|
Fat Tay Choon went to the Mining Academy in Brazil, east of Satoshi's yurt, where Gavin was kidnapped
|
|
|
|
Social security number has nothing to do with lending and it is use to keep track of citizens for society rights. Second your talking about a credit score, but the problem is the anonymity of the internet. What if I register a lot account and flood your service with a lot of fake data making it seem that I am amazing lendee, build it up so I can get a loan of 1000 BTC no questions asked cause your service would make me look like a great lendee. But then you combat it with facebook login, now your going against the anonymity that bitcoin provides. This is one of those questions that takes a lot of hard work and time to figure out and I would just move on cause you don't sound like you did enough work to really see the flaws (many more that I can point out) or research on lending and credit.
If someone is completely anonymous, they don't deserve a high credit score. Most serious lenders require ID. |
|
|
|
 We're now past 2200. That's another 100 done, and just 209978 more 100's to go! |
|
|
|
(yes, I'm using my production site for development... my profs would have killed me!).
Your customers would share the same opinion when something goes wrong because of this. A question to the users on this forum - would you prefer a proportional reward system, or PPLNS? I feel like the current proportional system would be good for people who can't mine all the time, but it also means that the first users are going to get a lot more BTC than those who come later. Thoughts/opinions?
If you want to keep a proportional reward system, you should get used to feeling like you are robbing your legitimate miners (while rewarding the thieves that mine for thievery). See this article for mathematical details. A question to the users on this forum - would you prefer a proportional reward system, or PPLNS? I feel like the current proportional system would be good for people who can't mine all the time, but it also means that the first users are going to get a lot more BTC than those who come later. Thoughts/opinions?
Myself I don't mine 24/7 but usually shut down at night so I might be interested in a system that would be best for that way of mining, if I was going to use your pool. Is the proportional reward system best for that? Yes, proportional would work best in that regard. Proportional gives you a cut of the mined block based on how many shares you contributed to a particular round. For example, if it took 200000 shares to mine a block and you contributed 5000, you would get 5000/200000 * 50BTC, or 1.25 BTC. With PPLNS, if you haven't submitted any shares in a while you may not get anything when a round ends. This isn't how it works. PPLNS usually has n equivalent to two times the difficulty, which means that even if a round is very long, the payouts are perfectly fair to any non-24/7 miner, and long rounds only increase the variance. Proportional pools, on the other hand, will pay out less to honest on/off miners during long rounds. The balance is given away to people deliberately trying to game the system. As for development, this is a side project for me, so I've been keeping things quick and dirty while active users are minimal. My full time job is as CEO of a tech startup (Oikoi) in Waterloo, Ontario - check out our website if you're interested! Once I build up a userbase I'll be creating staging/dev environments and running everything through a continuous integration server. Most of my development has been with proportional rewarding in mind, so I haven't looked that much into PPLNS - it seems I may have had some incorrect assumptions. My backend can support it, so I would absolutely be willing to switch to PPLNS if the community would prefer it. Good to see you're experienced. Waterloo, Ontario is where I live, by the way. |
|
|
|
A question to the users on this forum - would you prefer a proportional reward system, or PPLNS? I feel like the current proportional system would be good for people who can't mine all the time, but it also means that the first users are going to get a lot more BTC than those who come later. Thoughts/opinions?
Myself I don't mine 24/7 but usually shut down at night so I might be interested in a system that would be best for that way of mining, if I was going to use your pool. Is the proportional reward system best for that? Yes, proportional would work best in that regard. Proportional gives you a cut of the mined block based on how many shares you contributed to a particular round. For example, if it took 200000 shares to mine a block and you contributed 5000, you would get 5000/200000 * 50BTC, or 1.25 BTC. With PPLNS, if you haven't submitted any shares in a while you may not get anything when a round ends. This isn't how it works. PPLNS usually has n equivalent to two times the difficulty, which means that even if a round is very long, the payouts are perfectly fair to any non-24/7 miner, and long rounds only increase the variance. Proportional pools, on the other hand, will pay out less to honest on/off miners during long rounds. The balance is given away to people deliberately trying to game the system. |
|
|
|
(yes, I'm using my production site for development... my profs would have killed me!).
Your customers would share the same opinion when something goes wrong because of this. A question to the users on this forum - would you prefer a proportional reward system, or PPLNS? I feel like the current proportional system would be good for people who can't mine all the time, but it also means that the first users are going to get a lot more BTC than those who come later. Thoughts/opinions?
If you want to keep a proportional reward system, you should get used to feeling like you are robbing your legitimate miners (while rewarding the thieves that mine for thievery). See this article for mathematical details. |
|
|
|
TheBitcoinChemist,
Please share with me exactly where you have received your information on climate change. Because while it appears that you do have some understanding of climate science and its effects, there are certain distinct gaps in your knowledge, and a lot of it sounds like it came right out of a libertarian playbook, which naturally raises suspicions.
If you could share specific books you've read, or specific websites in which you collect information from, I would appreciate it.
It's easier to refer them to this. If they don't bother reading it, don't bother arguing. People oblivious to science will remain in their religious bubble no matter how much persuasion attacks them. |
|
|
|
5 BTC. Bet. Wager.
Before humanity. Mankind.
Finds extraterrestrial, sentient life. Smart aliens.
Humanity. Mankind.
Will be able to either destroy entire planets (world bye-bye), or entirely wipe out said aliens. Extinct ET.
Yes or no? I'd prefer not to use escrow as the time value of my btc is quite high.
You managed to find an even more confusing order, but though I was able to figure out what you're saying, your point is moot. Are we going to be able to wipe out ALL life in the universe? That's the only way MAD will work. Not really. Tripolar conflicts have occurred before on a planet as small as ours. I can only imagine the differences between lifeforms in different solar systems would be large enough to support a multipolar MAD. It occurs that nimda has a high chance of winning the bet, though. The fact that we are closer to discovering than being discovered indicates that we are far ahead of any other sentient life in close vicinity. Though, certainly, destroying life is not nearly as efficient as trying to make peace or even ally with other sentient life. 5 + 1 = 6, while 5 − 1 = 4. |
|
|
|
Re: who gave them the right to the rainforest, and land rights in general (spilling into the taxation thread)
When multiple parties are in contention over a piece of land, they must negotiate to find the most mutually beneficial path. If that can't happen, then there is no invisible hand, and capitalism is fundamentally flawed.
The right to land is given by value produced. If a significant amount of people believe that lumbering destroys more value than it produces, then it follows that lumbering companies do not have the right to the land. An aristocratic state, whether a corrupt government or a malignant forestry cabal, is the only reason why forestry companies do and will continue to have the rights to the land. This is not capitalism, that is aristocratism, and there is a difference (although they can overlap). In short, we have a aristocratic Brazilian regime today (a flawed democracy at best), and unless traditionally liberal capitalism or another populist regime is instilled (a forestry-based stratocracy does not qualify as populist), environmentalists are fully justified when they demonstrate against the forestry cabal. |
|
|
|
|
I'm not sure if arguing with you is productive. Certainly others have done so already, and your refusal to change your point of view indicates that you'll probably deflect any arguments I might make. I tried debating a creationist on evolution once, and it's really the same problem. If you genuinely don't believe in anthropogenic climate change, that's your opinion. I believe such an opinion to be excessively ignorant.
Back on topic: Cessation of those activities might be going too far. What we really need is for governments to stop subsidizing oil. Between 2002 and 2008, 36+ billion dollars were directly used to increase oil (okay, total fossil fuel) profits and production. Even worse, if taxpayers didn't pay that money in the first place, it would more than offset the tiny increase in energy prices. Plus, think about the resulting bonus to alternative energy if the government stops sponsoring the companies that try to kill it.
|
|
|
|
We would need to stop burning anything for at least a few hundred years. No cars, no heating your home, no cooking. Even then it would continue to hotter for centuries.
Expecially since those activities are not the predominate causes of climate changes. You know what is?  This wouldn't cause it to "continue to hotter" for centuries, though. Maybe it will in millions of years when it becomes significantly more intense, but not in centuries. |
|
|
|
Find out which private key the amount is assigned to and export it and import the private key into Mt Gox and then send the amount to your new wallet.
PRESTO!
^^ first read my similar reply above, which was debunked  Export ALL the private keys and import them into a new wallet. |
|
|
|
A test to get out of newbie status would be entirely counter-productive. The point of newbie status is to:
- Create an unavoidable cost associated with creating an account. If you're banned, you've got to do some work to be able to post in regular sections again.
- Contain most spammers and trolls so that their posts can be seen more easily.
A test has no cost for trolls, spammers, and banned users. It has a cost only for legitimate new users, who are exactly the people I want to enter the main forum.
What about this test (or an easier one) at signup, if possible? That should block most bots. |
|
|
|
|
My wallet.dat is in C:\$RECYCLER.
|
|
|
|
If small amounts of bitcoins become unspendable then over time lots of bitcoins will be destroyed.
It's not that small amounts are unspendable - it's surely just that certain amounts are unspendable *when aggregated*. Satoshi dice manages to send you single satoshis no problem. Try spending 10 satoshis at once rather than 1000. I can imagine that there may be certain business models which will rely on collecting very small amounts, so It seems highly likely that there will eventually be some script and/or wallet service which will run as a background task and slowly combine your small-value inputs by broadcasting low or no-fee low-priority transactions. This will require the minimum tx fee 100 times, or 0.05 BTC! You could also send 1 satoshi at once: this will be even worse, costing 0.5 BTC! |
|
|
|
If one decides to bump the difficulty up to twice its value instantly (ignoring anything that may have caused this), many people would be forced to "buy rather than mine".
Except that those bitcoins they would have gotten now go to someone else. In the end, supply is the same. Demand is the same. Argument is invalid. As I pointed out, the demand may stay the same but is transferred to a different market. The miners do not affect the price directly, so the decreased demand there does not matter. The USD/BTC market does affect the price, so the increased demand there is significant. |
|
|
|
They aren't stealing outputs they are simply increasing the block subsidy. Instead of getting 50 BTC they give themselves 55 BTC or 58.72 BTC. Unless a node can verify the block tx and thus verify the amount paid in fees and thus verify the block has the correct subsidy the attack can go on.
There is no such thing as "kinda verifying". You either trust nobody on the network and validate everything or your are a lite client and trust others. A middle ground serves no purpose. The client is still relatively complex yet still allows attacks like modifying the generation rate on the network. At least a lite client knows it isn't validating it is dangerous to build a client which gives the user a false sense of security.
This client validates everything except the scripts, the block timestamp, and the block size. A miner cannot fake the fees because the client validates the numbers. The only way to increase the block subsidy is by stealing outputs. |
|
|
|
Solved. Thanks Stephen!
This thread is to function simply as a relatively chronological index of the articles that appear in the Press forum. This thread is useful as the SMF forum software used by BitcoinTalk sorts threads only by Last Post, so it is difficult to see from looking at the Press forum which articles are new when there are comments on older threads. Those wishing to "subscribe" to this thread with a post are welcome to do so, but please keep it one word ... "subscribe".With the new Watchlist feature, simply click the link for Watch in this thread to cause this post to reappear in your watchlist whenever there is a new reply. Here's more on the Watchlist: - http://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=90136.0 Please no comments about the articles here, and no links to the article itself, only to the new forum thread created for the article. I fail to see what the purpose of this thread is. SMF clearly has a sort by first post, here, and the thread is even less accurate than it is (due to people forgetting to post there, etc.). I suggest this post become destickied and the sort by first post feature used in lieu of it.
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
