looks like it's time for a ddos...
Yeah, because that's not illegal in almost all decently internet connected countries of the world. Where's a mod when you need one? If we're not supposed to discuss illegal activities then this one needs at least a warning if not an outright ban. |
|
|
|
looks like it's time for a ddos...
Not necessary. As I stated: Don't panic. Having 50 % in a mining pool does not make you an attacker. You mean you haven't found the super secret auto-fork function in the bitcoin client? Yeah, once you get 50.1% of the hashing power you plug a game controller into your computer via a usb adapter and punch in: ↑ ↑ ↓ ↓ ← → ← → B A start and it auto-forks the block chain, but it only works on the Linux version of the client. It doesn't take any work at all, it's SO easy that anyone with less that 100 posts or even a whitelisted newbie can do it. Tyco is probably plugging in his game controller as we speak. It's inevitable now. |
|
|
|
Botnets simply cannot contribute that much. ...
Not true, when the botnet first got noticed and moved to another pool we were able to see it and exactly how many comps were hitting and how much hash power. it was surprisginly high hash for the number of comps. I do not have the info recroded down to verify so one of the pool ops would have to report, but there is a grph I'm willing to bet someone still has that showed the number of zombies hashing and what their rate was. Believe it was something on the order of 60Ghash and only a few thousand comps....... Word! Testify!!! Amen!  If the BtcGuild story is true, BIG UP to them, for having the ethics to do what Deepbit probably doesn't...  Deepbit blocked it then it was shopped over to BTCGuild who caught it and blocked it, then bitcoin.lc who blocked it so far. You got a little prejudice on your face there. |
|
|
|
the whole idea of bitcoin goes against trademarks and copyrights this is only proper  Open source doesn't automatically mean anti-copyright and it isn't always a bad thing to protect the authors rights. agreed. P.S. Is your name any relation to the once in existence coffee house named, 'Gound Zero'? Nope, and I picked the name back in 2000 before Sept 11, 2001 also. |
|
|
|
the whole idea of bitcoin goes against trademarks and copyrights this is only proper Open source doesn't automatically mean anti-copyright and it isn't always a bad thing to protect the authors rights. |
|
|
|
So um, why exactly are botnets bad, wouldn't the additional hash power be beneficial for our cause? Could the stats of the botnet please be posted so we can all get a better understanding of what the network was doing and why it had to be rid of?
Total Mhash toward pool
Total bandwidth of pool server(s) used (amount in percentage as well)
Blocks found
coins generated
shares
number of workers
Also, if bandwidth was the ultimate issue, what if the zombie network funneled work to a server of the hacker. Would it have been better for the hacker to create his own pool, or could the hacker have have lumped all the data and submitted it to the pool from a single location, thus lessening the load of the BTC G server that would otherwise have to deal with multiple connections to thousands of individual miners?
This one is particularly bad because it was horribly misconfigured and asking for more work than it was ever going to give back. CPU's aren't very efficient miners even when properly configured and the trojan package obviously didn't gauge the performance of the CPU and take any steps to optimize it's performance. Total Mhash toward pool: bitcoin.lc said it was about 6k clients, so * 5-10 mh depending on CPU = 3-6Gh is my guesstimate Total bandwidth used: 6000 clients would probably make a noticeable difference but supporting miners doesn't take a lot of bandwidth Blocks found: horribly misconfigured clients hurt honest miners by causing idles thus slowing down block solving |
|
|
|
Yeah i agree. I mean with out miners the system cant function. But id imagine the difficulty will have to go down... The bitcoin system cant expect miners to just mine for the hell of it. We would have to get some sort of perk. Maybe if the difficulty gets to high... not only will miners still be rewarded for mining for coins but get some sort of kick back on the transactions we process as well. Just a thought.
Whoever solves the block gets the transaction fees already. That is the incentive to keep the network going after all the coins have been mined. |
|
|
|
Open up whatever port your SSH is bound to from the router (usually port forward to 23) to external traffic. Depending on the SSH server you may need to set it to allow remote access as well.
ssh is port 22 |
|
|
|
they first wanna see how manual trading impacts before letting bots into the game again
They could turn on the websocket so the charts can see what's going on and not turn on the API. The graph on their site isn't even working .. even though it's not that helpful. |
|
|
|
First off, a big pool can destroy a smaller pool by providing shares but no blocks. This game played on all non-cartel pools will make it easy for a cartel to make their pools raise to gain more than 50% in combined hashing power.
Big pools don't supply anything to smaller pools. No blocks, no shares. Everyone has equal access to the block chain and gets their info from there.
Deepbit + slush or btcguild is already more than 50%. So the entire bitcoin economy that is oh so peer to peer independent nobody ever will control it ... depends on the good will of those behind deepbit, slush and btcguild. Isn't that a bit much trust in those 3? What is wrong in my analysis? Please enlighten me you gods of more than 100 posts!
This argument gets cast about so much. First it was deepbit and slush could conspire, now it's deepbit and/or slush and/or btcguild. It's a free market, if you don't trust them then go to a smaller pool. The pool situation will always be in a state that this argument can be made ... even if there were 5 pools that all had the same speed, how will you know that 3 of them aren't conspiring. |
|
|
|
Only until the kids go back to school.
Looks like we need some ballett initiatives for year round school next election cycle. |
|
|
|
Those are cumulative totals, not individual. The spread between 14.51 and 14.4 is 190. If someone sell 1300 BTC the price will be 14.4.
Indeed a wall of 1300 BTC is not very impressive. I remember watching a 'wall' of buy orders 10k BTC high for coins at $20 crumbling before my eyes just the other week. I learned a valuable lesson that day. The whole 'wall' idea is ludicrous anyway... A day's volume could take the price anywhere from $10.01 to $28.97. They are just there to sucker inexperienced traders. That's only if enough people or 1 person with enough resources is moving the same direction at the same time. Watching the last trades there are people buying and selling at the same price all the time. The volume could, but very rarely will it ever. Well there ya go... It is precisely the same argument you make when you say: If someone sell 1300 BTC the price will be 14.4.
Not only is volume going both ways, but any or all of the orders that make up your 'support level' can simply vanish at a moments notice... Annnnd theeen... Someone takes your coins. So, stop it. The post was in reply to someone that didn't understand that market depth charts are cumulative the farther they go out. Feel free to nitpick an example though. |
|
|
|
|
I'll bite. This is just too funny. And the fact that someone replied to it is hilarious.
Someone please tell me what school taught you that 3GH/9.5GH = 51%.
I really want to report them to the Department of Education of equivalent.
|
|
|
|
Those are cumulative totals, not individual. The spread between 14.51 and 14.4 is 190. If someone sell 1300 BTC the price will be 14.4.
Indeed a wall of 1300 BTC is not very impressive. I remember watching a 'wall' of buy orders 10k BTC high for coins at $20 crumbling before my eyes just the other week. I learned a valuable lesson that day. The whole 'wall' idea is ludicrous anyway... A day's volume could take the price anywhere from $10.01 to $28.97. They are just there to sucker inexperienced traders. That's only if enough people or 1 person with enough resources is moving the same direction at the same time. Watching the last trades there are people buying and selling at the same price all the time. The volume could, but very rarely will it ever. |
|
|
|
Highly unlikely this is over...
What to you think is going to happen to the exchange rate when Mt. Gox opens with no BTC in the orderbook?
Not to mention there are a wall of bids over at Tradehill. 1,110 BTC @ 14.51 1,150 BTC @ 14.50 1,230 BTC @ 14.45 1,300 BTC @ 14.40 It goes on... that's 4,790 BTC in just a 0.11-cent range. Notional value at a last of 16.00 = $76,640 And it just keeps getting bigger from there... Those are cumulative totals, not individual. The spread between 14.51 and 14.4 is 190. If someone sell 1300 BTC the price will be 14.4. |
|
|
|
Remember Hanlon's razor.
The only part of my list that could be attributed to Hanlon's Razor is if someone fat fingered a trade, and it would have to be really fat fingers to put a 0 in instead of 17 or 18 or else we wouldn't be facing a rollback. Everything else was intentional and not attributable to plain stupidity, ignorance, or carelessness. |
|
|
|
Let me start by saying that I do not know all of the facts, which is the reason for this topic. The person who can provide the most convincing argument to my concerns will be given 1 BTC should I decide to invest. That incentive is just to put out there, really what I would like is a civil and hopefully mostly troll-free discussion.
From the FAQ, "in the first 4 years of the Bitcoin network, 10,500,000 BTC will be created." So 2,625,000 BTC's per year. BTC's fluctuate in price but lets use $15 per BTC as a baseline. In order to sustain that price over a year period, NEW money would have to be injected in excess of $39 million per year. Perhaps slightly less as not all will go to market, so lets say, $30 million. First problem I see:
Where does this money come from? We have very small scale exchanges, and the largest one has been hacked and isn't even open yet. A further barrier is the $1,000 transaction limit. How do you get $30 million a year in with that sort of limit imposed. Yes, that limit can be removed by providing verifying information, however, the scale we're talking about is going to take institutional investors. Will these institutional investors be willing to lose their anonymity to invest here? And even so, the next is my biggest concern....
Bitcoin in unpatented intellectual property. Everyone who has ever taken an Econ 101 class should understand the law of supply and demand. Lets say BTC gets this $30 million investment per year, that sort of money is going to spur competition. As long as there is demand and profit to be made, competitors will come. The primary protection against competition is patents, trademarkets, etc.. Lets look at a company like Pfizer for example and their immensely successful drug Lipitor. Lipitor is patented resulting in Pfizer being the only drug manufacturer allowed to produce the product. Once that patent runs out, generic brands of the drugs will come online and Pfizer will no longer be making large gains on the drug. They know this, everyone knows this.
Bitcoin has no patent and in fact, is open source. There is nothing to stop a competitor from coming in, copying the model, maybe even improving on it, and bring it to market. Look at it this way, if you're an investor would you really invest multi-millions of dollars worth of capital in something that can be copied today? Why not create your own? Whose to stop Google from coming in and making Googlecoins? Any profitable venture will result in competition. This may be good for P2P currency's longevity but I'm strictly talking about BTC from an investment standpoint. If it were legal to make an exact copy of Lipitor and bring it to market today, would it happen? You're damn right it would.
I have other concerns, the bad press, the security issues, lack of merchants, etc. but really those are my two big ones and they sort've tie in together. Again, I'm coming at this from an investment standpoint. I see Bitcoin's value as rampant speculation. I don't want to use the "B" word, but the price appreciation is unsustainable (LONG-TERM) in my view.
What are your thoughts?
You can either work within the $1000/day or $10,000/month withdrawal limit or identify yourself and go for more. $1000 withdrawal is interesting to any country and Mt Gox has decided to impose those rules. You aren't anonymous at any level on any other established exchanges that I know of. There are entire companies that make money based around open source products, some have existed for 15 or more years. This is nothing new. CentOS distributes RedHat's Enterprise OS exactly, minus trademarks. Nothing will stop someone else from starting a bitcoin network except the fact that they will be fighting the same uphill battle, unless they use it for a different purpose. If your own words are "I see Bitcoin's value as rampant speculation." Then why would you even consider investing unless you like rampantly speculative markets. Do whatever analysis you think is necessary since you're coming at it from an investors perspective. Quit standing by the pool with your shirt on asking how the water is though, you're blocking my sun. |
|
|
|
does anyone know how many bitcoins are still in MtGox?
is there some kind of updated volume sheet/chart?
No exchange that I know of in existence posts how much money and trade item they store. |
|
|
|
|
Considering:
1) Someone posted online to try to get hashes cracked and get passwords.
2) They originally offered the database for sale.
3) They could have spent a few days rummaging through accounts and quietly extracted bitcoins before serious red flags went up instead of doing a massive sell-off and only getting away with $1000.
4) After the sell off and market freeze they posted the database for all to see.
It was someone with purposeful malicious intent.
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
