Bitcoin Forum
March 19, 2024, 09:56:37 AM *
News: Latest Bitcoin Core release: 26.0 [Torrent]
 
  Home Help Search Login Register More  
  Show Posts
Pages: « 1 ... 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 [217] 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 ... 800 »
4321  Bitcoin / Press / Re: 2013-09-26 Forbes - There Are Bad Bitcoin Investments And Then There Are Ones... on: September 27, 2013, 04:30:44 PM
Would this guy store gold bricks in a safe at home... worth millions of dollars?

At some point, you start building security, or putting them in a safety deposit box, yes?

No to a safety deposit box, based on precedent: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Order_6102

Yes to some security measures, for sure.



Interesting... think there will be an executive order of this nature for bitcoin soon???

No one likely saw Executive Order 6102 coming before it was announced. When the USD/Euro go into what some see as an inevitable freefall against real assets (gold, silver, bitcoin) all bets are off.

More importantly since gold has a physical form it becomes much easier to confiscate.  I mean a gold bar is a gold bar kinda hard to hide that.  An encrypted wallet is just numbers.  With some forms of deniable encryption it can be impossible to prove the encrypted file even exists.  Kinda hard to say "I forgot the password" for your gold safe.  Ok the government will gladly drill it open for you.

The key difference between Bitcoin and all other forms of wealth is that the "coins" are stored in the blockchain distributed across tens of thousands of computers in 100+ countries.  The fact that the wallet can be backed up and encrypted provides a measure of deniability which can't be achieved with a physical asset.  I can take a flight out of the country with a brainwallet that provides access to 1M BTC.  Try doing that with gold. Smiley
4322  Bitcoin / Legal / Re: Filed a request for an administrative ruling with FinCEN this morning. on: September 27, 2013, 04:20:35 PM
Since Bernanke doesn't consider gold to be money I imagine buying gold coins online with bitcoins is not affected by the FinCEN guidance. Smiley

That's not true. Gold in the appropriate format is considered currency. Normalized ingots, and common bullion gold coins are currency.

What Bernanke says in public has to be taken with skepticism...

For the purpose of FinCEN regulations gold dealers are not considered money transmitters.  Selling gold bullion for Bitcoins (or dollars) would not be considered a money service business.
4323  Bitcoin / Legal / Re: Filed a request for an administrative ruling with FinCEN this morning. on: September 27, 2013, 04:19:28 PM
Did you ever receive a response?

I'd like to know this also.

I did receive a response but it contained factual errors.  I had a revised clarification drafted and sent back to FinCEN per their procedures.
4324  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: How would a Bitcoin future be better? on: September 27, 2013, 04:00:21 PM
Monthly bank account fees and overdraft fees make up only a small amount of the financial industry's income.

That hasn't been true for a long time.  


http://www.bankrate.com/finance/investing/fdic-study-outrageous-overdraft-fees-1.aspx


I don't have a cite but I believe 2009 was the first year that fees (both interchange and service/overdraft/etc) made up more than half of Bank Of America's revenue.  BofA isn't unique it was just a headline that they collected more revenue from fees then from interest for the first time.
4325  Alternate cryptocurrencies / Altcoin Discussion / Re: "Number of Confirmations". One reason why ALL alts are a fail! on: September 27, 2013, 02:56:21 PM
I don't think there is a scenario where the network never resolves splits but the shorter the block interval to the propogation time the longer and deeper those reorganizations are.  It is rare for Bitcoin to have orphan chains which are 2+ blocks deep.
4326  Economy / Service Discussion / Re: Ripple Q & A @ Joel Katz and OpenCoin on: September 27, 2013, 05:41:55 AM
Quote
Running the bitcoin client only means you can broadcast transactions, that's somewhat shallow participation in the network (you aren't mining blocks). The ripple client has a setting in Advanced -> options to set your validator node / rippled server, so its just not true that it doesn't allow you to choose your own validators (the setting is an explicit field right there in the UI).

Are you saying you people could ignore Ripple inc. If they made a change that people didnt like?

In theory yes, as a practical matter no.  Every client by default comes set to trust Ripple, Inc.  A significant portion of the network will never change that.   Sure you can untrust Ripple, Inc and trust a set of validators with incompatible rules but you have simply forked yourself into a insignificant minority network.

It is like saying if miners got everyone to agree could they change the block subsidy to 50,000 BTC.  They can and the majority of the network would simply ignore them.  You could fork Bitcoin to give you 1,000,000 BTC as well.  In theory nothing stops you, the practical reality that a network of one is useless is a hard thing to overcome though. 
4327  Economy / Service Discussion / Re: Ripple Q & A @ Joel Katz and OpenCoin on: September 27, 2013, 05:37:02 AM
No it won't, you will not be on the same blockchain if you are connected to completely different nodes. That's why the bitcoin client connects to a bootstrap IRC channel, so that everyone can connect to the same set of ip addresses.

For the record Bitcoin hasn't bootstrapped using IRC for almost two years now.  Last version was 0.5.9 IIRC.
4328  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Vanity Addresses Are Stupid on: September 27, 2013, 03:52:02 AM
Well they are foolish.  It undermines Bitcoin's security and privacy model.   If a QC ever breaks ECDSA those who don't reuse addresses will have the last laugh.
4329  Economy / Service Discussion / Re: Ripple Q & A @ Joel Katz and OpenCoin on: September 27, 2013, 03:47:28 AM

Thanks for the clarification my question would then be what if a government wanted to control the network to shut it down couldn't they go in with guns drawn and confiscate the equipment plug it in  and then create so much havoc that it collapsed the network?  

Which would be easier try to find and confiscate and mine with Petahashes worth of equipment or hand a siezure warrant demanding OpenCoin turning over the private keys for the validator nodes?  For added bonus take the owners/operators away in handcuff and throw them in jail without trial under a content of court charge until they hand over the private keys.

If you are a corrupt government which would you find easier to control, manipulate, or subvert?

If you run the Ripple client you aren't part of the trust network anymore than you having a banking account makes you part of the interbank network.  Your client will accept whatever validators say are correct and the client implicitly trusts OpenCoin controlled valiators.  A single seizure warrant would give a government complete control of the Ripple network tonight with no massive hashing farm to run or the rest of a global network to compete against.   

Quote
I know this is getting to the point of off topic on my own thread, but I guess the larger point to me is that all transactions require some level of trust.

All trust is relative.  All risk is relative.  I could die tonight falling down the stairs but that doesn't mean climbing stairs is equally risky to playing with high voltage line in the rain.
4330  Economy / Service Discussion / Re: Ripple Q & A @ Joel Katz and OpenCoin on: September 27, 2013, 03:33:25 AM
That is exactly my point if KNC or some other asic manufacture where to decide that it would be advantageous to control the network could they not plug in their tera-hash units and have 51 percent of the network and do as they pleased?  

51 percent of the network doesn't allow you to "do as you please".  That is a misnomer.  

With 51% of the network they could attack Bitcoin one of two ways
a) reverse tx they CREATED (double spend)
b) prevent tx from being confirmed (denial attack)

both of which would likely do significant damage to the value of Bitcoin and thus the value of their multimillion dollar enterprise which builds .... chips that are designed solely for high speed mining.

On the other hand the network model (either directly by mining or indirectly by hardware sales) gives them the ability to make significant profits at less risk by just "doing the right thing".
4331  Economy / Service Discussion / Re: Ripple Q & A @ Joel Katz and OpenCoin on: September 27, 2013, 03:28:06 AM
But dont I have to trust miners?

...

So my question is dont I have to trust third party institutions like KNC to not pervert the network?       

Miners can't change the rules.  Miner can't validate invalid tx.  Miners can't simply decide to print 100 billion BTC on a whim.  The Bitcoin trust model involves more than just miners.  All full nodes independently validate transactions.  If a miner (or cartel of miners) try to break the rules their blocks/txs will simply be discarded by the rest of the network.   Miners simply resolve "disputes" in the network by selecting one tx to be canonical.   If I send 1 BTC to you and the same BTC to TradeFortress only one of those can be valid or I printed money from nothing.   Without miners your node and TradeFortresses node will never reach consensus (as it involves one of you losing 1 BTC).   Miners force that consensus because one of those double spent tx will be included in the next block and the network will then consider the other "version" as invalid.

I recommend reading the Bitcoin wiki as it outlines what miners can and can't do.  

As for specifically trusting one ASIC provide.  Well that is the elegance of the Bitcoin reward system.  There is an economic incentive to "do the right thing" and that economic incentive as it relates to ASICs has spawned a true free market of competition.  KNC doesn't have 51% of the network, nor do they have any reason to try.  They can become incredibly wealthy by simply "doing the right thing" and providing superior hardware at a price the market accepts.
4332  Alternate cryptocurrencies / Mining (Altcoins) / Re: Swedish ASIC miner company kncminer.com on: September 27, 2013, 02:11:28 AM
And what's the air conditioning cost of cooling 1.4million BTU/hr?

You mean operating cost?  Same as anything else, it depends on the efficiency and the climate but generally if you use 1W of electricity you are going to use another 0.25W to 0.5W to remove that heat.  So if your 1 PH/s rig uses 800 KW you can anticipate needing to spend another 200KW to 400KW to get the heat out.
4333  Bitcoin / Mining / Re: Changing Bitcoin hashing algorithm every 4 years with block reward halving on: September 26, 2013, 08:58:43 PM
If you think mining is a game for free coinz then it is an awesome idea.
If you realize the purpose of mining is to secure the network from an attack then it is possibly the worst idea ever.

No wait I take it back the "we should confiscate coins which haven't been used or block tainted transactions" is worse.


4334  Alternate cryptocurrencies / Mining (Altcoins) / Re: Swedish ASIC miner company kncminer.com on: September 26, 2013, 08:46:32 PM
its also fair to say current designs and the selected process nodes are more likely geared for performance/mm˛ (per $)  than power efficiency. Not that I expect an order of magnitude difference, but more than doubling efficiency at the expense of performance per mm˛ or $ might not be out of reach with downclocking/volting and a LP process Maybe even a redesign if that would be worth it.

Agreed.  Also Bitfury might also be able to get to ~0.4 J/GH with a die shrink to 28nm as they have very impressive specs for 55nm.  Still anything outside the realm of a magnitude or more in efficiency improvement means that 1 PH/s is going to consume an insane amount of power.  Cut the 800KW in half, even 400KW is still 1,700 amps @ 240V.  Then remember energy in = energy out.  Most people don't think about heat in KW but 400KW is 1.4 million BTU/hr.   To put that number an average size furnace is 60K to 80K BTU/hr. Smiley

We are talking about something like this for cooling.
4335  Bitcoin / Hardware / Re: HashFast announces specs for new ASIC: 400GH/s on: September 26, 2013, 08:34:45 PM
2.  IDK (is that really a good idea?)

In most cases no it probably is a very very bad idea.  However I am planning to experiment with immersion cooling.  If the chip uses 250W nominal and there are two regulators that is 125W each.  It is 88% efficient that means 142W in (12 VDC) and 125W out (~0.8 VDC) which leaves 17W converted to heat.  Eyeballing the diagrams they look to be roughly 2.5 cm2 so we are talking a heat flux of ~6W/cm2.  Fluorinert critical heat flux is > 15 W/cm2.   I would prefer to remove the heatsinks if they can be removed.  They look to be pretty tall (40 to 60mm) and that limits how closely I can stack the boards.

Quote
3.  AFAIK the radiator they're using is

Thanks for the links.

In the review it looks like it performed @ 10.7 W/C.  That should be more than fine for a single chip (250W) but two chips (500W) would mean something like 46C above ambient.  Then again maybe they plan on upgrading the fans or the chips are fine with higher operating temps.


They indicate the chips clocks up and down based on temps I do wonder what is the targeted operating temp.
 
4336  Alternate cryptocurrencies / Mining (Altcoins) / Re: Swedish ASIC miner company kncminer.com on: September 26, 2013, 08:23:42 PM
I think we might actually start to see Petahash devices by next year....if this keeps going.

Well probably not.  Physics starts to get into the way.  20 and 14nm are prohibitively expensive and probably will be for 2 years.   28nm is probably as good as it gets.  It remains to be see how efficient 28nm tech can be made but it is interesting that Cointerra and HF have roughly the same die density (GH/mm2) and roughly the same efficiency (J/GH).   For the record BFL claims similar but I don't put too much stock into it.  Still the odds that two teams with reasonable industry talent would achieve roughly the same performance and miss something obvious for higher efficiency is unlikely.  So no 14/20nm and pretty reasonable that any other future offerings will be ~0.8 J/GH (say +/- 50%).  That means even if the chips are free 1 PH/s is going to be expensive.  Converting, regulating and routing 800 KW isn't cheap and neither is getting rid of the 800 KW of heat it produces, even with refrigeration. 800 KW = >220 tons of AC.
4337  Bitcoin / Hardware / Re: CoinTerra Demonstrates Working FPGA. Releases Additional ASIC Chip Details. on: September 26, 2013, 08:03:06 PM
Generally hosting is charged by the KW and not by the space it consumes so ther would be no difference in cost for requiring more rack space

Well generally it is charged by both. 

Quote
Also the more important Criteria is cooling. Generally there is a limit of 8-10 kW per rack and usually it's less than 10 KW per rack. Few data centers allow more.

Many do if you are using a private cage.  Depending on the provider you can get up to ~25 KW (two 60A 208 drops).  Beyond that is probably going to require three phase.

Quote
Thus you will be sparsely populating these Bitcoin mining equipment on the racks with plenty of air in between regardless of 2U or 4U box size so in practice it would take the same amount of rack apace regardless of box size. And cooling these power hungry chips is very important cos they're temperature sensitive and run faster when they're cooler.

If you are putting 1 U space between units then it is 3U vs 5U still means less units per rack.   At 5U (4U unit plus 1U space).  You are looking at only 8 units per rack.  If it is 2 TH/s and pulls 0.8 J/GH (at the wall) it is "only" 12 KW per rack.  Granted it isn't the end of the world and for most users it probably makes no difference but it does mean less density.  I though 1 TH/U was pretty aggressive.
4338  Other / Beginners & Help / Re: What happens to Bitcoins that are sent to a wrong address? on: September 26, 2013, 07:57:56 PM
What the hell is BTB and why does it use the same address structure as Bitcoin?

Still if you have the BTB private key and its addresses are constructed the same way you should be able to import that private key into a Bitcoin wallet and have access to those coins.
4339  Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / Re: at what point will we move back the decimal? on: September 26, 2013, 07:51:47 PM
They should think about it. I've been giving BTC as birthday gifts and it sounds kind of lame to people that they got a quarter of a BTC. Also all the cool ways to give BTC have a minimum size of 1 BTC which is just too much to give away as a gift. I guess they could downsize their minimum order, but then again, it sucks getting like 1/4 of something.

There is no "they".  Bitcoin is a consensus system.  If you convince every single Bitcoin holder, miner, merchant, service provider, developer then yeah it will change.  In other words it will never change.  Give people 200 mBTC if you want to look like a big spender.  250 sounds big.
4340  Bitcoin / Hardware / Re: HashFast launches sales of the Baby Jet on: September 26, 2013, 06:28:42 PM
There are a lot of problems with cyphershill's recent posts. That's why he ignored any of the valid questions and instead called everyone idiots and posted something that had nothing to do with anything. If you solo rather than pool mine for the next 10.5 days and find nothing then you were very plainly better off mining in a pool while difficulty was lower. This is not a complicated concept to grasp.

If you solo mine and find more than the expected number of blocks in the next 10.5 days then you are very plainly better of mining solo while the difficulty was lower.

I think you guys are just talking past each other.

solo mining vs pool mining doesn't change the expected outcome.  Pool mining reduces variance but there is a point of diminishing returns.  Psychological reasons aside most miners don't need to remove daily volatility they just need to keep monthly volatility in check.  Why monthly?  Because the power bill comes monthly.  Depending on how much risk you are willing to take you can have a pretty high confidence with 0.1% to 1% of the network.  More than 1% really no reason to use a pool (at least no volatility reason) and below 0.1% it doesn't make much sense even for those willing to take a lot of risk (unless you just like gambling).  Between those two it really comes down to miner preference.

Pages: « 1 ... 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 [217] 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 ... 800 »
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!