Perfect compression is an impossibility. No algorithm can guarantee that all inputs will be reduced in size. It is an absolute impossibility. This hasn't prevented numerous scams over the years very similar to perpetual motion machines or trading algorithms that can't lose. http://www.faqs.org/faqs/compression-faq/part1/section-8.htmlAnyone claiming they can compress all data x% is lying. Period. All lossless compression algorithms will result in LARGER file size for some inputs. That is a mathematical certainty. I'm not lying, I assure you. If I am in error anywhere, it may be in not understanding some fundamental principle which might SEEM to make this impossible. But because I do not possess any such understanding, and indeed believe it IS indeed possible, then perhaps I am able to overcome what others deem impossible (and to them IS so because of that belief) while I do not have such a hindrance. IF you knew the method by which I have achieved this compression, then your claim in quotes above would vanish in a puff of air as your jaw hit the floor. If I wished to remain a pauper all my life, to prove you wrong, I would indeed tell you the secret right now. But I've lived a poor life, and now it's time for something to actually go right for me. I believe I can have a better end to my story than all the starts in it that went nowhere. This is not so much "compression" that is almost a misleading concept. I am placing the entire contents of the data into another container that anyone can access, and that container has a way of recording which 0's and 1's are where in that container. So that all I need to do is reference to you a code. You go into the container and decode the references via the software, and the 0's and 1's come back to life as they were originally. But now that I have the finished crypto code, which is just the master reference key to the sequence hidden inside that container, your computer can follow the instructions programmed in it to solve the block the same way Bitcoins does. Once the block is solved, you then have the entire original file contained inside that solved timeline. I know how to do this because it's all I've thought about for 3 years, sometimes for 12 hours a day, sweating myself to death, unable to sleep, because the idea was so cool, I couldn't stop thinking about it. Yeah that is the definition of compression. Your approach is a textbook scam attempt: Step 1) Amazing opportunity with no useful facts or details. Step 2) Build hype Step 3) Just need some funding and everyone makes a fortune. Step 4) Disappear. Perfect compression is a mathematical impossibility. |
|
|
|
Perfect compression is an impossibility. No algorithm can guarantee that all inputs will be reduced in size. It is an absolute impossibility. This hasn't prevented numerous scams over the years very similar to perpetual motion machines or trading algorithms that can't lose. http://www.faqs.org/faqs/compression-faq/part1/section-8.htmlAnyone claiming they can compress all data x% is lying. Period. All lossless compression algorithms will result in LARGER file size for some inputs. That is a mathematical certainty. |
|
|
|
|
Yup 145 billion difficulty. That seems highly likely.
|
|
|
|
|
1) All nodes don't mine. It would be beyond stupid to try and mine on a starship with minute long latency.
2) Bitcoins can be used off chain. If for some reason you needed "Bitcoin spending money" far away from earth the crew would simply escrow their funds and then use an off blockchain transactions. When the crew returned they would be paid their final balance from the escrowed funds.
|
|
|
|
Not exactly. The W/mm2 issue has to do with the size of the physical chip, not the size of the packaging. There's only so much heat that can be removed from silicon for a given temperature gradient. For the packaging, you can use materials like copper or aluminum that have higher thermal conductivity then Silicon. While the die size determines the heat transfer at the silicon junction, the size and more importantly type of package is also important as the thermal energy must pass through the package as well and the lower the thermal conductivity the higher the core die temp is going to reach. The bizarre thing is that they reported using " QFP packaging, 44 pin, no exposed heat pad" for the size of the die that makes absolutely no sense @ >12W and is still hard to believe even at 5W. They do make packages with exposed metal heat pad to improve heat transfer. For example this is the Avalon chip.  Inside the package the die is pressed against the large square metal pad in the center of the package. The center pad is only used for heat transfer, the other pins are used for electrical power, ground, and signal. The pad will be surface mounted to a non-electrical pad (copper plate) on the PCB to conduct heat away from this chip. Using a multi-layer board the connection can extend from the top layer through the PCB to the bottom layer which is used as a heat dump. As a side note this is why the heatsink is on the "back" of an Avalon board. The heat is conducted through the heatpad, through the PCB, to the heatsink on the other side. With a QFP and no heat pad essentially the entire chip is encapsulated in insulating plastic and that greatly limits the amount of power that can be dispersed. |
|
|
|
|
the default keypool is 100 keys.
if you call getnewaddress 100 times it will remove all existing keys from keypool (and auto replace them with newer ones).
from commandline:
bitcoind getnewaddress
from debug window:
getnewaddress
|
|
|
|
|
To echo what others have said. It does not appear that you received any payments. You indicated there were two orders, the second order should have a unique payment address (not the public master key). I only saw one so you may wish to find the payment address for the second order and verify no funds have been sent to it.
Going forward I would
a) following instructions in the post above to "start over"
b) TEST YOUR SYSTEM. Buy something from your store, make a payment and track the progress in the plugin and on blockchain.info.
I find it kinda hard to believe you setup a site involving real money and it never occurred to you to test the system to see with your own eyes what your users will see/experience.
|
|
|
|
What is your bitcoin address?
You can check transactions on blockchain.info
Thanks for the reply, so my "Master Public Key" is: f55c4d640fe2a77676262b38760148b01112c5e3e9ed4f4715f0e72e6b8a7e2843c94990d41f99d 308469d5155c56d379ae91498345b0778b7c884675b2efecc I went to the site you mentioned and put that in for a search and it said "Unrecognized search pattern" Don't use your "master private key" again. make a new one. people can use this to steal your coins from addresses made with this master key iirc. Why is it called Public master key and not Private master key? Because it is the PUBLIC master key not the PRIVATE mater key. B!z is being incomplete but the advice is good. However the OP likely should: a) stop using this public master key b) generate a new public master key c) keep master keys secret. There are some potential vulnerabilities from an attacker knowing the public master key. The first is that all future transactions can be traced. From the public master key it is possible to determine all future transactions involving the OP. Not a good idea to compromise the anonymity of your clients like that. The second is that IF an attacker obtains a single private key, they can use that combined with the public master key to calculate the private master key and steal all coins from the wallet. It would require the OP to reveal more information but given the OP has no balance there is really no reason to take the risk. Just start fresh and keep all master keys a secret. |
|
|
|
Good arithmetic here, but: There is a reason the welthy, and most other people for that part, have little money and lots of stuff. The reason is the inflation. What you call appreciating assets, is mostly inflation-safe assets. With sound money it is different, you don't have to panic buy these assets, therefore the demand for sound money might be higher than for fiat money, supporting a higher money value.
The point is that even if someday Bitcoin is worth more than all the currency in the world that is still a small fraction of all the wealth in the world. Your house isn't made of currency, Google isn't made of currency, the patent for a new drug ins't made of currency. They all contribute to the wealth of the world though. I still believe that Bitcoin becoming the single world currency is a dubious and highly unlikely pipe dream but lets say it happens. Even those with massive Bitcoin holdings would still have a rounding error of the wealth of the world. Unless they plant to eat Bitcoins, watch scrolling screens of private keys as entertainment, and sleep inside a Bitcoin they are going to liquidate some of the wealth (which is already a rounding error on total global wealth) to buy food, entertainment, housing, etc. |
|
|
|
Blockchain.info is based on GPU mining. Honestly it is incompetence that they leave such a misleading "stat" up. If they can't be bothered to update it to more realistic assumptions then just remove it. Miners are paid a combination of block subsidy and fees. In the long run energy consumption cost will be slightly below the total revenue of miners. The miner compensation will be the difference minus ammortized hardware cost. Still we are nowhere near the "electrical break even point". For even the least efficient miners the break even point is north of 2 billion difficult. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=281279.0 |
|
|
|
I am pretty sure that given the volume KNC won't be using automated unit assembly (PCB will be assembled by automated pick & place machines). All bitcoin hardware is relatively low volume (for now). Hundreds or even low thousands of units doesn't warrant automated assembly of major components. BFL problem isn't hand assembly it is a) they over promised (lied), b) they didn't met power/cooling project and had to scrap everything and redesign, c) they have been utterly incompetent in maintaining supply chain. BFL with automated assembly wouldn't be any further along in the backlog. It simply would have cost more.
Having had boards done.. no, they better be using automated unit assembly. It's not expensive. For a run of 1000 or less units? That works out to ~20 a day. Sure. |
|
|
|
well I dont really consider y2k a bubble
It was just people investing money in a new technology most didnt fully understand
some people invested in businesses that didn't even have a clear business plan
well everyones free to do what they want with their money
you earn some you lose some
Unintentionally funny. Saying something is not X and then "proving it" by describing X. |
|
|
|
|
The number of GH/s is irrelevant what matters is the cost per GH/s.
|
|
|
|
|
ITT I see people confused wealth with money supply. Nobody rich has any significant portion of their wealth in currency, they have their wealth in appreciating assets (companies, bonds, equities, commodities, royalty contracts, precious metals, etc). Even if Bitcoin replaced all forms of currency on the planet it would still be a small % of the wealth in the world. The Bitcoin "rich" would diversify into other assets and the distribution of the money supply would become more diverse.
The total global wealth is ~$233T.
The total global currency (M0) is ~$5T.
Say Bitcoin replaces all other forms of currency (a pipe dream) and the value of all Bitcoins is is someday worth ~$5T. Lets also assume the richest Bitcoiner alive has 10% of that or ~$0.5T worth. Yes $500B is a large amount, but it is <0.2% of the world's wealth. That would also assume the "Bitcoin rich" never exchange Bitcoins for goods/service or other fiat currency along the way. I think it is hillariously funny to imagine some fiat broke, Bitcoin rich guy living in his mom's basement refusing to liquidate 10% of his coins because they are "only" worth a million USD "but mom someday I could be a trillionaire, how stupid would it be to sell now for mere millions".
|
|
|
|
These chips are not going to be that hard to simulate. The design should be pretty simple. Every ASIC released to date has been worse than simulation. BFL, Avalon, ASICMiner, and Bitfury. Some by small amounts and some (BFL cough cough) not even in the right ballpark. Lots of smart people on lots of teams all ended up high on clockrate and low on power consumption. Even KNC designed their boards to handle 320W despite the nominal power consumption being 250W because it isn't that easy to simulate power consumption. Those DC to DC supplies aren't cheap and the overengineering adds $50+ to the cost of each board ($200 for a Jupiter). Nobody spends $200 extra per unit without a reason. The reason is that accurately simulating power consumption has proven to be very difficult. When you consider that 2.7 J/GH is less than half of what either Avalon's (6.6 J/GH) or ASICMiner's (6.9 J/GH) final silicon ended up using it shows there might be some risk to their simulation being too optimistic. |
|
|
|
The cost is tiny. A new program ..nothing more. Seen it done dozens of times. That's the whole point of CNC machines. If you have the machine capable of doing the work, the program is all you need and a few jigs that can be made in a day. Everything that is manufactured is made this way now. Nothing can be dome by hand in volume due to cost and quality control...and don't try me on that subject if you want something to shit out of tomorrow  I am pretty sure that given the volume KNC won't be using automated unit assembly (PCB will be assembled by automated pick & place machines). All bitcoin hardware is relatively low volume (for now). Hundreds or even low thousands of units doesn't warrant automated assembly of major components. BFL problem isn't hand assembly it is a) they over promised (lied), b) they didn't met power/cooling project and had to scrap everything and redesign, c) they have been utterly incompetent in maintaining supply chain. BFL with automated assembly wouldn't be any further along in the backlog. It simply would have cost more. KNC using off the shelf power supplies (although I wish it was mounted internally), and using the same components in all three units is smart and will make assembly easier. It would be stupid for KNC to invest money (and more importantly) time setting up and testing some high speed automated assembly system given the relatively low volumes. We are talking less than a dozen components for hundreds (or at most a thousand) high cost units. Hand assembly is perfect. For something like a printer which has a lot more components, is sold in millions of units annually, and has low margins (at best tens of dollars ea) the upfront cost of automated assembly makes sense. |
|
|
|
* With the exception of clients in the states of VA, NY, and CA at this time.
With most banks having branches in multiple states, are there restrictions from me opening a Wells Fargo account in, oh say, Nevada with my California address? [Update: Or is it the address of the customer and not the location of the home branch that determines the state, as far as FastCash4Bitcoins is concerned?] As advised by legal counsel, it is the residence of the entities involved in the transaction (North American Cryptographics, LLC & the customer) that is material. |
|
|
|
just asking is this possible that someone bougth all bitcoins
No I won't be selling my last Bitcoin. They can buy all of my coins for $1M each except the last one which isn't available at any price. So there you go I have proven they can't buy all the coins. Come on think about it, nobody can force you (or anyone else) to sell, so nobody can forcibly acquire ALL Bitcoins. They can acquire some and the more they try to acquire the higher they will drive the price. Even trying to acquire a significant fraction would drive the price extremely high but unless every single Bitcoin "coinholder" is willing to sell every single coin they own then no it is not possible to buy all the Bitcoins. Try that with any other asset. Is it possible for someone to buy all the land on earth? all the gold? all the apartment buildings? all the shares of all the companies? Pretty silly to even think about it. |
|
|
|
I guess its fair to say that I'm a bit nervous about Labcoin; a result of having a lot invested and not getting any of the fundamental questions answered.. Did anyone figure out an explanation/theory to the following already? Quoting from the somewhat dated http://www.labcoin.com/presentation.html page, the initial road map was to have a 180nm chip with estimated ~250Mhash performance ready in August/September, and their second generation chip of 65nm at estimated 4-5 ghash at a later date... And from that they went to 130nm but with the same hash speed they targeted for the second generation chip? I guess my gut feeling tells me that the chips will not perform even close to the 4ghash performance announced, however, it might still be profitable.. just not as profitable as projected.. The technology, version 1
Specifications:
Feature size : 180nm
Core voltage : 1.8V
I/O voltage : 3.3V
Core Frequency: 250 Mhz - vdd 1.8~1.85V
Number of Pads : 44
Package : LQFP or equivalent
Chip size : 5mm x 5mm
Power consumption (variable) : 1.4~1.8W
Hashing power (variable): 220~280 MH/second
I/O interface : USB / Serial
Estimated tape-out : Within the first half of July
That data is out of date, they're doing 130nm, not 180. LOL, nice one Ytterbium... You clearly didn't bother reading my post at all....  This isn't an endorsement but I think you are worried about the wrong thing. Bitcoin is an "embarrassingly parallel" problem (google it). The specs you cited contained no die size. Even if there was no change in the hashing engine design, the 180nm design could have consisted of 1 hashing engine per chip (@ 250 MH/s nominal) and the 130nm design consist of 16 hashing engines (16*250MH/s nominal) per chip. Obviously the die size would be 8x larger (16*(130/180)^2) and use more power but without more details like die size, estimate marginal cost, and power consumption of both the 180nm & 130nm it is not possible to draw any conclusions on the realism of the specs. |
|
|
|
Was there and bonus for creating a wallet?
Initially the "miner" was the wallet. You installed the wallet and it mined blocks in the background and your wallet balance grew as you solved blocks. All blocks must have 1 transaction that is the coinbase transaction but there is no input for that transaction as the miner is rewarded new coins "minted from nothing". A block doesn't need to contain any additional transactions so mining doesn't stop when there are no pending transactions, it just means the block will consist of only the coinbase. As an example here is an early block: https://blockchain.info/block/0000000027c2488e2510d1acf4369787784fa20ee084c258b58d9fbd43802b5eNotice there is only one transaction, the coinbase tx in which the miner received 50 BTC for solving the block and no other transactions involving existing coins. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
