Quote: "Economically speaking, eating it is indeed a drain. Medically speaking, the drain is necessary. Production has the potential to create wealth, but consumption always destroys it."
Feeding it to a living being is a capital investment, investing in living-being capital.
Not all investments are productive. Also, we've now stepped up a meta level. |
|
|
|
A major government already controls 100% (and more!) of the world's primary reserve currency. Lose any sleep over that recently?
yes, but the current structure has served me well. I work hard, pay my taxes, and expanding my family. The current system provides much maturity and predictability. The current system doesn't provide a reasonable possibility of some unknown entity with no transparency holding 20% of the market. btc has documented prof of almost 20% of the early generated btc being held by a hidden entity (Satoshi or whatever it is) This mandates this currency to an amount of unpredictability that many people will not buy into. People may ask for a schism of the block over this. I can't think of a better definition of the US Congress than "some unknown entity with no transparency". At least the holder of 20% of the early bitcoins can only spend them once. Congress has been inflating away 20% of our currency every few years. I wish the dollar was unpredictable. Always going down is very easy to predict. However, it isn't desirable or useful. |
|
|
|
The problem (or possible risk) is that this can't be proven. If I'm going to invest in this currency I need to know there is some security (read predictability) with 20% of the total value. Let's say that the original group is composed of two dorky guys out of Seattle, and if some major govt. gets to them (which they will if this is ultimately successful) what could happen with 20% of the total btc economy? There are many other scenarios to think of with one secret entity having 20% of the economy.
Think of it. If btc becomes something large there is a anonymous, hidden, secret group that controls 20% of it. That does not play out well with large organizations trying to gauge risk <-- which will be one of the biggest foundations to grow btc.
A major government already controls 100% (and more!) of the world's primary reserve currency. Lose any sleep over that recently? |
|
|
|
|
If you change any single bit of the input to a modern cryptographic hash, nearly 50% of the output bits (on average) will change. This is by design, and also the hashing systems that lack this property are in the trash bin of history.
If a reverse attack on SHA is found, we can switch to a new hash. If a general reverse attack is found, all of cryptography is screwed.
I wouldn't worry about it.
|
|
|
|
Economically speaking, eating it is indeed a drain. Medically speaking, the drain is necessary. Production has the potential to create wealth, but consumption always destroys it.
Now you are moving the goalposts. You said "economic health" before, now you are saying "wealth." Sure, eating a burrito consumes wealth, in a sense (though it depends how you value a nourished person relative to a hungry one), but that's different from "economic health." Producing and consuming burritos are certainly useful economic activities and if they are occurring with any regularity that is a sign of a healthy economy (in fact more healthy than producing burritos when no one is consuming them), even though taken together they have no net effect on wealth as you define it. Not me, someone else. I consider the phrase "economic health" to be hopelessly vague. If you ask 10 economists what it means, you'll get a dozen answers. |
|
|
|
While spending money may increase GDP (as GDP measures... spending), doing so for the purpose of consumption is a net drain on economic health, not a benefit. A poor person buying a burrito is not helping the economy - rather, he has consumed resources by so doing. When he is at work, producing, then he is benefiting the economy.
This is basically nonsense. When someone buys a burrito it means someone else is producing a burrito. It's the combination of both that is useful economic activity. If you produce burritos and no one eats them, it doesn't contribute to the economy in a meaningful way. If you were going to account for it at the time of production, then when it goes bad and throw it away, you would have to account for that destruction by subtracting, so you get the exact same overall result as you do when measuring at the time of purchase. You are so close, but... Buying a burrito in no way means someone else producing a burrito in the present or the future. It means someone produced one in the past. The burrito made in the past is an investment of capital, a risk. Whether that risk pays off (will be useful) or not is not known at the time of production, but only after the risk has been taken and the cost sunk. Economically speaking, eating it is indeed a drain. Medically speaking, the drain is necessary. Production has the potential to create wealth, but consumption always destroys it. |
|
|
|
What gets hashed?The block is not random. It has useful information in it, that changes often. Every node starts over from scratch quite often.
|
|
|
|
With some truly enormous (1/3 of the network and growing) pools running and the incentive of very real money to be mad is it that far-fetched to think that pools could become aggressive/defensive?
The operator or some member could distribute a "installer" which would perform these actions automatically. I expect most people wouldn't care if it benefits their bottom line and others could rationalize it under the guise of a defensive measure.
Also, these interference nodes wouldn't have to be big time hashers. A botnet could be put to use for the simple purpose of diluting the number of useful broadcast recipients or triangulating on DDoS targets rather than hashing directly as is more often suggested.
You are confusing mining clients with network nodes. |
|
|
|
I'm sorry wha, they carry the country in productive output? As in the 5% of people you claim are paying all the taxes are also producing everything? As in they themselves are producing it? Or they are the ones with the capital to finance paying other people to produce the machinery and create the infrastructure that will then be used by the rest of the country to produce things? Pretty fine distinction between the two.
Are you saying that we would be better off without that accumulated capital? Or just that we should take it away from those that produced and saved it? |
|
|
|
Let me say it one last time: NOT EVERYONE IS LIKE YOU.
TRUE. but count mumbers: 6 000 000 000 Earth citizen minus 10 000 bitcoin society members ARE LIKE ME, 'average Joe'. The rest 10 000 bitcoin society members spread world-wide, ARE LIKE YOU. WHY do you RAGE just because I advice to increase number of miners in the game from 10 000 to 1 000 000? you CAN normalize mining profit to be VERY small, BUT roughly CONSTANT in time interval FEW years, or half a year, to allow 1 000 000 members to join the bitcoin society. BUT you does close the society. I know WHY. Heh. I've got like 4 BTC to my name, and I earn about another 0.5 per day mining (for now). I missed the goldrush too, but I'm not all butthurt about it like you are. |
|
|
|
I'm familiar with how difficulty has increased over time, thanks (I generated my first block on a 4-core CPU over 5 days, when difficulty was something like 8000). I'm looking for a quick summary explaining where this "10,000 frozen" concept comes from: if the price of that knowledge is having to read the entire thread then I'll pass.
In current (too small) bitcoin society, number of miners roughly equal to number of acceptors, the persons who buy & sell for bitcoin & do BTC/$ exchange. It is a *psychological* law for the small society, number of miners ~ number of adopters, because bitcoin's UFO-like nature for 'average Joe'. This f*cking thread has gone on and on because you can't imagine yourself using bitcoins unless you get free coins from mining, and then you project your own personal failings onto the rest of the world. Let me say it one last time: NOT EVERYONE IS LIKE YOU. |
|
|
|
Myth. The exchange value will be determined by the people willing to buy and sell bitcoins, and mostly affected by the volume of commerce done in bitcoins.
That's even worse. Now we won't even be tied to the electricity anchor at all. The price will be ridiculously volatile with no limits whatsoever. It will be a speculator's heaven and a spender's nightmare. You're forgetting that eventually mining rewards will consist in transaction fees.
Not quite. Transaction fees are not a reliable estimate for the coin's price because they cost nothing. Does it cost you anything to fire up Bitcoin.exe and join the network? No? Me neither. Snip. It goes on and on and on like this for a while. Dude, pretty much every one of your points is founded on the wildly incorrect premise that some other currency is fixed and stable in some way. No currency in use today has this "anchor" that you seem to think is so important. |
|
|
|
To spare me having to wade through this entire thread (I've been reading it piecemeal since it started, so I've probably missed a lot of it) could someone explain this "10,000 frozen" idea?
I recommend you read pedantically the whole thread. I hope still, I am wrong for a miracle, and bitcoin society will survive. Don't worry about time spent in reading: just observe how difficulty increases in time @ http://bitcoincharts.com/markets/I'm familiar with how difficulty has increased over time, thanks (I generated my first block on a 4-core CPU over 5 days, when difficulty was something like 8000). I'm looking for a quick summary explaining where this "10,000 frozen" concept comes from: if the price of that knowledge is having to read the entire thread then I'll pass. I'll save you the pain. This guy equates mining = bitcoin in his head. The notion that people might use it without mining is alien to him. About a dozen people have tried to set him right, but we've all failed. Because he missed the goldrush and is unable to mine profitably, no one will ever use bitcoin ever again, and the 10,000 users that got in early are all that there will ever be. |
|
|
|
|
It doesn't by itself.
The heatsink is built for a certain amount of total heat from the GPU and memory combined. Reducing the memory speed means less heat from that part, which means more heat removing capacity available for the GPU, which means you can bump the GPU speed up another little bit.
|
|
|
|
|
The payout lock warning doesn't actually go away when I click the link to hide it.
|
|
|
|
|
Is there a trick to getting debugging output from the database operations?
I'm not getting anything in the shares table, and I can't figure out why. I made the table with the fields in the default statement, but still get nothing.
It looks like applog() should be writing the mysql error somewhere, but I can't find it in any logs or on the console (STDERR/STDOUT).
|
|
|
|
|
And the reward, so far, is negligible.
Seriously guys, stop feeding the trolls. 5 pages of this nonsense is enough. Everything has been said, and he's ignored it all.
|
|
|
|
|
Is it really that hard to make a spreadsheet to calculate hashing power per dollar?
|
|
|
|
|
Your node needs to process the entire block chain before you can generate. It'll take a while. The current block number is north of 126,000.
|
|
|
|
|
I just read this whole thread again, and I still can't understand your point, apart from missing out on the goldrush.
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
