|
1081
|
Alternate cryptocurrencies / Altcoin Discussion / Re: If you were to implement a CPU-only coin...
|
on: July 28, 2013, 09:03:17 PM
|
make something in it require windows to run if that is possible
if people want to fire up the vps clusters at least it will hopefully cost them a lot more to rape all the coins away.
huh? As a linux user i find that statement highly offensive. As a computer user I find the statement offensive too. I found it highly entertaining. In an ideal world, bot nets would be useless for mining coins. Problem is, you'd have to have something like a captcha that could not be faked. That way each person would be equal, none of this 'He who has the most cash/bot-net/farm/whatever wins'. I'm just imagining it now "Congrats, you found a block! Please enter the following captcha to claim it" <Bzzzzzz> Sorry, you were too slow and were beaten out by a 12 year old! |
|
|
|
|
1082
|
Economy / Securities / Re: ASICMINER: Entering the Future of ASIC Mining by Inventing It
|
on: July 28, 2013, 08:28:43 PM
|
Both Avalon and BFL have shipped or brought online more hashing power and every ASIC developer apart from Avalon are using more efficient ASICs than AM.
So AM, have likely sold no more than 20 Th/s worth of hashing power to date. Asicminercharts points to AM's hashrate averaging about that 40 Th/s, giving AM a total of about 60 Th/s brought online.
Avalon batch 1 was 300 units, batch 2 and 3 were 600 units. They're currently shipping batch 3, which means they've shipped about 900 units. At 63 Gh/s per unit, that's 56.7 Th/s.
If AM and Avalon have brought online about 60 Th/s each, then where is the other 195 Th/s coming from? BFL is the only other company shipping units. 100TH is bringing units online but it's only at a few Gh/s at the moment.
In other words, even if we stipulate that all of your assumptions are correct, Avalon has not brought online more hashing power than AM as you initially said (56.7 vs. 60). Not to mention that you counted all Avalon batch 3's, which is generous, considering a great many units have not shipped at all. Then, after that little tap dance, you are seriously, with a straight face and no fingers crossed, insisting that the rest of the entire network hash rate must be coming from BFL machines. It just must be! Who else is there? It would be funny if there weren't so many actual human beings damaged by BFL's incompetence. You certainly are a rising star in market analysis. Count again, he didn't include ANY of batch 3: 300 from batch 1, 600 from batch 2, 600 from batch 3, equal 1500, he said only 900. |
|
|
|
|
1084
|
Alternate cryptocurrencies / Altcoin Discussion / Re: Terracoin attack caused Bter.com 50BTC loss
|
on: July 28, 2013, 07:46:40 PM
|
wait wait.. if the bastard moved 120k trc and sold half of them on BTER, how did they disappear? aren't they on the account of the people who bought them? or just HIS coins he was unable to sell disappeared?
1st, it wasn't a 51% attack, but a time warp attack. The fix TRC made to their client (by my understanding) was supposed to invalidate all the time-warped blocks, meaning all the coins this person exploited vanished once the block chain hit the 175000 block. Therefore, any coins he mined and sent elsewhere should have vanished at block 175000 (which they seem to have from the OP). The current TRC blockchain is at block 175040 while the old client chain (that someone is still mining) thinks the current blockchain it at 175460. If you were still using the old client, those coins would still be there. |
|
|
|
|
1085
|
Alternate cryptocurrencies / Altcoin Discussion / Re: Terracoin attack caused Bter.com 50BTC loss
|
on: July 28, 2013, 06:53:23 PM
|
|
Don't know if this will help at all or not, but here are all known address that attacker's account sent/received money from:
1PAnMKuTs9R4U9FF7xdQSmQc655d2r9zeB (main account)
13kfKR1BS9gtsxppMeqDTx4rAvbwWjvYSL (Used back in April, then mined blocks 175027-175037)
19hWiCHiWk3Bu3mXCCCDRhY9WVLUvoPVAR
1LEyVjbVJw3NSFtxa8o45TvAkpjWkYCuqX
1JZp28yknx5jm9TMPSnGzMyJq3ENCkvme7
111exFkjLXP5mXmEfVqGd2r7bXQhVhux3
1LrwViNiowvXaCKb33BYoYeXkQfUiAHpZ7
122xarBR5XSvcgZ27qNmgvP4VQCUgfzcsa
1LGkXWSE5qvMbxtY6H3CFTCJBKN5wa2NA2
1EYD7hV7t8fN9qXHsj41v2vpyq9SbySqkR
1Kbq1XfK8Zs2wZsAK6SAmaF5jAwym8xaKg
149JyDVZCW46vRJfLRfH1hzypLD5mV4mDk
1M3hwfdTVAHEEmLCepAj3ULNFaM2C7SF3v
1CVkkpMqK7fvNz5t6KecnuErnJxpzGCumS
1D5y3YSzTfT6WTqioW99cuJ6izXiTZg8YD
149JyDVZCW46vRJfLRfH1hzypLD5mV4mDk
1MwK8iA8nSqDDSiYytEntdd9UVYdiZ3qFe
1NCoJCE4sp5sjAnFwgViwRQrcCAE2hsq9u
1Q47BFwRP7nPEewgkRNQFzjVsQp3maQURx
1E1YNV1Rdv8vZtr6iHppGtkrFfFdMTYezK
15fZ3Dk3t89EBgwJieMv43oVGWLZkAHojL
1KeheSehZLUrXCSd5bcFGHNKDBgDWuhdZu
17gvfTjPVtNqV4b7iX1zALoNjCV93na4Y
15AzEWzQwi1wGvUtjEKCXi14zGikR6eSzk
|
|
|
|
|
1091
|
Alternate cryptocurrencies / Altcoin Discussion / Re: [XPM] PETITION Primecoin listing on BTC-e
|
on: July 28, 2013, 03:55:50 PM
|
This scamcoin will never go to btce. You peopel dont realize this coin was made just for the devs to make a quick buck, easy for them to do and then the hype started because all the retards thought it was something innovative.
I notice you're literally the only one on the forum saying this. leave the poor troll alone, he can't accept a coin that does more than waste energy and cause global warming, he can only see BTC and denounce everything else. |
|
|
|
|
1092
|
Alternate cryptocurrencies / Altcoin Discussion / Re: If you were to implement a CPU-only coin...
|
on: July 28, 2013, 03:09:27 PM
|
|
Memory intensive would prevent GPUs as the transfer rate to/from GPU kills productivity. On my old project, there were 3 different tests, trial factoring (at which the GPU was 100+x faster), LL tests (at which the GPU was 6-10x faxter) and P-1 (which works in 2 stages, I think they got stage 1 to work at 2x speed, but I don't think they ever got stage 2 to work)
|
|
|
|
|
1097
|
Alternate cryptocurrencies / Altcoin Discussion / Re: [WTS] 59,392 QRK
|
on: July 28, 2013, 01:13:29 PM
|
Looking for 0.59392 BTC.
good luck with that since current exchange rates put this at ~.18 btc And while you wrote that it jumped up to 0.21. It's obviously not going to stabilize anytime soon, along with no actual bulk being on an exchange shows no established value anywhere. I'm sorry, all I heard was "I acknowledge it's worthless, but I want more out of it and don't want to wait and see I am right" Over the last 3 days it has been on a steady decline from your .00001 to .000003 or from 1000 satoshis to 300 satoshis to make it clearer to those who may think it actually increased in value from all the 0's. At this rate all I have to do is wait 12 hours and it'll have dropped from .21 to .13. Shoulda taken your crap coin to another forum bud. |
|
|
|
|
1100
|
Alternate cryptocurrencies / Announcements (Altcoins) / Re: [ANN][Exchange] Latest Cryptsy Additions, News and announcements
|
on: July 28, 2013, 12:20:49 PM
|
You know how people ask you to put coins on the exchange? Well, I'm going to do the opposite. Please do NOT add Gascoin, Spots, Cryptobits, and Cloudcoin. Gascoin is ecologically irresponsible, as the orphan rate because of four second block times will be absurd. The electricity wasted and thus its contribution to all-things-global-warming will be substantial. It's an argument Cryptsy cannot win if they tried to justify accepting Gascoin. FST, WDC, and DGC already push the limit... Because the dev of Spots is the same as Gascoin, and since Spots has a sizeable premine/dev tax, I refuse to support Spots by default. Bad reputation should stand for something and we should draw the line by not accepting these criminal losers as part of the cryptocoin community. Cryptobit was announced in a truly shady manner. They were announced on a dead forum then, by mere chance or collaboration, someone not part of the dev team decided to post a announcement thread in this forum. And when the point is brought up about their strategic use of a dead forum to instamine/premine their own coin, the devs of CYB feign ignorance. This type of shady behavior should be punished. Another coin I won't support is Cloudcoin. Date was scheduled and devs decided to secretly launch much earlier, essentially creating an instamine situation for themselves. A quick look at cryptometer.org shows well over 90% of all coins currently in existence was mined in the first two hours. Moreover, the dev of Cloudcoin (ahmed_bodi) has some morally questionable beliefs: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=255361.msg2725066#msg2725066I commend Cryptsy for having the guts to adopt altcoins, and I'm happy for their growth. But there needs to be a line drawn so that criminals and bad practices are punished instead of being rewarded. -Merc This is a strange way of saying I haven't mined these yet so don't put them on the exchange until I can mine a ton of them. Let the MARKET DECIDE what coin has merit or not! Nobody knows all details about all coins. Look at the reactions to your absurd allegations. You try to use the moral high ground to leave out competition from your coin or your favorite coin. Come on! Stop pretending. All coins with a viable network should eventually make it to an exchange and all should trade against BTC. Let the market decide what has merit and what the price should be. Cryptsy's method of slowly adding coins is a good one, how they rank coins may be arbitrary but so what. Add the coins however they like but eventually they should add all viable coins. +1 Denouncing coins before trying them 'cause the orphan rate will be absurd' and using inflammatory words like 'Global-Warming' is kinda childish to me as well as wrong. Of *ALL* the coins on the market today, there is only 1 that I can see has value in what it produces, and it's not just a 'contribution to all-things-global-warming', so if that is your arguement, let's trash *ALL* of these electricity wasting coins that are causeing global warning. Bitcoin should be the first one tossed for global warming if that is your arguement! Check it out: http://blockchain.info/stats clearly shows that estimated power usage is 4,290.33 MEGA WATTS costing $643,549.55 to produce $421,364.93 worth of coins. I know, I know, you're going to bleat ASIC's and power reduction and blah de blah blah, but it's still a valid point. Bitcoin likely has more electricity usage than all the other coins combined. So, now how do you feel about getting rid of 'global warming causing' coins? |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
