(...)
Reality check, mate!  |
|
|
|
The responsibility of miners and pools in maintaining balance. So... I am sure there is plenty of KnCminer customers that are doing this right know. Their expectation of a reward for the capital invested to "maintaining balance" is completely valid. I fail to understand what is your problem with people expecting to receive back the capital they invested to acquire such "responsibility". Why would you or I ever want to give one person or entity that much power and control over _our_ Bitcoin network? Has anyone here ever heard of a countermeasure failing (BP Oil in the Gulf)? What the fuck? Are you joking, right?  How can you demand people to be responsible but at the same time powerless? What exactly you expect? As more hash rate is added to the Bitcoin network (power), more secure it becomes against potential threats (responsible). There are so many viable pools to choose from, and if you are a business it is more profitable to build your own pool (fees go to you). If you pack heavy hash power, which most in this forum do, it makes so much more sense to be a part of the solution rather then a part of the problem. But... But... That would be greedy. I thought the goal was to be a not greedy Bitcoin "miner"... |
|
|
|
Why don't you just admit you were wrong, and stop this nonsense? It is clear that who gets the reward for a block, and who "solves" it are two different questions. In pool mining, a group of people agree to share block rewards regardless of which individual miner solved the block. That agreement obviously has no bearing on who actually solved a given block. If you think "that who gets the reward for a block, and who "solves" it are two different questions", then I am certain you do not comprehend that even in pool "mining" there must be an entity to receive the reward, what is not the pool participant. The reward needs to be transmitted (first transaction) to the entity which "solves" the block. You are failing to understand that the receiver (thus the "solver") it is not the pool participant. |
|
|
|
You must be fun at parties  Completely!  I am excitingly waiting for the next one to gossip and laugh about companies which fails to deliver a hardware with a functional firmware to their customers. The best part of the joke is when I disclose the monetary cost to obtain such hardware. People literally ROFL! You know, in Brazil people say that "who laughs last, laughs better". |
|
|
|
Centralization is the enemy of this experiment. "Business men" that mine for profit without regard for the network are not a friend to the experiment if their efforts result in too much centralization (usually a goal of a for-profit company). Centralization of what?  |
|
|
|
That is not relevant to the question of who "solved" the block. Why the question is not relevant if who receives the reward is who supposedly "solves" the block? Perhaps you are confusing what "solving" means in the metaphorical concept of "mining"? https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/BlockBecause there is a reward of brand new Bitcoins for solving each block, every block also contains a record of which Bitcoin address is entitled to receive the reward. This record is known as a generation transaction, or a coinbase transaction, and is always the first transaction appearing in every block. |
|
|
|
The pool provides you with a block header to work on. You double-hash the block header iteratively while incrementing the nonce, and return any results that are of higher difficulty than the pool difficulty to the pool. If one of those results happens to also be higher difficulty than the network difficulty, you have solved the block for the pool. The pool does not do any of the calculations associated with solving a block, so I don't see how you think the pool "solved" the block. Yeah, but guess who got the 25 BTC + fees? |
|
|
|
yes, doofus. i know that, thats what i mean you fucktard. why are you still on this forum?
Augusto just being his crabby, permanent on-his-period self as usual.
If that is what you mean, then you would not say that he "solved" the block. Appeal to insults will not change the fact that you made an incorrect statement. It only shows you fail to learn from mistakes. I don't get the distinction you are making here. It looks to me like he solved a block for the pool in exactly the same way he might have solved a block for himself if he had been solo mining. When people participate in pools they are only providing the SHA-256 hash generated by their machines to let the pool find a block header with a number equal or lower than the current target. Therefore participants in a pool cannot "solve" a block because it is the pool who execute this process. What the pool participants only do is to provide the necessary requirements to complete this process, know as Proof of Work, which is just to generate a high rate of SHA-256 hash until the current target is found. Solo "miners" can "solve" a block like pooled "mining" because their are not only generating the SHA-256 hash, but monitoring the block header of every block propagated in the Bitcoin network. https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Pooled_miningA share is awarded by the mining pool to the clients who present a valid proof of work of the same type as the proof of work that is used for creating blocks, but of lesser difficulty, so that it requires less time on average to generate.
https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Proof_of_workProofs of work that are tied to the data of each block are required for the blocks to be accepted. The difficulty of this work is adjusted so as to limit the rate at which new blocks can be generated by the network to one every 10 minutes. Due to the very low probability of successful generation, this makes it unpredictable which worker computer in the network will be able to generate the next block. |
|
|
|
whoa, 426m! you solved a block! coooool
Nope. The pool "solved" the block, not him. What he did was to use a machine which generated the SHA-256 number for the pool to "solve" the block. He would only had "solved" the block if he was solo "mining", what is not the case. |
|
|
|
No, Ripple is a scam.
Its not. You parrot that because you are afraid your Bitcoin investment would fail. I'm not invested in Bitcoin, and I'll say this too. Ripple is a scam. itīs a scam and the ripple worshippers getting really fanatic about it.  The only digital currency which had literally attracted worshippers is Bitcoin. No other kind of digital monetary transmission attracts this peculiar kind of people, which advocates Bitcoin as kind of new religion, when in fact it is just a software produced by a mysterious Japanese character. This cult-like mindset is what generates plenty of misconceptions and misinformation in this forum, like "Bitcoin is killing Western Union". To say that "ripple is a scam" is not different than religious fundamentalists to say "their god is not the right one". But, of course, not all people which use or appreciate the advantages of the Bitcoin protocol are Bitcoin worshippers. There are plenty of people which could care less for this "Bitcoin Dream", they are busy building the real future and more than happy to use the Bitcoin protocol when that provides them certain benefits. |
|
|
|
No, Ripple is a scam.
I am sorry to disrupt your "Bitcoin Dream", but no, Ripple is not scam. Ripple is a well designed protocol to transmit IOU (I Own You) of fiat and digital currency. It is still being developed and adopted at a slow peace, as happened with the Bitcoin protocol in the past. Adoption of the Ripple protocol rather than the Bitcoin protocol would be much more advantageous to Western Union to improve their business model. The transactions are quicker than Bitcoin and the protocol allows use of scripts which could optimize the way people transmit money. The Ripple developers are working into something they call "Smart Contracts", which aims to automate process like escrow or auctions. This is indeed something cannot be done in the Bitcoin protocol without a drastic change in the original client developed by Satoshi Nakamoto. |
|
|
|
Then instead of using gold, governments, utility etc. as a "what is it backed by?" argument it would be better to use trust as currency. Ripples stagnating because people don't trust it, Bitcoin keeps growing because no trust is required. How are Western Union's trust reserves doing?
Trust cannot be used as currency and people trust in Ripple, otherwise the Ripple ledger number would not keep growing. By the way, you are confusing different meanings of trust. Trust is still required to use the Bitcoin protocol to transmit money. The only trust that the Bitcoin eliminates is the trust people grants to a third party to move money from one point to another. However, both parties participating in the transaction must trust each other. I do not know how much trust Western Union have into a digital currency with high price variation in the exchange markets... I would guess not much. |
|
|
|
Simple: because Bitcoin is the future.
Ripple "is the future" as well and it is much more appropriate than Bitcoin to be used as protocol to transmit money. |
|
|
|
And paypal too! Include it here please!!! It is more like the other way around: Bitcoin is being affected by Paypal. Paypal has already a very stable application for mobile phones, while Bitcoin software developers are struggling to create a secure wallet for mobile phones. If money transmitters like Western Union follow the same path, they will be one more step ahead of your "Bitcoin Dream". |
|
|
|
They've been around a long time and survived a lot of changes, I'd put better odds on western union offices trading coins within the next few years.
I doubt WU will go Bitcoin way, they will stick with their business. Well said. Short words with a great load of coherence. "Stick with their business" is what really matter for Western Union. Why would Western Union adopt one more complicated layer of money transmission if they already have a business model which does that? |
|
|
|
Bitcoin will be killing WU and the likes of it.
It might not be happening now as OP stated incorrectly, but it will happen one day.
Oh really? How that will happen? What information lead you to believe that will happen? Or this is just something you expect to happen, although there is no evidence which indicates that will happen? |
|
|
|
That is one of the main problems with Bitcoin at the moment. It attracted people which like to spread misinformation without any care for the consequences. As you can read from the article, Bitcoins has nothing to do with the issues Western Union is facing at the moment. However, solex is advertising that "Bitcoin is killing Western Union!". He begins the topic with a misleading title, but he do not stop there: Bitcoin is displacing the core business of Western Union, the international money transmitter.
Another plain lie. As anyone can read the article, Bitcoin is not "displacing the core business of Western Union". Then more follows: Although the loss of WU business to BTC right now is a trickle the markets can see this becoming a flood in the near future. First solex admits that "Bitcoin is displacing the core business of Western Union", but now it is just "a trickle the markets can see this becoming a flood in the near future". But that it is not enough for solex, he needs to revolve his lies with more words to give the appearance of truth: WU is in the same position as the Kodak film business when it first faced digital technology. The only option for Kodak was to use its massive size to embrace the new tech, adapt and ride the change ahead of everyone else. They failed to do so and the rest is history. Perhaps WU could integrate bitcoin into its business model and become like localbitcoins.com (but leverage their branch network & install ATMs in them too), or use all its MSB licences in the US to set up a professional exchange. This is a real test of their management. Here solex compares Kodak with Western Union. This is like to compare apples and oranges... Then, after the inappropriate comparison, he state that Western Union could solve their issues by "integrate bitcoin into its business model". WU is the very first domino in a whole series with Paypal, Mastercard, VISA, retail banks, the fiat currencies and Central Banks lined up afterwards. It will be interesting to see which ones adapt best and which ones die hardest. Finally, the grand finale used by scaremongers and sophists. Here solex try to give a hint of fear by transforming his lie in a prophecy. It is not just Western Union having issues caused by Bitcoins, but the whole financial system as we know. Solex, tell us, why do you like to spread lies and misinformation about something you appear have no understanding? |
|
|
|
I am at disbelief at the level of misinformation and false claims repeatedly made by KNC support staff. And I wonder who benefits from such a way of conducting business It's definitely not me. I was told yesterday noon (28.10) that my miners are ready and waiting to be picked up same day. It turns out they will most probably not going to be picked up today either. And as usual nobody is picking up the phone. You have "some weird expectation and all" you do "is keep demanding them" to give you a tracking number... I feel sorry for you, really... I've been getting all the response I want via email. Bitching in this forum is the worst way to get answers.
Haha exactly. The guy has some weird expectation and all he does is keep demanding them here. It's like trying to talk to the band, while screaming at a concert |
|
|
|
The only one thing that can save this network is if bitcoin price goes 200 and above within this fall quarter.
Rest assured that Visa will "issue the Visa-B bitcoin debit card" in two weeks TM, which will result in a "increase the value of bitcoin over time due to it's deflationary nature AND the inflationary nature inherent in standard fiat currencies". Meanwhile, "they want to see far less volatility and far more value reflected in the cumulative BTC price. Along with more certain regulation from governments." All because "it is incumbent on the bitcoin community, and especially miners, to implement schemes that DO generate these fees". However, "the increase will not be as proportional and be more incremental. What you are seeing now will be the largest single increase - proportionately - for a given finite period". But there is no major concerns, since "this scheme would require a form of banking. This is not egregious. Banking in and of itself is not harmful to economies". |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
