Bitcoin Forum
March 19, 2024, 10:07:47 AM *
News: Latest Bitcoin Core release: 26.0 [Torrent]
 
  Home Help Search Login Register More  
  Show Posts
Pages: « 1 ... 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 [284] 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 ... 800 »
5661  Alternate cryptocurrencies / Altcoin Discussion / Re: Fair Profit for Coin Founders on: July 10, 2013, 06:29:55 PM
I mean a miner coin. A coin that benefits the small miners the most and not the guys with $50,000 rigs. 

Maybe you aren't getting (like take a step back and look at the big picture) on the purpose of a crypto-currency.  The purpose of a currency is to facilitate trade without the need for the a trusted third party.

Mining is how the network achieves consensus and yes miners are "paid" for the service they provide.  Since the network is a real cost and a new currency needs some for of initial distribution it makes sense to kill two birds with one stone.  The protocol gives miners a subsidy (in the form of new coins) and that also achieves the initial controlled distribution.

However the point of mining is to secure the network. That is what miners are being paid for.  Without security it doesn't matter how many trillions of coins you have they are worthless.   
5662  Bitcoin / Hardware / Re: The price of New Blade and Mini Blade was announced by rockxie on: July 10, 2013, 06:13:57 PM
+18% forever of course.

That 7,300% increase per year.

You guys do realize there is an upper bound for difficulty and that is based on currently available hardware efficiency (MH/$ and MH/%).  Miners won't deploy new hardware when it is unprofitable from day 0.

While difficulty won't increasing forever with 18% average or more, it will definitely be increasing for quite some time.
and by the time difficulty increases will be slowing down, 10Gh blade will be producing only 0.3-0.2BTC per month.
I expect difficulty around 200-300million by the end of the year.

TLDR it only makes some sense to buy with cash and not with Bitcoins as the blade will never return investment in BTC as some blade owners that bought them for 50 BTC are finding out.

If it doesn't make sense with Bitcoins it doesn't make sense with "cash" (fiat).  By doesn't make sense I assume you mean the unit will never generate more than 18 BTC in mining revenue.  Ok lets assume that is true.

If someone had cash they could just buy 18 BTC.  By the assumption above the unit will never produce 18+ BTC therefore it is more profitable to just take your "cash" and buy BTC.






5663  Alternate cryptocurrencies / Altcoin Discussion / Re: Fair Profit for Coin Founders on: July 10, 2013, 05:49:33 PM
The whiners expect a dev to release a coin, then support it, and get nothing out of it.  Any dev that doesn't pre-mine at leave 1/10th of a percent is an idiot IMHO.

Support? Nah. I expect it to be decentralized and released open source. Although I probably should look into the cost of money, much like the cost of politics, no one really thinks about it as an object but more an idea. But I don't think that devs or anyone else for that matter should be able to make money out of money. There's no point in that.

Without the devs these coins die.  Where do you think bounties come from?  Who's gonna work for free to support and improve a coin? 

In the only two successful coins (BTC & LTC) to date bounties have come from users, miners, coinholders.  Someone wants X done but they lack the skills for X.  They find out a lot of other people wants X done as well.  They pool resources and offer a bounty for someone to complete X.
5664  Alternate cryptocurrencies / Altcoin Discussion / Re: Fair Profit for Coin Founders on: July 10, 2013, 05:48:14 PM
Bitcoin, Litecoin, PPC had no developer fee, or premine.  Any new coin is competing against that.

Don't worry though premine if you want or do something as asinine as give developer 25% of all mined coins into perpetuity.  It doesn't really matter, there is always someone willing to mine the next coin nobody how limited or short of a lifespan it has.
thats total BS.  The creator of Bitcoin pre-mined a ton.  

Lie all you want but the blockchain doesn't lie.  There was no premine in Bitcoin.  Satoshi published the paper nearly a year before the client.  The Genesis block (block 0) was worth 50 BTC but due to a bug in the mainline client it is unspendable.  Bitcoin remained at difficulty 1 (only because it can't go any lower) for the first year due to lack of interest.  Anyone with just about any computer could have mined 5%+ or the available coins in the first year just by running the client ... almost nobody did.

So where is this so called "premine"?
5665  Other / Beginners & Help / Re: This Is How You Can Earn Bitcoins From Dice Games on: July 10, 2013, 01:24:28 PM
This does not favor you if you decide to keep playing.

You will lose 20 times in a row and go broke. This is dictated by math.

Obviously as shown above I lost 25 times in a row and still won. Evidently you didn't read the description your just a broke ass hater one of the two? Not only that I just updated the thread with another profit this time 10 bitcoins. I'll waste a few hours on these sites for $770 any day.

What happens when you lose 26 times?  Your odds of winning haven't changed at all.  You have merely shifted the game from one with a large chance of losing and a large gain to one with a small chance of losing and a small gain.  If you play enough your actual outcome will converge on the expected outcome.  If this could cause the house to lose they simply wouldn't allow you to play.  The house could make a game which does this on a single roll. 



Expected Outcome = -1 * (house advantage) * ( amount wagered)

this is true of any game of chance.  
5666  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: ASICS killing BTC ? on: July 10, 2013, 01:20:55 PM

They barely provide any protection. Well, they protect it from script kiddies, but even with tons of GPU's, there wasn't too much of a worry there... after all, 99% of them are looking to make money, so all theyed do is change someones payout address, which they can do whether a machine is CPU mining, GPU mining or ASIC mining.

For an attacker intent on taking down bitcoin, they provide next to no protection... First, that attacker isn't looking for profit. Second, by contemplating attacking bitcoin, they're well aware that it's going to cost 7 or 8 figures. And a 7 or 8 figure expense is a rounding error in the budget of most governments or banks, any of whom could contract the developement of their own ASIC and still take it down with relative ease.

Well no.  There is no bank where 8 figures is a "rounding error" and most nations could not afford that type of expenditure.  Still Bitcoin is hardly worth spending 8 figures to kill it today however someday Bitcoins might have 100x the economic activity and then spending 10 figures is beyond a rounding error for just about everyone on the planet.

The cost in killing Bitcoin is that the second you do someone will release a newer coin that is immune (or at least very resistant) to the method you used to kill it.  Think POW/POS hybrid or something we haven't even thought of yet.  Necessity is the mother of all invention.  Much like killing Napster didn't kill file sharing.  So what is next spend another 8-12 figures killing the half dozen next gen hybrids spawned from the carcass of Bitcoin?  Then what spend another 8-12 figures killing their hybrids.  It is merely forced evolution.   

ASICs does three things:
a) prevents attackers from "cheating".  Pretend ASICs don't exist and the attacker uses a technology over a magnitude more efficient.  Bitcoin GPU miners march into battle with flintlock rifles and get nuked from orbit by a star destroyer. 

b) finally eliminates the risk of botnets.  Some people think GPU have done that but the on core GPU (APU) have significantly improved and now Intel and AMD both include OpenCL drivers in their default installs.  It is only a matter of time before botnets start adapting to use GPU power.  Now the on-core GPU may seem but they are capable of 50 to 100 MH/s.  A botnet with  ten thousand such nodes would have significant power against an "all GPU" network.

c) has the potential of creating widespread hashing power on a scale never see before.  Think $5 chip in home router (Bitcoin edition) adding 1 GH/s to the network.  Now imagine someone like dlink is making the router and sells 50 million units.

 
5667  Bitcoin / Hardware / Re: The price of New Blade and Mini Blade was announced by rockxie on: July 10, 2013, 08:50:03 AM
+18% forever of course.

That 7,300% increase per year.

You guys do realize there is an upper bound for difficulty and that is based on currently available hardware efficiency (MH/$ and MH/%).  Miners won't deploy new hardware when it is unprofitable from day 0.
5668  Other / Beginners & Help / Re: Bitcoin is Dead on: July 09, 2013, 11:57:08 PM
I agree but its not dead yet.  ASICMINER is in it for the money.  They do not care about bitcoin's future. Otherwise they should NOT be mining and just sell hardware.  They could limit the amount of GHs per order so 1 person cant order several THs.  This would at least slow down the centralization somewhat.

Bitcoin doesn't need ASICMiner to "care about Bitcoin's future".  Can you imagine how horribly fragile (and ultimately doomed to failure) a system would be if it required all actors to be altruistic?  Bitcoin just needs ASICMiner to be economically rational and as a for profit venture it is.
5669  Bitcoin / Mining speculation / Re: ASIC resale value on: July 09, 2013, 08:36:04 PM
I can think of one other use for the usb erupters, but i'd rather not mention it. i'll let someone else open pandora's box. Shocked

Password cracking?
Lips sealed

Not really good for that unless you know of passwords which are 640 bit strings and contain a 32 bit incrementing nonce. 

In theory you could make a "general purpose" SHA256 ASIC which would be useful for brute forcing passwords as well as mining but it wouldn't be optimized for either and this isn't the approach taken by any ASIC developer.
5670  Bitcoin / Press / Re: 2013-07-07 Rogue Employee Fired for Turning Game Network Into Bitcoin Mining Col on: July 09, 2013, 08:14:55 PM
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revision_control
Evil programmer medicine for the project management

Exactly if a single rogue programmer could inject malicious code into production software I wonder how good their code audits are.  Does anyone in the company even know what their codebase is doing.

Of course that is no excuse for the criminal behavior but remind me to never use anything produced by ESEA.  Ironically the purpose of the software is to prevent cheating I guess the malicious programmer could just as easily have written in backdoors which the integrity challenged could have paid to access .... in Bitcoins.
5671  Alternate cryptocurrencies / Altcoin Discussion / Re: Fair Profit for Coin Founders on: July 09, 2013, 05:50:20 AM
Pretty sure I read that Satoshi pre-mined 800,000 Bitcoins.  They are still sitting in the same wallet.  I know a few people are watching that wallet to see if any ever get spent so they can try to figure out who he really is. 

You read wrong.  Maybe Satoshi MINED (as in post genesis block) x,000 coins but there was no premine in Bitcoin.
5672  Alternate cryptocurrencies / Altcoin Discussion / Re: Fair Profit for Coin Founders on: July 09, 2013, 05:10:51 AM
Bitcoin, Litecoin, PPC had no developer fee, or premine.  Any new coin is competing against that.

Don't worry though premine if you want or do something as asinine as give developer 25% of all mined coins into perpetuity.  It doesn't really matter, there is always someone willing to mine the next coin nobody how limited or short of a lifespan it has.
5673  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: ASICS killing BTC ? on: July 09, 2013, 04:06:37 AM
Quote
The largest ASIC player is owned by thousands of shareholders each who receive a relatively small amount of Bitcoins.  If Joe Smith average AsicMiner shareholder gets 3 BTC in dividends and sells them how is that any different than Joe mining 3 BTC and selling them.


No one average is getting 3 BTC in dividends. That is an early adopter big shot not the average Joe Smith. You probably don't own a single share.

Way to miss the point .... here so it won't offend your sensibilities ...  If Joe Smith average AsicMiner shareholder gets x BTC in dividends and sells them how is that any different than Joe mining x BTC and selling them.

As for me not personally owning any shares ... WTF does that have to do with the price of tea in China.
5674  Bitcoin / Legal / Re: Bitcoin Foundation receives cease and desist order from California on: July 09, 2013, 03:29:46 AM
FinCEN, via Bradley Stevens in 2011, told Bitcoin USA (now dissolved) that BTC is stored value [https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=41155.0;all]. But even if the director of FinCEN had made an official statement about it, such statements are not legally binding, so they're only good for guidance. In addition, the Bitcoin community at large generally speculates that the government thinks Bitcoin is more likely to be covered as stored value rather than the other two money transmission subcategories (payment instruments and money received for transmission). It's a bold statement for the Foundation to say that Bitcoin is not stored value when the community has been guessing that our various governmental bodies thinks it is stored value (despite any nuanced differences in their definitions of stored value).

Did you read any of the posts above.  It isn't a bold statement. FinCEN says in black and white that virtual currencies (to include Bitcoin) are NOT stored value. Period. End stop.  There is absolutely no ambiguity about it.


Cited once again since it seems to be difficult for you to find it.  Not FinCEN not longer uses the term "stored value" they use the more inclusive term "prepaid access".

Quote
A person's acceptance and/or transmission of convertible virtual currency cannot be characterized as providing or selling prepaid access because prepaid access is limited to real currencies. 18

18 This is true even if the person holds the value accepted for a period of time before transmitting some or all of that value at the direction of the person from whom the value was originally accepted. FinCEN's regulations define "prepaid access" as "access to funds or the value of funds that have been paid in advance and can be retrieved or transferred at some point in the future through an electronic device or vehicle, such as a card, code, electronic serial number, mobile identification number, or personal identification number." 31 CFR § 1010.100(ww). Thus, "prepaid access" under FinCEN's regulations is limited to "access to funds or the value of funds." If FinCEN had intended prepaid access to cover funds denominated in a virtual currency or something else that substitutes for real currency, it would have used language in the definition of prepaid access like that in the definition of money transmission, which expressly includes the acceptance and transmission of "other value that substitutes for currency." 31 CFR § 1010.100(ff)(5)(i) .

http://fincen.gov/statutes_regs/guidance/html/FIN-2013-G001.html
5675  Other / Meta / Re: Bitcoin Forums should eliminate 'Scammer' ratings and 'Trust' ratings on: July 09, 2013, 02:57:32 AM
Satoshi never said Bitcoin eliminates the need to trust the OTHER party.  I mean think about it, you always need to trust the other party.  You send me coins, I don't send you good.  Oops you lose.  Or you send goods, I don't send coins.  Oops you lose again.


If you are going to quote the "man" at least quote him correctly.

Quote
1. Introduction
Commerce on the Internet has come to rely almost exclusively on financial institutions serving as
trusted third parties to process electronic payments. While the system works well enough for
most transactions, it still suffers from the inherent weaknesses of the trust based model.
Completely non-reversible transactions are not really possible, since financial institutions cannot
avoid mediating disputes. The cost of mediation increases transaction costs, limiting the
minimum practical transaction size and cutting off the possibility for small casual transactions,
and there is a broader cost in the loss of ability to make non-reversible payments for non-reversible
services. With the possibility of reversal, the need for trust spreads. Merchants must be wary of
their customers, hassling them for more information than they would otherwise need.  A certain
percentage of fraud is accepted as unavoidable. These costs and payment uncertainties can be
avoided in person by using physical currency, but no mechanism exists to make payments over
a communications channel without a trusted party.

What is needed is an electronic payment system based on cryptographic proof instead of trust,
allowing any two willing parties to transact directly with each other without the need for a trusted
third party
.

Without a trusted third party.  i.e.

You <----> Me

vs

You <----> PayPal <----> Me

Bitcoin eliminates the need for the trusted third part (as in not the buyer or seller) it doesn't and never will eliminate the need for trust in commerce.





5676  Economy / Economics / Re: Bitcoin - we have a problem. on: July 08, 2013, 11:44:12 PM
It does not have to go down to 0 MH/s - just look at the charts they publish - It looks like a mountain range which is not the sign of a stable infrastructure if anything the swings have increased in size and become more erratic.

Well it does.  Your bogus claim was transaction times doubling.  That would require them to have 50% of network hashing power AND have that hashing power goes to 0.0 MH/s.  Anything less wouldn't be a doubling.  Actually with the network exceeding difficulty by about 10% it would require more like a 60% drop in network hashrate to double transactions.


Quote
I guarantee they do not have a disaster recovery site which given their position is really quite astonishing.

How exactly would you have a disaster recovery site.  Build double the hashing capacity and leave half of it offline forever?  Yeah that will work.

Quote
Since I created this post the game has changed somewhat and Governments are now looking to interfere - California's cease and desist order against the Bitcoin Foundation - that is just the start. When they only have to shut down a few big operations then what will happen.

What large operations would they shutdown?  Mining operations in foreign countries?  Mining pools (which would quickly be replaced by other mining pools)?
5677  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: [Bitcoin Trivia 1.0] Do you know the answer? Let's Play!!! on: July 08, 2013, 11:28:49 PM
Where are you guys getting $230 as the highest all time price?

http://bitcoincharts.com/charts/mtgoxUSD#rg120zczsg2013-04-10zeg2013-04-13ztgSzm1g10zm2g25zv

Quote
Timestamp: 2013-04-10 12:00:00  (to 12:59:59)
Open: 255.01
High:   266.00
Low:   255.00
Close: 263.47999   
Volume (BTC): 4081.5   
Volume (Currency): 1067846.21   
Weighted Price: 261.63
5678  Economy / Economics / Re: Bitcoin - we have a problem. on: July 08, 2013, 11:12:11 PM
ASICMiner has ~ 1/4 of global hashing power it is simply not possible for them to double transaction times by shutting down.  Also how often (as a % of uptime) has ASICMiner shutdown (as in hashing power down to 0.0 MH/s)?
5679  Other / Beginners & Help / Re: Bitcoin is Dead on: July 08, 2013, 04:47:55 PM

Scrypt doesn't use a massive amount of RAM unless you consider 128KB (yes Kilobytes not Megabytes or Gigabytes) a "massive amount".

Even full strength scrypt doesn't use "massive" amounts just enough that CPU with their significant cache are better optimized than other choices.  The scrypt used in litecoin is significantly crippled.  The low security (realtime) settings for Scrypt recommend by the author are 2^14, 8, 1 and the high security settings 2^20, 8,1.  Litecoin uses 2^10, 1, 1 making it roughly 100x less memory intensive then real time scrypt recommendations and ~8,000x less memory intensive than high security scrypt recommendations.


Thanks for pointing this out. So are you suggesting that scrypt based coins with the current design are - at least in theory - more or less equally susceptible to the ASIC technology as SHA256 coins? And if so, wouldnt it be "easy" to just ramp up the scrypt security settings in order to keep ASICs effectively at bay, or would that cause other complications?

ASICs to execute Scrypt POW will be higher cost both in terms of $ and energy thus the performance gains will be lower than the difference between GPU and ASICs executing SHA-256.  It is unlikely you can just "ramp up" the paremters of the POW as that would be a hard fork.  For example someone could hard fork Bitcoin at a certain block and require Scrypt to be used for all future blocks.  It is just a change of a dozen or so lines of code.  Technically it is a trivial change.  Getting a consensus to agree to it sufficient to kill off the original fork is a whole different story.
5680  Other / Beginners & Help / Re: any other ways to get bitcoins on: July 08, 2013, 01:26:21 AM
ok for one second lets say i start mining i run max 270 hash p/s nothing i know what would be the general payout for that??? worth doing or not so much?


270 Hashes per second?  That is less than nothing.  A somolian refugee would starve.  We are talking a faction of a US penny a decade. 
LOL YA USED A CALCULATOR it just said about $3 a week does that sound about right???

No.  Not for 270 hashes per second.  I wasn't kidding 270 hashes per second is something on the order of less than 1 US cent per decade.
Pages: « 1 ... 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 [284] 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 ... 800 »
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!