Well you have to consider that changing into a local currency can be really expensive. If a friend sends me a bank wire for $100 dollar, ill be getting 65.5 euros instead of 70.5. The Bitcoin would help avoiding that.

In my darkest hour I wished Deepbit would get attacked the chain forked so that they would drop Bitcoin forever after the market crash ensuing...

How'd u flash the 4 cards at the same time? If you're flashing your control card, you're just asking for it. Now go get yourself a DOS bootable usb with ATi flash and a functional bios.

wisdom!

FTFY


BTCmine, BTCguild, slush's, Luke's, and all those new comers 0% fee that I see starting recently. The first page in the mining forums is filled with their official threads.

You miss my point. You say hoarding will hurt the economy because it lowers liquidity. So I refer you to gold. Gold is a deflationary store of value. You perception dictates it should be hoarded. Yet buying gold is easy, and widely available. This is a live example that hoarding won't impact liquidity.

The goddamn fee...


It would be because of the accumulated hashrate of people like you who swarm one pool and will perpetuate that practice even if the pool has been compromised, all this for no good reason.


No you won't deal with the consequences. You know you won't because you're refusing to take a minute right now to switch to another pool, which will benefit you. When shit will hit the fan, you'll just rationalize it away like you are doing now. And I am not demanding anything, I'm beating you're joke of an argument that you use as a basis to stick to Deepbit, disregarding the gapping hole it brings into the network security. I'm simply warning you, because I don't want to see Bitcoin go down. But I have no wish to use force. If the worst has to happen for your kind to understand, then so be it. The burden of responsibility is on your shoulders. I'm not the one endangering the network, you are.


From Deepbit's stat page

If you can't put it in your head with this that Deepbit has consequent variance, then there's nothing I can do for you. You're the guy thinking he should put all of his hashing power in the same pool while you say that total hash rate impacts variance. Then tell me, Sherlock, is it better to be in one pool that has 50% of the network or 3 pools that have 60%?


You are beyond slow.


Here comes the irony. Score based pools defend against Raulo's attack, Deepbit doesn't. I can't believe you're aware of that attack, yet don't understand the vulnerability nor the counter, all the while willing to stick to a pool that is vulnerable to it and has higher fees. Priceless.

Walk into a store selling gold. Look at all those outstanding offers. Realize hoarding is a myth.

1) You're not sacrificing anything. As a matter of fact, by mining elsewhere, you're increasing your profit.
2) Your own good. If Bitcoins crash due to an attack, you lose money...
3) The goal of mining is to secure the network. The reward is the consequence of that service provided. You want to rip the reward while providing the work but not caring for the service, because you're too lazy to understand what you are contributing to and are motivated by obscure, emotional perception of this network, point of view which has been defeated times and times over. A simple proof is that you are willing to pay the highest fee out there, yet you somehow try to build an argument based on the concept of income.

Mindlessly catering to the biggest group, expecting others to deal with the consequences... who's the socialist again?


No. Even right now Deepbit has variance. Tycho even provides that data on the statistic page. What Deepbit is missing in a day is what other pools are getting as extra. You really want to beat variance? Spread out.


1) Takes half a minute per worker and you're done, forever.
2) This is EXACTLY why people need to move off of Deepbit, because people like you would still be mining there a week after the pool gets infiltrated and starts being used to attack the network.

xD

No. Simply no. Unless you intent to mine for ridiculously short period of times, every pool will provide you with the same payout minus fee in the long run. The reward for mining is to secure the network. To brainlessly jump into the biggest pool because you like the pretty numbers is a mistake, effectively using the very tool that secures the network to harm it. It's like saying human beings need water to survive and then trying to drown the guy.

If your interest is indeed lowering variance, then you should be spreading your mining power evenly among ever possible pool. Also Deepbit is the most expensive pool out there. I am wondering what kind of people make a point of paying higher fees in the process of ripping the same reward...

What bothers me is the large acceptance of that bad argument, rather than leftist making it. Can't blame people for trying to defend themselves, however bad the defense is. I'm annoyed that it is acknowledged as a valid point.


Exactly what I was thinking =P

No. The system is decentralized in that the latest produced block is verified by every node by computing the hash themselves with the received nonce. It get exponentially harder to try and modify transactions that are deeper in the block chain. The concept of decentralization is that no node accepts any new data from the network as a given. It will verify the hash and react independently of other nodes. Previously network wide accepted blocks are considered valid by default since the computing power needed to change them quickly becomes astronomical.

Partial knowledge can easily work. Only propagate up to the last back up block to the light weight clients.


Once again no, each client reacts independently to the data newly propagated. Data deeper in the block chain is valid by that same process.


Yeah like someone obsessed with anonymity won't come up with an automated software to do that... There's barely any extra weight on the system. Block hashing is independent of transaction size. The space required to store those extra bits of data is perfectly in line with the network capitalization.

There are transaction fees. Those who truly want to become anonymous by splitting down their transactions have to pay higher fees. It is only fair and sensible.


Silly argument proven wrong 20 times over. Move on, nothing to see.


I'd like to understand who would bother buying up 50% of the network hashrate, getting that steady BTC daily reward, to then shoot himself in the foot by forking the chain in order to "make a profit out of double spending". That's nonsensical. The system is built so that rewards for trying to cheat the system provide less return than simply contributing to it.

The only valid motive for an attack on Bitcoin is to outright hurt or attempt to take down the system. The defense against that is that the network is maintained by mining, and as it grows mining gets more profitable, effectively increasing by leaps and bounds the amount of wealth a single individual has to invest to take it over. That's like one guy trying to stop the rest of the planet from switching to gold. As the group of adopters is small, he can bully it with an AK. But that's the only time he can hope to attack it. By the time Bitcoin gets big enough that haters will want to target, it'll take them the equivalent of an H bomb to do it on their own. Of course if the whole government wants to go after Bitcoin, that's another story. But still I'd like to understand how people can use gold if the gov sends out the military to kill on sight whoever uses it.


Yeah while you shit your pants hoping that guy who payed you with his credit card isn't going to charge you back in the span of the whole WEEK after the payment. Gimme a break.


Not exactly. The block header is built off of the hash of the previous block. For that attack to work you need to propagate that "held" block from the opposite end of the network.


Coins don't disappear, period. The fact that the network maintains the fork until one of the branches is proven valid is so that no valid transaction is lost. If the attacker includes fake transactions, those will go away as the block is turned down by the network. He can mix up those with some valid transactions to have these bounced back too, sure. What we are looking at here is a huge amount of dedicated power for the sole purpose of being a b**** to the network. The only effect will be to slow down the network.


Rofl.


How many http servers do you know with terabytes worth of copyright infringing content on it that is free to access anywhere in the world while providing top speed to all its users? Please name one... And despite all the efforts of the music, movie, gaming industry AND the US government, BitTorrent is still out there, working flawlessly.

Also, where's the DoS argument in this piece?

 

I'm kinda ashamed of being French when I see the reactions of the French opinion to this. Technically, leftists are bitching about the heavy media coverage around this business, claiming it sullies DSK's reputation, and are outraged that he isn't getting a vip treatment. It is sickening to witness a people demand privileges to be given in both treatment and accountability in front of justice to those who hold power.

On the other hand inlining in a heavy duty loop will limit code jumps and thus pipeline flushing.

Yeah talk about a carrots a little at the start

Yes.

https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Block_hashing_algorithm

Il fait parti aussi de la creation du "block header" que les mineurs doivent résoudre.

Non seulement l'attaquant peut prendre le controle du reseau avec un botnet, mais en plus le bloc est réduit à un puzzle arbitraire? C'est une blague?

The problem is there is no way to distinguish between "lost" coins and coins being purposefully held for a long time, like in the case of a savings account.