It IS hopeless. lol. I had this really long reply to him typed up and just deleted it as I knew it would go no where. I was thinking maybe there was some unique thing that happens when you stick a bunch of miners in a pool that doesn't happen if they were all solo mining. So I was writing a simulation of 100k miners. But after seeing the true distribution (which, despite knowing better I still was thinking of it as a normal one), I shelved it as I had proved enough to myself that what he's saying just can't be true. For me the whole "average" thing is sort of misleading as it immediately puts a normal distribution in the back of your mind. But when you actually see it, things get pretty clear. At least it did for me. Interesting. So what is the distribution then , if not gaussian? Exponential. (at least, the "inter-block times" are distributed according to an exponential distribution) gotcha. thx. Yeah, like he said, exponential. My first full run was using a low difficulty and the solve times were really low as I just wanted to get a feeling for how it would work out. For that run, the "average" solve time was 4 seconds. The longest was 28 seconds. The median was somewhere between 2 and 3 seconds. i.e. half the block were solved before that, the other half after that. For the last run I was doing I had increased the difficulty and tweaked some performance issues and was running a much longer test but the damn computer locked up so I have't bothered starting it up again. The interm data from that test was following the same sort of distribution anyway. |
|
|
|
|
I'm curious about what the "purpose" of this coin is. I've sort of known about it for a long time but never looked into it. But with segwit and LN, I'm looking at a few coins I never would have before. I actually have an idea for a bit of a future direction for this coin that would sort of fit with what I think it's "theme" is but would like to know about it's current plans first.
|
|
|
|
It IS hopeless. lol. I had this really long reply to him typed up and just deleted it as I knew it would go no where. I was thinking maybe there was some unique thing that happens when you stick a bunch of miners in a pool that doesn't happen if they were all solo mining. So I was writing a simulation of 100k miners. But after seeing the true distribution (which, despite knowing better I still was thinking of it as a normal one), I shelved it as I had proved enough to myself that what he's saying just can't be true. For me the whole "average" thing is sort of misleading as it immediately puts a normal distribution in the back of your mind. But when you actually see it, things get pretty clear. At least it did for me. |
|
|
|
|
Is there a blockchain download or will I have to basically wait a few days for it to sync up.
|
|
|
|
It will easily hit $50 then possibly $100 but I think $50 is a relatively sure bet. I think BTC will retrace a bit as people take profits and it will lift LTC. LTC is good for recruitment to crypto, I think it's important for the scene that it succeeds. There are $50 LTC hodlers from years back who deserve to be rewarded for their bravery and patience.  Reward for that? For HODL  LTC has to prove yet use, so far roadmap looks promising, segwit happened, to be 50 - 100 USD it has to provide some of the feature in near future whatever it will be Lightning Network, Confidential transactions or others. I seriously don't think it can be overstated the damage that litecoin failing would do to the legitimacy of this space to newer casual investors. What the hell do I know.... LTC dropping back down to some low level is not it's failing. That's simply the way it in this space. Coins have no real value. There's no assets backing them up. There's no quarterly reports of earnings. Absolutely nothing. The nearest thing you can get to in terms of it's core "value", is some number that results in a reasonable profit for miners. 2014 BTC hit almost $1200. By 2015 it had dropped all the way down to around $200 and it stayed pretty flat for all of 2015. Miners were making a profit, everyone was "happy" (well as much as they can be when they're not able to dream of 10x profits). When the halving came along, the coin started creeping up a few months prior to that. So the new "floor" is probably in the $400-$500 range. Look at where BTC is right now? If/when BTC starts it's correction and starts heading that way again, no one that "gets it" is going to say BTC is failing. It's just going back to where it "should" be. Do you have any projection about where LTC should be? Not really as I don't know enough about LTC mining. Given things like ROI though, the previous $4 level appears to have been too low. One miner was making plans based on a $6 price but even that seemed a bit low for ROI in a reasonable time frame. I would say definitely under $10 though. LN should be another run up for LTC. Not many people know that there was already a LN transaction a couple hours after segwit activation on main net. It seems LN want to get it working for bitcoin first so don't know when it will be out officially for LTC. |
|
|
|
It will easily hit $50 then possibly $100 but I think $50 is a relatively sure bet. I think BTC will retrace a bit as people take profits and it will lift LTC. LTC is good for recruitment to crypto, I think it's important for the scene that it succeeds. There are $50 LTC hodlers from years back who deserve to be rewarded for their bravery and patience. Reward for that? For HODL LTC has to prove yet use, so far roadmap looks promising, segwit happened, to be 50 - 100 USD it has to provide some of the feature in near future whatever it will be Lightning Network, Confidential transactions or others. I seriously don't think it can be overstated the damage that litecoin failing would do to the legitimacy of this space to newer casual investors. What the hell do I know.... LTC dropping back down to some low level is not it's failing. That's simply the way it in this space. Coins have no real value. There's no assets backing them up. There's no quarterly reports of earnings. Absolutely nothing. The nearest thing you can get to in terms of it's core "value", is some number that results in a reasonable profit for miners. 2014 BTC hit almost $1200. By 2015 it had dropped all the way down to around $200 and it stayed pretty flat for all of 2015. Miners were making a profit, everyone was "happy" (well as much as they can be when they're not able to dream of 10x profits). When the halving came along, the coin started creeping up a few months prior to that. So the new "floor" is probably in the $400-$500 range. Look at where BTC is right now? If/when BTC starts it's correction and starts heading that way again, no one that "gets it" is going to say BTC is failing. It's just going back to where it "should" be. You probably never heard of Mt Gox, anyway your post just contains no valuable information, just some numbers up and down, so what? And your post contains?? What? What about MtGox? It failed. BTC crashed for a few days and recovered and continued on it's way with it's slow inevitable decline to where it "should" have been given natural growth as opposed "to the moon investors". |
|
|
|
It will easily hit $50 then possibly $100 but I think $50 is a relatively sure bet. I think BTC will retrace a bit as people take profits and it will lift LTC. LTC is good for recruitment to crypto, I think it's important for the scene that it succeeds. There are $50 LTC hodlers from years back who deserve to be rewarded for their bravery and patience. Reward for that? For HODL LTC has to prove yet use, so far roadmap looks promising, segwit happened, to be 50 - 100 USD it has to provide some of the feature in near future whatever it will be Lightning Network, Confidential transactions or others. I seriously don't think it can be overstated the damage that litecoin failing would do to the legitimacy of this space to newer casual investors. What the hell do I know.... LTC dropping back down to some low level is not it's failing. That's simply the way it in this space. Coins have no real value. There's no assets backing them up. There's no quarterly reports of earnings. Absolutely nothing. The nearest thing you can get to in terms of it's core "value", is some number that results in a reasonable profit for miners. 2014 BTC hit almost $1200. By 2015 it had dropped all the way down to around $200 and it stayed pretty flat for all of 2015. Miners were making a profit, everyone was "happy" (well as much as they can be when they're not able to dream of 10x profits). When the halving came along, the coin started creeping up a few months prior to that. So the new "floor" is probably in the $400-$500 range. Look at where BTC is right now? If/when BTC starts it's correction and starts heading that way again, no one that "gets it" is going to say BTC is failing. It's just going back to where it "should" be. |
|
|
|
Malware? That's the best you can come up with? I wonder how many people would actually fall for this and sell off their LTC.
Stop FUDDING! people like you make investors lose a lot of money Seems to me you're going around to any LTC thread you can to FUD and get people to dump the coin. Oh.. Your quote below makes it crystal clear why you're posting stuff like this I hope it dumps so I can buy some cheap  |
|
|
|
It all depends a lot of segwit implementation. When will it occur? Will everything go fine? Huh? It's already activated and the first transaction is already on the chain. Info on the reddit. 2 hours later, someone also performed the first Lightening Networks transactions on the LTC main net to show it can be done even though it's not ready for full roll out yet (video posted on reddit and there was another post about it today on there).. So really, it's "done". Probably why the price is sitting there and no one knows which way it should go lol. |
|
|
|
im not understanding shit. can someone explain to me? without providing links to articles, ive read them.
as far as i understood,
if you have bitcoin in your wallet, you are entitled to receive some stellar coins.
but what is the maximum amount of bitcoins to own?
because a whale having enough btc can just show his address and get the whole total coin to be distributed of stellar.
what will you have to do to list your btc address in order to be entitled?
they said something like prove your btc address, its signing the address correct? what if its on an exchanger?
somebody please enlighten me
https://www.stellar.org/blog/bitcoin-claim-lumens-2/If you read that, then it should be clear that there's no "maximum". The amount you get is a percentage of how much you have in relationship to the total bitcoin supply at the time they take the snapshot times the 16 billion lumens. They give a clear example of the calculation on that page. It appears that, if you have bitcoin on a participating exchange, they will distribute lumens to you based on your balance at that time as well. It does look like there are some people that are excluded and it seems that some will have to do some sort of stupid facebook thing as well. |
|
|
|
.... Congrats on your success! I don't know much about LTC mining but from what you're saying, do you basically have about 10 KNC Titans (worth $20k+) and 6 of the new Antminer L3+ (worth $7.2k)? |
|
|
|
|
Malware? That's the best you can come up with? I wonder how many people would actually fall for this and sell off their LTC.
|
|
|
|
worrying so many pinning hopes on a huge amount of incoming interest because of going open source..
I hope you wont all be disappointed.
To me if enigma works well and can be vetted by a couple of top devs that is all you need.
If the enigma engine is really a big improvement over dash and mixing/shuffling or is rather an advanced better process then you will simply witness 50 other cloaks in short order.
If you believe people are not investing because it is closed source then you might be wrong.
Bring forth a decentralised governance and funding mechanism and you will see more interest.
I guess we'll wait and see but i think it could be a double edged sword.
I share you thoughts but after 3 years closed source we decide to go open source way. Of cause there is always risk to be copy. We choose this way and we will see what will happend. There is always some points what speaking for open source and what speak against it. PS: Dont forgert that we have very talented, smart and motivated fulltime device "Joe" i always belive in him and he proof me this 3 years that i was right with my hope in his talent. To copy a CODE is easy but it is not so easy to understand ENIGMA and i am sure there is not so many CODERs there like "Joe". So let enigma copy we are not worry about. We also plant to continue work on ENIGMA and new parts and projects in CODE. The copier would be always behind us. peace and love is a KEY dont forget  fear is opposite of it! As someone who's been "around" Cloak since Bob dumped all over us, this coin has to go open source. Not doing so and/or obfuscating just says it can never be trusted and has something to hide. Once the source is out there, there also needs to be a very serious code review done by some well respected developers (that don't have any stigma of controversy swirling around them). There's far too much bad history behind Cloak to not have any of this happen. As for others copying it.. Well, I'll be brutal. If Cloak can't progress, compete and be better than any copies, then it deserves to die. Just like any other product/company out there in any industry. I would like to see Cloak succeed after all the crap that's gone on but it should do so in a straight up "fight" in order to "prove" itself as a real contender. @c4shm3n. I've got to give you props for sticking with this. There's been a few times where I've wanted to come in here and post some negative stuff about the progress but your perseverance is an asset to the coin and, quite frankly, the only reason it still exists. |
|
|
|
i guarantee you it wont be a=10min b=20m c=30m d=40m etc etc.. Huh? How could that be. Each pool is trying to solve a completely different block (data). So even if they all had the exact same hash and miners etc, they would solve their problem at much different time frames. If that wasn't the case, all the math behind this stuff simply wouldn't apply. The thing about your racer analogy is that each runner is actually on their own track and they're of different lengths (not even taking into account that each racer runs at different speeds and that each track is actually a treadmill and each treadmill is at a speed representing the current difficulty). So they each complete their race at different times but the average is 10 mins. Next race, they're assigned to completely different tracks. Is this analogy not far more representative? I can see how pool mining should narrow the distribution, But even so, we're talking such large time frames that I can't see it being such that all the pools are within a minutes or two of each other. Surely there's some actual statistical information out there on this. |
|
|
|
You should understand what "mining" is As I said, I went and did a bunch of research on it yesterday so have a much clear idea today. It means that the hashrate of the whole network is such that on average, the whole network wins a good hash every 10 minutes. If you have only, say, 10% of that hash rate, you will only win a block, on average, every 100 minutes. That's really the most important part of your post. Assuming all things being equal, I can see how that would be true. I assume that somewhere out there is statistical "proof" of all of this? There was some online calculator that was supposed to provide that sort of information but it doesn't seem to exist anymore. I do have a couple questions about pool mining. Getting real information about the nuts and bolts of how it works proved a bit more difficult as most things just talked about how payouts are determined etc. Since pool miners are "wasting" a bunch of their hash rate proving they're actually working, does that result in an overall lower difficulty for the network compared to if everyone was solo mining? Along with that, are they also wasting a lot of power which means that they're less profitable compared to if they were solo mining (not taking into account the many years it could take to actually reach any sort of "average"). |
|
|
|
|
The design of Bitcoin is that it was never intended to be used for regular day to day stuff and that the fees would go high as mining rewards decreased. So no, despite what some people seem to think, it was never designed for the masses. As for the current fees. I have no idea what the hell people are whining about. At a couple of the ATMs I have to use, it's $2.50 to get some money regardless of whether it's $20 or $400.
IF bitcoin gets LN, then things will change a bit but in reality, the "masses" will have to use an alt coin to buy their coffee. That's why Litecoin has implemented segwit and LN will be on it very soon (there has actually been a transaction already). They also seem to be trying to build some way to bridge between bitcoin and litecoin.
|
|
|
|
people need to actually run scenarios..
and not just do retroactive maths on only the results of winners..
look behind the winners and see the times of the undisplayed losers aswell to see the real times Where is the data that shows that pool A found a block a couple seconds after pool B? I don't know much about this stuff but if it's so close all the time one would think there would be a hell of a lot of orphans happening. Would that then mean this isn't an accurate reflection of that? https://blockchain.info/charts/n-orphaned-blocks Cause I'm only seeing 3 in the last month. 465722 Timestamp 2017-05-10 08:19:11 Relayed By Bixin Timestamp 2017-05-10 08:19:10 Relayed By GBMiners 1 second apart 464681 Timestamp 2017-05-03 18:55:39 Relayed By ViaBTC Timestamp 2017-05-03 18:55:46 Relayed By BTC.com 7 seconds apart 464185 Timestamp 2017-04-30 11:40:29 Relayed By BitFury Timestamp 2017-04-30 11:39:59 Relayed By Bixin 30 seconds apart 463505 Timestamp 2017-04-25 23:15:20 Relayed By Bitcoin.com Timestamp 2017-04-25 23:15:22 Relayed By AntPool 2 seconds apart
imagine it this way knowing only one person can win... some STOP when they see a winner as there is no point wasting precious seconds.. and RESET and work on a new block. this does not mean it takes them 30 minutes it just means that stopping the instant a winner crosses the line is good odds to stop and restart, rather than to continue for a few more seconds (1-30 seconds) in the narrow hope you are more valid than the fastest first. there are many many layers of security, efficiencies, percentages, features at play. far more then dino is putting into context when he just counts how many "winning" blocks he sees. rather than how long it actually takes a pool to make a block win or lose. there is a difference again for emphasise the number of blocks that win per hour vs how many blocks are created per hour So roughly 0.18% of the blocks end up being orphaned. We know the averages that the various pools win a block. Since they stop the moment they know a block is found, we have no way of knowing what the real average would be for a given pool. I keep thinking about a calculation I saw last night from a few years back where someone posted how long it could take them to win a block given their hashrate and assuming the difficulty didn't change. It was anywhere from "immediately" to over 4 months running 24/7. Frankly I think you're both "wrong" as, unless there's more info I'm not aware of, we simply don't have enough real data to know what the true average time is for a given pool. Saying if all but one pool stopped that the blocks would continue on being generated every 10 minutes with the exact same difficulty is clearly wrong. As is saying that the "win" average is an accurate representation of a pools true average if they were the only one solving blocks at a given difficulty. |
|
|
|
people need to actually run scenarios..
and not just do retroactive maths on only the results of winners..
look behind the winners and see the times of the undisplayed losers aswell to see the real times Where is the data that shows that pool A found a block a couple seconds after pool B? I don't know much about this stuff but if it's so close all the time one would think there would be a hell of a lot of orphans happening. Would that then mean this isn't an accurate reflection of that? https://blockchain.info/charts/n-orphaned-blocks Cause I'm only seeing 3 in the last month. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
