It's more like system wide renaming of one word for another...

The plural of bitcoi-ns translate to bitcoins

You have zero victims to present to me and zero case of ripping people off. You throw blanket statements like "P&D", when P&Ds happen in every single market, whether it is commodities, stocks, metals, crypto etc. I guess satoshi is a scammer because uᴉoɔʇᴉq was P&Ded from 0$ to 1200$ back to 100$ and now to 400$. Like he has anything to do with the market P&Ds.

But even in DRK's case you are ill-informed, because you are not even following the DΑSH market, but assume it lost value. Well, after 2014 it got an even better pump in 2015. So what you are claiming is a mathematical impossibility, as someone could have sold for equal or higher than he bought, even if he bought at the all-time-high point of the 2014 pump. Marketcap is again approaching ATH levels. If there is anyone "locked" he can sell right now. And I'm not even factoring profits made from 2 years of holding masternodes.




If we debate c coding I'll lose because I know very little.

If we debate darkcoin/dαsh history, you'll lose because you haven't followed it as I have. So don't try to tell me "facts" that aren't even there.

You may resent DΑSH. You may not approve of Evan's skills, methods, ways he conduct or expresses himself. You may believe that DΑSH masternodes are ...illegal by US's law, and by extension Evan is ...unlawful. You may believe that supporting DΑSH is immoral. You may believe that people supporting immoral schemes are immoral themselves.

You may be wrong or right in every one of these. But the bottomline here (in the context of this thread) is:

Has Evan "substantially ripped off" anyone in order to be in a list where actual scammers that stole people's money are in? People who promised ASIC hardware, took the money and never delivered. People who did ICOs to scam investors and then quickly disappeared. Others who run exchanges and stole tens of millions or hundreds of millions of people's money. What does Evan has to do with all this shit? Can you even point someone to some of ...Evan's "victims"? No, because there are none.

Testing, 1, 2, 3 - which will get replaced automatically...

uᴉoɔʇᴉq
Lightcoin
Athereum
Dish
Catecoin
DarkFlarb
bitshares
factom
Ripple

edit: lol, bitshares and factom noone even bothered βtc/ltc/εth/dαsh/dogε/monεro got replaced....

I'm just giving an example where the different software for bitcoin is not the same as having different software for the web. Obviously there is no ledger as far as the web is concerned. The web is not a blockchain.

1. This is not the web in which you can choose Safari, Mozilla or Chrom(e/ium) where these 3 programs all operate under the same web / http protocol.

2. The "competing implementations" in our case, is "your web sucks, I'll have my own web - along with my own browser".

3. Satoshi didn't even welcome ...compatible implementations, let alone competition of incompatible ones.


PS. The web evolves by something like a "...soft-forking" of new web clients and web servers who support new features like the HTML5 video player... Those running older browsers can access content without these features but not content with it (they'll have to revert to a flash player in this example). They can always upgrade to get access to newer features but the web is always the same. There are no two webs.

If nobody has been scammed, there is no scam. Crimes need victims. There are no victims here - but there are plenty of people who have actually multiplied their bitcoins.

Dash is unlike the huge majority of coins during the altcoin-boom. There are extremely few coins that managed to stay at the top and preserve or increase the value of their stakeholders. There are HUNDREDS of actual scamcoins and P&Ds out there where people lost everything. People lost serious value even in very high-marketcap coins like litecoin, nxt, peercoin, dogecoin, etc - where hundreds of millions in marketcaps simply evaporated.

As for "sockpuppets", you are in denial, or ignorance (probably the second) of how things actually went down.

As for me: Darkcoin has been my favorite 2014 alt for trying something different than just being the next meme-coin like doge, or next country-coin like aurora. I reasoned, and predicted, that if only 1% of the cryptocurrency users wanted anonymity or privacy, it would mean a minimum marketcap of around 80-100mn for anonymous coins. With marketcaps of the two existing coins back then (anoncoin and darkcoin) being a mere 2-3mn, being in darkcoin was definitely going to pay off. It did - despite the "instamine-instamine-instamine" trolling. Price jumped from 0.001 to 0.025 back in late April-May 2014. It's not trading that far off right now at around 0.017.

I've mined it from around the end of January 2014 in my cpu, then my GPUs... I also traded it, and continue to do so. I've followed it throughout all of its history, so I definitely know which accusations are bogus. I know its thread is >5000 pages long, but, being there in real-time, I've read it all. So some historic "facts" are quite different compared to how they are presented. I just have the experience to correct the inaccuracies, typically propagated by ...competitor coins in the anonymity sector.

Anyway, trusting or not trusting Evan, his responses, his interviews, his facial expressions etc etc is one thing. Saying that he ripped people off, well that never happened.

=>

Alright then, we'll see how it plays out. I'll bookmark this post for reference, when nothing happens

It's just an example, with stated assumptions like "everybody uses x chip at y nm". You said you weren't following the logic so I had to make it more tangible with a hypothetical scenario.


Ok, let's say you understand it better. Can you give me your estimate of the hashrate drop come the halvening.

I say 15-25% max. If you believe it'll be closer to 50%, with a logic like "half reward = half the miners must go out of business", then just say it so, and we'll see who gets it right


It doesn't matter whether 16nm chips are running or not. The example is just that. An example. It can be adjusted if you say 28nm are the cutting edge and they will replace chips that are >50nm. In any case, the example is not "real world". In the real world, one may be using fixed-rate electricity, mining at zero extra expenses, whether his equipment is 20, 40 or 100nm, thus always making profit. In this way machinery that is obsolete can be sold to people who have cheaper (or free) electricity than the former owner. Heck, they can even be used for heaters in winter

Regarding Evan, remember that:


1. Is there anyone who can claim he has been ...ripped off by Evan, directly or indirectly, due to the ...instamine? Not to mention the mathematical impossibility of it (first coins coins were at 0.000025 btc, now it's floating around 0.017-0.018 btc - so it's impossible to have lost money due to the instamine). The biggest scams (or hacks) affecting darkcoin (now dash) were all exchange-related. Ccex, mintpal, cryptsy - in that order.

2. Regarding supply reduction: Initial specs were for 84mn coins. When the diff formula was applied to reduce reward with increase in hashing, the theoretical max went down to ~10mn. Then Evan changed it back to 84mn to account for the problem with the new formula with users "bitching" they preferred the 10mn:

2a) User "bitching" for the 10mn to 84mn increase: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=421615.msg5455971#msg5455971

2b) Evan explaining why it was set back to 84mn (that was not a fixed number - it would be variable, depending the hash difficulty - meaning it could go over 100mn) instead of 10mn: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=421615.msg5457829#msg5457829

2c) A few days later, a poll was done to settle the supply issue in terms of a high or a low limit (otherwise it would still be at 84mn or more). It was settled by the users in favor of a lower limit: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=525093.0

3. Regarding initial distribution and fixing it. Evan proposed an airdrop to that effect. He was flamed and attacked by members of the community for even thinking and proposing such a thing, with rage quits etc etc. The poll result is here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=559932.0 (rejecting Evan's airdrop fix proposal)

Yes but you are not buying obsolete hardware when the halvening is around the corner. That won't even make you a ROI for the hardware.


Yeah the assumption is just to illustrate the example. It's not how actual mining works. In reality, it's about +1 or +2 generation backwards... there could be a lot of 50+ nm chips mining along with 20nm+ chips, and what will probably go out the window are the 50nm+. Even very old hardware can be profitable if electricity is at near zero cost, but, at some point, it won't be. Although that doesn't mean they represent any serious hashrate (by the time they are out).

The 16nm story is just an example of how there is evolution in terms of performance, as well as lower consumption - which allows to produce same hashrates with much less equipment, automatically reducing the % of slice of the pie (in terms of hashrate) that belongs to old mining hardware.


Again, I seriously doubt that hashrate representing 2/3 of the network, and which comes online months before the halvening, will be ...obsolete. The "ground" is the same, but at least you are "not burning that much diesel to get the gold" - so better hardware allow more profitability for the remaining players, even with a halvening event...

Personally I don't expect more than a 15-25% hash slowdown if price levels are >400. It could be far less with prices at 500-600 or beyond but problematic if price goes down to 200. And there are bonus circumstances which could help, like further chinese devaluation which could make electricity costs in china even cheaper in USD$ terms. The miner is getting paid in USD but his costs in USD get lower due to CNY going lower. I think since summer it went down from 1 USD to 6.2 CNY to 6.5 CNY, which is around a 5% slide. I have no idea if electric costs remained the same (in CNY terms), but if they did, it's automatically +5% more profitable since the main revenue stream is USD.

That could work too.


It doesn't go that way.

https://news.bitcoin.com/bitfury-unveils-fastest-bitcoin-mining-chip-ever-created/

Let's assume the article is generally correct.
Let's assume that in the year 2015 all bitcoins are mined by 28nm bitfury chips
Let's assume that the entire 2015 network made up of 28nm bitfury chips gave us 100 petahash.

Going to 2016:

Let's assume 40% of the miners have upgraded to the 16nm bitfury chips which are 4x faster for the same watts.

Now, when the 40% upgraded their mining operations, their 40 petahash became 160 petahash for the same watts.

The other 60% which did not upgrade, still have their ....60 petahash.

So in this scenario, the "to-be-retired" hardware will represent only 60 out of a total 220 petahash - even though they are 60% of the machines.

To make it more factual: All this hashpower that has been added in the last few months, well... it ain't from crap equipment.

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

We've gone 3x in hashpower in just 5 months. These two thirds of the current hashpower that have added 800mn GH/s over the 400mn that we already had, are not from obsolete equipment that will go offline post-halving.



The point was that these large mega-dredges don't need separate bulldozers, rock trucks, loaders, excavators, sluice plants etc etc. They just process the dirt on the spot, thus eliminating tremendous fuel costs. They process a lot of yards and do so more economically. And as fuel costs go up, so can the savings increase.

We can adjust the costs. But how can we adjust performance? The only way I can think of, is, let's say farmer A gives hormones or a special diet so that his pigs get twice as fat in 6 months, compared to those of farmer B.

Because that's the issue here. Lower nm chips are typically more energy efficient for the same number of transistors, but changes in circuit architecture can also increase performance. So you have 2 elements to count.

It's not like you have 100 ghashes from one chip and 100 ghashes from another but the second just so happens to burn less energy. You have more ghashes as well. This means that the equipment that ultimately shuts down represents a smaller hashrate.


I'm talking about mega-dredges which were mainly used for inland mining: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7OyEvwCpuuQ&

It is. But what I'm often asking myself is not whether Gavin would adopt segwit, but if ...Satoshi would. Would he be pro or against such a change, and for what reasons...

Some will say Satoshi is irrelevant right now, so... but still, I have that question in my mind.

Yeah, I skipped the example altogether because it assumed equal farming efficiency and costs, which isn't really suitable for the ASIC analogy where you have much faster equipment and more energy efficiency.

And I can't see how I can tune it to make one farmer better at ...growing pigs, when these have a very predetermined type of growing. Cost efficiency, yes, this we can tune, saying one farmer needs X money to grow a pig and another needs X/2 money to grow a pig.

Gold mining can provide better examples. You could have bulldozers, rock trucks, sluice plants, loaders, excavators all burning tons of diesel and giving you 100-200-300 yards an hour (without breakdowns), or you could be running a floating dredge at 200-300-500-800 yards an hour which only burns its own fuel (which is much much less than all the other equipment combined). So you have more yardage AND more fuel efficiency = win.

For "Gold Rush" fans, I think Tony Beets said it best... something to the effect "well all those guys, Todd, Parker, etc are not gonna be here in 10-20 years due to cost efficiency. But the dredge will be here dredging. It takes few people to operate, it has only one piece of equipment requiring diesel, so you can't go wrong."

Some ASICs make a profit right now even if they have a low performance/high consumption index, yet they won't after the halving.

Those ASICs who are going to be shut down are not the latest and more efficient but rather the slower and more power hungry. Perhaps 2 generations old or more.

I'm not really worried about rogue attackers in situations like these. My only concern is government-mounted attacks with technology* that surpasses what miners have. Whether we are talking extremely effective ASICs on silicon, GaAs implementations that clock like mofos or ...QCs.

* Or even quantity in terms of ordinary equipment.

I seriously doubt that obsolete and ineffective hardware that is to be retired can actually mount a 51% attack. Its hashrate would be way below that threshold, possibly something like 10-20%.

Well, he acknowledges that miners won't act against their self-interest in decreasing the value of hardware they own, by attacking themselves, but then ignores it as a disincentive for (irresponsibly) renting hashpower to an attacker.

In other words, if a miner who owns millions of $$$ in gear won't do an attack himself, why would he rent hardware to allow another one to attack bitcoin and devalue his hardware in the process. Why would a miner risk a multi-million $$$ devaluation on his stash and hardware, to get a few extra thousand bucks?

It'll take over I tell you: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_90Y8mw_HVY

(not)