Bitcoin Forum
January 22, 2021, 12:26:54 PM *
News: Latest Bitcoin Core release: 0.21.0 [Torrent]
 
  Home Help Search Login Register More  
  Show Posts
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 [13] 14 15 »
241  Bitcoin / Mining speculation / Re: Google Spreadsheet with some 2013/2014 difficulty estimates on: June 23, 2013, 03:11:13 PM
400M by the end of the year you say?
2.8PH/s would be an interesting mark.
242  Bitcoin / Mining speculation / Re: 490k Chips bought on: June 22, 2013, 08:11:34 PM
I saw a thread where someone or more people bought 490k ASIC chips, so how you think this will affect mining? Will it be still profitable for people with 20GHs miners?
"Profitable" depends on the hashing efficiency and the price of electricity for you.
243  Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / Re: Proposal/idea to solve scalability problem on: June 22, 2013, 05:39:41 PM
When we start reducing the number of full copies of the blockchain, the system becomes vulnerable to attack.
244  Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / Re: Blockchain overgrowth: A catastrophe waiting to happen on: June 22, 2013, 02:30:05 AM
What I want to know is why is there no way to chop off the more-than-a-year-old blocks from the blockchain and just have every download the blocks from the last 365 days or something?

Because what if somebody spends an output from two years ago?

You wouldn't be able to confirm that transaction because you don't have that block.
So there's no way to tier the blockchain storage then, say, only Miners have to download 2-year old blocks?
Well technically all you need to confirm transactions are the unspent outputs (since those are what are used as inputs) iirc, the total size of those are under 200MB right now? But in order to get those you'd have to process the entire blockchain, OR there needs to be a change to the inter-node protocol to allow those to be queried.
245  Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / Re: Blockchain overgrowth: A catastrophe waiting to happen on: June 21, 2013, 03:55:26 PM
What I want to know is why is there no way to chop off the more-than-a-year-old blocks from the blockchain and just have every download the blocks from the last 365 days or something?


Because what if somebody spends an output from two years ago?

You wouldn't be able to confirm that transaction because you don't have that block.
246  Economy / Securities / Re: ASICMINER: Entering the Future of ASIC Mining by Inventing It on: June 16, 2013, 03:35:59 PM
How many shares does ASICMiner keep for themselves, and how many are for the public?

From the OP:

"Currently ASICMINER shareholders holds 163,962 shares, while Bitfountain shareholders holds 236,038 shares."
I wasn't sure if that was current or not.

Thanks.
247  Economy / Securities / Re: ASICMINER: Entering the Future of ASIC Mining by Inventing It on: June 16, 2013, 03:14:25 PM
How many shares does ASICMiner keep for themselves, and how many are for the public?
248  Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / Re: Whats the point of 'dust' payments? Does anyone really need to send microcents? on: June 14, 2013, 03:25:23 PM
SBeing able to send arbitrarily small amounts have tons of uses here are some I could think of right off the bat.
Voting schemes, ironically: anti spam measures for account creation, verifiable data where certain amounts have meaning between two or more people. The blockchain has many uses other than a currency ledger.
Instead of banning dust, a way to have "litenodes" that only have unspent outputs instead of the full history, and then measures to compound dust.

Edit: when you say, fractions of a cent, keep in mind you're referring to an exchange rate which is over 50x the value it was at two years ago.

All of those are not real uses. You can't vote with an address because the voter can just create multiple addresses easily. The same applies to account creation. Verifiable data isn't necessary, you don't need someone to send you 1.000023957 BTC just create a new address and have them send to their "personal" address so you know it's them.

It's not like addresses can be put on a whitelist for voting or anything.

And the blockchain is forever, so there are uses for putting verifiable data in it.
249  Economy / Service Announcements / Re: [CONTEST] KRAKEN.COM - 1 Week Trial Mode Top Trader Tournament - 10 BTC Prize on: June 14, 2013, 01:52:34 PM
So we can't use automated methods to trade during the week?
250  Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / Re: Whats the point of 'dust' payments? Does anyone really need to send microcents? on: June 14, 2013, 03:53:16 AM
SBeing able to send arbitrarily small amounts have tons of uses here are some I could think of right off the bat.
Voting schemes, ironically: anti spam measures for account creation, verifiable data where certain amounts have meaning between two or more people. The blockchain has many uses other than a currency ledger.
Instead of banning dust, a way to have "litenodes" that only have unspent outputs instead of the full history, and then measures to compound dust.

Edit: when you say, fractions of a cent, keep in mind you're referring to an exchange rate which is over 50x the value it was at two years ago.
251  Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / Re: Zerocoin: Anonymous Distributed E-Cash from Bitcoin on: June 05, 2013, 12:29:11 PM
Call me crazy, but if the algorithm is able to determine that you own the blinded coins, couldn't you in effect determine which blinded coins? By just doing the proof of work for each mint? And just use that to connect the dots?
252  Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / Re: Cooperative unmixing for anti-money-laundering on: June 04, 2013, 01:35:47 PM
Isn't Bitcoin designed for anonymity? Why would you want to undermine that?

No it is not......
Transactions are traceable.....


Transactions are traceable, but within the blockchain there is nothing to say that such and such address is owned by mr bob from new york, there's barely even things that say such and such group of addresses are mr bob's.
253  Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / Re: Fees for full nodes? on: June 04, 2013, 01:33:28 PM
I don't think full nodes will need fees until the blockchain is 10-20GB, at that point the average person would stop running full nodes.
254  Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / Re: Cooperative unmixing for anti-money-laundering on: June 04, 2013, 02:28:00 AM
Isn't Bitcoin designed for anonymity? Why would you want to undermine that?
255  Economy / Securities / Re: ASICMINER: Entering the Future of ASIC Mining by Inventing It on: May 23, 2013, 12:58:15 AM
Does ASICMiner include transactions without fees?
256  Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / Re: Rescanning even when new wallet is made? on: May 20, 2013, 05:22:22 AM
I assume you are asking about Bitcoin-Qt?

Yes. Sorry the lack of details. I am actually on 0.8.2rc.
Just in case you beat the odds and generate an address already in use.
257  Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / Re: Optimal transaction packing on: May 16, 2013, 02:09:57 AM
Isn't the greedy algorithm the best though? Since you're trying to get the most money out of it?
No.

Say you can fit either  transaction {A}  or {B and C}.  A has sightly higher fees per byte than B or C, but it's smaller than the two combined but big enough that you can't fit any more after A.  You would earn more if you mine {B and C} instead of A but the greedy approach picks A.

You might even have a D available that you could fit with a: {A and D} but D is lower profit than B and C and still doesn't make up for the preference of A.

But if a single transaction is only a small fraction of the maximum block size then you'd only expect at worse small fraction loss from the greedy approach.

I could run a bunch of numbers for different solvers using transaction dataŚ but I don't know that the distribution of transaction sizes and fees today really tells us much about the distributions of transaction sizes and fees in the future where there is significant block space competition, so I don't know that that time would be well spent.   Might be a fun science project for someone more interested in it than I am (google something like 'binary knapsack maximization problem'). Tongue
Ah, I see what you're saying.
258  Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / Re: Optimal transaction packing on: May 16, 2013, 01:53:09 AM
Don't you just line them up in order of fee per kb, then put the largest fee per kb ones in the order they are?
That's the "greedy algorithm" that gmaxwell mentioned. There's apparently an optimal-er solution that's NP-HARD.
Isn't the greedy algorithm the best though? Since you're trying to get the most money out of it?
259  Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / Re: Optimal transaction packing on: May 16, 2013, 01:49:00 AM
Don't you just line them up in order of fee per kb, then put the largest fee per kb ones in the order they are?
260  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Bitcoins are the LEAST anonymous currency ever created on: May 15, 2013, 05:36:02 PM
That's why you create a new address for every transaction.
And what mixers are for.
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 [13] 14 15 »
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!