Wanna know what sells Bitcoin to those in my life that come to me wanting to know about it? They can hide their money from banks and governments. That's what will sell Bitcoin to people, not the fluffy bullshit about "yes sir! so happy to be regulated" and "tax me, please!". This is exactly the problem. If you want Bitcoin to succeed, you should be encouraging people to pay their taxes. If all you care about is tax evasion, you are part of the problem. |
|
|
|
As I see it this system does not have to be a part of the blockchain but can be a seperate system. You were around for the March 11th hard-fork - could this separate system not have given a warning if the operator of the green addresses was Mt. Gox. (and perhaps other trusted parties having a financial interest in the integrity of the blockhcain) and the one receiving the alarm was the mining pool operator of BTC Guild? These two very large players were on two different side of the forks. Would this system not have given the devs a warning 30-40 minutes earlier than you got it? I don't think it is theoretically possible to get warning prior to 0.6.x and 0.8.x diverging - what would have helped would have been a way to contact people faster (including having the poolserver contact me instead of just logging it and taking a while before I noticed). As a result of the March 11th events, the major pools have exchanged direct contact information with each other and that information is (I'm pretty sure) available to core developers as well. When were you informed about the fork, after or before it became a hard fork (that means +6 confirmations, right?)? No, a hardfork occurs the moment an older client rejects a block accepted by newer clients. Eligius detected it immediately, but it wasn't until sipa was helping some other user experiencing the problem that I thought to check it. Finally, it's also incompatible with miners rights to decline processing of any given transaction.
That's a good point. But if the probing transaction is made to look as much like any other transaction as possible (reducing the risk of a attacker identifying it) is it then not fairly predictable when it will be included? I think your problem with my system could be solved by checking block x, x+1, and perhaps x+2 instead of just x. That doesn't make sense. The point here is that miners have the right to refuse even transactions from/to widely-trusted parties. This is an important component to the Bitcoin system. Sure, but when you receive some kind of message from a green address though the network you can go back in the block chain and see if it is there. It does not have to be in one specific block it can also be in a block one or two after. Does that make sense? So what if all miners decide the transaction in question should not be mined? |
|
|
|
As I see it this system does not have to be a part of the blockchain but can be a seperate system. You were around for the March 11th hard-fork - could this separate system not have given a warning if the operator of the green addresses was Mt. Gox. (and perhaps other trusted parties having a financial interest in the integrity of the blockhcain) and the one receiving the alarm was the mining pool operator of BTC Guild? These two very large players were on two different side of the forks. Would this system not have given the devs a warning 30-40 minutes earlier than you got it? I don't think it is theoretically possible to get warning prior to 0.6.x and 0.8.x diverging - what would have helped would have been a way to contact people faster (including having the poolserver contact me instead of just logging it and taking a while before I noticed). As a result of the March 11th events, the major pools have exchanged direct contact information with each other and that information is (I'm pretty sure) available to core developers as well. Finally, it's also incompatible with miners rights to decline processing of any given transaction.
That's a good point. But if the probing transaction is made to look as much like any other transaction as possible (reducing the risk of a attacker identifying it) is it then not fairly predictable when it will be included? I think your problem with my system could be solved by checking block x, x+1, and perhaps x+2 instead of just x. That doesn't make sense. The point here is that miners have the right to refuse even transactions from/to widely-trusted parties. This is an important component to the Bitcoin system. |
|
|
|
|
Quick assessment IMO:
This sounds similar something the (new) Ripple.com is doing, which creates practical problems with coming to a consensus on their system.
Its dependency on "green addresses" is, as you note, problematic as well, for the same reasons green addresses are themselves flawed.
Finally, it's also incompatible with miners rights to decline processing of any given transaction.
|
|
|
|
Can bfgminer run on a windows 8 tablet? No idea on this. Does it run normal Windows software? I'm not sure what the limitations are on the windows tablets. It looks the same, but I've heard its not. It seems like it would work, if the drivers for the singles supported it. I was hoping someone around here had tried it. Well, BFGMiner uses the standard FTDI driver which Windows should automatically install, so I expect if it can run normal software it should work... Non-BFL devices that need libusb (X6500 & ZTEX) might be more problematic, however. |
|
|
|
Can bfgminer run on a windows 8 tablet? No idea on this. Does it run normal Windows software? Also, should any of nicer android tablets work with the BF units? At the very least, you'll need USB host support. Be aware that it might not be possible to use AC power or charge in this mode! Additionally, you may need to compile BFGMiner for Android unless Butterfly Labs makes a public release of their EasyMiner software based on it - I'm not sure if they will or not, but I bet if they know people want it for use with their own devices they probably will. |
|
|
|
How about a tweakable coin generator? Even if there is a fee to to discourage mass spam of alt coins.
That's what I want to get out of this. The whole reason I'm participating is because it will promote competitiveness among alt coins. It's really fun getting a better understanding of bitcoin too  To compete, you need to actually compete. Mere generators cannot compete. |
|
|
|
I can't until I'm back home
Also guys consider the possibility that luke-jr may use his pool (eligius) to attempt a 51% attack like he did with coiledcoin
No need to promote lies. |
|
|
|
I was talking about retarget time, total number of coins and other parameters that are fixed for long in Bitcoin There is no reason to change any of that. |
|
|
|
I expected at least one alt-coin developer to see this thread and respond, but I am feeling now that they won't do it purely so a new alt-coin does not replace theirs, even if we are newbs here.
Same... Maybe it's time to create a 'collaborative' coin where all users decide what they want to do Already exists, it's called... Bitcoin! Too bad most of those users are unwilling to do anything to help "what they want to do" get done any faster, so everything only happens at the fastest speed volunteers can get them done. |
|
|
|
Luke, eloipool is not decentralized. It is transparent when using GBT (at the cost of significantly more bandwidth for pushing work). No pool other than p2pool is decentralized, they're all master->slave. Pool dictates the work, miners mine it. Just because the miner could decide to leave if they don't like what they see does not change the definition of decentralized.
p2pool is no more decentralized than GBT pools. GBT pools set down rules (so does p2pool!) and miners make their own work, deciding whether to follow those rules or not. |
|
|
|
There are many other decentralized pools that are easier to use and without the downsides of p2p. I know it's very unlikely but.....
gov, master card or paypal could say to btc guild, 50btc and slush hey we will pay you 20 million each for your pools.
they then merge those to destabilise bitcoin with a 51% attack.
Would that even work?
It would work. Additionally, it would be very easy for a large government to shutdown Bitcoin without any up-front investment. |
|
|
|
Is there anything I can do to make BFGminer automatically stop mining when the network connection is lost? Frankly I don't even understand what it's mining when there's no more tasks coming in from the network.
It should usually stop within 5 minutes when it can't generate any more work. |
|
|
|
If you look at the pull requests this seems to be the case with bitcoin too... however the bot doesn't seem to build trunk + all pull requests at once, only trunk + single pull request. Yes, combining many pull requests is not trivial and requires a real human to do. I'm not too sure what to test with these binaries though, maybe if I "need" 2-3 features I can save on building time? Well, the idea is you can run it as your ordinary everyday client (with the awareness that it has a lot of untested and potentially broken code) and maybe hopefully stumble upon some bug we're not thinking to test for explicitly. |
|
|
|
I'm not really sure how you devs are organized, but at another project I'm working on we have a patchbot. Translated to this here, it would make a new build every time a new changeset is posted to a pull request. Then it runs the test suite. If it passes, it reports back to the pull request and provides a link to download this specific binary.
That's exactly what the Pull Tester Gavin mentioned does already... |
|
|
|
|
Trolls like all of you derailing my simple thread here demonstrate why nobody takes BitcoinTalkTroll forums seriously.
Get a life.
|
|
|
|
If you want to help test, I think it would be much more helpful if you find a feature you care about, grab the binaries that the pull-tester creates, test thoroughly, and then report results in the pull request on github. Indeed, thorough testing of individual pull requests is by far better (and safer). |
|
|
|
Luke-Jr told me on IRC last night that since BFL offered to ship him his unit, but kindly agreed to keep it in their warehouse and send him pictures instead, that the unit still qualifies as being "shipped" to him. He wished people would stop "slandering" him by saying the unit hadn't shipped.  Disclaimer: That's not what I actually said. You made a typo, I'll correct it for you: That's not what I precisely said. I think I conveyed the gist of your gibbering. No, you grossly misrepresented me and made a straw man. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
