Thank you. Very interesting. Cool stuff. But... It still sounds like just processing and relaying transactions. I don't see how these devices would ever find a block, or ever get paid out even if they did. Doesn't sound like the block rewards are the goal though... Very interesting... Just doesn't sound like mining as I define it. |
|
|
|
Btw, anyone else think Satoshi timed the block halvings to coincide directly with the U.S. election cycle?
(Think about it, as much as we would like to pretend that the change in distribution is "priced in" we all saw the massive swing the last time block reward was cut in two. Next block halving should happen some few months before next election. Will bitcoin policy be part of some candidates platform?)
Last time, the halving almost coincided with the arrival of asics. BTC was the main/only form of payment early on. I would bet this had more of an impact than the halving itself. 2016 halving will definitely be a different animal, as many mining operations are huge businesses, on fairly thin margins already, with efficiency being critical. 3600 to 1800 coins per day is a big difference in supply... As far as the political angle? I don't think anybody running for office cares about our digital tokens too much yet. Totally agree, the Asics coming out possibly had larger effect than any political event (argument could be made for congress hearings) I'm just saying that you don't model your distribution to get cut in half every four years just on the off chance that it might coincide with some technological breakthrough. Rather, I'm suggesting that if you choose to have a disruptive halving of the rewards for your new crypto coin every four years, there might be some other significant event that happens every four years that made you decide on that interval. And I'm not talking about the world cup  |
|
|
|
It's that potential withholding of funds pending identification I think is what smooth is rightfully upset about.
Not potential. As far as I can tell from the trollbox, the system literally won't let you withdraw, and that went into effect automatically as of midnight UTC, which was hours earlier than people expected for a US-based exchange (the original notice didn't specify a time zone). Look I'm not saying they are evil incarnate, I don't think they are. But I think they screwed up multiple ways in handling the situation, haven't even so much as apologized, and deserve to be condemned for it. I feared as much. I actually took a day off so I could figure out how to make some Monero wallets to withdraw to. I know, I've been around long enough to know better but until this little kick in the ass I was keeping all my eggs in the polo basket. As devil's advocate, it's not really the coin's place to complain about where it's exchanged. (I realize you're not the boss of Monero or anything like that,) but the exchange can act as it will, and you are free to criticize their actions, but Monero moves on, uncaring. |
|
|
|
2k per diem rate cap at level 1 has no documentation requirement.
It has a self-identification requirement, which means you give up your information, commit fraud, or give up your coins. Not much of an out. Yeah, that's pretty much how I read it as well. I could lie about my name, and probably get away with it, but when I read that clause that says I forfeit my funds if I provide fraudulent information... I'm just glad I was able to exit in an orderly fashion. (*EDIT* -- I would just like to make it clear that I have no reason to lie about my identity. I've done nothing wrong. Also, I have no obligation to provide that information. It's that potential withholding of funds pending identification I think is what smooth is rightfully upset about. |
|
|
|
I obviously don't agree to that, it has to be economically viable to exist. No, no no. A million times no. e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pets.com Are you suggesting a big con? It could be a good business plan, or a mistake, or a con. You're excluding the middle. I hate selective quoting. The con part, that is viable only on a small scale. Okay, I didn't follow it. What's the con? I was too quick, your comments were ok, I deleted my post, but too late. Somebody suggest that people would buy these phones for extra, use extra power, not knowing they earned money for the company only. That a con. Ok, I'll try again... why put that chip in the phone if you could just include it in the charger cable? Or charging pad for wireless charging? Battery life, size, weight, efficiency are all competing qualities for phones and putting a bitcoin miner in your phone is not going to make it more competitive. (Secure enclave type wallet on the other hand = no brainer) |
|
|
|
snip, quack
You're ignored in a large fashion at this point but we've dealt w/ with others that would lol at your stance but also want more thoughts on their posts. Rand did so well tonight that I hope yall realize it and embark on a mission to make him Prez.  Remember Ron Paul auditing the Fed and winning primaries? Oh yeah...  Btw, anyone else think Satoshi timed the block halvings to coincide directly with the U.S. election cycle? (Think about it, as much as we would like to pretend that the change in distribution is "priced in" we all saw the massive swing the last time block reward was cut in two. Next block halving should happen some few months before next election. Will bitcoin policy be part of some candidates platform?) |
|
|
|
|
As a guy that's been mining for a few years now, I can get behind the idea of mining space heaters. I even wanted to place a small mining farm in the furnace room and then control the vents with individual thermostats to distribute the heat, dumping excess heat as needed.
But mining on a phone, it's just not reasonable. You could put the same chip on a USB stick and it would perform better.
Serious mining makes for some serious heat. If I'm 21 the household heating market is where I would target.
|
|
|
|
<snip>
My take on this is that I have zero interest in giving my identity documents to any of the current crypto exchanges or other crypto businesses, and I have never done so, nor do I plan to. Not because I have anything to hide (all of my activities are entirely legal, and my identity isn't even that secret anyway), but because I simply don't trust them to safeguard it. Look at how many have been hacked, have had data breaches, rogue employees, etc. If I put coins there I'm aware I may have to forfeit them, so I act accordingly, mostly by exposure limits. Which is needed anyway given the risk of being hacked or "hacked".
I trimmed the rest but that piece I kept sums up my feelings almost perfectly. After I dealt with the anger phase, I was able to exit mostly intact (took a bath on some speculative coins I'd rather have held, but they got liquidated > bitcoin > Monero, so I don't mind so much. Was maybe a good thing to consolidate?) <snip>
Fuck you Poloniex. You screwed up here.
I'm not quite at this level of outrage, but I appreciate the sentiment. I've seen some favorable rates on shape shift from time to time, and I'm strictly a small-timer, so that seems like the way I'll be going from now on. Maybe after the dust settles someday I'll create a new account with my real name, but for now, my positions are set, and I'm digging in for the long haul. |
|
|
|
He issued a letter to the management of the London-based bank demanding to know why he shouldn’t revoke its license to operate in New York given all the improper transactions it had enabled. A week later, the bank reached a settlement with DFS. This guy operates at the highest levels of corruption and coercion. Here's how this conversation goes. Ben Lawsky: "Give me one good reason why I don't shut you down." Banker: "How about I give you 485 million good reasons?" Ben Lawsky: "meh, it's a start, I guess." Getting in bed with the regulators is just asking for trouble. I worry sometimes about the proposed changes that bitcoin "needs" in order to achieve "mainstream adoption". |
|
|
|
Daily moving averages look to cross over again,  Difficulty remains flat,  I think we are seeing distribution equilibrium. I suspect the price could remain in this rough range, 180 - 300 for at least the rest of this year. |
|
|
|
I am sitting next to my grandmother. No joke.
When that popped up I slammed my laptop closed.
I was showing her how I trade Bitcoin and good places I find information
bitcointalk = ok to show speculation subforum = ok to show, but with grains of salt wall observer = i´d never show this thread to family members. There was someone who claimed he was viewing it on a train when someone posted a porn picture here. He said the woman sitting next to him moved to a seat at the other end of the carriage because of it. I'd be really embarrassed reading this thread in public considering that story. Bah, if anyone gets offended cuz some porn pops up on my phone it's their own damned fault for looking over my shoulder. |
|
|
|
isnt there a huge fee for buying with an ATM?
Out of curiosity, what's the premium on those things?
They recently raised the rate from 5% to 7.5% so it's getting less affordable. I always justified the 5% by saving the hassle and expense of transferring money from my bank to the exchange, the (albeit small) exchange fees, and the time wasted on hassling with the banking and transfer process. Often the money saved by not waiting a week for an exchange deposit more than pays the fee. ATMs are fast, easy and very suitable for small (less than 3 coins) purchases. I still will use an exchange for larger buys. I also treat part of the fee as an insurance premium against having to leave money (Bitcoin or fiat) on an exchange, exposed to the internet. I lost 50 bitcoins at MtGox. Once bitten, twice shy. Offline paper wallets FTW. An added bonus is that the ATM coins are anonymous (or should I say pseudonymous?) at least until you crack the paper wallets and expose the coins to the 'net. This is probably worth a few points to many people. Personally, I think it's hard to beat buying instantly through Quadriga via debit card for just 1.5% - I never have to leave any money there, just send fiat and withdraw bitcoin. The first transfer I made was delayed 24 hours for some security reason, but every time since then it's instant. Very nice service. |
|
|
|
your doom and gloom is tiresome. here's the greatest conspiracy of all: is Anonymint a paid NSA shill?
I didn't want to be the first to say it, but I increasingly believe that he does indeed have ulterior motives. Like an infiltrator sent to sidetrack or co-opt a group from the inside. The way he can deftly deflect criticism while demanding citations and blathering on about slanderous comments, all the while pouring out links to various rabbit holes just to keep you of balance and waste your time, it's all a little too convenient. Also the repeated use of the term "DEEP STATE" always in all capitals, over and over, it just reeks of mk-ultra style programming. - - - Anyhow, I can't be certain of any of that, but one thing I am certain of is that barring a white paper outlining his "super coin" I won't be wasting any more time on him. |
|
|
|
Regarding transaction growth and the limits of bandwidth, has anyone thought of the possibility of parallel chains?
Split the Blockchain into several chunks and distribute.
Is there any discussion of this at all? Or is it just a stupid idea?
* Edit: never mind, I guess that's essentially sidechains, isn't it?
Yeah, the problem with those ideas is that you want to try and keep all TX's on the mainchain as possible to pay miners fees, imo, so as to minimize cannibalizing or even killing off Bitcoin. Any of those offchain alternatives are likely to create friction as well. So... what if you fragment the chain? Like a distributed computing project, so each node only had to do a fraction of the work. But then maybe you'd have problems with forks... but if there was a protocol that was very small, very fast that could help speed up consensus... Gavin talked about something like this once, invertable bloom filters, I think? he's never talked about that, afaik. IBLT is a totally different thing. that is a set reconciiation strategy dependent on the fact that most full nodes are carrying a set of unconfirmed tx's in their RAM that are already pretty close to identical to each others across the network. the smaller the differences, the smaller the IBLT has to be to reconcile those differences. the strategy is apparently only about 4 yo invented after Bitcoin. Gavin has proposed using IBLT's by miners who solve a block who then, instead of retransmitting the block with all it's tx's across the network which involves considerable latency, only then have to transmit the IBLT with the header to other nodes who then can reconstruct their unconfirmed tx set using the IBLT to match that of the proposed block to then see if the POW was in fact valid. that was pretty tortured language so i hope you understand. Yes, I was imagining using IBLT to maybe provide a mechanism to allow for some kind of parallelization of the nodes, so that each node only needs to contain a small chunk of the UTXO data. I guess what I'm envisioning is a node structure where it might be possible to split up the work of maintaining the blockchain similar to how storj is fragmenting and distributing files. Any proposed solutions I've seen so far to the scaling issue have been incremental at best, so I want to start spitballing some more "outside the box" crazy proposals, but I'm not a programmer so I only have a rudimentary idea of what's feasible. Sorry if it's all just a waste of time. |
|
|
|
|
@Brilliantrocket: yes, that's the one thank you (I thought it continued further than that, but memory is funny that way)
@kazuki49: that's not the one I was looking for... it's better! Thank you,
|
|
|
|
Regarding transaction growth and the limits of bandwidth, has anyone thought of the possibility of parallel chains?
Split the Blockchain into several chunks and distribute.
Is there any discussion of this at all? Or is it just a stupid idea?
* Edit: never mind, I guess that's essentially sidechains, isn't it?
Yeah, the problem with those ideas is that you want to try and keep all TX's on the mainchain as possible to pay miners fees, imo, so as to minimize cannibalizing or even killing off Bitcoin. Any of those offchain alternatives are likely to create friction as well. So... what if you fragment the chain? Like a distributed computing project, so each node only had to do a fraction of the work. But then maybe you'd have problems with forks... but if there was a protocol that was very small, very fast that could help speed up consensus... Gavin talked about something like this once, invertable bloom filters, I think? |
|
|
|
|
Regarding transaction growth and the limits of bandwidth, has anyone thought of the possibility of parallel chains?
Split the Blockchain into several chunks and distribute.
Is there any discussion of this at all? Or is it just a stupid idea?
* Edit: never mind, I guess that's essentially sidechains, isn't it?
|
|
|
|
got in with 370 btc last week at 230, this week we should be going over 250s  , btc isnt pumping , its undervalued and smart money is buying it up  Its not undervalued. Its rightly valued atm. Don't expect the price to move upward in the coming 2-3 months, just hope that the dumpers wont dominate the market again. sorry bro, but i fully expect the price to move upward in the coming 2-3months, we are at a very crucial period, http://www.coindesk.com/swedens-nasdaq-exchange-approves-bitcoin-based-etn/ is one of many reasons. With regulation so near they are stocking up. Once regulated the biggest changes will be in exchanges and coin storage as both will now be fully insured against theft etc. Exchanges will have to comply with the new rules which will mean full id of all users, in return for giving the id you will feel safe knowing your coins are insured. Banks will offer services based on btc and will make it easier and safer for the avergae joe to buy/hold and trade as long as tax is paid. http://www.coindesk.com/nasdaq-bitcoin-marketplace-noble/ heres another Most of the coins flowing into XBT Providers ETN will be from KnC Miners stash. This is just a way for KnC to get a pretty penny for their mined coins. I wouldn't expect this to move the market. Even so... if XBT Provider gets 10mil€ (still small number) in first month this could turn around the whole market. I doubt KNC will simply sell all their coins sub 300$. KNC will probably help them buying on OTC markets. Everyone from EU will be able to buy XBT shares... So there could be some huge money flow into it.I couldn't find the report about the Swiss fund that was considering taking all it's money out of the bank and holding it in a vault, but I did find this. http://www.businessinsider.com/r-snb-considering-higher-negative-interest-rates-schweiz-am-sonntag-2015-3"a rate of minus 1.5 percent is being considered". The war on savers is going to force people to find alternatives. *Edit - found it http://www.acting-man.com/?p=37037"One fund manager showed that for every CHF 10 m. in pension money, his fund would save CHF 25,000 – in spite of the costs involved in vault rent, cash transportation and other expenses." |
|
|
|
Let me put the emissions thing another way. The coin is supposed to be cheap at this point. It is barely used, technology isn't mature or highly usable, and merchant support is essentially nonexistent. Why anyone expect otherwise?
The purpose of PoW distribution is to continually dump coins on the market so that any sustained price rises are credible evidence of strong and sustained demand. It is the opposite of a closely held coin with no ongoing preprogrammed distribution where for example two insiders can trade coins between each other at whatever price they want. (Distribution to existing coin holders as with PoS doesn't count, that is just inflation.)
It's the same with Bitcoin BTW. It got pumped by China and maybe Willie to 1000+ USD but the relentless drip, drip, drip of 3.6 million USD per day being dumped on to the market by a preprogrammed selling process eroded the ability of of hoarders and pumpers (and deadbeat bots?) to keep the price up. Now we are below 1 million USD per day and that level of demand, at least, seems to be there (as evidenced by the past few months of price stability).
This is not a bad thing at all. It means people looking to get into Bitcoin (or Monero) now have a more realistic and sustainable entry price. They have less to fear from buying into a bubble and being left holding a bag than if they faced the prospect of buying at 1000 (BTC) or 0.01 (XMR).
Most people in the world do not own BTC or XMR. The preprogrammed mining/dumping serves to represent their interests, as opposed to a few tulip bulb (or "golden donkey") buyers trying to get rich quickly.
Excellent description of PoW distribution. The rate of distribution can have significant effect. Speaking of which, I've lost my link of a Monero distribution chart I thought I had bookmarked. It was just a table showing predicted disbursements going forward to the inflection point where they stop decreasing. If anyone has any idea what I'm talking about could you please re-link? Thank you. |
|
|
|
Looks like someone doesn't like it to come back below 238.Interesting.
that's me  More interesting is what happens if that wall at 260 on finex gets threatened? |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
