👊

Apologize, please delete if you can.

what is the percentage of traffic that comes in via IPv6? I presume that the forum server only sees IPv4 traffic and Cloudflare handles the reverse-proxying from IPv6 down to IPv4. Also does Cloudflare give some raw vs. DDoS filtered statistics of the traffic? What percentage of IPv4 traffic gets filtered vs. what percentage of IPv6 traffic gets filtered as DDoS?

Just curious about some rough numbers from 2018.

Thanks.

They are now too tight and this site cannot be read on older Macintoshes with older OSX Leopard. Can you loosen it back a little?

Edit: Sorry for double post. Things seem to be working fine now, 15 minutes later. It seems like strange temporary routing change inside Amazon, probably related to DDoS or anti-DDoS defenses, I can't fully trace it right now.

There's apparently a fraudulent domain misspelling the world "silicon" in the "siliconangle.com" with two lower case "ll".

It is currently being used on the main discussion board here in the thread "BREAKING NEWS: SATOSHI FINALLY REVEALED!" Can some moderator go there and obfuscate the HTTP: link to avoid spiders from increasing the rank of that fraud?

Unfortunately I slightly worsened the situation by not obfuscating the http link in one of my quotes. I'm posting over a bad connection in a pizzeria that is closing shortly. I'm going to delete my bad posts in that thread and paste them here.

Thanks in advance.

{{Citation needed}}

How about hxxp://silliconangle.com/blog/2016/05/03/Craig-Wright-faces-criminal-charges/index.html

This is fraudulent website that misspells the word "silicon". The correct website doesn't have this post:

http://siliconangle.com/blog/2016/05/03/Craig-Wright-faces-criminal-charges/index.html

Please quote my post for posterity.

Edit: Also, you may want to obfuscate the fraudulent link so it doesn't get spidered by the search engines

How about hxxp://silliconangle.com/blog/2016/05/03/Craig-Wright-faces-criminal-charges/index.html

Was hoping for something not made up by an author.

This is fraudulent website that misspells the word "silicon". The correct website doesn't have this post:

http://siliconangle.com/blog/2016/05/03/Craig-Wright-faces-criminal-charges/index.html

Please quote my post for posterity. You should probably also obfuscate the fraudulent link so it won't get scanned by the search engines.

Why would it need quoting?

I want to be out of this thread as soon as possible, so I will delete my original messages. At the same time I want everyone to be warned against referring to that fraud.

Please re-edit your post to obfuscate the working http link I accidentally left in the open.

I will delete this message to once somebody quotes it.

I noticed sudden spikes of the CPU load from the testnet Bitcoin Core instances. High and prolonged enough to turn on the fans in my machines, which is very rare. Unfortunately I don't have time to investigate this myselves. I see nothing out of ordinary in the debug.log, ordinary for the testnet that is. mempool is also somewhat high, again for the testnet.

Some of older computers (older Macintoshes) can no longer access bitcointalk because they can't establish a secure connection HTTPS/SSL.

Can you tell us what did you change at that time?

Can you maybe re-enable some lower security transport protocols?

Edit: Hmm, it is back to loading pages and working OK. The current date stamp is 2015-03-31T20:21 .

Edit2: Editing just a title to refer to the reoccurrence of the errors.

Just create the file named "DB_CONFIG" in the ".bitcoin" or "AppData/Roaming/Bitcoin" directory that contains the following:

Code:

set_lg_dir database
set_lk_max_locks 40000

The default was 10000. You can monitor the lock usage using "db_stat -e". I've tested it on an old laptop with 0.3.24 and 0.5.0. Obviously it will work with alt-coins based on the Bitcoin & BDB code. The same file should go into the respective "testnet" subdirectories.

Please don't omit the "set_lg_dir database" line. Without it you may corrupt the "_db.00?" and/or "log.*" files if you are unlucky and run the Berkeley DB utilities like "db_stat". With this line you will at worst get the error message from those utilities.

Good luck.

Edit: Oh, I forgot about the most obvious or non-obvious: restart the bitcoind/bitcoin-qt.

I wanted to restart the discussion from the thread that is now locked:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=120184.msg1402474#msg1402474

I cannot quote directly, so I'm going to do a little cut and paste quotes.

Now that we know there will be 4055 chips per wafer, and that the die area is 16mm², I can refine my math and prediction:
- each Avalon chip will have 1/10th the number of transistors of the BFL chips (16mm² at 110nm vs. 56.25mm² at 65nm)
- BFL chips are 7.5Ghash/s, therefore Avalon chips should do 0.75Ghash/s (approximately, since the clock will be somewhat different)
- an Avalon wafer will therefore provide 4055*.75 = 3040 Ghash/s of mining power
- an Avalon wafer will go into the production of about 50 Avalon devices (~60 Ghash/s each)
- the raw cost of a wafer is $4,xxx per the partially-obscured price in the TSMC document published by the team, let's say $4500, that means $90 of wafer space per Avalon device (up from my prediction of $40)

You do realize that based on your calculation for a single Avalon device, which is advertised as 66Gh/sec, they would need 88 chips.
That sounds very unlikely to me...

For a Chinese designers 88 would be a doubly prosperous number or joy number. Sounds likely to me...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Numbers_in_Chinese_culture#Eight

Pictures of the open Avalon modules are now available:

http://bbs.btcman.com/forum.php?mod=viewthread&tid=1304

There are 80 chips per module.

Could some moderator kindly split off the following sequence of
messages into a separate thread:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=101011.msg1170465#msg1170465
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=101011.msg1172095#msg1172095

entitled:

What's the problem with getting bitcoins compliantt with GAAP???

The above 10 messages contain a seed for a usefull discussion, including replies by Jeff & Gavin.

Also, this thread was originally in the "Bitcoin discussion" forum:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?board=1.0

and the split should go back there.

Thanks.

[technical details for how a wallet move request works]

At the request of Gavin Andresen and shtylman couple of messages were deleted from the thread in "Development and Technical Discussion":

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=93502.0

In one of the deleted messages shtylman (the operator of BitFloor) had inadvertently disclosed that he isn't an US resident and doesn't reside on Manhattan where the exchange offices are allegedly located. I wish I saved those messages before posting, but I'm working from a borrowed laptop.

Anyway, be safe or be sorry. The choice is yours.

I just had to delete a few for your posts from the technical details for how a wallet move request works thread. Please do try to stay on-topic in the future.

this movie needs to be made as soon as possible.

In fact, I'm already thinking about a well-known bitcoiner who is known for Kubrick-ian levels of perfectionism. He doesn't have a long directing resume, but he is know for simultaneously working on many projects. I think he could also commence on "Blockchain Orange" and "2112: A Crypto Odyssey" to quickly catch up.

I was somewhat disappointed that pretty much nobody had dared to speculate beyond the year 2013 on this subforum. Thus I decided to open with my own thread.

10) The competition for better ASIC will produce hash race.

20) After the NRE (Non-Recurring Engineering) costs are recovered the marginally cheap ASICs will lead to overhash.

30) The newly manufactured ASICs will be installed but not pointed at any mining pools under the doctrine of Mutual Assured Double-spend (MAD).

40) Under the above doctrine all new mining rigs will be quipped with Permissive Hashing Links controlled by hashing briefcases in possesion of the presidents of the major mining companies.

50) The grassroots movements will force the presidents of mining corporations to meet at the Strategic MIning Limitation Encounter (SMILE) in Helsinki, Finland.

60) The further pressure of public opinion will cause the stockpile of fabricated, but not deployed mining rigs to be destructed under the aegis of Strategic HAshing Munition Eradication (SHAME) treaties.

I decided to use the increment of 10 on the above list to allow quick insertion of further items that refine the timeline.

Please share your refinements below.

This thread is to announce the impending fork of Freicoin.

It is my observation that the creators of Freicoin are alienated from the society in which they are living and in which they grew up.

Freicoin, created by NASA engineers Mark Friedenbach and Matt Everingham and photographer Aaron Blumenshine, uses a version of the Bitcoin software with one key difference - all account balances are charged a 4.4 per cent annual fee, which is distributed to all of those running the software.

The key differences for the Tithe-o-coin are:

1) 10 per cent instead of 4.4 per cent
2) the fees are "freewill offerings", not an involuntary obligation
3) the miners who receive the fees need to provide cryptographic proof-of-state-of-grace. This coin is not meant to be used by any garden variety heathens or Swedish Smörgåsbord pastafarians.

I'm not soliciting any pecuniary contributions from anyone, because personally I'm not yet in the state of divine grace.

This cryptocoin development is not meant do discriminate against any creed. I've already informed and I'm awaiting the blessing from the representatives of Vatican, Jerusalem, Mecca and other holy lands.

Last moment news: I've already been contacted at my door by the two aldermen representatives from Salt Lake City, UT. Deseret-coin is a go!

BFL will soon start accepting preorders of dedicated ASIC bitcoin miners. This is done with exclusive cooperation of Bit-Pay with BTC as a source currency. BFL is located in the USA, so I presume USD will be the target currency.

What will be the impact of this move of capital on the price of our favorite asset?

Here's the link analysing the move from the angle of difficulty change: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=89258.msg984426#msg984426

What do you guys think about this idea? I think its about time to separate those from the general mining categories. The hardware is so intertwined with software in case of all currently available FPGA solutions.

The only big FPGA-related threads that should stay in their current section are (1) the Ufasoft miner thread & (2) CGMINER thread. I think they should stay in software because they are universal CPU&GPU&FPGA mining codes.

The recent ruckus in the alt-chain sub-forum made me think about the comparative religion classes I took long time ago. If you aren't familiar with it: gmaxwell and Luke-Jr went medieval (http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=go+medieval) on Coiledcoin, a baby alt-chain launched by markm makomk.

In particular the stilted writing of Luke-Jr reminded me of some religious intolerance propaganda that we studied in comparative religion. I thus propose two new words:

1) monocoinism, by analogy to monotheism, is a belief that there exist only one true coin: Bitcoin. Like in Abrahamic religions the first commandment is "Thou shalt have none other chains before mine".

2) polycoinism, by analogy to polytheism, is a belief that the pantheon of coins has a room for many of them. Bitcoin is like Zeus in the ancient Greek mythology: father of Gods and men, king of all coins.

Furthermore I propose that we also start using derived adjectives and insults, eg. "You monocoinist asshat" or "You polycoinist scammer!"

Thank you for your time.

Bitcoin Improvement Proposal #2112
Ownership: Public domain
Status: Draft ->Deferred
Type: Informational

The purpose of this document is purely informative and not normative. It aims to spread to the wider cryptographic community the various improvements to the well-known Bitcoin design that would address some limitations of the existing implementation that prevent its wider adoption. The proposed changes are far-reaching and as such are not suitable for immediate implementation. They are so extensive that it is certain that a complete reimplementation will be required. No matter what is the immediate fate of this proposal, I’m remaining hopeful that the ideas explained will remain public domain knowledge and will serve as a prior-art counterclaim in any future patent litigation.

The centerpiece of this proposal is the idea of “digital prospectus”: a program whose main functionality is to do perform a verification of the submitted blocks and transactions. This program will be cryptographically hashed and will become a “root prospectus hash” in this proposal and an equivalent of the newspaper headline in the present Bitcoin genesis block. In addition the “root prospectus hash” will become the identifier for the “digital financial security” in the transactional transport protocols. As such it will replace 4-byte integer 1 in the current Bitcoin protocol.

The choice of the programming language for the “digital prospectus” needs to be made early. The primary requirement is that the language needs to have very strong theoretical underpinnings: it must be able to efficiently express its own interpreter and there must be existing programs that are capable of proving simple theorems expressed in this language. It seems to me that some dialect of LISP would be suitable choice. LISP s-expressions maintain very close relationship between the human-readable text of the program (which will be hashed to form the digital prospectus) and the internal data structures that represent the program and which will be interpreted and verified many times during its lifetime. The runtime efficiency is pretty much immaterial; the properties that are tremendously important are (1) well-defined semantics; (2) the ability of the program to analyze and transform its own text; (3) possibility of secure implementations that are resistant to the cryptographic side-channel attacks like “differential fault analysis”, “differential power analysis”, “timing attack”, etc.

The exact content of the “digital prospectus” would depend on the type of the “digital financial security” that it describes. For the security like Bitcoin it would define the rules for the validity of the block and the transaction. It would exactly specify the fees that need to be paid for the inclusion of the transactions in the block and who is allowed to specify checkpoints for the longest chain of blocks. In the current Bitcoin implementation fees are pretty much left unspecified (with the exception of “dust spam defense”) and two block-chain checkpoints were signed by “fabianhjr”, who is pretty much unknown in the community.

(continued...)

[ANY]

Pardon me jumping in, but I have one question to the audience of this thread:

Is there ANY open source PHP bulletin board software that consistently uses on PDO (PHP Data Objects) to access the database? This would mean that PHP engine needs to be at version 5.1 or newer.

Thank you, and again apologise for the intrusion.