But i guess there will be anyway many big miners that will buy a coupld 100k chips and wait then for the DIY-Plans.
A big miner buying this many chips won't "wait for DIY plans". He will hire an engineer (or himself) to design the whole device. |
|
|
|
|
deepceleron: are you saying bitcoin 0.1.0 launched 1 miner thread per socket instead of 1 per core? If that is the case, for all we know, Satoshi may have been running, say, 4 instances of bitcoin on a quad-core machine. Or maybe he was running 4 Bitcoin VMs. These multiple instances must have been needed by him anyway, if only to test the network code.
The bottom line is that I showed a single $200 processor released in 2008 was able to account for 5 Mhash/s with the crypto++ code used back then. So if there were other users, either they were mining with extremely weak processors (10-year-old Pentium III), or they were not mining 24/7.
|
|
|
|
Do you have solid proof that this is the case? That nothing was tweaked to improve the speed of CPU generation? No one should be in the habit of taking someone's word for it.
Yes. Bitcoin 0.1.0 does the double hash here: loop
{
BlockSHA256(&tmp.block, nBlocks0, &tmp.hash1);
BlockSHA256(&tmp.hash1, nBlocks1, &hash);
if (hash <= hashTarget)
And BlockSHA256 converts to the correct endianness, and calls the crypto++ routine CryptoPP::SHA256::Transform. As to Bitcoin 0.3.24 the double hash is: for (;;)
{
// Crypto++ SHA-256
// Hash pdata using pmidstate as the starting state into
// preformatted buffer phash1, then hash phash1 into phash
nNonce++;
SHA256Transform(phash1, pdata, pmidstate);
SHA256Transform(phash, phash1, pSHA256InitState);
// Return the nonce if the hash has at least some zero bits,
// caller will check if it has enough to reach the target
if (((unsigned short*)phash)[14] == 0)
return nNonce;
And SHA256Transform merely calls memcpy to init the state, and calls the same crypto++ routine: CryptoPP::SHA256::Transform. Because it is the same, I do not expect any significant performance difference between 0.1.0 and 0.3.24. I have a mirror of the 0.1.0 code if you want to try compiling it: http://www.zorinaq.com/pub/ |
|
|
|
And they were, compared to current software on current hardware Sergio spent a lot of time here arguing about numbers like 7.5MH/s on a single desktop. It's _laughable_.
Time to end this debate with cold hard facts. I just benchmarked bitcoin 0.3.24 (where the CPU mining code is identical to bitcoin 0.1.0, as both are based on crypto++), and a measly entry-level 2-core 2.5 GHz Athlon X2 4850 (released in March 2008) can reach 2.40 Mhash/s. Therefore a 4-core 2.4 GHz Phenom X4 9750 (released in March 2008, about $200, way less than many other much more expensive desktop processors which went up to $1000) can do almost 5.0 Mhash/s (it scales linearly with the number of cores). Finally, the overall hashrate of the network throughout 2009 was 5 Mhash/s, so it is not unreasonable that a single PC with a quad-core CPU such as the Phenom X4 9750 could have accounted for the majority of the network hashrate. |
|
|
|
|
Tom just sent me bitcoins for the remainder of the $10700 he owed me. I am now refunded in full.
Thanks Tom! I will advocate for the forum admins to remove the "scammer" tag from your account, when you are done refunding. And it looks like you may be close to it.
|
|
|
|
111 MiB/sec / 1024 = 0.1084 MH/s = 108 KH/s.
Wrong. (SHA256 processes 512 bytes at a time, 111 MiB/sec ~= 113KH/s of SHA256^2)
Wrong. SHA256 processes 512 bits, not bytes, per block. A double-SHA256 is 1024 bits. So: 111 MiB/sec * 8 (bits/bytes) / 1024 ~= 870 khash/sec. |
|
|
|
|
The lowest ask is at 0.1 BTC right now.
|
|
|
|
I've assumed:
1. Satoshi mined almost alone from 1/3/2009 to 1/25/2010 (block 0 to block 36288).
A user, maria2.0, has proven she owns the private key of block 9455 (mined on 2009-04-01) by signing a message: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=164569.0And she claims to own "3.5 million coins between satoshi and her" (although that is probably false or an exxageration IMHO). |
|
|
|
no sorry let me re-quote Him and I just talked today and we agreed the rest will be refunded in BTC once the markets stabilize a bit.
why are you special enough to get to wait till the markets stabilize a bit? no one else get the treatment why you. he was paying everyone else at the highest price of that day.which the high was in the upper 200 but now your going to get it for somwhere in the 80-90 just saying you guys must be friends and he still owes me .8 btc so in my book hes still a scammer and a lowlife. any man would of stuck to his word i was always taught a mans word is his bond guess that doesnt fly here.
I am not special. Just ask Tom, I am sure he will wait to refund you if this is what you want. |
|
|
|
Olivier Delamarche is so sarcastic and critical of politicians that I was laughing out loud  |
|
|
|
...
You are not solving anything (replacing one exchange, MtGox, with another). What Bitcoin needs is a multitude of exchanges to pop up across the world, to spread load, users, trades, DDoS, infrastructure, etc. |
|
|
|
you mean go up so he needs to return little to you?
Irrelevant. Purchases were in USD. (And do not reply what I think you will reply. My preemtive reply would be hexed's post so go argue with him instead of in this thread.) |
|
|
|
I also saw this link posted multiple times in BTC-E chat. After people pointed out the person was posting a virus, the moderator bans him for 1 HOUR.
They would have banned him longer and/or permanently, had the malware been stealing from btc-e.com accounts instead of mtgox.com  |
|
|
|
If people think I am only refunding small orders they are completely wrong.
I have so far refunded all my refunds 10k and over including a 26k order.
I confirm that I was waiting for $10700 in refunds, and that Tom refunded me $7000 so far in multiple checks and money orders (after a failed attempt to do it via Western Union who flagged the txfer as fraudulent). Tom was waiting for me to cash out the checks successfully, before refunding the remainder ($3700). Him and I just talked today and we agreed the rest will be refunded in BTC once the markets stabilize a bit. Thanks Tom. |
|
|
|
Welcome to the UK. This has been the case here for years.
Huh? AFAIK UK residents are authorized to transfer or receive dollars from Japan. |
|
|
|
their site is not secured against such rudimentary attacks
Very sorry about your loss. However: there is nothing else that MtGox could have done to secure against such rudimentary attacks. You got owned by a Java exploit which can apparently execute arbitrary code on your computer. So it can log in as you on mtgox.com and do everything that you can do yourself. Even if you had no active session on MtGox, and were using the Yubikey to authenticate, the malware would still have been able to steal your coins: it could have stayed in the background, waiting for a browser session to mtgox.com to be active before hijacking it to perform the transfer. Maybe it could even have installed a persistent malware on your PC that would start running at boot time and wait for you to log in, one day, with a Yubikey, before stealing the coins. Note: by default MtGox utilizes the Yubikey for logins only, not for transfer operations, but it is possible to configure your account to require it for transfers. You should have enabled this feature. |
|
|
|
Personally I'm relieved that this is a scam. I mean, seriously, one mini rig replaces about 20%-25% of all mining globally?
Your math is bad. It would be only 2% (1.5 Th/s out of 70 Th/s). And, no, BFL is not a scam (they have a working prototype of their ASICs - not the Mini Rig though). |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
