|
They have already answered this. Even if they got orders for 100,000 units it would take months to build and ship all of them. The further out your preorders the harder it is to control the schedule. Delays compound on delays and result in timelines getting pushed back weeks, months, even quarters. Given the continual difficult rise and falling ROI% it is a recipe for drama, and anger.
Keep the batches small. Pre-order, build, ship. Open up another pre-order. While there may be delays it is far more manageable.
|
|
|
|
|
Why would this dystopia be foolish enough to allow phone calls to the "outside world". I mean internet = communication. Phone = communication. It would be beyond pointless.
But to answer your question ... of course it could be used. Doing it in a centralized manner would be trivially easy. Before online banking there was phone banking. With voice prompts and tone detection you can do just about anything over an "analog" phone. Of course one could also use the phone as a modem to provide a "freedom dialup" link to the outside internet.
So for obvious reasons any nation which controlled the internet access to outside world would also control other forms of communication to the outside world also (sat, phone, even radio/tv broadcasts).
|
|
|
|
I was a pessimist, did not think that any one could deliver and for that i crown myself as a duchebag.
Don't worry your ignorance and inability to accept corrections already did that for you in your other thread. To avoid any revisioning of history you weren't a pessimist you flat out claims it was IMPOSSIBLE to produce this product. Not that Avalon was a scam but that it simply couldn't be done. Of course as pointed out even IF Avalon was a scam your reasoning was still idiotic. For existing FPGA design the best can be had is 23MHps/J. There is no reason to anticipate an improvement in FPGA power efficiency, yes, there can be marginal reduction of overhead and the FPGA can be scaled up, but it's efficiency will not increase all that much. Based on existing designs we can anticipate 25MH/J for FPGA. There is nothing special abut ASIC, most ASIC vendors just use a custom programmed FPGA; this is called FPGA to ASIC conversion. So at best ASIC will be 50MHps/J; and i am being VERY generous here. |
|
|
|
Bitcoin is decentralized. You will never get 100% of the community to agree on just about anything. If you want to start using mBTC then us mBTC. Personally I think it is a little early for that. A $1300 ASIC miner would for example be 65,000 mBTC which is a little excessive IMHO but the reference client already supports multiple unit types. Probably the best thing to do is to start lobbying your favorite webservices (blockchain.info, MtGox, bitmit, etc) to support an option to switch to mBTC. I think common usage will happen organically once if/when Bitcoin trades above a couple hundred dollars. Sorry I mean 1 mBTC = > $0.20 USD or so.  |
|
|
|
Isn't the title misleading when you indicate that ... Please understand the purpose of this application is to reward people. Don't purchase the coins and claim a prize. |
|
|
|
|
The coinbase transaction is just a transaction. It is a "special"* transactions but it is still part of the merkle tree. All transactions (including the coinbase) are in the merkle tree. The merkle tree root hash changes if any element of the merkle tree changes. You can think of the merkle tree root hash as the hash of a specific set of transactions. Much like how a different blockheader will produce a different block hash, a different set of transactions will produce a different merkle tree root hash.
So if you add a tx to the set of transactions in the block you produce a different merkle tree = a new merkle tree root hash.
If you remove a tx to the set of transactions in the block you produce a different merkle tree = a new merkle tree root hash.
If you modify the coinbase tx you produce a different merkle tree = a new merkle tree root hash.
The merkle tree root hash which is included in the blockheader corresponds to a specific set of transactions (including the coinbase). By including the merkle tree root hash in the block header any solution found is only valid for that exact and specific set of transactions. Any change of an element in the block header (difficulty, prior block hash, timestamp, merkle tree roothash, version, etc) will produce a new hash (which has the same unlikely probability of being below the difficulty target).
Since making any change to the set of transactions changes the merkle tree root hash and the merkle tree root hash is part of the blockheader, any change also changes the blockheader. A different blockheader will produce a different block hash. Thus you can't change anything in the block without producing a new block hash.
When you submit a block to the rest of the network other nodes will validate the block by:
a) validating all tx in the block
b) constructing the merkle tree
c) generating the markle tree root hash
d) verifying the computed merkle tree root is the same as the one in the block header.
e) hashing the block heahder and validating the hash meets the difficulty target.
On a related note this is how a miner can't "steal" the block reward for a block they solve. The solution (hash below the difficulty target) is ONLY valid for that specific block header. The merkle tree in the block header is only valid for that specific set of transactions. If a miner were to replace the coinbase tx with one that sends the coins to his address it would produce a new merkle tree, thus a new merkle tree root hash, and thus a new blockhash.
* By "special" the coinbase must have the following characteristics.
1) the set of transactions in a block must have exactly one coinbase transaction (yes a block with no coinbase is invalid)
2) the coinbase transaction has no input
3) the value of the coinbase transaction must be equal to or less than (the block subsidy based on block height + sum of all the inputs of other tx in the block - sum of all outputs of other tx in the block)
|
|
|
|
Not a chance that 1 Bitcoin is worth anywhere near 2/3's of an ounce of silver. Then again maybe it's silver that is grossly undervalued! You do realize the nominal value of something is mostly irrelivent. What matters is the aggregate. For example imagine Satoshi had decided to make the total number of coins 2.1 billion and the intitial block reward 5000 BTC. Everything being the same BTC might be trading at 1 BTC = ~$0.20. Would that make it a better price. Likewise today 1 ton of silver costs about $1,000,000 USD or 20,000 BTC. Wow silver is really expensive huh? 20,000 BTC for silver? I for one am amazed and depressed at how high Bitcoin has gone in the last two years. Depressed because I didn't buy a ton into it two years ago when it was trading at only about $1. Well with simplistic thinking only in nominal terms I am totally surprised you undervalued it. BTW today 1 mBTC = ~$0.02. You have a chance to get them while they are cheap. Only 2 cents each an amazingly low price. |
|
|
|
|
I think you are confused. MG doesn't translate, accept, or pay BTC. They never have.
|
|
|
|
|
Lolz. I got to remember that next time Burt.
|
|
|
|
Hi, could you please change "2012-01-27" Update: to 2013 ? Why didn't the devs simply make an advanced configuration setting for that is beyond me. Of course, they try to subtly nudge us to pay miners fee. Good we have folks like youself, who give people choice The min tx fees are tiny and make up a negligible portion of miners revenue (not to be confused with optional fees on high priority txs). If a sufficient number of nodes are running code which doesn't enforce the anti-spam rules it would allow an attacker to trivially cripple the Bitcoin network in both bandwidth usage and storage requirements for a token amount of money. So that is a "good thing" I guess. Also this fork allows noobs to create transactions which may takes days or weeks to be included in a block leading to all kinds of confusion and frustration. Worse when that happens the tx will seem to "Disapear" as it can't be seen by the receiver due to other nodes enforcing the rules. I personally (as a merchant) have experienced the "fun" of this. A noob with little understanding of Bitcoin saw the "no fees" fork and figured it must be better. I mean those evil miners trying to force him to pay a fraction of a penny only on massive bloated spammy transactions. Can't have that right? He created an order with us and our site gave him a payment address. He sent coins but of course with no fee nodes between him and us dropped the transaction so our processing node couldn't even see the tx. Anyways long story short the customer is freaking out, thinking we are scamming him. He can "see" he sent the coins but we can't see the coins being sent, it isn't getting include in any block. Try explaining that concept to a noob. Before the tx is included in a block 16 hours later, the order expires and the price drops massively so when the funds do finally clear we can't honor the price and refund the order. Of course the uninformed noob thinks this is our fault and we are trying to scam him because the price dropped but we can't honor coins we don't have access to. So yeah... this is a wonderful fork which will greatly help increase adoption of Bitcoin. |
|
|
|
|
It "limits" it to an insanely large number. A number so large that our star doesn't have sufficient energy reamining to COUNT to 2^256 much less brute forces keys. Note: this assumes you could build a perfect computer (in the thermodynamic sense), capture the entire energy output of our star (and exterminate all life on our planet in the process), convert that energy with no loss, and build a large enough computer to use that energy, and keep the computer at roughly the background temperature of the universe (perfectly radiating waste heat). If you did all that you could count to ~2^192 which is about 1/Quintillion of 1% of the way to 2^256.
So the answer is ... no.
However there are some non-brute force attack which (someday) may lead to an exploit.
1) If there is a bias or flaw in RNG that can be exploited it in theory could allow an attacker to narrow the search space. By knowing the creator didn't use a range of numbers you can exclude them from the search and potentially brute force a much smaller keyspace. Then again narrowing the search space from 2^256 to 2^190 doesn't really do you any good, even narrowing it down to 2^128 wouldn't be viable. Still it is a theoretical exploit. With true hardware and even quantum RNG becoming cheaper and accessible this may not even be possible in the future.
2) If a flaw is discovered in SHA-256 or RIPEMD-160 it "could" allow a faster than brute force attack attempting to force a collision. The bad news is such flaws tend to take decades to develop from academic curiosity to real world attack vector.
3) Quantum computing potentially could make faster than brute force attacks on ECDSA a reality ... someday. It would take an huge number of quibits (magnitudes beyond anything we can do today) to make it possible. This also requires you to know the public key which remains a secret until coins are spent. Of course funds could be moved to quantum resistant algorithms rendering this attack void.
|
|
|
|
|
Simple answer is ... no.
4670 is not OpenCL capable. Even if it was the computing power of that GPU is so low you would be lucky to get a couple pennies worth of Bitcoins a week, in exchange for a couple dollars in electricity. Given the motherboard uses AGP you don't have an upgrade path to a modern GPU and with ASICs arriving soon it is probably not a good idea to invest in new system unless you just like spending money with no hope of a profit.
BTW nothing matters but the video card. The other specs are meaningless for mining.
|
|
|
|
Ray Kurzwiel has made futurist predictions but never saw the one about [when] computers are built from something other than matter and occupy something other than space |
|
|
|
Question to forum administration: maybe this is right moment to ask Avalon stuff to publish proof of Avalon ASIC existance or shut down any (possible) scam activity?
I will try to explain myself.
BitSyncom used this forum to advertise its product, got preorders on this forum, used forum to keep (or not) customers informed about order status... But more than one week after we didn't saw any evidence that product were shipped... even more: existed. All questions about promised(!!!) source code of modified cgminer, iso with OS image for device, video proof, shipment choice form, tracking number for jgazik and more - all this were TOTALY IGNORED. Now Avalon is starting new thread with batch #2 announced and look what they promise: no proof, no moneyback. One thing they promise: dates dates dates.
So, all I said is lead us to one conclusion: POSSIBLE SCAM! (Personaly I don't want it to be scam, as I am first batch customer). And now is good time to take sme preventive actions against possible scam and minimise possible damage to your forum users? I don't think that administration of this forum want to be anyhow related to scam?
The same forum which allowed Pirate to run a painfully obvious ponzi scheme for months? Good or bad the forum takes a hands of approach. If you think it is a scam then don't buy one. Pretty simple concept. Personal responsibility and all that. You are the keeper of your coins. If you do something stupid then you may lose them and never get them back. Of course if it is a scam I am sure many will ignore that chasing the promise of turning x BTC into 10x BTC by getting an ASIC first and in the process turn it into 0 BTC. Note: I am not saying Avalon is or isn't a scam. I don't really care, won't be buying one either way. |
|
|
|
Unless btc is really going 'to the moon,' it's pretty much guaranteed that there will be another 50% correction given an unlimited time horizon. Hence, it's NEVER over for a true bear - I do have to admit to feeling rather frustrated my entry price seems an awfully long way away at this point tho.
Well even IF BTC goes to the moon there likely will be multiple large corrections. Still that does little good if someone is waiting for $1 USD:BTC and even with the next correction it doesn't go below $11. |
|
|
|
|
Well I don't know if it is a scam or not (and don't really care) but I am sure all ASIC and FPGA boards have a DC to DC PSU.
No not the 120VAC -> 12VDC ATX PSU but the board level PSU that converts that 12VDC supplied by the ATX power supply to xVDC used by the board level components. Nothing in the computer world actually runs at 12V so the boards need to step down the voltage supplied by ATX PSU. Unlike ATX AC->DC PSU there is no one size fits all because the amount of current, regulation, and voltage is going to vary from component to component. Your motherboard (and video cards) have a DC to DC PSU for this exact reason.
|
|
|
|
Sell them through MoneyGram, it's like Western Union except the fee's are 10x less. That or bank transfer/wire would probably be the fastest ways to get cash in your hand. Any place with large amounts of feedback will be safe to use though.
MG is generally cheaper than Western Union but saying the fees at 10x less is kinda stretch. WU fee to wire $1,000 USD (US to US) - $95 (9.5%) MG fee to wire $1,000 USD (US to US) - $78 (7.8%) Either one is a very expensive way to send funds. |
|
|
|
If you don't want someone to send coins to a fake address then make it invalid so people can't. Make more sense than hoping they know a # means don't send. Valid address: 1GQQwTcG7zJJW3Tp3EG72dVpZfghwV4pr D <- you can send coins there if you want. Invalid address: 1GQQwTcG7zJJW3Tp3EG72dVpZfghwV4pr a <- you can't send coins here even if you wanted to. By changing a single digit it invalidates the checksum. Try to send coins to the invalid address, you can't. E:\bitcoind> bitcoind sendtoaddress 1GQQwTcG7zJJW3Tp3EG72dVpZfghwV4pra 0.01
error: {"code":-5,"message":"Invalid Bitcoin address"}
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
