 Show Posts
|
|
Pages: [1]
|
|
Just put about $1,000 worth of BTC through the egifter. Overall will give them positive review. The site is still a bit rough and some kinks still need to be worked out (if you overpay you have to contact support b/c your order will hang) BUT they do compensate with support for their currently existing rough edges. Overall a quick and easy way to transfer BTC to gift card services. I went from BTC to dollar credit in my Amazon account in about 10 minutes. Beats the paypal rout via other game currency sites i used back in 2011 and 2012.
Thumbs up, give them a go, hopefully their site takes off and remaining kinks get ironed out.
|
|
|
|
What do you all think?
I think the idea, while interesting on the surface, lacks two critical things: A) Coin legitimacy. As we've seen from all the CrapCoins, it's fairly difficult to get a coin to the point of critical mass where people want it such that it has value. B) A balancing mechanism. Miners will mine whatever is most profitable. Today, that means Bitcoin. If all the miners chase whatever is the most profitable at the time, you will see all that hashpower constantly chasing whichever coin is hot at the moment. You can see this effect at multipool.us, as their entire pool is switched based on the relative exchange rates between Bitcoin and the various altcoins. Lacking any kind of formal balancing mechanism, that phenomenon will continue to exist. You are absolutely correct that creating "Legitimacy" of a new coin is very difficult. That is why i posted this thread here, to hopefully make a community effort. No balancing mechanism will be necessary if the coin chains are legit on par with bitcoin. In other words they speculatory value of coins will be tracki9ng with bitcoin and other 4 chains, so all chains are just about equally profitable all the time. One possibility would be to mimic the datacoin chain. Yes i know datacoin is not sha-256. How about making a cousin of datacoin, with 2 differences: 1. the chain is sha-256 2. The data stored in the block chain can be altered by original contributor. This means the block chain can be used as means of unregulated mass communication. |
|
|
|
|
My only theory would be that the defective MOBO did not feed the GPUs enough data or power, so they were throttling off 100% and were running cooler.
On my 6990s the current draw went up by like 40% after i added water blocks to them and so they stopped throttling back. in my case they were throttling back b/c of temperature, in you case might be b/c of faulty MOBO. GPUs do get some of its electrical power from PCIe slot, so if mb could not give its full 150W spec for PCIe2 slot the gpu would work slower and run cooler...
|
|
|
|
|
27K
was selling btc at $30 each. Paid off 1 of my 6990s, then btc went to $1.50 and i stopped.
|
|
|
|
|
I posted this thread in alt currencies subforum, but i don't think it received the deserved attention, so i am asking the same question here:
Do we need more, credible, legit sha-256 blockchains?
Let me explain why:
Return for any single block chain, say bitcoin, is fixed on per hour basis. This means as more asics pile on onto bitcoin network the only thing that makes mining still profitable is the expected rise in VALUE of bitcoin. At the same time any economist will tell you that value of a coin is determined by demand for it, not difficulty of obtaining it. This means that if hashrate keeps piling up on BTC network, the return in $/gh will keep going down. Yes it is possible that demand for BTC will temporarily drive its dollar value high enough to increase $/gh, but history shown it to not be so. If this was true, then i'd be making as much dollars mining on my GPU now as i did back in 2011.
So, this means we need more coin faucets. Yes there are a bunch of crappy alt coins that are marginally popular and can be mined; however the current alt currencies are not credible enough to really attract enough hash power to unload BTC network. I think we need 5 total very popular and credible coin chains based on sha256. This will reduce the rate of difficulty increase by a actor of 5 and will give 5x longer time for new miners to mine profitably and pay off their new hardware cost.
What do you all think?
|
|
|
|
My 2x 6990s on windows 7x64 report the same 100% rejected rate. Downloaded GPU miner today from the http://mmc.1gh.com/ |
|
|
|
Hello!
The total number of WorldCoins: 265,420,800
The World's population 6 Billion
The scenario when the whole world is using WorldCoin and let's assume the coins are distributed homogenously, each World citizen gets only 22,60 WorldCoins.
Of course the poorer gets less (like 0,xx WorldCoins) and the rich gets more - this leaves the middleclass gets just over 20 WorldCoins.
Now we consider middle class as the ones who owns rouhly 500 000+ dollar's worth of assets have perhaps income of 3000 USD/mo. etc.
Then we can derive the value of each WorldCoin being 22,123.89...USD (minimum, very conservative estimate).
How large stake are you capable to acquire today from the pie of total supply of WorldCoins?
Hmm 265,420,800 / 6,000,000,000 is not 22.60. Plus you are using "," and "." for 1000s separator and decimal wrong... You failed. Good bye. |
|
|
|
See, this is exactly what i am talking about. A website with more ads on it than topic related content and some really annoying audio track that only a 12 year old can find "kool"... No one in their right mind woul invest money or hash power into a coin like this for long term. We need less junk coins and more worthy coins. Perhaps have 4 coins that are organized / endorsed by original btc devs? |
|
|
|
you seriously think ASIC miners are just hitting the market?  Of-course not. I've been mining BTC since 2010... However now the ASIC technology is mature enough to be here in full force, and as more and more companies leave the R&D phase and enter the production phase we will see mining capacity increasing at the production rate of asics, not R&D rate of asic companies... |
|
|
|
|
Scrypt has been very popular for alt coins lately due to absence of ASIC power to mine it. Now that ASICs are coming out by 1000s yet the bitcoin chain block reward is capped at 25 btc/10m would it actually benefit the miners to spread the hashing power to other effort worthy chains? If the difficulty of mining a given chain was in 100% correlation to the price of the coin, the answer would be "no" but since the price is determined by demand and speculation far more than it is determined by difficulty all miners jumping on one coin is not profitable for miners. The current problem of spreading the sha256 hash capacity to other coins is the uncertainty if they will live or they will die... How about undertaking an effort by the full community to create 4 SHA 256 alternatives to bitcoin. I don't mean just create 4 new chains and let them die, but rather really promote the big 5 (4 +bitcoin) chains.
Thoughts?
|
|
|
|
|
Since DTC is scrypt coin, is there a gpu miner for it?
|
|
|
|
Thoughts? I really believe in it, I just finally over a month accumulated a little past 1 btc... any thoughts or suggestions? I DO NOT want to make money off her but with the way the world is does anyone see if its beneficial for her at all? THANKS@
And if you ever have a son, you should name him: Mark Dollar Sterling. Just to be covered on all fronts. Or perhaps Yen Rupie Jr? |
|
|
|
|
Here is how i propose it will work:
A block has 6 segments
0. Block ID (sequential #)
1. Data
2. Public key
3. Address hash
4. Transactions (just like BTC or LTC)
5. Append
Two block chains exist, a full chain, which has the data block and a lite chain, which has no data block. A given node has full lite chain and as many blocks of full chain as user specified space allows.
Network will accept a request to "change block segments 1 through 3" only from the node that has address which is the result of hashing the published hash using the published key. (think RSA asymmetric keys here)
When ownership of the block is being transferred:
1. Owner, who currently has the private key generates such a hash that when encrypted with public key results in the address of the buyer. (basically owner has to decrypt new address using his 2 private primes)
2. Owner submits the block to the network for update.
3. Miners find such an "append" string that the contents of the parts 1 through 5 match a standard hash.
4. When append is found the block is now accepted by the network.
5. At this point the buyer can request the network to update the block again, but this time the new owner will provide new public key and new hash for his own address, which match his private keys. Owner can also provide new contents for the "Data" segment.
What yall think?
|
|
|
|
Datacoin seems like a great idea for secure distributed storage. However i see couple design flaws with it and I think if these flaws are fixed we could have a really, really, really interesting coin to work with.
Current flaws:
Data is stored permanently. The problem with this is that the use of this chain for "secure temporary storage" is not applicable. I think it would be better if the "data contributor" had the option of overwriting the data, this way the chain would be useful for a much longer period of time.
The miner reward makes sense, but the final model for reward should be based on local storage and internet throughput of each client. Otherwise everyone will just use lite wallets and no one will store the data.
Data should be redundant, but each client should be able to specify the size of the chain he is going to store. This way if i choose to store 5,000TB of data chances are i will get more requests to serve that data to network, while someone who stores 100KB of data will have very few requests hence lower earnings.
Serving a block to the network "creates" a small amount of coin (100X) for the user.
Requesting a block from the network costs a smaller amount of coin (1X) to the user.
Requesting to overwrite a block with new data costs more coin (10,000X) to the requester. Only the block owner (data contributor) can request to overwrite the block.
Block owner can sell the block to a new owner via transaction like bitcoin etc.
When a new block is added to the network the miner who found the block gets a reward, say 100,000X. Then a user from "block purchase que" takes ownership of that block. This costs the new user 100,000X coins. This way new data storage can be bought via a purchase queue or existing blocks can be bought from current owners.
Part of the block stores transactions, just like bitcoin or litecoin; and another part of the block stores user supplied data. User supplied data portion can be overwritten by owner, but transactions are stored permanently.
Updating existing block is done at difficulty level much lower than current difficulty level; this way blocks can be updated with new information relatively fast, but addition of new blocks to the chain is done just like BTC or LTC.
I don't have all the answers and clearly defined protocols; rather I'd like to start a discussion on this topic to see if we, as a community, can come-up with something worthwhile...
What do yall think?
I agree with some of the improvements you are suggesting, specially the bit about being able to overwrite the files, I think that is a much elegant solution than simply storing all files permanently. First thing that came to my mind was: —What if I save the wrong file? That would annoy me forever!  When I first came across DTC, I actually thought we would be able to use it as some sort of reference directory, which people could use to upload torrent files. For a moment, I got insanely excited about DTC because that would make DTC the most popular coin amongst the whole crypto-currency community. THAT would be really, really, really interesting! Plus if you really wanted to store something permanently all you have to do would be to delete the wallet file which you stored data with. |
|
|
|
|
Datacoin seems like a great idea for secure distributed storage. However i see couple design flaws with it and I think if these flaws are fixed we could have a really, really, really interesting coin to work with.
Current flaws:
Data is stored permanently. The problem with this is that the use of this chain for "secure temporary storage" is not applicable. I think it would be better if the "data contributor" had the option of overwriting the data, this way the chain would be useful for a much longer period of time.
The miner reward makes sense, but the final model for reward should be based on local storage and internet throughput of each client. Otherwise everyone will just use lite wallets and no one will store the data.
Data should be redundant, but each client should be able to specify the size of the chain he is going to store. This way if i choose to store 5,000TB of data chances are i will get more requests to serve that data to network, while someone who stores 100KB of data will have very few requests hence lower earnings.
Serving a block to the network "creates" a small amount of coin (100X) for the user.
Requesting a block from the network costs a smaller amount of coin (1X) to the user.
Requesting to overwrite a block with new data costs more coin (10,000X) to the requester. Only the block owner (data contributor) can request to overwrite the block.
Block owner can sell the block to a new owner via transaction like bitcoin etc.
When a new block is added to the network the miner who found the block gets a reward, say 100,000X. Then a user from "block purchase que" takes ownership of that block. This costs the new user 100,000X coins. This way new data storage can be bought via a purchase queue or existing blocks can be bought from current owners.
Part of the block stores transactions, just like bitcoin or litecoin; and another part of the block stores user supplied data. User supplied data portion can be overwritten by owner, but transactions are stored permanently.
Updating existing block is done at difficulty level much lower than current difficulty level; this way blocks can be updated with new information relatively fast, but addition of new blocks to the chain is done just like BTC or LTC.
I don't have all the answers and clearly defined protocols; rather I'd like to start a discussion on this topic to see if we, as a community, can come-up with something worthwhile...
What do yall think?
|
|
|
|
|
Since I am a newbie (despite mining BTC since 2010) i am posting in this subforum rather than the proper subforum for this discussion...
Datacoin seems like a great idea for secure distributed storage. However i see couple design flaws with it and I think if these flaws are fixed we could have a really, really, really interesting coin to work with.
Current flaws:
Data is stored permanently. The problem with this is that the use of this chain for "secure temporary storage" is not applicable. I think it would be better if the "data contributor" had the option of overwriting the data, this way the chain would be useful for a much longer period of time.
The miner reward makes sense, but the final model for reward should be based on local storage and internet throughput of each client. Otherwise everyone will just use lite wallets and no one will store the data.
Data should be redundant, but each client should be able to specify the size of the chain he is going to store. This way if i choose to store 5,000TB of data chances are i will get more requests to serve that data to network, while someone who stores 100KB of data will have very few requests hence lower earnings.
Serving a block to the network "creates" a small amount of coin (100X) for the user.
Requesting a block from the network costs a smaller amount of coin (1X) to the user.
Requesting to overwrite a block with new data costs more coin (10,000X) to the requester. Only the block owner (data contributor) can request to overwrite the block.
Part of the block stores transactions, just like bitcoin or litecoin; and another part of the block stores user supplied data. User supplied data portion can be overwritten by owner, but transactions are stored permanently.
Updating existing block is done at difficulty level much lower than current difficulty level; this way blocks can be updated with new information relatively fast, but addition of new blocks to the chain is done just like BTC or LTC.
I don't have all the answers and clearly defined protocols; rather I'd like to start a discussion on this topic to see if we, as a community, can come-up with something worthwhile...
What do yall think?
|
|
|
|
|
