But the fact he's still communicate & give update http://www.reddit.com/user/TAiS46tonight we are working on a withdrawing page. I hope that I can publish it tomorrow in the day. I hope it works out but updates on reddit aren't worth anything. Pirate promised a lot of stuff to a lot of people for a long time. It didn't change the outcome. Results are all that matter now. If clients can remove BTC today then the fiat is likely safeish. Worst case scenario it likely means a long delay and maybe some AML paperwork junk. If clients still don't have their BTC today then the fiat is likely gone too. |
|
|
|
it seems google has revealed themselves to be idiotic statists
Not Google ... Google's VERY RICH CEO. The state protects the ultra-Rich. In the absence of a state can you imagine what Schmidt would need to spend on private security forces? |
|
|
|
|
It would have to be some catastrophic and highly unlikely event:
* MtGox closed and assets seized for violating AML.
* Critical 0-day flaw found in ECDSA
* Massive 51% attack
* SR admin turns states witness
I am not much of a chartist (especially on day to day moves) but I can't see any market manipulation, bubble popping, or minor issue that would drop demand that low. Hell even if nobody but SR and Satoshi's Dice used Bitcoin I think $10 could be supported.
|
|
|
|
|
Well the fact that he hasn't returned the BTC isn't looking very good. Yes bank generally speaking suck and resolving banking issues can take a while (as an example more people are compared with when PayPal freezes an account you can wait 180 days before getting a check).
None of that has anything to do with not allowing clients to withdraw BTC. No reason to not allow the return of BTC. The more time passes that the BTC haven't been returned the worse it probably is.
|
|
|
|
I cant see that miners profits would have to change. More of the blocks they create will be rejected - yes. But they also produce more blocks, so it cancels out.
The issue isn't profits it is wasted security. Oprhans still require resources but they produce no revenue. It is just electricity and capital expenditures (equipment costs) which go directly into the trash. Worse an attacker will have no orphans. The attacker doesn't care if his chain is behind as the goal of producing blocks isn't to collect the block reward. As such an attacker will ignore all competing blocks until either his "attack chain" is the longest or he falls too far behind (mathematically improbable he can "catch up"). Most people are aware of the "51% attack" however attacks can (in theory) be done with less hashing power. 51% simply means that given enough time the attacker's chance of making the longest chain approach 100%. The issue boils down to the fact that "good miners" produce orphans which are competiting wasted resources. A chain with a hashpower of X and a orphan rate of Y really only has an "effective hashpower" of X * (1-Y). Bitcoin currently has relatively small blocks and a 10 minute window and right now orphans rates are ~1%. All things being equal (bandwidth, cpu power for verification, number of connections per node) as block sizes increase the orphan rate will also increase. A smaller block window only magnifies that problem. One way to look at it is there is a "critical window" that is the period of time between when a miner solves a block and when the entire network (of miners) knows of it and is using that block hash in the next block. With 600 seconds EXPECTED TIME between blocks, for every 6 seconds in the "critical window" roughly 1% of hashpower will be lost due to orphans. On a hypothetical blockchain with a 60 second EXPECTED block interval and a 12 second critical window ~20% of network's hashpower would be lost due to orphans. The real security of the network would be 20% less than the headline number (i.e. XYZ COIN HAS 100 TH/s ... although only 80 TH/s provide security). Orphans can be thought of as the inefficiency of the network. Remember a shorter block interval requires more blocks for the same amount of security. The one area that a shorter block interval has an advantage is first confirmation. A business which operates on 1-confirmation model is better suited to shorter block intervals. So it becomes 1-confirm advantage vs efficiency. |
|
|
|
|
Crying? There's no crying in Bitcoin.
|
|
|
|
The current hash rate is 63.686 THh/s, and a production mining rig does 50 GH/s. So with a mere 1200 commercial rigs, the entire current hash rate can be duplicated. That is why ASICs are being developed. You are comparing the network mostly of GPU/CPU to the potential hashing power of a next generation device. Once ASICs are being delivered in large quantities the network hashpower is going to grow significantly. 10x to 20x in the near future isn't that unlikely. Hashrate will probably rise by a factor of 50x and that is without further rise in exchange rate. As exchange rate rises hashpower will rise in line with it. So in 2-3 years you could be looking at more like 6,000 to 10,000 TH/s. |
|
|
|
DeathAndTaxes, if methods exist to secure the blockchain from attack, they should be implemented now, not after the established financial community realizes the threat and reacts.
Bitcoin works on consensus, there will never be any changes to the core functionality of Bitcoin. If you are hyper concerned then research alt-coins, possibly even fund the development of more secure alternatives. |
|
|
|
In the US we try to uphold the idea of "innocent until proven guilty". Is that the same for these forums?
(very different from "trustworthy until proven untrustworthy," though!)
Nonsense innocent until proven guilty is just a quaint phrase and has no basis in law or in public opinion. Governments routinely seize assets, put UNCONVICTED suspects in jail pending trial, wiretap phones, conduct surveilance, etc without anyone being convicted of anything. The burden of proof for conviction is generally high but nobody is talking about a conviction here. The operator's actions are highly questionable certainly rising to reasonable suspicion. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reasonable_suspicion |
|
|
|
This kind of attack, by a central bank or a large government, is the one that worries me. Even though such an attack requires a "HUGE" amount of computing power, it would be trivial for a large, threatened institution that is concerned, not in turning a buck, but in destroying BTC.
I would think most governments realize the futility of this. I mean the destruction of napster killed file sharing right? Also unlike napster no government has made virtual currencies illegal. Lots of US citizens for example hold legal Bitcoins, the US government willfilly destroying legal property of its own citizens would be ground for a lawsuit against the government. Also no government is an island unto itself. There would be international legal and foreign policy fallout. If citizens in other countries lost funds there could be trade retaliation, demands for compensation, etc. Now someone might naively think the US government could keep this a secret but really look at recent US screw ups ("Benghazi" anyone) and all the embaressing details which leaked out. Still in theory it could happen however it would simply push crypto-currency into other methods of securing the blockchain like POW & POS hybrids or even more advanced concepts like proof of history (strongly signed miners), etc. One could even take the existing blockchain prior to the attack and use it as the genesis block to bootstrap a new crypto-currency with hundreds of thousands of users on day 0. It could happen but I don't lose much sleep over it. |
|
|
|
|
It isn't kinda a gamble. It is 100% a scam.
If someone on the street was selling you $100 bills for ~$50 would anyone think it was anything other than a scam?
|
|
|
|
Haswell is supppose to be the last socked CPU line from Intel the next generations will be solder to the motherboard.  Nonsense (although it will be available as a BGA). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Broadwell_(microarchitecture) Still if it ever happens those that want to could use low end server boards. To maximize uptime nobody is going to solder CPU to server boards at least not until they get a lot cheaper. $1200 replacement CPU vs $5400 replacement 4 CPU motherboard. |
|
|
|
See http://www.cryptopp.com/benchmarks.html. At the bottom of the page says it was last edited on 2009. The CPU is a Intel Core 2 1.83 GHz. The performance is 3.4 MHash/sec (111 MiB/sec) So who's making FUD ? How do you get 3.4 MH/s from 111 MiB/sec. The SHA-256 digest is 512 bytes. Thus 1 hash per second would be 512 bps. However bitcoin does a double SHA-256 hash so 111 MiB/sec * 8 / 1024 = 0.867 MH/s = 867 KH/s. The miner in v0.1 was very crude it lacked acceleration using SSE2 making it significantly slower, that came later with the first dedicated CPU miners. On edit: fixed bits vs bytes error. DOH. Thanks mrb. |
|
|
|
|
Can't be done without a central authority. Where does the exchange rate come from. How do all nodes agree upon the exchange rate. Remember it has to be a deterministic process such that all nodes everywhere in the world get the same answer under all conditions without a central authority. If you want to use a central authority then you don't need a blockchain (see amazoncoins).
Also you do realize as the exchange rate falls the number of coins will be reduced. It isn't a store of value.
100 coins at $100. Demand falls. What is the difference between 90 coins @ $100 or 100 coins at $90. Either way 10% wealth is lost.
|
|
|
|
Each block has in its blockheader the hash of the prior block. If you replace a block you would also have to replace all blocks after it plus an additional block for your modified chain to to be the longest. So to change a block 10 blocks deep in the blockchain would require solving 11 blocks before the "good miners" collectively solve 1 otherwise your modified chain is still shorter and falling behind. On edit: missed this ... The replacement would, by design, have the same hash but different content - content that, for whatever reason, favors me as the attacker. The odds of your producing a block with different content and the same hash is 1 in 2^256. There isn't sufficient energy left in our star to accomplish that even given a planetary sized super computer operating at the thermodynamic limit for the next four billion years. |
|
|
|
If he is a scammer then what purpose does it serve to continue to post updates? He has the money and the BTC so what more would he need?
Well I am not saying he IS a scammer but Pirate for example provided "updates" for weeks before running away with the funds. It is a psychological trick used to let someone down slowly. At day 0 of the scam so many people are active and highly pissed off all it takes is one to track you down and feed you a brick to ruin your day. But as the weeks role by as the victims hold out hope slowly they get use to the idea they have lost their funds and move on. |
|
|
|
No mention here yet of the 'block lock' ? https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=437.0 hehe "We know its true, because we made it up ourselves!"  You can never really know anything, unless they want you to know. "The Color Blue's frangibility is a necessity"the block lockin is just another word for the checkpoints. Multiple checkpoints have since been aded to the QT client (and many other clients). The last one is at block 225430. Even with 100% of hashing power it not possible to modify the blockchain prior to block 225431. static MapCheckpoints mapCheckpoints =
boost::assign::map_list_of
( 11111, uint256("0x0000000069e244f73d78e8fd29ba2fd2ed618bd6fa2ee92559f542fdb26e7c1d"))
( 33333, uint256("0x000000002dd5588a74784eaa7ab0507a18ad16a236e7b1ce69f00d7ddfb5d0a6"))
( 74000, uint256("0x0000000000573993a3c9e41ce34471c079dcf5f52a0e824a81e7f953b8661a20"))
(105000, uint256("0x00000000000291ce28027faea320c8d2b054b2e0fe44a773f3eefb151d6bdc97"))
(134444, uint256("0x00000000000005b12ffd4cd315cd34ffd4a594f430ac814c91184a0d42d2b0fe"))
(168000, uint256("0x000000000000099e61ea72015e79632f216fe6cb33d7899acb35b75c8303b763"))
(193000, uint256("0x000000000000059f452a5f7340de6682a977387c17010ff6e6c3bd83ca8b1317"))
(210000, uint256("0x000000000000048b95347e83192f69cf0366076336c639f9b7228e9ba171342e"))
(216116, uint256("0x00000000000001b4f4b433e81ee46494af945cf96014816a4e2370f11b23df4e"))
(225430, uint256("0x00000000000001c108384350f74090433e7fcf79a606b8e797f065b130575932"))
; |
|
|
|
|
Well first you aren't making money out of thin air. You can think of mining new coins as "buying them" using your hardware & electricity. Currently you are buying them at a continual loss. The second thing is the network has a concept called "difficulty" which adjusts. More hashing power = higher difficulty = harder to solve a block. You won't break even in a week because even if you bought one you would be at the end of the line. Long before you received your unit difficulty likely would be 10x to 20x higher than it is now. Redo your calculations with difficulty being 20x higher and use some realistic electrical costs.
|
|
|
|
so.. if i had mined just one week during the first two years, i were rich now.
Well no. If you had mined during the first week, and properly safeguarded your wallet.dat, had managed not to lose them to hackers or scammers over the next 4 years, AND seeing the price go from $0.05 to $1 (a 2000% gain) hadn't sold a single coin, and then after watching 90% of your wealth be destroyed in the last major crash had held strong THEN today you would likely be "rich" assuming that you can liquidate (either to other currency or hard assets). Of course if you had done all that I would say ... great job you deserve it. |
|
|
|
Lite nodes are reduced security any business with significant volume across both chains will need to be running both nodes. When MtGox starts trading LTC for example they aren't going to run a LTC lite node. No they are going to have a full node running for BTC & LTC.
Ah well then instead of a litenode they could use a service like the ewallet service that is provided by blockchain.info for one chain and a full node for the other chain. Still trusting a third party. No MtGox will run absolute full nodes for every chain they trade (just like any other major business). If you are going to implicitly trust a third party you don't need a secondary chain. Just process bitcoin transactions off chain and major processors will do daily balancing on the blockchain (much like banks balance via bank wires today). |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
