|
Tough question. If I were contracted by a company with a 120 kUSD budget, I would either first look to acquire a company like Avalon or put the money in a bank account. Buying a rig now is pretty much a waste of money, as the ASICs will arrive far to late to be profitable.
|
|
|
|
The problem of carbon dioxide - a little more far-fetched than the full. The ocean can absorb much more CO2 than we can provide. Also, all organic, which we burn, when it grew by assimilating carbon dioxide in the past.
But not as fast as we can provide it, unfortunately. I don't think the problem is carbon dioxide per se, but rather the speed it is being pumped into our atmosphere. |
|
|
|
Unfortunately, sucking CO 2 out of the sky isn't the most efficient way to obtain it. Rather, burning forests is—which kind of ruins the intentions of the author. |
|
|
|
What did you expect? Another unsupported, uninhibited rise to >30?
We're headed back down now into the oversold zone before coming back up. No amount of "it's just a minor correction" will fix that.
On what time frame? We're already oversold on the hourly, not even close on the daily. If history will repeat itself, on the daily. Only after we left oversold did the price move back up. Edit: Though I must admit, we won't crash as far this time. We didn't go up as high because some speculators remembered, and we won't go as low either for the same reason. |
|
|
|
|
What did you expect? Another unsupported, uninhibited rise to >30?
We're headed back down now into the oversold zone before coming back up. No amount of "it's just a minor correction" will fix that.
|
|
|
|
Bitcoin's almost higher than the number of days in ANY month!
!!!!!
Market cap isn't very meaningful when the money supply - the non lost coins - isn't known.
Market capitalization is by definition an upper bound. That's why I hate it when people call it "monetary base"—market cap can estimate monetary base, but they aren't one and the same. |
|
|
|
I don't truly have anything to hide - I just find it surprising (and disappointing) that blockchain.info would really do this!
This is a good thing. Too many people have the misconception that Bitcoin is anonymous. In reality, it takes an expert to make Bitcoin anonymous. Blockchain.info is actually dispelling that misconception. |
|
|
|
Two thoughts:
1. We should distinguish between "spam" transactions, and any padding miners themselves might decide to add for one reason or another.
2. Trying things out on testnet would not be very informative, due to lack of real-world (dis)incentives and non-existing various groups of stakeholders (merchants, miners, consumers, hoarders...).
1. They work the same way in that the block would be big, and a big block is less likely to earn anything. 2. Removing the limit, in theory, will allow the block limit to float based on demand. This means that even testnet can act as a mini-Bitcoin. |
|
|
|
...
Proof? Have u ever heard about common sense? U seem to be kidding if u believe it's possible to prove anything in Bitcoin land. Sorry, that was quite harsh. I removed the statement. |
|
|
|
<sarcasm>
Remove the limit completely, so ppl could spam more useless transactions. Let's make HDD producers to produce disks with 100500 PETABYTES capacity!
</sarcasm>
Removing the limit does not imply useless transactions. It simply means the market will decide what is a useless transaction. So long as clients prefer smaller blocks over larger ones, the miners will decide among themselves what a suitable block size is. If it's too high, small-block miners will earn more and blocks will get smaller. If it's too low, large-block miners will earn more and blocks will get larger. Isn't this what Bitcoin's about? All we need to do is make sure the system cannot be exploited, test it on testnet, and then not need to worry about block sizes ever again. Appendix:
1. What changes are needed?
A: The "longest chain" code needs to increase the length of shorter blocks and decrease the length of longer ones. Clients also need to set a bandwidth quota so that they download and propagate the best currently-downloaded chain.
2. Couldn't a miner just spam the network with a huge block?
A: No. Like transactions, blocks need "confirmations". If other miners think the block is too big, they will refuse to confirm it and a smaller block will replace it (as they orphan large blocks).
3. Wouldn't blocks be too big?
A: No. Miners will take an unacceptable risk if they mine large blocks, as they are likely to get orphaned. Higher demand and higher transaction fees will make taking that risk more attractive, so block size can scale with usage.
4. Wouldn't miners just mine empty blocks?
A: Eventually, no. This is a concern in the short term, but as soon as transaction fees overtake subsidies empty blocks will no longer be attractive.
5. Wouldn't this allow DOS attacks?
A: Yes. However, DOS attack prevention code can be written to give up downloading a particularly large block if a competing chain is running at not far below network hashrate.
6. Isn't this a hard fork?
A: Done properly, not any more than raising the block limit. The length code only acts as a tiebreaker, which we already have in "first block wins".
|
|
|
|
Can "No limit" be added? Thanks.
No it cannot. Without the limit, Bitcoin network can't function. There has been no proof of this. 1. After the last Bitcoin will be minted, there will be no incentive for miners to mine, except for transaction fees. When block can be of any size, then any number of transactions can make it into every block, therefore theoretically no transaction fees need to be paid. 2. How do you protect the network from dust spam & DDoS without block size limit ? Neither of these is a problem if large blocks are orphaned by small ones. It makes mining more of a skill, as they must make the largest block that is not too large such that other miners will receive it fast enough. |
|
|
|
Done. I own that coin.  This doesn't seem to work right now. The class ".headerandpost" should be ".td_headerandpost". |
|
|
|
|
r9dQ5mhQETX4bRMxtU2f2iERdkgKmqbKM3
|
|
|
|
Can "No limit" be added? Thanks.
No it cannot. Without the limit, Bitcoin network can't function. There has been no proof of this. A possible system is one where the client limits the download speed for any particular block, but not the actual block size. If there is a tie between two blocks, the smaller one wins. Miners will not intentionally create small blocks because there is no income when the subsidy falls, and they will not intentionally create large blocks because they waste their own bandwidth and the block will never get in. So far, nobody has refuted this system. |
|
|
|
Is there reason to be concerned that Ripple controls 100% (or very close to it) of its own currency?
XRP are not intended to be a currency, AFAIK. They are more of a spam prevention tool. |
|
|
|
|
He owes me ~0.1 BTC, but it's low enough that I don't really care.
|
|
|
|
|
People have recently expressed concerns with mobile phones. This simple 3-line change would resolve those. I'm not sure why it hasn't been added.
|
|
|
|
afaik, you only need to reindex once. if you're having problems, you can always delete everything except for wallet.dat, and resync using 0.8
That's what I ended up doing after reindexing slowed to a block a minute. Turns out redownloading the chain isn't that bad anymore. |
|
|
|
On another side note: I don't understand the whole: "it has value because work was put in"-thing. Maybe the fact that it requires a lot of work to extract bitcoin/silver is result of i's scarcrity, but its value is not a result of the work you had to put in to get it. I've asked this question ("why would the fact that much work was put into producing something mean that this something has value? I can't get the work back out, can I?") to some silver guys and the answer was: "But you can sell that silver and get energy back for it, tadaaa!". That's false again: you can probably buy energy for silver, but not because energy was used to mine the silver but for other reasons. A counter-example can easily be constructed.
It's the converse of a true statement. Humans tend to think that if something is true, it's converse also is (e.g. "to be attractive you usually must smell nice" is true, while "if you smell nice you are attractive" is patently false, but enough people believe it to make Axe advertisements work). Similarly, "if it has value then work must be put in" is true, and obviously so. Its converse, "if work was put in then it must have value", is not necessarily true—but for a human, easy enough to assume so. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
