|
At least another 2 orders of magnitude of hashing power are needed. And they need to be decentralized. It should have happened two days before yesterday.
Any word on some ASIC sales? Can't we raise enough capital to get some cheap ASICs around the globe?
|
|
|
|
|
Gotta love the quotability potential around here, for sure.
|
|
|
|
|
Talk about chickens and hatched eggs... bitcoin still has a long way to go politically and technically. Unk is correct on his points, and those with the necessary technical skills should carefully consider and attack the issues he raises.
|
|
|
|
|
Are there any plans to release a leaner bitcoind (console-only application)? This may encourage other GUI front-ends.
|
|
|
|
Most of you are totally missing the point. It is completely irrelevant if tycho can be trusted or not.
Simply the fact that a pool > 50% might exist is a huge security issue for the network.
Somebody has just (and I am saying "just" because no matter how much you pay attention to potential security risks, there is always a chance you get hacked, e.g. by undisclosed exploits) to take over the servers and then can be harmful to the network.
Another potential issue: Somebody with huge hashing power and the right knowledge could take down all major pools at once (e.g. via DDoS, there are kinds of ddos you can hardly mitigate, so this IS doable) which then would only leave the solo miners, according to the chart at about 400Ghash/s.
Then somebody could crank up his own mining equipment (at maybe 450ghash) and would have over 50% of hashing power under control.
Precisely. This is so obvious that it boggles the mind that so many people here keep missing the point. decentralized mining may offer a solution: http://forum.bitcoin.org/index.php?topic=9137 |
|
|
|
I always find these threads amusing, especially from the 'free market' types. Unregulated markets naturally tend towards monopolies. At the end we will wind up with a single large pool and perhaps a few other minor ones that people are in for ideological reasons. At some point a less than ethical pool operator will appear and he will figure out that it is in his best interest to take out the other pools by any means available to him. As long as he kept his mouth shut it would be impossible for anyone else to know he was instigating trouble with the other pools. For a recent example, if btcex had not said anything, nobody would have known he was ddosing MtGox. As the difficulty rate goes ever higher, you will see miners join toward the largest pools. After all, would you rather mine in a pool that finds blocks in hours or one that takes days or weeks to find one? There will come a point at which 100-300 Ghash/s pools just don't cut it anymore. These pools will in turn either dissolve or get absorbed by other, larger pools, thus increasing the larger pools' hashing power, and making it difficult for smaller pools to find blocks...all in a vicious circle. There are reasons that every industrialized country in the world has anti-trust laws. Because they have already learned the hard way what happens when you let the market 'self regulate' itself. You get things like Standard Oil. If the US and EU did not have anti-trust laws, everybody reading my words would be doing so with IE on a Windows based computer. If markets don't tend toward monopolies...then why has nobody made a successful competitor to MtGox? This ridiculous crap again? Please go shit in someone else's thread. You are a fool, and your post is inappropriate. Lupus_Yonderboy is absolutely correct, and he is outlining the single biggest threat to bitcoin. He is also making his point in the correct thread. See this thread for a possible solution: http://forum.bitcoin.org/index.php?topic=9137This urgent problem demands an immediate solution. |
|
|
|
|
Any progress on this? Seems to be one of the most important outstanding issues.
|
|
|
|
|
Public relations (what used to be called propaganda) is a weapon. Either we understand how it is used and protect ourselves with it, or we make ourselves vulnerable to those who are skilled in its use.
We should not make the job of those who would see bitcoin fail any easier than it already is. Ponzi schemes, deranged ancap/sociopathic rants and weak self-evaluation work to undermine this project.
|
|
|
|
Intentionally skirting the line so that I don't censor you as well. I can tell that you are practiced at antagonizing your opposition, but do you have a rational argument to present? I won't let you continue with your own style of insults for much longer.
G seems to be presenting a rational argument, albeit one to which you are not receptive. Unless I am mistaken (please correct me if I am, G), he is suggesting that the deeply contradictory beliefs (on many levels) being espoused here are the result of years of indoctrination and confusion. That indoctrination, by its very design, is meant to keep people scared and isolated. To keep them confused. It is difficult to free oneself from this confusion, without some outside perspective. Let me quote one of the links posted by hazek: Ah: "privatization" as Greece is about to learn, the lovely word that describes a fire sale of assets to one's creditors, courtesy of a "globalized" new world order.
This is interesting. Hazek furnished us with an article which I presume was meant to bolster his assertion that unbridled capitalism is good. Yet, this article specifically ridicules a banker who calls for privatization, which again is one of the basic canons of the anarcho-capitalist religion. This seems to be deeply incongruous, and supports the assertion that hazek is, in some way, struggling to reconcile what he accepts a priori (unrestricted privatization is good) and what he observes (economic devastation resulting from unrestricted privatization). And this thread needs to split...
Not sure why. Just want to spread the topics around? |
|
|
|
Who insures us against anticompetitive and antisocial behavior from the state?!
Voting. lol no That only assures 50% +1 gets their whims and desires heard. ...and the other 49% can get fucked in the ass. <infantile cartoon> If you think that your fellow human beings are "sinners, whores, freaks and unnameable things that rape pit bulls for fun," then you have some serious problems. And I'm not joking. |
|
|
|
This forum is currently an embarrassment. (See my sig for a good example) As for professionalism and image, let me note once again that "theymos" advertises the following in his sig: Did you miss the Bitcoin gold rush? Is Bitcoin not the money machine you'd hoped? You can still Get Rich Quick with fxnet, the Bitcoin Ponzi scheme!
Let's consider the ramifications of having a bitcoin.org forum Administrator and "Hero Member" peddling a ponzi scheme. Now, I'm not an expert on public relations or anything, but I may understand if a visitor becomes a bit put off by that fact. Think how many time bitcoin has been labeled as a ponzi/pyramid scheme. Is theymos' sig really the kind of thing that we need? Is this the type of person/"business" we wish to have as an administrator and representative? So yes, anything that makes this place more presentable is worth the effort. Perhaps Gavin should also say his piece here. Thank you, eMansipater, for sticking out your neck. |
|
|
|
Economic and political turmoil... as a "promotional opportunity."  Oh, and good luck trying to get 20 and 30 something year-old Spaniards to go for these Randian hallucinations. These threads are good to have from time to time. They cause the locals to display their plumage in all their glory. Oh who am I kidding? They happen all the time! even if babies have to starve and die in front me I will not do it [support welfare].
This needs to be nominated... for something. I know! I'm going to save a special place in my sig for the most unspooled quote from these fora. You are the first winnar! |
|
|
|
...Frankly, the moderators don't give me much confidence in setting the tone required to foster real discussion. This place has been an echo chamber for quite some time....
Ouch, gene. I hope I'm not meant to take this personally!  I hope you interpret it as a challenge to uphold a better standard. Allow me to draw your attention to one particularly charming thread, which illustrates my point. I'll post some relevant excerpts: I think once all of this is over banksters, politicians and soldiers should be lined up and shot at dawn
The individual then clarified himself: There is every reason to kill them. They are all useless and unnecessarily consuming resources of this planet
Your response made it clear that advocating the murder of "banksters, politicians and soldiers" is acceptable here. I should note that at least one more "Global Moderator" was aware of these posts. This is disgusting and shameful, and I'll not mince words. Your response was pathetic. |
|
|
|
I certainly don't advocate hiding anything from citizens. I would much rather openly discuss the negative effects of lobbying and other means by which corporations try to capture government. Even better, let's all discuss the appropriate role of corporations. Should they exist? If so, what kinds of powers should we let them have?
Sorry to intrude, but I've just red this amazing paragraph and I can't help noticing how ugly it sounds. Corporations are nothing but a bunch of people working together in order to reach a common goal. You don't question the existence of people. You may judge their acts, but not their existence. And corporations do nothing but selling stuffs to people who are willing to buy them. They force no one to do so. From you, this is truly a compliment. This is precisely the type of response that reassures me that my moral compass is still functional. Thank you. |
|
|
|
Is this really so difficult to understand? This all goes back to the point of the echo chamber and "hero worship" which is endemic to these fora.
I simply give him the benefit of the doubt, that is far from "hero worship". When he gives me a reason to doubt him I will, but I see no reason for that personally yet. He could just as well have taken money from the CIA and not talked about it, and we'd never have known. Yes, better for appearance, but not better for integrity. The "head developer" should recognize that he has accepted a role which requires him to be above reproach. This responsibility extends to us as well. It means that we should not let people get by with the "benefit of the doubt." Just because he didn't do something worse doesn't mean he can't still do something better. I don't want the discussion to center around this sub-point, but please understand that scrutiny is what is needed in all aspects of bitcoin. This is just one aspect to consider. Why not try harder? |
|
|
|
the unfortunate fact that the lead developer is not overly concerned about the appearance of accepting money from a government agency does not instill confidence.
So what are you saying with he's "not overly concerned about the appearance...". He should have kept silent about it? I think he gives a good example by being very transparent, but hey, it's all about appearance. Way to miss the point. He disclosed the fact that he is going to accept money. To many people, this gives the appearance of shadiness, which is still not good enough. Is this really so difficult to understand? This all goes back to the point of the echo chamber and "hero worship" which is endemic to these fora. |
|
|
|
You might not like it but the reality is that people want Walmart. They will weather awful service for cheap prices.
If only that were all they had to endure. Cheap prices aren't the end of the story. Some opponents get emotional about Walmart's size because they equate big with bad and a somehow unfair loss of choice, but the fact of the matter is that choice has a cost. And unfortunately, as a general rule, people don't want to pay for it.
If people were fully aware of the other costs... chances are they would think twice. No amount of good intentions and emotion will change that you, the planned market advocate, want something other people do not want to pay for.
Are you sure they don't want to pay for it? Do they know all the associated costs? Or is that being hidden from them for some reason? You might be successful in hiding the cost and forcing them to pay for it through government lobbying and subsequent laws, but you might want to ask yourself why force is required in the first place. If you were truly on the side of the majority, a TV ad for a more expensive competitor with greater choice would have sufficed.
I certainly don't advocate hiding anything from citizens. I would much rather openly discuss the negative effects of lobbying and other means by which corporations try to capture government. Even better, let's all discuss the appropriate role of corporations. Should they exist? If so, what kinds of powers should we let them have? Personally, I find advertisements distasteful and would much rather not use media designed for distortion and misinformation. Instead, it would likely be better to directly involve as many citizens as possible to experience these things firsthand. Ultimately, it is best to let a truly informed democracy (a redundancy, actually) function unhindered. |
|
|
|
As mentioned above, the OP was copied from "ComputerScientist" from another forum. The "real ComputerScientist" provided a PGP key there against which to verify his/her posts. I'll only comment on a few specific points. I don't think anyone can honestly refute his/her accurate characterization of a vocal group within the forum, which is the de facto official forum. This is a serious problem in that this is effectively bitcoin's "public face." And it is ugly. Talent and other important resources are likely being scared off. People like CS who actually take the time to provide lucid critiques of bitcoin ("s" left some time ago, taking his/her rather insightful posts with him/her) are unlikely to bother in this forum. It takes pretty strong will to put up with the constant abuse that even modest criticism provokes (see the typically incoherent "discussion" around the very real problem of mining pools and the Byzantine Generals' problem - lots of people just missing the point). Frankly, the moderators don't give me much confidence in setting the tone required to foster real discussion. This place has been an echo chamber for quite some time. I am not qualified to comment on his/her characterization of the core developers' technical abilities. However, the unfortunate fact that the lead developer is not overly concerned about the appearance of accepting money from a government agency does not instill confidence. Basically, the situation is far more stark than all the resident fanbois want to admit. Aside from technical and legal questions around the "exchange," which is almost certainly being manipulated, the network remains alarmingly fragile and highly centralized (despite its oft-touted x terahashes/sec), and serious questions regarding the transition to mining for transactions fees are being deferred. The aforementioned extreme anarcho-capitalist/libertarian ideology is seeping into what should be technical issues. Vocal regulars are far too unrealistic on nearly all aspects of the existing economy, such as it is, or how to go about legitimately enhancing it. There exists an unwavering faith in the "free-market" to automagically answer those questions in the future. Left unchecked, these attitudes are likely to relegate bitcoin to exclusive use by criminals and survivalists. Is there any hope for someone with resources to set up a mailing list? |
|
|
|
What is the purpose of anti-trust legislation? Is it to protect consumers from monopoly pricing, or protect competitors that cannot compete? It seems to me that the goals are conflicting. By forcing "monopolies" to charge higher prices, it hurts the consumer, though it helps their competitors. This is a good read. The theory of predatory pricing has always seemed to have a grain of truth to it--at least to noneconomists--but research over the past 35 years has shown that predatory pricing as a strategy for monopolizing an industry is irra- tional, that there has never been a single clear-cut example of a monopoly created by so-called predatory pricing, and that claims of predatory pricing are typically made by com- petitors who are either unwilling or unable to cut their own prices. Thus, legal restrictions on price cutting, in the name of combatting "predation," are inevitably protectionist and anti-consumer, as Harold Demsetz noted. Even in the cases where a competitor seemed to have been eliminated by low prices, "in no case were all of the competitors eliminated."(25) Thus, there was no monopoly, just lower prices. Three cases seem to have facilitated a merger, but mergers are typically an efficient alternative to bankruptcy, not a route to monopoly. In those cases, as in the others, the mergers did not result in anything remotely resembling a monopolistic industry, as defined by Koller (i.e., one with a single producer). In sum, despite over 100 federal antitrust cases based on predatory pricing, Koller found absolutely no evidence of any monopoly having been established by predatory pricing between 1890 and 1970. Yet at the time Koller's study was published (1971), predatory pricing had long been part of the conventional wisdom. The work of McGee, Elzinga, and other analysts had not yet gained wide recognition. The search for the elusive predatory pricer has not been any more successful in the two decades since Koller's study appeared. The complete lack of evidence of predatory pricing, moreover, has not gone unnoticed by the U.S. Supreme Court. In Matsushita Electric Industrial Co. v. Zenith Radio (1986), the Court demonstrated knowledge of the above-mentioned research in declaring, effectively, that predatory pricing was about as common as unicorn sightings. Zenith had accused Matsushita and several other Japanese microelectronics companies of engaging in predatory pricing--of using profits from the Japanese market to subsidize below-cost pricing of color television sets in the United States. The Supreme Court ruled against Zenith, recognizing in its majority opinion that a predatory pricing conspiracy is by nature speculative. Any agreement to price below the competitive level requires the conspirators to forgo profits that free competition would offer them. The forgone profits may be considered an investment in the future. For the investment to be rational, the conspirators must have a reasonable expectation of recovering, in the form of later monopoly profits, more than the losses suffered.(26) The Court also noted that "the success of such schemes is inherently uncertain: the short-run loss is definite, but the long-run gain depends on successfully neutralizing the competition."(27) The Court continues, "There is a consensus among commentators that predatory pricing schemes are rarely tried, and even more rarely successful."(28) That's what Wal Mart and their ilk want you to think, if you beleive this crap you are either extremely naive, or some sort of lobbyist and therefore paid to beleive it. This is absolutely what they believe. They aren't shills. They aren't naive, either. They're just brainwashed and have been turned into ruthless greed-machines. The most pathetic part is that they will never be "inside." No riches. No freedom. Just "useful idiots" who will someday have to contemplate the desert that they helped create. Except that even then, they won't see their own crucial roles in bringing about ruin. |
|
|
|
The case with MTGox is black and white, either people are forced with violence to use it, or not. So my argument even when it is simplified to a black and white contrast, still holds strong.
Even still I disagree. Suppose there is some advantage to using MtGox. Anyone who exercises their right to avoid it will lose and is therefore forced to use it to remain competitive even though they might not agree with MtGox's policies (e.g. the dark pools). Let me give you another example. I don't like cellular phones for several reasons, and yet it's essential for my work. Nobody has violently forced me to have one, yet I must have one. Society itself is coercing me to have a cell phone. But no individual is responsible, it's just an outcome of the system in which we all operate. To satisfy BitterTea's curiosity, my example was this. Boy meets girl, girl gets pregnant. Neither wanted a child, nobody violently forced them to have a child, yet they will have a child (let's say neither boy nor girl will consider abortion, for whatever reasons). There's a simple (if unwritten) contract: "let's have sex". But it has unintended consequences, not foreseen in the contract, and that's all you need to make the wonderful utopia of anarchism & free-market crumble, one conflict at a time. Yup. Externalities: what anarcho-capitalists (libertarians) fail to understand or will simply ignore. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
