This.  Scammers gotta scam.  HE can't help himself.

Lots of confusion going on.  "Maria" figures it is a good time to scam the imaginary 17,000 bitcoins deposited.  
Get a refund on a deposit that was never made.  Now that is some solid scamming.

Also I guess the bitcoins were having lots of bitsex and producing bitcents because


16,000 =/= 17,000

Um if you always knew he was a crook why did you put money on his site?


The two aren't mutually exclusive. Zhou could be a crook and you could still be scamming garbage.


It is funny how accurate the ignore color is.  Everytime I think "maybe I should have this idiot on ignore I look over and their ignore color is bright orange almost like it is saying 'Yes, yes you should'  ".

Why would you think that?
BFL Singles cost $599 and require a PC.  
Other FPGA cost $300 to $700 and require a PC.
GPUs cost $200 to $800 and require a PC.

Why would the cheapest hashing device ever not require a PC.  


Nobody knows.  Technically if someone got an OS, mining software, and drivers for Jalapeno working on Pi then it could work otherwise it won't.  As of today you can't use BFL Singles on Pi so it seems very unlikely that will be available on day 1.

Yes.  Likely 2-3 weeks.  To avoid the dwolla delay you could pay extra for a bank wire.  If you do that you should have your money in 2-3 weeks.

Gross margin on poker deposits is ~40%.  40% of all money deposited gets converted into rake (profit for the house).

Of course even 40% market wouldn't work for Bitcoin. There is a market for poker @ 40% markup.  There is no legit market for bitcoins sold @ 40% markup.  So 40% markup, 100% markup 20,000% markup it wouldn't matter the only people using the "service" would be thieves and scammers. 

When designing a standard the repetitive use of the words ALL and MUST are well, repetitive, especially when used in every bullet point. If you are designing a standard it is implicit that ALL x MUST do y if you just say x do y.   As an example Bitcoin standard doesn't say things like ALL transactions MUST be signed by the private key.  It is understood when someone says transactions are signed by the private key of the input that it i applies to ALL txs and the signing MUST occur each time (not sometimes and not optionally).

What did TizzyTazzy get a scammer tag for?

In order to "lose" a quarter million dollars?

Sure an FPGA could be used and so could an OpenCL/CUDA capable GPU (either discrete or integrated into a modern CPU).  However it is very likely that neither will be needed.  The 80tps assumes existing codebase with costly double verification on a relatively old CPU and it is PER CORE.  Newer CPU are integrating GPU cores on the die. While they can't match their discrete brothers they have 500% to 1000% of the IntOp performance of even the fastest CPU.  This trend will only continue.  Just like today finding a non-64bit or single core CPU is almost impossible in 10 years it is unlikely you will be able to find a CPU which doesn't have some kind of GPU "like" cores on die.

CPU isn't a bottleneck.  

We are at ~0.35 tps today.  Say we double transaction volume every year for next decade (pretty impressive).  That would be ~350 tps or 11 billion transactions annually in 2012.  At 0.5 USD cent per transaction the network would be protected by 50 million in miner revenue.  If miners were willing to accept a 10% ROI that would mean nearly 500 million in hardware.    To put it into perspective PayPal is on the order of 50 tps.  

Oh noes a CPU maxes out at 80 tps.  Well once codebase is improved to remove double verification it is more like 160tps PER CORE.  Today a quad core would be capable of ~640 tps.  A decade of Moore's law says average CPU will be ~32x as powerful in 2022.  Lets be conservative and assume 1/3rd of that.  That puts a CPU at around 5000 tps in 2022 (more than VISA).

If that isn't enough GPU, FPGA, or ASIC could be used.   We can use SHA-256 hashing performance as a rule of thumb.  A total guestimate of ECDSA throughput of a GPU would be maybe 5x to 10x that of a TOP of the line CPU lets me conservative again and say only 4x the performance.   So we are looking at maybe 20K tps or more.  FPGA likely would be even more (and at lower power costs).  While a dedicated ECDSA ASIC might not makes sense, maybe the BFL devotes 2% of the die space on the SuperComputer 3.0 released in 2022 to enable hardware accelerated transaction verification while mining.

TL/DR:
The 80 tps shouldn't be seen as a hard limit.   Performance can be increased by
* removing double verification
* other code enhancements/optimizations
* the continual increase in computing power
* OpenCL acceleration
* dedicated processors (FPGA or even ASIC).

Very nice to see this.   Laying the foundation for a future fee marketplace.

You are comparing apples and oranges.

The "confirmed" times for credit card is 120 days (180 days in the case of identity theft).
1 hour vs 120 days.  The "unconfirmed" time for both is measured in seconds.

Really?

"See I was walking by this casino and my money accidentally ended up on red at the roulette table.  Black came up can I get a do-over?"

I am sure if you had won you would be contacting Satoshi Dice to return the funds as you didn't intend to play.

Maybe will make a lot of money the first DAY or so.  Retargets intervals are every 2016 blocks not every 2 weeks.  So if hash rate rises 10x the week all this gear ships the network will retarget in 0.5 to 1.4 days.  So say 1 day @ $15 per day.  Max retarget is 400% so then it is maybe another 5 days @ $4 per day.  Then after second ratarget difficulty is now 10x as high so revenue is down to $1.50 a day..  So you might get $15+5x$4+24*$1.50 = $71 the first month and then $50 a month after that.  If more than 100TH/s are added you would get even less.

That assumes you get a unit delivered on day 1.  If you get a unit delivered on say day 6 you miss both retargets and start at $1.5 per day.

Note the numbers aren't intended to be exact obviously the exact difficulty, the amount of increased hashpower and BTC/USD rate are all unknown.  It is more intended to show that if network hashing power rises significantly the retargets will be very quick. 

http://blockchain.info/charts/transaction-fees

Still pretty low.  ~20 to 30 BTC per day.  144 blocks per day.  So that works out to 0.25% to 0.50% extra.  Not much but one way to look at it is a pool which doesn't pay it has a "real" pool fee of up to 0.5% higher than reported.  If tx volume keeps growing after the subsidy cut I think it will be more important.  Fees could be 1% to 2% of total reward by December.

Depends on the pool.  Some do.  Some don't.

From personal experience IIRC Bitminter and p2pool both payout 100% of fees.


No idea if this is accurate but if it is it looks like only a small % of pools payout fees:
https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Comparison_of_mining_pools


Hmm: Bitminter is the largest no fee, hop proof pool which also pays out transaction fees.  I knew I liked them for some reason.

I assume you can't buy these online.  They are in person right?  The merchant isn't the gas company it is the store selling the credit and if they swipe the card then any fraud is on VISA.  VISA will contact the gas company who will repot $100 was added to your meter, they will contact the store and verify a $100 prepaid card was sold.  Then they will reverse the chargeback and if they think you are committing fraud.... well then it just gets fun.

VISA will destroy your credit report and that will likely cause other lenders to cut credit lines, close accounts, and ramp up your interest rates.   Selling Bitcoins with credit cards is easy.  Selling them online to an anonymous person isn't so easy.

He signed Pirate key as valid.  Technically this should only be done by someone who absolutely knows Pirate and knows the key presented as Pirate's key IS pirate's key.   That being said many people sign other people's keys for just about any reason including "it keeps warning me the key is unsigned so I signed it to make the warning go away".

It doesn't really mean or prove anything.

Dropping the fee is trivial.  It has been done once already.  It is simply changing some lines of code in the client as fee are enforced at the node level and nodes don't have to agree.  There is no issue of compatibility or causing a fork.  If you wanted to you could publish a "fork" of the client which has a 0.00001 BTC mandatory fee and it would work just fine on the network (albeit other nodes might drop your txs).


When 1 satoshi is >$0.05 (2012 dollars) then a fork may be needed still I doubt even then the 21M will be expanded to 210M to 2.1B.  Just make 1 satoshi 1E-12 instead of 1E-8 and keep the same number of BTC.  Then again if 1 satoshi = $0.05 then the Bitcoin money supply is on the order of $105 trillion and it is the large economy in the world and likely the reserve currency of the central banks for the few remaining fiat.  Worrying about how to solve that problem seems like putting the cart before the horse.

DOH I forgot about the double SHA-256.  I will leave my 140MH/J (single hash only) numbers up for shame.  Looks like you did the same caclulations as I did but properly used 1024 bits per Bitcoin hash instead of 512 bits per normal single SHA-256 hash.

I agree 1.5GH/J is going to require a full custom on 65nm or better.  I could see a 45nm structured doing maybe 800MH/J though.  There is a simple explanation possible (pure conjuecture on my part).  Maybe the Jalapeno requires 2x USB ports.  Lots of CD ROM drives for laptops do that.  They use >3.5W but <7W and use 2 USB ports to handle the load.  Once again pure speculation on my part.   If the Jalapeno does indeed run at <=3.5W it would need to be a full custom.

Still I think this sums my point up

My point was just that it is POSSIBLE.  Will BFL produce it?  Honestly I don't know or care.  It is all speculation.  BFL has a bad track record but then again they claim to have VC funding.  A VC could have deep enough pockets for a full custom.  

You keep bring up this moving the zero nonsense.  It would change anything also it will NEVER (I don't mean unlikely I mean NEVER) happen as it is a hard fork on a unnecessary change.

Bitcoin can handle micro transactions just fine.  The scenarios describe above are talking about years (maybe decades) down the line.  Even if more advances services are built on top the platform is still open and that allows cross compatibility and open free markets for those "gardens".  Hardly walled, more like picket fences.