Yes, you wrote entire chapters but you were too busy speculating about imaginary non-distribution than actually sending a couple of emails to ccex, poloniex etc to learn about the actual facts. And then you come here playing detective... lol.
If you have evidence, show your sources (as I did in the OP, and continue to add when I get around to editing). What you (plural) are doing is simple: a) Your "facts" are conjecture and presented as evidence. b) The actual facts of the other side are downgraded as fiction and the bar of proof is set to an unreachable level (with requirements like "if you can't tell me where every single coin went, and who owns what, then you haven't proven anything). c) Actual evidence (witnesses, testimonials, trading on third platforms, blockchain) is untouched because it serves (a). |
|
|
|
|
Yes, you wrote entire chapters but you were too busy speculating about imaginary non-distribution than actually sending a couple of emails to ccex, poloniex etc to learn about the actual facts. And then you come here playing detective... lol.
|
|
|
|
So, you can verify that those aren't people selling to themselves?
If I say yes it won't matter. You have made up your mind (as a biased monero investor who perceives darkcoin as a threat to their investment). |
|
|
|
At this point, Dash's "instamine-scam" narrative is set in stone.
Wanna bet that the "instamine-scam" narrative by the Trollero-FUD Team will change a few times more in the future? Back in '14 the "instamine-scam" narrative was about the dangers of instamine DUMPing on investors... Like investors would care about the dumping of thousands of coins when there were like another 17-18mn new coins to be issued and "dumped" in the market (as mining supply increases to reach max coins). Duh. But brain-dead is braindead, so can't argue with braindead. Currently the narrative has shifted to "ohhh instaminers are bad because they are long-term HOLDers... they are incentivized by the evil MN system to HOLD", ahahaha... This stuff is getting better and better. |
|
|
|
|
It seems many major altcoins are moved by the same hands, moving in similar directions all together, at the same time, without any serious movement in BTC to justify it...
|
|
|
|
Interesting fact:
With the massive dump on ALL alt coins, the number of MN active went 20 up (and Dash is actually one of the few not losing 15-20%)
So it's just someone dumping, the Dash user base is totally stable
Yes, DASH is remarkably stable although it`s being shorted like crazy on Polo (lending rates exploding again). If you think of it, it's actually not so crazy... the lender will lend at a small interest and then the price will take a large dump. So the interest he is getting is lost by the dump, and then some. In fact, the interest has to be extremely high for the lender to even contemplate lending. |
|
|
|
I can definitely see a future where respected community members either hold the proxy votes of others (mnprivkeys) and vote directly for proposals (sort of like a senate), or where trusted community members gather all the proposals for the month, explain the pros and cons, and then issue a recommendation (sort of like investment guys labeling stuff as "buy" "hold" "sell"). This could either be a paid (Consumer Reports) type model, or free (blogging type model).
I don't understand why the idea of someone else voting for you is ever a good idea. Do senators ever vote to benefit voters? Doubt it. Educating masternode owners is the best way to have a functioning voting process. Plus, this is voting for budget. Delegating vote = allowing others to write checks to themselves by proposing something themselves directly or indirectly (camouflaged budget proposal by supposedly 'third parties'). |
|
|
|
58:00 - Block chains can't out perform Tx/sec of Visa w/o losing the trustless attribute. I will challenge him on that with my white paper and argue that we can't have the trustless attribute w/o scaling!
They don't need to outperform them. Blockchains only need to get the job done. Human transaction needs are finite. Meaning, that even if technology, whether centralized or decentralized, can process 10 trillion tx/sec, it's useless to us because we have, say, 10.000 tx/sec in terms of actual needs. Now, technology went 1000x from 1995 to 2015, in terms of cpu, storage, ram, network bandwidth. A 486 or Pentium PC, with 4-16mb ram, 1gb disk and 28kbps modem is now replaced with 1000x+ more powerful processor, gbytes of ram, terabytes of disk and mbps of network connection. If we go another 1000x to 2035 and if we go yet another 1000x to 2055, then the current 5tx/s would be 5.000 and 5.000.000 in 2035 and 2055 respectively. And that's not accounting for a) software optimizations b) software exploiting the hardware better (SIMDs, GPUs etc) So what we think of blockchains changes depending the time coordinates. If blockchains existed in their current form back in 1995 they would be a nice but useless thought experiment. In 2015 they are just starting to work in terms of hardware and in 2035 they'll probably be pulling more throughput than (current) visa - but even if visa can do 1000x by then it won't matter because there won't be 1000x more txs for them to handle due to finite consumer needs. If the capabilities of the decentralized network scale more than performance increases in terms of hardware or software, then centralization occurs as a result to more specialized equipment and data centers. If the capabilities of the decentralized network scale in sync with increases of hardware and software speed, then there is not much loss of decentralization. To give an example, if a 2035 pc and home connection can sustain a 5k tx/sec network with its storage, processing and bandwidth requirements, just like a 2015 pc can sustain a 5tx/sec network with its respective requirements, then there is no issue in terms of decentralization. The above doesn't mean we must wait until 2035, or wait for hardware. There is work to be done in the software optimization level. edit: fixed / thanks Smooth. |
|
|
|
Any idea how long ago this was introduced into google? I just stumbled upon it while checking some currency ratios:  It has a price chart (not very detailed but anyway) and realtime conversion to other currencies.... nice. |
|
|
|
For the extra paranoid
<paranoid mode> You can never be extra paranoid / too paranoid </paranoid mode>  |
|
|
|
Floating point is quite adequate for financial computations -- if the programmer understands how it works.
According to the IEEE floating-point standard, that is used by all major makers since the 1980s, a double-precision float can represent all integers up to 2^53 exactly, with no rounding. It turns out that 21 million BTC is just below 2^51 satoshis. That means it is safe to store BTC amounts as doubles, and even do simple math on them, if one stores them internally as satoshi amounts, rather than fractional BTC amounts.
(The only theory I know for why Satoshi limited the max issuance to 21 million BTC is that he knew this fact, and was aware that Excel, Awk, Python, Matlab, and many other languages and formats used IEEE doubles for all numbers, integer or real. Een though he did not use floating point in the bitcoin protocol, he must have felt necessary to accommodate those languages.)
Based on the above, should there be any attack vectors or exploit for altcoins like dogecoin, which went beyond 2^53, issuing in the hundreds of millions or billions? (Litecoin should be slightly below 2^53). If they are just cloning code that wasn't meant for their use case, perhaps vulnerabilities exist or arise at some point (?). |
|
|
|
I've read some of the suggestions in that link but it doesn't make sense to me how it can replace a lot of use cases (except, as I have suspected, that catastrophic failures can occur by the use of fp). Granted I'm not a programmer, I'm currently asking for ...lessons here Let's say I lend someone 0.15$ and have 0.3% daily interest. Ok, let's pretend dollars aren't dollars, but they are cents (thus 15 = integer). Even if the interest was a floating point setting (I guess there is an equivalent mechanism to make decimal stuff like interest into integers - after all the cpus do that stuff all day long at the binary level), and we did the math, then 15 cents + 0.3% = still 15 cents at the end of the day. And in the end of the next day. And the end of the next day as well. So I've lent my 15 cents into a money lending platform, and instead of getting compound interest, I'm stuck at 15-15-15-15 every day... So, after a year I should have 44.7 cents (tripling my money) but now I have just 15 cents - so I'm robbed. It seems this is pretty bad and very close to a rounding error that is always against me - kind of. |
|
|
|
|
I shared my non-inside view of the situation, as best as I understand it. I do not claim it is factually 100% accurate, or that it doesn't involve speculation on my part on what the coin devs mined, on what exchanges did, on what hackers took and what whales bought. Obviously, I can not account for all the initial coins and who mined what and what they did with it later.
I do know that, unlike what you currently think, most people weren't waiting for when the coin will reach 0.025. This was not on the horizon. Prices like 0.000025 where was the coin was traded for ~15 days or so. And prices like 0.001x was what the coin was trading for a couple months after that.
|
|
|
|
The reason for this is pretty simple, if the profitability of the network drops 50% in one moment, 50% of the miners should drop off.
Some predict that after halving and no price increase some miners could turn their machines off and hashrate could drop because of that more or less significantly.
Difficulty History Date Difficulty Change Hash Rate Apr 01 2016 166,851,513,283 0.82% 1,194,369,655 GH/s Mar 18 2016 165,496,835,118 4.46% 1,184,672,491 GH/s Mar 04 2016 158,427,203,767 -3.10% 1,134,066,098 GH/s Feb 19 2016 163,491,654,909 13.44% 1,170,318,852 GH/s Feb 07 2016 144,116,447,847 20.06% 1,031,625,717 GH/s Jan 26 2016 120,033,340,651 5.89% 859,232,121 GH/s Jan 13 2016 113,354,299,801 9.12% 811,421,684 GH/s Dec 31 2015 103,880,340,815 11.16% 743,604,444 GH/s Dec 18 2015 93,448,670,796 18.14% 668,931,642 GH/s Dec 06 2015 79,102,380,900 8.77% 566,236,898 GH/s Nov 24 2015 72,722,780,643 10.44% 520,569,941 GH/s Nov 11 2015 65,848,255,180 5.77% 471,360,171 GH/s Oct 29 2015 62,253,982,450 2.25% 445,631,364 GH/s 800mn GH/s (out of 1.2bn) were added in the last 5 months. So 2/3rds of the hashpower should, in theory, be representative of state of the art equipment which has an intended lifespan beyond the halving. And there are quite a few months ahead of us for upgrading or introducing more efficient hardware. I think all this equipment is here to stay (and mine). A small hashrate drop is possible though. Larger drops are possible if combined with a price collapse. |
|
|
|
So there's something I don't understand...
The block size debacle is catastrophic for Bitcoin's governance model...
The block size debacle is going to cause big problems down the road...
The block size debacle needs to be solved ASAP because updating will take time...
But why are so many people crying that the sky is falling RIGHT NOW?
Because their primary concern is not how the network operates. They want to take over the governance. XT's "we need 8mb/20mb blocks urgently" (last year) or hearn's fud like "btc will CRASH next year" (a year ago), were just FUD to create a problem-reaction-solution sequence. Unless I'm seriously mistaken, I can send a Bitcoin transaction any time I want, even when blocks are full and mempool is backlogged, simply by spending a few cents in transaction fees.
Precisely. And fees are ridiculously low to even do that (like 0.05$ for first block inclusion / lower prices for lower priorities like 0.01$ - 0.02$) So that means I can't use Bitcoin for micropayments, but so what? We've known that wasn't practical for awhile now. If I want to send any amount of money over a few dollars, the necessary fee for inclusion in an imminent block is minimal.
It's even usable for micropayments like 20 cents, if you don't mind the confirmation delay and go with fees like 1-2 cents. I agree that this is a big issue for the future, and needs to be solved today so that it can be implemented before crisis levels approach, but at this moment it hardly seems catastrophic!
It isn't. Also, I haven't been following the whole thing too closely...so basically a for-profit company called Blockstream is funding Bitcoin development, so core developers are basically in their pocket.
Some of the bitcoin core devs are also working for Blockstream. I don't remember the exact number but it's not that large, compared to the total contributors. |
|
|
|
|
I found it extremely hard to believe that floating point can't be supported. Floating point is required in a lot of financial transactions.
Anyway this should be very interesting in terms of cpu microcode updates and related errata (which is a blackbox situation), plus possible government involvement to orchestrate possible trigger scenarios / kill-switches as an attack vector...
The only way to mitigate this would probably be to conduct software emulated math functions, at a much slower pace. But it would need a run option like -softmath or something.
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
