No cutoff, but people submitting close to the end get a disadvantage.
What disadvantage would that be? Seems to me it is a pretty big advantage since you could tell what the previous highs and lows were. |
|
|
|
|
I will add 2.19-2.27 and 2.19-2.25 to my list of predictions lol
|
|
|
|
OMG REFRESH THE CHART PAGE!!!  Not seeing this at all so Im assuiming its your submission for the chart. |
|
|
|
|
2.15-2.34
2.17-2.45
2.10-2.36
2.12-2.42
2.16-2.39
Someone quote me now lol.
|
|
|
|
|
wouldnt have been appropriate to quote myself because then i could change both quotes. Thanks for quoting me.
|
|
|
|
|
The idea someone had for making bitcoin payment and purchasing tools on cell phones would be one such evolution. Making it easier to use it to buy and sell is essential to getting more people to adopt it.
|
|
|
|
as a wise man once said... "suckers.. we need more suckers."
right... We need Big questions answered like, is bitcoin legal? once these question can be answered, demand will go up. and a new speculative bubble will form and this time it will go higher then ever b4 Of course bitcoin is legal. Legal tender? Thats another question. Even if one country outlaws it will never be outlawed everywhere. If some country goes through the effort of making it illegal then it legitimizes it more than anything because it would be because they see it as a real alternative to their own fiat currency. What we need is more investors and more people to buy and sell their services for bitcoins. We need to grow the bitcoin economy. An economists on here? |
|
|
|
you should write everyone's prediction on the first post so they can't change them.
Yup quote them just like this: 2.11 - 2.33
$2.11 - $2.33
low: 2.200001
high 2.356789
$2.1499/2.254
1Au1zBioqvUxvKaZKLQZL2kB88spDFqoo
How long can people guess for?
High-2.40
Low-2.19
17CRiJeKA58Ac6GipJNQWt4yE1V3oXrsy
Low 2.14
High 2.51
Wallet address: 1HhW4UYNfVH6ByYoSGnbsuHUhW1u43yq3P
Adjusted to reflect the new 4 hour time window
High 2.28
Low 2.04
high: 2.21 low: 1.84 EDIT:  Time 2:53 3:53 4:53 5:53 6:53 High 2.51 2.43 2.25 2.23 2.21 Low 1.99 1.98 2.15 2.01 1.84 1Fc6fH4nmiBbmkvkD7FiXgMPLpzZyDpdhE high was 2.32, low will be 1.5
|
|
|
|
Here's my chart. No dollar or time values needed. I call it the double fuck.  |
|
|
|
Yes some sort of a merged mining. Like a namecoin but maybe call it a foldcoin or something like that.
Please bear in mind that merged mining does not mean that you can use the same computational resource to do something else. You merely sneak a few additional bytes in there so that you can use the result for your own notary system. This is essentially what I was proposing. If somehow this could be used alongside or integrated into mining by slipping in the bits to process and sold at a dollar value that is used to increase bitcoin prices then that would be ideal. |
|
|
|
You need to find a problem that is: 1) very hard to solve (about 20,000 GPU-hours per solution); 2) trivial to verify it was done correctly (less than 1 GPU-second per check); 3) politically neutral (we have to agree on the problem being solved, and some people will object to using their GPUs to solve some problems).
Brute forcing SHA256 to sign a block is very hard, but once it's done it's trivial to verify the solution, so it's perfect. You could make a hard F@H problem that takes 20,000 GPU-hours to solve, but then it would take 20,000 GPU-hours to verify that the solution was done correctly, so it doesn't work.
It is generally believed, but I'm not sure if it's proven, that it is impossible to have a problem that satisfies both 1 and 2 while performing useful work. No one has proposed one yet. F@H fails on #2. If you can find a useful problem that satisfies both conditions, please let us know! I'm sure it would be readily adopted.
We have to find a useful but universally benign problem. F@H would be fine, but "renting out" will be strongly objectionable. We need to find a single problem that the network can standardize on for a long time. This part is easier than finding a problem that satisfies both 1 and 2.
Also, you're playing with fire using the word "backing" here. It has a specific meaning: If you no longer want your coins, you can trade them in to get something back. Doing useful work to generate coins does not come with a guarantee that you can get that amount of work back when you turn your coins in.
Well what if computing power was split up so randomly 1 user would solve 1 block and another user or two would verify the same block. Multiple confirmations should allow this to happen although it is much less efficient. Would it be possible to code an environment that could do this? By selling the work blocks to the interested party in bitcoins they pay whatever the market value is and therefore theoretically should increase the price. For those that object to this it could be optional like merged mining. Of course the purpose of this could be defeated if they sold their coins and the price would drop back down. Perhaps another major exchange could be created or a current one modified to somehow add the money paid for by research instituions to prop up the value for bitcoins without actually created or handing over any bitcoins. I guess another possiblity would be a pool that sells the work (Deepbit has a good portion of the computing power) for money and in turn offers to buy the coins back off the users for a set cost based on the price of work. This also has the same problem as above. If I had all the answers on how to do this I wouldn't be asking for suggestions. I know it is going to be difficult but given the current state of bitcoin it couldnt hurt if some way was found to achieve this. Of course there is a lot of code writing that would have to be done but in the long run it would be more than worth it. Where is Satoshi when you need him? |
|
|
|
I know it does not currently work in a way that can readily support it but it is doable.
Maybe it is doable, but I don't know how it's doable. It's been suggested many times, but I don't think any kind of concrete work is done on the subject. One requirement seems to be that we need to use block data to seed the calculation. That's the only measure against working on a known problem. Second, the work needs to be parallelizable. Best way to do this is to use a slightly different seed for each worker, hence the nonce. There may be other ways though, depending on the problem. Third, we need to have a measure for difficulty. With the current algorithm, it's determined beforehand by the target hash, but I guess with variable confirmation times you could measure the difficulty afterwards and award the miner depending on that. Probably the worst idea ever, but there. Also I have no clue as to how this would all relate to merkle trees and whatnot. One way to do it could be having miners genetically generate programs that perform some duty with a measurable difficulty. The duty should be provably impossible to do in any other way. And should be useful in itself. I don't know how folding@home works, I'm sure others might have better ideas. All in all, I also think that Bitcoin, as a distributed notary system, is useful as it is. You could build other tools around the same computational power, using merged mining, and I think it's definitely a more constructive thing to think about. Yes some sort of a merged mining. Like a namecoin but maybe call it a foldcoin or something like that. I would gladly participate in merged mining for that but could care less about namecoins. The key to this would be making sure the monetary values from the folding work goes into bitcoin values and if someone choses to cash out in USD or other currency they can then go to an exchange to do so. |
|
|
|
What if there were a way to allow computations to be done alongside blockchains for the purchase of bitcoins. 1 BTC = x amount of computation. This would only require some sort of a server or exchange that in turn could be secured and verified by the mining network. Maybe not even a server but say a program that just connects to a bitcoin network. Of course the work would have to be presented in a given context or coded properly but I do believe there is a way to make this work.
Do you mean something like this? The closest idea that is feasible is a separate type of open transaction that miners could accept based on solving a verifiable computational problem that the sender is essentially paying for. In this case there is no coin generation, the person giving the problem provides the reward.
The potential problem I see for this is people trusting their financial information that they would need to utilize the money (unless it is converted to bitcoins). Then the work would have to be divied up between many workers because presumably there would not be one person capable of computing so many calcualtions in a feasable amount of time. The best way to do it I still believe would be to integrate it into bitcoins somehow. By making companies pay in cash or convert their cash into bitcoins this achieves said goal. Then maybe there would be no need to modify the bitcoin software itself but rather the mining software itself. This way those that choose to help increase the value of the bitcoin have the option to do so while generating bitcoins for verifying the network as well. |
|
|
|
|
Low 2.14
High 2.51
Wallet address: 1HhW4UYNfVH6ByYoSGnbsuHUhW1u43yq3P
Adjusted to reflect the new 4 hour time window
|
|
|
|
Many people argue that the problem with bitcoins is that there is nothing really backing it up in terms of production.
You are using too narrow a definition of "production." Just as a wider road enables more efficient travel, or fiber optic lines enable more efficient communication, so too does Bitcoin - by providing a frictionless money transmission system - enable more efficient trade and exchange. The productive value of Bitcoin is not that it "produces" anything, but rather that it enables goods and services to be exchanged at lower cost, and thus it's value is justified. Its aggregate effect is to prevent wealth from being lost via transmittance inefficiencies, and thus the world enjoys having more wealth. I did say peoiple and not me. I believe in Bitcoin for its merit as an alternative currency and that is why I mine. There are a lot of people who have money that are leary of investing in Bitcoin because they just don't get what it is there to represent. If in addition to processing transactions within the network it was used for medical research then Im sure there would be a lot more investors on board. |
|
|
|
|
If I said it wasn't useful then I mispoke. Here's another idea then. What if there were a way to allow computations to be done alongside blockchains for the purchase of bitcoins. 1 BTC = x amount of computation. This would only require some sort of a server or exchange that in turn could be secured and verified by the mining network. Maybe not even a server but say a program that just connects to a bitcoin network. Of course the work would have to be presented in a given context or coded properly but I do believe there is a way to make this work. If there is a greater reward for mining then throughput should increase, adding additional security to the network and guaranteeing the future of bitcoins.
|
|
|
|
|
I do understand how Bitcoin works but I just think this would be a much more important use for it. I know it does not currently work in a way that can readily support it but it is doable. How about a change to the bitcoin software to do it alongside mining. This is one way to get around the fact that computers are working against each other. By requiring the miners to do this alongside finding blockchains you encourage investment from research instituions in order to get their computational requirements met as well. Then whoever the rendering is being done for has a vested interest in keeping the network throughput up. Just imagine how much medical research could be done with the power of the bitcoin network.
|
|
|
|
|
The amount of computing power used to secure and process the Bitcoin network is collosal. Many people argue that the problem with bitcoins is that there is nothing really backing it up in terms of production. Something that I have wondered since well before i started mining was if bitcoin mining and something like folding at home could be combined. This would add value behind bitcoins in terms of something tangible and the processing power could go towards more good.
This would mean virtually unlmited rendering power to those wishing to look at protein molecules and other computational heavy tasks. If some group could rent out the bitcoin blockchain for some blocks for their own computational needs then people would start to feel a lot better about bitcoins in general. Obviously it would have to be controlled what could be processed in order to prevent turning bitcoins into a giant hacking machine and I don't know how we could achieve this. The bitcoin network in a sense operates like a supercomputer and could be "rented" out for a much lower cost than im sure it costs to build and maintain them.
I would like to see bitcoins head in this direction but currently I do not see how we would go about this. Of course they could just pay for folding at home but that I do not see that happening in the near future. At the very least with bitcoins at a higher price it would give them some incentive to do so.
Maybe this is just the idealist in me speaking but can anyone else think of a way we could make this happen?
|
|
|
|
Ding ding ding! We have a winner! I suppose we could characterize JRO's statement as him merely wanting BTC to fail, but that doesn't seem to be the case. Really, we should want prices *above* $3, because at that point mining is viable on a scale that would make hacking BTC very difficult. We're nearly there, but only because we have a lot of GPU miners; if they disappear and CPU mining comes back, BTC is dead.
This is why I said in other posts that prices should really be around $3/BTC. Let's hope people start to regain faith in BTC again and start pushing the price more in that direction. You might even wonder if this effort to bring BTC so low is an attempt by some government who dislikes it to bring the currency to halt (ie USA). For those of you cheering for $1 BTC you need to give your heads a shake. Considering the reward per block doesnt drop until 2013 there is a long way to go before the number of bitcoins entering the market starts to drop and theoretically should drive the price up for that reason. If you care about bitcoins you should be encouraging everyone to buy them right now. On another but possibly related note has there been any discussion on what the effect of the botnet viruses for BTC mining would be and what the hackers purpose with those coins could be? |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
