I strongly disagree, based on previous data over the past months:
http://bitcoin.sipa.be/growth-10k.png

4-5% increase per day is a reasonable assumption, no need to make it fall.

With this method you could calculate how many Bitcoins you approx. would get after some time and also exactly how much money you would have spent until then. Then you can calculate how much Bitcoins must be worth at least to have a certain profit/0 profit.

Just read the ToS of Tibanne, which you (as it seems?!) agreed to when opening an account on MtGox:
http://legal.tibanne.com/

Things to consider:

• IP addresses are regarded private/personal information by many
• IP addresses can be used by many people at once
• You can only verify an IP address by "going there yourself", like a real address. Only because it shows up on google mps or whatever doesn't mean it's really MY address

In the end:
No, IP addresses are NOT a good way to fight anonymity in a Bitcoin-style block chain. They cannot be verified after some time, they are not unique and you would see much hatin' (and low adoption) for implementing something like that - and in the end people would just use TOR/VPNs to mine.

People forgot about http://forum.bitcoin.org/index.php?topic=3712 - they will forget about this stuff here too...

He produces MH/s per Watthour but electricity costs are paid per kiloWatthour

For this kind of calculations you have a few factors:

Internal (can be influenced by you):

• cost of electricity
• efficiency of hardware (MH/s per Watt)
• initial cost of hardware

External (cannot really influenced by you):

• exchange rate at the time you want to cash out
• difficulty

The external ones can be expressed as a single factor, initial cost is (too) often neglected.
The OP also chose to keep the exchange rate from the equation to have something to compare with more easily (is it higher/lower).

It might be more useful though to have also a more meaningful number as ratio (like the charts in my sig: USD per 100MH/s) as it is quite easy to determine if mining is profitable vs. electricity costs BUT it is harder to see how much and also how much the gains would be (Example: I pay 1 Cent/day for my whole cluster and gain 3 times as much! Still the absolute gains are not really breathtaking...)

Proportional of course!

It would even be really hard to hop your pool anyways, so I don't even see many issues with that.

Wrong forum and no price...

I bid 100 EUR + shipping.

I also want to add that the amount of Bitcoins one can get via the faucet is of zero use at all.

You cannot even buy a single share at GLBSE in any of the listed companies/investments there, you cannot buy anything useful and you cannot "experiment" with the money either, because of transfer fees. You anyways need more BTC and to accomplish this, you need to mine or buy some or sell something. The amount you would get with this is far higher than the money from the faucet, so all you can "learn" there is how it looks getting a transaction.

All it does is giving people an incentive to game the system to gain some more relevant amount of BTC out of it as the current amount is useless and a more useful amount won't last long.

It's like someone sending out a single penny in an obscure currency - as long as you don't have already more of these, all you can really do is store it (and be even a little pissed, that you have money lying around that is of no use - I would be!) and then, after some time when you forgot about it, throw it away.

Sorry, but this is not what people intended in my opinion when donating to the EFF.


I would like to see the following changes:
1 single Satoshi coming out of the faucet. This still lets people see how to receive a donation/transaction but will last MUCH longer if someone donates a few Bitcent to the faucet.
To make these transactions free, talk to pool operators if they would include them and use some of the EFF money as bounty for someone developing a good and safe transaction inclusion program (to let pool operators decide which transactions to include and which not, based on certain criteria). This is needed much more than having a few people creating hundreds of Google accounts to gain a few Dollars...

The rest of the money can then stay in the faucet, that would (even with severe hacking) most likely never again run dry.
As far as I understand it, it was anyways not meant to give out meaningful amounts of money (to be able to buy ANYTHING) - so it shouldn't matter if you hand out Satoshis or Millicents.

Satoshis might even stand out more and be a kind of a "reminder" of the faucet, since they are seperated from the rest of the coins, if you trade via a few zeroes.

Because that would get you banned on that pool for DOSing.

I don't have stats for Multipool, but I guess since it can be more efficient than others and is really easy to set up I expect it to be in the 50 GH/s range.

Now imagine hitting a smaller, but fair pool like Continuum every once in a while with THAT.

Of course you can. Their stats will be combined then though.

Just beat them with data! Put up some nice graphs + calculations and let everyone make up their own mind, if a 5830 @ 170USD is really worth it (hint: It isn't!).

As far as I understood it, you could get 1.28 on each pool - so in 2 pools it should be even higher...

It went up to 106.7% for me btw. - seems to still fluctuate quite a bit  even with this sample size


Also looking forward to the next payment! *cough*

Neither are they a feature of Bitcoin - Transactions from invalid blocks become pending again already. This Blog post solves an issue that is already solved.

In the end you either want to have a negative balance in an address (I think this is NOT possible in Bitcoin at all) OR to have someone with a lot more hashing power than the current network performing an good old 51% - they won't do this for just 1000 BTC!

To invalidate a 6 blocks chain, you need 7 blocks faster than the rest of the network. I'm also not 100% sure how/if clients accept a block that is from a "netsplit" and originates a few blocks further behind.

In the end you want to give miners an incentive to 51% attack the network and cover your losses. If only a few catch on though, they won't have enough power and if all catch on, this would REALLY endanger their own systems (payouts etc.) as well...

I think in theory it might work, in practice I guess you won't find enough miners in less than an hour to mine for that Jackpot.

With how many shares?

I have ~18000 shares confirmed and an efficiency of 1.054

Unfortunately I cannot say if this is really true/good because of a few downtime-hiccups, so I canont say how long exactly I mined in the past 24 hours with which hash rate to give a really precise answer if this is above or below expected values

The client currently relays nearly ANY transaction - as soon as there are fees, it will even more likely relay it than less likely. Miners would charge higher fees than currently, not lower and the client bans "too cheap" transactions, not too expensive ones.

Hope this is clear now.

Once more than 50% (of the hashrate) of the miners are willing enough to risk their reputation because they are making losses or whatever, they can force the whole bitcoin community to pay arbitrarily large fees according to any model they want. If someone includes a transaction that they don't like, they would have to 51%-attack this block and fork the blockchain off invalidating these unwanted transactions.

They can include their own payout transactions for free anyways if they want to, so that's not an issue.

Miners are taking whatever getwork they get from their pool operators. As long as they get coins for that, they are fine.

Users can't do anything about fees imposed/forced by pools - if they require 1 BTC fee or nothing gets transferred, then they have to enter 1 BTC as a fee or nothing gets transferred. Simple as that!
As fees are currently as low as possible, and it's not expected that miners wnat to have LESS fees, the official client will happily relay any transaction that has more fees than it itself requires.

I'm already thinking of killing + restarting phoenix every 10 minutes... would loose me less time than it already has with these lockups!

WRONG:
If more than 50% of miners are pissed enough that Millions of BTC get shifted around but nearly no fees are being paid, they can as I said 51%-attack the network and force fees as they wish. If the official client doesn't do what they want to, that's the official client's problem.

The Eligius pool for example ONLY includes transactions that follow a certain fee structure and also offers a modified Bitcoin client that automatically pays them (cheaper than the current fees by the way, but for every transaction). There's not much to loose currently for pools, transaction fees are anyways only 0.1-0.2% of a block reward...

I doubt however that the fee structure you propose will be adopted.


Including free transactions comes at a cost: Storage space. Every kB of transactions gets stored on every Bitcoin node all over the world + transferred + verified... a huge waste of ressources that is leeched by people doing transactions for free. The only thing saving them right now is that pools are operated by idealists rather than economists, at least to a certain degree. This won't be the case all the time.

What about DragonflyBSD? The Hurd? Or what about Haiku?!

Seriously! Stop feeding this troll, he won't share his "wisdom" anyways, neither here nor to anyone else who won't pay his little 5-digit sum.

Yes, Bitcoin exchanges were more or less overrun by users in the past few months - whoever didn't know this (there are charts, people!) does know now.