In his countless other threads OP indicated it is 10 digits random (A-Z,a-z,0-9).
So 10 digits @ 64 values per digit  64^10 = 83,929,936,5868,340,224 combinations
7970 is ~ 1 billion SHA-256 attempts using hashcat.

83,929,936,5868,340,224 / 1,000,000,000 / 60 / 60 / 24 / 365 = 26 GPU years.  50% chance in half that so 13 GPU years.   Someone with a 13 GPU farm running 24/7/365 for an entire year would have a 50% chance of cracking it.

$1,000 is a joke.

It is not economically feasible.  Not at $100, not at $1,000, maybe at $100,000. 

Bitcoin has the potential to reach $200,000 (+/- $200,000).

No it was more a sanity check like hopefully someone would think before saying H:12".

This makes sense.

Well the dimension between rack posts is ~17.5" (technically a little wider but there isn't suppose to be a metal to metal fit between chassis wall and the rack post). Chassis widths (excluding ears or slides) are usually ~17.25" +/- 0.25".  The 19" is the nominal dimensions and is larger than the space between posts.

Still the numbers do appear to be complete nonsense.  The width would need to be ~ 17" excluding rackmount ears to fit between the rack posts.   The height would be in increments of 1.75" minus 1/8" for clearance 6.875" for 4U).

In your clarification ask them to provide the H, W, D with each dimension.

OH NOES Bitcoin might only someday handle 10% of all tx in the world.

Come on nobody now how large Bitcoin will be.  Maybe Bitcoin never gets to PayPal stages so worrying about will it be able to handle being the single one currency in the world where every man woman and child processes every single tx is kinda silly.  I mean Bitcoin isn't even the single cryptocurreny today and your are invisioning a system where every nation on earth gives up their sovereign currency (something that is almost inconceivable) and the entirety of humanity processes directly on the blockchain for everything from billion dollar (equivelent) intra bank swaps to a cup of coffee.

If Bitcoin can't do that but it can say become the world largest payment network that is open, transparent, and decentralized in a decade or two would you consider it a failure?

Still if you absolutely can't sleep without knowing can Bitcoin scale to "the one coin to rule them all":
1) Will all tx be on the blockchain?  It is highly unlikely given that even today with essentially free txs and a tiny tiny ecosystem all tx aren't on the blockchain.
2) When will this end game occur? Tomorrow, a decade, fifty years?

Today handling that type of volume would require very large and expensive nodes.  It probably could be done but we are talking some serious hardware.  The largest bottleneck is bandwidth and most residential connections don't come close so all full nodes would be in a datacenter.     To avoid near continual swapping one would want a significant fraction of the UXTO in memory and at 50,000 tps we are talking "a lot" (64GB? 128GB?).  Disk is less of an issue but you are talking about ~1 TB per day.  It would require some pretty massive RAIDs.  Possible but hardly hobbyist.  CPU power is almost a non-issue today (quad core can perform roughly 50,000 tps) and will become less of an issue in the future.

The good news is Bitcoin isn't going from <1 tps to 50,000 tps in a year, or a decade.  It may never scale that large for issues beyond tech but even if it did we are talking on a lifetime scale.  Today we have TB scale drives, when I went to college in 1995 I bought one of the first economical 1 GB HDD.  I have do doubt in another 2 decades we will have PB scale storage for $200 or so.  The same will apply to bandwidth and memory.  

It probably makes more sense in looking at "if in the next 5-10 years" Bitcoin reached PayPal scale (tens of million users, 50 tps) what kind of resources are we talking about.  What types of optimizations would pay the largest dividends.   

The genesis block contained 50 BTC like all other blocks in the first 210,000.   This can be verified by any full node with a copy of the blockchain.
https://blockchain.info/block/000000000019d6689c085ae165831e934ff763ae46a2a6c172b3f1b60a8ce26f

Due to an early client bug the coins in the genesis block are unspendable and it is highly likely that will never be "patched".  Doing so would make new clients incompatible with older clients and would cause a hard fork. 

In the first year Satoshi probably mined a large number of coins however the network and source code was publicly available at that time, it just happened that very few people could even be bothered to download and run the client. The newslis, where Satoshi published his whitepaper and a year later the first version of the client  (pre bitcointak), had more than 10,000 subscribers yet it would appear less than a dozen even downloaded the client.   Kinda hard to believe now but the early launch of Bitcoin was rather lackluster.

Indeed. Any news taco?

I don't know.  There is lots of cool stuff being researched but nobody has been able to figure out how to make it economical (yet).  It is a big difference between someone made a transistor on xyz exotic tech and someone can crank out chips with billions of those transistors at a cost of a few pennies per mm2.

The "problem" is that Silicon has been too good.   When Silicon can double (transistor per mm2, computing per watt, transistor per $) every 24 months it is very tough to compete with that.   I guess over the next decade as silicon runs out of steam it will create an opportunity for someone to get the lab tech out of the labs and into the foundries.  Then again people have been talking about all that exotic tech for the past three decades and we just keep using silicon and make the transistors smaller, faster, cheaper each generation.

It is unlikely a process node will be skipped.  Fast forward ahead 3,4, x years 20nm will now be mainstream production with reasonable costs and 14nm will be the cutting edge insane NRE and ultra high wafer costs.  Essentially the roles 28nm and 20nm are now.  Still I agree even 2016 is dubiously optimistic and those thinking it will happen next year are just delusional. 

It is getting harder and harder for foundries to maintain Moores law.  Each generation the fabs cost most, there are more delays, the cost benefits get smaller, and it takes longer to just reach cost parity with the prior generation.   It is all symptoms of silicon lithography running out of steam.   

Absolute centralized power of the money supply with a single entity setting global monetary inflation = insta-fail.  Hell even the fed doesn't have that much power.

Not sure why I read past the lies about Bitcoin being premined.

Which doesn't reduce the hashrate, it just changes the owner.

That won't be for a while even assuming no price increase.  Even still as the oldest least efficient becomes obsolete it will be resold to those with cheaper power and when it finally goes offline there will still be newer more efficient gear coming online.  net-net you may see the hashrate stall but a sustained down trend?  Not likely.

They haven't said a single word.   Last statement was "tape scheduled for early Oct" and then silence.

Well they are traceable.   Give me a tx and I can trace it back to the coinbases where the coins were created.  However there is no 1:1 mapping of inputs and outputs.  So 1 tx can be traced back to multiple coinbases and one coinbase can be traced forward to multiple unspent transactions.

Once deployed ASICs will keep mining.   Miner may never make a positive return but shutting down will only ensure a larger loss.  If difficulty reaches or exceeds break even efficiency (electricial cost = value of BTC mined) then new hardware sales will die off but existing units will remain online.

Unless the exchange drops 75%+ I wouldn't expect to see a major drop in difficulty.

Well it is a little more complex than that.  Credit card thieves frequently hit online poker room.

Deposit x BTC.  Lose x BTC to an accomplice.  Double spend the deposit.

OR

Deposit x BTC.  Play poker if win let tx confirm, if lose double spend and try again.

ASIC prices can come down a LOT before hardware manufacturers are hurting.   <$2 per GH/s is pretty easy.  $1 per GH/s might be harder to do but I would expect raw chips (ASICs on the reel) to hit that sometime in 2014.  Of course vendor would rather sell a unit at $10 per GH than cutting prices to $5, or $3, or even $2 per GH/s isn't going to put anyone under.


That being said we likely will see one or more company go under.  These are small and often poorly run companies.  This is the gravy train portion with massive margins, lines of customers, or limited competition.  Pretty much impossible to not make money now.  When crunch time comes some won't make it.

Chip wattage =/= wattage at the wall.  Figure 90% lost in DC conversion, and another 90% lost ATX PSU and add in overhead for cooling and host.

If the chip is 0.55 J/GH no way you are looking at the wall wattage of only 1300W.


Agreed.  I doubt we will see higher than 2 TH/s and 1.0 or 1.5 TH/s may make more sense in the long run.   Continual loads need to be derated 20% (NEC) so that limits a 120V, 15A circuit to 1440W continual.  You can always use more units if you want more power.

The client should do that calculation for you and should never make mistakes.   I have never seen the QT client neglect to include the "min mandatory fee" on tx with low priority.