Wow, such arrogance... you are a lot nicer in person. Hmm.. when I get the time I will certainly go over all the points made in that article.

Mindblown.jpg

It is obvious to me that the arguments stated in those articles are at the very least a little biased, and I don't think they should be blindly accepted as fact- which is how the author tries to portray them.

I don't have the time right now to debate some of the debatable points that he made, but a lot of the arguments that the author portrays as facts that are not as clear cut as he makes them seem.

Well, it seems that may be the best we can get here. I am debating whether we should just throw them up on Ebay or not, but I would prefer to sell them here for Bitcoins as it is easier for everyone.


v2.2

Thanks for the offer. I'm going to leave this open for a bit. I forgot to mention in the OP, please state an expiration date for your offer.. like next difficulty adjustment or whatever you want.

I really think Myriadcoin's multi-algorithm PoW is revolutionary as far as PoW crypto currencies are concerned, but I'm not sure if I'd invest in it purely for that reason... I guess I am on the fence.

You guys definitely have a great idea in allowing the simultaneous mining of different algorithms, each with an equal chance to find the next block. This is just another benefit of that innovation that I had not thought of before.. good work.

See the link in my thread.. "Using Oracles... ". I would like to see someone implement a PoS coin with your multi-algorithm PoW idea.. I think it would be the fairest PoS coin release thus far.

Bump - I will be sending my info over to Wood Law today, as it seems refunds are not being issued as promised. I was holding out in the hopes that Ken would give refunds like he stated he would, but that seems to be a pipe dream at this point. Ken has been MIA for over a month now and I have only seen 1 or 2 people getting refunds, with many more that haven't.

I hope you found a good hiding place Ken... this is the "highest stakes" game of hide and seek you will ever play in your lifetime.  

My issue was resolved... after many phone calls, twitter messages, one support ticket, facebook messages and posts, and forum posts. I suggest anyone that has a problem to email saif@coins-e.com ... It seems he is in charge and has the ability to make financial transactions within the company. For what it's worth, he was very nice on the phone and emphasized he was working on improving customer support. More FWIW... it seems this site is not a scam site, but is just somewhat mismanaged and under staffed.

I will remove my prior posts/tweets/facebook posts as promised.

Thank you coins-e.com for clearing this up.

Please reply to this thread with offers. I am selling these for a group buy, as I have since moved and can no longer host the hardware. So, I prefer all bids be done out in the open as replies to this thread, so that everything is as transparent as possible. All items will be shipped from the USA via the cheapest method possible, you may pay for expedited shipping if you like.

Please submit your offer including shipping and the country to which the ASIC(s) will be sent to. Escrow is available, but you will need to cover the fees on top of your offer, so please consider this before making an offer.

We have the following available for purchase:

1. ONE - Hash Fast Baby Jet
1a. Averages 390 Gh... more or less at stock clock speed... is supposedly overclockable to 750 Gh according to Hash Fast's website
1b. Is the quietest Bitcoin mining rig I've ever operated (since it's water cooled)
1c. Comes with a raspberry Pi in a nice case.
1d. Hash Fast claims it uses about 350 watts, although I have not confirmed this with a kill-a-watt (I don't own one).
1e. This mining rig is extremely stable and has not crashed once since it has been running.
1f. Firmware has not been updated in a while, it could possibly run faster with an update.
1g. Power supply is included

2. ONE - KNC Jupiter
2a. Averages 440 Gh... more or less at stock clock speed
2b. KNC claims 600 watts, but I don't have a kill-a-watt so I haven't tested it, since 1/4th the cores are not hashing I would expect it to use at least 3/4ths the energy.
2c. This rig is extremely stable
2d. This unit was delivered partially working, and about 1/4 of the cores do not work. You may be able to fix them.. I had no luck.
2e. Firmware has not been updated in a while, it could possibly run faster with an update.
2f. Power supply not included, but no host is neccessary

3. TWO - Bitfury "400 Gh*" Full Rigs
* They do not run at full speed
3a. I have had a lot of problems with these rigs as far as stability and speed goes, they will run anywhere from 100 Gh to 400 Gh. To get them to run full speed requires a lot of attention and time. I can only guarantee these rigs will run at around 100 Gh, but with some love and "H card musical chairs" as I've coined it, they can be made to run faster.
3b. The speed decreases slowly over time, and a hard reset (IE. turning the power on and off on the PSU) is the only way to reset them back to as quick as they can run. You will likely need to do this at least once a day unless you figure out how to make them run stable.
3c. Bitfury rates these at 320 watts or less each, since they are partially working it probably uses less.
3d. Power supply not included, but these do come with Pis and do not require a host.

Please reply with your offer including shipping, the country these will be shipped to, and an expiration date for you offer (IE. next difficulty adjustment.)

Thanks

It's just an idea.. I'm not working on it at the moment.

After thinking about it a bit more, reoccurring IPOs may not work due to the economics at hand. This is so obvious, I can't believe I didn't realize this would be such a problem earlier, but the latter IPOs will dump coins on the market.

If anyone has any ideas on how to fix the above, then I would be interested in hearing them. One thing I can think of is to put the recurring IPO funds in multi signature addresses, and slowly release them over time to their respective owners.. instead of releasing all of the funds at once. I think this could be made to happen with the use of oracles as well.

Even if you weren't to use recurring IPOs, I think it would still be a better solution than most prior PoS distributions to simply using Vericoin's mining distribution and Myriadcoin's multi algorithm mining approach.

My issue was resolved- email saif@coins-e.com if you have any issues.

My issue was resolved- email saif@coins-e.com if you have any issues.

I have recently moved again (on Friday). If you still have units that were being hosted with me, please get a hold of me via PM here or through email. Unfortunately I can no longer host the hardware... I have moved in with my mom and I don't think she wants to have mining hardware running all over the house. Actually, I have a feeling she wouldn't mind.. she would cut off her arm for me, but I hate to burden her with it. She is already doing a lot by letting me live with her for a while.

I still have not heard from some people... even since I moved out of the commercial space. I'm not really sure what I should do about that. I am thinking of liquidating all hardware that is left over, and then if I hear from those people eventually.. I can transfer them the proceeds of the sale. If you haven't got in contact with me yet, please do so.

Thanks

Thanks for the kind words. I'm glad your things made it to SA. I actually just emailed you today asking if everything had arrived OK.. I didn't know you had posted here, so I suppose you can disregard that email. Take care


I hope everything went OK.. please let me know if not. Since I've moved a couple times I am finding some of the Gridseeds died in the move. The only reason I can think of is that it gets really hot here and being in a hot car for a bit has killed some unfortunately. Hopefully all your units were OK though.. take care.

Fee: 0.00000000

Ah... the beauty of Bitcoin. How else can you send $18,150,888 across the nation for free?

This is why Bitcoin should protect Litecoin using the same method, that way an attacker can't just hit the Bitcoin or Litecoin network separately. They would have to hit them both at the same time. Even without this protection, Litecoin is reasonably secure. I mean.. no one has been able to 51% it yet to my knowledge. You are acting like someone could easily kill Litecoin even without this implemented (like right now), which is a bit of an exaggeration as it would take a lot of money, power, and mining equipment.

As long as pools are reaching close to 50% (recently ghash.io on Bitcoin and coinotron on Litecoin), then both Bitcoin and Litecoin are insecure to 51% attacks. They may not have malicious intent, but if the pool server is hacked the hacker may not be so nice, or someone could gain physical access to the servers (IE. a government or data center employee.) Something needs to be done about this, and I feel like the solution proposed is better than the current non-solution. People like larger pools because they produce more steady payouts, so it's a catch 22 and Bitcoin/Litecoin will constantly face these security scares until the problem is fixed on the protocol level.

I just want this idea to be given a fair chance without politics getting in the way. If it is indeed a good solution to 51% attacks, then I don't feel it should be brushed aside because of our feelings towards Bitcoin (in case of Litecoiners) or Litecoin (in case of Bitcoiners.)

The 51% attack problem is not really easy to solve otherwise it would have been done already. We need to be proactive and if there is a solution such as this that someone has already proposed and makes the least bit of sense, then I feel like we should give it more attention. I'm more interested in the technicalities of this, how it could be implemented, and whether or not it will require a hard fork, rather than people's opinion on Litecoin or Bitcoin.

As I said, this method could be used on a different coin other than Litecoin, but Litecoin is in my opinion the logical choice due to the stability of its network and Scrypt ASICs making it one of the strongest PoW ALT coins. It may be a good idea to add a 3rd link to the chain such as a PoS coin... the attacker would have to 51% Bitcoin and Litecoin, and then gain majority stake in the PoS coin. It should be made so that if one link in the chain breaks all the others will be fine. I think there are a lot of ways this could be implemented.

That's why it requires cooperation in between the Bitcoin and Litecoin development team. Bitcoin should protect Litecoin in the same way. Otherwise, you could add a 3rd coin to the chain making all coins even harder to attack.

Anyways, according to one of the most knowledgeable replies I've received thus far is that this can be done without a hard fork, and it makes it even harder to attack the Litecoin block chain in another way not mentioned in the OP:

I see where you are going. This is what Mike proposed in that case:


I feel like this may be able to be improved upon if a lot of people thought about it. Do you see a glaring issue in the idea? The way it was stated may not be the best way to implement it, but the idea seems like it could work.

The main chain would be quite long compared to the attacker's chain, so it seems like the client could pick up on which blocks are valid and invalid by comparing the size of the chains.

Yes I agree.


This I disagree with though, because someone would need to attack both the Litecoin AND Bitcoin network at the same time. Bitcoin could add in the same checks for Litecoin, so in order to attack Litecoin you'd have to attack Bitcoin too. This would increase security of both coins if implemented properly.

You do realize Litecoin has ASICs now, and the hash power has been exponentially growing for the past 6 months? It is not what I would call easy to 51% the Litecoin network at the moment. If you simply looked at the hash speed (515 Gh), it may seem like that is small compared to Bitcoin. However, you need to take into account that Scrypt is much less efficient than SHA256. You would need to develop/buy Scrypt and SHA256 ASICs to 51% attack the Bitcoin or Litecoin network, making an attack much more expensive. Therefore making it much harder to attack.

Yes, it is different from the way Bitcoin has resolved these issues in the past, but that doesn't automatically make it less secure.