slow ones as well as really quick ones. i.e. at a pool doing 20TH/s, if you get to 22hrs then yeah you are into rare territory for slow block finding. Rare, but not impossible. It's the Namecoin delays that make me suspicious. Namecoin blocks are pretty much solved independently of Bitcoin blocks. So sure, a single long delay, even approaching a day, for a Bitcoin block, or only a few Bitcoin blocks in a couple days, I can understand. But to have no Bitcoin block for that long a period, and simultaneously have multiple long stretches between Namecoin blocks, which hit 50% for us in about an hour? I'm not saying something IS wrong, just that statistically, that adds another level of improbability. Currently... Bitcoin: 12h:09m (97.44% CDF) Namecoin: 3h:39m (91.40% CDF, and that follows 8 blocks where the lowest CDF was 69.65%, average of 83.07%) No need to panic, of course... time will tell if there's a problem or not. But this warrants watching. |
|
|
|
|
This rash of extreme delays between blocks, both BTC and NMC, seems like it's starting to become a statistical anomaly. A "that-guy-just-won-the-lottery-for-the-5th-time" level anomaly.
Anyone done the math as to the chances of going this long while putting out these CDF numbers? If it continues for much longer, it's going to be a very bad sign.
|
|
|
|
Growth is good, organized growth is better. All the evidence from economic history shows that to be wrong ... most centrally planned "growth" endeavours are epic failures. The only one rule the Senate could possibly put in place that would be better is "Do not touch Bitcoin" ... anything else will be a hindrance, a perversion, a compromise, a vested-interest loophole-riddled bastardisation ... so that is what I'm fully expecting (mainly because most people think, erroneously, like you do). +1 We need less regulation and control, not more, over the U.S. economy, and really all economies in general. And to help out those who don't quite get it, it needs to be made quite clear to all involved that "We're not regulating or controlling anything here. Other than prosecuting actual crimes, you're on your own, so you'd better act like it." Of course, the supposed protections are at best laughable as it currently stands, but it's amazing the number of people who are convinced that the feds really are looking out for them. |
|
|
|
Erm, so what does this patch achieve in context that is so significant for the Creator to reveal that He walks amongst us yet?
Yeah, this is what I'm wanting to know.... |
|
|
|
If you base your company in North Korea then you really can't whine when all your rights are stripped away by a bunch of demagogues.
This. I think the idea of people operating their bitcoin business from New York, California, Massachusetts, Chicago, or anywhere near D.C. is a very unwise move, and this is the main reason why. Honestly, inside the U.S. is probably to be avoided if possible, but at the very least I would have thought that avoiding the worst control zones would be a top priority for more bitcoiners. Then again, I'm also disturbed at the number of bitcoiners who believe in preemptively meeting with and working with "the authorities."  |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
