Bitcoin Forum
February 07, 2023, 06:23:41 PM *
News: Community Awards results
 
  Home Help Search Login Register More  
  Show Posts
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 [22] 23 24 25 26 27 »
421  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Is it supposed to take this long to generate some "phat coin"? on: July 22, 2010, 06:35:54 PM
There's some douche who's got 1000 cores crunching through hashes, so all of us are kind of left out to dry for now. =P
422  Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / Re: Bitcoin x64 for Windows on: July 22, 2010, 06:33:46 PM
Ichi: Probably pretty fast, I saw a huge increase in performance to the tweaked version.  No tellin until you try it though.
423  Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / Re: My idea: CBitPal on: July 22, 2010, 06:18:10 PM
It doesn't require a server.  You can just start the bitcoin client, and javascript can interface with it from JSON, AFAIK.
424  Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / Re: My idea: CBitPal on: July 22, 2010, 06:12:22 PM
>_> It kind of defeats the purpose.  What advantage would it offer over building such functionality directly into the client (such as with the RPC and JSON interfaces)?
425  Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / Re: Bitcoin x64 for Windows on: July 22, 2010, 05:26:39 PM
Oli: One alternative is to start the CUDA part hashing with a nonce of MAXINT and subtract one, and the host client start at one and go upwards.  Then, either one could find a hash and you're not repeating work.
426  Economy / Marketplace / Re: FREE Microlotto / BingoLotto on: July 22, 2010, 05:24:53 PM
No.  Go to http://www.random.org/integers/?mode=advanced

The random NUMBER generated BY the seed is between 1 and 100.  The seed is just kind of a "password" to make sure you always get the same random number.

Seed -> SHA256 -> hash I posted above.
  V
Random.org
  V
Answer you're trying to guess
427  Economy / Marketplace / Re: FREE Microlotto / BingoLotto on: July 22, 2010, 05:22:14 PM
Yup, that way I can reveal the seed at a later point, so you can see the winning number.  You'll also be able to verify that I didn't change the seed, because of the hash I posted above.  BUT, you can't cheat and find the result beforehand.
428  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: With "Balance sheets" most of the block chain can be forgotten. on: July 22, 2010, 05:19:03 PM
^.^ Woops, sorry, was just trying to defend a fellow bitcoiner.  And sure thing on the clarification.  It's a huge issue faced by any distributed system like this, ESPECIALLY if you're dealing with money/something of value.
429  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: With "Balance sheets" most of the block chain can be forgotten. on: July 22, 2010, 04:16:56 PM
Red: Noone said it was.  I mentioned uniquely identifying them by the hash of the first block they were produced in (granted that would be "unique" to 50 of them, but some kind of seed, or offset, or whatever would also work) and someone said that in general, uniquely identifying them would be a good idea.
430  Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / Re: Feature Request: Splash Screen on: July 22, 2010, 04:08:44 PM
Hm, never noticed it here.  But yea, a splash screen wouldn't be too bad an idea for those people who are experiencing that issue.
431  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: With "Balance sheets" most of the block chain can be forgotten. on: July 22, 2010, 04:04:45 PM
Red: It would still be a breaking change.  While it DOES provide versioning, clients only deal with others of the same version.  They don't automatically stop working or somehow learn to adapt to the new version when they see a client of another version.  Because of this, the old clients would continue on as usual, advancing the block chain.  The new clients, (0.4 for simplicity) would start rejecting the old (0.3.2).  Thus, you'd have a "0.4" blockchain, and a "0.3.2" blockchain that were exactly the same up until 0.4 was released, at which point they would diverge.  Transactions would only occur between clients of the same version, and when people finally switched over to 0.4, this new block wouldn't have the transactions from 0.3.2.  It can be done if absolutely necessary, and we'll just have to warn people that old transactions will be invalid, despite showing up as valid on the old clients.  Thus, we should avoid a breaking-change at all costs.

If, however, the sheet referenced the block chain instead, this information would be "extra", and thus safely ignored by older clients.  The block chain would still be valid when generated on older clients.

Another route to go would be to implement it this way, and then add it to the "todo list" for our first breaking change.  We then keep a list of things that would be breaking that we want to do until it gets sufficiently large/advantageous to risk the bifurcating block chain, and do it all in one version update.  This would still be a breaking change, but it would allow us to mitigate the negative effects.
432  Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / Re: Feature Request: Splash Screen on: July 22, 2010, 03:36:32 PM
:-S I always see the screen as SOON as I start it, and THEN it does all the disk i/o, connecting, etc stuff.
433  Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / Re: Scalability and transaction rate on: July 22, 2010, 03:09:19 PM
It's not a completely connected network in the sense that every client isn't connected to every other client.  If by completely connected you mean there's x degrees of separation between everyone, then yes, that's how it is.  Data gets "spread" throughout the network as time goes on, not instantaneously (though it is pretty fast).

This was mostly a thought experiment for satoshi, as I understand it.  If the userbase continues to grow substantially, then obviously a great amount of work will go into optimizing and revising the algorithm to support more advanced and intelligent distribution.
434  Economy / Marketplace / Re: FREE Microlotto / BingoLotto on: July 22, 2010, 03:00:18 PM
The unsalted hash of the seed for the solution (as per random.org) is given.
435  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: With "Balance sheets" most of the block chain can be forgotten. on: July 22, 2010, 02:36:50 PM
eureka: No, the balance sheet is very lightweight and only stores balance, not actual coin ownership.  Though, that would be one way to solve that, is to store all 21,000,000 coins (identified by the hash of the block they were generated in) under the address they're "owned" by.  It'd be bigger than the chain is now, but it'd still be significantly smaller than the entirety of the block chain.

Uniquely identifying each bitcoin is a very good idea.  Think of them then as separate claims of property, like lots of land.  By doing this and keeping track of who owns which one (or fractional bit thereof) would add a tremendous amount of trust to the system. 

I'm not at all savvy vis a vis the programming logistics (eeek, run away), I'm more interested in the monetary theory, so salt all comments to taste.

*nods* It wouldn't be a reliable way to operate the underlying system, as coins are split and merged in blocks, 50 are generated at once, etc, but it'd be a nice way to provide a bit of verification and safety to the balance sheets.
436  Economy / Marketplace / Re: Testing the waters on: July 22, 2010, 02:31:08 PM
*shrug* I can hash it a second time, but it's not going to increase or decrease security.  I typed out a random alphanumeric seed anywhere between 1 and 64 characters long, so they'd have to bruteforce an ungodly number of options.  Hashing it a second time won't change that.
437  Economy / Marketplace / Re: Testing the waters on: July 22, 2010, 02:06:52 PM
Well, I'm running a "fake" one right now.  http://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=534.0

Also, the chance of them brute forcing a 64 digit alphanumeric seed which I hashed with SHA-256 is very low. Wink
438  Economy / Marketplace / FREE Microlotto / BingoLotto on: July 22, 2010, 02:02:09 PM
This is a test run to show everyone how it works, and illustrate the benefit over a regular lotto.

This is not a real lottery.  No money required to play.  Please play so that I can judge how things would have gone.

Here's how it works:

1) I've chosen a random seed to be entered here:

http://www.random.org/integers/?mode=advanced

under the "pregenerated seed".  It's between 1 and 100 (inclusive).
The SHA-256 hash of the seed is: 627c22822c1dee884411b8f3a09b8545616bcf9837f080a6df26704f604b6d0d

2) You pay 1 "fakecoin" to enter, and PM me your guess.  1 guess per fakecoin.  I add this to the pot.

If you guessed correctly, you get 80% of the "fakecoins", 1% will go to me, and 19% will go into the next pot.  Otherwise, I post your guess on the "Failed guess" section and update the jackpot.

Current Jackpot: 34 fakecoins
Chances to win: 1/71
Failed Items:
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 5
  • 7
  • 11
  • 13
  • 14
  • 17
  • 19
  • 22
  • 33
  • 41
  • 44
  • 50
  • 55
  • 66
  • 77
  • 88
  • 91
  • 92
  • 93
  • 94
  • 95
  • 96
  • 97
  • 98
  • 99
  • 100

439  Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / Re: Working Android App on: July 22, 2010, 01:31:04 PM
Good to hear work is being done for Android - I love my HTC Desire!

BTW, have either of you guys considered integrating with Bump? It would be very cool to bump Bitcoins to other phones near by!  Cool

Nice idea!  I love bump!
440  Economy / Trading Discussion / Re: Legal Tender on: July 22, 2010, 01:30:15 PM
Something that I'm curious about actually; is the process of processing transactions / generating new coins the same? I can see the rationale for compensating for transactions at some point, because the cost to generate a new bitcoin will at some point exceed the additional value gained from said bitcoin.

Yes, the current difficulty/generation system being used for creating "new" bitcoins is going to be the same for those future bitcoin blocks, and the attempt to "normalize" the generation of those coins to about one every 10 minutes is at least still going to be attempted to be maintained.

I could imagine a time when most people would be willing to "turn off" the bitcoin generation option simply because of the trivial nature of any new coins that are generated.  If running the generator continuously for an entire year would only earn you $1 in equivalent currency, would it be worth the effort to you?  Even if that was on a 10k server farm attempting to generate coins?  It seems to me that most people and certainly most server farms would simply give up at that point.

You'd make more than one dollar because of the transaction fees.  That's the whole point.  If it got to that point, then everyone would stop generating blocks, as it would be unprofitable, and the system would collapse.
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 [22] 23 24 25 26 27 »
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!