As D&T and BadBear said, this is not personal, this is business.
Not if it's a botnet, I take that quite personal. If criminals got >51%, then we have to answer to them in our bitcoin enterprise. And even if someone added a proof-of-stake (so hard for me not to write steak, hmmmm steak) algorithm, this would just slow them down but not eliminate the problem. Then you can run your BIPs past your new bosses, and I do mind if they are criminals. That's way different from having them just make some money on honest miners' backs. Yes, we don't know for sure yet if that's indeed a botnet, so we can't sentence the mystery miner yet, but otoh using that argument to disregard this possibility and not discuss possible courses of action would also be wrong. Maybe business, but this thread raises questions that are not business as usual. |
|
|
|
You realize that this is the newbie board right? I reserve the right to act like an idiot.
 You just brightened up my day right now, seriously. Yes, you totally have the full right to ask your question here. Absolutely right. I should have taken a look at the top of the page and notice the board. I'll go and get a cup of coffee now, seems I need it. John's right too, it could be worse... |
|
|
|
The only thing that will push the value of BTC up is if
a real economy grows around it.
So true. I keep reiterating this, but the Speculation subforum isn't the place for that. Speculation may seem to keep it "afloat" right now as bulanula stated previously, but it will not keep it alive in the long run. An associated economy is needed to give value to a currency. While people have already used bitcoins for purchases, the way it is treated now as cryptographic gold, if you want to use it merely as a means of exchange without holding it for longer periods isn't much profitable right now. I hope this will change over time. Matthew got a load of that when he tried to get a BTC loan for an apartment https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=69272.0 and he's certainly not the only one, especially if you are selling stuff for BTC. Buying is certainly easier, people generally want to get their hands on BTC, but much of that revenue is going to be held, not spent, which is not good as a currency (it makes it more of a commodity). As a currency it needs to circulate, when I spend BTC, I need to get some back in future sales, otherwise it's not a great currency. If I can only mine it back that will not futureproof it (we know that block rewards will drop). And for transaction fees to be viable for miners there need to be transactions. So if speculation would be the only profitable means to get your hands on BTC in the future, it will not get popular in mainstreet to buy a cup of coffee. |
|
|
|
I assume this is a special processing unit built for Bitcoin mining? You just plug it into a USB port and you are good to go?
 I suggest you do some more reading before posting. Maybe newbies jail should be extended from 5 to 10 posts... Actually, he is quite correct. It is a FPGA(google that term), built specifically for SHA256-hashing, or Bitcoin mining in this case. Of course he's "quite correct". Are we in the mode of stating the obvious now?! That's _much_ more annoying than simply stating "subscribe". |
|
|
|
I assume this is a special processing unit built for Bitcoin mining? You just plug it into a USB port and you are good to go?
I suggest you do some more reading before posting. Maybe newbies jail should be extended from 5 to 10 posts... |
|
|
|
I was thinking about this last night and I was wondering, what would happen if we added another stricter block-validity rule that says if more than half of blocks of all the blocks created within a day are created by 1 IP, the IP get's ignored by the rest for the next 24h?
So? All someone mining more than 50% needs to do then is implement two IP addresses, certainly less difficult for the miner than the validation through the network. I see no benefit in that idea. |
|
|
|
If this guy reaches over 50% then we are all royally screwed. BTC is inherently insecure and somebody really needs to fix the 51% issue.
"It will not happen" is not a technological fix and just a lame ass excuse to avoid working on improving the blockchain POW system we currently have.
Nobody is perfect, not even Satoshi or BTC ...
I agree, if this catches on and he or a collective of botnets reaches >51% we'll be reporting to criminals re "improvements" to the bitcoin protocol. As for 51% attack, as bitcoin grows it becomes even harder and harder to pull of, eventually being near impossible to pull of. Before that point is met, it's just expected that some people might come close to that. But as BTC value drives up, so does miner rewards and that much harder it becomes!
This is the typical and IMO arrogant excuse that's been repeated like a dogma over and over. Close our eyes, have faith in Satoshi's bible and all will be well. Oh well... |
|
|
|
|
Just seeing that 88.6.216.9 is on several blacklists
bl.spameatingmonkey.net
cblplus.anti-spam.org.cn
pbl.spamhaus.org
spam.dnsbl.sorbs.net
The whole botnet seems not farfetched.
|
|
|
|
|
I was already wondering when this would come up.
1650W max @ 110V, otherwise I can't place it anywhere.
|
|
|
|
You should add a thing to sha256 a text field. I liked having the list of emails be hashes.
I didn't like that, it becomes easier for a raffle operator to disguise his own fake entries (instead of showing forum user names, etc., which allows us to intuit that every ticket purchase in the list is legitimate). Not sure that clear text email entries help that much. One can easily create a series of different email addresses that really have the same owner. |
|
|
|
I'm going to hang myself if c267a549d21a37b371b8d4fa5b944d55bd5624dfcc735f4045031fd53a640bff didn't win
Congrats, man! Happy mining! |
|
|
|
So who has ticket 11131?
c267a549d21a37b371b8d4fa5b944d55bd5624dfcc735f4045031fd53a640bff Yeah, but that's salted! |
|
|
|
Not 40270 that has changed see the latest table
So where is the table, and who has the ticket numbers?  Check the lastest ver of the Google doc |
|
|
|
Hash 000000000000099e18b84b47fba8ee569f117c8545fa375f33381bb7514187e3
Last 10 hex digits: b7514187e3 In decimal: 787342264291 787342264291 % 40270 = 16881 Now who has that ticket number?! Not 40270 that has changed see the latest table |
|
|
|
|
mod(hex2dec('0b7514187e3'),40620)=11131
Note: added a leading 0 to avoid my calculator creating a negative number.
|
|
|
|
|
Me thinks entree in line #11936 in the salted hash table won, no?
Checking... (it's just my phone and me...)
|
|
|
|
Holy shit, can this get any more complicated? Note to future self: don't do BTC raffles.
How so negative? I'd say Matthew is pioneering the way to Bitcoin raffles! From this initial pilot project we will develop a protocol for future raffles. |
|
|
|
|
So the total is now 40620 tickets then?
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
