Another pool, nice.  And I can see that according to the stats there mining BTM is 24% more profitable than LTC and pretty much the most profitable coin to mine out of all those scrypt coins! The only one high is FRK which sounds like Franko and I don't know if that's still active or not. |
|
|
|
|
Perhaps add a shorter delay when restarting the counter on the giving button to make it more responsive?
|
|
|
|
|
Just wait till the police catch someone buying drugs or gambling online using Bitcoin.
If that gets on the news it's over.
Of course no one can stop individuals from using Bitcoin. But if it ever gets associated with drugs or gambling in Thailand I would be scared to death if I was running a Bitcoin business based in Thailand.
|
|
|
|
Dude...it is 0.2BTC. 118.9USD. Get a job, make the money back, and get on with your life.
Yeah most people waste 10 times more time on lost money than they would have with earning that money back... There is currently a thread with >100 posts, where a girl has 1 "ONE" USD stuck.... hahaha I wonder why that post just so happened to get all that extra attention.   |
|
|
|
I'm really hoping someone comes up with a solid anon solution that can be implemented in to Bitcoin style blockchain tech at some point.
Why? Because I'm involved with a project that is a new implementation of the latest version of Bitcoin and I'd like for it to be able to implement some level of anonymity at some point within the next year or two. The focus of the project isn't on anonymity at this point at all but personally I hope that eventually there will be solutions that won't require building everything from scratch like CryptoNote did. Wishful thinking perhaps. There are ways to add anonymity to bitcoin without changing the code. It won't be on source level, but with service providers. You could do something like a DAC mixer. But even in this case don't you still have to trust the DAC's master or owner or whatever? Unless it was truly independent I guess. |
|
|
|
wrong section.
It's been hours since I've reported the thread so I don't think. Is it possible that no moderator was online or that they think that this belongs in Bitcoin discussion (does not make sense). I'd be careful, with that attitude you might miss the train if another Bitcoin pops up. Not saying it's going to be this Realcoin thing, but with all the new technology and innovation happening all these old Bitcoiners that assume everything other than Bitcoin is a big pile of shit are probably going to miss out. At least keep an open mind like you did when you first heard about Bitcoin.
Realcoin is utter nonsense, it's surely not going to be it. I also doubt that there will be a second Bitcoin, although high gains in the altcoin market are a real thing. Yeah, I didn't mean to imply that Realcoin had any chance of becoming the next Bitcoin. |
|
|
|
does it really matter what code or method it uses. we all know that the end result on launch day would be a protocol that contain elements of:
crapcoin
fakecoin
scamcoin
boringcoin
uselesscoin
worthlesscoin
DontBuyThiscoin
PumpNDumpcoin
OMG!Anothercoin
oh and it will have special unique services such as
dicegame number 2001
gamblegame number 2001
WhereDidMyCoinGo?OhcrapILostIt game
I'd be careful, with that attitude you might miss the train if another Bitcoin pops up. Not saying it's going to be this Realcoin thing, but with all the new technology and innovation happening all these old Bitcoiners that assume everything other than Bitcoin is a big pile of shit are probably going to miss out. At least keep an open mind like you did when you first heard about Bitcoin. |
|
|
|
Does this really matter anymore? I guess SCRYPT coins aren't safer than SHA256 coins, or vice versa. There's enough hashing power on both sides to manipulate the coin. It's not as if SCRYPT is ASIC resistant anymore.
Any entity with sufficient resources can provide enough hashing power to manipulate any currency that uses any hashing algorithm. But with SHA256 we already know there are many single entities that control petabytes worth of hash power. All it takes is one of those people to decide they want to take a network down. Right now while scrypt ASICs are out and in the wild there is not much evidence of single facilities coming any where close to consolidated relative hashing power of those in Bitcoin/SHA256. In fact it seems that ASIC distrabution for scrypt is actually going quite well and adding lots of security to networks who use scrypt as their PoW algo. You can take a look at the distribution of hashing compared to Bitcoin. It's much, much healthier at this point. Will it stay that way forever? Who knows, but for now the clear choice for anyone starting a new currency is scrypt in my opinion. |
|
|
|
I'm really hoping someone comes up with a solid anon solution that can be implemented in to Bitcoin style blockchain tech at some point.
Why? Because I'm involved with a project that is a new implementation of the latest version of Bitcoin and I'd like for it to be able to implement some level of anonymity at some point within the next year or two. The focus of the project isn't on anonymity at this point at all but personally I hope that eventually there will be solutions that won't require building everything from scratch like CryptoNote did. Wishful thinking perhaps. |
|
|
|
Nobody really cares. Vote for Scrypt and we could attack it more easily then. Wouldn't be easier to attack if it was SHA256 considering it would only take one decent size farm to point its hashing at them? Unless of course it starts to rival Bitcoin's hashrate which seems unlikely. |
|
|
|
^^ Not a miner so I'm not certain about this but I thought all the pools held their miners details for security purposes? Not that this is one but I'm just saying they SHOULD know who's address it is.
I've never heard of a pool holding anyone's details and I don't think the address that got this tx fee is a pool anyhow. |
|
|
|
This post by gmaxwell ...
Wow. Such a good post. I hadn't seen it before either. Thanks for linking that. This one is definitely a classic and will be brought up again and again. |
|
|
|
Well the issue is that the IP and port of the MNs are known to the network and thus making them vulnerable. Well I don't think that all MNs will be able to get knocked down by this, surely there will be a few individuals to host a few MNs with high security. Don't you think so?
Absolutely - but the cost of doing this is extremely high. During a DDoS a datacenter is having their bandwidth saturated, and it's affecting other customers in the datacenter, so they will typically get their upstream bandwidth provider to null-route all traffic bound for that IP address. The upstream bandwidth provider's equipment is all muscle, no brain, on massive amounts of bandwidth, so it can't route things based on the type of data, only on the destination. Typically this means that DDoS mitigation is done, for example, by having round-robin DNS that spreads the load out to different data centers, and when under attack the DNS records can be updated faster than an attacker can reroute his DDoS. If the attack is sufficiently clever and sufficiently large there will be downtime, but it'll be measured in minutes and not in hours. The only way to mitigate this is to scrub the data at line rate, which means you need your own very powerful, very clever, very expensive routers collocated at the DC. You're also going to need to rent at least 20gbps of the DC's bandwidth, even if you're only using a tiny tiny fraction of that, as a DDoS attack will fill that pipe and your routers will need to scrub it and only let clean data through. It's definitely doable, but it'll cost you tens of thousands of Dollars a month. Problems like these make problems like Monero's blockchain bloat seem trivial in comparison. This actually kind of sucks for me because I'm really hoping someone comes up with a solid anon solution that can be implemented in to Bitcoin style blockchain tech at some point. I guess at this point the only hope is XC's closed source solution. But I'm not holding my breath tbh. |
|
|
|
back to searching for the miner, no reply from bit fury. Ghash got back to me ASAP and said it wasn't their block..:
I would personally post a thread on the forums. As the only information is the address the reward was sent to, you must locate the owner of that address. This will be difficult.
Best Regards,
Leonard
CEX.IO Support
without getting into a pissing match… on a computer……. some of you are assholes. and just because I am calling you an asshole does not make me one.
The rest of you, thank you for your support and words of wisdom. I do have to say after my initial bitcoin moment of learning and realizing what it is, i can not say i am very fond of it. Over time it will play out, I'm not a fan of bitcoin, but this whole federal reserve back banking institution dollar thing i dislike more… The ugly truth; there is no holy grail.
Well, but if it wasn't ghash then it's really probably bitfury, try searching another contact on them online maybe? BurtW said up thread that he already contacted GigaVPS and that even if it is Bitfury related it's still not known exactly who owns the address. So unless someone wants to out their 8 million dollar currently anonymous bitcoin holdings to give someone back their 0.2 BTC mistake, you're very likely out of luck here. |
|
|
|
if anyone were to be so kind and help mitigate my loss via crowd sourcing it would be much appreciated.. I know I have helped others when they were few dollars short via btc
A few years ago I lost over 10000 BTC to a scammer. If anyone would like to send a few hundred my way I would really appreciate it. If only 100 people each send me 100 BTC it would be made whole. Thanks! Edit: that may be asking for too much, how about 1000 people each send me 10 BTC... Was it pirate? I'm guessing it was pirate... How about 100000 people send you 0.1 BTC instead? We can do a televised event where people call in their donations and everything. |
|
|
|
For example, a falling wedge results in an upward breakout 68% of the time. A descending triangle results in a downward breakout 64% of the time.
That might be the most ridiculous statement I've ever heard in regards to TA. In what context? And something like this would be easy to check. First define quantitatively what a "descending triangle" and a "falling wedge" is. Likewise with "upward breakout" and "downward breakout". And then back test sufficiently large set of market data. This type of stuff in particular is the worst part of this whole TA scene. Someone making outlandish claims backed up by laughable evidence trying to sell you their expertise. I'd imagine the average person here would find this as silly as I do. I don't think most people here are on that level of delusion. I think a lot of people here probably just put too much faith in to patterns that don't actually give any meaningful information. Hey, thanks for deleting half of what I said and then straw-manning a single point I touched on. I never said blindly follow Bulkowski – and it’s ridiculous for you to suggest that I was arguing that. It was a simple example of a statistical data set and how it could be used. What I said was that using back-tested systems is better than "random". I went on to say that I back-test my trading system. You somehow turned that into a comment about snake oil salesmen. I am talking in the context of doing technical analysis -- not blindly following supposed experts. I didn't say it proved TA works. I don't think empirical proof is possible. I said I started trading because I was successful in poker, which depends on similar statistical analysis. In my data set, Fib retracements, moving averages, certain candlestick patters, and momentum/volume flow indicators all hold statistical significance. And actually, I'm under the impression that a win rate does tell you about the EV of a given set of trades, assuming proper risk management.
Comparing TA that incorporates significant backtesting to "calling a naked gutshot on the turn" is empty rhetoric. That's plain for all to see.
Yes, I did forget to reply to the other part of your comment. Sorry. I got so caught up in addressing that website that it slipped my mind. I wasn't using the poker analogy to compare to someone who uses proper statistically significant back testing I've been trying to say that anyone who is not doing such things is very unlikely to be doing any better than random. I didn't see any evidence on the guys site other than the fact that he claims all data is based on "perfect trades". Which makes me extremely suspicious that he's data snooping. I'm not saying good traders can't make money making use of a wide range of tools. I also think that there are lots of traders who probably have a good intuitive grasp on how a market works and think that its the TA that's making them money when they would probably do just as well with out it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignoranceI'm not making any assertion here. It's not something I'm trying to prove, I just suspect that many people aren't benefiting as much as they think from using anything other than the very basics of TA. Well I assume you would agree with me that anyone claiming extraordinary results should be able to provide statistically significant proof, no? But to start with anyone describing their predictions in terms of a probability distribution is already doing much better than the average person misapplying TA. |
|
|
|
Could anyone explain to me why there's too much fuss about anon coins and how would ordinary users benefit from this feature?
Say, someone wants to buy 2nd hand ps4 from someone. Why would he be so eager to use cryptos with anon feature and hide his transactions?
If you don't feel that privacy is important, I invite you to publish ALL of your UNEDITED credit card and bank statements, ever, on the Internet. No? Now consider someone who actually has wealth. Suppose you have a billion dollars in spare change (after the last multinational corp you bought) and a daughter in elementary school. Do you want every Corsican and Byelorussian ex patriate within 500km to be able to determine just how large a ransom to ask for, when they leave her left hand in your mailbox? Suppose instead that you are a middle-level cadre running a department in a satellite city of Chongqing. Making arrangements for entrepreneurs to build the New China has provided you with a substantial quantity of yuan that you need to move to Cambridge, for Harvard tuition, a boxster and a nice flat. BoC is off the table. Bitcoin leaves a trail similar to the heat trail a satellite sees when watching a nuclear submarine transit the pacific: A big red arrow pointing directly to your location. These are not merely "first world problems". No one is asking you to use monero if it doesn't serve your interests. But I do claim that it is a crucial protection from totalitarian control of your political and religious activism, and can be used to deny ANYONE who may wish to seize your wealth the information necessary to do so. The tech to make this easy enough to use so that those who are motivated, but not technically exceptional, can do so, is not present. But Monero puts it in reach. We live in a world of increasing risks. Transactional privacy enables you to manage many important risks in useful ways. The captive coopted mass of circus-goers will not fret about this, as they butter the bread for their grilled government cheese sandwiches. Those who have something which they consider their own, something to protect, will understand this. Governments control the cheese consumers. But those who control the governments have something to protect. I really think Bitcoin is anonymous already. I know it's not 100% but if someone wants to mix Bitcoin can't they just send x to address A and withdraw x from address B when they need it? Then someone else who wants to remain anonymous sends y to address B and withdraws y from address A. Or some extension of this system. That's not anonymous at all though. You're completely dependent on exchange x not revealing anything about your transactions. |
|
|
|
XCN
Are you planning on holding your XCN long term? Personally I'd be pretty scared about a major sell off coming at some point and would be seriously considering getting out. Even if only temporarily if I truly believed the currency had a positive long term outlook. You have to admit that the hype and the amount of money poured in thus far has been astronomical. |
|
|
|
Right that since transacting in BTC is anonymous, it can be used by the bad guys on its maximum. Well, it's considered to be *pretty* anonymous. Given some work, and enough people, it's still quite possible to trace a transaction back (even if you use multiple addresses). Blockchain sleuthing is something one of my friend likes to do in his spare time, actually o_o It is very easy for NSA and FBI to find out your identity if you do doggy thing with bitcoin. But would it be worth the effort involved? Even after Silk Road has been shut down, is the FBI going after individuals who purchased small quantities of pot? No, because it is probably not worth it. They will want to make an example to discourage drug users from buying illegal substance online. People have been busted buying and selling drugs with bitcoin a few times already. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
