 Show Posts
|
|
Pages: [1]
|
This report came out on May 15th and addresses issues regarding IRS and virtual currencies - bottom line seems to be in closed systems where virtual currencies aren't exchanged for FIAT, goods or services i.e. trading Bitcoin for Litecoin than no taxable income is generated - where virtual currencies are traded for FIAT, goods or services than income is generated. http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-13-516Another interesting part - the recommendation: Recommendation: To mitigate the risk of noncompliance from virtual currencies, the Commissioner of Internal Revenue should find relatively low-cost ways to provide information to taxpayers, such as the web statement IRS developed on virtual economies, on the basic tax reporting requirements for transactions using virtual currencies developed and used outside virtual economies.
|
|
|
|
|
I think in terms of technology Bitcoin is revolutionary but I don't see how it could revolutionize our current economic system.
The key problem is that it does not address the distribution and accumulation of wealth. In fact the current mining system promotes this. People mine, collect coins, re-invest. Those with more coins can invest more and make more and over time the distribution of coins is unequal with a small percentage of people holding a majority of the coins.
The second problem is it's link with FIAT money which it needs for it to have any current real world use. This link makes it a commodity, like gold, and wealthier people always end up with more.
If the world were to implement a complete Bitcoin system wouldn't we just end up in the same place we are now? Minority of people holding the majority of Bitcoins? Instead of everything being done with various FIAT it would be done with Bitcoin - sure everything would be much simpler, digital, some things cheaper and less worry about inflation but for all intents and purposes the exact same underlying economic system.
An economic revolution would have to address the distribution and accumulation of wealth.
|
|
|
|
It occurred to me that there might be a way to make mining software luckier. I was looking through the code of JMiner by pooler - one thing caught my attention, the search for the hash always begins at nonce 0 and goes up. I'm assuming this is true for all other miners i.e. cgminer, reaper etc...but i haven't confirmed. I thought about analysing previous nonce data in order to determine a better starting point for the nonce count. Since the blockchain is already in a database format and contains the nonce information it's pretty straightforward and quick. For example, for the last 1000 LTC blocks, I broke the nonce into 10 groups and summed up the number of nonces in each group to get A 102 B 115 C 89 D 99 E 98 F 87 G 113 H 99 I 107 J 91 The probability of a nonce ending up in each group is 1/10 and doesn't change but over time if the nonce were adjust so that it started near lower count groups - i.e. with the above data, the nonce could start in group F and move outwards - that over enough iterations the mining program would be more likely to find a nonce quicker? My stats courses are a little hazy - on the one hand this seem akin to trying to guess red / black and roulette by examining the previous board - the probability is always 50/50 and independent of the previous colour. On the other hand this makes sense intuitively so maybe I've forgotten something from those courses  |
|
|
|
I've been interested for a while in getting Javascript to do scrypt hashing after I noticed pooler's JMiner for Java here https://github.com/pooler/JMiner. I spent a little bit of time and ported over most the code adjusting it for Javascript and for the replacement libraries it requires. After a bit I managed to get it hashing! The source code can be found here: https://github.com/esenminer/js_ltc_miner/Just copy all the files into a web accessible directory and open up the index.html file. Click on start and it will start hashing a harcoded share. My older computer with and AMD X2 from 2009 managed a whopping 40 hashes a second on chrome! I'm sure there is a lot that could be done to optimize the code and get it running faster but I wanted to just put it out there for others. Comments / criticisms and hash rates are of course welcome but please take it easy it was only meant as a proof of concept Please post if you have issues getting it to run. Obvious applications are having the script run in the background of web pages. However before you attempt to do this it is unlikely to work with this code. This can already hash and submit real data but at those hashing rates it would take so long to find a share that by the time you found one it would have gone stale. Now I am not advocating this but with this low hash rate the only way that idea MIGHT ever work is if you had hundreds or thousands of computers running the script at the same time all working on the same share with different nonces. For example a 10000 computers running at 40 hashes second could effectively be hashing around 390 kh/s if done right just to give you an idea of the scale you would need - That might be interesting but it would be much more sophisticated than the code here. If you found this useful please feel free to donate some LTC: LRt1KkirdbiBf3vPQR3tEQZQrVxPAA9Bb4 |
|
|
|
|
I know the name of the website is 'bitcoinstore.com' but I think it makes sense for them to also accept Litecoins.
There are thousands of litecoin miners with thousands and thousands of litecoins just sitting in their wallets doing nothing. While there are some up and coming sites, bitcoinstore.com could capture most of this market. I suppose one could argue that these users could trade their litecoins for bitcoins before they purchase but that's a huge barrier and involves using exchanges or trades which can be risky. In addition bitcoinstore.com already has the infrastructure to deal with crypto currency so adding an additional currency might not be as complicated. Plus with the volume of bitcoins they do I am sure they can negotiate a very good fee to convert between litecoin / bitcoin and of course litecoin / fiat. I know I would be willing to part with some of my litecoins if I could easily purchase, for example, additional gpus, mobos, psus etc..and i think most litecoin miners would be also.
I guess bottom line is that if bitcoinstore.com started accepting litecoins it would be great way to attract thousands of new customers hence more revenue with what I perceive as a minimum of risk and investment.
|
|
|
|
|
I'm hoping to get some advice. I was running gigabyte GA-970A-DS2 mobo with 2x7950s and a 650W Cooler Master (80Plus Bronze) PSU and everything was fine. I got 2 more 7950s and an additional PSU (same 650W Cooler Master) to power them. I shorted the on pin on the second psu, installed the new 7950s, fed them power from the second PSU.
The system recognized all 4 GPUs and cgminer recognized all 4 gpus and in fact I can mine (scypt LTC) no problem at 13 or 14 intensity. The problem happens when I want to mine at 19 or 20 which I did when I only had 2 cards. cgminer starts and just before the stats page loads the whole system goes down - not a crash but powers down. When it goes down I can't start the computer normally, I have to physically unplug the main PSU, wait a couple of seconds and plug it back in so it seems like the first PSU is getting overloaded.
What can be causing this? My though is that since the 3rd / 4th cards are plugged into the mobo they might be draining a little bit of power from the first PSU as well but that seems unlikely. All 4 cards are Sapphire 7950s OC Dual-X.
A single PSU would have made more sense but I need to work with what I have. Any advice or thoughts?
|
|
|
|
|
I've been looking at rise in the litecoin network hashrates lately - of course some of that increase is from new miners with new rigs but if we assume that the increase in hashrate is primarily from Bitcoin GPU miners moving over from Bitcoin to Litecoin then we can make a very rough approximation of where Litecoin hashing rates will go in the next 6-9 months or so (when ASICs are all delivered and plugged in)
1) ASICs became available around March 1st - at that point the bitcoin network was around 30000 gh/s - assume that this was mostly from GPU miners (ignore FPGAs) and that the subsequent increase in bitcoin network hashrates were form asics only.
2) Assume that all these miners will start mining litecoin.
3) Assume 30000 gh/s translates roughly to 30000 mh/s - this is only from my observations that when you compare the bitcoin mining rig hash rates with the litecoin they are approximately the same except for a power of 10^3. For example 7950 gets around 600 mh/s for bitcoin and 600 kh/s for litecoin.
4) Add that 30000 mh/s to the current litecoin network hashrate of 12000 mh/s to get a final litecoin network rate of 42000 mh/s
5) At a rate of 42000 mh/s the difficulty will be around 1525 (approx)
So in summary in 6-9 months litecoin difficulty might be around 1525.
In terms of mining this means that you'll be getting only 1/4 of what you're getting today from our rigs however price will also increase so in absolute terms we'll probably end up making the same amount of money.
Thoughts? Does this seem reasonable? Have I missed or miscalculated something?
|
|
|
|
|
Has anybody else experience their wallet not syncing. It was synced two days ago and after I shut it down and restarted it was never able to connect to another peer again. I'm on linux with the latest version of the litecoin client (0.6.3c Beta). I can see in the log files that it downloads peers but then there is a bunch of
....
trying connection 184.82.29.138:9333 lastseen=76.1hrs
connection timeout
trying connection 81.100.64.199:9333 lastseen=123.4hrs
connection timeout
trying connection 78.226.144.120:9333 lastseen=121.9hrs
connection timeout
trying connection 108.36.208.213:9333 lastseen=109.6hrs
connection timeout
trying connection 81.100.64.199:9333 lastseen=123.4hrs
.....
Also the IPs are repeated throughout the logs so searching for '184.82.29.138' for example shows multiple attempts so i'm not sure it's getting new peers lists. Since it was working previously and I haven't changed my router or network setup....i thought maybe the isp suddenly decided to block port 9333 but that seems unlikely. I've left it running for a day but no change.
Any ideas?
|
|
|
|
I was curious about what the average user mining is doing in terms of kH/s - using the limited data available here https://www.litecoinpool.org/poolsand then getting the total number of users from each pool i came up with this:
Pool Hashrate kH/s Users Avg kH/s per User
Coinotron 2754378 736 1,587
give-me-ltc.com 2369565 2279 1,040
ltcmine.ru 1425900 1159 1,230
litecoinpool.org 1390969 1038 1,340
notroll.in 1237648 1479 837
WeMineLTC 591427 1230 481
burnside's Pool 412011 788 523
Pool-X.eu 404663 1126 359
NuKings Pool 183170 461 397
OzCoin 154304 521 296
Mining Foreman 53890 114 473
suprnova.cc 26624 351 76
Coinpool.net 15388 90 171
MineLitecoin 13899 27 515
Total 11033836 12399 890
The average is around 890 kH/s per user - of course it would be more interesting to know the standard deviation to see what % of people actually fall within this average but I thought it's interesting especially for new miners. |
|
|
|
|
