You don't need an inverter.  Both laptop and BFL run on DC power.  If they don't run @ 12V (battery output) you will need a DC-DC powersupply to convert the 12V to what the laptop and BFL expect.

Ah I forgot the awesome that was this thread.  The good "ole" days.  Historical note: anything in 2012 is the old timey Bitcoin with steam powered mining rigs, nodes hooked up by telegraph, and a rush to build the transcontinental blockchain.

If they were all coins with healthy margins and a future like Bitcoin of course and what you would see is the network limp along at x MH/s and then skyrocket to a GH/s or more on the "lucky/super/golden" blocks.  The larger the multiple between the normal blocks and the super blocks the more the change in hashing power.

Of course all these coins will be dead/dying within a couple of months so it likely won't be worth it but just as individual miners and pools change coins based on normal profitability it would be trivial to include super block rewards into those calculations.

Lucky/Super/Golden blocks are pointless anyways and the Vlad's rationale fails basic logic.  Once a coin becomes large most small miners join pools.  In a pool the miner may individually find a block but shares the rewards of many hundreds of blocks.  300 normal blocks + 1 super block = ~average reward per block aproaches the EV.  The small miner would make just as much (in nominal coins) if NUG had no super block and just a flat block reward of 171 NUG per block. 

It is trivial to accomplish.

Send coins to another address in your in your wallet.   The input of any tx is simply a previous tx output.  Normally we wait 1+ confirms but there is no requirement to do so, not at the protocol level.  So take the unspent output you just created and make a new tx using that output as an input and then take the output of that tx and use it as an input for yet another new tx ... etc.

You need a modified client with coin control (or coin control patch) but once you have that the protocol doesn't care it is simply creating transactions like you would any other you just don't wait for the prior unspent output to be confirmed.

Send x BTC using any unspent output to address A (output a)
Send x BTC using unspent output a to address B (output b)
Send x BTC using unspent output b to address C (output c)
...
Send x BTC using unspent output y to address Z (output z)






As for why?  No idea but the protocol doesn't care.  They are valid transactions.  They have always been valid transactions.

Really dree12?  A discussion?  Do you see the quote I responded to?  For fuck sake.  Nothing was being discussed when someone advises me to "stay happy, locked and loaded".   I mean the irony is you actually (indirectly) quoted it.  

Anyways to the OP sorry for derailing your thread.  I will delete all the posts.  The original one was intended as a piece of advice take it or leave it but obviously (not by the OP but others) that is simply verboten because it involves the private ownership of firearms (something which I guess only the state should have the right to).

You have always been able to spend 0-confirm funds.  The protocol has no rule against this.  Of course a tx can't confirm until all of its parents are also confirmed.

The QT client has a restriction requiring 1 (not 6) confirmations for coins sent from outside addresses before allowing funds to be "spent" however that is simply a client side block and can be removed in the source code.  Coins from one address to another in the same wallet can be spent with 0-confirms.

That fork died off because it was NON CONTRAVERSIAL as have all hard forks to date (for example fixing integer overflow bug).  Obviously when only one fork remains it is obvious which network is "Bitcoin.  Hint: it is the only one remaining.

What you are proposing is a non-controversial fork.  Imagine instead two incompatible networks both with significant number of supports both calling themselves "Bitcoin" and neither one willing to let their fork die so there can be a consensus.  That is the scenario of a controversial fork.  It is utter chaos, and massively disruptive.  Can you imagine the confusion and destruction in demand it would cause.

It simply will never happen, the intertia is on the existing protocol as it exists today and if there is a controversial fork, the new fork will die in the craddle. The risk is simply too high for any significant stakeholders to support the risk it would be to try and force a controversial change onto the network.   Not with a majority of nodes, not with a majority of miners, not with a majority of developers.  The risk is too great and Bitcoin is worth over a billion dollars. That value can evaporate overnight if there is a loss of faith in the network.  That is one thing Bitcoin has in common with fiat in that it is worth something because people have faith that it is worth something.

A controversial fork which splits the network risks killing that faith.  Your OP is wrong because you fail to understand you can't "stop" a blockchain and in a controversial fork you better believe both forks will continue and both will call themselves Bitcoin.  The parties backing each fork have no reason to stop and no reason to give up the "branding" of the name Bitcoin.

If you still don't get it, then you simply never will so this will be my last post.

A majority of nodes can't change Bitcoin.  The original fork will still remain and users of it very likely will still call it Bitcoin.

Say 70% of the nodes adopt a hard fork and use Scrypt as the hashing algorithm.  Now imagine that the top 10 Bitcoin merchants only accept the "original Bitcoin" as do MtGox, BitInstant, Coinbase, and Blockchain.Info, et all.

Which network is the "real Bitcoin"?  The one with the "majority" of nodes (a meaningless stat) or the one with the majority of developers, merchants, exchanges, service providers, etc.  Starting to see the complexity? 

BTW I didn't say Bitcoin is whatever a majority of nodes say it is.  I said the protocol we call Bitcoin today is what a CONSENSUS of nodes (as in 100.000000000000%) say it is.

Do you understand the meaning of the word contradict?

That doesn't erase the existing network.  Also you don't  need a majority of miners.  You could have a minority of miners and create a hard fork or you could have a super majority of miners and it simply be ignored by nodes which don't upgrade to your incompatible fork.

You also don't need to start with a blank (new) blockchain.  You could launch a scrypt based alt-coin today which uses the bitcoin blockchain up to a certain point and everyone who has coins on the Bitcoin network would also have coins on this new network.

So sorry nothing about that post was correct.   You still seem to not grasp the concept that.  You can't change Bitcoin you can only fork it.  Users always have a choice of the existing (current) network and the new incompatible fork.  You can't prevent the existing network from operating and you can't force nodes to upgrade.

This is why controversial hard forks have essentially no chance of surviving.  

I don't think Vlad knows what that questions means much less the answer.  Knowledge is for suckers, always best to do things blind without any understanding.  "Faith is best when it is unquestioning".

You haven't learned anything and if you really are spending 16 hours a day for a week and still are unable to learn anything then maybe you are a moron.


The problem is you don't believe in it.  You believe crypto-currencies are a ponzi scheme and this is your chance to get in on the ground floor, dump it on someone else, and get rich before the government shuts it all down in a couple years.

Your words.

No Bitcoin is the protocol that nodes agree to follow.  If a new node is running an incompatible protocol then it won't be seen as valid by existing nodes.  (i.e. if you created a "bitcoin" node that used Scrypt today, then no other Bitcoin node would see your blocks as valid).

You can't just change "Bitcoin" because you can't stop the old/existing fork from running.  All you can do is fork the network.  

Once again because this seems to be a reality that is misunderstood.

"Bitcoin" is by consensus the protocol as it exists today.  You can fork that protocol but you can't force a change to that protocol.


That greatly limits the types of changes which will be accepted.  Many people (myself included) never want to see a permanent split for any reason unless absolutely unavoidable.  So if you (or the GPU miner's alliance) propose a fork (and yes ANY breaking change is a fork) that switches the hashing algorithm I (and many others) won't support it.  A permanent fork would be massively disruptive, would destroy value, and would split the resources of the community.   I would only change sides if I felt doing so would help to kill off one of the forks.

BTW I no longer mine and probably never will so this isn't some personal view to protect my own profit margins.  It is just that having two "Bitcoins" each calling themselves "Bitcoin" and supported by a large group of people would be a worst case scenario.  It is chaotic, will hamper adoption, and ultimately everyone losses.

It is highly unlikely (bordering on nearly impossible) that a core element of Bitcoin will be changed.

By a core element I mean things like:
1) Transactions are irreversible (even in cases of obvious fraud or theft)
2) Coins never "expire", there is no such thing as recycling coins (which is just another form of reversibility).
3) The network computes difficulty every 2016 blocks, has an expected time between blocks of 10 minutes.
4) Consensus in disputes (double spends) is enforced by a proof of work using the SHA-256 algorithm
5) There will never be more than 21M coins and the block subsidy schedule will be followed (50 BTC halving every 210K blocks)

The only scenarios I could see where a large enough consensus forms (among miners, bitcoin holders, merchants, developers, service providers, exchanges, etc) to change the hashing algorithm is either
a) Bitcoin is continually 51% attacked
b) a flaw in SHA-256 is found making preimage attacks possible

Essentially the network changes because not changing likely means a complete loss of all value and utility.

LOLZ.  First honest thing you have said.  Remember when people said launching a coin when you are completely ignorant on all aspect of crypto-currency from basic theory, to blockchain function, to mining would be a bad idea?  Remember when you disagreed and responded with some barely corherent stories of soviet brain experiments caused by injections to your thigh?

Ignorance, the gift that keeps on giving.


 

You gave him a half a million or so you idiot.  Remember when you gave 15 "different" people 100,000 NUG "each".  Think about it .... think about it .... Don't worry take your time, maybe in 2 or 3 weeks you will solve the riddle.

Yes. 

Yes.  Technically there is no such thing as a "Bitcoin" ASIC.  The ASIC has no idea what it is hashing.  You give it a blob of data, it adds a nonce to it, hashes it and checks to see if it meets a target.  It then increments the nonce and tries again.  When it gets to the last nonce is starts over.  

Anything that uses the same hashing algorithm can be mined with a "Bitcoin ASIC.  If the coin is merge mine capable (i.e. namecoin) you can mine both Bitcoin AND that alt-coin simultaneously.

As for FPGA & Scrypt based coins.  Not at this time.  In theory you could however someone would need to develop an efficient firmware and nobody has yet.  It also probably would require a larger FPGA chip than the SpartanIV because the version of scrypt used in altcoins requries 128KB of cache as a scratchpad.

At current exchange rate the network would need to be more than 20 PH/s before even the least efficient ASICs are unable to operate profitably (note once purchased the capital cost is sunk so we are looking only at ongoing electrical cost).  It is more like 40PH/s for BFL and KNC devices and 80 PH/s for Bitfury.   With the network currently at 0.2 PH it would take a massive amount hashing power (and thus capital) to push the network rate that high. 

No matter how efficient Bitfury are sales will slow once the ROI% on new hardware is pushed low enough and that should happen long before the least efficient EXISTING units become unprofitable.  The one thing which could change this is a significant rise in exchange rate for an extended period of time and then a substantial crash (i.e. exchange rate rises to $500 over next 6 months and then crashed back to $100).

Miners are paid BOTH the block subsidy + transaction fees.

2009 - 50 BTC subsidy + ~0 BTC tx fees.
2013 - 25 BTC subsidy + ~0.25 BTC tx fees.
2017 - 12.5 BTC subsidy + ~?? BTC tx fees
2137 - 1 satoshi subsidy (0.00000001 BTC) + ?? BTC tx fees.
2140 - 0 BTC subsidy + ?? BTC tx fees.