It means that this address has received Tx which was double spend. But, AFAIK, if u receive Tx, which is part of an orphan block, ur address will have this warning, till ur Tx does not get fit into another block in the longest chain. Mhhh pardon my noobness, you mean that it was a transaction that was sent and confirmed in one block and then in another block for some reason? |
|
|
|
I perfectly know that, you don't look very clever by posting it. If you have no answer, or anything of use, it's not mandatory to post. I would like to know why that happens. |
|
|
|
Let's assume for a second that your math is correct. CEX is still a much better value than pbmining.
(using your numbers, not mine)
Year 1
Invest $100
Earn/Reinvest: $90
Year2:
Earn/Reinvest: 80
So that puts the total value at $170. Remember, yes, CEX charges a commision, but its 0.2% so if you were to sell $200 worth of ghs the commision is $0.40 and if you can't turn at least 40 cents worth of profit then you're doing it wrong. With PB mining, your math is actually about right since you can never get out of it what you put into it and at the end of your contract you can't just sell the GHS off to someone else, the GHS just disappears.
Personally, I buy hardware and use the proceeds to reinvest into cloudhashing at CEX, BECAUSE I can get it back out later. Essentially it becomes like a BTC savings account with a modest bit of interest. (I've also done some investing in BTCJam, but have also lost money a few times there as well)
Yes CEX has the advantage that you can reconvert your GHs into BTC anytime and yes, as you wrote, it's like having your BTC in bank, because they produce some interest over time. But it's risky. In example, I had 100 GHs in CEX and when I saw the new difficulty increase was 25% I sold immediately at 0.00716 and I was right: price now is around 0.00682 and I think they make it rise artificially thanks to bots. It's totally possible that you can carve out some income by trading all time in there if you are skilled and with some luck, still, it's not income from mining. And when I first joined CEX my thought was exactly like yours: "I put my BTC there to earn something instead than holding them in a cold storage". No. That doesn't work. With each difficulty increase, your GHs value is going to drop and the other danger is: people open eyes and see they are just wasting money and GHs price will suddenly drop to hell and you will waste a lot of BTC value (that CEX will RETAIN). In fact, at each given point in time, CEX has a huge amount of BTC for free, around 2 times the value, because of the overpriced GHs. When GHs value will crash (because at some point people will open their eyes), they will keep the BTC, and people will remain with the real value of GHs, that amounts at less than half of what you can find GHs on their website now. Under a point of view is like if your bank would tell you "give me 100$, and you get an interest of 0.1% the first month with decreasing rate of 40% each month, BUT YOU CAN TRADE ON PETROL!" Fuck you, bank, thank you  |
|
|
|
Have you calculated reinvesting the dividends? Like on Cryptsy, you can buy fractions of a mining share.
So what if you reinvested the payouts on a weekly basis?
Theoretically you'd get exponential growth. Perhaps this would work? Could you do the math on something like this?
That would probably fix it. The problem is: you will never then have BTC, you will only have GHs until the end of times. Let's say you buy 1000 GHs. These 1000 GHs after the first month give you 0.799 BTC. You buy 0.799 of GHs (no matter how much it is). Now you have 1000 GHs that will never catch up the investment, AND 0.799 of GHs that will never catch up the investment I just trashed 150 Euro like an idiot, I can admit it. But I wonder all those people in there with thousands of GHs... how comes they didn't make the count before buying so much of it? I am not familiar with the service you are using, but on Cryptsy you can trade your mining shares back to BTC at any given time. So eventually, if you reinvest the dividends your 1 share will be 2, then 4, then 16, then 256. Or probably less because of the increase in mining difficulty. But eventually, you could cash in these shares for BTC. I calculated that if you reinvested the dividends on a weekly basis, after a few years you'd be generating like 1 BTC per day. Of course, this doesn't take into account the increase in difficulty, the decrease in share values, and of course the risk that Cryptsy gets Goxxed. So as intrigued as I have been about mining, my experiences have only lost me BTC. The good news is that after a year I'll get my principal back, so it shouldn't be a loss...but I ain't gonna get ri BTCh But watch: if you cash back your BTC, somebody else is losing. So, while you CAN do something by TRADING, you can't do anything by mining. It's just another asset you are trading, but in general that asset value is nothing. The only real winner is the cloud mining service. That makes no sense. The assets that you've accrued are directly related to mining. Without the mining dividends being reinvested, you have no value beyond the principal. So while cloud mining may not be great, your premise is flawed. Let's say you pay 100 $ for 100 GHs for 5 years. In the first year you recover 90 $ with those 100 GHs, and at the end of the 5 years you get up to... uh, well, 95 $, because after the first year the mining income becomes so small it's nearly nothing, thanks to the steady increase of difficulty of the mining process. Let's say that after the first year you reinvest those 90 $ and buy 90 GHs (it doesn't matter if you do that month by month or week by week, the mechanism is PERFECTLY THE SAME). After 5 years you still didn't get those 90 $ back. You will be at 86 $ or something. This because, again, mining difficulty increases and you don't reach what you invested. And let's say that after the second year you reinvest that income of 86$ into 86 GHs. At the end of the first year of this last investment you get back 80$, STILL LESS THAN THOSE 86$ YOU INVESTED. And after 5 years you will again get less than what you invested. The result is: you will always have more and more GHs and never get back more BTC than what you invested. It doesn't matter if you reinvest the BTC you earn from mining or you invest more BTC thanks to grandma paycheck for your birthday: they are BTC, and the GHs you buy with them does not give you back more BTC than what you put in. But you are actually investing in GHs to get back more BTC than what you invest, right? Now, I put here a couple examples, then that's all. You can now buy 1 GHs on CEX.IO for 0.0068 BTC. This is what you get back after one year (LOL): https://tradeblock.com/mining/a/6c9fc98920CEX.IO has artificially pumped prices imho, and the only successful people in there are successful because they trade. But even then, there are commissions when you buy GHs or sell for BTC... PBMining is much better: you can buy 1 GHs for 0.003 BTC at the moment. This is what you get back after one year: https://tradeblock.com/mining/a/609bf460dc0.01 BTC. Well, at least you are in active by a measure (if difficulty doesn't get another strange jump). At this point the only thing you can dispute is the difficulty increase I have put in there. But look, I didn't invent it, there is DATA about it, and the trend is not changing. It has been an average of 18% on each step of 12 days in the past and this last step jumped to 25%. DATA. Now, you can HOPE the increase in difficulty will be less and everybody will get more BTC, but... that's just... hope. Statistical data suggest otherwise. Now, you can either understand this or you can't. I warned you the way is possible to me to do so, I can't imagine a better way to explain what goes on, and I can't fight (and I don't want) people that WANT to believe something. It's not even my right, or my duty. I just talk about this because I feel I do good to people and, in last analysis, to Bitcoin. I hope this can help you. |
|
|
|
Simple answer.
No
ARE YOU A GOD?
/
 |
|
|
|
Anyway, by the time quantum computers are available for the public, all bitcoins have already been mined...
Do you think quantum's will be ready for the next 5-15 years? no way...
Eth.
The next question would be. How would quantum computers do if they can make it next year(Economically)? Spend million bucks for a handful of BTC? And then what? One could gain BTC efficiently by buying it. Using Quantum Computers doesn't seem logical. Imagine that on October of 2015 1 BTC will be 100000 $. You can't know it. |
|
|
|
Anyway, by the time quantum computers are available for the public, all bitcoins have already been mined...
Do you think quantum's will be ready for the next 5-15 years? no way...
Eth.
As I wrote, you don't need to have them available to the public: a big institution could want use it to destroy the Bitcoin system, and we know banks aren't waiting for anything else. And yes I think quantum cpu will be available to big companies in the next 10 years. |
|
|
|
What a waste of words. It took less than 10 seconds with a Google search engine to turn up the following: That is not true. Quantum Computers need an efficient quantum algorithm. Shor's algorithm is very effective at brute forcing public key systems (RSA, DSA, ECDSA). They don't significantly reduce the security of symmetric (AES) cryptography or hashing algorithms (SHA-256).
Hashing functions are effectively immune to the potential of quantum computing. Shor's algorithm can not be used against hashing functions or symetric cryptography.
To say quantum computing is "advancing rapidly" is an overstatement. In 2001 the largest number to be factored by a general purpose quantum computer using Shor's algorithm was 15. By 2011 the largest number to be factored was 143. That is from 4 bits to 8 bits in the span of a decade. We are a long way from factoring even 256 bit numbers and 256 bit ECDSA keys are even harder (~3,072 RSA key = integer factorization).
Nobody said 256 bit encryption will be secure forever. It is infeasible to brute force a 256 bit key using classical computing. Quantum computing may someday break it but it may not, quantum decoherence is a bitch. It is possible ECDSA has some flaw and cryptanalysis will someday weakened it to a point it is economical to attack it. That could be next year or not in the next century.
Did you put any effort at all into figuring out if your FUD had any merit before you came running to the forum to declare a "menace" that has already been discussed dozens of times over the past 5 years? Cool down, kid. I didn't declare anything, you may have missed the question mark in the very title. You want to say I don't know stuff: that's right. You want to say I didn't search: that's right too. I wrote I didn't imagine somebody thought about this already. My fault. But forums are here to spread info, also. Now if you are annoyed of spreading info, just don't do it. |
|
|
|
This has been addressed a number of times. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=133425.0As I understand, if the threat ever emerged, the devs would have enough time to hard-fork to SHA512d as the hashing algo in a worst-case scenario. Hashing itself isn't effected, but the infrastructure supporting the network could be. The quantum CPU would also have to have enough scalable RAM to perform the computations necessary to bruteforce the entire network, the tech for which is 50+ years away. Plus the cost would become insurmountable, especially once mining chips reach the 10nm architectures and beyond, which is expected to happen in the next decade. So no, not really a threat AKAIK. Doh I didn't expect somebody would have thinked of this already, sorry  But I can't understand one thing: you hard fork to SHA512 and difficulty increases for everybody, where's the solution? Thanks for the link, I'll read that. |
|
|
|
Imagine somebody buys one of these and turn it on mining. This would bring the next increase in difficulty to hell, so much that the cost for mining would disrupt any income for anybody. Nobody would mine anymore, apart maybe the owner of the quantum cpu. That brings us straight into the 51% danger, right? A quantum cpu may not be economically cunning AT THE MOMENT, but when the Bitcoin value will grow, the cost of a quantum cpu could be well worth the cost. Or imagine a central bank that wants to destroy Bitcoin: just buy one of these and fuck up everything in one week. |
|
|
|
What does the server see? I mean in case someone looks at the server data can he see all the addresses that are connected to one wallet?
Yes. Though i guess the label sync plugin should be able to provide the same data, even for more than one wallet when using the same plugin website login.
I believe that data is encrypted before being sent to the server. edit: see https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=154144.0Oh... doesnt sound good... I mean who knows what those data could be useful for if such a electrum server gets hacked or seized. And the server operator could see it all the time. The same goes for the plugin server. So its possible to identify the complete wallet, addresses, transactions and property of a certain user only by finding one hint. I dont like thinking about this and im a bit angry why i didnt think about this earlier. I thought it would be better to create a new wallet and a new plugin account with new email sometimes. But now i think using electrum is a risk in itself. You need to trust every server provider (when using auto connect, which is the standard) and you need to hope the server nor the plugin server gets hacked. Sounds a bit risky. The coins cant be stolen but it sounds still too much for me. You can run your own server if that is bothering you so much. You mean, an Electrum server? |
|
|
|
great...the first link gives me an error about my browser not accepting cookies. Tried 3 browsers...
Went to intersango.com now and it looks it's completely off. |
|
|
|
so the point is 'DO NOT MINING'? am i right? so if that's true now is time to move on altcoins  I'm writing a guide on why altcoins are, practically all, fated to fail. I'll make it short here for you: everybody is accepting BTC, NOT altcoins. Everybody is building infrastructure on BTC, only some accept some altcoins. Everybody is investing in BTC, only some put something into altcoins. If you have some exceeding money to trash, buy some altcoins and hope that in the future at least one will step up, otherwise stay far from them. mining bitcoins is bad, altcoin is bad.. so what's exactly you ask us to do? trading with big loose? or stop thinking about bitcoin and go away from this? I ask you nothing. And even more: I am nobody, not economist, not guru, nothing. It's just my opinion, but if you open your eyes a bit it's not too difficult to try to forecast this environment. Just buy BTC with fiat currency and wait. Not the right time for mining, not the right time for buying too many altcoins. IMHO. |
|
|
|
so the point is 'DO NOT MINING'? am i right? so if that's true now is time to move on altcoins I'm writing a guide on why altcoins are, practically all, fated to fail. I'll make it short here for you: everybody is accepting BTC, NOT altcoins. Everybody is building infrastructure on BTC, only some accept some altcoins. Everybody is investing in BTC, only some put something into altcoins. If you have some exceeding money to trash, buy some altcoins and hope that in the future at least one will step up, otherwise stay far from them. |
|
|
|
about 0.01 a day, probably another 3 months roi
That's 10 days at 0.01, then difficulty goes up 20% so no you get 0.0083 for 10-11 days, then 0.00065 for 10-11 days and so on. As you approach the 3 month time period the electricity costs more than the income, so you turn it off. You will not recoup your 1 BTC. Unless the network crashes and burns in which case you get thousands of useless BTC lol. I think this machine gives back what you pay it, but not by much... I mean, after 6 months you get 0.3 BTC on top of your investment repaid. Is it really worth it? Mining is essentially dead. And...just wait for the new 50 PHs stomping into the network, and boom, bye bye mining, once and for all. You put in a 32% increase per month!?! We had a 25% just for the last 10 day period! Two of those in a row is 1.25x1.25=1.56 or 56% increase in just about 20-22 days, not even counting out 30 days. The machine won't even earn it's fiat back unless Bitcoin doubles in price. A calculator (like any tool) only works if used correctly. Difficulty increase goes with computational power increase. If computational power wouldn't increase, difficulty would stay the same (for what I know). The problem is vc are still pouring capitals and buying computing power, even when the investment is very risky and doesn't pay that much. My opinion is that in the future we'll see some other months of PHs getting into play, and then, when the income will be very tight, many of these mining companies will pop off, beginning with cloud miners. We are rapidly approaching the no-return in investment, by hardware costs and electricity consumption. When this soil will be met there will be slower addition of computational power, but I expect a collapse not too far in time on GHs prices on cloud mining, and then also on hardware. The people throwing VC around as investing into "massive" multi-million dollar farms. They develop and produce their own miners or subcontract somelike like ASICMiner to make the chips and they make their own. Their costs are significantly lower than a home user. They can afford to have 10k miners air-lifted to Iceland and mine with cheap power. You and I mining at home cannot compete with that. It may cost you $450 to buy an S3, Bitmain can make it for $200 and they only need to mine $200 to break even. If 0.5W/GH/s is realized soon then we won't see step off until 2016 at the 1/2ing, if we don't get the efficiency up then it will drop sooner as you noted, but not from the VCs. Anyway, I took off my money from mining and suggest everybody "small" to do so as well |
|
|
|
about 0.01 a day, probably another 3 months roi
That's 10 days at 0.01, then difficulty goes up 20% so no you get 0.0083 for 10-11 days, then 0.00065 for 10-11 days and so on. As you approach the 3 month time period the electricity costs more than the income, so you turn it off. You will not recoup your 1 BTC. Unless the network crashes and burns in which case you get thousands of useless BTC lol. I think this machine gives back what you pay it, but not by much... I mean, after 6 months you get 0.3 BTC on top of your investment repaid. Is it really worth it? Mining is essentially dead. And...just wait for the new 50 PHs stomping into the network, and boom, bye bye mining, once and for all. You put in a 32% increase per month!?! We had a 25% just for the last 10 day period! Two of those in a row is 1.25x1.25=1.56 or 56% increase in just about 20-22 days, not even counting out 30 days. The machine won't even earn it's fiat back unless Bitcoin doubles in price. A calculator (like any tool) only works if used correctly. Difficulty increase goes with computational power increase. If computational power wouldn't increase, difficulty would stay the same (for what I know). We just had a 25%, true, but when this step was so steep, it's possible that the next one will be lower. The problem is vc are still pouring capitals and buying computing power, even when the investment is very risky and doesn't pay that much, but I don't expect that much after this jump. My opinion is that in the future we'll see some other months of PHs getting into play, and then, when the income will be very tight, many of these mining companies will pop off, beginning with cloud miners. We are rapidly approaching the no-return in investment, by hardware costs and electricity consumption. When this soil will be met there will be slower addition of computational power, but I expect a collapse not too far in time on GHs prices on cloud mining, and then also on hardware. |
|
|
|
 These are my returns so far since March 24th. I've sold every pay out at market price the day it arrived. As you can see if I had held till now I would have made more and been closer to breaking even. But nonetheless I think I'll be there in about 6 weeks. Considering putting a large investment into this, it's really a no brainer. It's "strange" (to say the least) that your income is not falling by around 18% every 2 weeks. How do you explain that? Also, your 141 GH/s look like producing much more than my 104 GH/s. 1 week is giving me 12$ right now. Based on what I take, you should get 17$ per week. You take around twice as that. Have you got some partner bonus? But even with partners... you should have 30 of them to reach that amount. Funny how he didn't reply to this my post... his earnings do not look subject to difficulty increment and he thinks it's normal |
|
|
|
about 0.01 a day, probably another 3 months roi
That's 10 days at 0.01, then difficulty goes up 20% so no you get 0.0083 for 10-11 days, then 0.00065 for 10-11 days and so on. As you approach the 3 month time period the electricity costs more than the income, so you turn it off. You will not recoup your 1 BTC. Unless the network crashes and burns in which case you get thousands of useless BTC lol. i'm staying away from asic thank you lol Cloud mining is even worse. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
