I just bought a couple of those days back, and I think they have high rate of DOA. Still testing... I bought several of the 5850 version and every one is working great. No experience with the 5830. |
|
|
|
|
Two things I would consider. Lowest fee (I make more Bitcoin). Small enough that it doesn't pose a possible threat to the health of the network (I want Bitcoin to be valuable in the future).
|
|
|
|
I think we have more to worry about from the Government getting involved than an attack from deepbit.
http://launch.is/blog/l019-bitcoin-p2p-currency-the-most-dangerous-project-weve-ev.htmlLet's assume deepbit is secure and holy in its intentions and let's reverse the thought. If it controls 55% of the hashing power that means no one else can control greater than 45%. So the solution is to have a pool with greater than 50% of the hashing power and secure it like fort knox,  The solution is hundreds of small pool and thousands of solo miners... You came from OCN didn't you? If we have to worry about the government, they don't need to buy a single computer to hurt the network. If there already exists a pool with >50% of the network, .gov only needs to do what they are good at, control one guy. As the network stands right now, they only need to control two. Hell, they don't even need to control them, just replace them with someone smart enough to hurt the network. |
|
|
|
There is no real solution to this "attack theory".
 I'll see your watermelon cat and raise you a bear facepalm.  |
|
|
|
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. What kind of socialist argument is that? I should sacrifice getting a regular income to make a neglible impact on the security of the network, just for the greater good? Make less now - hurt health of network to allow for possible attack and risk future income Make more over time - help health of network to help prevent possible attack and secure future income Socialist argument? LOL. More like smart argument. Did someone say no brainer already? I hope so. |
|
|
|
The basis of bitcoin is a free (as in open) currency and economy, even down to the code. I'm shocked! ShOcKeD! I tell you that free market principles have sprung up. Simple stuff like, providing the best service for an acceptble fee for example. Who would have though?!
You are missing the point that people are short sighted. They are making money now. If an attack occurs, trust in Bitcoin as a valid currency, store of value, speculator's toy, ect, would diminish rapidly and everyone mining would cease to profit from it. It's terribly difficult to imagine a day beyond tomorrow, I know. I see arguments that a pool operator would not cut off his nose despite his face. Obviously he wouldn't. Have you people ever heard of governments forcing people to do what they want them to do. Forget the double-spend, that is child's play. The real concern is that the Bitcoin network is no longer able to be trusted because it is so easily corrupted. Who could possibly have motive to crush Bitcoin? I think Satoshi did an amazing job, but it is difficult to see everything in the future. Hindsight is of course 20/20. Why in the name of all things holy would you tempt fate by giving away the requirements for an attack for a bit of variance security? I have high hopes for this project, but I have to wonder where it can go when people refuse take account of their actions. I've listened to various systems be blamed for the suffering of humanity, but when a brilliant system comes along and people manage to fuck it up regardless, I have to ask myself, is it the fault of the system or the users. I can't wait for an attack to occur. I want to see if the resilience of Bitcoin is worth the time and effort so many have put into it. |
|
|
|
|
I think that those particular cards (meaning the coolers) will perform poorly when stacked together like that. I've only had luck with the reference design when it involves sandwiching. I am interested to see your results though.
|
|
|
|
|
Interesting artwork. The buyer should understand that's all it is, and it isn't described here, that the steel used in railroad spikes makes for a poor knife, as far as a quality tool is concerned.
|
|
|
|
I'm curious. Suppose a small country began using bitcoin as its official currency. It seems that if such a thing occurred, then it would become a foreign currency, to be exchanged like any other foreign currency. Would fears of a "US government crackdown" then go away?
The U.S. Gov has never involved itself in other countries affairs right? |
|
|
|
I would think that if a pool operator started playing up, the members would migrate to another pool. It's sort of democratic like that. A pools members are a asset which it has incentive to protect.
Yes of course, but if an attack did occur, would the migration be quick enough to stop the initial damage? The initial damage being peoples' trust in the block chain. |
|
|
|
@rezin777: As a newcomer to Bitcoin my original post was meant to help me determine whether or not Bitcoin is legit. As I see it is the custom here, I will match you analogy with an analogy of my own. Imagine two financial scenarios. In the first a bank sources and packages a set of mortgages into a security, selling it to investors based on the quality of the underlying loans. The bank makes a commission and hefty profits whichever way the mortgages end up going. The mortgages tank worse than predicted and the investors lose everything. No one blames the bank for keeping the money they made. Thats called good business. Now a second scenario, a similar bank owns a massive amount of mortgages and knows they are going bad. They have got to get them off their books ASAP. So they package them into a security, selling it to investors and lying to them by telling them they quality products. They are so sure the mortgages are going to go bad they bet against the security and joke amongst themselves about the people who are buying it, and then make a killing when it tanks. Thats a scheme.
Bitcoins will only ever be worth what someone is willing to pay for them. No legitimate Bitcoin adopter will promise you that you will earn a profit by holding Bitcoins. Bitcoin may be worth nothing tomorrow. Don't invest more than you are willing to lose. Does that clear it up? |
|
|
|
i'm afraid i still just don't see the logic of the complaint. if i'm paid $100,000 a year, have $50,000 of expenses, and owe $20,000 in us taxes, i can take the remaining $30,000 and invest it how i'd like. if i invest it elsewhere, dollar inflation doesn't hurt me as an investor. and the capital-gain-realization rules mean i don't have to pay any taxes on (many kinds of) investments until i choose to sell them.
even if i'm not paid in dollars, the 'tax' requirement doesn't meaningfully subject my investments to inflation. if i'm paid in gold, i just have to convert some to dollars to pay us taxes. i can complain that it's expensive to convert gold into dollars (though it isn't), but dollar-inflation still isn't affecting me unless i choose to let it by screwing up the timing of my conversions. (indeed, dollar-inflation helps me because my $X taxes will seem lower after inflation, so i benefit because i was paid in gold.)
again, i don't see any way around the proposition that regardless of 'legal tender' and 'tax' rules, dollar-inflation hurts you only if you choose to let it, or if your business circumstances require you to let it. either way, the government isn't forcing you to experience the harms of any of the inflationary currencies that exist. thus my puzzlement at the misplaced anger.
You aren't the average person. Making wise investments is not as easy as you make it out to be or everyone would do it. It's not the wise investor that inflation hurts. It's the average Joe that likes to put some money away for a rainy day. Most people are paid in fiat currency, spend in fiat currency, and save in fiat currency. Inflation hurts the average person in other ways that we haven't discussed, and I'm certain you understand them without having me explain them to you. tomcollins already gave another example. I agree, to get angry is the incorrect response. Fix your own finances so that it doesn't affect you. This takes time, knowledge, and money to achieve. |
|
|
|
did you read my previous comment? <.<
I was simply poking a hole in my own argument.
Sorry, too many different threads at once! |
|
|
|
i meant. if you had the raw processing power to take 51%.. you could make it 50 different pools of 1.02% so it looked like 50 people held 51%... when in truth it was a single person pulling all the strings.
What would the reason be, for someone who wanted to hurt the network, to go to such lengths if they already had the required processing power? Delay a response from the bitcoin community. If the attacker only had 51% of the hashing power as compared to the running network, he wouldn't have it for long after the community became aware of it. A call to arms would go out for every honest user to generate using any means available, and many would do so even at a loss. This is the 'hidden reserve' capacity of the bitcoin network, and we really don't have any idea how much the community could bring to bear, and neither would any potential attacker. I see. |
|
|
|
If you had that much processing power, odds are high that you have many other more profitable uses for it than attacking the blockchain. Like, for example, mining with the blockchain to capture 50% of the coins produced.
Only if your motive is economic. I think odds are high that someone who wants to hurt the network won't have economic motivations in mind. Well perhaps, but not certainly not Bitcoin related ones. |
|
|
|
i meant. if you had the raw processing power to take 51%.. you could make it 50 different pools of 1.02% so it looked like 50 people held 51%... when in truth it was a single person pulling all the strings.
What would the reason be, for someone who wanted to hurt the network, to go to such lengths if they already had the required processing power? |
|
|
|
Likewise, a watchdog process could be set up to look for signs that the blockchain is under attack, such as several consecutive blockchain reorganizations occurring in a relatively short time frame.
There is a bounty for this that arose from concerns about the growing size of Deepbit. http://forum.bitcoin.org/index.php?topic=7622.0 |
|
|
|
it will be interesting to see if members of the community attempt to stifle competitive block chains in the way that they've accused oligopolistic bankers of stifling competition in the traditional financial sector. for example, will bitcoinwatch.com display an exchange rate if i set up a new block chain called 'bitnote' that uses bitcoin or a bitcoin-like technology? will mt gox allow trades in it and conversion to btc?
Competition is good. I will gladly switch to a better system. I will not switch to a system that is exactly the same just to be an early adopter, others may. |
|
|
|
hmm.. perhaps in this case it may be best if there is a safeguard built in to bitcoin to prevent shares greater than 30% on a single pool? then again, how do you determine who belongs to what? you could have 50 pools working together.. blah...
It would be interesting if there could be a technological solution to this problem. Until then, it's up to the miners to keep the network healthy for their own good. Also, an attack from a collusion of 50 pools is much more difficult than an attack from 1 pool. The more decentralized the network is, the more secure it becomes. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
