Wait a month... it'll go to the moon, guaranteed  What the hell are people thinking of when they waste their BTCs in these shitcoins. |
|
|
|
What's hapen if a multipool mine at 271 for 1 block. then stop mining the next one who go to 350. Then mine the next who down to 272 ?
Its possible that ? or DGW prevent that ?
KGW/DGW are slightly irrelevant in the multipool issue as multipools shift between scrypt clones rather than x11 algorithm coins. |
|
|
|
Spain, the country were they increase taxes to the food, and decrease to luxury stuff (or if you go to a restaurant). The country were our politicians "work" 5 years and after they get a salary for the life, after being politicians they move to an electricity company and they make rules to have a price in electricity 3 times higher than in the rest of europe (after they don't know why the industry is leaving the country)
Our minister is having powers to "forgive" without the need of giving a reason, so if someone is catch stealing millions, they all are safe.
An engineer earns 1300$ per month, needs to pay flats at 300.000$ (or rent for 900$), 28% taxes to salary (plus 5% but this they put in small letters), 21% to shopping, oil at 1.9$, bill of electricity of more than 80$ per month. Extra taxes as dustbin service 140$ per year, taxes of "having your own house" 300$ per year. Every day they talk about a new politician that was stealing millions and he will go free
A country were we pay to a king that killed his brother (something that for some reason they don't teach in our schools). A royal family than it is not enough that we pay for them that they need to steal too
Are you going to hold coins from a country like that?
Just invade us.
Or wait for after revolution.
don't worry dude, if you hadn't clearly stated "Spain" at the beginning, it could have well been Italy  Only difference, we no longer have a royal family, and the new government might be more active than the last batch of politicians... U Think Spain is bad? Come to Portugal and you will see what is bad ! U think Portugal is bad? Come to Greece |
|
|
|
|
1. Fast transaction times / confirmation times
2. No bloated blockchain
3. Good client that does not leak ram or require enormous ram
4. Multiple algorithms that ensure that if one breaks, another can hold it together. Ideally the algorithms should be quantum computing resistant and not follow stuff like prime numbers which might have hidden patterns / order in chaos that might be predictable.
5. Optional privacy features that are NSA-proof and Artificial-Intelligence-Analysis proof, even from AI that will be created in the next 20-30 years, which will be able to detect patterns and assemble the "puzzle" that today might not be able to be assembled.
6. Network security that is NSA-proof
7. Scarce + valuable with a good mining curve that ensures network safety and miners
8. Low inflation
9. A way to make mining, more PC-centric rather than farm centric.
10. A way to resist NSA-takeover of the network if they ever desire to develop asics for "asic-proof" coins (bitcoin is paradoxically more secure due to asics being deployed to private parties)
11. Easier transactions and friendly client - one that your grandma can use, without being afraid that her coins will be stolen or that she'll lose some, but at the same time being safe.
12. An address-shortening service (?) like tiny url for large addresses
13. An added value network within the currency network that allows people to interact through messages or voice or camera, in an encrypted/secure way, by paying the miners.
14. An AI modular interface. Currencies, up to now, are mechanistic with if/then/else. A modular currency can allow the running of it by an AI "clerk" that will process all transactions all the while ensuring all other aspects of network operation. Currently the network operation is handled by strict and "dumb" algorithms. This could change in the future by having a "mr Data" type of AI running all transactions. That AI will be neutral, but smart, in that it will be able to mitigate DOS attacks, prioritize payments, services, updates etc, protect the network from forks by sending the appropriate notifications or taking the right measures, protect the network from malicious 51% attacks and double spending - no matter the level of collusion present, make adequate adjustments in order to completely anonymize transactions or to randomize/induce chaos for preventing pattern recognition, optimize bandwidth usage or blockchain stuff, or other encrypted services running over the same network etc. It could even detect patterns of controlled nodes by one part who seeks to understand the anonymous network by controlling as many nodes as possible. To these type of nodes, the AI could send them garbage as "noise" in order to counter-them / mislead them...
* In my opinion, the next best solution to the Byzantine General problem that also eliminates the 51% threat, could be an AI solution, where a neutral "robot" (program in actuality) will be a metalayer of transaction approval - denying 51% double spending exploits. Being neutral the AI will allow everything except those things that jeopardize a coin's integrity, the network safety etc etc. We are talking about metahuman levels of intelligence here that could be possible in, say, 15-20 years.
|
|
|
|
|
1. Modern Greek:
ΔΕΝ ΠΡΟΣΚΥΝΟΥΜΕ ΚΑΝΕΝΑΝ ΑΝΘΡΩΠΟ (We bow to no man - all caps)
Δεν προσκυνούμε κανέναν άνθρωπο (same but only first letter cap)
Δεν Προσκυνούμε Κανέναν Άνθρωπο (every word has first letter capitalization)
2. Ancient Greek (ancient greeks did not have lowercase letters):
ΟΥΚ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΠΡΕΠΟΝ ΤΟΙΣ ΕΛΛΗΣΙ ΠΡΟΣΚΥΝΕΕΙ => (it is not right for Greeks to bow, but this is too nation specific)
and another version, which is actually in Herodotus history / ancient manuscripts, and is taken from the Spartan messengers who went to Xerxes and they were asked to kneel:
ΟΥΤΕ ΓΑΡ ΣΦΙ ΕΝ ΝΟΜΩ ΕΙΝΑΙ ΑΝΘΡΩΠΟΝ ΠΡΟΣΚΥΝΕΕΙΝ ΟΥΤΕ ΚΑΤΑ ΤΑΥΤΑ ΗΚΕΙΝ (It is neither written in our law to bow/kneel to other humans, nor did we came for that)
3. A mixed modern/ancient hybrid which was actually used for a couple of centuries: ΕΙΣ ΟΥΔΕΝΑ ΥΠΟΚΛΙΝΟΜΕΘΑ (we bow to no-one) which is condensed in only 3 words (as the spartan phrases were compressed also) and should be fairly understood by ancient and modern-greek knowers.
I'd use the last one: "ΕΙΣ ΟΥΔΕΝΑ ΥΠΟΚΛΙΝΟΜΕΘΑ"
|
|
|
|
|
Since launch is closing in, maybe you want to fix the logo with the proper greek writing on it (?). Advice has been given in the first few pages, including modern and ancient versions.
|
|
|
|
Let's say an ASIC manufacturer decides to create an ASIC board with plenty of RAM so that n-factor is of no consequence if it is scaled upwards. He also ensures to have quite a lot of memory - at least double the memory that GPU carry for processing threads.
Then, the ASIC manufacturer enters the mining business and rapes the coin (to a smaller factor than SHA256 ASICs did, but still with a massive improvement over GPUs). How can this be mitigated? I mean if the coin adapts to much higher RAM demands then that will lock out the GPU users since GPU ram is pretty much fixed...
Am I missing something?
I'm bumping myself from 3 days ago, to see if anyone has an answer about this (?) 1. Please don't forget to consider the price with plenty of RAM 2. Please don't forget to consider that you are talking about ASIC which is fixed circuit Right now DDR3 is priced at ~10$/gb, which means that a 256gb RAM implementation would cost a mere 2.5k - and these are retail prices, probably its half or less for wholesale / manufacturer-to-manufacturer deals etc. If such an ASIC comes online and the coin adapts to higher factor, there would be a lack of GPUs able to cope with high memory demands because GPUs don't have that type of RAM. |
|
|
|
Let's say an ASIC manufacturer decides to create an ASIC board with plenty of RAM so that n-factor is of no consequence if it is scaled upwards. He also ensures to have quite a lot of memory - at least double the memory that GPU carry for processing threads.
Then, the ASIC manufacturer enters the mining business and rapes the coin (to a smaller factor than SHA256 ASICs did, but still with a massive improvement over GPUs). How can this be mitigated? I mean if the coin adapts to much higher RAM demands then that will lock out the GPU users since GPU ram is pretty much fixed...
Am I missing something?
I'm bumping myself from 3 days ago, to see if anyone has an answer about this (?) If an ASIC was created for the current N factor of 11, then it would be obsolete when the N factor raises to 12. Creating and fabing a custom ASIC chip has a startup cost of at least $500,000 and maybe closer to $1 million. Companies would have to repeat this process every 1.5 years when the N factor increases. Memory is not the only thing keeping the current scrypt ASICs from working on N factor 11. Discrete logic is also missing in those scrypt ASICs that make them unable to calculate VTC N scrypt algo. So, if I get it correctly, the best combo to mine Vert is FPGAs with plenty of ram? one of the reason why i am dumping all my coins now , price already 10x lower and see no reason why it will improve , even if let say no asic's scrypt are out what will happen then > vert and similar coin will get 200 ghash+ of mining power all wanting to dump their mined coin , price will go even lower and lower until it will be unprofitable to mine this coin (price/electricity)
If that hashrate hits VTC, an average miner would mine about 0.5 VTC/ day which I am sure he would not give up for only 0.001 BTC. Combine that among lots of people and the price will find an equilibrium somewhere a lot higher than now. The average joe making 0.5 vtc may not, but who knows about the "whale" miner who is there to simply rape the coin and cash out. |
|
|
|
Let's say an ASIC manufacturer decides to create an ASIC board with plenty of RAM so that n-factor is of no consequence if it is scaled upwards. He also ensures to have quite a lot of memory - at least double the memory that GPU carry for processing threads.
Then, the ASIC manufacturer enters the mining business and rapes the coin (to a smaller factor than SHA256 ASICs did, but still with a massive improvement over GPUs). How can this be mitigated? I mean if the coin adapts to much higher RAM demands then that will lock out the GPU users since GPU ram is pretty much fixed...
Am I missing something?
I'm bumping myself from 3 days ago, to see if anyone has an answer about this (?) |
|
|
|
Not sure what all you people are talking about with regards to profitability. I just did a calculation and for me it came out to ~0.017 BTC/day for DRK @ 8.8 MH/s vs. ~0.017 BTC/day for top scrypts @ 2.5 MH/s. This is at the current DRK price of 0.00125 and with free electricity (which I do have; if you don't then DRK wins by a wide margin).
Btw, it's even better for some cards (5xxx / 6xxx) that pull like 3.6-3.8x vs scrypt. |
|
|
|
...
The amount of "wealth" stored in bubble-like stocks is immense (tens of trillions). And it has a repeated history of being evaporated due to economic anomalies, black swan events, economic turmoil due to politic-economic situations etc... All that nervous money is going to just pour into Gox ... owait. I see it like that: If you are a billionaire and your net worth is fluctuating a couple hundred million USD per day in the stock market - which is subject to tremendous swings due to broader conditions (and can evaporate your "wealth" pretty easily) - why would you mind diversifying to gold, real estate, bitcoins etc. Even if 99% of the billionaires don't consider bitcoin as a hedge, there are some who will - and that's massive in itself. Does that mean you have to feed the scammers? Nope. |
|
|
|
I can sense CCMF coming on Crimea situation, sunday night. If tensions keeps increasing, we might go to the moon sooner than most expect..
I think the last thing on peoples minds in Crimea is buying bitcoins. I think the last thing on peoples minds in Crimea is buying bitcoins. (FTFY) Outside the small group of people that look at these forums, the statement holds true. One, or a few billionaires contemplating diversification away from stocks-that-can-crash-and-leave-them-with-10%-of-their-net-worth, is all that it takes for "CCMF". And we are not talking about transferring a billion USD here, much less is required for bitcoin to explode. The amount of "wealth" stored in bubble-like stocks is immense (tens of trillions). And it has a repeated history of being evaporated due to economic anomalies, black swan events, economic turmoil due to politic-economic situations etc. Crimea can quickly escalate to economic warfare. Russians are pulling billions from the western system and US treasuries are being dumped by the tens of billions. |
|
|
|
Coinmarketcap position #13 with non-mineable filtered out and #17 with them + Ripple included... nice  |
|
|
|
See the media spin there? How the heck did they generate a title like "nothing useful" from what the nasa scientist said about the generator of another scientist? NASA said LENR / cold fusion is a fact, it is repeatable, peer reviewed and needs further research / investigation. Whether Rossi's e-cat works or not has nothing to do with whether people will find uses of LENR/cold fusion, now, or in the future. Can you name few another scientists team who reproduced the same e-cat effect not in nasa's or Rossi's team? Cold fusion is not about Rossi or e-cat. NASA themselves say they repeatedly get LENR effect from other elements (that Rossi doesn't seem to be working with). Even better! Can you name few another scientists who reproduced any LENR effect? (of course not from nasa) Publications up to 2009. From page6: 2. Positive, peer-reviewed excess heat papers culled from both databases
It has been widely reported in the mass media that cold fusion was never replicated, and that
peer-reviewed papers on cold fusion have not been published. The primary claim made by
Fleischmann and Pons in 1989 was the production of excess heat without chemical changes. This
tally shows that the claim was replicated and reported in the peer-reviewed literature.
This tally includes positive, peer-reviewed papers describing excess heat experimental results
only. It does not include things such as: negative papers describing null results; papers describing
tritium or other effects but not heat; theory papers; or non-peer reviewed papers published by
national laboratories, corporations and in conference proceedings.
Papers reporting both excess heat and also tritium, neutrons and other effects are included in
this tally.
The titles are culled from both the Britz and LENR-CANR database.
Totals from this tally include:
153 papers
49 journals
348 authors and co-authors
62 principle authors
51 affiliations of principal authors
There are 62 principal authors (Table 2). Altogether they have 51 affiliations, because a few
authors come from the same laboratory, such as Kainthla and Lin, who were graduate students
with Bockris at Texas A&M U. In some cases, multiple laboratories in the same institution are
listed, such as Hokkaido U., Catalysis Res. Center and Hokkaido U., Engineering Dept.
Researchers from these two laboratories worked and published independently of one another.
The 51 affiliations are laboratories at universities, national laboratories and corporations.
However, researchers from many more than 51 institutions contributed to this set of papers. I
only tallied the first author’s affiliation, not those of coauthors. Many experiments are
collaborations between researchers from two or three laboratories. For example, Melvin Miles of
China Lake sent samples to be tested for helium to the University of Texas and the Bureau of
Mines. He also collaborated and co-authored papers with researchers at the NRL, the Nuclear
Safety Department of E.G.&G. and elsewhere.
As noted above, this tally is of peer-reviewed papers only. Many more papers have been
published in non-peer reviewed sources. Some of the positive papers in this non-reviewed
literature are, in my opinion, better researched and better written than that the average peer-
reviewed paper, especially speculative peer-reviewed papers. Noteworthy non-peer reviewed
5 6papers include Claytor et al. and the Miles and Johnson. They deserve to be published.
Therefore, these numbers are more of an indication of how much journal editors resist publishing
papers about cold fusion than a comprehensive tally.
|
|
|
|
See the media spin there? How the heck did they generate a title like "nothing useful" from what the nasa scientist said about the generator of another scientist? NASA said LENR / cold fusion is a fact, it is repeatable, peer reviewed and needs further research / investigation. Whether Rossi's e-cat works or not has nothing to do with whether people will find uses of LENR/cold fusion, now, or in the future. Can you name few another scientists team who reproduced the same e-cat effect not in nasa's or Rossi's team? Cold fusion is not about Rossi or e-cat. NASA themselves say they repeatedly get LENR effect from other elements (that Rossi doesn't seem to be working with). |
|
|
|
That is a lot of pages to read!
Would you advise to buy hold or sell now? I have fiat waiting, I can't decide if I should wait a bit, I bought some already and I may buy if it dives or start going up
I don't really like giving advice on what others should do with their money. On a personal level I think Bitcoin is worth far more than triple-digit USDs, but whether or not it'll realize, say, five or six digit numbers is highly dependent on whether people really understand its value or due to some psychological "brake" think: "wait... this is madness... bits costing XXX.XXX dollars?" Besides, everyone has their price at which they are willing to cash out. For some it was a few pizzas, for others it was $1 or $10, etc. And if it hits, say, 20k, even 1k might seem like a joke. |
|
|
|
All good news, no more Gox to stop us. Jet packs are full. Prepare to strap in, bears.
People should give no weight to "good" news to up the price because... yadda... Clearly you're new here. This is the speculation thread. We do not require any factual data to support our assessments. There has been good news: the price will go up. One need only wait long enough. I've been reading the last couple thousand pages from the sidelines thus I have a "moderate" understanding of how this particular "game" is "played", don't worry. I was just pointing out the power that people give to the news, usually unintentionally and without understanding the process. Even speculation needs "stimuli", and some will provide "stimuli" to those who have developed an addiction for it. Even reloading this page 100 times a day (as most will be familiar with) is a way to quench the thirst for the news/stimuli addiction. We need mooooaaar data to speculate, or decide on what/when to sell or buy... links, rumors and everything. It's the way it goes. And, well, it's exploitable. That's just the reality of it. |
|
|
|
All good news, no more Gox to stop us. Jet packs are full. Prepare to strap in, bears.
It would be a sound way to see it, however, the "news addiction" of daytraders is veeeery exploitable. People are waiting all day for news to buy or sell... now, imagine if you had the power to make the news (controlling the decisions that affect bitcoin, controlling the media etc). What bulls and bears? These would be your pets... you would have bears and bulls running any way you want by simply moving the magic wand that creates good or bad news - while you've positioned yourself earlier than them, because, well, you create the news. People should give no weight to "good" news to up the price because that implies that the media has also the power to drop the price by giving out "bad" news. People can choose to allow the media and the establishment to control the decisions and news, and thus the price, or they can start thinking of their own instead of waiting for trains and crashes, news, rumors, economopolitical decisions etc - which have been played before the traders get a glimpse. Stock markets are supposedly regulated regarding news announcements of stocks etc, so that shareholders are "protected". And still they get exploited all the time through insider trading by those calling the shots and having control and foreknowledge of events. Bitcoin "players" have no obligation to announce anything to anyone. They simply play the market as they see fit. Today some "good news", tomorrow some "bad news", and the traders will dance to the tune that some others are orchestrating... |
|
|
|
I get that, Pool owners want monney and so did not want to refuse some Power.
Users want better service and don't care. Even if you close the registration, the hash will not get away, it will remain the same for a while.
If you raise the fee when you go over 45% (for example), user will start to go away, and the pool owner will get more fees, it seems like a win-win solution.
If all the pools agree to do the same, public oppinion will not be hurted as soon as the fees will get back to normal when the Hash get out of the critical range.
Another method I've seen employed is to ddos the pool with 50% hashrate. Not a nice way of taking care of the problem . . but incredibly effective. I can understand that most pools that hit 45% and greater aren't looking to cause problems . . but it really makes the coin look weak. Coinmine is doing a very decent job as a pool and he's simply picking up the people that leave other pools because he's doing a better job. Should he be DDOSed for that? I think he was relatively cooperative, yet when the official pool went down for changes, the hashrate of coinmine exploded again (which is natural as he picked up a few extra gigahashes). Then the official pool didn't recover the hashrate after the server transfer and also had the orphan problem etc etc. So, naturally, people will opt for what works. A simple email or pm to an understanding pool owner will do the trick in most cases. I think, from what I've read in his public responses, that he understands the issue, but then again what can he do with the network spikes when a large pool goes down and people use him as a failover? Even if he aims for a 30% market, he can still find himself at >50% on a day where 2 other pools are DDOSed, or are down for whatever reason. We simply need more pools that have a decent hashrate to avoid variance penalties and are operated in a smooth way so that people can diversify their hashrate. P2Pools are good as a concept but I'm getting too many issues, rejects etc. The situation is getting better for sure, relative to one month ago, as there are now much more options to choose from. And it'll probably get better with time. That's cool, but I don't need to crucified for participating in a discussion about alternative ways to control a network . . apart from relying on hopes that everyone is an honest person and just sending them friendly messages will save everything. I wasn't saying that it should happen . . only that it's effective. There's been multiple times I've seen it used where the pool owner made no effort to circumvent the situation . . and everyone was better off for it. I'm not trying to say it's even the pool owner's fault for having the largest pool . . because here again I've seen coins where one of the worst to mediocre pools had 50% of the network. Bottom line: If your pool goes over 50%, you are a threat to the coin. No intention to crucify anyone here, I just object promoting DDOS as a solution. This is not how things should be done IMO. |
|
|
|
Guys,
I am here and try to fix the situation by closing new registrations but it just doesnt help a lot. As mentioned above - my pool seems to be just stable and thats why people are mining here - I will not close mining just because I have 50% of network.
Anyway I am working with lottermining pool op to fix the problem with incorrect shares and all users on my pools seems to be valid ones atm.
feeleep
I don't think people are asking you to close shop, just take some measures to reduce the percentage from 50 down to 30 or 40, like an increased fee as an incentive for some people to switch. It's not like you'll be losing money from that (increase from 1% to 2% = double money, 3% = triple money etc etc). When it's ok again, you reduce the fee. 50% is unfortunately a danger for the network, even if you have the best of intentions. I mean someone can hack your pool and then, through the 50%, do some "weird" things. This should be prevented as a possibility. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
