I'm understand that who are saying BitHashMiner is Scam they are self scam because they have no Legit Proof/Evidence about it and nor they have positive thinking, They think Every New Companies are scam but they have some proof about scam, I want to announce about How they comparison, They comparison with own negative thinking, They say we are saying it is scam Because it is scam, In simple word we can say their Thinking is Scam.  Every time when Innovation comes then suddenly they say it is scam, When anybody ask them why are you saying it is scam Have you proof then they say yeah we are thinking it is scam it's a proof that it is scam,  I want to disclosure that in this thread Nearby 94% who are writing against BitHashMiner and Mentioning that BitHashMiner is totally scam sending me private E-Mails that Please send me BitHashMiner, If you will send me BitHashMiner free then i will write Delicious and positive post about BitHashMiner,.... It's so Amazing , It's mean BitHashMiner is NO SCAM. Very very thanks. Are you using Google translate? What other proofs do you have that you are working on an ASIC chip besides useless words? |
|
|
|
Why would someone bad intended with a lot of money agree to let your microtransactions happen? He could fill the blocks easily and he could be against raising the limit by owning/renting a lot of mining hashpower. What will you do then when your transaction will require an absurd transaction fee to get propagated?
Well for a starter, people investing in large facilities wouldnt want bitcoin to fail, obviously. So they'd oblige. Secondly, if the transaction fee gets too high, i guess i'll just have to wait for bitcoin's value to be worth it. In any case im not planning in spending my bitcoins now, and especially not for frappuccinos.. I think we view things differently. Bitcoin will not fail if people with lots of money will be the only ones using it. That's a wrong assumption in my view. Yes it may fail for you for not being able to use it, but for them it will work as designed. is ok. I just thought maybe doing 50 cents transactions on btc with that marketcap is less appropriate than doing 50cent transactions on coins with smaller marketcap to keep the btc chain clean for the big stuff.
I don't see what the problem should be to pass microtransactions down to smallcap tipping currencies. It seems logical to me. And the beauty is: this would automatically occure once fees rise.
That's why we love btc: because it regulates itself.
I don't quite understand what you said, but why should the blockchain only be used by the big transactions? It's like saying that Internet should be used by Google and Facebook and the other should use other networks. Nobody said the growth would stop, what has been said is: hitting the blocklimit will not cause big trouble because the first thing that would happen would be microtransactions for tiny amounts of money happen somewhere else. So all your doom preaching and urgency is invalid.
Hitting the limit will not render btc unusable - in fact it will clean the chain from spammy microtransactions.
So you consider that it's not such a big trouble if the microtransactions don't have the space to happen. I think it's a big trouble because the average Joe will not be able to use bitcoin hassle free. He will need to move his coins to another blockchain to be able to use microtransactions. This will render btc unusable for him which is a big deal. But i don't see why i need terrabytes on my PC full of satoshi dice crap ...
Again this is a technical challenge that has nothing to do with raising the block limit. Haven't you heard about blockchain pruning? You will not need tons of terrabytes on your PC to host a node so this argument for not doing a fork is simply stupid because it's not a valid argument. It's something that can be fixed! |
|
|
|
microtransactions can happen offchain. Why would they need to be on chain? What percentage of txs are micro? I guess most.
Who are you to chose where microtransaction happen? I thought Bitcoin is all about decentralization and free market. Why are you trying to impose your point? I'm not choosing where microtransactions happen. They happen where they happen. And who are YOU to try to impose your hardfork on me? Gawd, this discussion is some toxic bullshit. I'm out. F*** you all. No need to get all angry. I wasn't trying to get you pissed. I was only trying to emphasize that nobody should choose where microtransactions happen if it's outside of the blockchain. Gavin explained why all transaction (big or small) should happen only on the blockchain. Because offchain transactions cause friction and more headache than necessary. We can expand into the subject if you want, but getting all pissed and leaving solves nothing. I totally understand. It will take very long time, that's why I personally think changing it to 20 MB now is way too early. Depending of adoption growth in the next year/few years, We can increase more later?
If you think it will take a long time until the blocks fill then what's the point of not doing it now? Setting a consensus is much easier now than later and we already have 1 service/project that is hindered by the 1MB limit (the Lighthouse project). Maybe there are more services waiting to happen, but they don't because of the limit. I could also mention Factom, but I am not yet sure how much space do they need. Raising the limit right now is a very good thing to do because there is no pressure in doing it. I don't want to get into a stupid situation where there is a mass adoption happening and we run out of block space in a matter of weeks. Imagine the chaos then trying to explain to the regular Joe why isn't his transaction spreading and why does he needs to pay more and more for his transactions. That's the end of Bitcoin, not a falling exchange rate... ...
is coming more. We make extra thread as these pile up
These are just another technological challenge, nothing impossible. The main idea is still there that everyone should be free to use the blockchain as they wish, not as we wish. If bitcoin couldnt resist/adapt the increasing number of transactoins, then everybody would agree to raise the limit, or else everybody loose. This would even give us extra time to investigate further and plan several possibilities so we get this right Why would someone bad intended with a lot of money agree to let your microtransactions happen? He could fill the blocks easily and he could be against raising the limit by owning/renting a lot of mining hashpower. What will you do then when your transaction will require an absurd transaction fee to get propagated? |
|
|
|
microtransactions can happen offchain. Why would they need to be on chain? What percentage of txs are micro? I guess most.
Gavins' approach is:
-alienating
-wasteful with recouces (storage)
-inefficient
-lowers security
-brings in more centralisation
-causes trouble because it's very controversal
i have no idea how anyone in their right minds can vote for this without even demanding alternative proposals
It's not your storage but the storage of the people on their systems. Maybe that's why you like to waste it?
Who are you to chose where microtransaction happen? I thought Bitcoin is all about decentralization and free market. Why are you trying to impose your point? I voted pro because I am for increasing max block size. But IMO it's too early to jump to 20MB. Maybe less?
It's actually about 16.8 MB, and it's very unlikely the block size will grow to anywhere near 16 MB immediately. Consider that it took 6 years for Bitcoin to go from 0 to 0.5 MB, despite the fact that the block size limit has allowed 1 MB blocks for the entire time. Exactly! Blocks will not reach 20MB the day we hard-fork. It will take a lot of time and transactions to get there. |
|
|
|
I am not out to get AM or anything, but I am always buying gear and hashing it (have for years). I have seen first hand that they lack any real quality control and their gear is much lower quality than that of Bitmain and SP-Tech. I would love to see them make a good miner to help drive prices of all gear down some more, but they need to fix a few issues. AM needs to make a decent controller and check the stuff before it ships. So many people had DOA boards...a few is understandable, but from what others were posting it was lots.
It's very hard to drive down the prices by a lot at this point. I think that we have approached the fixed costs limit and that in order to drive the price down you need to increase the hashing density. |
|
|
|
Those 2 companies would have fixed the issues in days not months.
I doubt it. Each miner needed thorough testing which would mean letting it run for a good amount of time. When you've got thousands of miners to test, it's obviously going to take a while. Each individual miner? Sounds a bit rough. Maybe the design is the one that should be tested and not the individual miner. |
|
|
|
I need the dimension on the sp3x machine, any1? please!
Maybe the product page should have this already....
The shipped weight of a SP30 is 16kg, dimensions of the shipping box are 750 x 600 x 160mm. External dimensions of the case
are 555 x 440 x 90mm. |
|
|
|
Let's not derail from the main subject. Why are you favoring old and outdated ratings instead of adjusting them to reflect reality?
Read the changelog. *Although SpondooliesTech is currently selling out of hand, they have not yet demonstrated that their business model can support this into the next generation. On the announcement of next gen preorders, this rating will return to 'Yes'. On the announcement of next gen in hand / batch sales, this rating will increase to 'Batch' or 'No'. Why is SP-Tech the only company that is being rated by their business model supporting or not their next gen? Why treat SP-Tech differently and why not reflect the present? |
|
|
|
anti-fork
Reason:
centralization of the network caused by bloat. Planning and decision-making that control that network would become even more vulnerable to attack.
Once done it can't be undone. The risk of spam filling up blocks is real. In 10 or 20 years will need the incentives from transactions for the miners.
And most important of all; consensus is everything! I will not be forking with the rest of you. I won't be alone.
The bloat is just another technical problem that can and will be solved. If bloat is your only anti-fork argument then you should be pro-fork Nobody seems to understand Gavin's view on this. Bitcoin should be usable by all kinds of services and technilogies and having a 1MB block size hinders that. It's so easy. |
|
|
|
The pre-order money didn't "dissapear" [sic]. It was spent on designing and producing the ASICs, plus refunds.
Clearly the most money went into PCB design and manufacturing, but we already know that you are a pathological liar so nobody counts anymore. |
|
|
|
With the court's blessing, the assets were sold for pennies and the lawyers made the money disappear. I guess armyof1ne didn't need to "read up on the bankruptcy laws" after all! Actually it was HF who made all the pre-order money dissapear finalizing with their dissolution from the Bitcoin ecosystem. |
|
|
|
Registered On January 26, 2015 SCAM !!! |
|
|
|
|
CLEARLY A SCAM!
Your website looks like it was built by a mentally challenged person in the '90s!
|
|
|
|
|
UP!
1x SP30 left. $1,400 shipped anywhere in the world!
|
|
|
|
Currently the fees are very, very, very far from being anywhere near of an amount sufficient to secure the network.
We're all having a free lunch right now, due to coins still being minted, but if that was to stop tomorrow, the network would be in an extremely shitty state.
It won't stop tomorrow dude, how much about bitcoin do you know? You get fees up by allowing more fee paying transactions, not preventing them happening. Imagine Apple selling $100k iPhones to 4,000 people. Duh. Good analogy! Sounds better than mine. |
|
|
|
A mix between pro and DGAF as I don't care but it will need to happen eventually so why not now?
Not a tech-dude here, but i, on the contrary, feel that this is somehow of a crucial matter. Personally I like bitcoin the way it is now. I just started reading this thread, but let me show you my point of view regarding this. In order for bitcoin to succeed as a protocol, not as a currency it needs services running on top of it. Either centralized or decentralized bitcoin is here for everyone(not only for those paying the higher fees)! A first service would be the Lighthouse project which is supposed to be a decentralized way of raising funds Kickstarter-style but which is already limited by the 1MB block size cap (see https://www.vinumeris.com/lighthouse/faq#max-pledges). Having a 1MB block size limit hinders innovation and tech development in my view and don't forget that I'm also a miner, but I agree and support Gavin in this matter. I view the blockchain as a decentralized and neutral informational highway. Let data flow freely if you want a higher value of the whole ecosystem. Let's find solutions to the potential problems like blockchain bloat by innovating, not by rejecting and imposing limits. Consider bitcoin as the internet. Everyone is using it whether he is poor (free wi-fi) or wealthy (Google, Facebook etc). There are a lot of great things built on free services (twitter, instagram, facebook etc). I bet that you wouldn't like it if your ISP would have a 100MB/s download speed and would action it for the highest bidder. Forcing fees hinders evolution!So please let's fork already so we can see some real services coming to life! |
|
|
|
5 BTC Shipped to Reno, NV 89523?
6 BTC shipped to Reno!
Updated OP with new prices: 1x SP30 for $1400 or
2x SP30 for $2500Free shipping!Only 1 left! |
|
|
|
|
Let's not derail from the main subject. Why are you favoring old and outdated ratings instead of adjusting them to reflect reality?
|
|
|
|
|
Since BTC exchange rate is rising I am offering a reduction in shipping costs. I will pay for 1/2 of the shipping costs! Grab them while they are hot!
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
