I just ordered my first BFL single  I'm excited by the other real world applications this might have, while I am a programmer and could learn to do my own FPGA algos, the BFL Single comes with some sort of monte carlo application. I'm hoping I could use this in my custom trading software. Anybody else think this could work? It would be awesome if I could still make use of this sucker if the difficulty skyrockets. Has anybody tried using monte carlo for forcasting? (This also might not be the right forum) I'm not sure that it actually comes with it, have you contacted them about the specifics? It would need a firmware other than the usual bitcoin mining firmware. |
|
|
|
If some entity did get control of 51% of the hash and took over the network maybe litecoin could replace bitcoin for a lot of people. Due to the fact LTC requires more memory so FPGA and ASIC would be a lot more expensive to build then everyone with a CPU running LTC.
FPGA, but not ASIC. Litecoin runs a version of Scrypt with the parameters tweaked so that an ASIC could easily blow all existing miners out of the water. If they would have kept the scrypt using the large amount of memory, it would have been better. |
|
|
|
I don't think you could maintain any such "illusion" for long. Such an event happening would remove any remaining faith in the system, besides all the extra coins dragging the market down to ~nil.
Why does the market price of Bitcoin matter? If anything a private company could control the flow of coins to reduce volatility increasing the utility to merchants and users. Because they are selling contracts to people (who would probably be cashing out), not running it themselves as a private enterprise. |
|
|
|
|
I don't think you could maintain any such "illusion" for long. Such an event happening would remove any remaining faith in the system, besides all the extra coins dragging the market down to ~nil.
|
|
|
|
You assume that the coins are hoarded, and not spent on the market. How long can the market sustain the sale of the coins generated from having 50%100% of the mining power continuously?
51% = 100%. No company would stop at 50%. It would be saying "I prefer half the revenue for the same amount of cost". It only equals 100% when you purposely do bad things with it, such as orphaning blocks by fiddling with your timestamps. If you were to become 100% by doing bad things with your hash power, why wouldn't the system collapse around itself? How would it stay up? |
|
|
|
|
You assume that the coins are hoarded, and not spent on the market. How long can the market sustain the sale of the coins generated from having 50% of the mining power continuously?
|
|
|
|
You guys are forgetting that this isn't the only game in town. Even if he was to set up and run --lets say-- 2 Thash/s of ASICs, that isn't a monopoly or even 50%. 51% is a monopoly. You simply exclude blocks by all other miners. Making a better miner is great. Trying to monopolize the network isn't so great. Say this does launch and they get up to 2TH/s (20% of the network). If profitable there is no reason not to expand so they grow to 25%, 30%, 35% of the network. At that point it becomes asinine to NOT just expand to 51% and instantly DOUBLE the profits of investors. Hypothetically say $1M buys you 20% of the network. $2M then buys you 40% of the network but $2.6M buys you 51% of the network = 100% of the network. A private entity having 20%+ of the network is something to be concerned about. If a company is in striking distance of spending a small amount more to instantly double profits (by excluding all other miners) it is naive to think they won't. That only gets you so far. You shit all over the network, take everyone's money, and then what? Bitcoin collapses, and you don't actually have that much to show for it, since there is no more money to wring out. That isn't a long-term investment strategy, that is just fucking retarded. |
|
|
|
|
Sweet. Now I wonder if there is some way I can make Firefox interpret that URI as a blockexplorer link. Hmm...
|
|
|
|
I think this needs to be done before he gets them operational, otherwise BTC is doomed and no algo change is possible thereafter without the ASIC miner denying the change.
There is no mechanism to either enforce or deny algorithm changes, so it really doesn't matter when you do it. Miners may use their political power, but not hashing power, in this case. I myself don't think that this will ever be needed, just wanted to point out the weakness of your argument there. So how would an algo change happen ? Start a new chain ? Vote with hashing power in blocks like now ? Gavin has the last word ? Thanks for letting me know, memvola ! Here's a suggestion, both you and Vladimir are in the UK, maybe you should pay him a visit IRL and perhaps learn a few things about being profitable. Bring your wallet too, no point missing a good investment. |
|
|
|
Cool, they mentioned a per-user limit at one point but that must have been lifted.
I even doubt that. They were really going for large scale purchases, at least that is what Ken has said over the phone. Maybe it was a limit on how many users could buy them half off, not at full price. |
|
|
|
Besides that, do you remember Largecoin? They have been selling like hotcakes, arbitrarily capped at 5 units per customer, to customers that obviously want more than just 5. 5 Largecoins is 100 Ghash/s, and so only 10 users with 5 units each is a whole terahash.
They are not capped. Cool, they mentioned a per-user limit at one point but that must have been lifted. |
|
|
|
|
You guys are forgetting that this isn't the only game in town. Even if he was to set up and run --lets say-- 2 Thash/s of ASICs, that isn't a monopoly or even 50%.
While it may be correct that GPU/CPU miners may be forced out of the market, I do not think that so many will be removed that the network rate drops to where he has 51%.
Besides that, do you remember Largecoin? They have been selling like hotcakes, arbitrarily capped at 5 units per customer, to customers that obviously want more than just 5. 5 Largecoins is 100 Ghash/s, and so only 10 users with 5 units each is a whole terahash. Not to mention the multiple orders for FPGA based devices, while admittedly being the worse for power consumption, are much better than GPUs and will remain so for the foreseeable future.
|
|
|
|
I'm not sure if this is the reason I can't connect, but some of my worker information seems on the site to differ from the information I started mining with.
I've tried the original configuration I have, and it doesn't work, I've tried the configuration from the site, it doesn't work.
Should I just try to make a new worker and see if that works?
Has the password randomly changed to abc1234 instead of abc123? That means your worker has been blocked, usually due to inefficiency. Probably should send an email to the pirate. |
|
|
|
it is not a 51% fear. its a 30% cheap mining power fear, will become a 70% cheap and impossible to have any competition with.
small miners will quit, if its not profitable for them.
i would be more comfortable with you selling mining hardware, and thereby distribute the cheap mining power.
One cannot stop progress. GPU and FPGA's are already doomed. I am sure there will be plenty of ASIC gear on the market given time, with or without us. What needs to happen ( I think ) is we switch the algorithm as soon as the guy has paid millions for his ASICs. I think this needs to be done before he gets them operational, otherwise BTC is doomed and no algo change is possible thereafter without the ASIC miner denying the change. GPUs will be able to adapt. FPGA should be able to adapt to new algo. The only one that is screwed is the ASIC guy. If this ASIC mambo jumbo goes forward then I think BTC is as "good" as PayPal or the Bank of England. The community now has to ask itself this : "Do we really want a company effectively owning Bitcoin ?" Good luck Vladimir but I don't like where this is going and I bet I am not the only one. This centralized mining is far away from what Satoshi envisioned ( everybody with a CPU can mine ); GPUs are fine and so are FPGA but ASIC which only a millionaire can develop is too far. GPUs pushing out CPU miners is fine, FPGA pushing out GPU miners is fine, but ASIC is where we're supposed to draw a line? I know right? He is just scared for his bottom line, and his soon-to-become useless GPUs  |
|
|
|
Nice. I bet "crate breaking" will become the next "wow gold farming". |
|
|
|
stop talking like we compete, ive been earning from amazon legitimately for many many years, you're a carder.
come back with your $20k of carded certificates, im sure you will sell them, people are ignorant sometimes.
I am unfamiliar with the term "carder", or "carded certificate". Could someone please explain what these are? This means that they were purchased with a stolen credit card. |
|
|
|
The blanked Bitcoin address is 1jyAQDoog4F4UFDt8nQCc2bTDGKcWydXdPeople, you can't expect to protect your addresses if you talk about the amount of BTC that was involved in the transaction, and/or if you give the time of the transaction. Remember that the blockchain is public... You didn't notice the little QR code thingy...? What a lot of work to reverse engineer the address from the date and the amount.  |
|
|
|
Mt Gox could have prevented this totally by simply sending a message to each user via email AND a message upon login. These aren't particularly difficult things to do.
Why should I have to go and read through forums before I do what's always worked without any issues?
We never ask you / force you to read this forum, but at least we expect you to read official channels like 1. Our Press Release on our Home Page 2. Mt.Gox support Page 3. Logging to account and Deposit page (in your case)and if this not enough for you we still have : 4. Mt.Gox Twitter & Facebook Account. Now my question to you, how did you send the fund to HSBC when this option was removed (20 days prior to your wire) from our Deposit option... How did you then add access to these information?Still not enough - they're all passive. Do something ACTIVE. Do I smell some backpedaling on the part of Mr. Greynick? |
|
|
|
This BIP does call for more complex code (but not impossible) for the rewards to be handled as proposed. I've tried to stay away from the details of code implementation in the BIP because it just opens another can of worms for everyone to argue over which seems pointless until it reaches mass consensus.
However, since you bring it up... do you have an idea how hard it would be for the average developer to come up with an implementation like this? Just curious.
My opinion, is it would only take a few days, but could get take longer if there's a difference of opinion between developers (i.e. BIP16 vs. BIP 17).
Even though I'm no programming guru, I know that the terms what and how are generally interchangeable when coding. If you want to figure out how to do something, you need to be very precise about what you want to do. It seems almost dishonest to wait for broad consensus before revealing exactly what you want done. I've seen it happen IRL where a company marketing department wastes incredible amounts of money because they have more say about product development than the engineers do. +1, I wish more people recognized this problem. |
|
|
|
Nope with virtualization you can get beyond that by assigning gpus to individual VMs. Sunbreak had a working setup at one point so does I believe Luke-jr.  I had it running with 11 GPUS as well at but then decided to do a :tidier set up and ended up breaking it. So getting that working again will have to wait until dISh comes over to help me out as I'm kind of a linux idiot. It's a shame you are testing on such an unstable platform, but if you are able to test on a bigger board without the special expansion card, I would be interested in the results. So far, the expansion card seems to be causing most of the instability, am I right? I'm guessing you are using KVM and IOMMU? |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
