if they are all using s7 for their mining, it appear that the total wattage is around 240MW
200k s7 for 1200w
Ah thanks, you did same math here - just 2 min before me:) yeah, it would be curious to know the maximum energy per zone that chinese can use before the needs to move to another location Yes - I could also think this will be only a 'near' term advantage until it is noticed & stopped and / or reaches some external threshold. |
|
|
|
Stoat - although I don't think you're a bad person (just very enthusiastic over etherium)... you do realise that bumping this thread over and over is not beneficial for Etherium? quite the opposite.
The BBC made a video a UK troll. Why not just listen to the critique anonymint gave and accept that you don't have any way to refute it right now. Don't feel bad about it less than 0.01% of the board understands crypto at a deep enough level to argue with smooth, anonymint et al. That and the fact even VB has not come here to offer a quick explanation of how anonymint is wrong is kind of strange. Maybe there is no way to refute it?
I mean if there was just something he is planning to deal with the issue brought up then fair enough. However nothing from him or any Eth core dev since the start. Perhaps ask on the etherium board his opinion?
or
Just wait and see. If Etherium can scale it can scale. If it can not (as i fear it can not after the laymans explanation he attempted to give on the other page) then perhaps they will find another design by which it can.
Well scaling is not the only problem they can't solve. Another problem is as I explained upthread, that generalized scripting destroys the security of the block chain because it enables scenarios where the 51% attacker can fund his attack by stealing the coins of others. Ethereum is vaporware. The unsatisfying part will be that stoat will disappear when Ethereum has failed and he was chicken shit to reveal his true identity, so we won't be able to doxx him in real life. In one of their videos / threads they discussed about only allow a special subset of scrpting types to adress the 'generalized scripting' issue. You think that's feasable? Probably but it will highly limit what they can allow to be scripted. I already made the superior proposal which is to investigate using zk-snarks to hide the data of scripts from miners (or validators). The validation could be done in zero knowledge. In either case, they are not close to solving that issue, which is separate from the insoluble scaling issue. There is only one way to solve the scaling issue DECENTRALIZED and I know what it is. No one else in the universe apparently knows how to do it. Their only options will be to either lie about the Prisoner's Dilemma and cross their fingers or centralize the validation. So in terms of script limitation I guess there is a massive need for re-dimensionizing what is really possible at current state - in blockchain world (not just ETH). As you know best, even a 'simple' solution for a decentralized exchange is not just DONE straight forwad at all (OK - here are two blockchains inwolved, but complexity grade looks rather low). |
|
|
|
No, Factom runs on top of Bitcoin chain. Guardtimes solution is built on their "keyless signature infrastructure" https://github.com/GuardTime/libksiMy impression, based on cursory perusal of the code is that theirs it is not a blockchain but more like linked list of hashes. Nothing to do with Eth or smart contracts either. Fine, I just wanted to make the point that if it comes down to a serious solution / app -> Some (open source) chain code is just forked / copied, not adopted. IMO R3 is expected to do exactly this as well, so after they've played around enough, they'll build own stuff. |
|
|
|
Back to partitions, I've read about sharding today, the post was written by Vitalik and it describes exactly what is being implemented. It said clearly that if a call from one transaction group is made to another transaction group it would produce "out of range" exception. Its not clear to me why you even discuss the possibility of such calls that would be executed.
The second thing I did I watched an interview with Vitalik where he said that in Ethereum 2.0 they are thinking about getting away from every node executing every transaction. In a paper you quoted before exactly such solution is described with double decker blockchain where one layer is used to simply store the state. This seems to be the exact solution they are going to adopt.
need_war you need to understand that there are no problems in computer science that can't be solved. If particular architecture doesn't work they will change it to the one that works. The whole thing about blockchain with all the excitement around it seems to me like we say in Russia "sucked out of finger" . But that doesn't mean that Ethereum is not gonna work and that we won't be able to make money on it. Crazy youngsters like Vitalik will develop lots of shit on Ethereum just because people have nothing better to do. No point to talk further, what I studied so far is enough for me to start pouring money in mining farm for it.
Than they need to come over the CAP theorem - could be a bit tricky. 'Proof' is there: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1319681.msg13490710#msg13490710  Yes applications on Ethereum will not work good for everybody all the time, but so what, it will work most of the time for the majority of participants. Yep, so all APP Builders with big assets (& risk) behind, will never use ETH as is, rather fork it to private use or use some MySQL or NoSQL stuff... Edit: BTC is still seen as a risky experiment, so pls consider ETH as even a more risky one. Just do own risk management for market AND cyber risks. Here, a fork of Factom seems to be used: http://www.coindesk.com/blockchain-startup-aims-to-secure-1-million-estonian-health-records/ |
|
|
|
Back to partitions, I've read about sharding today, the post was written by Vitalik and it describes exactly what is being implemented. It said clearly that if a call from one transaction group is made to another transaction group it would produce "out of range" exception. Its not clear to me why you even discuss the possibility of such calls that would be executed.
The second thing I did I watched an interview with Vitalik where he said that in Ethereum 2.0 they are thinking about getting away from every node executing every transaction. In a paper you quoted before exactly such solution is described with double decker blockchain where one layer is used to simply store the state. This seems to be the exact solution they are going to adopt.
need_war you need to understand that there are no problems in computer science that can't be solved. If particular architecture doesn't work they will change it to the one that works. The whole thing about blockchain with all the excitement around it seems to me like we say in Russia "sucked out of finger" . But that doesn't mean that Ethereum is not gonna work and that we won't be able to make money on it. Crazy youngsters like Vitalik will develop lots of shit on Ethereum just because people have nothing better to do. No point to talk further, what I studied so far is enough for me to start pouring money in mining farm for it.
Than they need to come over the CAP theorem - could be a bit tricky. 'Proof' is there: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1319681.msg13490710#msg13490710 Yes applications on Ethereum will not work good for everybody all the time, but so what, it will work most of the time for the majority of participants. Yep, so all APP Builders with big assets (& risk) behind, will never use ETH as is, rather fork it to private use or use some MySQL or NoSQL stuff... Edit: BTC is still seen as a risky experiment, so pls consider ETH as even a more risky one. Just do own risk management for market AND cyber risks. |
|
|
|
You won't have any problems if you pay high enough fee. The problem is that the fees are constantly moving up!
You can always pay much more than is recommended for fast confirmation, though the fees could skyrocket even faster if more people do this... So - pls DEVs + miners count 1 + 1 together, ETH skyrocks BTC stalls - extrapolate to 2017 - goodbye BTC! |
|
|
|
I have been sending out quite a few transactions yesterday, all with a few of at least 0.0002BTC and they have been confirming nicely without problems. So far I don't experience any problems from the huge mountain of waiting transactions.
You won't have any problems if you pay high enough fee. The problem is that the fees are constantly moving up! Sh...t , I need to go Long Western Union  |
|
|
|
Back to partitions, I've read about sharding today, the post was written by Vitalik and it describes exactly what is being implemented. It said clearly that if a call from one transaction group is made to another transaction group it would produce "out of range" exception. Its not clear to me why you even discuss the possibility of such calls that would be executed.
The second thing I did I watched an interview with Vitalik where he said that in Ethereum 2.0 they are thinking about getting away from every node executing every transaction. In a paper you quoted before exactly such solution is described with double decker blockchain where one layer is used to simply store the state. This seems to be the exact solution they are going to adopt.
need_war you need to understand that there are no problems in computer science that can't be solved. If particular architecture doesn't work they will change it to the one that works. The whole thing about blockchain with all the excitement around it seems to me like we say in Russia "sucked out of finger" . But that doesn't mean that Ethereum is not gonna work and that we won't be able to make money on it. Crazy youngsters like Vitalik will develop lots of shit on Ethereum just because people have nothing better to do. No point to talk further, what I studied so far is enough for me to start pouring money in mining farm for it.
Did you read https://blog.ethereum.org/2015/12/28/understanding-serenity-part-2-casper/ and the discussion that follows? As Bob McElrath points out there, the Casper is not exempt from the centralization tendency that is the bane of proof-of-stake systems. That problem is probably unsolvable in principle. Why don't you just keep posting technical arguments?
Why throws pearls at swine. Why shoot at flies with a handgun? Vitalik has replied to your comment on the page that I linked above, so there's some bigger game for you. To me that sounds he's mostly fine with centralization. |
|
|
|
Back to partitions, I've read about sharding today, the post was written by Vitalik and it describes exactly what is being implemented. It said clearly that if a call from one transaction group is made to another transaction group it would produce "out of range" exception. Its not clear to me why you even discuss the possibility of such calls that would be executed.
The second thing I did I watched an interview with Vitalik where he said that in Ethereum 2.0 they are thinking about getting away from every node executing every transaction. In a paper you quoted before exactly such solution is described with double decker blockchain where one layer is used to simply store the state. This seems to be the exact solution they are going to adopt.
need_war you need to understand that there are no problems in computer science that can't be solved. If particular architecture doesn't work they will change it to the one that works. The whole thing about blockchain with all the excitement around it seems to me like we say in Russia "sucked out of finger" . But that doesn't mean that Ethereum is not gonna work and that we won't be able to make money on it. Crazy youngsters like Vitalik will develop lots of shit on Ethereum just because people have nothing better to do. No point to talk further, what I studied so far is enough for me to start pouring money in mining farm for it.
Than they need to come over the CAP theorem - could be a bit tricky. 'Proof' is there: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1319681.msg13490710#msg13490710 |
|
|
|
Stoat - although I don't think you're a bad person (just very enthusiastic over etherium)... you do realise that bumping this thread over and over is not beneficial for Etherium? quite the opposite.
The BBC made a video a UK troll. Why not just listen to the critique anonymint gave and accept that you don't have any way to refute it right now. Don't feel bad about it less than 0.01% of the board understands crypto at a deep enough level to argue with smooth, anonymint et al. That and the fact even VB has not come here to offer a quick explanation of how anonymint is wrong is kind of strange. Maybe there is no way to refute it?
I mean if there was just something he is planning to deal with the issue brought up then fair enough. However nothing from him or any Eth core dev since the start. Perhaps ask on the etherium board his opinion?
or
Just wait and see. If Etherium can scale it can scale. If it can not (as i fear it can not after the laymans explanation he attempted to give on the other page) then perhaps they will find another design by which it can.
Well scaling is not the only problem they can't solve. Another problem is as I explained upthread, that generalized scripting destroys the security of the block chain because it enables scenarios where the 51% attacker can fund his attack by stealing the coins of others. Ethereum is vaporware. The unsatisfying part will be that stoat will disappear when Ethereum has failed and he was chicken shit to reveal his true identity, so we won't be able to doxx him in real life. In one of their videos / threads they discussed about only allow a special subset of scrpting types to adress the 'generalized scripting' issue. You think that's feasable? |
|
|
|
Well that is if you assume the only possible overriding motivation for the strategies that determine a Nash equilibrium are about profit.
How can you convince a rational miner to behave in favour of the network when to do so always costs them more than it would to behave rationally? You can't. Agreed. Therein lies the problem. You have to compensate them, because acting in favour of the network always costs more than being purely rational. It is not a problem. You asked the wrong question. Guess every single wallet user / coin owner would pay a litle fee for securely enter his tx into the chain. So the wallet might do some part of mining ? |
|
|
|
Good Thread. Im also new bee in mining and try some maths.
Actual, hashrate is about 2000 peta, correct?
A S7 does about 5 tera so entire hashpower could be achieved by about 400 000 S7 correct?
where you see 2k peta? it's 1 exa so 1k peta only, or slightly above that so more like 200k s7, a bit more because one does 4.7T Thanks, yes but just very roughly to get a bigger scope. This estimate I've done is not completely off. So the 200k S7 (or some more) might need about 1.5kW * 200k = 300 MW. That's quite a difference in the bolded part of the quote. I'm also doing a few calcs here, could you help me try to establish a way to reliably estimate the total hashrate at any given point in time? How accurate are the Blockchain.info and Bitcoinchain.com pie charts? If I know the hashrate of a given pool and multiply out their attributed share, by a factor of what can that be out? Thanks. Sorry - I just did some top down calcs to see some upper range if you'd just want to buy 50% hashrate by hard having 0% now.. So I also only look at Blockchain.info and yes it is far below 2 yet. But you could extrapolate that by time with a linear function using log scale in y (hashrate). |
|
|
|
TPTB_need_war its really hard to follow your arguments without specific example. If you understand this deep enough give us specific code example which will illustrate what you are talking about. Without an example it seems very high level abstract esoteric discussion.
Not really needed, just watch that ETH-DEVs video upthread and try to get just a faint feeling for how close they are to a proper solution for Casper. |
|
|
|
You got it with your edit.
Of course the virtual machine assumes they are atomic as you first stated, but the reality of the sharding is they can't be.
Building the virtual machine was the fun, easy part. The consensus scaling was the hard part which they should have done first even before raising ICO money. That is disgraceful.
The only way around this that I can see is to make Ether non fungible, which is a bit of a problem for a currency. Than the circle is closed since they initially said it's not a ccy, but fuel. |
|
|
|
if they are all using s7 for their mining, it appear that the total wattage is around 240MW
200k s7 for 1200w
Ah thanks, you did same math here - just 2 min before me:) |
|
|
|
Please someone tell me I'm wrong, but i am a huge supporter or bitcoin and the concept of decentralization and have been doing some research about mining because i want to support this idea but i have not found one method that will yield in positive profits for new miners entering the market right now.
Even the S7 miner ($800 - $1200 USD) will generate 0.5%-0.75% daily ROI yield and this is excluding electricity cost, add the increasing Difficulty to the equation and the fact that Block reward is halving in the summer it is now increasing exponentially in negative profits.
Cloud mining is pretty much the same thing too Maintenance cost of these websites are ridiculous (Hashnest, CEX.io, etc) and if you come across something that brings up your hopes it ends up being a ponzi
am i missing something here, how are miners making there money?
I am happy we have a newbie who actually does some research and not just buys a miner and starts complaining afters. Cloud mining is not profitable. Mining can be profitable if you can get bulk prices and have a very low energy cost. For the rest of us (home miners) it's not profitable. Good Thread. Im also new bee in mining and try some maths. Actual, hashrate is about 2000 peta, correct? A S7 does about 5 tera so entire hashpower could be achieved by about 400 000 S7 correct? where you see 2k peta? it's 1 exa so 1k peta only, or slightly above that so more like 200k s7, a bit more because one does 4.7T Thanks, yes but just very roughly to get a bigger scope. This estimate I've done is not completely off. So the 200k S7 (or some more) might need about 1.5kW * 200k = 300 MW. |
|
|
|
|
I speculated already somewhere else that Chinese BTC owners / mining pools are buying ETH for domination of the planned PoS mining.
|
|
|
|
|
And more condensed again, ETH needs Casper to work as promised, that is the entire core and value, correct?
So if Casper is still not ready and maybe can Never be created decentral, ETH has a value between a MySQL DB and NXT....
|
|
|
|
Just take a look at Dash as a example, the developers pre-mined the shite out of the coin within the first 8 hours of it's existence and then people started to complain and scream pump n dump. Nobody wants to invest in something that may end up as a scam or a Ponzi.
If Satoshi touch those coins, people will scream Pump n Dump again, and investors will pull out.
There are many ways to avoid this situation. He could step forward, dox himself and donate his Bitcoins to charities for example. He could even stay with a good part of it, without a great panic. He could also invest in a Bitcoin company or whatever. I even think, that this status quo weakens Bitcoin, because we never know, when this pandoras box will be opened. I had also speculated he would donate some to the unbanked. Or he could use some for solving some hard Future problems, e.g. fixing scalability or buying and running some miners for better decentralisation & trust. |
|
|
|
all the block dots are NOT owned by satoshi. the angle of the dots is the easiest way to work out who is who. because the angle is the eqivelent measure of CPU speed. the more vertical it is (10degrees) is super fast cpu. but the closer to 90degree's they get those are slower and slower cpu's satoshis 'angle' can be easily counted.. if you have the time to manually do it so far, this is an example.. the light blue is satoshi. the other colours are other people/other PC's  (my image is not exact because first i sorted out the satoshi angles and then moved onto colour coding different users individually.. but still not perfect) as for saying satoshi never spent the coins.. he did move some coins. even on the first day he and hal finney were mining.. just not all of them were moved/spent.. for him it wasnt about selling for profit but for testing purposes. as for other people, they also spent coins too. by block 500(day 4) i can easily see 4-5 different patterns that represent 4-5 different users/computer mining. (still trying to manually sift through the data) Nice Graph. How did you retrieve that and what are the axis? |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
