As in the hashrate will plateau after the shipment ceases as the proportional increase won't be of the same magnitude for a while. That's logical. Obviously the difficulty will continue through some crazy adjustment yet, as it is yet to truly reflect the current hashrate. Those increases will be close together obviously as blocks are solved faster.
By the way, do you even know how the difficulty is calculated? I am starting to feel pity for you... Perhaps I should give you another 0.1 BTC tip to help with the rent?  |
|
|
|
Dude the hashrate is about to level out for a bit not, continue growing like this for a while. This has been the first shipment of a major die shrink. If anything it shows the genesis block was way off base all along, as I previously stated. This will be a huge step up over a couple of weeks and then there won't be anything in such a huge multiple in one go on to make such a marked effect on the hashrate again for sometime. More a plateau You certainly won't see a doubling of the current hashrate as it stands after the KnC delivery for a while yet, even during their November shipment. If they were to ship anywhere near what they shipped just now, it'll increase the current hashrate by a proportion, not a multiple due to the cumulative effect of this wave. Dear reader, Please, if you like to deal with strictly factual information, ignore the amount of gibberish stated the above quote. Yours faithfully, Augusto Croppo. |
|
|
|
Oh, I freely admit that it was a fluke (the one I saw was not the ASIC miner thing, I do remember that.) If the block you saw is not related to the ASICMiner refund, then show me where you saw a block which generated 200 BTC in transactions fees. I want see with my own eyes if such block even exist... But to say it's unreachable to have 600+ transactions in a ten minute period? I must severely disagree! How many dollar transactions do you think happen in ten minutes? Personally, I have no idea, but I do know that it's several orders of magnitude higher than that. No one said that the Bitcoin Network cannot have 600 or more transaction in 10 minutes. I could care less for how many fiat transactions happens in ten minutes. It has nothing to do with the present discussion, which is about the Bitcoin network transaction fees. This is what I'm trying to say. If we can find a way to take BTC mainstream, that 200 BTC/block would be a LOW average. I will repeat once more: there is not direct correlation between the number of users and the volume of transactions. How many times I have to repeat that to you understand? Do not really matter if more and more people start to use the Bitcoin Network, because that could result either in increase or decrease of transactions. You are also assuming that an increase in the volume of transactions will result in an increase of collected fees. That is an incorrect assumption. There is no way to ensure that every transaction will result in a collected fee. Moreover, even if the Bitcoin protocol turns the transaction fees compulsory, each block would have at least 400,000 transactions of 0.0005 BTC to generate 200 BTC. As I had already demonstrated, this is absurd. At the present moment the Bitcoin Network is not generating more than an average of 372 transactions per block. Well let's just throwing this out there. VisaNet authorizes, clears and settles an average of 150 million transactions per day in 200 countries and territories. ~104,000 transactions/second Isn't one of the points of BTC to replace these companies? (Remember this is just Visa, you can imagine how many transactions happen across all of these merchants and physical dollar transactions) The minimum fee would be lowered at this point anyways because if BTC was adopted this widespread, the price per BTC would be much much higher. No, it is not the point and it never was. Did you even read the paper released by Satoshi Nakamoto? The Bitcoin protocol was created to serve as alternative method to transfer monetary value without rely on a central authority to validate the transactions. You are comparing apples and oranges. By the way, widespread adoption of the Bitcoin Network do not means the price of BTC against fiat currency will rise. As number of users of the Bitcoin Network has no direct correlation with the volume of transactions, the number of users of the Bitcoin Network has also no direct correlation with the price of BTC against fiat currencies. Bargraphics, bought a dozen of SHA-256 hash generators from KnCminer and is clueless about the Bitcoin Network structure... |
|
|
|
No need to go point by point. Utilisation can mean anything you want it to. If more people start using Bitcoin and buying and selling more goods the number and sum value of transactions will increase. This sounds like a good definition to me :-) An increase in the number of people using the Bitcoin Network do not mean there will be more transactions or less transactions. What increases or decreases the volume of transactions is relative to what people decide to do with the BTC they own. So there is no direct correlation between the number of people using the Bitcoin Network and the volume of transactions. You can create SatoshiDice examples which work the other way and use that prove your point if you want. ...and I could create a script which could raise the number of transactions by sending BTC between keys I own. That, in accordance with your sound definition, would mean that the number of people using the Bitcoin Network had increased. Fine, so do not make statements of "percentage" when there is no "tools to calculate the percentage of transactions which include a fee". This show that you cannot prove the correlation between the increase of Bitcoin users and the increase of transaction fee volume. If you do not know the "percentage" of transactions which include a fee, you are not in a position to assert that "sum value of transactions will increase" just because there is "more people start using Bitcoin and buying and selling more goods". Looking at a recent block, you can see people/machines have different ideas of a reasonable fee: http://blockchain.info/block-index/426239/0000000000000004604489e4e1788c16479c60c37f55671ddca4cf2706915a95Generally less than 0.0001 BTC by my eye-balling. Pool operators do whatever gets them the most miners. If they started advertising their mintxfee settings, then miners could make a decision about which pool to join based on that. I'd personally join a pool which encourages a higher fee than the status quo with the long term goal of raising fees. Payment gateways generate transactions and can add a fee to a transaction, I think you misunderstand at which point the fee is added. as another example, some of the exchanges already charge their own withdrawal fees, but you can guess that they aren't adding a percentage of that to the transaction fee, which perhaps they should :-) Payment gateways do not generate a transaction, that is done by the Bitcoin Network. So payment gateways cannot add a fee to a Bitcoin Network transaction. What a payment gateway can do is use the Bitcoin Network to pay out they customers. Then the Bitcoin Network generate the respective transactions and a potential fee is added. The transactions fee in discussion is under strict control of the Bitcoin protocol, which is under control of the developers, pool operators and solo "miners". Now, in relation to the topic subject, if the buyers of the KnCminer products expect they will be able to achieve a positive ROI based on the increase of fees, whatever is volume or price, they are completely screwed. An increase in the price of a transaction fee would result in less transactions, since common sense dictates that people try to pay less fees as possible. A significant increase of the volume of transactions would only be possible if all sectors of the global economy were using the Bitcoin Network. That is not the case,since only the third sector use the Bitcoin Network. The KnCminer customers can only expect that difficulty will not reach an exponential increase before the next halving of the block reward. But this is unlikely to happen, since the tendency is more and more hash rate being added to the Bitcoin Newtork. |
|
|
|
Wider utilisation does mean more transactions, so it does effect the volume of transactions. Well, let me repeat to you, in other words: increase/decrease in the volume of transactions is not directed correlated to wider utilization. There can 1000000 users doing 100 transactions per second, as there can be 100 users doing 1000000 transactions per second. Do you got it? So your claim is far from accurate. Wider utilizations can mean more or less transactions. The percentage of transactions which include a fee, if any, is determined by: ...and what percentage is that? Pool operators' willingness to changed their bitcoind settings to prioritise fee paying transaction fees. That will not happen. The tendency is pay less fees as possible. Wallet developers' UI designs coaxing users to pay a higher fee. That is happening, but it will find resistance to increase to a point where transactions fees are bigger than the block reward. Payment gateways (such as Bitpay) doing the same. That have nothing to do with the transaction fees discussed since payment gateways are not "miners". |
|
|
|
I saw a post recently where one block had over 200 BTC in TX fees. That should be EVERY block, and it would be if BTC were a mainstream currency. Then you wouldn't be worrying about short term ROI, as every block would be significantly more powerful than simply it's block reward.
You are exaggerating. Wider utilization of the Bitcoin Network is not a factor to predict increase/decrease in the volume or price of the transaction fees. You think that transaction fees should generate 200 BTC because you are assuming the case you saw was a result of ordinary collected fees. That is not true and the average fees generated by a block are less than the reward of 25 BTC. E.g. If 200 BTC had been generated by only minimum transaction fee, that would mean: 200 / 0.00050000 = 400,000 transactions Assuming that a block is generated in average each 10 minutes (600 seconds), that would result in: 400,000 / 600 = 666.6... In other words, you are assuming the Bitcoin Network had a block which was generated by 666.6... transactions per second. This is absurd. At the present moment, 12:47 GMT +0, the Bitcoin Network processed 57,155 transactions in the last 24 hours. That means 0.66 transactions per second: 57,155 / 86,400 = 0.6615162037... Step down of your soapbox and rethink about your hypothesis, because you are not providing a good background for your claim. You forgot to consider that 200 BTC transaction fee could be the result of a mistake: https://blockchain.info/tx/b18abce37b48a5f434f108ae7ce34f22aa2bfbd9eb9310314029e4b9e3c7cf95http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/1lb5my/asicminer_refunds_the_accidental_200_btc/ASICMiner refunds the accidental 200 BTC transaction fee. Friedcat is a true hero of the Bitcoin community |
|
|
|
|
I am selling 15 BTC for 1245 GBP (1 BTC @ 83 GBP).
I accept payment by wire transfer or postal order.
|
|
|
|
|
Saudacoes Andre,
Quero trocar Bitcoins pela nossa amada moeda Real. Tenho serias contas a pagar no Brasil e preciso dos fundos em uma conta-poupanca. E possivel sacar BRL do BitcoinToYou para uma conta-poupanca?
|
|
|
|
Don't you see the ETL/FCC and CE logos on the card?? Well, that is most strange part. It is not a prototype, it is just a PCB without the main processor. So how BFL managed to get this certifications without a finished prototype? This is really amazing. Look like everything goes backward in BFL business. Instead to them... Design -> Main processor -> PCB -> Quality Test -> Announcement -> Sales They go by... Sales -> Announcement -> Quality Test -> PCB -> Main processor -> Design |
|
|
|
I'm starting to stress but am trying to be patient. The fact that management console information for hosted customers hasn't been released nor pool login information is beginning to worry me. The decision to go hosted was entirely based on their statement that the units would be hashing within hours of production. Obviously if customers electing to ship receive their units before hosting begins the $2100 I paid for hosting was a complete waste of money. I guess the hosting facility is not yet ready to receive the devices. Perhaps KnCminer team is very focused to produce the hash generation devices and there is no workforce to finish the hosting facility. In accordance with all the information presented so far, the whole KnCminer team is working under pressure to finish their product and release the official specification of each design. There are plenty of unanswered questions that KnCminer did not yet addressed. That includes the fact that people which chose to pick up their purchase was not yet advised of a date for collection. |
|
|
|
I've got multiple #3xx and #7xx day-1 orders from KNC and I've received not even a hint of a tracking number. How are people receiving them?
No change in status on the website, everything still sitting at IN PROGRESS....
Whine, whine, whine, whine, whine, whine, ad nuseum...
 (Relax, you will get your order as everyone else you had disdain in this thread.) |
|
|
|
Ah ah ah. This guy, Marcus, it is very charismatic! |
|
|
|
Absolutely. Had never done that before, also labels are meant to be; one on each side. Also have had no sleep and been stuck in this facility for three days whilst my clothing holidays in the hotel. On top of which I'm still reading negative crap and whinging for updates, whilst I personally multitask, packing the sodding boxes and keep you lot updated. But...it appears I'm getting better at least... http://j.mp/1c42YLSSo that person is you?  Well, I am sincerely sorry for you. I know how hard is to work without proper periods of sleeping. Can you at least have eventual naps at some lost couch in the facility? I really wish you are going to be well compensated by this effort you put yourself in. I think KnCminer should be employing you to be their PR person. I already called you a shill because you advocate their business more than necessary. However, now that you are really working for them, I find strange they instructed you to package boxes. Talk and write a lot. That is your best skill. That is what you should be doing for them. |
|
|
|
yep
OK, thank you for the clarification. |
|
|
|
"...and there's a worthwhile reason for pulling an allnighter.  " Curious about that  I will say that the guy in that video packaging that miner hasnt packaged a lot yet. Im sure he will get better at it in the coming week Yeah, I realized that as well. The person acted clumsy, as he never had did that before. Notice that there is one part of the box which says "THIS SIDE UP". The person could not figure out how to leave that part visible when closing the box. By the way, I noticed something out of usual coming from the metal case:  What could be that? Perhaps a power connector? |
|
|
|
Augusto you promised them an apology. Now man up dude! I promised an apology on the base they would deliver as they originally promised, in September. They did not and I will win few bucks in the bet I participated. It is time you man up and review all the statements you did, including the ones you advocated KnCminer refund's policy. Let's see if you have balls of steel. |
|
|
|
What is this 1% thing? Emilia Cole told me in the afternoon, face to face, that the chips were already hashing above 400 GH/s (she even gave another value that I was told not to relay so I won't). Didn't even talk very much. Very straightforward! That contradicts the recent statement made by the person that Bitcoinorama interviewed, where it is indicated the chip is not working as expected. There is no evidence the chips are hashing at any speed. It is becoming obvious that KnCminer is still testing the chip with the PCB. At this point it is quite difficult to trust that "the chips were already hashing above 400 GH/s" when the person responsible for the tests stated that "below 1% of the die is working". |
|
|
|
Transcript: Interviewee: "Some ports works..." Interviewee: "20% of the die..." Bitcoinorama: Mumbles something. Interviewee: "No, actually, it's... Below 1% of the die is working. But we have accessing into the die itself. The silicon!" Bitcoinorama: "That's..." Interviewee: "The power!" Bitcoinorama: "That's..." Interviewee: "It is working! That 1%... Now we need the rest of the 99% up and running." Bitcoinorama: "People will be relived to hear that, Marcus." Interviewee: Laughs. "Yeah..." Interviewee: "That 1% is a huge step." Somebody's else: Mumbles something with "...tested?" Interviewee: "Yes, it is". |
|
|
|
|
btcapparel win the auction. His bid is the last before the end time.
Thank you all for the participation.
|
|
|
|
Pick up with cash in hand?
In london?
No, I only dispatch the product by post. I can only payment by Paypal, wire transfer or in BTC. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
