Free for whom? Those who will spend outrageous amount to heat with electricity are receiving an insignificant amount of gain. You can give me 10 free pennies per month and I don't have the time to pick them up off the ground. They are not free for me to pick up.

This doesn't aid mankind in any way unless you argue that getting people to do micropayments with a decentralized model of adoption and choice won't otherwise happen. It is way to lock people into a specific money system, especially one with very long time frames on replacement hardware, thus discouraging any competition on money with the government's coin.

And this is why if we are going to offer any decentralized choice for micropayment distribution, we had damn well better release it tomorrow.

If they are only going to put these in personal driers, then I am not concerned. As you admit, a dated chip's market share declines over time and they are used only intermittently. That is such a low use activity it won't compete with full time mining for market share.

It is the putting of this into phones that alarms me. They are locking in the masses to one money choice (one hashing algorithm at least and we don't know what requirements governments can require these chips to have in the future).

Afaik, electric heating of anything is incredibly inefficient compared to natural gas or propane. Thus this isn't making the world more energy efficient. This is for people who don't care about efficiency because they can afford the safey and lack of hassles of not using gas.

People are already doing that warming their homes in the winter.

But the problem with the economics is the duty cycle of you use of the mining chip is too low if you put it in a toaster or any other personal care drier. The chip has to pay back itself in time as it has a limited period of time that it has cutting edge performance.

This is not about boosting efficiency of mining.

Also I have never seen anyone in the Philippines use a heating device for anything but cooking.

And why would someone in the developing world use an electric heating device when these are much less efficient than propane.

What I am driving at is the play here is not about free electricity. It is about fooling people who don't count their electricity carefully (which is most of us) and/or getting people locked into one form of money that the government can takeover.

The advantage of a CPU is that you can reuse it for many tasks. You don't have to be locked into the chip design that Larry Summers decides should go into your mobile device. This is incredibly 666 directed. Now we have fascist merger of Treasury Dept of the USA and chipsets for mobile phones.

I am speaking about the efficiency of transfer on the time domain. Of course if there is no time involved, all heat reaches equilibrium. Thermal processes are uninteresting if there is no time domain.

How is it that my hair dyer dries my hair after i turn it off but my mining chip is still hot? You've got have a large heat sink in order to move the heat efficiently in time.

Device doesn't self-destruct if the duty cycle is not greater than what the heat transfer sink can deliver.

Heat sinks are often the most expensive part of the entire design. And there is a diminishing return. The heat of a mining chip is I believe very concentrated into a few mm² versus coils which cheaply spread out their heat over a large surface area of air flow.

Aren't you forgetting that the efficiency of a thermodynamic process is proportional the ratio of the differences in temperature and the ambient. If the Bitcoin mining chip is not as hot as the coils, then it will not be as efficient as the coils were. Also for example a hair dyer needs all the heat transfered within a short period of time, and if the heat transfer is slow not all of the heat may be extracted to the hair and instead wasted to the ambient. So somewhat less than free mining.

The efficiency isn't going to be perfect because the nature of the heat may not be fully fungible with the original source of the heat in such devices.

Phone absolutely not.

Thus (unless they don't really expect to scale this into mobile phones) I think it is more of a play on the fact that small changes in electricity bill are uncorrelated in the minds of the users.

People in the developing world have no concept of what makes their electricity bill change every month. They will ignorantly feel they are getting something for free, when in fact they are being enslaved yet again. These banksters are very clever.

I think you are misunderstanding the paradigm being used now is a slowburn. By the time the frogs realize they are boiling, they are already dead.


Apparently they are doing it already. And I don't see any civil war. How do you explain this discrepancy?

I don't understand why you are angry at me when I am doing everything I can think of to devise a technological and marketing coup to this battle which is nearly lost for certain.


Or they have the means and have strategically decided to store it all up now and begin the war in a few years from now when their timing is ripe, so as to prevent premature adoption and network effects development of technological counter measures.

OPEC observed that raising oil prices led to increase conservation and efficiencies. Markets do react. TPTB are surely aware they must maximize the concentration of their collapse and war.


Why does it bother you that I want to want fight technologically and marketing-wise to attempt to provide a frontier for more people versus what I perceive to be their plans, strengths, and weaknesses. I am playing chess. What is wrong with that?


The majority are not going to forsake the government. Thus you give up? I refuse to give up and instead hope that with a technological solution, a segment of the population can be emboldened to resist the will of the majority.

http://blogs.wsj.com/digits/2015/05/18/bitcoin-startup-21-unveils-product-plan-embeddable-mining-chips/?mod=rss_Technology




The plan is to have users pay for their phones and/or services by contributing their electricity. This is a way embedding usury into the masses' digital life. And it is a way of implementing the 666 system. Larry Summers who is leading the way towards a cashless, NWO is onboard.

Smooth, as I told you we are losing network effects race. You all over at Monero need stop fucking around with delusion about complacency and get serious.

But my point was that if the IP is the same (or different IP correlated to the same individual) for transaction that created outputs and that spends any of those outputs (without needing to know which is the change), then analysis can presume the output(s) being spent in the ring are those which match the correlated IP address.

Note I am presuming the NSA can obtain the records from your ISP to ascertain it was you on shared IP address and not another user of the same ISP.

rpietila I wasn't phrasing it as "you are wrong". I was wondering what the natural synergy is. Perhaps gamers are rebellious enough by nature. My son is a game aholic  and he doesn't seem to be phased by anything. He does exactly what he damn pleases, including refusing to get a job or go see the sunshine (sounds like somebody I know around my age except the refusing to hold a job part although my job is like a game to me). Surely he is not your demographic though as he doesn't have $100.

I am not sure if I am correct on the IP correlation, but I surely don't trust Tor due to Sybil attack on relays, timing analysis, etc. I don't know if I2P has defeated those issues. I doubt it but everytime I looked for detailed design docs in the past I didn't readily find the information I needed to formulate an opinion.

On the next big economic coflagration 2018ish, when 80% of the people in the West are receiving their government survival stipend via Coinbase or Circle in their iPhone and they must have a Facebook login to get government aid, then you tell me it is not politically feasible. And you will be paying for that.

CoinJoin is not scalable. It can be jammed by Sybil attacks. It has a timing simultaneity requirement that means it is not autonomous, not end-to-end, and failure/hassle prone.

The only way to do it correctly is put on chain. Sorry you are technically incorrect.


Zerocoin doesn't allow you spend any coins until you remove them from the anonymity accumulator.

Perhaps you meant Zerocash. Zerocash has the problem that you can never know if the setup keys were compromised allowing unlimited minting of coins because the money supply can not be known. That is unacceptable for a store-of-value.

Hey that was the allegation I raised in the BCX thread. Are you quoting me via Google?

I can't say I won that discussion. I am not sure I was entirely convinced I lost it, but I even forgot by now the conclusions (Multiple Sclerosis effect perhaps).

I missed this until Erdogan quoted it.

I am calculating the government is going to lose 0 up to $trillions because of me.

I am just making the point that people that don't have any vested reason for fight, often don't see any incentive for waging one.

Marketing is about matching concerns (demographics).

I didn't say it won't work. I am just wondering what gaming has to do with the anonymity fight? Seems like two different demographics.

I thought the gaming idea with your game coin would work well. Adding the anonymity seemed like going in the wrong direction or at least until the gamers have some need for it.

Can you offer any elaboration or cite some research on this?

I may have forgotten the specific details of the unlinkability (been away from that for some months) but afair the IP address can be associated with a total payment amount and the output addresses. The unlinkability only creates a new address for each payee for each payment, but doesn't hide this new address. Thus on the next spend of the change, the input to the ring it likely known. It is these sort of combinatorial attacks (other variations) that I think might breakdown Monero's anonymity. Smooth please do correct me if my recollection has failed me.

A ban works with fear. They make examples of a few users. This maybe works where the users don't have much incentive to be fighting the government. If the users have a great incentive for defiance as is the case for Torrents then the government is impotent.

And precisely my idea for an altcoin is more down the line of the Torrents market than gaming. I am wondering why gamers need anonymity and would fight the government.

Ditto investors if they see any risk of being unmasked, they lose confidence to invest in great size. Torrent users know the government is playing a losing game of Whack-A-Mole against them. Investors maybe don't feel this way when the examples are confiscation of $millions (unless it reaches the point the government is going to take their money anyway).