Most APIs for Bitcoin use HTTP requests so just choose your API of choice and send the HTTP requests to send and get data.
Would this be ok? http://bcoin.io/docs/index.html |
|
|
|
|
Isn't this project... OpenBazaar?
|
|
|
|
Skill-based games need to be cheat proof. How do you prevent cheating? In chess people can use computers to calculate moves. In Poker it is also cheatable in that you can run a poker bot.
I am no expert, but I think cheating can be prevented to some extent. If you make a downloadable app, you can prevent automated functions by only allowing mouse input in example. You can mix up the location of cards also, so no bot could find them. Same if you do a web based application I think. The real problem comes if a hacker works into the code and is so good to send fake data to the server. I think that's the worse option an online game must take into account. Needs REAL IT security expert for this. |
|
|
|
|
Hi there, I have an idea for a "skilled gambling" game I would like to develop since months, but couldn't find anybody to help me with it.
I can do all the creative part of it on Unity.
I have several years experience in 3D modeling, game design, and also programming.
I would cooperate with a person that would take care of the Bitcoin integration and client/server part for the user database.
It's nothing you have probably heard up to now, so if you are still looking for that idea, please message me in private.
|
|
|
|
Just got added on LinkedIn by a certain Bryan Young, CEO of MYBTCPOOL.COM https://mybtcpool.com/After short investigation I would say that this is a scam. The guy has no picture in the LinkedIn profile, and neither in the FB profile. https://www.facebook.com/BryanBitcoinHe claims he studied Crypto Currency at MIT in 2004, but as you probably know, there was no cryptocurrency up until the year 2009. So I searched deeper. The website looks "professional" up to a certain point. But then you find that much of the text has been copied here and there. The ABOUT US section is not really saying anything about "them". There's nothing about the people or where they operate. Additionally, almost all of his "friends" in the FB profile look like Bitcoin scammers. I would not put a dime into this service. |
|
|
|
In Windows, the CMD window closes immediately after finding the hash, so I lost the work of around 20 days.
Can anyone tell me how to let the window stick open when the search is over please?
Did you open it manually by starting cmd.exe, or by clicking a link? Test it by opening cmd.exe manually, then search for a quick prefix. I made a .bat file that launches the .exe with all parameters. I think that's where it fails. If you start the .bat file manually, it should be okay. I'm not sure about the versions, but Command Prompt Here may help you. Thank you for help. For any other noob looking for help for a similar problem, just add a line to the .bat file with only pause written. That will stop the window right there until you press a key. You can copy and paste the text in the window by using the window's menu that is hidden behind the top left corner of the window itself. And now let's start again and let's hope I will be a bit more lucky... Don't start from the bat file until you are in a command window. Hold down the shift key and right click on the directory containing your bat file which will open a context window. Left click "open command window here" from that context menu. Bob's your uncle. That window will stay open until you close it. Thank you, dude, I'll keep that in mind for the future. For this task I solved by adding "pause" at the end of my .bat file, that works pretty fine! |
|
|
|
In Windows, the CMD window closes immediately after finding the hash, so I lost the work of around 20 days.
Can anyone tell me how to let the window stick open when the search is over please?
Did you open it manually by starting cmd.exe, or by clicking a link? Test it by opening cmd.exe manually, then search for a quick prefix. I made a .bat file that launches the .exe with all parameters. I think that's where it fails. If you start the .bat file manually, it should be okay. I'm not sure about the versions, but Command Prompt Here may help you. Thank you for help. For any other noob looking for help for a similar problem, just add a line to the .bat file with only pause written. That will stop the window right there until you press a key. You can copy and paste the text in the window by using the window's menu that is hidden behind the top left corner of the window itself. And now let's start again and let's hope I will be a bit more lucky... |
|
|
|
In Windows, the CMD window closes immediately after finding the hash, so I lost the work of around 20 days.
Can anyone tell me how to let the window stick open when the search is over please?
Did you open it manually by starting cmd.exe, or by clicking a link? Test it by opening cmd.exe manually, then search for a quick prefix. I made a .bat file that launches the .exe with all parameters. |
|
|
|
|
Fantastic.
In Windows, the CMD window closes immediately after finding the hash, so I lost the work of around 20 days.
Can anyone tell me how to let the window stick open when the search is over please?
|
|
|
|
Waited 8 days with 50%, now the window looks like this.
...
Is anyone able to explain what those % mean at all?
I can't understand what these % mean.
I understand that the higher % means higher chance to find the address, but do the % refer to a precise timeframe or?
And if it doesn't refer to a timeframe, what does it point to?
Is that 75% the chance to find the address in the next 8 days?
Or that after 8 days I will have 75% of chance to find the address in the following 8 days?
This has been explained time and time again... The prob % is the odds that you would have found the address in the time you've been running the program. In your scenario, it is estimated this job will take 32 days (at the rate shown in the screenshot). It appears at this rate you've been running vanitygen for 16 days which is 53.2% of the expected time to find the address. It goes a step further by telling you that in another 8 days, there will have been a 75% chance you would have found the address. So, the first prob shows your current progress at finding the address (this is an estimate as it is random), and the second tells you more detailed stats of how much longer until you have a 50%, 75%, etc. chance at finding the address. Thank you very much, sorry for repeating! Should be put in the opening post, imo... that's why it has been answered over and over: because people can't find it. Nobody is going through 150 pages to find this answer. |
|
|
|
So if anyone can bring me additional variables to throw into the equation that could considerably lower the Bitcoin's network uphold cost, I'm all ears!
There are probably a few variables that you haven't included in your analysis. The first one that comes to mind is the "halving" every four years. You calculated: "600*12.5=7500" But in four years that 12.5 is going to be replaced with 6.25 Four years after that it will be replaced with 3.125 This will continue to reduce the mining revenue unless the bitcoin exchange rate doubles every four years. I don't know that bitcoin will ever get to $100,000 per BTC, but if it takes 32 years for the exchange rate to reach that target, then the math would be: 100000*0.04882812 = 4882.81" That's less miner revenue than today. Bitcoin value is not dictated by how many are mined per block, but based on how many people want to buy per block (demand) and competition (cost). Value of Bitcoin is in geometric increment, more or less, exactly because its userbase is in geometric increment. This means that if Bitcoin value will be 1000$ in the next months, we will be more than twice its value of the last year. But this is still nothing. Once banks will begin to serve it as a profitable investment, there will be a huge request. Once banks will begin to collapse, there will be a huge request. And once Bitcoin will begin to enter mainstream, there will be a huge request. Bitcoin is just at the end of the take off strip and is not yet flying. What I want to say in the end, is that Bitcoin value will probably reach 50000-100000$ by 2020. |
|
|
|
as long the price of bitcoin is still insufficient to cover the cost of electricity, mining will remain sustainable and the price of bitcoin was important for determining the interest of bitcoin miners.
If you please read my post before posting, that would be nice. Otherwise we get in a loop where I try to explain, you don't read, and just repeat what everybody knows about market's law, which is not what sustainability is about. |
|
|
|
the biggest thing the OP is missing
4 years ago. someone spends $1600 on equipment. that has a power draw of ~1.4kwh = same costs, same electric...
but..... it only hashed at ~300 M/hash(4gpu used on 2mainboards with 2 700wPSU)
this was the olden days of GPU mining
today. someone spends $1600 on equipment. that has a power draw of ~1.4kwh = same costs, same electric...
but..... hashes at ~13 T/hash (1 s9 bitmain)
this was the current days of ASIC mining
in 4 years someone spends $1600 on equipment. that has a power draw of ~1.4kwh = same costs, same electric...
but..... probably hashes at XX P/hash (some crazy assed asic)
That's a hope, but you can't base your future on hopes. Also, 4 years ago was the dawn of mining, we are now very far off that point. We are probably already near to hit the hardware wall, I mean that progress in efficiency won't be as much as it was in the bast 4 years. At all. |
|
|
|
So if anyone can bring me additional variables to throw into the equation that could considerably lower the Bitcoin's network uphold cost, I'm all ears!
There are probably a few variables that you haven't included in your analysis. The first one that comes to mind is the "halving" every four years. You calculated: "600*12.5=7500" But in four years that 12.5 is going to be replaced with 6.25 Four years after that it will be replaced with 3.125 This will continue to reduce the mining revenue unless the bitcoin exchange rate doubles every four years. I don't know that bitcoin will ever get to $100,000 per BTC, but if it takes 32 years for the exchange rate to reach that target, then the math would be: 100000*0.04882812 = 4882.81" That's less miner revenue than today. Another thing to consider is the law of supply and demand. There are costs associated with building additional power generation plants to support bitcoin mining, these costs would be reflected in higher electricity costs which would increase the cost of mining. So the same amount of mining revenue in the future might not buy as much electricity as it does today. I haven't looked too closely at the maths behind it recently, but I suspect that you've attributed too large a percentage of the revenue to electricity and not enough to equipment and other mining related expenses. If we do altcoinhosting's maths again, we see that he's made a mistake: Current network hashrate = 1,819,984,088,000,000,000 hash/s Antminer S9 = 14,000,000,000,000 hash/s for 1471 Watt at the wall 1,819,984,088,000,000,000 / 14,000,000,000,000 = 130,000 antminer S9 units 130,000 * 1471 = 191,230,000 Watts 24 hours in a day 191,230,000 * 24 = 4,589,520,000 Watt*hours = 4,589,520 kWh per day The average US electricity use is 911 kWh per month 4,589,520 / 911 = 5,037 households for 1 month So, if I haven't made any errors in my maths, 1 day of Bitcoin mining currently uses as much electricity as about 5,000 average U.S. households do in 1 month. (much less than the 170 million household calculated by altcoinhosting) Your estimate of 36,000 households seems a bit high. Clearly not everyone is running an antminer S9, but anyone mining with equipment half as efficient would have to have costs that are half as much in order to remain profitable. As such, it seems unlikely that the daily electricity use is more than 10,000 households would use in a month. I'm not sure where you got your $20 per month being the average cost of electricity for a household. Here in the U.S. the average cost is somewhere around $0.11 per kWh. If we multiply that by the average usage of 911 kWh, it's about $100 per month. So if mining electricity costs as much in a day as 5,037 average U.S. households spend on electricity in 1 month, then daily mining electricity costs should be about: 100 * 5037 = $503,700 per day With 144 blocks per day, that's about $3500 per block spent on electricity (not the $600 that you estimated). First of all, I didn't estimate 600$ of electricity. 600$ is the cost of one Bitcoin, which I took to calculate how much revenue miners are doing, and thus how much electricity they are paying, based on the fact that competition pushes the price down to the threshold that miners have to keep afloat by paying electricity, hardware and rent. And because of this I tied Bitcoin value to the cost to mine it, which I am sure isn't coming as a surprise at all. My actual calculation was of 5000$ of electricity per block, aka every 10 minutes. Which brings to 5000$ * 6 =30000$ per hour. Which brings to 30000$ * 24 = 72000$ per day. Which is far less than your calculation (500000$) only because I consider 20$ for household bill per month, and is really not far off from your calc if you used my 20$ bill per month, bringing to 5000$ * 20 = 100000$. Or to say it better, you paint an even worse situation than I paint. Your estimate of 36,000 households seems a bit high. Clearly not everyone is running an antminer S9, but anyone mining with equipment half as efficient would have to have costs that are half as much in order to remain profitable. As such, it seems unlikely that the daily electricity use is more than 10,000 households would use in a month. But you shouldn't consider what a person is using as hardware. We are talking in general here, so the only factor we put in here is total consumption per time. The only thing that I can acknowledge you, is that I have no sharp knowledge of how much electricity is needed to mine a block. But that's variable also on which hardware is run. And that's why I base my calcs on miners income: because they are this is probably the most reliable source. Miners are making Bitcoin prices based on what they can cut off after paying all the expenses. And they make it based on market of course, and they lower prices because of competition, but they can't put prices below costs. I get that 20$ for house, because that's what I spend where I live in Italy, and I'm not even paying much. North of Italy is more expensive. But USA is not the world. The world is using far less electricity than the average american, in case you didn't know. Also 11 cents per kWh is cheap when compared to Europe. Italy is known for its high electricity cost and I've just checked: it's well over 20 cents per kWh. However, we can raise that to 30$ or even 50$, as I said: the problem here is not of 1 or 2 or 3 or even 5 measures, it is of order of magnitudes. So to conclude, you paint an even worse picture than I paint, by just a 30% or so... but still, I am not far off from your measure and Bitcoin mining is sustainable now, but it won't in the future when the price will reach what we all expect it to reach. |
|
|
|
I don't know the numbers, but I also have the feeling that Bitcoin mining is quite power hungry on the big picture, mainly because of a ton of "hobby miners" who don't care of the power costs.
But when you figure out something close enough to the real numbers, please compare it with the power consumption of Vegas. I think that we are still much lower than that, so yeah.. we're fine.
The problem is: we are fine... NOW. What when Bitcoin will value 100000$? (and that's what we are all waiting to happen and expect to happen...) We will spend the same that is spent to feed 6 millions of houses for ONE MONTH to uphold the Bitcoin network for ONE DAY? You see this can't be going anywhere. You missed the main point of my post. There are places / businesses much more power hungry than Bitcoin and with much less use than Bitcoin. The power is not for free. If somebody is willing to pay for it, he will pay. Some will earn from it, some not. Some will prefer to mine Bitcoin and pay for electricity, some will prefer to donate the money to the poor. If you want to donate to the poor instead of mining, it's your call. Most of industries are not sustainable, and I'd start with the production of electricity. No no I got what you said, I only don't think Las Vegas is using in electricity in one hour anything near to what could feed 6 millions of houses for one month. But that's exactly what is going to happen if Bitcoin will hit 100000$ value with the actual software. And that's the whole point: Bitcoin is sustainable now, but it won't be sustainable ANYWHERE if it reaches, let's say, 50000$ of value per BTC. |
|
|
|
You forget one important thing:
You assume linearity of power consumption and bitcoin price. This is not the case. The hashpower will become more efficient, so the power use will go down.
I agree with you that there is a problem with the amount of power that is used to mine bitcoin though. It just feels like a giant waste to only burn this much power for a chance at finding a bitcoin block.
Somebody said (Antonopoulos I think) that we are already very near to the hardware wall. The problem is not only Bitcoin's cost, but also the fact that this brings to centralization into countries with cheapest electricity. I don't think this was forecasted by Satoshi Nakamoto when he released the software. All this China centralization in mining is due to this effect. We are just lucky that countries in Africa where electricity is even cheaper didn't start mining yet, because in those countries internet is even worse than in China... |
|
|
|
What I am wondiring is: is it possible that nobody hasn't yet noticed it???
People have already noticed it for years. There has been some arguments to replace proof-of-work mining with proof-of-stake mining, and power consumption has always been listed as one of the key advantages of PoS. These discussions come up periodically, but lately they always gets buried by shit topics such as "What would you do if I gave you 765.43 bitcoins?" Ahah and what would you do if I gave you 123.45 BTC? Yeah Bitcoin is slowly entering mainstream and this is what happens... I guess I'll have to dig better on the PoS paradigm then, because the last time I read about it, it seemed to me too much rewarding for people that own the currency, or to put it better, it become a bit similar to a Ponzi: the more you own, the more interests you have. And there's also inflation problems if I recall correctly. However, once the electricity consumption will be solved, also the centralization problem will be solved. |
|
|
|
I don't know the numbers, but I also have the feeling that Bitcoin mining is quite power hungry on the big picture, mainly because of a ton of "hobby miners" who don't care of the power costs.
But when you figure out something close enough to the real numbers, please compare it with the power consumption of Vegas. I think that we are still much lower than that, so yeah.. we're fine.
The problem is: we are fine... NOW. What when Bitcoin will value 100000$? (and that's what we are all waiting to happen and expect to happen...) We will spend the same that is spent to feed 6 millions of houses for ONE MONTH to uphold the Bitcoin network for ONE DAY? You see this can't be going anywhere. |
|
|
|
(1,840,166,130 / 14,000) * 1471 Watt = 193348884 Watt =~ 193 Megawatt... This power draw would power the full bitcoin network
Megawatt-hour = Megawatt × hour
193 * (24*365) = 1.700.000 Megawatt-hour 1 MILLION 700 THOUSANDS MILLIONS OF WATTS PER HOUR ?Read it yourself, because if that's correct, I think I'm far off... and the network is sucking up much more than what I have written. Well... That's what i've written at the end of the calculation... I must be off somewhere... These numbers are way to high... I probably did a miscalculation or something, because this can't be right... I'll re-read my calculations this evening (when i have some more time, currently at work).. OK I'm sorry I answered you real time. |
|
|
|
So, by these calculations, 170.000.000 households could have been powered... I must have missed something here... This can't be righ  Probably a comma somewhere... Or maybe I am right and we are already fucking up a huge amount of electricity. What I am wondiring is: is it possible that nobody hasn't yet noticed it??? |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
