Spike in mem pool activity over the past 4 hours
Doesn't sound good.
|
|
|
Mark my words, before too long banks will be offering to hold your bitcoin for you (securely of course) and transferring between fiat to btc, and back, with little to no fee as incentive.
I'll say it again. I would trust some of my btc to a traditional bank, as long as - The deposit is backed by (audited) crypto or undilutable bank stock (ordinary bonds would be OK too) - I get my interest (in btc). A reasonable 10% or something like that, depending on market conditions. These banks will find out that luring old school hodlers to part temporarily with their precioussss takes more than a flashy brochure.
|
|
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/80ow6w/im_bill_gates_cochair_of_the_bill_melinda_gates/dux49ll/The main feature of crypto currencies is their anonymity. I don't think this is a good thing. The Governments ability to find money laundering and tax evasion and terrorist funding is a good thing. Right now crypto currencies are used for buying fentanyl and other drugs so it is a rare technology that has caused deaths in a fairly direct way. I think the speculative wave around ICOs and crypto currencies is super risky for those who go long. Aahh... so THAT was the source. Thanks for straightening me out, BTCMILLIONAIRE. (Super-OT - Fentanyl is indeed a serious issue. If they just didn't bunch lethal opioids with mostly harmless stuff when writing laws or answering AMAs... but sorry I digress.)
|
|
|
Anyone know how to get cryptowatch to display the chart in log scale? Can't find the option
hover over this thingy (top centre right) and your dreams will come true ~ meanwhile Rabobank wants our bitcoins http://www.rabobit.nl/Store your cryptocurrencies in a wallet hosted by a trusted party and within the secure online banking environment. It could be interesting if there was a reasonable yearly interest. Like 10% backed by crypto reserves. Or by 2x undiluted stocks. Not gonna happen eh?
|
|
|
(...) Bill Gates said that the ease with which people can anonymously buy drugs is a major problem
I'd say it depends on the drugs one buys. And even if it's some "wrong" drug, getting it anonymously on the Internet sure beats looking for a fix in dodgy places.
|
|
|
Vastly offtopic - but more relevant than race talk. Bill Gates is the same guy who said "64 kB should be enough for anyone". Now he denies the quote is legit, but he sure acted like it, failing to endow DOS and the first Windows versions with proper memory addressing.
I almost didn't want to respond to this but... well... No. First, he never said that. Second, it was not 64k, but 640 Ki. Lastly, have you ever looked at the architecture of an 8088? It weren't no 6800. 1 MiB was the limit before resorting to silly paging techniques like those required on an 8051 or somesuch. Some area needed to be set aside for drivers, HW, and OS. High memory was chosen for that - less than half. Right, it's 640, I was off by a factor of 10. 8088... no, never touched one. But I do have a secondhand idea of how an 80x86 works - and I think 286 and 386 (full 32 bit addressing possible) were current at the time he is reported to have said that (late 80's/early '90s). Advanced users were forced to use memory extender add-ons. The memory model concept was an ugly kludge, even if the quote is a fake. Sure, in retrospect we probably would have done it different. But I'm guessing ol' Bill never dreamed that the crude CP/M boot loader and disk reader that he bought would form the foundation for the bulk of computing for decades to come.
By that time, he knew already. Hence his dream of conquering the world with the Microsoft Network.
|
|
|
http://uk.businessinsider.com/bill-gates-on-cryptocurrency-2018-2?r=US&IR=T Billionaire philanthropist and Microsoft co-founder Bill Gates said no technology has "caused deaths in a fairly direct way" to the extent that cryptocurrencies have. He said that the ease with which people can anonymously buy drugs is a major problem, and suggested that cryptocurrencies are used to launder money and fund terrorist organizations. Gates also added that "the speculative wave" around initial coin offerings and cryptocurrencies is "super risky." Bill Gates is the same guy who said "64 kB should be enough for anyone". Now he denies the quote is legit, but he sure acted like it, failing to endow DOS and the first Windows versions with proper memory addressing. Bill Gates is also the same guy who thought the Internet, anarchic network of networks as it used to be, would be a passing fad and everyone would just use the Microsoft Network.
|
|
|
Closer flirting with 11k. Bob's shovel must be a large one. Keep at it!
|
|
|
(snip)
Just waiting for roach to turn up talking about how it's all part of (((their))) plan
I have he or she on ignore and it's so much better not reading all the hate bollocks He or she? It's as likely to be a "she" as a Zionist.
|
|
|
If you run it on test net someone will run it on main net and then we have self manufactured fork crisis.
You just build some heavy machinery replay protection trick with each parameter change (or maybe just for the initial one), so the self manufactured crisis makers can fork themselves, or rather fork off, as they wish. Client nodes still know which chain is which. In other words: you build a loaded toy gun and show the world how it works. Then someone misguided recklessly takes it and makes into a real gun without client node consensus, so they end up in toy world. Mem pool organically rising. Bullish?
Not much of a jokerman diviner myself, but I'd say "likely, but not necessarily".
|
|
|
There must be some way outta here Said the joker to the thief There's too much confusion I can't get no relief That's a man of the mountains, he can walk on the clouds. A manipulator of crowds with the moon in his eyes.
|
|
|
After reading comments in this thread I have been persuaded there is a real risk that a POW change would just further the Bcash agenda and so isn’t worth the risk right now. Even “preparing” is risky.
For a threat to have the desired effect the subject must be convinced the threat is credible. Preparations are essential. Bgold showed it is easy enough. Yes, but actually testing some alternance between PoW methods (one of which is old SHA-2) with variable mix percentages/strategies would make the point that much clearer. Testnet only, at first. Just predispose the "combination strategy" and "combination factor (PoW#1)" ... "combination factor (PoW#n)" fields, and play with them a little. Then the (0, 1, ... , 0) position is exactly as today. Not to be disruptive, we'll try normalized(0, 1, 0.1, ... , 0) next - or (0, 0.97, 0.03, ... , 0), you know, just for the heck of it. Hm, and let's see what happens by combining them differently. Who's playing "bad guy" for this round of simulations? How many ASIC miners do you have? The parameters could be tweaked by hand at first, just to get a feel for it. Later on, they could auto-adjust depending on measurable blockchain/mempool metrics. I'll let your gaming fantasy get wild here. No need to freak out, gentlemen. The parameters on main net are still fixed at normalized(0, 1, 0, 0, ... , 0) = (0, 1, 0, 0, ... , 0). That's plain ol'corn for you. This is only a testnet game, of course. Nice though, eh? That would really make a point.
|
|
|
Twitter media aren't working well, no suitable MIME type and stuff. I found a link to the full talk on YouTube, but it's almost 1 hour long. Could you provide an approximate time or a YouTube link to the appropriate time? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ncPyMUfNyVMThank you
|
|
|
Twitter media aren't working well, no suitable MIME type and stuff. I found a link to the full talk on YouTube, but it's almost 1 hour long. Could you provide an approximate time or a YouTube link to the appropriate time?
|
|
|
Adam Smith was right. Stop trying to control things and everything works out. So there is only one shovel maker? That means their products are functional and their prices are reasonable. The moment either of those stop being the case, someone else will overtake them.
The invisible hand only works if there are no hidden hand-choppers, like unnaturally high entry barriers to the business or vast discrepancies in the price of energy. Alright, point them out. I'll point out just one: delayed access to leading edge mining hardware. A jus primae noctis of sorts, imposed by the lord to the commoners.
|
|
|
Adam Smith was right. Stop trying to control things and everything works out. So there is only one shovel maker? That means their products are functional and their prices are reasonable. The moment either of those stop being the case, someone else will overtake them.
The invisible hand only works if there are no hidden hand-choppers, like unnaturally high entry barriers to the business or vast discrepancies in the price of energy.
|
|
|
IMHO the only thing that can justify PoW change is Quantum computing attack on SHA2, and Cuckoo Cycle is Quantum resistant btw. Doing it now is jumping in the abyss just for the sake of change.
Core devs can come out and say "We upgrading the btc protocol to keep it safe against Quantum computers so a PoW change is necessary". Bitmain will have no ground against this. Just merited you - even with that fuckface avatar
|
|
|
People who can't compete always want to change the rules of the game.
Especially if the game is about keeping open competition. I don't care if there is only one shovel maker. Good for them for being successful at what they do.
I do care, if they can charge whatever they want for their shovels, to the point of suppressing shoveling when they don't want it to happen. Monopoly is never good, except for the monopolist. Don't jbreher yourself into a corner. If they raised prices a hundredfold from here, and it was still profitable to buy their stuff, then that's fair game. The market can bear whatever it can bear. Let's not turn into pretend-communists. You don't need to be a communist to expect markets to be as efficient as they can be. In fact, market efficiency is not a primary concern in communist utopy. For capitalists, however, monopolies and oligopolies are the primary source of market inefficiency. And why would you compare me to yogi? That makes no sense.
Nothing personal, and probably not too accurate. All right, I apologise. The point is, although you come from very different places, you can end up arriving at the same point. Big blocks, miner power and progressive irrelevance of the network of users (as in "full nodes").
|
|
|
(snip)
(EDIT - about "softness". The initial conditions could be 100% ASIC-based, 0% others, as it is now. Then in times of mempool storms, or fork FUD, or whatever, the "others" might be gently pushed up until the situation gets back to normal.)
There can not be soft fork PoW change, it's the hardest of all hard forks. But but... initial 0%? It's as soft as can be. As long as it doesn't budge from 0%, it's still good ol'bitcoin. Keep in mind that no one would more encourage such a change than Jihan Wu. If such thing happen, he will have a ground to a claim BCash is the real Bitcoin, and he knows that claim is false in current situation. I'm afraid he may even really attack Bitcoin just to make some more incentive for PoW change.
I haven't considered this. It seems a bit far fetched, but not totally out of this world. IMHO the only thing that can justify PoW change is Quantum computing attack on SHA2, and Cuckoo Cycle is Quantum resistant btw. Doing it now is jumping in the abyss just for the sake of change.
Yes, a quantum computing breakout (unlikely for several years to come) would destroy Bitcoin as we know it. Having the necessary machinery for PoW in place could be a safety exit. Just insert Cuckoo Cycle into an "other hashing algos" slot.
|
|
|
|