Congratulations to Adam Back and Blockstream for completing $55M round A. Amazing.
Guy
Blockstream/Core to Classic: I raise you 55 mil... Classic..... Well Classic is just another dead fork and it was dead before its inception because they will never have the army of bright heads that are in Core. And that applies to most of the forks past and future. We are kinda stuck with Core. I started to learn the subtle difference between Core and the rest of the forks and I'm happy with the Core even if I don't totally agree with their roadmap or decisions, but I am sure that they are currently on the right track. +2 |
|
|
|
|
Congratulations to Adam Back and Blockstream for completing $55M round A. Amazing.
Guy
|
|
|
|
I'm getting tired of this kinder garden playground posts.
Will remove posts tomorrow.
Please start of all posts from not nice Dogie's posts. While he is wasting his money and sue us, I'm not going to engage him or touch his posts. Let him dig his own hole. |
|
|
|
|
Most of the times the fact they burnt is due to a problem in the other side of the board.
You can try first to remove them and hope it will work.
C2499 Capacitor, Ceramic, 1uF, 16V, X5R, 20%, 0603
Samsung CL10A105KO8NNNC
C2493 Capacitor, Ceramic, 22uF, 16V, X5R, 20%, 1206
Samsung CL31A226KOCLNNC
|
|
|
|
|
I'm getting tired of this kinder garden playground posts.
Will remove posts tomorrow.
|
|
|
|
Can you imagine giving ASIC manufacturers the power to influence a PoW system?
Have you read the article ? |
|
|
|
Lesson learned from the Classic coup attempt or why Core needs to prepare a GPU only PoW:
...
prepare a large set of cryptographic hash functions, at least 100 or more initially. Any simple (not memory hard) function will do
...
Each PoW function actually serves for 5 months
...
This proposal if implemented correctly, will bring a never ending GPU mining on Core chain.
Won't this centralize on private armies of GPU programmers hired to optimize all these hash functions, which they then of course will keep private? Or perhaps it will centralize on private armies of FPGA designers and (access to) FPGA foundries? Who will be responsible for developing the GPU code that the public at large is supposed to run? Will they cater to all the different GPU architectures and models? Hi John, Yes I agree there will be race to develop GPUs (and maybe FPGAs). There will also be massive deployments of GPUs farms. I don't see the above as bad things. Guy Maybe I'm a bit naive, but isn't the hashpower keeping the network safe? So nobody can take it over? Aren't ASICs doing that job pretty well? Changing the PoW - that's an altcoin then. The current miners will not follow, so it's gonna split into two - of which only one has powerful ASIC mining which is doing above mentioned job pretty fine. Is there something I don't get? Please read the article. The scenario I'm describing is AFTER Classic was activated. |
|
|
|
Lesson learned from the Classic coup attempt or why Core needs to prepare a GPU only PoW:
...
prepare a large set of cryptographic hash functions, at least 100 or more initially. Any simple (not memory hard) function will do
...
Each PoW function actually serves for 5 months
...
This proposal if implemented correctly, will bring a never ending GPU mining on Core chain.
Won't this centralize on private armies of GPU programmers hired to optimize all these hash functions, which they then of course will keep private? Or perhaps it will centralize on private armies of FPGA designers and (access to) FPGA foundries? Who will be responsible for developing the GPU code that the public at large is supposed to run? Will they cater to all the different GPU architectures and models? Hi John, Yes I agree there will be race to develop GPUs (and maybe FPGAs). There will also be massive deployments of GPUs farms. I don't see the above as bad things. Guy |
|
|
|
Is that really any better? Quoting a recent Hacker News comment of mine ( https://news.ycombinator.com/threads?id=tromp) Bitcoin mining could be more decentralized if it better resembled a lottery, where huge numbers of people play for an expected loss.
In other words, the lack of people mining at a loss makes mining profitable and hence subject to forces of centralization.
There are several reasons why mining as a lottery substitute is rare, a major one being that commodity hardware is inefficient by many orders of magnitude, making even a botnet next to useless.
Perhaps, if a proof of work, whose efficiency gap (with custom hardware) is at most an order of magnitude, were adopted (or slowly phased in), enough lottery players would arise to make mining unprofitable at scale.
Botnets should then just be welcomed as a modest increase in decentralization.
However I don't expect Spondoolies-Tech to support this vision of unprofitable mining... Disclaimer: I designed Cuckoo Cycle Hello John, nice to meet you in our little thread. Mind the dog. Although I really like Cuckoo Cycle, memory bound hashing is too much susceptible to BotNets, unlike GPU hashing. The biggest problem with PoW change in general is hash-rate oscillation. Emin Gün Sirer just solved it for me. I'll publish my suggestion soon. In an essence, It allow automatic change of PoW with only one Hard Fork needed. Guy |
|
|
|
Is that really any better? Quoting a recent Hacker News comment of mine ( https://news.ycombinator.com/threads?id=tromp) Bitcoin mining could be more decentralized if it better resembled a lottery, where huge numbers of people play for an expected loss.
In other words, the lack of people mining at a loss makes mining profitable and hence subject to forces of centralization.
There are several reasons why mining as a lottery substitute is rare, a major one being that commodity hardware is inefficient by many orders of magnitude, making even a botnet next to useless.
Perhaps, if a proof of work, whose efficiency gap (with custom hardware) is at most an order of magnitude, were adopted (or slowly phased in), enough lottery players would arise to make mining unprofitable at scale.
Botnets should then just be welcomed as a modest increase in decentralization.
However I don't expect Spondoolies-Tech to support this vision of unprofitable mining... Disclaimer: I designed Cuckoo Cycle Hello John, nice to meet you in our little thread. Mind the dog. |
|
|
|
So,
My estimation is that Core team will split. Some will continue to work on Core but on Classic chain, buy some will prefer to do PoW (and Transaction ID) change rather to submit to the new governance.
Guy
Edit: Interesting times. I think that two competing Chains is the favorable outcome. Each will be entitled to the name "Bitcoin" since both came into existence after hard-fork.
are you kidding? favorable to what? maybe to development in some sense, but not bitcoin's value. Imagine the nightmare of having an "old" bitcoin in a wallet and then deciding on what chain to spend it and have change deposited to. 90% of people will simply sell or do NO transactions altogether and wait until one chain would be dominant. In addition, say, i decided to sell carbonated sugar syrup and call it "Coca Cola next generation". Do you think that I would be able to do it? You might want to read Meni Rosenfeld: http://fieryspinningsword.com/2015/08/25/how-i-learned-to-stop-worrying-and-love-the-fork/https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3i9eiv/how_i_learned_to_stop_worrying_and_love_the_fork/ |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
