|
java exploit? smug gnu/linux user not affected.jpg
|
|
|
|
|
The value of a break on SHA-256/ECDSA far outweighs even the full market cap value of bitcoin
|
|
|
|
Bitcoin is designed to be distributed peer to peer currency first and foremost. Certainly more than any importance of "microtransactions" Bitcoin is designed to be a peer to peer digital cash. Read the Bitcoin white paper. Nakamoto wrote that BTC nodes would eventually use large amounts of bandwidth and be run by specialists, so that's what it was designed for. $30 transaction fees, due to a 1 MB block limit, would make regular transactions impossible. It would convert Bitcoin into a high powered money that only BTC-banks could handle. I don't want a BTC-bank to hold my private keys and be the third party intermediary to my transactions. It's bad enough BTC has to rely on centralized exchanges. Forcing people to store their BTC at banks and process their transactions through them for straight BTC transactions would make the problem of centralization exponentially worse. As opposed to removing the limit, letting malicious miners make massive blocks? Privatizing profit, and distributing the pain?' Bitcoin is designed to be distributed peer to peer currency first and foremost. Certainly more than any importance of "microtransactions" Bitcoin is designed to be a peer to peer digital cash. Read the Bitcoin white paper. Not only that, it's specifically designed to help with "small, casual transactions" too small to be handled by centralized payment processors who have to charge too much per transaction because they can't avoid doing dispute mediation. This is right there in the first paragraph of the white paper. If you can't run it over Tor or similar you've just destroyed a much more important part of the philosophy. |
|
|
|
|
Bitcoin is designed to be distributed peer to peer currency first and foremost. Certainly more than any importance of "microtransactions"
If allowing microtransactions means that you need a T3 line and terabytes of harddrive space to run a node, then your microtransactions will have to go, because otherwise it simply consolidates power and destroys the entire point of the network, which becomes datacenter-to-datacenter-to-bank-to-government-to-datacenter
You can also see that satashi fully intended to be able to use everything over Tor, which again is impossible with bloated block sizes
Blocksize should scale such that the average peer with average internet (broadband, roughly speaking ~50-100kb/sec upload/many MB/sec download currently) and average computation and storage resources can always participate as a full node
|
|
|
|
|
i thought paypal forbids buying anything related to bitcoin, including miners.
or is that just ebay?
|
|
|
|
Can you use/fork altcoins (maybe a temporary blockchain?) to handle microtransactions with minimal impact on the blockchain? Is this completely insane?
It sounds like any solution for microtransactions AND not bloating block size requires some degree of centralization. Like, microtransactions to company A require that all people who want to microtransct with A use a pooled, shared BTC account. then it batches together transactions for many people, keeping the data of who gets what off the blockchain.
but it would be one-way, only many people to one company. one company to many people (ASIC miner shares for example(?)) seems to be a pain in the ass
The risk of a 51% attack on a lower hashrate network is mitigated by the fact that the transactions on said network are significantly less valueable.
i.e. the Y $ invested to pull off a 51% attack on the main network produces X $ expected value from a double-spending attack, X/Y is the same for the alternate chain
this is precisely why i own some litecoins  yeah, move several BTC (or more!) into LTC/etc altcoin on an exchange. takes one transaction in the block. You now can do microtransactions on your altcoin block with no influence on BTC. when you're done, move LTC/etc altcoin back to BTC on an exchange. again, one transaction in the block. And going from virtual currency <-> virtual currency i'm pretty sure was explicitly listed as not subject to regulation. (which is funny, because it could easily serve as a coin mixer, which i think they tried to call illegal.) |
|
|
|
|
Can you use/fork altcoins (maybe a temporary blockchain?) to handle microtransactions with minimal impact on the blockchain? Is this completely insane?
It sounds like any solution for microtransactions AND not bloating block size requires some degree of centralization. Like, microtransactions to company A require that all people who want to microtransct with A use a pooled, shared BTC account. then it batches together transactions for many people, keeping the data of who gets what off the blockchain.
but it would be one-way, only many people to one company. one company to many people (ASIC miner shares for example(?)) seems to be a pain in the ass
The risk of a 51% attack on a lower hashrate network is mitigated by the fact that the transactions on said network are significantly less valueable.
i.e. the Y $ invested to pull off a 51% attack on the main network produces X $ expected value from a double-spending attack, X/Y is the same for the alternate chain. Of course calculated in BTC for these purposes
it just seems like altcoins (especially with faster blocks, and for transactions where the value is low that you don't really give a damn about the [hopefully] small chance for a 51%/double spend attack ) would be a good solution for micro-transactions.
|
|
|
|
Just on principle. Why would any buy a BFL product? Simply a NO! Let them rot. This is how you repay them for all the lies and BS. You simply don't buy any more of their products. There is not win win here. Let them rot on the vine.
They are an extremely scummy company and have done many underhanded things, but people are not going to pass up a chance to acquire a money printing machine Avalon is already selling chips though. |
|
|
|
it's been discussed countless times but there's going to be at least a tripling of hashrate before these units would arrive, maybe even 5x or higher (~262 TH/sec total from asicminer, and ~220 Th/sec from avalon chips, plus avalon batch units, plus whatever else)
Triple is nothing. At the current price/GHs you would do a HUGE profit with a Jupiter if the difficulty only went x3 by the moment you get it. As it's scheduled for September/October, I would consider a difficulty of at least 70 million, and then an increase of at least x100 in the following 12 months (and I wouldn't be surprised by x300...) If then diff. is any lower than that, better for everybody, but running simulations with anything lower 70m in October and x100 increase in the following 12 months is just absurd wishful thinking IMO. To be honest, my concerns are the unknown identities Yifu mentioned in the background we don't know about. Private equity that may have started development in February that we won't know about until they come online. That is why it is so important we have as much legitimate competition in the open ASAP. The Bitsyncom bulk chip purchase wallet had enough Bitcoins for 760,000 Avalon chips at their resale price last week. We only know of a handful of 10k purchases from this forum alone. Who else are they selling to?? Um there are a shit load of group orders spread across maybe a dozen people, i haven't run the numbers but I think more chips are accounted for as open buys than as not |
|
|
|
|
Proof that said 65nm ASICs exist, work, ?
|
|
|
|
See that's a spiteful way of asking a straight forward question...
KnC and ORSoC are separate companies with some similar directorship.
ORSoC will have a PR nightmare if this is a scam. These aren't days of hidden dodgy dealings anymore. Social media and motivated angry consumers can do more damage to any interrelated companies than in the past...
This is not going to be a "scam". It's just that what they are promising (28nm chips, 350GH/s for $7,000, delivery in September) looks too good to be easily achieved in such a short timeframe, and they may face problems ala BFL/Avalon (because Avalon is also incurring in huge delays, it's just that compared to BFL they shine, because at least they are delivering something). Everybody who has been involved in bitcoin FPGA and ASICs (including Yifu) says that it's crazy to the develop a 28nm chip at this point, in the sense that what you would save in electricity, etc. is negligible compared to the huge cost of developing 28nm technology compared to 110nm. Then, check the lead time between the chips orders and delivery. 10 weeks in the case of Avalon, 100 days (14 weeks) in the case of BFL. I'm quite sure everybody is manufacturing at TSMC, so that's pretty much the timing for the chips - how is it possible that KNC can have everything developed for September, if they are finalizing NOW their FPGA? And to those thinking that TSMC may be faster for KNCMINER because ORSoC is involved... WAKE UP. TSMC is a company with a yearly turnover of +$10B (yes, more than 10 BILLIONS), everybody manufactures at TSMC, they won't "run" for a customer unless that customer is Apple (and maybe not even for them). Yes, it's not like OrSOC is a company of professional ASIC design (fab-less) company or anything. TSMC is the Fab, OrSOC does the design. To be fair, I'm not sure if OrSOC has done a 28nm design before, but they have done many others. And it's possible it's difficult / expensive to get 28nm fab time since a number of high end companies (AMD, Nvidia, etc) use that node - really don't see why you guys are freaking out about this -- knc miner has already put forth much more documentation and trust then any ASIC company thus far, yes, even more than avalon did when they started
When is a new company that needs its first customers who are customers and investors. But without any warranty. Any information is little. It would be more fair to let investors only, until you have the finished product. Then pay the difference for our orders. I was worried until I saw they parterned with a fairly well known fab company (OrSOC runs Opencores). Similar to Avalon, it's no suprise that a community with ties to the open source/open hardware community would be the ones to do the design. But with all respect to Avalon, i'm pretty sure that OrSOC is more specialized for this task. Avalon certainly won for getting chips out very fast at an established/mature node (110nm). KNC is now doing the next generation chip. But yes, I wouldn't be suprised if technical issues / yield issues / time slot issues push the delivery back a few months. I don't think they'd be guilty of anything except optimism, but I do not believe it is naive optimism. OrSOC is a legitimate semiconductor fab company trying to make a product in a market full of scammers, scumbags and shady people. It's understandable it'll be rough going at the start like this |
|
|
|
|
it's been discussed countless times but there's going to be at least a tripling of hashrate before these units would arrive, maybe even 5x or higher (~262 TH/sec total from asicminer, and ~220 Th/sec from avalon chips, plus avalon batch units, plus whatever else)
|
|
|
|
|
really don't see why you guys are freaking out about this -- knc miner has already put forth much more documentation and trust then any ASIC company thus far, yes, even more than avalon did when they started
|
|
|
|
Just FYI, I'm still sceptical of whether I should escrow BFL chip group buys. :/ I would prefer that the chips were somewhat more confirmed before even starting this as given their track record, 100 days could easily turn into 1000 days... (and I'll need to hold the coins for god knows how long  ) Well said. This could be very complicated and ugly if not outright bad |
|
|
|
ORSoC partnered with them to make KNCMiner
KNCminer IS ORSoC
People seriously are worried about them?
Sure, nobody is saying they aren't above having technical problems and whatnot.
but ORSoc isn't going to fucking run off with your money
not that it matters, because you won't be getting one until 2014 unless you registered on their website the day they posted the thread, or want to pay 10,000$ for a <500 order (actually a sub <200 order probably because you can buy up to 3x per #)
See what bicoinorama re-posted. ORSoC AB != KNCMINER AB Same people involved but those are 2 *different* *companies*. Do you still think you will be doing business with ORSoC? They started the company of 5 people/directors 3 of them from ORSoC (higher-ups) and 2 people from the original KNCMiner proprosal. that's how i read it. |
|
|
|
|
ORSoC partnered with them to make KNCMiner
KNCminer IS ORSoC
People seriously are worried about them?
Sure, nobody is saying they aren't above having technical problems and whatnot.
but ORSoc isn't going to fucking run off with your money
not that it matters, because you won't be getting one until 2014 unless you registered on their website the day they posted the thread, or want to pay 10,000$ for a <500 order (actually a sub <200 order probably because you can buy up to 3x per #)
|
|
|
|
|
I'd just add an * or something to note that some (or all) have no taxes listed, and that europeon manufacturers will have significnatly higher taxes.
americans aren't used to VAT
|
|
|
|
Just admit you don't know what OrSOC being involved means.
You keep playing the ORSoC card. Will you be giving money to ORSoC for these ASIC miners for which no ASIC exists yet? Will ORSoC pay you back in case you never receive your ASIC miner that doesn't yet exist? ORSoC will do no such thing. ORSoC is the ODM and will take NO responsibility in the potential fuckups of KNCMINER. ORSoC is NO GUARANTEE you will ever see your miner. They formed a partnership WITH ORSoC. KNC miner is ORSoC I'm not saying they won't have technical issues or troubles. But ORSoC is not going to take your money and run http://orsoc.se/orsoc-and-kncminer-are-partnering-up-to-develop-bitcoin-mining-products/langswitch_lang/en/ |
|
|
|
|
Reading though every one of his forum posts is interesting too
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
