before this get any more painful and embarrassing:
the obvious flaw in the glass of icewater example is that the ice is - compared to the size and general heat input/output of the earth - very small and local. you can have most of earth being rather unaffacted by the cooling effect of this little bit of melting ice while at the same time the ice is massively affected by even little changes to this huge planet.
Dude, we are not talking about a little bit of ice. While the ice-in-a-glass analogy has obvious flaws, the effect would certainly have a dampening effect upon the global averages, for no other reason than the area that is 'local' to the polar ice does make up a significant portion of the globe, and cannot much exceed 32 degrees F lest the melting of the ice absorb that heat. We are also not talking about a little bit of water... Ice: Sea Ice Volume is calculated using the Pan-Arctic Ice Ocean Modeling and Assimilation System (PIOMAS, Zhang and Rothrock, 2003) developed at APL/PSC. Anomalies for each day are calculated relative to the average over the 1979 -2011 period for that day of the year to remove the annual cycle. The model mean annual cycle of sea ice volume over this period ranges from 28,700 km3 in April to 12,300 km3 in September. The blue line represents the trend calculated from January 1 1979 to the most recent date indicated on the figure. Monthly averaged ice volume for September 2012 was 3,400 km3. This value is 72% lower than the mean over this period, 80% lower than the maximum in 1979, and 2.0 standard deviations below the 1979-2011 trend.
Water: "The average depth of the ocean is about 3,796 meters (12,451 feet), the volume of seawater 1.37 billion cubic kilometers"
So using 2012 numbers and just polar sea ice we have a ratio of 385,294:1 in favor of water. Mean numbers since 1979 give us 45,644:1. If we add in Greenland and the Antarctic Ice in the water (along with all other water-borne ice) you still "only" get 620,000 km3 (2005 numbers, fun paper to read: http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/environment/waterworld.html) for a ratio of 2112:1 in favor of water. Even if we dump every last icicle and snowball in the ocean and clear every mountain and continent of all ice, we still only get down to 44:1 water to ice ratio. Any way you slice it it's 4.4cm (polar-ice model) ice cube floating in a glass the size of a 20' Conex container. Even the "all-in" scenario only has a 90cm cube, and one end of the container is at 70+ degree tropical water. Do you really think you will reach equilibrium at 32 degrees in this system? Even if we turn off all external energy sources that ice is doomed. THIS is why I'm sure FirstAscent was positively giddy when that analogy was used, it is so ridiculous if you look at the numbers that it beggars belief. Thanks for the laugh guys, Scrybe PS, I just watched this today, please consider the points he makes at the very beginning related to his views on GM Food and the issue he encountered when he tried to rationalize that view and his views on Climate Change. An environmentalist apologises for opposing GM and talks about how learning about Global Warming have demanded a science literacy that his anti-GM views could not survive. Mark Lynas » Lecture to Oxford Farming Conference, 3 January 2013 http://buff.ly/TMDkzTPPS, did someone just seriously refer to Climategate as if there was any actual damning evidence found? It was an abject failure actually detecting any fraud or ethics violations after 8 major investigations. Using that as your ammunition is like choosing the Nerf sword instead of a real one. Of course the first paragraph of the quote above shows how insane this mindset is, it does not even slightly reflect the reality in the US where we have finally gotten to a bare majority of the population believing that humans are responsible, and far less than half of our Federal, State and Local politicians. The people are pushing our leaders to accept the scientific consensus, not the other way around. House of Commons Science and Technology Committee (UK); Independent Climate Change Review (UK); International Science Assessment Panel (UK); Pennsylvania State University first panel and second panel (US); United States Environmental Protection Agency (US); Department of Commerce (US); National Science Foundation (US)
|
|
|
|
I will change that to "all miners".....But all miners at block 2000 made up a hash rate under 1000 Mh/s. Looks like one person to me.
Also we got to block 8000 in 1 day 20 hrs and 59mins. I was close at 2 days. So the fact still remains that over 50% of all the freicoins found were found in under 2 days. How is that not a premine? Why start the difficulty at 1 if it wasn't.
PS
It is a 100M coin limit with FRC, not 21M. They have only produced a bit over 10% so far. It's not a premine because it was announced in advance when the genesis block would be released. Premining refers to the practice of mining a number of coins before the general public, not at the same time. I just pointed out I was participating with 30Mh/s, look at the P2Pool payout address lists and you can get some idea for the first couple of days since the p2pool was one of the first things started. http://www.cryptocoinexplorer.com:4750/block/000000001c76a14764609061c1a9610932b39587fdaea43e51c5ce99c2de26f8 has multiple miners for sure, and I've not looked for anything earlier than that. |
|
|
|
ok ok STOP. I dont want to think about how many frc i could have had if I had been following the release!
But you DO! That way you know to be ready for the next launch  I'm just lucky that moron "differently-abled thinker" I was debating on resurrecting destroyed bitcoins was pointed at FRC as an example of what he wanted to do. (it didn't help him) I didn't realize the import of the launch though and waited 8 hours to start mining (block 6961), now THERE is a regret. HOLY CRAP 2000 blocks in the first 4 hours 21 mins.
On an average from block 1 to 2000 someone was making 1915 coins/min. And that is after the 80% taken out.
PS
Change that from "someone" to "all miners" unless you have traced it back to a single address. You would need to determine the number of miners to get the average. |
|
|
|
Take a look at the 2 charts above. One is time vs hashs and the other is block vs hashs. On each of the charts look where 10 g/hash lands. Its on day 2 and block 8000. Someone did 8000 blocks in the first 2 days.
PS
For the first 6048 blocks the difficulty was at most 16. Even with only my 5870 doing 375MH/s and 5.2 shares per minute on average, I would have found a block every third minute on average. I don't see the problem here? In the beginning the difficulty adjustment just can't keep up with the rise in hashing power, so if there was sufficient hashing power you could theoretically find those 8k blocks in less than an hour. at 16 with 375 mh/s that is a block every 3mins PS Yep, and they were clipping by every 15-30 seconds at a few points. Here is a more specific version of the link I gave earlier: http://www.cryptocoinexplorer.com:4750/chain/Freicoin?hi=19&count=20PS, it is perfectly valid for a block to appear to have a time before it's parent, the order of the blocks is what matters, the apparent UTC time on the client behind the mining does not. Look at blocks 6032 to 6047 for example. |
|
|
|
and just think, with your 500Mh you could have had mucho blocks during those first 2 days... NO PREMINE
500? I had a great time with a 4750. 30Mh/s baby! |
|
|
|
My logic was when did the network hit 10 g/hash. Its simple math. At day 2 and block 8000 we hit 10 g/hash....
Lay that out for me a bit more please, I'm not sure it works as consistently as I would like. Are you factoring in the 4x difficulty movement cap that was our limit until the most recent change? Did you know about http://www.cryptocoinexplorer.com:4750? It seems to be down right now, but it's been up for a while (I even helped maaku accidentally break it with the first FRC transaction!) |
|
|
|
Wow looking at this I see a lot of premining... Looks like up to block 8000 was done in the first 2 day before it was publicly released. We are not even up to block 15000 2 weeks later now. Someone got rich....
PS
How can you tell from that chart there was a premine? for a currency in the works for almost a year, that would be a disaster... He was counting time backward and made a couple small errors is my bet, there was no "premine" before release, only a beta period that had it's blockchain reset. Here's my science inspired thought for the day, it might help some folks get it: Blockchain Relativity:Just as there is Relativity in the motion of objects in space, there is a relation between the average length of time needed to find a block ( L), actual network hashing power ( H), and current difficulty ( D). (L0 is the desired or original average lenght of time, ^ is exponent, the equation is modeled after Lorenz Contraction http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Length_contraction if it looks weird that is why) L = L0/(H/(D*2^32/600)) This means that if block solving time (on average) is unknown, difficulty is 2, and the network hashrate is 28Mhs your effective time L is going to be 10/(28M/(2*2^32/600)=~5.1 minutes. I like thinking about this like relativity, because neither clock is wrong for it's own purpose, but they are running at different rates. FYI, PPC is at 15M coins and has a similar fast ramp you can look at. It's different denominator in the bottom fraction (D^4) and since PoS started it got WAY more complex, but the general result was the same. |
|
|
|
Decentralized By the time Skynet became self-aware it had spread into millions of computer servers across the planet. Ordinary computers in office buildings, dorm rooms; everywhere. It was software; in cyberspace. There was no system core; it could not be shutdown +1 Correct, we don't live in the world of HAL or Skynet. Both of those were envisioned as large monolithic systems, not the messy distributed and Balkanized world we live in. Far more likely that we are going to see a few dozen "skynet" type AI's built by government/corporate/NGO concerns, along with thousands of other things that do some or all of the same stuff in a more open-adoption format. The good news is that this reality (assuming I'm right of course) will have so many threats that operate at AI speed, that the meatspace threat of the pure existence of humanity should be muted. In fact as I consider this further, the competition between AI's might cause them to lobby or market to humanity to get them to support the AI's cause. Or in the other direction we might have genocide events, but they will likely mirror our own history by targeting specific human sub-populations or areas for extinction/enslavement/jihad while helping "allied" humans thrive. Most of all I'm keeping my eyes open for my favorite phrase; "unintended consequences." I thought this funny too: That makes sense. Let's hope bitnet never becomes conscious. With Ayn Rand's sensibilities, she will surely consume us all. lol
So AI will evolve the ability to simultaneously demonize government assistance AND take a Social Security check to support itself and AI Medicare to pay for AV services (to cure viruses that it caught with it's own actions?) RandBot (tm) - Blatantly-Artificial Intelligence, Real Hypocrisy. Technology is truly amazing |
|
|
|
Bid/Ask at beginning of thread was B:0.5 | A:1.0 (BTC per 1K FRC)
Now it is B:0.2 | A: 0.3
How low can it go? Think we will see 0.1 per 1K by the end of the week?
The good news for the "foundation" is that even at 0.1 per 1K their 80M FRC is worth > $100K USD.
If you parse a bit more closely you will see that nothing was executed at 1/1000. I was throwing that (FRC sell order) out as a first attempt to set a value and get some trade going. Within a day I was buying at 0.1/1000, then it progressed to 0.2, 0.25, 0.3, 0.31, and 0.4/1000 as the difficulty increased. My line for buying is currently around 0.3/1000. Most transactions I'm seeing are still in the 0.3-0.4 range, and the general pressure seems to be up, not down. Granted, a lot of value is on the speculation side, but we've seen a few sale transactions flowing at the same rates. Maybe it will drop to 0.1 as the buzz dies down, but as long as folks are selling at "cost of mining" type numbers with the difficulty where it is or higher, I doubt it. Something else you might want also have backwards, what if the foundation coins are used in a way that increases the value of FRC? If real world use drives the price up to $.01/FRC we would have a very robust network of subsidized miners and $1M market cap. It's nice that the foundation coins might be worth something, but converting them on an exchange to fund a project is being frowned upon pretty hard in the governance thread. The best uses for FRC will not rely on it's (arbitrary) value as defined on this thread, but will create value themselves by enabling a community. I'm actually pretty pleased I got within an order of magnitude on my first try, I'd like to challenge you to do better on the next alt-coin of interest. |
|
|
|
Well this idea actually sucks, because I don't have numpad since i use a laptop.
And I'm not going to search those Deutsch things in my the Unicode Keys Map.
Alt+4 closes the window for me (I have to press Fn+4 to get F4 on my keyboard so I found that convenient), so I can't type Alt+244 on any program. I'll try with one of the other windows manager I'm trying out, but honestly the idea isn't very appealing to me. It's also not consistently the right letter. it shows up as a lowercase "o" with a tent when I type ALT-244 in the address bar of chrome on windows, and an empty block in the Run... Dialog. I can do a ⌠ here, but not consistently in every application use. FYI, that also looks like one of 3 sticks needed for a fasces (add 1 straight, 1 curved the other way, and a horizontal line or two for the rope and you have a fascism symbol), which might not be the best link. If Europe is using the Euro now, can we contemplate stealing the "Fr" notation? |
|
|
|
You do know it is 5% per year right? So the 80M FRC the foundation has (or will have) will still be ~62M FRC in 5 years, 48M FRC in 10 years. Yes slowly all funds will be converted via demurage into miner rewards but this isn't something special with FRC it applies to all coins held by all wallets all the time.
You are forgetting the point of the foundation, to get rid of it's funds. The bylaws are being created right now, go help and suggest that all coins must be disbursed to end users within 5 years. Also, the math for 5%/year as a miner subsidy is dead easy at steady state. 100M coins at 5% demurrage (acutally 4.89%) is 4.89 million coins per year, or about 93 coins per block. |
|
|
|
Maaku,
Would you give up 80% of your wages to a stranger?
No? Then don't expect miners to give you 80% of their earnings when they could mine something else and keep 100%.
Your message that miners should trust some faceless, and inevitably corrupt, foundation with their earnings more than they should trust themselves is delusional. You have fallen to uncontrolled greed.
Those coins were never the miner's to begin with. Why do you feel entitled to them?OMG, maaku, if miners work to mine(CREATE) them, they are theirs. Offtopic: PPcoins grow out of nowhere  You have a fundamental misunderstanding here. Miners are paid for confirming the transactions with a subsidy, they don't exert any more work to generate coins for themselves AND the Foundation vs. just for themselves. There is no ironclad rule that generation all has to go to miners, or that miners are entitled to 100% of all coins created by their efforts. If the creation of 750 coins was 3 times more intensive than generating 250 coins you might have a point, but in this case you are conflating a reward for work with the work itself. This is a rule/parameter/behavior of Bitcoin, not something that must be true of all p2p mined PoW cryptocoins. By the same logic I would have a right to get upset that the block reward fluctuates on PPCoin, or any number of other unreasonable complaints. But I looked up the rules to the PPCoin game, and decided I liked them well enough to play. If I missed something (like I did when I initially thought PPC would be deflationary) then that was my own fault. |
|
|
|
But most other crypto-currencies are the exact opposite of what you are saying. Satoshi only had "full access" to bitcoin while it was still in his head. Once he open sourced the protocol it was free and no one had centralized control. Thats the whole point- to build a system where you don't need to trust anyone.
And? How many times do you need to repeat that? What about a fully democratic system where the entire user base is afforded a large share of the decision making or if you will great share of the currency? Maybe if you look at this not as a deficit rather as positive you can see the potential for this to work as a liberating factor for the currency. Even if it modestly adopts some new way of distributing the coins democratically, not based on usury like you advocate, or the nepotistic-cleptocracy that your limited imagination seems to have for the foundation. Clearly, what we want is neither and all were are asking is it possible to get a better model or template to build from for an even better currency next time. Anyhow moaning about it and not offering any suggestions really gets us know where. At some point you just have to ignore the baby crying in the bedroom and let it fall to sleep so the grown ups can get on with their evening. Might want to read a little more in depth about the theory and then also help the FFoundation write the rules and formulate ways to dispense the trust democratically. How many more posts can you write that are same thing anyhow... are you not interested in finding alternatives and bettering currency or are you simply of the opinion that you and a select few should get to build the biggest baddest machine and you get to hoard the coins and watch them grow in value till you all are Freicoin millionaires? That is the real greed... the real problem is that very fact people like yourself have little or no imagination of the potential if you get this to work. There are alternative solution that actually are democratic and could help usher in a better world, seriously no bullshit there, and not through foundations with a small board but through a community working together to find a solution and to accept all ideas and opinions a participatory economy and society. What you advocate is the status quo and the person with the biggest fastest most cost efficient mining rig should win. Very very limited scope and perspective. How do you propose making decisions with this fractious bunch without some sort of executive body? This body is not acting like a cohesive community, it's more like a troll zoo. I understand in some cultures the drive to consensus is important enough it subsume individual desires, but that is not universally true, especially here. The other difficulty is that most of the potential user base for this coin does not know or care it exists. How should we convince people that they want to use a currency before it exists enough to get them to participate in the decision making process? You, I and many others who have not been involved in the (over 1 year long) development process for the concept and code missed our opportunity to set the rules for this coin, asking for them to change their principles now and alter their path is a bit of an insult. "You might run with the money, and we don't trust you, but we want you to slavishly obey our demands for your own creation" is not exactly the most persuasive of arguments. |
|
|
|
"There will never be a successful project without someone, somewhere that at some point during the process has full access to something critical"
But most other crypto-currencies are the exact opposite of what you are saying. Satoshi only had "full access" to bitcoin while it was still in his head. Once he open sourced the protocol it was free and no one had centralized control. Thats the whole point- to build a system where you don't need to trust anyone.
You just proved my point. There is always a "trusted party" in something like bitcoin at some point in development. The trust might only be IRC deep, but it was still trust. Now we have a small group of folks who have been consistently talking about their plan to have a temporary bootstrap and then get out of the way. It might be different than the approach Satoshi took, but the intent is the same. Handle initial distribution according to the plan that gained consensus, and then step out of the way. At a minimum you have to trust a developer to WANT his project to succeed, which may not be true in all cases, but generally is the case, especially for the "True Believer" types which are present. The repeated accusations of the most base intentions possible are counterproductive, and as has been said many times, misplaced in the wrong forum, to try to improve FRC. Vote with your coins! Hold FRC or don't, but the BS and misinformation campaign is just making a lot of people look like asshats, not oracles. |
|
|
|
Also about the 80% that you keep, i havent really seen a faucet or something (from the "foundation") to keep this coin flowing, you just keep it for yourselves hoping to get some value.. AND THAT IS BAD
Start giving it to people
Faucets are something I'll be advocating for, but were not going to distribute any coins until the foundation is set up and everything is done according to a defined procedure which sets clear limits on what can an can not be done. Even something like a faucet needs rules on how it will be conducted. Were certainly going to prohibit any managers from transferring funds to themselves, but their are a whole mess of bylaws that need to be discussed, written down and scrutinized before coins start flying around. Come to our forums and describe the kinds of rules YOU would be satisfied with. LOL the ironic thing is who holds the coins now? That would be the equivalent of your statement already. This is the essence of centralization and why it is bullshit. Have you ever participated in a club or other group that has a local board and bylaws? City Council? County, State, or Federal government? If you think the players in any of those games all trust each other, you have another think coming. You are advocating an approach of NO trust, is that the position that the developers have earned? There will never be a successful project without someone, somewhere that at some point during the process has full access to something critical (even if that someone is a computer agent, it's still being trusted.) Maaku has said at least 5 times (that I have seen, most likely more) that the keys are in a safe location to be given to the foundation once it forms. Treating this like he has personal access to a live wallet and is willing to spend them freely is disingenuous at best, but more likely an absolute, bald-faced lie. Take the troll-stick out of your ass for a bit and quit whining about the same stuff (incorrectly) over and over. |
|
|
|
Good thought, but my app don't poll unless you click/touch the Refresh button and has a check so that you won't poll more often than every 10s.
Maybe later I will make a live tile for the app that polls every hour or something (depending on user settings etc...).
Right now I'm experimenting on localization so that I can have different languages in the app depending on your settings in Windows 8.
Yeah, that should do it. Are you planning to open source? |
|
|
|
freicoin devs probably altogether own 1m-2m coins outside foundation, and 7m coins inside foundation.
But the more serious issues are they chose to:
1) Start difficulty from 1.
2) Not announcing the release on bitcointalk but rather showed up a few days later after a bitcointalk member started a thread to sell frc and block chain was already close to 10k blocks (2.5m miner coins + 5m foundation coins).
As a result there are a lot more low difficulty coins and the network hash rate ramped much slower initially than other coins. This allowed the devs more chance to claim the initial 2.5m of miner coins.
I cannot determine that these are not deliberate decisions and symptoms of too much greed (together with 80% high tax rate for the foundation). Doesn't inspire confidence in the future prospects of foundation management at all.
On the plus side they have been fairly diligent and patient answering questions on bitcointalk since, so I will still give them some benefit of the doubt.
After this thread they started up their own forum: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=89843.0I don't blame them given that they were abused pretty relentlessly by the same folks that time around too. I know that I found them via a bitcoin reddit post about their main webpage about a month before launch. The 12-21-12 date was pre-selected and everyone participating in the beta or following it's progress should have been aware. I rejoined the bitcoin world in August, so I missed them the first time through, but others don't have that excuse for not paying attention to the project. Keep your "scale-height" difference in mind too. Because FRC has 100M coins, the generation curve is ~5 times as tall. Since 12-21-12 the launch phase has caused ~100 blockchain-days to elapse, and there was a massive boom during that time. We also have run through Maxed out difficulty changes are done now, moving from 4096 to 9772, so we have closed the massively accelerated phase. Let the sour grapes commence. I shudder to think how much more interesting this would have been post-ASIC... |
|
|
|
|
Looking for up to 10k FRC at BTC0.3/1000FRC
|
|
|
|
Makes sense. Yeah you better follow those API speed limits.
Even better, allow us to change the polling interval between 10s and (say) 3600s with a default of 30 or 60 so that folks with more than one app/web app open at the same time don't overload the limit. I'm assuming that Mt. Gox is looking at IP, not individual sessions, so having 2-3 apps using this same method at the max frequency would overload the limit. Just a thought. |
|
|
|
@TradeFortress, please keep that discussion to your own fork thread. This thread is for Freicoin.
but the fork from TradeFortress is maybe the future of Freicoin... Because leaving all the original developers and others behind will really help this fork thrive, oh, wait... If you want to try I0Coin again, feel free, but I doubt you will get very far with an idealistic currency without idealists. I'm not investing in (just) FRC, I'm investing in maaku, and the concept of the foundation as well. Without these added value items, I'm not that interested in the currency. If someone proves that they are willing to take up the baton and run it forward with the same kind of vigor I might change my mind, but right now I don't see the point except to troll and try to kill the original project. It's like buying a patent to a product, or the company that invented (or at least produced the relevant innovations around) the product. One is far more likely to succeed than the other. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
