No, longest chain is only a way to explain it in a simple manner. Highest total difficulty is what is used.
A chain with blocks [A,B,C,D,E] is longer than chain [A,B,P,Q,R,S] if the difficulty of C+D+E > difficulty of P+Q+R+S even though there are more blocks in the latter.
There are potential attacks on the blockchain wherein an attacker can create a chain where difficulty would be lower than actual chain difficulty, allowing them to create blocks faster. In order to prevent this attack, the 'longer' chain is decided by sum of difficulty and not total length.
A chain with a million blocks of difficulty 1 is shorter than a chain with two blocks with a difficulty of 600,000
Interesting, I though time stamp in block solves this, as million blocks of difficulty 1 could not be created as there is not enought time to create million blocks, all ten minutes apart. What is the attack vector if just longest chain is selected as best, I mean how you fool the time stamps to have today million valid blocks of difficulty 1 when clearly not enought time for million blocks since late 2009 all ten minutes apart... Bitcoin does not limit you to 1 block every 10 minutes though. Check out blockchain.info's list of recent blocks, and I'm sure you'll see some blocks under 5 minutes apart. |
|
|
|
No, longest chain is only a way to explain it in a simple manner. Highest total difficulty is what is used.
A chain with blocks [A,B,C,D,E] is longer than chain [A,B,P,Q,R,S] if the difficulty of C+D+E > difficulty of P+Q+R+S even though there are more blocks in the latter.
There are potential attacks on the blockchain wherein an attacker can create a chain where difficulty would be lower than actual chain difficulty, allowing them to create blocks faster. In order to prevent this attack, the 'longer' chain is decided by sum of difficulty and not total length.
A chain with a million blocks of difficulty 1 is shorter than a chain with two blocks with a difficulty of 600,000
And can't that be faked? For example by introducing fake blocks with fake difficulty settings. How does the miners know that the blocks they get are authentic? Alright, let me explain difficulty. Mining involves finding hashes that match the parameters. The difficulty specifies that the final hash is invalid unless the value of your hash is lower than a certain value. For example, this is difficulty 1: 0x00000000FFFF And this is around difficulty 16,000: 0x00000000000404CB A hash value 0x00000000A123.......... would be valid for difficulty 1 and not valid for difficulty 16,000. So, I could manufacture blocks at a lower difficulty, but it would make my chain shorter, and i could manufacture blocks at a higher difficulty but it would proportionally increase time spent making each block. |
|
|
|
This is really an example of how having a monoply on a business is bad news for everyone.
There are other ways to buy BTC other than Coinbase. Issues of Coinbase have been known for ages, and I don't get why you would continue choosing them... |
|
|
|
Interesting, that means potentially some games are EV+ For example, Sugar Pop has a edge of 2.4%. Let's say I put in 1 BTC, get the 100% first deposit bonus and wager it 40 times. House edge= 40 * 0.024 = 0.96 BTC lost But 1 BTC gained from bonus means it is a gain of 0.04 BTC (-0.1% house edge) However, I think only SoftSwiss shows hashes and things? And all the edges on SoftWiss games are > 2.5% (the critical point where 100% deposit bonus = house edge on 40x wager) For example, I can't see any hash checker on Sugar Pop. |
|
|
|
Betcoin.ag has some too. Link: https://www.betcoin.ag/bonusesBy the way, do you know of any provably fair bitcoin casinos with deposit bonuses? I don't trust most of these places due to lack of provable fairness. |
|
|
|
Just received an email from bct-e.com pretending to be btc-e.com and asking me to log in to prevent account deletion due to inactivity. Dear user, Your account is about to be deactivated due to inactivity. To cancel deactivation please visit: https://btc-e.com IP: (removed) Email: (removed) Regards, Administration of BTC-E.COM The url in the mail actually links to bct-e.com and not btc-e.com |
|
|
|
Directbet and Directbet casino has everything you want. Dice to almost every Sports betting and pokers to slots.
They support Bitcoin, Dogecoin, Litecoin, Dash, Ethereum and Clam coin.
Anonymous deposit for every bet in Directbet. You don't need an account.
Directbet casino has a playing wallet.
Though their sports betting odds are slightly less than other sites, its really easy to use the site.
It's easy to use, but slightly is a gross understatement. The odds are really bad, often end up equating to a house edge of 5-10% more than competitors for sports bets. I think bitedge is the best choice if you're betting on sports, as it simply aggregates odds from various sites and ends up allowing you to shave off the house edge a bit. |
|
|
|
sorry friend, can u explain to us with more simple word? i cant understand u mean, sorry im newbie here  thank you. The original poster asked for a somewhat complicated answer itself. In short, what I basically said was that in order to check which chain is the best, the getheaders function can be used. You give another user your blockchain, and they tell you which blocks they think you are missing. You compare their blocks to your blocks, and then find out which has a higher sum of difficulty. Plus its also the longest chain right? I remember there was a new fix where the longest chain with the highest difficulty is selected as the original.
No, longest chain is only a way to explain it in a simple manner. Highest total difficulty is what is used. A chain with blocks [A,B,C,D,E] is longer than chain [A,B,P,Q,R,S] if the difficulty of C+D+E > difficulty of P+Q+R+S even though there are more blocks in the latter. There are potential attacks on the blockchain wherein an attacker can create a chain where difficulty would be lower than actual chain difficulty, allowing them to create blocks faster. In order to prevent this attack, the 'longer' chain is decided by sum of difficulty and not total length. A chain with a million blocks of difficulty 1 is shorter than a chain with two blocks with a difficulty of 600,000 |
|
|
|
My First question is: What's a block? What does it do/what is it used for?
Blocks are a part of the blockchain. Each block has a certain number of transactions, and upon mining each block the miner receives the reward (currently 25 BTC, soon halving to 12.5 BTC) Each block is mined once every 10 minutes on average. My Second question is: What's a hashrate? (E.g kH/s or whatever) Is there a certain hashrate to btc ratio?
To mine a block, you need to essentially try to find the correct hash. Miners can try thousands of hashes a second (1 KH/s = 1000 hashes/second) and the network hashrate currently is 1,200,000,000 Ghash/s (1 Ghash/s = 1,000,000,000 Hash/s =1,000,000 KHash/s). The difficulty is set in such a way that the network will find a hash once every 10 minutes. So, if you have x GH/s, you will have an approximately x/(1,200,000,000) chance of getting the block reward every 10 minutes. By joining a pool, millions of GH/s of power can be combined together such that the pool as a whole finds blocks more frequently and then distributes the reward amongst the miners proportional to their hash contribution. My Final question is: Are cloud mining websites worth it? Can you earn much from them? Are there any vouched for/trusted cloud mining sites?
I really wanna invest a small amount ($20 max) into something to keep it ticking by and hopefully get a bit of profit by the end of it.
Not worth it. Especially not now (halving is around the corner meaning a sudden huge drop in earnings). Most cloud mining sites are trustworthy as in they will not scam you and they will usually give you the correct proportion of the earnings, but that proportion is not worth it at the moment. Try investing in pretty much anything else. |
|
|
|
|
Let the letters represent hashes.
Other persons chain: [a b c d e f g h i j k]
Your chain: [a b c d e f l m n o p]
You send a getheader with your chain:
Response: [g h i j k]
Does not match [l m n o p]
Compare total difficulty of [g h i j k] and [l m n o p]. Stay with whichever chain has a higher total difficulty.
|
|
|
|
|
Continuing off of what SFR10 said, I've been looking into the site a bit more and there's more you can look into making better.
The advertisements on the side aren't properly aligned.
The site content often uses poor grammar.
The CCN widget seems a bit unnecessary, as I don't think having news links to an external side in the side bar helps too much. (The price ticker may be useful though)
|
|
|
|
He's back with yet another ALT! Add it to this list:
seller.egift
egiftstarbucks2015
starbucks.good_cheap
starbucks.bulk
egiftstarbucks_us
good.egift92
starbucks.cheap
good.egiftcard
egiftcard.best
egiftcard.cheap
egiftcard.bestprice <----- the latest from this guy!
Has he been found scamming or anything? I can't see any thread about him and his alts in the scam accusation forums either, if you know of any can you link me? |
|
|
|
Just checked it out, one problem.  Those are not clickable for me, I think you've forgotten to add the intended links? |
|
|
|
Not sure what you mean by needing a VPN to mine Bitcoin? I'd recommend Private Internet Access for most purposes, it is pretty fast and almost unnoticeable. Costs 3.33$ a month if you buy it for a year. Also, you can pay with BTC/Paypal/lots of other stuff. You can pay by gift card too, so if you find someone selling gift cards for cheap here you can buy those and use it to get more VPN access at a cheaper rate. |
|
|
|
You can use DefaultTrust too. As far as I can see it, DefaultTrust is implemented as just another user. So you can trust jambola2 and DefaultTrust if you want to. I think if you leave it blank, it automatically uses DefaultTrust. But if you specifically enter only Jambola2, it stops using DefaultTrust. So, for example, if you wanted to trust me and DefaultTrust, you would enter: If you wanted to trust only me, you would enter: This would still keep DefaultTrust at a lower level though, because I currently trust DefaultTrust. Overall, you can fully trust DefaultTrust while having other entries in your trust list, and even if you decide not to have it, you will most likely have DefaultTrust somewhere in your trusted list due to someone you trust using DefaultTrust. (you could likely ignore DefaultTrust using the ~ command too though, not tested it) |
|
|
|
*snip*
I'm not sure if you're just generally unintelligent or if you don't know what you are talking about, If someone hacked the account, they could easily edit the thread and get it deleted, that is, if they know what they are doing.
Deleting a thread is not possible if it has been seen by anyone else. I do know what I am talking about, and if you would have read the forum guidelines compilation, you would know. ( https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=703657.0) They can edit the thread. But, that is why he asked me to quote him. So that my quote will remain untouched. (Unless I am calamitously hacked at the same time) Quoting is a wast of time, should have just went and verify the message and leave a link to the verified message, No-one will take your word if you don't post a link to the verified message. I verified the message myself but you don't see me asking people to take my word.
You verified the message yourself? That makes no difference to anyone at all. OP did not post this with the intention that everyone would make their own private record that OP owns his address. Posting a link to the verified message will always be possible, unless both OP and I edit our posts, in which case it will be visible that we have done so. The reason he asked for someone to quote the message specifically was to allow him to lock the thread so that in case his account got hacked, the other post, in this case mine, would still be a record. |
|
|
|
*snip*
Quoting proves nothing if you don't verify the signed message.
Not sure if you're trying to pad your post count, or just replying with incomplete knowledge. By quoting, I am verifying that this is the original unedited message, to prevent a hacker from editing the message which his own address and signature. Since I have quoted it, even if it is edited, anybody can look at the text within my quote and verify it themselves. This is the exact same reason Gavin's testimony about Craig Wright's signature being true was not worth listening to. Signing is supposed to mean that you don't take anybody's word and verify it yourself. You should not take my word that the signature is right, and verify it yourself. By quoting, my job is not to ensure that the signature is correct, but just that the signature has not been changed since it was posted. |
|
|
|
I just made the mistake of clicking on a google link which lead me to fanbitcoin.com, didn't check the link(until afterwards) and entered my ID and password there and was forwarded to a cloudflare page. Realized it straight away and for security reasons have changed my password. Just to confirm. Hi, this is twister and today's date is 9th May 2016 and I have just changed my password. 123Get818NzrAiYRs28dJkga9FdHxmWBnE G+fus4zLozRTHMraX6iD6MSvfgvp271GCsoHEYytsIwGOiu3pOqsTWRU7KduTCLsIEBHLSQYDOVs/1Lt+lB+6N8= PGP: -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA512
Hi, this is twister, today's date is 9th May 2016 and I have just changed my password.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1
iQEcBAEBCgAGBQJXMIIPAAoJEJkAHk0Q1sBxUvAIALMn8AC02+yT5By/3sGIcf1z
JVMjdjOm4bsQlp9llf8l0TMtHGv0H6xoJlMZ3yheiGw0iCuDWCNY2nFJ2/R0fofv
NLhsTXJ4sMHAW8SFSWt6TALA0qmzNk2MV9PBV+WxC4mTcp5VWqmNAxbXvK624six
7TT+rzOGzQrUNmOLbl5mYM9wzv61WcG9MhiKbevV8mKjaImaJSFySNjfXZ9MasCI
wyDP0nu1jqM8EQYfvD0sGy2mNGXiKRPGkr18SqpcBoOUqWPb/1ISCO1rZUqTmg9H
W4cZnbC50wKwQLOsI5Mz9chJe6wo8Tjo4jO8xLE6eJDEbpd0lMtrU0mVvelC7y0=
=V71F
-----END PGP SIGNATURE----- Address staked here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=996318.msg10820744#msg10820744 and probably at lot of places PGP key staked here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=996318.msg11079102#msg11079102I have now edited my hosts file, you guys should too because it looks exactly the same. Quoted for proof. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
