Well this is a silly question that was asked over and over in the past. Start using search.
An EMP to hit out 95% of the miners, would need to be an EMP around the whole world thus wiping out 100% of the Miners and everything else. That would create chaos in which no currency would matter at all.
As far as all other things go, there is no way that someone could force 95% of the Miners to shut down. There are just no possible means of achieving this.
So what would happen doesn't really matter, because it won't happen.
~Lauda
This is almost certainly correct. It would be very unlikely that any event would knock out the vast majority (95%) of the mining network but not the internet (which is required in order for the miners to wish to continue to mine as without the internet they will have no way of broadcasting their blocks and no way of knowing what the latest block that has been mined is). I would "accept" scenarios in which much smaller portions of the mining network are taken offline, but not 95% |
|
|
|
Well this should be clear:
You only own a Bitcoin if you have the private key of its address.
Thus if you hold BTC on an exchange you do not own them.
I would somewhat disagree with this, especially when you are dealing with very small amounts. I would argue that people need to be able to spend some time to understand bitcoin and how it works, and good security practices before they should be controlling their private key and keeping their private key (and money) safe. |
|
|
|
What's weird is I saw recent article citing unprecedented demand for corn ethanol, for E10 and that made me WAT??? pretty hard, given apparent low demand for the oil part of that equation.
The demand for corn (when being used for energy) is directly tied to the demand/price of oil, as corn is primarily mixed with oil to make E85 gasoline. I don't think there would be an increased level of demand for corn without an increased demand for gasoline (and oil) |
|
|
|
Satoshi was inept. Clearly that's the answer  Fine thinking OP Satoshi is dead. Probably not. If you take into account the average age of the average person who would have the skills and experience required to to create Bitcoi then on an average level he will have an age of less then the average life expectancy of the average "world citizen" |
|
|
|
@inBitweTrust - Yes I very much understand 1 and 3 as they are either a ponzi or they are not one. But I don't understand why any cloud mining company would ever want to go the route of #2. I guess it would be to give themselves credibility when ASIC companies say they have received a large order from them, but I would think the initial payments would give them more credibility.
Its not that they oppose mining for profit, but sometimes they cannot secure the ASIC chips in the needed quantities in time or at the right price to make it worthwhile. I guess it depends on the morals of the owners. If the owners refuse to sell additional mining contracts until they can secure the hardware to backup the contracts then this would not happen. If the owners are good at what they do then they would be able to secure enough hardware at a fast enough pace so that they will never need to turn off sales. The fact that they can show some equipment and have a better reputation allows them to charge more so securing miners is important for bolstering their reputation too. I guess this is true, however it does not take much to "show" equipment, as they could pretty easily fake pictures of "their" equipment and/or make what little equipment they have look like a lot more. I wouldn't really consider this "fractional reserve" mining but rather the company investing a little bit of money in order to make themselves look legit when they are really not. Smaller or new cloud mining companies are much more likely to be straight up ponzi schemes because they have to be to compete and because they cannot afford to buy chips in enough quantity in order to break even while paying out affiliates. The math just doesn't add up. I would say that most small/new cloud mining companies will turn out to be outright scams, but I generally agree with your premise. Established/larger mining companies have to have some hashing because they have more employees as well, thus need to account for some miners otherwise it will quickly leak out.
This is not necessarily true. They could have a lot of shillls who are controlled by a small group of people who are all in on a potential scam/ponzi |
|
|
|
I didn't check out the story or trial at all, but... Standard law in America, if a defendant wants to invoke it is... 1. You have the right to face your accuser, not his lawyer... 2. There has to be an injured party... 3. There has to be a witness or very strong evidence that it was you who injured the one injured. Were these present at the trial? Probably. But maybe not. Who accused him? If it was only the State/Federal, there was no damaged party accusing him. If he were smart enough to apply law the way it could be applied, he just might get out on mistrial. But, like I said at first, I haven't followed it at all.  This is true for civil cases, but not necessarily for criminal cases. The vast majority of criminal cases involves something that is so "bad" that society as a whole suffers, so "society" is the victim. As a result "the state" will prosecute criminal cases on behalf of "the people". By your logic it would be impossible to prosecute any murder cases as the victim would be the person you killed, but it is not possible to face a dead person. You have the right to face anyone who testifies against you and to question them (usually via your lawyer) |
|
|
|
My best advice for new users regarding cloud mining is to be very careful. Most, if not all, of these cloud mining sites are either scams or money losers.
Keep these in mind if you are considering cloud mining:
1. A cloud mining site is a prime opportunity for a Ponzi scheme. Customers pay a bunch of money up front and don't expect a profit for several months.
2. "Instant mining" sites don't make sense because the operator makes more money if they don't sell their hashing power to you.
3. The rising difficulty means your hash power will earn less and less over time.
4. Maintenance fees are usually more expensive than they seem. The maintenance fee could exceed your mining revenue in just a few months.
5. Cloud mining contracts that start in the future must be valued using the future difficulty, and not the current difficulty.
I would disagree on item 2. If you have peta-hashes of mining hardware, selling stock shares instead of selling hardware can make a good sense under certain circumstances. In order for number 2 to be invalid the cloud mining company would need to sell the mining contract at a price that is positive NPV for the cloud mining company. One thing that factors into something's NPV is the discount rate, which may be different for the customer and the company, so something can be positive NPV for both the customer and the company (at least in theory) |
|
|
|
|
@inBitweTrust - Yes I very much understand 1 and 3 as they are either a ponzi or they are not one. But I don't understand why any cloud mining company would ever want to go the route of #2. I guess it would be to give themselves credibility when ASIC companies say they have received a large order from them, but I would think the initial payments would give them more credibility.
|
|
|
|
You will need the raw unsigned transaction
Unsigned? That would be useless, wouldn't it? LOL oops. I fixed it. (a little tipsy) It would be useless if you were to attempt to push it to the network as any block that were to include such a transaction would not be a valid block. It would be useful to someone that is trying to spend funds in cold storage and is transferring the unsigned transaction to their cold storage computer/device to sign (although this is not what the OP is trying to do) |
|
|
|
kraken is one of best exchanges these days imo
kraken is not bad - but they don't have the volume. they will have the volume soon, everyone from gox will be opening an account to get paid this shouldput them right up there with bitstamp and finex. They are not paying out any funds to former gox customers. They are using their expertise to attempt to track down the missing bitcoin. Their participation in the gox case should not affect their normal operations |
|
|
|
Forum rules: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=703657.0According to forum rules, staff do not remove what appear to be scams, but that doesn't stop us from being able to say THIS IS LIKELY A SCAM. Hit up their trust ratings accordingly if you believe so. Yes. The obvious scam is obvious. Although it would be really nice if some of the mining manufacturers actually were able to offer black friday discounts, they realistically will not do so. They do not have the same pressure to need to have a high level of sales between thanksgiving and christmas that most retailers have |
|
|
|
You will need the raw signed transaction https://www.f2pool.com/pushtxThey say that any TX submitted will be given priority and will be confirmed in their next block, however I am not sure how true this is. |
|
|
|
|
When I look at it on blockchain.info, it looks like ~1.24 btc are transferred to the address, then the same amount leaves the address.
Some block explorers will attempt to display the estimated amount of bitcoin actually transferred from multiple addresses (eg the sum of the inputs minus the output that it thinks is the change address) and this amount will be displayed on every address that is sending bitcoin for that transaction
|
|
|
|
In the end, are they still paying out their customers? GAWminers looked sketchy initially, but they have been here for a long time now and are paying out regularly.
The same thing is said with all ponzi operations until they can no longer sustain themselves. Fractional reserve mining by design can go on quite a while as long as a certain level of growth is sustained. One or a few months of slowdown and it can all come crashing to an end. The red flags and investigations are meant to mitigate this from happening or more people from being hurt. I wish more questions were raised with Mtgox when they were still paying out their customers withdrawls. What exactly do you mean by fractional reserve mining? Do you mean to imply that they sell 3 TH/s for every 1 TH/s of mining equipment they actually own? If this was the case then what would the point of this be? I would think they would either have mining equipment that backs up all of their mining contracts sold or have no mining equipment at all; I think having only a fraction of mining equipment to backup the mining contracts would make very little sense and your claim that this is what they are doing only degrades your credibility |
|
|
|
To the hacker:
I do have your login IP address and .edu email domain from a European country with Google.
I will be investigating this to the fullest extent allowable by law. Please contact me if you don't want this.
Next step is to contact the authorities in Luxembourg and subpoena the records of the ISP. That is enough money to pursue and you already have at least one lead so If I were the hacker I would try and negotiate a deal soon. I would say that the hacker almost certainly used some kind of VPN or socks5 proxy to connect to the OP's blockchain wallet and the email account was likely hacked or compromised. Unfortunately these are generally common elements that many bitcoin related thefts have |
|
|
|
I received my payment (TXID 3ff075ae09e5c4e1b28ebe343a3ba6b6ced1251c1ca00ac77e8954396d4dda55) I would like to continue. My post count is now 292. Address is 137aCt2W2zrshykW1MCxtkfYbK8c8HnLoo Thanks Also thank you for sending payouts on thanksgiving (if you are in the US) |
|
|
|
I am now a Senior member and my payout is due in a week (on 11/27/14). Can you please update my status to show that I am not a senior member? |
|
|
|
This just shows that digitized currency is definitely where the market is headed. It is getting easier and easier to send money and as people find out what bitcoin has to offer and that they can do the same thing with it as with snapcash then thats when they will begin switching over to bitcoin.
I agree that things like snapcash and apple pay will likely get people to be much more comfortable with mobile payments which could potentially lead to greater consumer adoption for bitcoin if the ways consumers can use it would increase. |
|
|
|
They would only find decoys unless they knew exactly how many layers deep the cold storage bitcoins are buried. Then they need to know how deep the n factor authentication is buried. Then they need to know what countries and have the authority to find where the multisignature and SSS keys are hidden. Your street thug will need "a particular set of skills" to pull that off.
Do you not read the part about "kidnap and torture"?We're not talking about hackers here(and even they use social engineering to do so if they could). No ,they only need to know who the person who that holds that bitcoin and torture them to hand their key. If they couldn't/refuse to cooperate ,well too bad ,you're dead.S/he need not be a technical expert to do this , the depravity and willingness to inflict pain and fear are the only "a particular set of skills" necessary.The simplest way break a unbreakable safe is always to get it from someone who knows the key. No, you don't understand Bitcoin at all. Sure they can kill you, so what? They get nothing. And guess what, there are also ways to hide the information necessary for heirs to receive the bitcoins in the event of your death at a future date. I won't even get into the ways bitcoins can be used for anonymous vigilantism in the event of a death by foul play. I think the greater threat is the threat of death. IMO most people are not going to want to die in order to protect their bitcoin/money. Although it would be possible for someone to only give information that would allow an attacker to access a portion of their bitcoin, an attacker could potentially forcibly administer any number of drugs that makes people more willing to give up information and makes it more difficult for them to hide information |
|
|
|
That's not evidence, that's assertions, I take it the people claiming they have evidence he was assaulted was from the police right? Evidence is indisputable and so far the only thing everyone is certain of is that shots were fired and both the police officer and the guy was in the same place where it happened.
I would argue that evidence is not always going to be nu-disputable. In almost every crime, there is evidence that shows a person committed the crime and evidence that a person is innocent. If no evidence could ever be disputed then it would be impossible for a person to both be guilty and innocent at the same time. I would agree that the evidence in this case is not rock solid however I would also say that the onlookers probably lied about what they saw as their relationship with the police is not good. There is also physical evidence (that is backed by science) that backs up the police officer's version of what happened |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
