Even if the coins were sent back to the same address they would have different unspent transaction output IDs.
So the spending signature incorporates the transaction output IDs? I am trying to get at the why the signature can't be reused. A transaction consists of a list of inputs (IDs of previous transactions + the number of the output in that transaction), then a list of outputs (address + amount of BTC to send to that address, up to a maximum of the sum total of the inputs). The hash of these two lists is then signed with the ECDSA keys referenced in the input list. If any of the inputs have been spent before (i.e. it appears in the list of inputs to another transaction already in the blockchain), then the transaction will be discarded and won't be mined. Also, if you try to reuse the signature from one transaction on another transaction, then the old signature will not be valid for the new transaction, because the hash is different. I.e. the signature signs the hash of the transaction using the ECDSA key, and will not be valid for other transactions because they have a different hash. Does that answer the question? [And for you smart guys: did it answer it correctly?;] |
|
|
|
(...) he announced the 2nd gen would be 55/45 (...)
I don't remember he announced that, and I can't find any record of him saying this in his history. Could you link me to that announcement? |
|
|
|
• We made an order of another brand of power chips which are about two weeks late. In October this will provide another 500TH/s (Gen1).
• If any deal of ordering Gen1 chips from outside buyers via us is reached, additional orders will be made.
• The size of the Gen2 order will be decided as appropriate, according to the network difficulty when it is time to finalize the order size.
Anyway, this is pretty much underwhelming. Probably gonna see a quick pop upward in the exchanges, until people realize that FC hasn't even negotiated a Gen 2 order size yet, and that AM is going to war with 500GH of 1st gen hardware (which is 2 weeks late™).
I agree. Looks like AM lost their head start and is still fully focused on 130nm Gen1 hardware. That is not going to be a viable long-term strategy. Even the Gen2 products @55nm are going to be more like Gen1.5 when compared to the 28nm chips coming online in bulk from various vendors in Q4. Too little too late. The current generation of chips are profitable to run until the network hash rate reaches around 30 PH/s. It definitely makes sense to pump out more hardware while working on the next generation, especially considering that the franchising plan means that the operator doesn't bear this risk. |
|
|
|
which would post actual hashrate (or average) every few hours, let's say 6. People will start to panic if we have bad luck You can track the hashrate with the block origin I think the right question to ask is: will this activity increase profits for ASICMINER? If the answer is no, then it should be way down on the list of prioritized tasks... |
|
|
|
Furthermore, there is a huge difference in electricity prices by region, something FC has not acted to take advantage of, but other actors have. This will encourage the overshoot scenario (in profit terms) for those individuals who have not exploited cheaper regions.
Just one comment in regards to the electricity prices: it won't be much of a factor for a little while still, it is more profitable to focus on pumping out hardware at the moment than worrying about electricity costs. If you do the math, the electricity bill for AM hardware to produce 1 BTC is about $1.32. So "strategic positioning" with respect to power prices will come into play eventually, but it makes sense to focus on other areas first. In other words, hashing with AM will have a positive marginal cost until the network difficulty is about 100x what it is today. |
|
|
|
A few days ago Friedcat gave us an update. He made a vague reference to franchising, he said he has began doing it in China and plans to expand in the near future. I'm not sure what he means by franchising but I know what I hope he means. I hope he means he will be offering hardware at a price that will undercut the competitors but will share some of the hashing power with ASICMINER. For example, if they sold hardware that was cheaper than their competitors but shared say 15% of its hashing power with ASICMINER, then they could ensure that anyone buying new hardware was buying from them. They wouldn't even need to undercut in fact, they'd just need real products ready to ship, not vaporware/pre-orders that waste your ROI waiting in line. I also think they should release new USB block eruptors (2nd generation) for free. YES FOR FREE. Sounds crazy, I know! But not if 95% of their hashing power is going to ASICMINER.
ASICMINER is a mining company first and foremost. They only sell hardware so they don't gain too much of the total network hashing rate. If they followed a franchising program similar to this, then they could continue selling hardware while not diluting their portion of the total network hash rate. We all know the hardest part of running a large scale mining operation is powering it, and Friedcat doesn't exactly have the cheapest electricity. Franchising in such a manor can allow ASICMINER to expand without needing to worry about powering its farm, as the operators with presumably cheaper electrical rates would be running it for him.
I truly believe that if ASICMINER followed through with a franchising plan like the one I'm presenting then they could continue to sell hardware while maintaining 20-30% of the total network power. If their compitions fails to ship and they begin to get close to 51% they could always raise the price of their hardware, and decrease the amount it shares with ASICMINER.
So what do you guys think? What did i miss? What do you think his franchising will entail?
I think the days of worrying about a 51% attack from AM are well behind us. My interpretation of the franchising was that AM will provide mining hardware to someone, and in return receive a percentage of the revenue based on theoretical hash rate of the hardware. It's a great way to scale up, since infrastructure for a single large mining operation becomes increasingly difficult and time-consuming to handle. As for giving away hardware for free, I think you've lost the plot, mate! |
|
|
|
I don't know how many USB asics they are selling but ebay is jammed with them. Picked up 10 more for myself. Hardware sales by pure volume must be huge.
Hardware seems to be flying out the door and competitors are failing left and right (Avalon refunds chips, BFL under investigation, Ken/ActiveMining goes MIA, BTCGarden, etc.) - but still the ASICMINER shares have dropped in price. I'm puzzled - anyone have a reasonable explanation? |
|
|
|
|
Could you put the "panel discussion" in some kind of context (e.g. overarching topic, etc.) that could make it easier to make useful suggestions?
|
|
|
|
|
If I'm not entirely mistaken, the 200 TH/s order was paid for in full already a long time ago (early June?). The fact that FC is withholding dividends to pay for something now must mean another order is on the way.
Since he spoke of reaching 800-1000 TH/s by the end of the year, I will speculate that part of these chips are already in production - which is definitely good news!
|
|
|
|
|
Could be smart to really push the fact that credit/debit cards were never meant for use on the internet. Internet didn't even exist when cards were first envisioned and created, whereas Bitcoin is built from the ground up to handle payments over the internet.
Also, in order to accept payments by cards, merchants need to register+pay fees+++. To accept payments in bitcoin, all you need is a private key (i.e. a number with some specific properties).
|
|
|
|
|
Interesting twist. First the "inside leak" in the beginning of August, and now a fairly professional video crediting "eBay Deals". There was also a reddit-post about one guy having a bitcoin-related dispute resolved in his favor by Paypal.
Not an enormous amount of evidence to make any strong claims, but enough to say that you weren't surprised if it actually turns out to happen. I guess we'll see shortly!
|
|
|
|
We just received a letter from Skatteetaten, replying to our accountant's inquiry about tax and bitcoin: Slik det fremstår for skatteetaten antas formidling av kjøp og salg av bitcoin å være et gyldig betalingsmiddel, og dermed unntatt merverdiavgift etter mval. § 3-6 bokstav d.
That's great news, congratulations to you and your team for getting that clarification! If I were you, I'd write up a press release and send it to Itavisen/Digi/DN/Finansavisen/+++. It's pretty big and important news, in my opinion, and would get some publicity both for Bitcoin and yourself. |
|
|
|
|
In the meantime, 200TH/s of equipment has arrived (or is arriving) these days -- ready to be sold, deployed or leased.
Proper competition, which everybody knows will arrive eventually, is long overdue!
|
|
|
|
The BSA has no provision for "we followed some of the regs so we are ok and don't have to follow the rest". An entity is either compliant or not compliant. MSB registering with FinCEN is one requirement for compliance. This has nothing to do with foreign bank accounts. It has to do with money transmission. If an entity (CFIG) accepts funds from one person (client) and at the persons direction transfer those funds to another "person" (exchange account) it is money transmission. It seems clear they intend to violate the BSA and do so intentionally. Investors should be aware of that risk, the risk of seizure of company (investor) assets. For a company who's stated goal is to be compliant and above board it is disappointing that they will not either be above board or compliant.
I'm not an expert on US law, but I'm not sure your interpretation of the regulations is entirely correct. Searching for MSBs in a normal country, for example Sweden, in the MSB Registrant Seach Web Page ( http://www.fincen.gov/financial_institutions/msb/msbstateselector.html) shows no results. However, I can assure you Sweden has banks and financial institutions that can receive money transfers from Americans. Does that mean all Swedish banks and financial institutions in violation since they are not registered MSBs with Fincen? Is wiring money to Nordea illegal? Given that there exist Swedish banks and financial institutions, I assume they are operating fully within the law - as such, there appears to be some way to legally operate banks and financial services in foreign countries without registering as an MSB. Have I misunderstood something fundamental? |
|
|
|
I think your theory is off - there is not even a "theoretical" way AM could be a ponzi scheme: the dividends paid out to investors are approximately five times the total investments they received. The paper value of AM's securities (over 200k shares) are well above the dividends they've paid out. I agree that it is less likely, however. Yes. But the shares are sold only in secondary markets - when you buy a share, none of that money actually goes to AM (hence it cannot be included in the dividends). |
|
|
|
I think your theory is off - there is not even a "theoretical" way AM could be a ponzi scheme: the dividends paid out to investors are approximately five times the total investments they received. |
|
|
|
So the reason you've only raised (at the time of writing) 1.7% of your total goal is just because your Business Plan is too long? Don't you think that's a bit...naive?
Looks like some whale was convinced: they have now attracted an additional 6k BTC. |
|
|
|
Has this been verified by Havelock, or is has it just been stated by CFIG and taken at face value?
I thought that was exactly what lightbox was doing. Lightbox, what is your affiliation with Havelock? AFAIK lightbox works with/owns Havelock. My question is whether anyone from Havelock has done independent research to verify whether the Panamanian bank is ACTUALLY backing CFIG, or if CFIG just said "here's the name of the bank" and Havelock said "OK!". Conceded. Speak up, o' ye' enlightened container! |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
