|
Is -rescan supported on the main branch?
|
|
|
|
I just tried explaining BTC to an old person IRL. They don't believe that anything that you can't hold in your hand has any value. The example of chinese people mining gold in WoW as a full time job didn't phase them.
Generally speaking, this is because people think that there is something backing the dollar, or whatever. |
|
|
|
|
Give a screenshot showing the blocks count in your client.
|
|
|
|
|
Silver has been on a wild roller coaster ride. Hasn't stopped APMEX or NWTMint from presenting and honoring the floating prices on their website.
|
|
|
|
He sent you off to search for argyle paint. I think his point was that it was impossible, not that you needed to try to split your hairs more finely.
I think that was his point, but it's clearly not impossible. There is a definable economic difference between saving and hoarding, as one other poster has acknowledged, and as even BitterTea appeared to acknowledge above at one point. It hinges on both the amount of assets accumulated (hoarding requires a significant amount of accumulation, saving does not) as well as the expectation of price increases (hoarding requires an expectation of significant price increases for the accumulated asset, saving does not). Except that you haven't removed the personal preference part. You've merely moved it from the individual to the group. |
|
|
|
Also, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Key_size. If this is even a quantum computer, and it may not be, it is about 1% of the size needed to reduce the strength of SHA256 by half. So, if it is indeed quantum, and they scale it up by 100, we'll have an urgent need to change to SHA512 in the decade immediately following. |
|
|
|
Bittertea, where did you go? I have answered every one of the criticisms you threw at my definition, so far I have defined hoarding, distinguished it from saving (and distinguished it from speculation, too, which was not even required), and done so in a way that is measurable outside of personal preference (using a generally accepted statistical test of significance for the amount of acquisition as well as the expectation of price increase). Do you have anything else to throw at it? If you don't want to pay, don't sweat, but at this point I am curious as to whether you concede or have some other angle to attack my definition.
He sent you off to search for argyle paint. I think his point was that it was impossible, not that you needed to try to split your hairs more finely. |
|
|
|
In a world where BTC is the dominant currency, what purpose would it serve for Visa or MasterCard to invent a new currency?
If they merely process transactions denominated in BTC, like they do now in USD, etc, we will have solved the quickness problem, and the rollback risk problem, and all without having invented yet another new currency.
I think you missed this part of my post: They could even use ordinary U.S. dollars instead of creating a new currency. And you missed the part where they could use BTC, and that using BTC would make the most sense, since the transactions would be denominated in BTC, and since BTC is the customary unit of currency in that scenario. |
|
|
|
I like how you move the goalposts. But really, you've already agreed with me.
I never said that we know nothing of the hash rate, over a long period of time. I said that we are not measuring the hash rate, and that our estimates of it aren't very accurate over short periods of time.
Kaji, you've evaded the clear points I raised about the nature of measurement only to continue asserting that what we have isn't one. Why should I even continue to discuss with you when you won't explain why you say that this isn't a measurement when e.g. using a scale (which is also not infinitely precise, and is subject to complicated biases and noise), taking a survey, or taking a census are all considered to be measurements. If you will say that there is no such thing as a measurement of a physical quantity then I will agree with you, given this definition of measurement, that we haven't made a measurement here. Otherwise, I fail to see what you're arguing— that the pool operators are liars when they said they went down— that the pool users were hallucinating when they saw their miners idle— that the rate didn't really go down and that the system was just really unlucky at the time of these lies and hallucinations?  There is an actual real number of hashes performed, and there is an actual real rate of them being performed over a given interval. These numbers are only known at the miner itself. They are not collected by the pools, they are not collated globally. If they were, we would have actual measurements. Instead, we have an interval, and the number of hashes that we expect it would take, on average, to perform the work demonstrated. Divide one by the other, and we have an estimate of the hash rate. This is only an estimate because, and this is key, the number of hashes it takes to make any given block is non-deterministic. You can't measure a single non-deterministic event, or even a small number of them, and call it a measurement. I guess if we can't agree on that, it is pointless to continue, but you should totally write a paper and claim your Nobel Prize, because a way to determine non-deterministic systems would probably be the biggest discovery since relativity. Maybe since ever. Or maybe you can only go so far as to say that SHA256 is predictable, in which case the world's cryptographers would love to hear what you have to say. By the way, I've never said that the pool operators were liars, nor that the pool users were hallucinating. I merely said, and I'll quote myself: No one has any idea where the error bars on the hash rate graphs should be. On the 1 day line, they will be astronomically huge (not to mention the 8 hour window, lol). Like several times the width of the plotted channel huge.
DO NOT MAKE ASSUMPTIONS BASED ON THOSE GRAPHS. They are estimates, not measurements.
|
|
|
|
Better example. You have a billion sided die, and you throw it and it comes up showing "1". Should I infer from that event that you had actually thrown the die 500 million times?
Nope, Kaji, that isn't a better example. A better example would be you roll a billion-sided die repeatedly and you measure how many rolls it takes between each occurrence of, say, a face <= 100 coming up. You can assign probabilities to how many expected rolls it takes on average between getting <= 100, and then if you get something way outside of that range, you can say that something very unexpected happened. But if it comes up more or less often than you'd predict, you don't then pretend that you've "measured" my rolling speed. |
|
|
|
Or maybe the shop owners could talk to Visa or MasterCard about acting as a third party to assume the risk of quick transactions, like they do now.
Then we would be back to centralized solutions requiring a trusted third party for the transactions. One of the good things with bitcoins is that no such third-party mediator is needed. There is room in the world of commerce for both. And there are inherent risks in all transactions that neither buyers nor sellers want, but can't be mitigated. Bitcoin was not created to destroy Visa and MasterCard. They, or their analogues will have a place in the bitcoin world. Yeah, true, there is room for many solutions. Maybe even companies like Visa and MasterCard could create solutions similar to the BitDollar currency I have proposed. They could even use ordinary U.S. dollars instead of creating a new currency. And then let people lock bitcoins in exchange of real dollars. In a world where BTC is the dominant currency, what purpose would it serve for Visa or MasterCard to invent a new currency? If they merely process transactions denominated in BTC, like they do now in USD, etc, we will have solved the quickness problem, and the rollback risk problem, and all without having invented yet another new currency. |
|
|
|
My wife said " but where does the money come from?"
the BitStork. +1 |
|
|
|
I like how you move the goalposts. But really, you've already agreed with me. I never said that we know nothing of the hash rate, over a long period of time. I said that we are not measuring the hash rate, and that our estimates of it aren't very accurate over short periods of time. Oh, and there were gaps with one in a thousand chances in the other direction (quick solutions) during that same timeframe too. http://blockexplorer.com/b/127594http://blockexplorer.com/b/127588And more. |
|
|
|
Or maybe the shop owners could talk to Visa or MasterCard about acting as a third party to assume the risk of quick transactions, like they do now.
Then we would be back to centralized solutions requiring a trusted third party for the transactions. One of the good things with bitcoins is that no such third-party mediator is needed. There is room in the world of commerce for both. And there are inherent risks in all transactions that neither buyers nor sellers want, but can't be mitigated. Bitcoin was not created to destroy Visa and MasterCard. They, or their analogues will have a place in the bitcoin world. |
|
|
|
So, if there are a lot of crypto experts out there, then why didn't they invent something similar to bitcoin? Let me answer: because most people are not entrepreneurs. Most people are afraid of making mistakes. Most people need to listed to 10 of their Facebook friends before they can have their 'own' opinion. Entrepreneurs do what is called pivoting instead of being afraid of making mistakes.
So none of the crypto experts are enterpreneurs, and you're an enterpreneur who isn't a crypto expert? Then why are you even talking about a new system when you can't put it together? So in other words the only thing preventing you from building your new system is that you have none of the knowledge required to implement it.  To be honest I think the system would be tricky to implement as a peer-to-peer network. Some clever crypto experts and software engineers may be able to do it, I don't know. To implement it as a centralized system would be very easy, but that's not as interesting as an open source P2P solution. I have read the Bitcoin paper but only briefly and have been too lazy to learn all the details.  Plus I don't know how to start an open source project. So it would take a long time for me just to start the project. Impressive. You propose a bitcoin-like currency that is centralized, and has magical properties that you have no idea how they would work? Good job. No, the centralized version kind of sucks. At the same time, a peer-to-peer solution may be too difficult to implement. The main point is that the problem with bitcoins changing in value all the time can be solved I think by treating the bitcoins as an asset to back up other currencies that are more stable, similar to how gold has been used in the past to back up currencies. Another problem that can be solved is the slow transactions bitcoins have. Several minutes! That's usually too slow for online transactions. It could be solved that way, if you want to make it far more complex than needed. Or shop owners could just take out futures, or sell instantly. Or maybe the shop owners could talk to Visa or MasterCard about acting as a third party to assume the risk of quick transactions, like they do now. |
|
|
|
I personally just point all my workers at whatever pool I happen to be with at the time - I manage them all remotely using logmein.
If you can possibly get the flex proxy set up, do it. It'll change your life. Even more so if we have another bad weekend like the last one. |
|
|
|
Looks good, an already optimized SHA256 ASIC, so how much does this fucking thing cost.. and would like to hear ArtForz's comments on this one...
Sadly, it is unlikely to be optimized for the way we use SHA256. Most commercial implementations assume you want to push a big stream through them and keep a running hash. We want to hash a tiny block twice, then start over with a slightly different tiny block. |
|
|
|
I hear you... it's just that this logic also sells pyramid schemes. What's the difference between me selling BTC versus a 32-dollar bottle of wongo juice whose intrinsic value is maybe 50 cents? (I live in Utah which has got to be the "wongo juice scam" capital of the world).
What is this intrinsic value you speak of? Perhaps that you can drink it... once all the marketing hype has been peeled off and the juice poured out of the fancy bottle, it's still perfectly drinkable fruit juice with similar nutritional and refreshment qualities as most any other juice, and valuable anywhere from 50 cents to $3 based on its temperature, freshness, and location relative to thirsty people. So, it gets intrinsic value because people want it? I don't think you are using the word intrinsic correctly. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
