I've called for assistance several times in identifying the origin of a list of lowS violating transactions in order to help speed deployment of this, but it seems that the Bitcoin community is a lot more interested in whining and throwing blame then stepping up and doing a little bit of the non-development work needed to get this deployed.  Altruism is centralized - who knew? |
|
|
|
Pretty much done with the custom miner, iDunk on IRC is running a stability test.
EDIT: I should say milestone 2; the performance kinda sucks - needs more work.
Any details on performance? (And cpu load?) Miner works now; the code for the stratum and general stuff is fully custom, as well. Clears 400H/s on 290X, meeting the first performance milestone, as the OpenCL has been improved. Here it is: https://github.com/wolf9466/wolf-xmr-minerNeeds a little bit of WinSock code added before it's ready for a Windows build, but that's about it. What is this mysterious DRK coin being alluded to in your sig? No XMR donations accepted? |
|
|
|
COME ON PEOPLE we got centralized servers servicing US with illegal live streams of GB movies
Great British? Grinning Beaver? Gina Bellman? Gerald Bunsen? Where do I find these movies? Will I have to register with the police after watching them? |
|
|
|
Fees per block need to rise to 25 BTC to break even with the current subsidy, which is a fee of 0.025 BTC per transaction with 1000 transactions per block. This is $6 / transaction. Good. How many bitcoiners send their funds paying $6 fees? How many transactions will be daily if the minimum tx fee is $6? (Let us assume this number is X, I think X is much less than 100k) What would the minimum fee if the daily tx number is X? I don't know the answer to your question, and I'm too dumb to be able to quote post signatures, but I think your post signature indicates you have found a way to profit from your stress test. Like a true capitalist, you make money on both sides of the trade. |
|
|
|
This is the question: How long is the game? And this is the answer: The cost is subsidised by the block reward. So, the game will be over when the cost is more than block reward. Do not count the "cost" in dollars. Count it in joules or kwh. After it we will see decreasing hashrate and ongoing decreasing the security of confirmed transactions. All the factors which allowed bitcoin system to grow in past will push the system down. Today you can easy reorganize the blockchain in some dead altcoin with an obsolete asic. Tomorrow you will be able to reorganize bitcoin blockchain with your currently running asic. Somebody definitely will "test" is because "he will be able to do it with small efforts" I repeat: I think not about today. Like a chess-master I think several turns in future. Your December, 2014 "BTC price to King's pawn and $10 value by March 2015" gambit cost you several thousand Grand Master points. Have you been reading more chess books since then? |
|
|
|
Besides this, Satoshi seems to have had quite a few reasons to develop
Bitcoin such as fleeing from banks, creating a trustless system, etc. OK. So my reason is to protect your life savings from this ponzi scheme called bitcoin  I want to prove that decentralized trustless system can not exists in long term. It either transforms to centralized system or loses its security. In the one million instances where someone has lazily called Bitcoin a ponzi scheme, I have yet to see anyone provide the answer to this obvious, but heretofore unasked, question: If Bitcoin is a ponzi scheme, who is Bitcoin's Bernie Madoff? If there is no Madoff (or more respectfully, no Ponzi), there is no ponzi scheme. Investors (speculators) in Bitcoin are not relinquishing their capital to anyone for nothing in immediate return, with the expectation of nothing more than a high-interest yield on that capital. They are buying a commodity/tool/currency. They may have an expectation of return/profit/yield/revolution/utility that will not materialize to their satisfaction, but they also holding something in their hand while they're waiting. They have not turned control of their capital over to a central actor - Madoff, or Ponzi, or whatever imaginary unnamed actor the "ponzi scheme" gossips are inadvertently invoking. Bitcoin may be something imperfect doomed to failure, even doomed to manipulation, but it is not a ponzi scheme. One by one - everyone should stop malleating the vocabulary of the criminal financial world. |
|
|
|
|
Is this thread an altcoin discussion? OP is well respected.
|
|
|
|
The decision making processes should be based on where the miners point their hashing power and what code people choose to run. This is the level at which consensus should be achieved. To think that important decisions should be made by a Core development team is tantamount to centralization of power.
There is a very big difference between being a benevolent dictator of your own implementation of Bitcoin and actually being the dictator of Bitcoin. This is a very important distinction. It is not wrong to be in charge of your own implementation of Bitcoin when people are free to choice whatever client they want. Having multiple implementations of Bitcoin is good for decentralization and freedom.
Agreed. One group of developers should not be considered a permanent authority on what Bitcoin is or should be. I don't see how anyone could possibly be advocating for such a thing, but sadly it seems increasingly common at the moment. Disparate factions are emerging here and no one is any closer to agreeing on anything. If anything, the gap appears to be widening. We're not working towards a solution, we're working towards a split. I honestly don't see this ending amicably. Points to remember: - If you want to use an open source coin, that means anyone can modify that code and submit their own version under another name.
- Such actions are not an attack on the system and actually prevent the possibility of a single group having permanent control over development.
- Successfully forking with an alternative client does not give those developers any special power or diktat to enforce future changes on the network.
- Assuming that Core developers are the only permanent authority on what Bitcoin "is" or "should be" is an extremely dangerous mindset.
- Consensus is not a group of developers agreeing, because the people securing the network make the decisions, not the developers.
Oxymorons to avoid: - "Bitcoin is great because it's decentralised, but only the core devs can be trusted to write code"
- "Bitcoin is great because it's open source, but releasing a client to propose a fork means you're a dictator"
- "Bitcoin is great because it's permissionless, but you can't use it to buy a cup of coffee"
- "Bitcoin is great because only the economic majority can decide the rules of the network, but only when I personally agree with them, otherwise I'll dismiss it as an altcoin like a petulant child"
nice summary - concise, rational, accurate |
|
|
|
Clearly a pen name. Guy's real name is probably Dave Monero or Tom Monero. |
|
|
|
"Addresses", afterall, are nothing more than a cryptographic public key; despite the community commonly calling them otherwise.
These public keys are assigned to specific users and could be considered much the same as an after-hours drop box.
Unless an exchange specifically enumerated otherwise in their Terms-Of-Service, I think it is reasonable to assume that a customer might have a legal expectation that assets arriving at a cryptographic key assigned to them, be attributed to them.
I don't see it that way. Consider this example: You owe me money, so I give you my address to send payment to. You send the money, it arrives at my address. If someone else eavesdrops on our transaction and sends another payment to my address for fun, that's free money for me. You have no claim on that payment. It went to my address after all, and is nothing to do with you. I think the confusion comes when people think in terms of "my deposit address" at an exchange. The deposit address is nothing but a hash of a public key in the exchange's wallet. It's owned by the exchange, not the user, since the exchange are the ones in sole control of the corresponding private key. You can argue that it's good PR for the exchange to share the free CLAMs that you gave them, but I really don't think you can make a good legal (or even ethical) argument that they have a duty to do so. The user doesn't owe the exchange money until a purchase is made on the exchange. Until a purchase is made on the exchange, the BTC deposited at the exchange belong to the user. |
|
|
|
[/quote] This photo illustrates the distance from any bird to its closest neighbor is less than some value. Simple beauty. |
|
|
|
1-b. Within the potential crownsourcing there is mention of wanting to use investors funds for a fecal transplant, this is securities fraud.
How is it fraud of any kind if the investors are told that's what their investment will (or may) be used for? If people want to invest in shit, there's plenty of alt coins for that. |
|
|
|
A fee market already exists and will exist with or without a block size limit:
hey peter do you even exist? WHO ARE YOU? If you're still wondering about this, my talk at the conference is in about a half hour. You can watch it on the livestream. Hope you enjoy it! Edit: Oops. I was rushing to post this during the break and logged into the wrong account! Brilliant! |
|
|
|
Why should I emulate a loser? Change for what? I'll keep doing what made me very successful in my life. Which is code, market, and win.
And stop trying to be nice to a bunch of irrelevant fools who are jealous and insatiably fickle any way.
I agree a loser would not be a good role model. Perhaps the bitcoin saga includes the story of a brilliant, generous cryptographic programmer who faced medical challenges and continued to make solid contributions throughout his ordeal, making his family proud despite their loss, and the community grateful for his presence, short though it was. Perhaps he would be a good role model. |
|
|
|
It is painfully clear to any level-headed person that you attackers started to go ballastic when the poll on the ion.cash name was running in the 80% approval zone.
I never seen so many whining crybaby jealous fools in one forum in my life.
It is so incredibly obvious that this is all about jealousy.
80% of this is about entertainment. 20% of this is looking to see if a person can change. |
|
|
|
Isn't it a fucking shame how much time we lose trying to please every fickle ego on this forum. This thread is an abomination.
Linus Torvalds says almost are the people are dumb as shit. And nobody uses Linux because of that?
Steve Jobs was well known to tell everyone around them frankly they were under performing. And nobody uses or respects Apple's products? Do you think my gf gives a fuck what Steve Jobs said or did. If I give her a new iPhone, she will be ears-to-ears grinning.
Bill Gates was known to do the same berating of employees that Steve Jobs did. Did Microsoft not kick ass during his prime years?
You all can whine as much as you want, but it won't matter in the end. All that matters is who is going to deliver the product that users have a very strong use case to use.
If I deliver a product to a millions users, you will be right there licking my butt. And that is what I mean when I say "I want to kick your ass". I mean I want to show you what fucking whining ass losers you are.
I don't give a fuck what you think. Show me your technical abilities and maybe I might respect you.
Seriously you do not matter. What matters is the code and product I release.
P.S. Can you tell my M.S. is going into remission, hehe. Feeling too strong!
Steve Jobs may have pushed his employees but he did not go on public forums to call his potential investors "dumb as shit" and "losers" If you cannot respect others and their point of view then they will not respect you, nor will they invest in you when there are literally thousands of other projects to choose from where they can have a civil discussion. I really do not care about your MS and please stop playing the victim game. Speaking of Steve Jobs, here's a little known tidbit about why he was late with the Macintosh: "I didn't get much work done yesterday because after lunch I was in the mall the entire afternoon standing in 4 different lines (and they never have enough tellers): the bank to pay my rent, the telcom to pay my internet line, the bills payment line for my electric bill, and finally standing in checkout line at grocery" |
|
|
|
|
As a representative of the general reading public, I have a couple questions for the subject of this thread:
1. Why all the name changes?
2. My sincere hopes your (presumably) elderly mother is still (and hopefully for many more years) alive notwithstanding - if she is not, in whose basement do you live?
|
|
|
|
What is easest way to check Do I have clams on my LTC address.?
Some blockexplorer or something?
If you are 100% positive you know what pub/priv key pair the LTC existed "at" on May 12th of last year, and understand "change" addresses - the methods listed so far would likely be the easiest most sure-fire way to claim. If you, however, don't understand "change" addresses, it is recommended you use the official CLAM software to claim.
EDIT: The important point is that simply looking at your "receive" addresses in the GUI of a wallet will not guarantee that you get all of the CLAM you deserve. This seems to contradict the claim in your sig that everyone who has LTC has CLAMs, despite your casino manager's spirited and emotional objections. |
|
|
|
Unfortunately I cannot quote your sig, which says "anyone who owns BTC has CLAMs". I own BTC and, as a result of your distribution, owned at one time some CLAMs. I quickly sold them. Consider correcting your sig. |
|
|
|
i lol'd really hard.
On this thread we spell that "l'dol" |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
