Bitcoin Forum
October 23, 2021, 02:47:42 PM *
News: Latest Bitcoin Core release: 22.0 [Torrent]
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register More  
Poll
Question: New ATH today?
Yes - 35 (79.5%)
No - 9 (20.5%)
Total Voters: 44

Pages: « 1 ... 19622 19623 19624 19625 19626 19627 19628 19629 19630 19631 19632 19633 19634 19635 19636 19637 19638 19639 19640 19641 19642 19643 19644 19645 19646 19647 19648 19649 19650 19651 19652 19653 19654 19655 19656 19657 19658 19659 19660 19661 19662 19663 19664 19665 19666 19667 19668 19669 19670 19671 [19672] 19673 19674 19675 19676 19677 19678 19679 19680 19681 19682 19683 19684 19685 19686 19687 19688 19689 19690 19691 19692 19693 19694 19695 19696 19697 19698 19699 19700 19701 19702 19703 19704 19705 19706 19707 19708 19709 19710 19711 19712 19713 19714 19715 19716 19717 19718 19719 19720 19721 19722 ... 29727 »
  Print  
Author Topic: Wall Observer BTC/USD - Bitcoin price movement tracking & discussion  (Read 25464977 times)
This is a self-moderated topic. If you do not want to be moderated by the person who started this topic, create a new topic. (157 posts by 13+ users deleted.)
flipperfish
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 350
Merit: 251


Dolphie Selfie


View Profile
February 25, 2018, 12:33:43 PM

Regarding this POW problem, instead of replacing the SHA-256 POW by something else, we could change Bitcoin so it accepts two POW algorithms at a time, lets say a CPU one and we keep SHA256 also, each algo having its own difficulty, a block being valid if signed by either algo.

This way ASICs would have to compete with CPUs with a fair ratio, and probably disappear after some time because of the costs.  

Maybe one could even use PoS to vote on the ratio...

If you want an ASIC block every T1 minutes and a CPU block every T2 minutes, the ratio between the two is k=T1/T2
That ratio "k" may be chosen by the community or computed another way.

One k is chosen, this can be proven true :

T1 = 10mn*((1+k)/k)  and T2=10mn*(1+k)

with k=1 (as many ASIC blocks than CPU blocks) that gives the obvious result : T1=T2=20mn
with k=2 (twice more CPUs than ASIC)  T1=15mn and T2=30mn

Technically no problem.


Yes, I meant to use PoS to vote on the value of k. But setting it to a fixed value could be enough already.
1635000462
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1635000462

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1635000462
Reply with quote  #2

1635000462
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1635000462
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1635000462

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1635000462
Reply with quote  #2

1635000462
Report to moderator
flynn
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 728
Merit: 540



View Profile
February 25, 2018, 12:39:13 PM

Regarding this POW problem, instead of replacing the SHA-256 POW by something else, we could change Bitcoin so it accepts two POW algorithms at a time, lets say a CPU one and we keep SHA256 also, each algo having its own difficulty, a block being valid if signed by either algo.

This way ASICs would have to compete with CPUs with a fair ratio, and probably disappear after some time because of the costs.  

Maybe one could even use PoS to vote on the ratio...

If you want an ASIC block every T1 minutes and a CPU block every T2 minutes, the ratio between the two is k=T1/T2
That ratio "k" may be chosen by the community or computed another way.

One k is chosen, this can be proven true :

T1 = 10mn*((1+k)/k)  and T2=10mn*(1+k)

with k=1 (as many ASIC blocks than CPU blocks) that gives the obvious result : T1=T2=20mn
with k=2 (twice more CPUs than ASIC)  T1=15mn and T2=30mn

Technically no problem.


Yes, I meant to use PoS to vote on the value of k. But setting it to a fixed value could be enough already.


It should be chosen so no private entity can gather 51% of the global POW. But gathering 51% of the CPU (on top of 51% of ASIC to grab back 51% of the global mining power) will probably be difficult since everyone will mine this part.
We could also make it a 3-POW thing : 1/3 CPU 1/3 GPU and 1/3 ASIC

shizuska
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 41
Merit: 0


View Profile
February 25, 2018, 12:40:31 PM

A different question, now: how do you invest in precious metals? Do you actually buy silver and gold ingots to store, or do you purchase ETFs? I would like to include some general silver indexes in my portfolio.

It's 100% pointless to purchase metals if you don't buy physical.  All the unallocated metals are rehypothecated so there's 500+ owners per ounce.  They're just meaningless derivative contracts.  When the Comex blows up, or when the govt has to revalue gold and silver exponentially higher to extinguish the debt bubble, you will either receive $0 for your contract, or they will cash out your contract at $20 an ounce of silver right before revaluing it to hundreds of dollars an ounce.  In other words, paper owners miss out entirely on the once in a lifetime avalanche of profits.

What is the purpose of this paper hedge then?  Nothing!  It's an insurance policy that doesn't pay out.  Paper metals are worthless.  As for allocated metals instead of the unallocated variety, maybe you will get lucky, maybe not.  If the organization has any type of serious weight like that Texas bullion depository, the govt will probably try to seize it.  Things like the ETFs have a good chance of being seized, but I doubt they will attempt seizing private holder's metals again.

For one, they know zero people will give them up since nobody trusts the govt now.  Secondly, they've already done a stealth confiscation by rigging the markets 10x more than usual post-2008 and having entities like JP Morgan take delivery of the physical as an agent of the US govt at the suppressed price.  The only type of paper metals worth bothering with would be miners, but I have a feeling the govt will nationalize all assets in the ground as "deep storage" and leave anyone holding shares holding the bag.

TLDR:  Buy either Canadian Maple Leafs, 10 oz Sunshine mint bars, or kilo bars


As a large holder of silver (about same ammont as crypto) i do not agree with your point of view. I looked into buying physical silver and compared the prices, even if i had bough a decent amount i would have paid about 7-8% extra and i live in a country where there is no VAT associated with buying silver as an investment. Other problem is that total ammount in kgs would have been around 300kg, so storing would have not been easy aswell.
 
Instead i chose to buy SIVR ETF which gives investors direct and pure exposure to silver by holding the physical metal in HSBC vaults. It has tracked the spot price of silver perfectly at a low cost for the precious metals segment.

I pay around 0.3% per year maintenance fee and could not be happier (well 40 $ pound would make me happier Cheesy), i would have paid around 25 years of fees if i had bought physical.



HSBC?  Good to have it stored with a trustworthy organization.  I'm sure all is as it should be.

Well the ETF is audite annualy and all of my lawyers are sure if something radical happens with economy i can sue and get the physical silver as it is backed.
Anyway silver is around 10% of my portfolio and i see it being a great way to make some profit when next crises hits in 2-3 years or so.
d_eddie
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1582
Merit: 1493



View Profile
February 25, 2018, 12:56:29 PM
Last edit: February 25, 2018, 01:20:11 PM by d_eddie

This is why GPU/CPU mining is a lot better than ASICs i think.

GPU companies have to build&sell GPUs no matter what because gamers need to game. CPU manufacturers have to build&sell CPUs no matter what because there will be a demand whether people mine crypto or not. Nvidia/AMD/Intel will be making hardware no matter what. They can't be deceived by evil crypto criminals.

But ASICs? This is cancer.

There is no way Nvidia/Intel build HW and mine Bitcoin without getting noticed but Bitmain can. Because that's their only job. Nvidia and the others can't run a 2 businesses at once. They are making GPU/CPU's and we are exploiting their business. Good for us.

Maybe Cobra is right. Better late than ever.
My opinion is that preparing for a soft PoW change would be a good thing. Keywords: preparing and soft.

A monopoly on mining is an evil thing. It keeps decentralization from really taking place. However, changing PoW drastically without a grace period would only alienate the "good" miners - probably ruin them, and piss them off enough to turn them (rightfully) bad.

One way could be to have a PoW that alternates between a few different hash functions - some of which hard to implement on ASICs, probably because of insane RAM requirements although there are alternatives. The alternance should be based on past history; the percentage of SHA-256 blocks could be dynamic, so "good" miners are incentivized to keep their percentage high by maintaining good demeanor. Or there could be a multiple PoW in each block, so that both a SHA-256 proof and some other proof(s) are necessary for validation. Each PoW function should maintain a different difficulty scale, and the difficulties could be combined into some overall metric. Such a system would be highly tweakable, and adapt dynamically.

(EDIT - about "softness". The initial conditions could be 100% ASIC-based, 0% others, as it is now. Then in times of mempool storms, or fork FUD, or whatever, the "others" might be gently pushed up until the situation gets back to normal.)

Any working solution should be designed with game theory in mind, not only the obvious complexity theory. A long check on testnet would be necessary, to figure out at least the complexity part, if not the game theory part.

(Inb4 - Bitcoin is a scam designed to centralize because no digital money can ever blah blah the Joos blah blah gold and silver.)
xhomerx10
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2912
Merit: 4257


Go! BTC Go!


View Profile
February 25, 2018, 12:57:27 PM

    [PRE-SALE][ICO] Petro $PTR - Oil backed crypto currency launched by Venezuela
    https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=3006037.0

    The Petro thread is being run by a commie bureaucrat and it is all very sad...

    ...
    • If you like McDonalds or Burger King, you can find them in Caracas.
    • You can actually find any other major multinational brand and, among them, many US companies operating in Venezuela.
    ...
    Therefore Venezuela is definitely not a "communist dictatorship", not even close.
    Venezuela is a liberal democracy with elected governments that the US have tried to overthrow (undemocratically) for 20 years.
    ...

    ...needs some of you good political arguers to respond

    It is very difficult to argue with the truth, sir. US is constantly meddling in Venezuala elections for the last 20 years.

    "Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence."[/list]

    Predominately US but a hegemony of deep state actors through all western government pushing coups and invading countries in the name of democracy, security and safety.

    The actors include banking cabal, business monopolies, family dynasties, policy control departments in government.

    Using secret services (Britain, Australia, US) as their military arm to conduct foreign and domestic operations to further centralization and globalization of money and business.


    Proof in points.

    1) There is no cure
    2) No voting on foreign policy - domestic only
    3) Who owns your reserve bank - do you really know
    4) Less and less people do not own their own home
    5) You are constantly getting less for your dollar
    6) ISIS disappeared in 12 months - been around for over 8 years - boom just like that
    7) Really - just watch CNN and FOX for a week or 2 - then it gets crazy
    Cool Bitcoin


    these are so weird these points

    only answer is they certainly are not helping their citizens - dumb policies that just compound more and more each year

    other points

    a) What countries do we bomb - Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan, Somalia, Yemen, Libya
        Where does immigration and refugees come from - stop bombing the F$%CKING countries then






     Can you expand on point 4?  Maybe cite some evidence.  There have never been more homes for people to own and pretty much every new home must be bought on time with bank loans.  How is it that less and less do not own their own home?  
    d_eddie
    Legendary
    *
    Offline Offline

    Activity: 1582
    Merit: 1493



    View Profile
    February 25, 2018, 01:05:20 PM

    I'd posted my reply about PoW change before reading the posts by Icygreen, flipperish, flynn and others.

    I, too, would like the full nodes to have a say in the relative distribution of hash functions, but full nodes are too easy to sybyl attack. PoS vote is also dangerous, because established miners have huge availability they could employ to crush GPU- or CPU- friendly functions. That's why we will eventually need to figure out more game theory to have a stable solution.
    Icygreen
    Legendary
    *
    Offline Offline

    Activity: 1472
    Merit: 1065



    View Profile
    February 25, 2018, 01:06:42 PM

    I think it's an English mistake. I read it as "less and less people own homes". Which is true.
    d_eddie
    Legendary
    *
    Offline Offline

    Activity: 1582
    Merit: 1493



    View Profile
    February 25, 2018, 01:11:26 PM

    Also, if I'm allowed to dream wildly on future Bitcoin technology development, I would love some kind of blockchain checkpointing to be implemented. This allows ultra-light nodes to have no trust (or very little) when first syncing.
    conspirosphere.tk
    Legendary
    *
    Offline Offline

    Activity: 2352
    Merit: 1064


    Bitcoin is antisemitic


    View Profile
    February 25, 2018, 01:20:26 PM

    One way could be to have a PoW that alternates between a few different hash functions

    There are already multi-algo PoW coins from a long time (myriad and digibyte for ex.). They can be mined with anything concurrently. But imho at the moment the risks of a PoW change seems higher than the risks of staying the course. But having a Plan B ready is always a good idea.
    Spaceman_Spiff_Original
    Full Member
    ***
    Offline Offline

    Activity: 417
    Merit: 220



    View Profile
    February 25, 2018, 01:20:35 PM

    I'd posted my reply about PoW change before reading the posts by Icygreen, flipperish, flynn and others.

    I, too, would like the full nodes to have a say in the relative distribution of hash functions, but full nodes are too easy to sybyl attack. PoS vote is also dangerous, because established miners have huge availability they could employ to crush GPU- or CPU- friendly functions. That's why we will eventually need to figure out more game theory to have a stable solution.
    Could you elaborate on the bold part? I didn't quite understand.
    d_eddie
    Legendary
    *
    Offline Offline

    Activity: 1582
    Merit: 1493



    View Profile
    February 25, 2018, 01:22:49 PM

    I'd posted my reply about PoW change before reading the posts by Icygreen, flipperish, flynn and others.

    I, too, would like the full nodes to have a say in the relative distribution of hash functions, but full nodes are too easy to sybyl attack. PoS vote is also dangerous, because established miners have huge availability they could employ to crush GPU- or CPU- friendly functions. That's why we will eventually need to figure out more game theory to have a stable solution.
    Could you elaborate on the bold part?

    PoS - Those who can prove ownership of coin get more votes.

    Short: An established miner has (or can quickly have) lots of coin lying around, so he can steer the voting result more easily than a few hodlers with the same total stake (read: stash).

    Longer: Giving each satoshi the same voting weight is a hard problem, possibly unsolvable. What is needed is a hypothetical system of incentives that makes GPU- and CPU- miner owned satoshis as heavy as ASIC-miner owned ones. Is such a system practical to implement? Does it ever exist? I doubt it. That's why PoS is dangerous.
    conspirosphere.tk
    Legendary
    *
    Offline Offline

    Activity: 2352
    Merit: 1064


    Bitcoin is antisemitic


    View Profile
    February 25, 2018, 01:25:28 PM

    I, too, would like the full nodes to have a say in the relative distribution of hash functions

    I would like an option for semi-full nodes, where they can store fractions of the blockchain bittorrent-like, and above all incentives for them and the full nodes, like a small fraction of the fees.
    d_eddie
    Legendary
    *
    Offline Offline

    Activity: 1582
    Merit: 1493



    View Profile
    February 25, 2018, 01:30:57 PM

    I, too, would like the full nodes to have a say in the relative distribution of hash functions

    I would like an option for semi-full nodes, where they can store fractions of the blockchain bittorrent-like, and above all incentives for them and the full nodes, like a small fraction of the fees.
    A kind of distributed checkpointing? That would be nice, I agree.

    However, Bittorrent as a protocol has a lot of back-and-forth chatter, more so if it's trackerless and decentralized (DHT). That's why it just won't play nice with mesh networks like TOR. I don't know anything about the technicals of checkpointing, though. There might be some alternative solutions, but their efficiency needs to be accurately evaluated.
    Icygreen
    Legendary
    *
    Offline Offline

    Activity: 1472
    Merit: 1065



    View Profile
    February 25, 2018, 01:35:19 PM

     I've been considering running a mining rig simply for the education it would offer but I'm on the fence knowing that it may not be profitable and also realizing it will likely change drastically in the short term future. I also don't want to buy from jihan with bcash some overpriced, outdated box.
    I mean, I seed my torrents properly and I'd prefer to contribute to BTC pools but where to start today?
    d_eddie
    Legendary
    *
    Offline Offline

    Activity: 1582
    Merit: 1493



    View Profile
    February 25, 2018, 01:39:35 PM

    I've been considering running a mining rig simply for the education it would offer but I'm on the fence knowing that it may not be profitable and also realizing it will likely change drastically in the short term future. I also don't want to buy from jihan with bcash some overpriced, outdated box.
    I mean, I seed my torrents properly and I'd prefer to contribute to BTC pools but where to start today?
    We're in the same position. Mining has become a hardcore game for big players. It's financially risky and you are subjected to the whims and abuses of people like Jihan. Not to mention the policies of governments. They can't stop bitcoin, but they can stop miners fairly easily, giving the minimum mining farm size of today.

    That's another reason why I would love some real decentralization by soft PoW modulation.
    Ibian
    Legendary
    *
    Offline Offline

    Activity: 2268
    Merit: 1278



    View Profile
    February 25, 2018, 01:54:36 PM

    People who can't compete always want to change the rules of the game.

    I don't care if there is only one shovel maker. Good for them for being successful at what they do.
    STT
    Legendary
    *
    Offline Offline

    Activity: 2982
    Merit: 1289


    Crypto Casino & Sportsbook


    View Profile WWW
    February 25, 2018, 01:58:05 PM

    I'd posted my reply about PoW change before reading the posts by Icygreen, flipperish, flynn and others.

    I, too, would like the full nodes to have a say in the relative distribution of hash functions, but full nodes are too easy to sybyl attack. PoS vote is also dangerous, because established miners have huge availability they could employ to crush GPU- or CPU- friendly functions. That's why we will eventually need to figure out more game theory to have a stable solution.
    Could you elaborate on the bold part?

    PoS - Those who can prove ownership of coin get more votes.

    Short: An established miner has (or can quickly have) lots of coin lying around, so he can steer the voting result more easily than a few hodlers with the same total stake (read: stash).

    Longer: Giving each satoshi the same voting weight is a hard problem, possibly unsolvable. What is needed is a hypothetical system of incentives that makes GPU- and CPU- miner owned satoshis as heavy as ASIC-miner owned ones. Is such a system practical to implement? Does it ever exist? I doubt it. That's why PoS is dangerous.

    Proof of Stake has coin age to consider, any participant has to first be fully upto date and part of a network for some time in order to then be part of the staking process which even then is randomised not on demand.    Theres only some average rate at which a large holder will stake not that they can force participation.   POS is dangerous if the majority of a crypto currency is liquid on an exchange perhaps, its unlikely to be especially cheap to undermine in this way

    I do imagine Proof of stake is going to be part of Ethereum this year as they move to make their transactions cheaper, faster and more efficient.   Vitalik Buterin seems quite focused on avoiding the problems bitcoin transactions had with mining fees and POS is the most viable route ?   I even see BTC could move to a more efficient model, I dont expect them to switch but its possible.  Some speculation there is no choice and energy consumption by the network means it must happen for BTC to stay competitive.   I'm very positive on POS since 2014, I might be biased Shocked  I'd like to see it tested by mainstream traffic loads alot more.


    BTC price I had drifting below the upper channel.    If you take the overall trend as bullish, its in a value area.  Speculators will likely try to buy it on the lower channel in greater numbers.  Perhaps a return to early Feb prices, 8617 say.

    https://stopthefud.wordpress.com/2018/02/24/georgia-bitcoin-taxes/
    With a weak dollar still not in an uptrend I see overall BTC prospects quite positive medium term
    mindrust
    Legendary
    *
    Offline Offline

    Activity: 2324
    Merit: 2169



    View Profile
    February 25, 2018, 01:58:16 PM

    I've been considering running a mining rig simply for the education it would offer but I'm on the fence knowing that it may not be profitable and also realizing it will likely change drastically in the short term future. I also don't want to buy from jihan with bcash some overpriced, outdated box.
    I mean, I seed my torrents properly and I'd prefer to contribute to BTC pools but where to start today?


    I recently started mining with 24tb HDDs and 1 gtx1070. The profits are too low but I don't care much. I'll extend my GPU rig up to 6 cards and then I'll stop.

    What I do now is instead of going to the banks, making bank transactions to exchanges; my mining rig gets me bitcoins automatically.

    My rig will be a 6GPU-50tb HDD rig when it is finished. Since I was already buying bitcoins with my cash every month to diversify my investments and I am a holder with no intentions to sell any coins, thanks to this rig I basically generate bitcoins without needing anybody else. I consume electricity and in return they give me bitcoins. I can even mine at a loss because I won't be running a huge mining operation and I can afford to pay for the bills unlike the big miners who dump away their coins to pay their bills.

    That's a great deal. Plus; GPU's will keep their value like 2 years at least and HDD's will keep it forever as long as they work.

    If you are able to mine, you should mine. But never go all in on one thing. I am holding FIAT, crypto, mining equipment and gold. That's what I do.
    itod
    Legendary
    *
    Offline Offline

    Activity: 1750
    Merit: 1034


    ^ Will code for Bitcoins


    View Profile
    February 25, 2018, 02:07:24 PM

    My opinion is that preparing for a soft PoW change would be a good thing. Keywords: preparing and soft.

    A monopoly on mining is an evil thing. It keeps decentralization from really taking place. However, changing PoW drastically without a grace period would only alienate the "good" miners - probably ruin them, and piss them off enough to turn them (rightfully) bad.

    One way could be to have a PoW that alternates between a few different hash functions - some of which hard to implement on ASICs, probably because of insane RAM requirements although there are alternatives. The alternance should be based on past history; the percentage of SHA-256 blocks could be dynamic, so "good" miners are incentivized to keep their percentage high by maintaining good demeanor. Or there could be a multiple PoW in each block, so that both a SHA-256 proof and some other proof(s) are necessary for validation. Each PoW function should maintain a different difficulty scale, and the difficulties could be combined into some overall metric. Such a system would be highly tweakable, and adapt dynamically.

    (EDIT - about "softness". The initial conditions could be 100% ASIC-based, 0% others, as it is now. Then in times of mempool storms, or fork FUD, or whatever, the "others" might be gently pushed up until the situation gets back to normal.)

    Any working solution should be designed with game theory in mind, not only the obvious complexity theory. A long check on testnet would be necessary, to figure out at least the complexity part, if not the game theory part.

    (Inb4 - Bitcoin is a scam designed to centralize because no digital money can ever blah blah the Joos blah blah gold and silver.)

    There can not be soft fork PoW change, it's the hardest of all hard forks. As much as most of us hate Bitmain, PoW change can not be justified because someone has market dominance and is in position to attack the blockchain.

    There are PoW algos that are ASIC resistant (Cuckoo Cycle), but this is not a technical question at all.

    Keep in mind that no one would more encourage such a change than Jihan Wu. If such thing happen, he will have a ground to a claim BCash is the real Bitcoin, and he knows that claim is false in current situation. I'm afraid he may even really attack Bitcoin just to make some more incentive for PoW change.

    IMHO the only thing that can justify PoW change is Quantum computing attack on SHA2, and Cuckoo Cycle is Quantum resistant btw. Doing it now is jumping in the abyss just for the sake of change.
    Ibian
    Legendary
    *
    Offline Offline

    Activity: 2268
    Merit: 1278



    View Profile
    February 25, 2018, 02:09:33 PM

    Also fuck quantum clowns. We would be using them to mine if they were ever to become more than a nerdish fantasy.

    (your quantum waifu does not love you)
    Pages: « 1 ... 19622 19623 19624 19625 19626 19627 19628 19629 19630 19631 19632 19633 19634 19635 19636 19637 19638 19639 19640 19641 19642 19643 19644 19645 19646 19647 19648 19649 19650 19651 19652 19653 19654 19655 19656 19657 19658 19659 19660 19661 19662 19663 19664 19665 19666 19667 19668 19669 19670 19671 [19672] 19673 19674 19675 19676 19677 19678 19679 19680 19681 19682 19683 19684 19685 19686 19687 19688 19689 19690 19691 19692 19693 19694 19695 19696 19697 19698 19699 19700 19701 19702 19703 19704 19705 19706 19707 19708 19709 19710 19711 19712 19713 19714 19715 19716 19717 19718 19719 19720 19721 19722 ... 29727 »
      Print  
     
    Jump to:  

    Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!