|
Gold is highly fungible, down to the atom. Bitcoin is not, neither are cash notes.
What if there is a way to make digital cash have higher fungiblilty from the outset? The "early coin devalue" attack would not have even been proposed, and others thwarted too. Higher quality money has higher fungibility.
Might be worth considering, but I agree there are bigger problems right now ... like the chaotic state of the mining network.
|
|
|
|
|
casascius's proposition is exploiting what is, in my opinion, a weakness in bitcoin as a currency, that they are not truly fungible. (And it is related to the fact that they haven't got true anonymity either.)
His proposal is to selectively value bitcoins generated from different difficulty eras at different rates for conversion to the new system. If bitcoins were truly fungible each would be indistinguishable from the other and this process would not be possible. There would be no question about devaluing the early adopters gold because gold would just be gold, wherever and whenever it was found. After it is all melted down in a big pot there is no new gold and old gold.
As a currency, quasi-fungibility is a weakness and he is proposing an exploit, what are we going to do about it?
|
|
|
|
|
Maybe the currency codes "ATI" or "AMD" are still available too?
|
|
|
|
|
If the "newbitcoin" had true anonymity (blind signing layer) and was supported by easy exchange with some well-known financial outlets in multiple large countries it might have a fighting chance ... otherwise every day is another day behind the exponential growth curve.
|
|
|
|
|
The revolution will not be televised? ... it will be in the minds and on the net?
|
|
|
|
So what's the rules with upper and lower case on domain names in the database? $ ./namecoind name_scan d/bitcoin 1
[
{
"name" : "d/bitcoin",
"value" : "webpagedeveloper.me/namecoin",
"txid" : "ab1207bd605af57ed0b5325ac94d19578cff3bce668ebe8dda2f42a00b001f5d",
"expires_in" : 3918
}
]
$ ./namecoind name_scan d/Bitcoin 1
[
{
"name" : "d/abermud",
"value" : "3e28f697d16264d7ca61058872846f673285d469aec66f1f04f0d84d364bf931RESERVED",
"txid" : "77dc51b31aea6c57d072299c8f236975a7cfad34fc782844a7e3d4f729ae2aa0",
"expires_in" : 11090
}
]
Seems like "bitcoin" and "Bitcoin are treated as two different names, is that correct? It will be pointless if you are allowed every variant in the upper/lower case space of even a single word. e.g. bitcoin Bitcoin bItcoin biTcoin bitCoin bitcOin bitcoIn bitcoiN and then many other permutations ... |
|
|
|
|
3 months is roughly the length of season, i.e. a quarter of year. It is also 3 revolutions of the moon about the earth and 3 human menstrual cycles.
People tend to move money around and make larger economic decisions/purchases on the seasons' change.
|
|
|
|
Question: what would happen if Tycho temporarily turned the entirety of Deepbit to the Namecoin blockchain (for 20 minutes, say)
There could be a problem. The issue is that difficulty would go up, but once difficulty goes up too much, it never comes back down. Because it's not worth it to mine, and difficulty only resets after ~2000 blocks. It might be better if the difficulty were to adjust every N days or M blocks whichever comes first, but that's not the case now (with BTC or namecoin). This is a very good idea and worth some more discussion. I don't see a downside icbw ... belt and braces approach. |
|
|
|
|
Yeah, renegers suck ... if your want to deal with this guy Mcgavin it seems like you have to use escrow ... whatta pain in the ass.
|
|
|
|
|
Bitcoin will benefit the US government by collapsing it into a steaming heap of rubbish, ready to go into the landfill of history.
|
|
|
|
I've been considering swapping BTC Guild to a higher difficulty of shares to reduce the work being sent to/from miners, as well as lowering the amount of requests going between pushpool, bitcoind, and MySQL. My only concern at this point is for CPU miners, who are already submitting shares so rarely that a difficulty of 2 could mean they don't even complete a share before some rounds end.
I think Meni Rosenfeld (Holy-fire) has some mathematics in the deepbit thread that proves missing out on short rounds in a pool does not change your variance .... (I'm not sure how complete it was though) |
|
|
|
network difficulty is now at 434,000 and every time it goes up it means more difficulty 1 shares go onto the network.
Network Difficulty has absolutely no effect upon how many difficulty>1 shares are found. How do you figure that? More difficulty is because of more miners (most who are on pools now) sending difficulty 1 shares over the network ... how can there not be an increase in diff. 1 shares on the network ... can you not count? Bring on-line twice as many miners pointed at the same pool as you are using now and tell me your network traffic of diff. 1 shares didn't double ... I dare you. Some of you guys are abstracting yourselves into irrelevancy ... just go and count the numbers going across your screen, sheesh. Network Hashing Power directly correlates to the number of difficulty>1 shares found. Network Difficulty does not. An increase in Network Difficulty does not necessarily mean that more difficulty>1 shares will be found as it is possible that the Network Hashing Power drops after the difficulty increase. Now you are using semantics to get out of it .... I did NOT say how many are found I said how many go onto the network ... if you just want to argue I suggest you go somewhere else. FO. This is an open source community and open source derives its quality from everybody coming together to correct eachothers' mistakes. In order for such a process to work smoothly, people must check their egos at the door. You need to remove your emotions from your submissions and allow them to grow into the best that they can be. I agree with the intent of your idea, I merely submitted a correction to one inaccuracy in your OP. So you do want to argue semantics ... whatta piece of work ... point to my "inaccuracy" or apologise for derailing my thread with erroneous, nit-picky fuckwitting around. |
|
|
|
|
cable management guru ... tight set-up.
I'm counting 12 boxes with 2x5970's per ... 17 GHash/s ??
|
|
|
|
It would half the pool network traffic and half likelihood for comms crashes leading to lock-ups on miners side.
I can't see why the pools do not do this for bigger miners, it benefits the pools in bandwidth costs and other overheads also?
Could even have tiered accounts, difficulty 5, 10 for even bigger miners, it makes sense. What's the hang-up with difficulty 1 shares ... network difficulty is now at 434,000 and every time it goes up it means more difficulty 1 shares go onto the network.
If you're big enough, sure. I can make a per-user change. Great. How big is "big enough" and where do I sign up? Edit I'm using poclbm raw so no problem with changing any mining code. |
|
|
|
|
It would halve the pool network traffic and halve likelihood for comms crashes leading to lock-ups on miners side.
I can't see why the pools do not do this for bigger miners, it benefits the pools in bandwidth costs and other overheads also?
Could even have tiered accounts, difficulty 5, 10 for even bigger miners, it makes sense. What's the hang-up with difficulty 1 shares ... network difficulty is now at 434,000 and every time it goes up it means more difficulty 1 shares have gone onto the network.
|
|
|
|
Great stuff. Jon Matonis is becoming a legend in my book. Been following his writings since he came on the web ... http://themonetaryfuture.blogspot.com/He is no johnny-come-lately to this cause that is for sure. He was one of the very few guys who understood what was happening and that has stood up publicly to the crap from the facist statist money-meddlers over the years. Awesome that he is onto bitcoin and posts here. |
|
|
|
I don't know why, but I've starting getting an error.
In my rig there's a 6990 and 6870. My 6990 will display one of those errors saying cannot connect with a whole bunch of numbers and lines and stuff, which is normal sometimes for pools. However, a few shares after that prints, the miner will freeze. The 6870 will keep mining tho, which I find weird. If I try to close the miner, my whole computer freezes. This has never happened before until yesterday, and has happened twice now so...anyone got an idea what's going on?
If you are overclocked, back it off in case for rough treatment from the pools crap connections ... it will ruin your card if you keep bashing it like that. |
|
|
|
Stackable, translucent test rig ... best so far for my money ... nice compromise between rack, cabinet and open stack ... looks the biz too with all the blue and red LED's going  Those bars are just the aluminium kitset framing stuff right? |
|
|
|
|
Welcome to bitcoin 4xCoder!
Awesome ideas. lots of possibilities ... maybe Mt. Gox will be willing to put up the development cost to make it an alternative front end for them ... they stand to gain the most with a boost to their trading volumes I'd imagine. Have you tried contacting MagicalTux?
Can it be linked to other exchanges in the future?
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
