2BTC per miner is highway robbery and they knew it.
1BTC is just robbery.
+1 Said to a colleague today, now they are only overpriced, instead of ridiculously overpriced. As they cost about .15 BTC each to make (yes, I know this is a guess but it is an educated one), a selling price of .5 BTC each would be fair and also allow they buyer to actually make a profit. At almost 1 BTC I do not see a profit in them with difficulty growing. On top of that, buying from them you know that this just allows them to put up more of their own hashing power (since they pay so much less for it) without going over 50%. You are doing them a favor at this point. |
|
|
|
There have been loads of threads on this subject.
Bottom line is that there is no need to worry about a QC threat to Bitcoin in this decade or the next (or longer :-)
a) The capabilities of any QC that can be built today with one that can brute force a private key is like comparing Red Baron's bi-plane with a stealth fighter.
b) All fiat transactions in financial systems done over the internet, indeed, internet security itself would also be at risk, not just Bitcoin.
c) Different hashing algorithms can be used to replace SHA-256 that are much more resistant to QC problem solving.
And finally, many scientists doubt that the D-wave is actually a quantum computer in the first place. It may be a quantum computer simulator but does not solve any problems faster then a traditional large computer so far. |
|
|
|
|
bump, shirts in stock now ready to ship.
|
|
|
|
Laffo, nice play.
Not sure if in response to me but, my price is lower with shipping as theirs is $5+ mine is 99 cents. Anyhow, shirts in stock now, ready to ship. We are not a cafepress store, these are already made. |
|
|
|
It says: But IF this SSL page was intercepted, its certificate fingerprint will HAVE TO BE DIFFERENT since authentic SSL certificates are impossible to perfectly duplicate. But they can perfectly duplicate VeriSign/RapidSSL/etc. certificates because they have access to their systems. Not exactly. GRC is right if there is no cooperation between the intercepted site and the interceptor. Examples: Bitcointalk has brand X SSL. interceptor has control over brand X SSL authority Bitcoin talk has still used its own private key that is unknown to EITHER brand X SSL or the interceptor. The fingerprint would be different. Google has brand X SSL interceptor has control over brand x SSL authority Google GIVES interceptor private key*The interceptor now has identical fingerprint. * with this level of cooperation, interceptor could get all the data needed from Google alone without control over SSL authority. |
|
|
|
I propose a movement to lobby local governments to allow for speed limit exemptions for those carrying a special speed license given to those who a) pass appropriate tests including physical reflex tests, b) receive special speed driver's training from a government mandated agency, or c) those who have experience professionally racing cars and can demonstrate their skill.
Skill is important, but so is equipment. Speed rated tires and a vehicle in great condition are essential at speeds over 100 mph. While many roads are ready for higher speeds, most are not. Finally (I know this is not just a USA based post) most drivers in the USA do not stay right. Higher speeds can not happen safely unless drivers keep right except to pass or at least keep the left most lane clear. In Germany, most cars are in good shape, the high speed roads are maintained and people do keep right. |
|
|
|
Somehow either you are splitting hairs or not reading what I am saying.
I said the GOAL of the formula is for an average 3600 per day. If this statement correct or incorrect?
The statement is correct, however the result will most likely be way over this goal (at least if this difficult increase keeps going). I don't think a difference of 20%+ is splitting hairs, it does have quite an impact. Agreed and that speaks to my point. A 20%+ correction is coming. It will not make the output be exactly 3600 a day, but right now the output well above that and about to be tamped down. |
|
|
|
Don't follow the logic. Increase difficulty does not mean fewer coins mined.
Short term yes it does. Long term the goal of the formula is for an average rate of 3600 per day. We are at least 25% above that now. No, increased hashrate means more coins than average. Difficulty only determines the amount of coins per hasrate. Increased difficulty however will mean less margin for the miners unless the BTC price rises. Somehow either you are splitting hairs or not reading what I am saying. I said the GOAL of the formula is for an average 3600 per day. If this statement correct or incorrect? |
|
|
|
Don't follow the logic. Increase difficulty does not mean fewer coins mined.
Short term yes it does. Long term the goal of the formula is for an average rate of 3600 per day. We are at least 25% above that now. |
|
|
|
I expect the opposite. ASIC miners are likely not selling some part of their profit margins. As the profit margins erode, the percentage of the daily 3600 BTC goes up they have to liquidate to pay expenses. But this is an effect that works over months.
I am assuming that most of the smaller ASIC miners hold some coins, and the bigger players sell. Could be wrong. But for the short term we will see a drop in the number of coins available for sale until the price creeps up a bit to encourage more selling. |
|
|
|
|
Once the difficulty rises and Monday comes around I expect a little bit of recovery as the flow of mined coins slows a bit. We have had big difficulty increases before, but this is one of the top ones in recent times.
|
|
|
|
|
6eU2oxhEPvf5V1LzjoHgJtxbciT5oghwdY
|
|
|
|
While checking my TMDA pending folder, I found a couple of messages from the aforementioned outfit. One had their name in the subject; the other was titled "Bitcoin Master." They purport to have a 30 GH/s miner at (IMHO) an uncompetitive price. Anyone else heard of them? I'm not inclined to give spammers the time of day. Besides, I have a couple of Jalapeņos that should leave BFL today, and some Avalon ASICs from a couple of group buys are a bit further out.
Got the same email. |
|
|
|
Absolutely 100% a stupid design, put together by someone who has no experience in the real mac pro world.
I.E video & audio........
The pro was the ONLY Apple computer that allowed 3rd party PCI cards to be added, Now Sir I live in a lab environment hand job has destroyed it and the market share it held.
Now you have to 'buy' and expansion chassis, and route all the PCI traffic over some shitty bandwidth limited cable.
One thing Apple does is embrace change. A 2013 Mac Pro user will have Thunderbolt drives and not need PCI devices. Thunderbolt is faster then hard drives so it is not as important that it is not as fast as PCI-E. Certainly a small subset of Mac Pro users will be disappointed, but not the majority of the market. There will probably be more users who this is exactly what they need. I could be wrong but expect the base price of this machine to be LOWER then the old machine. I am guessing they will have a single entry level GPU option as well as single and double FirePro options in the 4096 core 3GB per card versions. If this machines base price is more then $2500 it will be a dud. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
