One useful thing a lot of mining calculators lack is a way to calculate returns relative to difficulty increases over time. The more ways you allow inputting this the better.
That's one thing I'm putting a lot of thought into. I will of course provide some simple methods for calculating difficulty increase, like annual % increase, annual hash-power increase and perhaps even post-ASIC difficulty estimates (could use some help there). But what I'd really like to do is create a difficulty curve on a graph that can be adjusted over a user-specified time scale by clicking and dragging or manually inserting control points. It would allow people considering a serious/professional mining operation to create customized difficulty profiles for the network and calculate the effectiveness of different equipment to fit it. That sounds great. The second one especially sounds interesting. I think it would be useful to be able to input an algebraic expression as well for an anticipated growth rate. It would be nice to have a quick GUI option as opposed to beating up my keyboard while I use Python as a calculator. Chip profiles or rig profiles that can be saved is a cool idea as well. There are a lot of really basic and not so basic mining calculators out there, but putting together a nice one with advanced functionality like you are thinking about is probably going to net you some positive attention if you can pull it off. As far as general tips if you decide to develop a client go, it is hard to go wrong if you use bitcoind to handle the networking on a full client or an electrum server (it'd probably be polite to set up your own for testing your software on during development) if you go the light route. |
|
|
|
Just for giggles I'm currently working on what will be a very accurate and detailed mining calculator... with some refinements in the future it might be good enough for professional use (maybe...if I take it seriously). Right now I'm just writing the UI code, wiring up events and designing the thing. Here's a screenie of what it looks like right now:  If you have any suggestions on how I should design it or technical/logical suggestions on making it more accurate I'm all ears!  --ATC-- One useful thing a lot of mining calculators lack is a way to calculate returns relative to difficulty increases over time. The more ways you allow inputting this the better. |
|
|
|
That's not explicitly supported because it's dangerous and easy to screw up. If your two wallets get out of sync you can create invalid double spends that may be hard to recover from.
If you're absolutely sure you want to do this, you can - the latest versions of the Android "Bitcoin Wallet" app from Andreas Schildbach allow import of private keys. So create some on your laptop (eg, with MultiBit), then import into the Android app, tell it to resync and you're done. But don't say we didn't warn you.
I agree with the warning, especially with the addition that it is probably unwise to keep access to your whole wallet on a mobile device. Phones get stolen, other apps abuse their permissions, and there's a good number of situations like law enforcement encounters or trips to the emergency room for an extended hospital stay where your device can be physically accessed by other people. Keeping more than a token, or useful but expendable amount of bitcoins on your mobile device responsibly means doing quite a bit more than most android users to secure your phone. Oh, how I wish there were a decent Blackberry app for bitcoin. Most of the world has passed them over, but for the security conscious few things lock down as easily for the price as a cheap Blackberry curve. Then of course backing up your mobile's keys in Armory (preferably separated from your main wallet) can keep your coins safe if your phone succumbs to a worst case scenario. |
|
|
|
Hello,
Worthless newbie here. I am a worthless newbie with a new Intel Xeon Phi (knights corner) PCIe coprocessor. It has 6GB of RAM and 228 hyperthreaded x86 cores.
Has anyone done any work porting a Linux CPU mining app to Phi? If not, can someone suggest the preferred Linux CPU mining app so I can try porting it?
Thanks!
Awesome piece of equipment. Xeon Phi is awfully new, so you might be one of the first to have one and be directing it at bitcoin mining. I'd really suggest moving this to the mining section when you get out of purgatory, a lot of the mining software devs hang out there regularly and someone might be interested in guiding you as you build their software for this machine, but some of the existing OpenCL miners aimed at GPUs might already work with the potential to work better after some optimization. I'm pretty interested to see what these can push. And if it just isn't that efficient for bitcoin mining, you'll probably become king of the litecoin miners. |
|
|
|
You assume too much... - there is no reward for somebody who is intelligent: the only thing you need is just brutal computational force!
Have you tried Rugatu? I'll vouch, it is slow at times, but some rather fat rewards pop up from time to time. Beats the hell out of Coinworker on the demands it makes of your time. |
|
|
|
Time for a scammer tag. OP has no soul.  Confirmed by this post here on 12/34/2014: I eat kittens and small children for snacks while running over peoples grandma's in a monster truck.
Just because the soul is a bit worn and lacking in fiber doesn't mean it isn't there. It definitely doesn't seem to be in good enough shape to use as a soul, or even refurbish as a workable soul. If the initial bid was about a hundredfold lower, I'd consider buying it for parts... Maybe... |
|
|
|
|
I'm willing to buy up to 100 FRC at a rate of 10 FRC / 1 DVC
Buying up to 100,000 FRC at a rate of 1000 FRC / 1 DVC, PM with serious offers...
|
|
|
|
Yes but at the same time, the attackers would have to contend with all the other bitcoin miners- and there are a lot of them. You gain more security from Merge Mining then not. Even though it would be technically 'free' to attack the chain if it were merge-mined, you would have the protection of the ENTIRE bitcoin network FREE as well. And that's a lot more then FRC has now. All you need right one is one disgruntled pool owner or someone with a serious grudge....
At the moment Merge Mining is the best.
No you're missing the point. We're talking about someone like Deepbit, Slush, BTC Guild, etc. attacking freicoin. Without having to tell any of their miner. How do you compete against that? Bitcoin has to deal with that every day. None of these juggernaughts of BTC mining are large enough to overpower all the others together. That's why you NEED merge mining to protect it. Otherwise a botnet could take out FRC. Far more realistic then Slush or someone doing it. When an alt-coin gains traction Luke-Jr will often attack it with his pool if he thinks it is what he considers a scam-coin. There are a few defences like not enabling merged mining, but if you default to using tonal numbers in the standard client he'd probably leave you alone. Then you'd have to deal with trying to sell people on a currency predominantly denominated in tonal units though, ugh. |
|
|
|
Where do I pay you for analysis? I will pay you, I don't want a free slave.
1Fuck2X96iQExRTnA7qoTgwRFFvMEJDBEU please |
|
|
|
I have tried to install the windows version of the Devcoin wallet and have failed at some point. It will open and start downloading blocks but stops at 71999 even tho I still have connections. Ive deleted everything and tried again but it still stops at the same 71999 block. What did I do wrong?
Try putting the Round 18 reciever file in your directory. There's a link on a post in page 58 of this thread. |
|
|
|
Generally speaking, a 51%-like attack with any kind of virus is pretty much impossible. The majority, and soon overwhelming majority, of mining power these days is controlled by specialized mining computers, which are not running anything close to standard consumer web browsers, operating systems, etc. They're just sitting there interacting with other nodes through the Bitcoin and stratum protocols. Regardless of any kind of local damage that you might be able to pull off, the nodes are just going to keep on churning out proof of work, and when you get tired everyone else will simply pick back up on the main chain.
Pretty much this and the other points. A more damaging virus would probably just steal private keys anyway once again running into the incredible variety of operating systems, browsers, antivirii, and people who just don't use a java runtime. The realistic attacks that do happen and are very damaging tend though to be the social engineering attacks like Pirate40 and GLBSE. |
|
|
|
WORKS SO FAR
NUMBER OF TRANSACTIONS: 399
IN BITCOIN, 10 TIMES MORE IN PAYPAL
OVER 3 YEARS PERIOD
I AM NOT NEW TO THIS SHIT, I JUST SIGNED UP ON BITCOINTALK FOR FUN... YOU UNDERSTAND ME?
I YELL AND INSULT EVERYONE BECAUSE I CAN DO ANYTHING I WANT... I AM AN EMPEROR...
I AM NOT A HACKER, YOU HAVE NO PROOF. I GOT EVERYTHING IN TRADE. I JUST LIKE TO SAY AI AM TO FEEL AWESOME.
Maybe you should have kept working in tor hidden darknet land. You advertised on a public forum. Forum administration defended your right to post when accusations were first raised, and then you get completely screwed because of all of the evidence you had already handed Shep on a golden fucking platter... For the record 1. I am not staff at nzbs.org, nor am I staff at any nzb or torrent sites. I am unaffiliated and actions taken are strictly my own.2. I neither sent nor received money from Gabriel Ioan Seletchi ("torac"). 3. Gabriel Seletchi disclosed 7 login credentials for nzbs.org over the course of 5 private messages. 4. Upon disclosure of these credentials I informed the admin of nzbs.org 5. There was subterfuge on my behalf but no scam, I reclaimed hacked credentials. 6. Theymos and Sirius were approached regarding Gabriel Seletchi. 7. Theymos did not initially act on this matter and suggested that the community decide regarding sales of hacked/compromised and unauthorized transfers of credentials. I followed Theymos's suggestion and put the issue before the community. 8. Over the past 2-3 weeks I have profiled Gabriel Seletchi. This information was obtained above board, no hacking involved or done. I am not releasing additional information at this time. I have been asked by the admin of nzbs.org not to disclose because "torac may take it out on bitcointalk.org." 9. Rather than engage in empty threats like Gabriel Seletchi, I continued to pursue acting above board and have an open dialog with the bitcointalk community about sales of hacked/compromised credentials. My personal feeling is that tolerating this behavior will only encourage more disreputable users like Gabriel Seletchi to permeate these forums. Bitcoin and bitcointalk.org are trying to build a reputation, but sales of hacked/compromised credentials when tolerated or approved reduce reputation of the site and currency as a whole. I hoped that others felt the same way about this issue and the community overwhelmingly voiced their objections to such sales. Gabriel you have nobody to blame, but yourself. You are selling hacked/compromised and or unauthorized credentials of various websites that are not your property, nor did you ever own a right to such sales. I like what you did. It was very internet Batman of you to do this, especially if you don't have an existing responsibility to nzbs. When people who sell hacked accounts realize that any of their potential customers might potentially chase them out of the market by exposing them, it hopefully discourages other people from selling hacked accounts. Good work. |
|
|
|
WORKS SO FAR
NUMBER OF TRANSACTIONS: 399
IN BITCOIN, 10 TIMES MORE IN PAYPAL
OVER 3 YEARS PERIOD
I AM NOT NEW TO THIS SHIT, I JUST SIGNED UP ON BITCOINTALK FOR FUN... YOU UNDERSTAND ME?
I YELL AND INSULT EVERYONE BECAUSE I CAN DO ANYTHING I WANT... I AM AN EMPEROR...
I AM NOT A HACKER, YOU HAVE NO PROOF. I GOT EVERYTHING IN TRADE. I JUST LIKE TO SAY AI AM TO FEEL AWESOME.
Maybe you should have kept working in tor hidden darknet land. You advertised on a public forum. Forum administration defended your right to post when accusations were first raised, and then you get completely screwed because of all of the evidence you had already handed Shep on a golden fucking platter... |
|
|
|
Once who ever sent the funds to 1TBZjmXho6mdGhoESaMV2svtqJXYtWfEp realizes they messed up I expect that they would google the address, as it's in your profile it brings up some of your posts ie: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=129037.0 where they would be able to see who to PM, but this current thread doesn't show up or isn't prominent in search as yet but may become more so if you added the address to the thread title, eg: Re: Random sweeps into my public wallet 1TBZjmXho6mdGhoESaMV2svtqJXYtWfEp totaling 519.704 - Lost and Found? If they search the forum for 1TBZjmXho6mdGhoESaMV2svtqJXYtWfEp though then this thread is the first hit already here. We should make side bets on when they will find out what they've done & the total they'll have sent by then - I'll guess the 28th Dec after sending another 500 coins to it. Putting the address in the title probably ought to help with search. I imagine anyone moving that kind of btc with any regularity would at least know of this forum to search for it. The OP's concern about this being a portion of some ill-gotten sum might have some merit though. Given the way that Mt Gox has flagged some coins before that might have been connected to Bitcoinica, a party might attempt running the coins through a lossy mixing that sacrifices some coins to addresses known to be in use. I don't know how plausible spreading the taint could be as a serious laundering strategy, but it is something is probably only possible with bitcoin. |
|
|
|
How could someone recommend buying ASIC now .....
Open your eyes; your buying vaporware at all the current vendors!?
And you are the last in line; don't expect any profit. You'll get your ASIC right after al the others. Diff will be high then:/
You need to open your eyes and realize that the nature of mining IS asics. If he's not going to get ASICs, then he might as well stop BTC. You need to stop blatantly spamming FUD. Come on, there is more to BTC than mining... |
|
|
|
Thanks for the elaborate rebuttal. I have to say, if I'm going to be wrong this is a very nice way to be wrong. I have to admit I wasn't thinking about blockchain size and I'm not familiar with Lamport. This company claims it's not just theoretical Dwave's products are not quantum _computers_, and there isn't any debate about that— there is some debate over if they use quantum effects at all but even if they do they're to quantum computers what a machine that can only add is to a classical computer. They aren't even claimed to be quantum turing complete, their design doesn't have any obvious path to become quantum turing complete... and right, they can't do crypto because of this. Right D-Wave has some quantum products and some computing products, but the quantum component is not a computer. It's more of a quantum sorting machine than a quantum computing machine. It's great for protein folding though. |
|
|
|
But it still wouldn't be that bad. There are quantum-resistant algorithms that can be run on classical computers. So it's pretty ridiculous to single out Bitcoin for being susceptible to QCs without mentioning that all sensitive communications on the internet will be susceptible. And without mentioning that there are alternatives.
I think it is important to note with this that the quantum resistant algorithms that have been published tend to fall rather quickly to classical cryptanalysis. In a couple decades there will probably be a few quantum resistant public key algorithms that have passed rigorous review, but at the moment there isn't really a more secure alternative to ECDSA. At least not a more secure alternative against Shore and Grover. Try some Unbalanced Oil & Vinegar. UOV looks promising and hasn't been worked around yet, but it is still a bit too soon to trust with anything of value. I'm kind of surprised it hasn't been incorporated into one of the alt-coins yet, but those projects tend to fuss a bit more on "proof of  " and reward issues more than securing the system indefinitely. |
|
|
|
But it still wouldn't be that bad. There are quantum-resistant algorithms that can be run on classical computers. So it's pretty ridiculous to single out Bitcoin for being susceptible to QCs without mentioning that all sensitive communications on the internet will be susceptible. And without mentioning that there are alternatives.
I think it is important to note with this that the quantum resistant algorithms that have been published tend to fall rather quickly to classical cryptanalysis. In a couple decades there will probably be a few quantum resistant public key algorithms that have passed rigorous review, but at the moment there isn't really a more secure alternative to ECDSA. At least not a more secure alternative against Shore and Grover. |
|
|
|
Re: MoonShadow
...
I just want the block reward to keep doing what its doing.
And you really think 0.023 BTC in rewards over the course of decades is going to keep a significant number of miners still mining? Yes. I am struggling to replicate the $0.05 figure of TC.. most important of the problems is that it is highly sensitive to assumptions of growth in Gross World Product (which I think would probably work better) and/or the money supply of the world's countries over the next 130 years, which is pretty much an unforcastable nightmare. Also, economic output has lots of positive derivatives the rate of the rate of growth is increasing...were annual output growth to ever reach ~17% (seems possible to me) the block reward would start increasing relative to the purchasing power of those BTC (economic output more than doubling, reward halving), such that, after a period of possible irrelevance, as you suggest, eventually each block reward would buy more and more mining equipment and say 200 years from now the mining subsidy again becomes a huge incentive, and stays that way. MoonShadow seems to think "my" proposal will actually just implement itself anyway. Sounds good to me. (Thanks to MoonShadow for answering my technical question. Can anyone confirm/disagree with the answer?) I think at the point where we start talking about block rewards measured in Satoshis the transaction volume will be sufficiently high that the block reward is going to be irrelevant to attracting miners, because the fees will greatly exceed any possible block reward. What MoonShadow allows for is that what you propose might happen if the protocol is changed to allow it. It's very possible that could happen. Other changes to the protocol in the next century like a move away from ECDSA key pairs are going to be debated and potentially forced by sufficient advances in quantum computing (granted no good quantum resistant ECDSA alternative yet exists which doesn't fall to normal cryptanalysis). In the big scheme of things Zero block reward is a non-issue. |
|
|
|
Its a reality now, its a working project with exchange rates that are just steadily going up.
I'm just happy looking at the trading volume for DVC on VirCurEx. Second only to the BTC to USD exchange rate. More BTC value in devcoins is moving than in all of the other altchains together, even litecoin. There's especially a lot more moving around than the much hyped PPCoin. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
