Doesn't Gavin already live on the east cost of the US? I thought he was only originally from Australia.
Yep, I live in Amherst, Massachusetts; my family moved to the US when I was 5 years old. I will be visiting Australia (Sydney for a couple of days then Tasmania for a couple weeks then Cairns for a week or two) in July. My bad. I'm glad for him that others of you are satisfied with him as a leader Leader under what terms? One of the goals of this project is to break part of the coercive control government has over the economy, so it is not in the governmental sense. Then do you mean in the representative sense? If so, then representatives that can't represent properly will eventually be replaced. Now let the guy take his shot. |
|
|
|
That essentially covers the traveling fair from Australia to East coast USA, so yeah.
Doesn't Gavin already live on the east cost of the US? I thought he was only originally from Australia. I read somewhere that he lives in Australia but I can be wrong. |
|
|
|
|
I don't understand this talk of community. To mine and use Bitcoins doesn't entitle anyone to any kind of responsibility towards any other Bitcoin user. There is also no fee or responsibility to endorse in order to start using Bitcoins. There is thus not such a thing as a hierarchy in what is simply a group of people going about their business using the same commodity. It's like saying a gold miner who's invited to speak about his digging experience should share his compensation fee with every other person using gold in the nation.
|
|
|
|
I think you're right, I've only met one person called Vladimir in person and he was Russian. Therefore I think this Vladimir may also be Russian. The only Russian government agency I can think of is the KGB. That means Vladimir is a KGB agent. You know it makes sense  . He'll make soup out of your fingers, for the muddaland! |
|
|
|
As for honorariums, well, it takes time, they are paying him for his time. It's not a big amount actually to cover travel expenses and time. If it were half that I probably wouldn't go myself, except maybe from curiosity.
That essentially covers the traveling fair from Australia to East coast USA, so yeah. What makes me uncomfortable is that the CIA is keeping tabs on a 12 million USD community... I thought the USA was involved in enough conflicts in the world to have intelligence resources to spend on a drop of water in the ocean. |
|
|
|
Doesn't matter how many people are mining. If the difficulty goes up, the price goes up as well negating the impact of difficulty increase. Only thing bad is more pollution to Earth.
No. There is no linear nor consistent correlation between price and difficulty. One new miner joining doesn't guaranty one new buyer on Gox. |
|
|
|
Would that really work? To hold 25% of the network hashrate means you're expected to solve one out of every 4 blocks faster than any other miner, but that doesn't mean you can sit on the solution eternally. The point is that on Slush's pool the newest shares have the highest value, so if you can hold it back for 1 minute you would increase the expected payout by several percent. If somebody else solves it first you don't really loose anything unless it's the pool you moved the other miners away from. If I understand this thread properly, we are talking about pool users exploiting/damaging the pool reward, in this case I see 2 situations: 1) Small contribution: If you're only running, let's say, 1~2 Gh/s, the chances are ridiculously low for you to find that full difficulty solution. To be sitting at the computer all day waiting for it to happen once a week is beyond tedious. You could always modify your miner to hold the share, but at this point you're just trying to troll the pool, and it's not all that efficient. 2) Big contribution: You're like 10% of the pool. Now you have to assume you have consequent hashing power contributed to another pool or mining solo. This isn't impossible, but limited to a few individuals with stellar hashing power. Who's walking around with 30~40 Gh/s and pool mining hmm? Besides Gusti, I can't name anyone. At this point, holding out on every full difficulty solution you found long enough for you to move all your hashing power on slush's pool (there are no other who realistically suffers from this attack) is a huge risk. It'll take certainly more than a minute, there are several mining rigs that need to be reset for the purpose of the exploit. What you are risking here, technically, is to try and increase your payout on a few blocks, at the risk of losing your original payout if a pool finds the solution you are withholding, all this considering you need to move all your hashing power to slush's pool and let it beef up your reward to a seizable profit under 10 minutes (If no one beats you to it under 10 minutes. Given the way the network is built, this is more than likely) If you ask me, it is not only tedious, but has low chance of success, and a high risk of losing your "fair" reward. Also any user with a big contribution can be easily monitored by the pool owner. If you see his reported hashing speed double up once a while a few minutes before a block is completed, it'll speak for itself. |
|
|
|
It's the other way around. You take all of your miners off other pools and into this pool. After you've generated a hefty amount of shares for this pool, you submit the winning share and get a nice reward for all these shares.
Would that really work? To hold 25% of the network hashrate means you're expected to solve one out of every 4 blocks faster than any other miner, but that doesn't mean you can sit on the solution eternally. Chances are a couple minutes later another pool/miner will have found the solution to that block and submitted it. The only thing I see this method accomplish is to gimp the targetted pool to the benefit of other pools, so I don't think the "Lie in Wait" part is feasible. |
|
|
|
Assuming it happens for no apparent reason I can probably get a lot for my wife.
Time to get myself one of those. |
|
|
|
|
Should start a donation thread for the eventual casket hurr durr
|
|
|
|
In the second case, whether or not the community will support your "ownership" will be based on how well they know and like you. If you only turn up twice a year to collect rent (or not at all, and send goons to collect the rent) they'll probably support my claims of ownership, because I'm actually using the house. In this case, you will have to forcibly evict me (use coercion) to get "your" "property" back. So what you gonna do when you leave that house in the morning to go work and I step in it while you're out and claim it mine the same way you claim it yours? And I ain't leaving, I'm a basement dweller. |
|
|
|
@s
This is an open forum, and you get into a flame war with one member. And then paint the entire membership with the same wide brush. If you have something to contribute to the community, please stay. But if you really are a 10+ year veteran of this field of study, then you should have thicker skin than this. Your assesment that this forum is dominated by teenaged libertarians is likely correct, but irrelevent. I was annoyed by that comment, because you used the phrase as an insult, implying that teenagers or libertarians are contemptable in some fashion. I've known enough of both to know that is not a rational perspective.
I've been following this thread, and have yet to see either of you post any significant personal attack. If Goatpig annoys you, ignore him.
but but, he called me French ='( |
|
|
|
|
There's a huge step between a metric shit ton of data and processing power and a singularity, don't you think?
|
|
|
|
Well sure, with bitcoins an audit is cheap and easy. With assorted physical commodities, you need a detailed appraisal. If you want to go through that every day, be my guest.
I see this degenerating into a fundamental discussion on the concept of trust. And how would you know if they are telling the truth about their reserve? goverment audits In a free-market, as it is done under our current system, there are business that make a profit of verifying commercial claims of other business, I think a reasonable measure of trust can be found somewhere amidst of all this Could you tell me exactly how a user can reliably check the reserve ratio for a bank operating with bitcoins? Bitcoin Explorer. Tedious but reliable. |
|
|
|
No anarchist is suggesting that frac banking be outlawed. It's just a matter of weather you think it's good, would do it, condone it, associate with those doing it. I don't think it's fraud if it's clearly stated.
If you say "You can get your money anytime, we keep a 10% reserve." That's not actually clear and honest. "You can get your money if we have some, we keep 10% around." is pretty good.
I mean a charity is fine. And names don't change reality so a 'bank' that says "We keep no money available for withdrawal, we'll pay you if we have money available." is stupid to use, but not fraud.
This is essentially my point. This is why I said I think it's a problem of semantics, as in a misunderstanding of the meaning conveyed when people say "we are opposed to fractional banking". |
|
|
|
One last comment, just on the chance that there might be some progress here:
Your "giggling" is immature and misinformed, because you're not actually reading what I'm saying and instead assuming that I'm saying incorrect things. Maybe other people often say incorrect things, and backed by Bayesian probability you're jumping to the assumption that I'm one of those people, but I'm not.
If you think Bitcoin is not subject to a denial-of-service attack just because it's a peer-to-peer network, reread Satoshi's paper, which explicitly points out the DOS opportunity. Or believe Gavin, who has said "Bitcoin's p2p network is subject to various kinds of denial of service attacks. There, I said it," and "Bitcoin is still vulnerable to DOS attacks. I'm not sure anybody knows how to prevent DOS attacks on a p2p network that allows untrusted/unverified peers to join." That's the same point as mine, which is that the openness of Bitcoin's network is not just a strength but also a weakness.
I never even claimed that I'm saying anything new, here, about a DOS attack against Bitcoin. What I've said is that the attack is cheaper, in the present situation, than many people seem to think, and that the cost does not necessarily relate -- in the real world, rather than a hypothetical frictionless market -- to the capitalization of the Bitcoin market.
Nobody's actually said that's wrong. But immature people call that a "trolling" comment, and you in particular seem to be incapable of reading what I'm saying rather than just making incorrect assumptions about it. I don't know if it's a bad attitude, a reading-comprehension problem in English (your syntax and style strike me as natively French, for what it's worth), or just immaturity, but it's counterproductive to real people trying to offer real analysis. You don't have to believe me, but my contributions to open-source software go back more than 10 years, and I have designed significant cryptography-based security systems; I'm likely more experienced in these matters than Gavin, though of course not nearly as committed to the project. And nobody here has given me any reason to be. The social community behind a project is quite important to me; I already have more than enough money and recognition, which is why I'm contributing pseudonymously. (I am not, like apparently many here, someone who has been marginalized by the existing economy.)
Note, again, that Gavin is not disagreeing with anything I'm saying here; he's made the technical point himself before, and I'm just adding the economic observation that the (already recognized) attack is relatively inexpensive, both in real-world terms and as a matter of proportionality to the market capitalization of the Bitcoin economy.
Nice one on the French part, you're on spot. The reading comprehension part is funny coming from someone that makes a point of not being rigorous with semantics... As for attacks on p2p projects, countless failed attempts by commercial firms, backed by the financial power of the movie, music and video gaming industry, to DOS torrent trackers and inject false packets in the last 5 years or so speaks volumes about the counters a p2p network has against such basic attacks, which are nothing more than harassment. There's also quite a history of DOS and other petty attacks on mining pools in this very forum, there is a documented case of forking available too, yet this project doesn't look to me like it's on the brink of extinction. You don't have to believe me No I don't, and I said before, since you're making a point of being anonymous, this is idle talk. It also shows you have issues presenting the veracity of your points without resorting to credentials. I am not, like apparently many here, someone who has been marginalized by the existing economy. Spoken like a true central banking jingoist? and I'm just adding the economic observation that the (already recognized) attack is relatively inexpensive, both in real-world terms and as a matter of proportionality to the market capitalization of the Bitcoin economy. First of all, if an attack is easy to perform, a truly concerned party would present an isolated experiment reproducing it instead of speaking of conjecture. Second, such declarations and the weight they carry gives the right to the contributors of this post to ask about your motives, but somehow you brush those as irrelevant. And lastly, your point isn't realistic. What you are saying is akin to presenting society as fragile because a detractor of said society can walk in the streets shooting people dead for the price of a single gun. |
|
|
|
Sounds like a problem of semantics to me. Makes no sense to have anarchist tendencies and ask for a mere banking tool to be outlawed. It sort of rubs me the wrong way that people who consider themselves free-market advocates are opposed to fractional reserve banking even when it's a publicly stated policy of a free, privately operated bank. Being opposed as in trying to take down the bank by force? When I read this sentence I just understand that free-market advocates refuse to use banks with fractional reserve policies. |
|
|
|
You're clearly not interested in paying attention to the substance of what I'm saying, so I'm done here. The tone and pseudointellectual disposition of most of the people on this forum are absurd; it's like speaking to 17-year-old libertarians who think they're geniuses or mentally ill Randists who see themselves as underappreciated innovators. You're just not reading what I'm saying, and you're quoting isolated fragments out of context to confirm some view you have of me that's entirely incorrect and unfounded. Far more intelligent commentary about the economics and social forces that affect Bitcoin is available at external forums, for anyone interested in speaking to adult-minded people about the topic. For example, see the following thread, which anticipated most of the discussions I've had here (including my own comments) by several months: http://www.bogleheads.org/forum/viewtopic.php?p=959393. That's how adults talk about the topic, rather than unimaginative followers who think they're innovators or people who don't know how to read. I was pointing out an analytical approach you could learn from; you chose to ignore it. Bye. Lemme understand one thing: Do you picture Bitcoin adopters as stupid in general? If I look at the logic here, you are coming in this forum presenting Bitcoin as inefficient and crippled with gaping security flaws. This implies you think any adopter is at least hasty in decision making and/or poorly informed of the mechanics of this project. You are thus naturally prejudiced against this community. Your bitter, repetitive comments about Libertarians are proof enough, yet it is interesting that you won't acknowledge the same right to prejudice to the Bitcoin community against your kind of outside contributor even though you use this very prejudice to legitimate your answer to those who contradict you in the threads you participate. Not much for respect, is there? Have you considered the possibility that as an outsider, you are the one that is less informed, than let's say, founding and early members of this project? Have you also considered that your grasp of the technology used in this project is not at the stellar level you're fancying it? I giggled when you mentioned using a DOS attack on a p2p project... Lastly, have you considered that suggestions detached from reality, the persistent speculation on Bitcoin's flaws resting on nothing but conjecture is simply tiring the contributors of this thread? What proper discussion can you expect by linking to threads outside this community. How can you expect decent defense of this project's technological choices by discussing it with people that have no involvement nor experience with it? And you label that an adult-minded discussion? And then you're surprised you're called a troll? |
|
|
|
But am I missing something vital here? Im new to mining, I have mined with my crappy gt240 card on my computer, so i understand the jist of it.
Will i need some extra software to work all three video cards? 3*6990 = 6 gpus. Windows only supports up to 4 |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
