UPDATE: Entire lot sold.Selling ten (10) 1 oz Canadian Gold Maple Leaf coins (.9999 fine). Coins are in individual air-tite protectors (the good kind with foam ring). Coins were transfered from sealed mint tube into air-tites using cotton gloves. Standard Royal Mint design. Classic leaf on the back, and sexy lady on the front. This is 2013 design so it has the microstamping of leaf and year.    (high resolution photos of actual coins in next post) Stats (per coin 10 coins total) Year: 2013 Mint: Royal Canadian Mint Grade: Brilliant Uncirculated Diameter: 30 mm Thickness: 2.8 mm Content: 1 oz of .9999 fine Gold Obverse: Right-facing profile of Queen Elizabeth II, along with the year and face value. Reverse: A large, single maple leaf with a small maple leaf privy mark that has a micro-engraved “13” in the center, visible under magnification. Guaranteed by the Royal Canadian Mint. Price:$14,690 USD equivalent in Bitcoins @MtGox last  I reserve the right to raise the asking price if the spot price of gold rises more than 1% over $1400.00 per ounce. Shipping:USPS Priority Mail Flatrate:  USPS Express Mail Flatrate:  USPS Registered Priority Mail (with $15,000 insured value):  Important note about shipping:If you have a third party insurer which insures bullion and wish to use them I am willing to consider it. If not shipped registered mail you accept liability for lost/stolen packages. I can ship requiring signature or not your choice. I generally ship in flat rate envelopes as there are a couple million in the mail every year. Nondescript and boring. I can get a quote for FedEx or UPS but the price will be higher. Important note about insurance and registered mail:The only way bullion can be insured is by Registered Mail or third party insurer. Standard USPS, UPS, and FedEX insurances specifically excludes bullion. Registered mail does not have a bullion exclusion. Express Mail can't be sent registered and Priority mail generally is ~ 2 days slower when sent registered. Registered Mail must be picked up at Post Office, you will need ID matching the name on shipment, and you will need to sign. Registered Mail doesn't require the contents of the shipment to be recorded only the value. For full disclosure the registered price includes a $20 markup mainly because it is a complete pain in the ass. Entire package needs to be covered in brown paper tape, have to hand deliver to post office, wait in line, etc. Escrow:Honestly I don't think you need escrow given my trading history both (personally and running TC, LLC) but then again I guess that is what a scammer would say. If one wants to use escrow the terms are: * Sale price is 1% higher due to my risk. You cover all escrow fees. * Shipment must be sent by registered mail OR adult restricted signature (you will need ID to sign). * Escrow agent must be someone I trust. John K is the only name that comes to mind at the moment. Other:Please no low balls offers. I am not desperate to sell. Would prefer to sell bulk to single seller. If no offers in 48 hours will consider selling them individually. Bitcoins only (what did you think you were on fiatcointalk?).
|
|
|
|
over 20 posts of mis-understandings and waffle..
so lets put it into laymans terms for like the 5th thread of misunderstandings.
bitcoin itself is not regulatable.
FIAT is.
fiat is the bank notes and coins with the trademarked symbols of the government EG $ and £. the regulations call these REAL Currencies.
the SUBSTITUTE / CONVERTIBLE currencies are those that are easily recognised and convertable into bank notes and coins because their balance amount equals the same as a bank note
EG 10$ on a digital database can be easily converted into a $10 bank note
EG 46 bunny coins CANNOT be easily recognised and converted into a $10 bank note
those online penny per click websites and services offering digital balances that are recognisable have to be regulated. so advertising firms, with dollar/pound balances need regulation.
those websites and services offering credits, chips, coins where the numeric balance value does not instantly relate to a FIAT value do not need regulation.
so in short bitcoinQT, electrum, cgminer,etc does not need regulation, world of warcraft, does not need regulation, and so on.
FIAT gateways that handle FIAT or the digital form of FIAT DO need regulation.
so this is why amazon is trying amazon coins. so that it only has one 'office' that converts fiat to amazon coins (i beleive it to be in ireland due to cheap licences) and the rest of the planet it just moves amazon coins around. thus not requiring licences for every country on the planet.
Then file an administrative ruling with FinCEN asking them if Bitcoin is a convertible currency. If your right they will say no and you will be a hero. Ultimately it doesn't matter what you think is a convertible currency or what I think is a convertible currency what matters is what FinCEN thinks is a convertible currency. Well taken to the end game it matters what FinCEN can convince a judge is a convertible currency. <----- That makes 9,999 so I guess I need to stop now. |
|
|
|
I'm trying hard to follow you here. Your first statement insinuates that it is possible to build a block that has no solution whatsoever which I think is patently false. In the next statement you conflate a finite pool in which there is a correct answer with being so large as to be infinitely sized. If that is the case then it would possible and even likely that any given block could result in an infinite amount of time being required to solve it. Strangely enough, the network tends to solve blocks at roughly 10 minutes each with no happenstances where the network stalls out because it is going to take infinite years to solve this one. I will concede the point that hash collisions can be found in a sufficiently sized pool.
The solution isn't infinitely hard the set of possible blocks is so large as to be practically infinite. When solving a block even if one only modifies nonce, merkleroot hash, and timestamp the set of potential blocks is 2^320 this is even larger than the number of potential hashes (2^256) and is a number so large that for all practical purposes (related to mining) can be considered infinite). I think you might be confused in thinking there is only one possible solution. There is a LOT (once again pretty much infinite) possible solutions which could be the next valid block. Lastly you seem to think that all blocks must need a solution in order for the next valid (solved) block to be found. That isn't true. MOST blocks have no solution eventually miners will (collectively) by random chance find a block which does have a solution. A particular block is created and then an incrementing nonce is added to the rest of the blockheader. All nonce values are tried and if none of them produce a solution (hash below target based on difficulty) then that block will never have a solution. Miners simply discard that block and attempt a new block (either by changing the coinbase tx or the timestamp). Every 4 billion attempted hashes you have to change "something" all solutions for the current block (call it block candidate if you like) have been tried. You can't attempt more solutions without changing the block in some manner. Changing the timestamp or merklehash is not materially different than changing the prior block hash (because someone else found a block). There is no progress. You either solve a block or you don't. Each attempt is a random chance like a lottery ticket. When difficulty is X that means on average miners (globally and collectively) attempted to find solutions for X blocks and failed before finding one which meets the difficulty target. |
|
|
|
I don't entirely agree with this. In the dice analogy it would be more accurate to say that once a "1" is rolled the person who rolled the "1" will no longer roll another "1" because "1" has been proven to not be the solution to the problem at hand. That is, he would reduce the number of faces on the dice before rolling again. I agree that each attempt has equal chance of being the right solution in that the chance of rolling a "1" was just as good as rolling a "6" and that on the successive roll the chance of rolling a "5" will be just as good as rolling a "6" but chance of rolling another "1" has now been made zero and the available pool of possible answers has been reduced. Since the pool of possible answers is finite and thus every attempt proven incorrect will not be reattemtped the next attempt does run a statistically higher chance of being the correct answer than the previous attempt.
I think you are mistaken. There is no guarantee that a any solution will work for any given block. While the pool of possible answers is finite, it is so large that it can essentially be considered infinite for the purposes of considering an increase in statistical probability. If we consider the pool of potential hashes to be "finite" then we also have to consider that a resulting hash is not removed from the pool, since that same hash could be calculated again with a different set of data. The next hash you calculate after incrementing the nonce is no more or less likely to result in a solution than then previous or the next hash. This. The set of possible solutions 2^256 and globally in the time period of a block being solved a negligible percentage have been completed. However there is no 1:1 mapping between inputs and hashes in a hashing function. An infinite number of inputs can produce the same hash. Routinely within one block "window" the two elements of the blockheader that are changed are the timestamp, the merkleroot hash, and the nonce. That provides 2^320 potential solutions. Any potential progress is so negligible that for all practical purposes it can be considered zero and thus each attempt is independent. https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Block_hashing_algorithmEach hash has a 1 in (difficulty)*(2^32) chance of solving a block. At current difficulty that means each hash has an independent chance of 1 in 52,198,505,828,311,400 chance of winning the block jackpot. Each hash/ticket is checked and discarded. If it doesn't solve the block much like a losing lottery ticket there is no progress (in any usable sense). You are just as far from wining the jackpot on the next ticket. |
|
|
|
I think I can rephrase the question: Since all miners work on the same block at the same time (same blockheader), wouldn't it be more efficient to split the nonce value (seed) between all miners in your farm so you're sure you're not going over the same hashes twice, i.e. for card one starts nonce at 0, card 2 starts at 2^30, card 3 at 2^31 and card 4 at (2^32)*3/4....
If that were the case a large mining farm would have a speed advantage.
I will try one more time. All miners are NOT working on the same blockheader. Every miner, every worker, every CPU/GPU/FPGA/ASIC core is working on a unique and independent blockheader. If they weren't the system would be horribly flawed and weak. Most blockheaders will NEVER produce a block. Difficulty is 21 million that means it takes 21 million unique blockheaders (trying all 2^32 possible nonces for EACH blockheader) on average to find a block solution. https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Block_hashing_algorithmOne element in the blockheader is the merkle tree root hash. It is hash of all transactions in the block. One transaction in every block is the coinbase tx which is where the miner "gets paid". The coinbase is generally speaking unique and when it isn't a miner will just increment the timestamp and thus produce a new unique blockheader with the same coinbase tx. For solo miners their local bitcoind ensures each time the miner requests a new blockheader to work on it is unique. For a pool it is a little more complicated but the pool server ensures that no two miners in the pool get the same work. Between miners and pools blockheaders will always be unique because they are using their own coinbase tx. No miner on the network is duplicating work* of another miner and as such a small miner is just as efficient (in terms of hashes per block) as the largest miner. * Technically it is possible that two miners randomly create blockheaders with unique coinbases that happen to produce the same merkle tree at the exact same time and all other variables are the same (transactions, blockheight, timestamp, etc). The odds of this is 1 in 2^256 so for all meaningful intents in purposes it is 0%. |
|
|
|
|
Update: Have a potential buyer for full lot. Silver is unavailable unless the deal falls through.
Entire lot has been sold.
|
|
|
|
NICE! But is this part of a sale due to Virginia law issues.
Not exactly. The company has decided to liquidate any bullion which could be considered legal tender. As a malicious prosecutor could make a case that payment in BTC even for physical silver is an exchange of BTC for CAD and thus unlicensed money transmission. Given the company current situation I have personally bought the silver from TC, LLC using a personal check. I am selling it personally (not as an employee or agent of TC, LLC) at cost for BTC. Even if the case could be made that this is an exchange of virtual currency for real currency this singular sale would fall under the MT exemption as an "infrequent or not for profit activity". TC, LLC will be selling bullion in the future, but it will only be bars & rounds from non-governmental mints and thus not legal tender. |
|
|
|
I'm glad you did this D&T. I hope they actually respond to this because it remains a head-scratcher. But, I'm not sure if they know the answer. Maybe they need the courts/congress to decide?
They don't need the courts or Congress to decide. There are no laws on virtual currency at the Federal level. The existing laws related to MSB are all here: http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?SID=4ed28aff321d97007276a7736cae032e&c=ecfr&tpl=/ecfrbrowse/Title31/31cfrv3_02.tplLook for section starting with 1010. Section 1022 relates to MSB (and a MT is a type of MSB). Section 1010 has definitions on various terms (including MSB & MT) Section 1020 is rules for banks but some of those rules apply to MSB as well. You will note the word "virtual" or "decentralized" don't appear anywhere in the actual law. What FinCEN provided in April was guidance. The simple version is that guidance is FinCEN way of saying "this is the way we interpret EXISTING law". No new law was created in April. Not a single line of public code. FinCEN has researched and reached the conclusion that EXISTING MT laws/regs apply equally to decentralized virtual currencies like Bitcoin. The pages of guidance are a way of forcing a square peg (virtual currency exchangers) into a round hole (money transmitters). However FinCEN didn't pass any new law and their guidance is just that guidance. If you disagree you certainly can ignore it (I wouldn't without legal counsel) and if/when FinCEN takes you to court they will layout a case according to that guidance. Now remember again guidance isn't law. Ultimately a judge however is either going to agree with FinCEN or they won't. If they do well you might be going to jail and if they don't then the guidance isn't worth the paper it was written on. Sadly this process could have be avoided. Canada's regulator for example hasn't said they "don't" want to regulate virtual currencies like Bitcoin instead they looked at existing regs and rather than trying to do some legal gymnastics to make the existing law fit a new scenario declared " nope the existing laws don't cover this". Now does this mean in Canada Bitcoin can not and forver shall not be regulated? Of course not. It simply means the LEGISLATURE in Canada (aka the elected body who's duty it is to pass laws) will need to pass new laws if and when they want to regulate virtual currencies. Those laws won't need complicated legal gymnastics and pages of guidance because the laws will be written specifically for Bitcoin. The US Congress & FinCEN "could" have done the same thing. There are six categories of MSBs. Congress could have given FinCEN the authority to create new one "virtual currency dealer" or expanded the scope of "currency dealer" to include virtual currencies. Of course that process would be much slower, it would rely on the will of the people (though their elected officials). The reason the guidance is nonsensical is because it is trying to apply regs written for one entity onto another entity. As an analogy imagine when the first passenger plane was built, there were no regs on passenger travel by aircraft. Of course there were regs on cars. The FTA at the time could have said. "well planes need regs and it is outside our Congressional authority so planes are cars. All regs on cars apply to planes". Of course that would create a lot of confusion given that for example planes don't (normally) travel on highways, have turn signals, etc. So the FTA could have provided pages and pages of guidance, creating from whole cloth entire new terms, definitions, and scenarios to try an fit a plane into the regulatory structure for cars. Thankfully they didn't. New regs were created dealing specifically with aviation. TL/DR: Guidance is FinCEN way of saying "this old law applies to this new stuff and here is how and why". FinCEN doesn't pass laws so you are free to disagree. One should expect to find themselves in court if your interpretation and FinCEN interpretation are not in alignment. Depending on how strong your case is this could be a very good thing or a very bad thing. Only legislature can pass new law and ultimately the courts will decide if the law is applicable. |
|
|
|
Individuals who have low value transactions for personal purchases of goods or services appear to be exempt . I assume that the $1000 threshold would not apply as what can you buy for $ 1000 these days???  There is no threshold in MT regulation. MT begins at the first dollar in money transmission unless any exception applies. This goes beyond just virtual currencies and is the actual regs on the book. I don't see that changing as it would affect non virtual currency money transmitters. |
|
|
|
|
That is incorrect. Every* blockheader is unique because the coinbase tx is unique. Nonce value is only 32 bit. Today it takes roughly 20 million attempts at all possible nonces values 0 to 2^32, with each attempt using a unique header to solve a single block.
You can remain unconvinced but larger miners have no higher efficiency (in terms of hashes per solved block) that the smallest miners.
|
|
|
|
|
Step 1) Close your web browser and put you bitcoins in a paper wallet.
Step 2) Wait 20 years.
|
|
|
|
|
No a large miner is not more efficient than a small miner.
If you have 1% of the network hashing power in the long run you will solve 1% of the blocks. If you have 0.1% of total network hashing power in the long run you will solve 0.1% of the blocks.
|
|
|
|
Handy information:
1 watt = 3.41 BTU/hr
1 ton of cooling (12,000 BTU/hr) will handle about 3.5KW of heat load
3.5kW heat load when i will put heater with that power ? So when i will put computers which have 80% efficiency, then i can put about 15kW power ? So i can put about 60 x HD7970 in there ? to mantain temperature ? All the energy used by a computer becomes heat. 3.5KW computer = 3.5KW heater. The first one just happens to be more expensive. |
|
|
|
can you explain what those options mean?(sorry for being a noob)
It means you can pay $30 per BTC and have the right but not obligation to purchase 1 BTC @ $135 anytime in the next three months. Obviously since you are paying a $30 premium your break even point is $165. If you believe that BTC exchange rate will exceed $165 in the next three months you would profit. |
|
|
|
|
Inflation isn't the only component in interest rates. Take a CC for example it is 20%+ even in an economy where inflation is ~3%. Even a mortgage generally run 1% or so higher than the 10 year treasury bond (which rarely current QE fun aside) has negative real interest rates.
The issue would be that Bitcoin is currently experience very high deflation relative to the dollar and other major currencies. However that trend will not hold forever. I mean at only 24% USD:BTC growth we would be looking at the Bitcoin money supply worth ~2T in a decade, then what 20T by the next decade, 300T by the decade after that.
As the Bitcoin economy gets larger its growth rate will slow. Bitcoin will not have extreme price deflation. Under a scenario where the purchasing power of a Bitcoin is increasing by say 1% a year I would expect interest rates to be very similar to inflationary interest rates but 2% to 4% lower because the inflation component has been replaced with a deflation component.
|
|
|
|
Selling 500x 1oz Canadian Maple Leaf Rounds. Sold as 20x 25 oz tubes packed in original mint "Monster Box". Single bulk sale for Bitcoins only. Stock photos (will upload actual photos):    Stats (per coin 500 total) Year: 2013 Grade: Brilliant Uncirculated Diameter: 38 mm Thickness: 3.29 mm Price $12,975 equivalent in Bitcoins @MtGox last  I reserve the right to adjust price if spot price of silver moves more than 1% from $22.68 per ounce. Shipping:Price excludes shipping costs. USPS Priority Mail Medium Flatrate box:  USPS Express Mail Medium Flatrate box:  USPS Registered Priority Mail (with $13,000 insured value):  It can't be shipped first class due to the weight ~42 lbs and standard mail is slower and more expensive than Priority Flat rate. I can get a quote for FedEx or UPS but it is going to be more, probably a lot more given the weight. The only way bullion can be insured is by Registered Mail or third party insurer. Standard USPS, UPS, and FedEX insurances specifically excludes bullion. Registered mail does not have a bullion exclusion. Express Mail can't be sent registered and Priority mail generally is ~ 2 days slower when sent registered. Registered Mail must be picked up at Post Office, you will need ID matching the name on shipment, and you will need to sign. Registered Mail doesn't require the contents of the shipment to be recorded only the value. For full discloure the registered price includes a $20 markup mainly because it is a complete pain in the ass. Entire package needs to be covered in brown paper tape, have to hand deliver to post office, wait in line, etc. If you have a third party insurer which insures bullion and wish to use them I am willing to consider it. Escrow:
Honestly I don't think you need escrow given my trading history both (personally and running TC, LLC) but then again I guess that is what a scammer would say. If one wants to escrow the terms are: * Sale price is 1% higher due to my risk. You cover all escrow fees. * Shipment must be sent by registered mail OR adult restricted signature (you will need ID to sign). * Escrow agent must be someone I trust. Other:
I have spare empty Monster box so if the buyer wishes I can ship this as two separate shipment of 250 oz each on separate days. Please no low balls offers. I am not desperate to sell. |
|
|
|
It's impossible to guess the number of XRPs in circulation. Only a few developers know how much they received and how much they already sold on the market. But they promised to give away 50 billions (half of all XRPs) and it seems they decided to ignore that promise. The giving away thread has 5877 answers. Even if all of they were eligible and received on average 40,000 XRPs each, we would reach only about 235 million XRPs. That's nothing. But they kept limiting the number of XRPs for each given away. The recent given away to the subscribers of their mailing list was of 1000 XRPs? It seems clear that the 50 billion XRPs will never been given away, but probably kept in the developers deep pockets. Are they limiting the number to be given away in order to make the price of XRPs increase to get rich faster? Without a correct number about how many XRPs are in circulation, one can only use the 100 billion. In the end, they exist and can be sold by who ever controls Ripple. With this figure, Ripple is worth 2 billion USDs and that is a joke. All altcoins are loosing value (except novacoin), I doubt XRP can resist this (temporary) pessimism. I suspect we will be able to buy XRPs much cheaper than the current price. XRPs were once at 10,000 XRPs per bitcoin and then dropped to more than 130,000 per bitcoin: it might happen again.
In that respect ripple is more like diamonds where the supply on market is a tiny fraction of the amount locked away in vaults. This is to create artificial scarcity otherwise diamond prices would crash 90% or more. Bitcoin has properties like Gold, Ripple has properties like Diamonds. One has been a store of value for centuries the other is an almost guaranteed loss over any extended period of time. |
|
|
|
I don't understand how "chance of success" factors in.
Isn't it either 0% or 100%? If it's 0% then obviously the value of bitcoins is 0. If it's 100% then the value is determined by the other variables.
What is 25% success. Isn't this what the other variables are for.
The whole exercise seems a bit sketchy albeit admittedly fun.
Well you won't know if it is successful on a long term scale until after the fact. 25% says over the next decade (or two) there is a 25% chance that Bitcoin reaches the marketshare predictions (the next three values) and a 75% chance the network fails and value goes to zero or some very small niche low usage, low valuation scenario. Then IF the 25% occurs the next three values are your prediction on the marketshare Bitcoin will command. So hypothetically if you put in 25% 2% 5% 1% you are saying "I think Bitcoin has a 25% chance of success and am willing to write up the other 75% as a complete loss. I define success as 2% of store of value, 5% of illicit trade, and 1% of global commerce. The calculator estimates that gives Bitcoin a fair valuation of $1,267. If Bitcoin IS successful the value won't be $1,267 because it would be more like $5,000 the $1,267 is the risk adjusted (i.e. 1 in 4 chance of success) valuation. An analogy might help. Lets say I tell you that you can roll a dice and if it comes up six I will give you $120 how much would you value the opportunity at. Obviously not $0 or $120 although those are the only possible end states. Since you have a 1 in 6 chance of getting $120 the opportunity is worth $20. This means the fair valuation is $20. In the long run if you cam across an infinite number of scenarios and paid the fair valuation you would neither be ahead nor behind. On the other hand if I tried to get you to pay $30 for a roll of the dice it would be a "bad deal" but if I offered you a chance to roll the dice for $1 it is a no brainer to take it right? Granted you could still pay $1 and not roll a six. That doesn't mean that at the time of making the choice it was a bad choice. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
