|
The block 1720 hash 00000000349ece8e0646fff3b5d97166f2331177bbb693111ed51fd9ba1d7886 seems unlikely triple F's, B's and 1's as well as the hex word "ba1d". It is an FBI hairless wonder.
|
|
|
|
|
Block 1045 hash is 00000000198fcebe08bddec72991be0dacb438d0ab5a9bbc589cd44cad250005 which is close but no cigar for trailing 0's.
|
|
|
|
The nonce is only 32 bits; could there come a day with the difficulty is high enough that no nonce works?
That day was back in like 2009 or 2010. A difficulty of 1 corresponds to an average of 1 valid block per nonce range. At difficulty 2, you expect to find one valid block per 2 full iterations through the range (on average). Oh, I see. How does one change the block contents after a full iteration fails to find a suitable hash? |
|
|
|
|
We have had over 250,000 blocks produced so far; what's the distribution of nonces looking like?
How do miners avoid using a nonce that some other miner has already checked?
|
|
|
|
|
Satoshi could have had us searching for hashes greater than some number in which case we would be seeing hashes with leading F's instead. Then I would be looking for trailing F's. So, ok, in that sense leading and trailing 0's and F's are different. Still the mathematically inclined would have taken a little delight in seeing the decimal representation of PI appearing digit by digit over time.
|
|
|
|
|
The nonce is only 32 bits; could there come a day with the difficulty is high enough that no nonce works?
|
|
|
|
|
I fully realize trailing 0's are no more interesting than any other arbitrary sequence but Satoshi started it with his leading 0's. Why not leading 1's? Why not a leading sequence of 3.1415926535...? No, the cat is out of the bag.
|
|
|
|
The very first occurrence of a trailing 0 is; http://blockexplorer.com/b/42 with a hash of 00000000ac21f2862aaab177fd3c5c8b395de842f84d88c9cf3420b2d393e550 but then very soon after that we have a trailing double 0; http://blockexplorer.com/b/4900000000f067c09041ff0fcee3d91aeb7fbcc5654d3f766af2b4377aaee68d00 but it takes a long time until another trailing double 0 comes along; http://blockexplorer.com/b/665000000008b3292ededf3a3a675c44bb2a2ac378878fad1c10cef4219f2d95100 One wonders when a trailing triple 0 appears. |
|
|
|
|
Can a hash *ever* repeat?
|
|
|
|
|
Which hash has the most trailing 0s? Is a hash of *all* 0s possible?
|
|
|
|
|
Suppose I had a weak passphrase and then changed it to a strong one. I worry that the keypool during the weak period needs to be replaced.
Am I obliged to create a whole new wallet or is there a trick to consume the keypool?
|
|
|
|
|
hmm, how does one convert the keypoololdest, e.g. 1364243178, into something human-meaningful? how does one determine the relative age of a backup/
|
|
|
|
|
OP: Please help me understand your poll. At 118 US dollars = 1 BTC; does that equate to 3 figures (digits)? If so then 1,000,000 US dollars = 1 BTC is the threshold you are concerned with, right? That's a lot more demand than we have right now. I would be very surprised if that much fiat shows up at the exchanges anytime soon. Can *anyone* say how much fiat has been pumped into Bitcoin through the exchanges and other avenues? The Bitcoin capitilization is something like $1.2 billion right now *but* it did not take that much fiat to get it there. Fundamentally it is a confidence game. If buyers believe then they will bid higher and higher. If one buyer showed up and bought 1 BTC for $1,000,000 through an exchange that reports it then for at least a brief moment your threshold would be met. The next exchange might happen back down in the hundreds but so be it. Btw, I'd be delighted to be the one to sell one of my own Bitcoins to acheive this. Or are you rejecting any and all such artificial occurances?
|
|
|
|
|
I've used CampBX again and again to move US Dollars into Bitcoin successfully via Dwolla. No complaints.
I have never once used it to go the other way so I can't say about that.
|
|
|
|
|
Does Litecoin crank up the Scrypt parameters over time?
|
|
|
|
|
Litecoin might seem ASIC-hostile right now but how long will it be until an ASIC can be designed with enough memory to handle even Scrypt with the Litecoin parameters? I understand the ASIC advantage won't be as great as it is with Bitcoin but eventually a Litecoin ASIC should beat a generationally comparable CPU, GPU or FPGA.
One day in the perhaps distant future a CPU could come along that beats one of today's Bitcoin ASICs (but of course the future ASIC folks won't stand still for that). Then again maybe the economic factors in the future will make it unattractive to develop ASICs for Bitcoin mining.
|
|
|
|
|
I upgraded to v0.8.3 on Windows but it still indicates beta. Do I need to deinstall v0.8.3-beta first for some reason? Or maybe the Windows version is still the beta build?
|
|
|
|
|
Comparing investments against one another is always wise; I recommend diversity. I, for one, haven't put a penny into mining yet but am utterly delighted to have other folks doing so; best o' luck; break a leg.
If the only currency is Bitcoin then taking the future value of Bitcoins into account is not relevant to determining the wisdom of mining as an investment. Since there are other currencies then taking the exchange rate into account is relevant. Then again I'm sure I will be told if the exchange rate does move in favor of Bitcoin then the original investment should have skipped mining and gone directly into speculating on Bitcoin.
Mining as a charitable donation; hmm, can I deduct them from my income on my tax return?
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
