The blockchain.info pool share information is incorrect, as it is incorrectly assumed that the first IP to broadcast a block to the blockchain.info node is the miner who mined it. Misleading, and a huge time waster for this forum. Try http://blockorigin.pfoe.be/chart.php - there the "unknown" is ~14% for the past 2016 blocks. Besides, why wouldn't botnet machines contribute to a legitimate pool? While most of "information" OP is based on is wrong, the conclusion is inevitably correct: yes, botnet operators will lose their profits when ASICs start arriving. In practical terms, this hasn't happened yet, but it is a matter of weeks. |
|
|
|
Apparently a "huge corporate electronics manufacturer" has resorted to libel and is now attacking BFL, bASIC, and Avalon—all at once. And to add to the word power, look at their excellent spelling! - anyway
- devision
- givin
- its
- saleries
- setup
- months
- supossid
- disapation
- longetivity
- cleaver
- none sense
- un revealed
- conman
Obviously the same style of writing we've seen under the "old" management. |
|
|
|
|
I may have missed it - has anyone but Jeff and the hand-delivered BF received their shipment?
|
|
|
|
|
Why sell when you can mine with it? Because you are selling it at an (almost) unfair price to everyone but the first few customers.
|
|
|
|
I thought last few bytes are the checksum. How easy is it to generate a key pair with the public address ending in 4BpiZ?
Unlike the first characters of a Bitcoin address, the possible last characters (including the checksum) are evenly distributed among the Base58 characters, i.e. the chance of the last character of any address you generate being "Z" is 1 in 58. On average, for every 58 addresses you generate, one will end with "Z", and the average time to find a "Z" will be 58 key generations (a 50% chance). We only need to scale the probability up; for five characters, the chance is 1 in (58^5) - that's 1 in 656356768. Running my vanitygen at 180Kkey/s, I would have a 50% chance of finding one in 3646 seconds (about an hour). In fact, it took me less time: vanitygen -r -k BpiZ$(at result 35, of 58 expected on average): Address: 17piCjuatkXRi8tPJf43fN2bSNeJi 4BpiZPrivkey: 5KJshpZnAygza2goQNB7gsmyvwEwg8CquLZBPgpHCDU8Dg5xCvP Thanks for taking time to make it clear. I stand corrected. |
|
|
|
|
^^^I've installed and verified pre-0.8 from scratch several times on a 768 MB fossil running WinXP (see earlier posts). Never got close to running out of RAM. IIRC peak usage was 190 MB. Might be a problem specific to Linux?
|
|
|
|
Interesting ideas. At this moment I wouldn't dare sending someone 1000 coins without at least confirming the last few letters of the address over the phone or through another independant channel.
Be careful - it's pretty easy for someone to generate an address that has the last few characters they want (and first few, for that matter). People do it all the time with vanity addresses, but it could just as easily be done to try and defeat a simple 'over the phone' check of a few characters of the address. roy I thought last few bytes are the checksum. How easy is it to generate a key pair with the public address ending in 4BpiZ? |
|
|
|
Privacy. I don't want anybody looking into what, where and when I spend my money, like banks are doing nowadays.
That's a lost cause. Just like you don't write "private" matters on postcards or in emails, you shouldn't expect private online transactions, be it with credit cards, wires, or bitcoins. Sure, you can make it hard to tie your identity to a transaction with any of these, but not impossible. The only reason Bitcoin offers a significant degree of anonymity today is that it is still a new, obscure technology. Rather than obsessing over the impossible, we should note that Bitcoin brings in the possibility of public audits. Unlike todays surveilance society, where access to complete information is exclusive, asymmetric, and therefore unfair, Bitcoin can win the battle to make acess to financial information fair. The citizens' transactions are monitored by the State and corporations, ay the same time these entities harras, imprison, and even murder citizens who try to do the same. Bitcoin can be a path to a more transparent, accountable government and corporate sector. |
|
|
|
|
Interesting ideas. At this moment I wouldn't dare sending someone 1000 coins without at least confirming the last few letters of the address over the phone or through another independant channel.
|
|
|
|
|
...Futurama. The series, not the movie. It's all in there. It's the "sci" in the "sci-fi".
|
|
|
|
It's not any "high" value who make it unconvenient to spend: it's just their continuous increase in purchasing power. It's the same reason why there would not be no consumism at all if we had to pay in gold and silver coins (why to buy anything today if tomorrow it will cost less and the day after even less?).
Luckily, the stoners don't make such considerations.
 Look at the red line. It's not true that there is a "continuous increase in purchasing power" of gold. There were ups downs, at various time scales. There were good and bad times to spend it. |
|
|
|
|
The original post and question may very well be the most uninformed, brainwashed, and wrong piece I've seen this week on the forum.
|
|
|
|
WARNING
Someone placed a bunch of buy orders which look reasonable, except they are shifted one decimal place (i.e., 0.0556 instead of 0.556). Curiously, order book was cleared on the buy side when this happened. Regular orders are now showing up on top, but I can see how someone can fall for it in a hurry, especially with one passthrough unit being worth 100 mpoex shares (not 10!)...
The open market self-corrected this pretty quickly. As liquidity grows (we're now at 350000 shares), this will become less likely to happen. James It was a fat finger mistake, somebody dumped on mpex. Surprisingly how havelock is tightly coupled. Is there an API? |
|
|
|
|
I saved the code, checked sha sum. Then boot a machine without internet connection from a linux live cd, generate and print keys, and shut everything down. I wish the ammount of coins involved justifiied such paranoia.
|
|
|
|
You can use google authenticator on your box account. Its free for browser and smart phone.
That's what I resorted to when my yubi key never showed up.
How is google authenticator different from Yubi Key? You can back up the code at the time if setup, if your phone is lost or broken you can set everything up again easily. Not so easy with yubikey. Having said that, yubikey introduces less risk of security holes than an android phone. |
|
|
|
I agree, we need less government input when it comes to scientific research.
Every single government penny comes with thousands of strings attached and that is something acacdemia should not be chained to.
My experience in the US and Canada has been exactly the opposite. Academic researchers are pretty much free to do whatever, as long as they file proper forms, make spectacular promises, and bullshit in papers. There is every incentive to selectively report outcomes, knowingly publish irreproducible data, and outright lie and make up data. There are practically no repercusions for doing so, as long as you kiss right asses and not step on wrong guys' toes. The money keeps pouring in. You seem smart in conferences. You sit on commitees. You are respected by the majority who doesn't understand the scope of the scam you run. Self deception helps, too. You ask professors whether they are in top 50% of their field, 94% of them say "yes". I have no idea what "islamic science" means. I've met lots of muslim researchers, some of them were alright, most of them were bullshitters, just like non-muslims. |
|
|
|
|
No idea about woolong, though I drink oolong once in a while. Either way, I like the page, as it educates the specific target group about Bitcoin. Kudos.
|
|
|
|
https://www.rsa.com/rsalabs/node.asp?id=2333China
China is one of the countries with the strongest restrictions on cryptography; a license is required for export, import, or domestic use of any cryptography product. There are several restrictions on export regulations, and China is not participating in the Wassenaar Arrangement.
So? Mining doesn't do any cryptography. I agree, but I can see how a bureaucrat might disagree. Most of resources refer to SHA256 as a "cryptographic hash function". Avalon might sneak through, or they might be required to obtain a license - which may take a while. Can we go back to this and talk about what this means for Avalon importing their products and how it's different than a company shipping from inside the US?
I am now pushing this explanation up to the top of my list of most likely explanations for the delay in shipment updates. 1. Export license paperwork turned out to be more complicated that they thought (if they thought at all). 2. Unanticipated logistic issues with assembly 3. Interpersonal issues within the team, including a rogue and scammy team member 4. The Relic Dealer and his infantry stormed the warehouse, took everyone hostage, and by mistake started mining on one of alt chains |
|
|
|
I'm handling pre-orders for them - $150 (£95 real money) - will secure a Goblin ASIC when delivery arrives on 31st March.
I've heard through the grapevine that they are going to be delayed one day, making the date of arrival even more special. Seriously, though, this thread should be renamed. I choose not to choose for now. |
|
|
|
What happens if one of those unreleased features makes them an non-competitive lemon? You're going out on a very long limb here if you think they have a hidden feature that can negate the dramatic difference in power costs. My speculation: They will be selling series of ever slightly more powerful chips, which you just plug into sockets. Easy upgrades. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
