|
Oh God it's exploding, 300% in 24 hours, this is nuts
|
|
|
|
So far no chain except bitcoin ever reached $1 (except Namecoin which actually has a use except fairy dust WOW gold currency). Why would it ever reach that value ? Bitcoin is special. It is the biggest, cannot be attacked and the most established as was first created and limited 21 million supply. Nothing can really match that. Enjoy getting stuck with your tenebrix ! I also sell my dog poop for $1 each. MAYBE in 100 years dog poop used as rocketship fuel so I'm holding it  Well, I do have $10 of disposable income to invest as I please, and if the amount tenebrix costs goes up by orders of magnitude and I make $1000, every $10 I've put into every new block chain so far will be well worth it. I mean, it's really not too complicated, if people make 100 new block chains and one of them turns out to be useful and you invest a little money in it early on, you can easily make lots back later. So I'm not worried. |
|
|
|
In terms of making money, it's probably not worth it to mine tenebrix anymore. Mind as well buy them on the exchange.
That is, unless someone buys all the tenebrix up for sale right now for about $300 USD and hoards them. In the cash, the price would probably go up as the supply is constricted and it is no longer easy to obtain them. Actually, I would be surprised if someone doesn't do this as it is so cheap right now. |
|
|
|
|
The price of tenebrix and number of buy orders is going up exponentially on btc-e
Long live tenebrix?
edit: Difficulty just doubled, too.
|
|
|
|
Dumped all my 176 tenebrix for 0.3 BTC not bad deal etc. mining this then dumping it as soon as it is confirmed !! don't even feel sorry for the tbx buying sukaz  It seems everyone cashing out TBX eg 40000 TBX already cashed out out of 60k mined so far from start etc. haha epic if you are holding TBX then you will be left holding the bag in the end  Enjoy !!! I will hold, I lost money on i0coin and solidcoin, why not lose money on Tenebrix too? The thing is, if Tenebrix ends up like another bitcoin, they could eventually be worth dollars each, so if I mine thousands of them now and sell them off later, that's tons of profit for me at a relatively low risk. This is exactly why people are buying them from you for nothing too -- 10BTC for 20000 TBX now, but if the price of TBX skyrockets, you'll make a lot more than that same $50 you would get from bitcoin. You might be throwing out your cash, but you also might be betting on the right number on a roulette wheel. |
|
|
|
Well, should the need arise, TBX could make a PoW "update" + "anti-blockspam" at nHeight > x, right ? Also, I'd feel bad about throwing out PS 3 hobbyists completely (I'd be quite content with making dedicated PS3 farms comparatively uncompetitive while leaving opportunistic gamers in)  I don't think Cell will have a huge comparative advantage due to only have 7 SPEs clocked at 3GHz... The TDP is similar for Cell (~120W for older models and ~80W for newer ones) and it would probably have performance comparable to a Phenom II X6 if that. Not only that, but PS3s probably don't have the means to properly thermally regulate themselves in comparison to computers and would face shorter lifespans. |
|
|
|
|
In other news post your K/H rates
Phenom II 1055T @ 3.8GHz/2.6GHz NB:
1.78KH/s per core
Phenom II 940BE @ 3.6GHz/2.0GHz NB:
1.75KH/s per core
Getting about 150 TBX/day solo mining
|
|
|
|
It should be pointed out that there is nothing impossible in doing mining through a browser app, irrespective of whether that is cpu or gpu mining, and that browser-mining does not itself make scrypt GPU-friendly (but it does bring up an interesting question as to possibility for mining-enabled "rich content" banners that bring you both ad-money and coinsez) as to TBX memhardness, this is relevant https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=45849.0I see now, Basically, instead of aiming for "enough memory use to hit external memory on any device", aiming for "small enough to fit in L2 cache on CPUs, big enough to require too much on-chip memory/cache for running enough parallel instances to make GPU/FPGA/VLSI worth it." Which makes sense. But most CPUs have L3 now too, so why not use a problem size that is effective into that range as well? This article too helps make sense of it: Another important distinction in memory performance between the GPU and the CPU is the role of the cache. Unlike the cache on the CPU, the GPU texture cache exists primarily to accelerate texture filtering. As a result, GPU caches need to be only as large as the size of the filter kernel for the texture sampler (typically only a few texels), which is too small to be useful for general-purpose computation. GPU cache formats are also optimized for locality in two dimensions, which is not always desirable. This is in contrast to the Pentium 4 cache, which operates at a much higher clock rate and contains megabytes of data. In addition, the Pentium 4 is able to cache both read and write memory operations, while the GPU cache is designed for read-only texture data. Any data written to memory (that is, the frame buffer) is not cached but written out to memory.
What does this mean for general-purpose computation on GPUs? The read-write CPU cache permits programmers to optimize algorithms to operate primarily out of the cache. For example, if your application data set is relatively small, it may fit entirely inside the Pentium 4 cache. Even with larger data sets, an application writer can "block" the computation to ensure that most reads and writes occur in the cache. In contrast, the limited size and read-only nature of the GPU cache puts it at a significant disadvantage. Therefore, an application that is more limited by sequential or random read bandwidth, such as adding two large vectors, will see much more significant performance improvements when ported to the GPU. The vector addition example sequentially reads and writes large vectors with no reuse of the data—an optimal access pattern on the GPU. http://http.developer.nvidia.com/GPUGems2/gpugems2_chapter32.htmlSo as long as the algorithm requires a cache utilization of above 128kB, it will probably be pretty slow on ASICs or GPUs. This is not an easily remedied problem because the only way to make this cache memory to physically add billions of more transistors onto the die for it. |
|
|
|
Good doggie.
Now play dead.
Good puppet master. Now go pump and dump them brix !!! Wonder why TBX price is so low now  On another note, what about our genius' revelation ? BitcoinExpress said that virtually all these CPU only currencies can easily be made into GPU currencies by IE9 hardware accelerator !? How true is that for Tenebrix ? If that's the case they should release this for everyone to use. The script source code is here: http://cpansearch.perl.org/src/GRAY/Crypt-Scrypt-0.05/src/src/lib/crypto/crypto_scrypt-sse.cBut... this algorithm is supposed to be memory-hard but only takes 7MB of RAM on my system? (minerd.exe) But maybe memory-hard in this instance refers to cache size on the CPU? GPUs are based around something requiring large amounts of sequential memory access, and if the data is not constantly being reused but instead overwritten GPU computing might be inefficient. An easy way of destroying GPU efficiency is just to make an algorithm require it to access memory randomly instead of sequentially, but the same goes for CPUs... So the only thing I can think of that this algorithm would do to make it GPU proof would be requiring to read and write to the cache memory that is on board a lot. There should be no way GPUs can compete with large CPU level 2 and 3 caches that have way faster write rates. |
|
|
|
|
Hash rate is going up this weekend... With rises in hash rate comes rises in price
Bull it up guys
|
|
|
|
Disregarding the fact that Bitcoin will be deflationary because it has a limited supply, what does difficulty/hash rate have to do with making a currency deflationary? And what does variable block sizes have to do with making a currency deflationary?
You can make your financial unit deflationary by making it more difficult to obtain with higher difficulties. The parallel process would be with the mining of oil over the years, initially it was very easy to obtain but as time goes on, the difficulty in obtaining oil has increased not only because of the supply decreases but because the process with which to obtain the supply has decreased. For instance, now crude may need to be extracted from oil sands which are more expensive than wells in the 80's and 90's. If block solvation is based on difficulty, making the return of the block solvation smaller at the same difficulty increases the time and cost to produce, making the supply shrink. Supply is related not only to the overall quantity of the good but also the difficulty in obtaining it. |
|
|
|
That doesn't make any sense to me.
What does the size of the block have to do with how often a block is found?
Perhaps I don't understand the way this is programmed, then. Is the rate of block solvation based upon only the difficult and has nothing to do with the number of units it contains? The problem mostly has to do with confirmation rate (a function of block solvation rate, correct?) as far as I can see it, and I might be seeing the solution incorrectly. If the above is the case, then I guess all you'd have to do is have the numbers of coins in the blocks constantly decreasing but the difficulty staying the same? But I guess then problems would be eventually encountered if the difficulty never increased, because block rate would become too fast. The point is, I guess, that although bitcoin is deflationary in nature, the responsiveness of this deflation should not be over the course of years but over hours or days. |
|
|
|
High difficulty + low hash rate = long delay for confirmations.
Long delay for confirmations = unhappy customers.
Unhappy customers = lower hash rate.
As long as you have the block size decrease in relation the hash rate, this is not a problem at all. The confirmation delay should still be the same. For instance, if it take 100 hours to solve 100 blocks of 50 units and the confirmation rate is dependent on the number of blocks solved, just make the blocks smaller in terms of units so more blocks are solved more quickly. Around January 3rd, 2013 you will only get 25 bitcoin for every block. The problem is that by then, bitcoin may have already inflated into worthlessness and been long forgotten. |
|
|
|
...maybe someone has already implemented it. Yes, this is the harsh reality of the bitcoin -- it would be a true deflationary commodity if difficulty were able to not go back down over time with relation to the number of people mining it, but since it does it is neither a deflationary nor inflationary commodity but both depending on the direction of the difficulty and the hash rate.
An ideal digital, actual deflationary digital commodity would have variable block sizes based on hash rates (to ensure that even if network hash rate went down, transactions would still go through), would start at a very high difficulty, and would increase in difficulty based on the amount of it mined but never decrease in difficulty. It would also have an infinite supply, but the difficulty in obtaining more of that supply should accelerate with the speed of computing. As soon as someone implements this, I'll stop mining bitcoin and start mining that because I think such a currency would hold its value over time much better than bitcoin. That's basically how I see bitcoin now, as inflating in the short term because of the decreasing hash rate... but is it possible for someone to program something like the above, to ensure that the supply of the digital currency is always shrinking over time? Do you think this is a good idea? I would hazard a nickname of "Aurums", after gold and its limited supply on Earth and dropping the -coin suffix because I would rather it be thought of as a commodity. |
|
|
|
as I interpret the chart My interpretation differs. Look at the difficulty. Earlier it rose because there was new miners. Now it is another story - no new adepts, and the number of existing will reduce. Yes, this is the harsh reality of the bitcoin -- it would be a true deflationary commodity if difficulty were able to not go back down over time with relation to the number of people mining it, but since it does it is neither a deflationary nor inflationary commodity but both depending on the direction of the difficulty and the hash rate. An ideal digital, actual deflationary digital commodity would have variable block sizes based on hash rates (to ensure that even if network hash rate went down, transactions would still go through), would start at a very high difficulty, and would increase in difficulty based on the amount of it mined but never decrease in difficulty. As soon as someone implements this, I'll stop mining bitcoin and start mining that because I think such a currency would hold its value over time much better than bitcoin. |
|
|
|
And what would be the current price for creating a coin? The average of course. Well, from my thread: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=34978It depends on how you factor in the hardware, but I'm going to say about about $3.50 now and about $3.30 after the difficulty decrease. |
|
|
|
I believe that the price will go near the 4.5 support line. But never breaking it.
Disagree because the cost to produce is going down because of the difficulty change... Unless the difficulty/hash rate stabilizes or increases we will see a fall in the price to ever successive new lows. |
|
|
|
Google Trends is an overall lagging indicator of price, not a leading indicator. Over the history of Google Trends for "bitcoin" the correlation peak lags the daily high by about three days...
Bitcoin is more than just a currency. It is a Google trends predictor! I would be surprised if we don't see a further drop in the next few days due to the difficulty decrease. Gold has no immediate correlation with bitcoin price, but does imply consumers have lost interest in expensive rare commodities that could serve as alternative currencies in times of crisis. The market for bitcoin is somewhat similar. Right now, gold is taking its predicted tumble and it appears consumers may be trying to jump onto cheap investments in equities instead. |
|
|
|
Reasoning: - Low volumes - Price stagnation - Expected difficulty decrease in a couple of days - Gold crash - Global stock market crash - Diminished interest as reported by google searches (which highly correlate with market price/momentum)  Seven-day target: 3.25$ USD/BTC |
|
|
|
oh god my children's college fund  but hey, network hash rate is up. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
