Is there a name for the BTC equivalent of GDP?  What I mean is that if one takes the total BTC transfer volume and subtracts out the portion involved in exchanging monetary assets, one might get an idea of the size of the BTC economy and if one considers the blockchain as a kind of "jurisdiction" securing its monetary regime, one might call this economy its "domestic product".

I found an old (2017) Buy vs Mine spreadsheet, fleshed it out a bit and populated it with variable ranges in a Monte Carlo add-on (Add-ons -> Causal Scenarios -> Launch).

Here's a video explaining the spreadsheet and rational for the numbers.

https://i.imgur.com/WCIh46a.png

Maybe I have a bad model and/or maybe I have the wrong distributions of uncertainty among the input variables, but it seems to me the easiest and most profitable thing to do is just plow your money into BTC -- by far.

Are there any altcoins that claim immunity to the 51% attack?

Most everyone knows by now that the substantive threat from transaction malleability is limited to certain kinds of wallets that are in control of exchanges or other sites that hold assets for registered users.  There is some confusion, however, over exactly what to call these wallets, hence there is confusion over how to identify whether a particular asset, held by an exchange, is vulnerable.

I've seen the term "hot storage" used by Defcon, apparently as synonymous with "escrow wallet".  I've also seen the term "shared wallet" used.

Are these different?  if so, how?  Which are vulnerable?

Once we have identified the terminology for vulnerable wallets that are on some exchanges, how do we go about identifying which assets are being held in the vulnerable class of wallets?

Do we then withdraw those assets to private wallets on our own machines for safety (with whatever backup mechanisms are prudent)?

Do we have to get a client for each different type of cryptcurrency that might be in one of these vulnerable wallets?

It is persistence of this kind of confusion that continues to drive BTC prices down.

As altcoins expand and as prices are increasingly offered in terms of cryptocurrencies other than BTC, it would be advantageous to standardize on a slash notation (eg: BTC/LTC) that is the inverse of the underscore notation (eg: LTC_BTC) for the following reasons:

The underscore notation is already in wide use to mean that a price in that symbol is going to be of the first currency expressed in terms of the second currency.

The slash notation is used everywhere else to mean division, so that a price in that symbol is going to be of the denominator currency expressed in terms of the numerator currency.

This will allow sites, such as cryptsy.com to correct their user interfaces, which currently use the slash to mean the same as the underscore, by simply substituting underscore for slash in those user interfaces without changing anything else.  The APIs generally already use the underscore symbol for pair specification on queries to the APIs so there should be no conversion necessary.  However, some APIs output responses to queries using slash where there should be an underscore, according to this proposed standard.  This will require a change in the output standard used which will require a new version of the API be provided.  Among the ways this can perhaps be simplified is an account setting, a change in the subdomain name, a change in the http path or an explicit API version argument.

I've got some altcoins sitting out in their respective blockchains but the mining rates on some of these altcoins is so low that it will take a day or two before it will be confirmed to the level required by the recipient.

Is there any way I can take a mining rig and point it at a particular transaction to speed up confirmation?  Some of these altcoins that have sparse miners have low difficulty, so that's why I'm thinking it might work.

I've got a program monitoring MtGox and it picked up a price excursion that was way out of the ordinary from 2013-06-21T07:01:32 until 2013-06-21T07:06:04 UTC.  I mean like an order of magnitude excursion.

I have to presume I have a bug in my program but if so it is so intermittent that it happens only once in a few weeks because that's how long I've been monitoring the streaming data out of MtGox and nothing like this has happened before.

PS:  I sure wish they'd include basic stuff like checksums and sequence numbers on their streaming interface.

CAP theorem
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The CAP theorem, also known as Brewer's theorem, states that it is impossible for a distributed computer system to simultaneously provide all three of the following guarantees:[1][2]

Consistency (all nodes see the same data at the same time)
Availability (node failures do not prevent survivors from continuing to operate)
Partition tolerance (the system continues to operate despite arbitrary message loss)
According to the theorem, a distributed system can satisfy any two of these guarantees at the same time, but not all three.[3]

History
The theorem began as a conjecture made by University of California, Berkeley computer scientist Eric Brewer at the 2000 Symposium on Principles of Distributed Computing (PODC).[4] In 2002, Seth Gilbert and Nancy Lynch of MIT published a formal proof of Brewer's conjecture, establishing it as a theorem.[1]

References
[1] a b Nancy Lynch and Seth Gilbert, “Brewer's conjecture and the feasibility of consistent, available, partition-tolerant web services”, ACM SIGACT News, Volume 33 Issue 2 (2002), pg. 51-59.
[2] "Brewer's CAP Theorem", julianbrowne.com, Retrieved 02-Mar-2010
[3] "Brewers CAP theorem on distributed systems", royans.net
[4] Eric Brewer, "Towards Robust Distributed Systems"

External links
"Problems with CAP, and Yahoo's little known NoSQL system" by Daniel Abadi
"CAP equivalent for analytics"


P ≟ NP    This theoretical computer science-related article is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it.