afaik fees don't affect transaction speed (yet). It also seems some transactions can get "lost", I've had to wait 2 days for a few to even show up, but they did, eventually. |
|
|
|
Well that all depends on the speed of SteveB
And weather or not i should trust him, His name reminds me on StevenBucks, But i dont know if he WANTS me to think that, or if it's StevenBucks with another account for whatever reason
roger that  |
|
|
|
|
I would be happy to loan you some coins, if you still need them.
|
|
|
|
I doubt very much that the ability to break RSA (for example) would compromise elliptic-curve cryptography.
unless someone finds an efficient generalized algorithm for solving discrete logarithm, in which case pretty much all cryptography currently in use would fall. |
|
|
|
@vladimir: It's a one-off.
@vuce: So you would accept that the other guy keep $5000 and you $0? Technically (and again, assuming we identify utility with monetary payoff, as you seem to have done), that is a Nash equilibrium too: rejecting the deal would hurt the other guy while netting you nothing.
@db: That would be the exact same deal, with a different framing. My guess is that if you did a parallel study, dividing the subjects in two halves and asking either question, you'd get significantly different results. Ironically, I think your framing favors the first guy. Guess why?
In this case im indiferent To anyone saying 50:50: it's more important to you to "teach them a lesson" than 2499$? |
|
|
|
@vuce: Your analysis is flawless, and settles the game-theoretic interpretation of the problem. Then again, this question isn't a riddle in game theory, nor necessarily about maximizing payoff, nor are you asked to take money as a representation of utility. I think you understand that and mean what you say, but just to make sure: would you really take one cent if this actually happened tomorrow?
I most definitely would. Not for the 1 cent I would get, but because I'm not a selfish bastard (not that all those who wouldn't are selfish bastards, I meant no offense to anyone ) |
|
|
|
|
Well obviously I would. However you made a mistake, since the only nash equilibrium is 4999.99 (taking in account that the minimum value for a trade is 1 cent), in which case I still should accept the deal.
|
|
|
|
There are algorithms that do not offer an advantage to quantum computing systems, but it would take widespread belief in such a threat to incentivize everyone to switch over.
Which ones? Can you supply a not-too-technical reference? Multivariate cryptography, lattice-based cryptography which sounds like a bunch of words thrown together. quick synop on what that means? they use similar ideas on different mathematical structures (and I really can't summarize those). One such example would be ntruencrypt. |
|
|
|
There are algorithms that do not offer an advantage to quantum computing systems, but it would take widespread belief in such a threat to incentivize everyone to switch over.
Which ones? Can you supply a not-too-technical reference? Multivariate cryptography, lattice-based cryptography |
|
|
|
I got the chance to talk about BitCoin this morning to a meeting of startup folks at a local incubator in Silicon Valley. It was Mobile Payments day so it was a great opportunity to jump up and talk. One of the dudes there told me something like the gov't has already cracked public key cryptography - that its essentially just a "speed bump". He says it was a General speaking, or an NSA guy or some such thing.
What's the story here guys?
How do I handle such comments?
It all depends on the key length. Security depends on discrete logarithm problem, which at this time is difficult to solve (O(sqrt n), where n is proportional to key length). Small keys can be cracked, but something that would be used in bitcoin can't. The only way I see current public cryptography being cracked is with quantum computers. |
|
|
|
thermal problem at only 65C on a 5770?
seems a bit low to me (i don't have a 5770 though).
yeah, definitely low. It should run at 80 deg without any problems. BTW, if that memory clock setting is correct that is ridiculously low. Mine runs as 1200 MHz. |
|
|
|
|
I've been searching the wiki/googling for this but couldn't find anything. Can someone help me?
Thanks in advance
|
|
|
|
|
This makes no sense at all. Why would he show you he is stealing shares from you?
In case of software errors, those happen, that's the risk you take. No one is forcing you to mine in a pool. There's definitely no need to make such a fuss about it.
|
|
|
|
|
You're overreacting. Software bugs can happen, you know.
|
|
|
|
Just a newbie question. This "mining" process is just waste of electricity to extract codes or are we realling solving mathematical CPU intensive processes like finding prime numbers or scanning SETI data for intelligent radio signal or something like that?
actually, the mining process is the act of using the hashing power of the entire network to crack the private keys of everyone who holds Bitcoin - in descending order of the magnitude of their holdings. well... didn't you ever wonder about that? wrong mining is supposed to give an incentive NOT to use hashing power to crack keys. sorry, but aren't hashing and key-cracking two totally unrelated problems? |
|
|
|
edit: ah, I think I got it. You wouldn't have to keep your private key on the same computer to create new backups, is that it? That does make sense. Why ecc specifically? I assume speed/key length are not of great concern here? Not that it's a problem, I'm just interested why Yep, Key length is useful to be short, because many people might want to keep a printout of their private key in their fire safe. So they can backup from anywhere know the only copy of the key is in a secure location. fair enough, all valid points I can try and come up with something that can be put in cron, but I really don't have the time for anything super fancy right now. |
|
|
|
@OP: why not use symmetric encryption instead? Public-private key cryptography doesn't make any sense in this situation.
Public-private key cryptography allows Bitcoin to generate new address without requesting the passphase. It is also useful in for 'backups' when the backup op doesn't have access to the private keys. This is useful if there is multiple wallets. I still don't quite get the idea (why this would be so much better when backup-ing ones wallet) edit: ah, I think I got it. You wouldn't have to keep your private key on the same computer to create new backups, is that it? That does make sense. Why ecc specifically? I assume speed/key length are not of great concern here? Not that it's a problem, I'm just interested why |
|
|
|
|
In case all three have the same % of provision, it is best to choose the one with the highest hash rate, as it will result in lower deviation.
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
