The US government would only have power to shutdown exchanges running on servers hosting in the USA. Any other exchanges would have to be shut down by the appropriate country their hosting recides in. Obviously USA would and could try to pressure them into closing it, but that would be a gamble at best.
A Gamble? I think the US Government still has enough firepower to be very persuasive. Thanks TW Of course. Bitcoin is such a threat the US is going to engage in a shooting war to force other nations to shut down exchanges. Shit if they did that Bitcoin would probably be $329,038 USD per BTC because it would be downright proof of the power of Bitcoin. Nobody spends bilions going to war to destroy something which doesn't matter. We didn't see the great Flooz War of 1999 for example. If the US banned exchanges it would simply push them into offshore locations (which have long since flipped the bird at the US when it comes to banking regulations). In the short term that would be negative, BTC price would likely tank overnight, but longer term BTC would emerge even more powerful and people would point to the failed US action as both a sign of the threat that BTC represents to the established powers and the resiliance of the global network. I doubt the US would make a move like that. Regulate and tax is far more effective than ban and lose all control. |
|
|
|
Because Apple can be defrauded out the ass of $$$$$$$$ by criminals using stolen credit cards and charging back their own.
Dude you don't think Apple deals with stolen credit cards all the time, people trying to buy digital products so they can hack them and distribute them for profit. The profitability of stolen BTC is a whole different league than hacking digital goods. Being the largest company in the world you think they are scared of charge backs. LOL Of course they aren't. They will just pass on 100% of the fraud to you, plus $35 fee for each case, and when your account goes negative ban you permanently from the Developer network and sell the debt to a collection agency. They aren't taking the risk. Apple won't pay a single cent for the fraud caused by your app. |
|
|
|
If people are soo worried about apple chargebacks, then whats stopping someone from stealing a few creditcards and the going to the exchanges and starts buying up BTC's for real money?. I mean the second the chargebacks starts coming in that exchange site is going to go through the floor, as the money they got are gone, and so are the BTC's.
There are soo many ways someone would and could knowingly damage BTC reputation, and who says someone isn't already using stolen CC's to get BTC's. I mean that person will be walking away with potentially a lot of money and leaving the exchanger or person broke or potentially at a loss. But then again I guess that is indeed the risk of the game that we all play on here.
Um?  Have you noticed no exchange allows deposits by credit card? Think their might be a reason. |
|
|
|
What if any bitcoin payments are limited to very low prices? Would scammers still use stolen accounts to steal half a bitcoin?
for instance what if you made the max amount someone could get with it.... 1 bitcoin per month or something?
That isn't the way scammers work. 1 bitcoin per account may not be much but 1 bitcoin per account with 10,000 stolen accounts is a nice profit in irreversible psueo anonymous and highly convertable property. This will end badly and likely lead to Apple doing a blanket auto-ban on any app even remotely associated with Bitcoin. |
|
|
|
|
because when you solo mine you direct the miner towards your wallet (bitcoind). Bitcoind handles setting up the blockheader which includes setting an address from your wallet as the coinbase reward address.
"Miners are dumb", they are simply given a header to hash and they hash it. They have no understanding of what they are hashing. "Here hash this chunk of data trying all nonces 0 to 2^32. OK". The miner gets these "chunks of data" from either bitcoind (solo mining) or a pool server (pool mining).
|
|
|
|
Why do they call it "buying" the gem if you don't get to set the price afterword? If the price always goes up by 10%, doesn't that mean that you haven't really bought anything? If you'd actually bought it, then wouldn't that mean you have the right to decide whether or not to sell it again, to who, and for how much? In what sense is this "buying" at all?
Why did Pirate call it "investing" instead of "give me huge amounts of coins which I will take and never give back"? Marketing. |
|
|
|
|
This is the part in the story where the OP "sells" the site to a sockpuppet. Mr. Puppet suddenly (maybe after a couple days/weeks to make it more "legit) vanishes with the site and coins. Obviously this isn't the fault of the OP. He no longer owns/operates the site and will be very upset that it happens but there is nothing he can do about it.
|
|
|
|
|
Well the compressed version of public key is a single value.
With the X value and the curve one can compute the Y value. The y value is deterministic to the x value and the curve. This means the public key can be reduced to just the X value of the point on the curve.
"Compressed" is a misleading term IMHO as there is no compression going.
"Normal" ECSA public key (x-value, y-value)
"Compressed" ECDSA public key (x-value) y-value is computed at runtime using the curve.
Sadly Bitcoin didn't use compressed keys from the beginning so most of the potential savings is wasted.
|
|
|
|
This is not correct, you still need to have one CAL for every user you plan to have then. It is called 'multiplexing' and is technically not usable with a website. Looks like your right on this point. In my day job we use the even more rare "per device" licensing structure so it wasn't an area I was that familiar with. Still I guess this proves your larger point that Microsoft licensing makes everything overly complex. Sure, but in your earlier example you posted a 256 GB RAM server with the example that 'RAM is cheap.' I agree that everything is pretty small now, but to get a server with mega RAM and find out you can't use it all because you need to pay MS more $$ is very frustrating. Agree 256 was a poor example. Beyond 64GB of RAM (today future versions tend to increase based on Moore's law) it gets very expensive. I think part of the problem is that Microsoft has no license specifically designed for use as a website backend. It means their existing licenses are either too restrictive or too expensive. There would be real value if Microsoft both simplified their licensing and offered a "web server core" version dropping most of the corporate bakend functions and just provide a high memory, high compute platform for webservers. .... I am not holding my breath.  I guess Azure may be an option I have never done testing to see how responsive their database in the cloud can be to very high loads. 4, 5 i agree with... 6 (32G RAM limit) bit me personally... Yeah I can see why you would remember it then. It is wonderful not having to think about licensing restrictions, to be able to use the full capacity of your hardware at all times (buy a 256 GB RAM server? why not?), and not have arbitrary features locked out. And to not worry about things like the cost of CALs jumping 25% randomly with 2012 or BizSpark's 3 year grace period that runs out and leaves you paying MS for the rest of the company's existence.  I agree there is value in open platforms and SQL Server is one of Microsofts most expensive and most restricted products. I think this got somewhat sidetracked (partially my fault). The original claim (not by you) was that asp.net doesn't scale and is expensive. asp.net can use any RDBMS as a backend and is highly scalable. For a new startup SQL Server is likely the easiest route as there is going to be some skills overlap but beyond 64GB or 16 cores I agree there is significant cost. It is something a startup would need to consider. As a personal note: To avoid vendor lock in whenever possible I try to keep the database code as ANSI SQL compliant as possible to allow a "backdoor" by keeping the migration costs & complexity to a minimum. |
|
|
|
|
John is giving you good advice. Laptops were never designed to have the GPU maxed out at 100% 24/7. You will destroy the graphics card in your laptop and it would be either insanely expensive to replace, or is not replaceable and will destroy the entire laptop in the process.
Earn a couple pennies this month vs a non zero chance of destroying a laptop. Hmm...
|
|
|
|
I'm trying again with a small amount and have a question. My order went from funded to confirmed. Approximately how long does it take to hit my Dwolla account? Hours? Days?
Thanks
All dwolla orders have been paid. To answer your questions they are paid in batches usually it is within 4-6 hours (and often much quicker than that) unless there is nobody from the staff online/awake. Unlike the blockchain we do occasionally eat and sleep. |
|
|
|
For existing FPGA design the best can be had is 23MHps/J. There is no reason to anticipate an improvement in FPGA power efficiency, yes, there can be marginal reduction of overhead and the FPGA can be scaled up, but it's efficiency will not increase all that much. Based on existing designs we can anticipate 25MH/J for FPGA. There is nothing special abut ASIC, most ASIC vendors just use a custom programmed FPGA; this is called FPGA to ASIC conversion. So at best ASIC will be 50MHps/J; and i am being VERY generous here. 2x energy improvement going from FPGA to ASIC? Really please provide a link to this claim. I have no idea (nor care) if any of the current specs are legit but FPGA are horribly energy inefficient compared to a dedicated circuit. An energy improvement of 1000% isn't even that amazing in the move from FPGA to ASICs and 5000%+ is certainly possible. Here is an SHA-3 academic circuit (unoptimized performing stream hashing) where the purpose wasn't even to test SHA-256 and built using archaic 130nm process. http://rijndael.ece.vt.edu/sha3/publications/DATE2012SHA3.pdf~150 MH/J. Remember this is (from Bitcoin point of view) an unoptimized design as it is designed to hash an abritrary amount of data. It is roughly 300% of what your claimed "theoretical max" would be and that is at 130nm. At 90nm (4 generations old) it would be ~300 MH/J. At 65nm closer to 600 MH/J. So where did this magical 50MH/J max come from? Just admit it ... nowhere. It doesn't even make sense. The whole point of the move to ASIC is to get MASSIVE reduction in energy consumption. It's one thing to design processor application, and it is completely different task to actually design the processor. Something like radeon 6970 gpu has 2.6 billion transistors. For FPGAs like startan-6 we are still talking billions of transistors. For someone starting from scratch, can you imagine how long it would take to draw wiring schematic with a billion components? This is what you would have to do to design a brand spanking new custom ASIC. ASIC is Application Specific Integrated Circuit, so either you have to piece it together via FPGA conversion or you have to design this circuit from scratch. This task would be not easier than it was to design FPGA like SPARTAN-6 in the first place.
Nobody designs ASICs by hand just like they don't design FPGA by hand. They use high level libraries and design tools. Nobody cares where each individual transistor goes just like a programmer doesn't care which exact memory address every single bit of memory goes. It is abstracted away. Comparing these chips to either FPGA or GPU is a false comparison. These are SHA-256 hashes and will be significantly simpler (and smaller) than any general purpose device like a GPU or FPGA. We talking major dollars here. Ok. Now say you had major dollars. Costing major dollars =/= impossible. |
|
|
|
paybitcoin ... not sure where you got your info 1) Startups can get free licenses using bizspark program for 3 years plus heavy discounts on conversion at "graduation". Any company older than 3 years is hardly a startup. 2) Your pricing but it is way off. Standard can be licensed per user (CAL) instead of per core which is much lower cost for applications like web backend datastore.3) SQL Server 2012 Standard is limited to "only" 64 GB of RAM but it is hardly a deal killer for startups. To my knowledge no Bitcoin venture uses a larger database than that (startup or note). Very few companies in the world do and they tend to be very large established enterprises spending seven figures on IT costs. 4) If the 64GB limit is a concern, SQL Server 2008 R2 is an option and it has no memory limit. 5) SQL Server standard has always supported mirroring (Safety Full). There is no additional license for a failover (passive) cluster. Additional licenses are only required for a load balancing (active) cluster. 6) While Windows 2008 is limited to 32GB of RAM. Windows 2012 standard has no such limit (well technically it is an OS limit of 4TB but that is regardless of license). It's great as a technical solution, but has a bad value proposition as a web startup solution. Which is why bizspark was created. Three years of essentially unlimited licenses. Then a graduation with conversion of licenses at 70% to 90% off retail. Any company older than three years is hardly a startup.Can it be done on other platforms for less? Sure but there is no reason for FUD. Still asp.net can be use MySql (or any RDBMS) as the datastore. As you pointed out the windows license is downright cheap compared to SQL Server so that is a lower cost option. Microsoft's big competitor for SQL Server is Oracle and there pricing makes SQL Server look downright cheap. |
|
|
|
i guess 100.00% of "high yield investment programs" are scams, but this subforum specifically i think is for accusations with proof. good luck with that!
FYPFY |
|
|
|
What point are you trying to get a across? That to optimise a website you need System Engineers? Well that's kind of a given when you are looking at a scale that big.
You will have these exact same problems with MySQL when looking at that scale. You can only scale up to some extent, then you will require techniques to allow you to scale out, like using replication.
If you read the article and look at how there setup is, they obviously are locked into a scenario where they can't even change databases, so the only way they can scale is with hardware. Now you can get more performance out of MySQL but either changing the database engine, or even using a mysql build that has beter performance and is tested. Kinda like twitter. SO the point I am trying to get across is that with ASP.NET and C# the only way to scale is thru hardware, and with other options you can just switch out some software and then you can do hardware scaling. So yea what would you want to do spend cash as a startup on hardware? Or go with this proven software that is free? No either you didn't read the link or you lack the knowledge to understand what you are reading. The only thing which would give better performance is a NO SQL setup like what Google uses but Stack Exchange didn't need that level of performance so the jump in complexity, and design using NO SQL wasn't warranted. MySQL wouldn't magically perform better. The one advantage that MySQL would have is that it easier to scaled out vs scaled up*. That can be mitigated by smart hardware design. Server should be designed to scale up in order to maximize ROI%. Of course we are talking about a scale roughly 50x to 100x larger than the largest Bitcoin enterprise. *Scale up would mean increasing the performance of a single (or small cluster) or database servers. Where scale out would be replicating the database across a much larger cluster to acheive similar performance. Since SQL Server is licensed the licensing costs are lower when scaling up vs scaling out. WOW dude I know your just trolling me but really you need to up your skills. The guess I have explain every little detail. Ok that article was just to show that ASP.NET only scales with hardware, cause of the tools that are presented by microsoft. Now your also talking about NoSql which is probably not even worth it for any bitcoin business, even thou you brought up the stackoverflow reference for ASP.net. So we weren't even talking about bitcoin businesses. Mysql can scale up and scaling out would be for data, and not traffic, so make that distinction when your posting. Also if you don't know already twitter uses a mysql build that they programmed themselves that give better performances, I actually used it so I do know what I am talking about. Also there is the replacement for MySql they works exactly like mysql you wouldn't have to change any if very little code to connect to it which is MariaDB they have a foundation as well MariaDB is very easy to scale out or up and even has more performance then twitter mysql build. MariaDB actually just got some funding so it will only become better. Once again an entire post where you grabbed a bunch of random words and spewed it across the page without saying anything coherent. 1) You do realize that asp.net =/= SQL Server right? You also know that Asp.net has database connectivity for every major (and lots of minor) RDMBS to include MySql? Building asp.net application doesn't require the use of SQL Server. 2) On SQL Server vs MySQL scaling up isnt an issue. All modern RDBMS can scale up. Scaling out refers to using multiple servers to distribute the workload. Get it OUT <-----> vs UP ^. While this can be done with SQL Server the licensing costs generally making scaling UP more cost effective. No I doubt you did realize that. Nothing in the article talked about how "mysql would have worked but they were stuck with SQL Server". MySql wouldn't have worked any better and unless it is an open source project MySql needs to be licensed. 3) twitter uses a mysql build that they programmed themselves Yeah of course writing a custom RDBMS is something most startups are looking to do right? Of course that custom RDBMS would also work with asp.net (and probably any other programming language). DB =/= programming language. Also how much cost (labor isn't free) do you think this custom RDBMS Twitter built ended up costing. 4) Lastly as we pointed out these are hardware scale issues way way way beyond what a startup would face. ASP.NET and SQL Server do scale up into the "top of the web category" with sites like stackexchange which refutes your dubious claim that asp.net doesn't scale. Then again someone who finds a $300 conference "outrageous" likely hasn't had a very successful career in database development so don't beat yourself up for continually spewing nonsense. I mean these are things picked up on the job and I doubt you will learn that stocking the shelves at Best Buy is very rewarding. |
|
|
|
What point are you trying to get a across? That to optimise a website you need System Engineers? Well that's kind of a given when you are looking at a scale that big.
You will have these exact same problems with MySQL when looking at that scale. You can only scale up to some extent, then you will require techniques to allow you to scale out, like using replication.
If you read the article and look at how there setup is, they obviously are locked into a scenario where they can't even change databases, so the only way they can scale is with hardware. Now you can get more performance out of MySQL but either changing the database engine, or even using a mysql build that has beter performance and is tested. Kinda like twitter. SO the point I am trying to get across is that with ASP.NET and C# the only way to scale is thru hardware, and with other options you can just switch out some software and then you can do hardware scaling. So yea what would you want to do spend cash as a startup on hardware? Or go with this proven software that is free? No either you didn't read the link or you lack the knowledge to understand what you are reading. Asp.net has data connectivity to a variety of RDBMS including MySql and Oracle. However switching to MySQL wouldn't provide significnatly higher throughput on the same hardware and Oracle for the cost doesn't really make sense for the type of database they need. The only thing which would give significantly better performance is a NO SQL setup like what Google uses but Stack Exchange didn't need that level of performance so the jump in complexity, and design using NO SQL wasn't warranted. Maybe it would be someday if they scaled larger but given their "niche" scope it is unlikely they would ever need that level of performance so the huge code rewrite for NO SQL (not MySql) isn't warranted. The one advantage that MySQL would have is that it easier to scaled out vs scaled up*. Since it is more efficient when deploying SQL Server to scale up vs out that means making good hardware decisions. Of course we are talking about a scale of 20x to 100x larger than the largest Bitcoin enterprise. The idea that this would be a problem for a startup is kinda laughable (it is a problem most startups wished the had). I would also point out that contrary to common knowledge MySQL is not license free unless the project is open source. As many Bitcoin ventures are closed source they so require a MySQL license. * Scale up would mean increasing the performance of a single (or small cluster) or database servers. Where scale out would be replicating the database across a much larger cluster to achieve similar performance. Since SQL Server is licensed the licensing costs are lower when scaling up vs scaling out. The drop in server costs at the high end as well as moving storage to the SAN has made scale up less of a critical issue than in the past. RAM has gotten a lot cheaper. Building out a database server with quad xeons (32 cores) and 256GB or RAM as well as high end SAS controller (24x 2.5" backplane) is under $8K. Going to 1TB of RAM, SSL offloading, and off server storage array is still under $10K. |
|
|
|
I'm going to have to side with gweedo as well... ASP.NET is horrible for scaling. Not technically, although the things POF.com have had to do to make it run well are pretty damning, but financially. A startup could really put to better use the $800 spent on each Windows Server license, not to mention the $2500+ for a MSSQL server (1 core!!!) license. Even their bizspark stuff has costs looming in the future. Also, for a Bitcoin web site you don't want to touch Azure for security reasons (at least not for the backend.) Personally, I see lots of .NET shops considering moving off of the framework in general since Microsoft is very sketchy on the roadmap with WinRT/Windows 8 and especially with the disconnect between ASP.NET and the web. MVC is a step in the right direction but I don't think it has enough traction to be viable long term. Also, if Microsoft ever pulls the plug, you get stuck... Python all the way!!!  Edit: oh yeah, you should ping all the people that posted in this topic: Anyone looking for work? (Lol, none of them are .NET devs) Yeah nothing in there was right. Not scalable? Stackexchange is an example of a web project built using ASP.NET (2.8 million users, 13 million+ questions & answers) As for licensing startups can get licenses for up to three years using Microsoft bizspark program at no cost. Microsoft pulling the plug on asp.net or MVC? Absolute nonsense. Just the normal mindless "Microsoft sucks" from people who have never done any professional software development in their lives. |
|
|
|
Dwolla is trying to bring legitimacy to BitCoin by connecting with the powerbase, e.g. our elected government/leadership.
Link? Dwolla doesn't even admit Bitcoin exists. Dwolla has nothing to do with Bitcoin other than users started using it to fund exchange accounts and engage in direct sales. Nothing on Dwolla site, blog, or corporate reports even mentions the word Bitcoin. If Bitcoin died tomorrow the only thing that Dwolla would be upset about is the loss of fees. In the long run Bitcoin as a disruptive technology is just as harmful to Dwolla profit model as it is to PayPal's. |
|
|
|
|
They don't really "hurt" Bitcoin anymore than someone making dirt coins reduces the value of gold.
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
