**CEX.IO Bitcoin Exchange ** Buy Bitcoins with Cards in iOS / Android App***

[pumawolf]

charge a fee to mine here guys,anything it doesnt matter, 0% is too dam attractive.

[yrtrnc]

Solution is competition.. Who ever comes along and does just as good of a job can help the network.

[alexrossi]

Site is still offline for me.

Im a customer, openup.

Ghash.io front end here is back. Seems they are moving some hashpower out of ghash.io

[PhurryVermin]

It's down for my as well. It's been off and on like this for a few days, but now it's just off. Maybe they are changing some stuff up for this drop in worth. Who knows.

[beaknuke]

Error 522 is not much fun

[fractal02]

Site is still offline for me.

Im a customer, openup.

Ghash.io front end here is back. Seems they are moving some hashpower out of ghash.io

CEX is still offline for me.
Are they doing a gox'?

They pi**ed some...
The 51% story isn't  very well managed from Cex.io...

[Parazyd]

Site is still offline for me.

Im a customer, openup.

Ghash.io front end here is back. Seems they are moving some hashpower out of ghash.io

CEX is still offline for me.
Are they doing a gox'?

They pi**ed some...
The 51% story isn't  very well managed from Cex.io...

They promised a statement, and we've been waiting for it for 3+ days.

[IYFTech]

Why on earth are you waiting? Their statements are bullshit anyway - just go somewhere else 

[PhurryVermin]

Yeah, but are there any other pools where you can buy % of gHs all I've seen is "contracts."

[kingscrown]

check out my interview with CIO of ghash/cex - http://fuk.io/cexio-ghashio-jeffrey-smith-interview-exclusive/

[Zeta0S]

Genesis-mining, The Scrypt Cloudmining Website.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CC_kO6VqlWw

[Parazyd]

Why on earth are you waiting? Their statements are bullshit anyway - just go somewhere else 

I'm not mining anymore unfortunately. But I'd like to see their statement. We have to see what they are gonna do about decentralization.

[CEX]

Rapid growth of GHash.IO mining pool, seen over the past few months, has been driven by our determination to offer innovative solutions within the Bitcoin ecosystem combined with significant investment in resource. Our investment, participation and highly motivated staff confirm it is our intention to help protect and grow the broad acceptance of Bitcoin and categorically in no way harm or damage it. We never have and never will participate in any 51% attack or double spend against Bitcoin. Still, we are against temporary solutions, which could repel a 51% threat.

In any market, competition and innovation drives growth and that is particularly true in an emerging and disruptive environment such as Bitcoin. Successful and innovative companies cannot be expected to limit their growth or competitiveness as a direct result of their success. However, this is the situation we find ourselves in when faced with the community perception of the threat of a 51% attack on Bitcoin. Asking our users to not use our services or to use competing solutions is not conducive to fostering innovation. Implementing a pool fee to our pool contradicts principles of our operation from the very launch of GHash.IO. It also does not address the core issue only pushing the problem a few weeks or months down the road when another pool or perhaps GHash.IO again grows towards 51%.

We do fully recognise the concerns and possible threat posed by an entity with malicious intent taking control of enough mining power to exploit the 51% scenario, but we also have confidence and agree with the views expressed by the Bitcoin Foundation that any such exploitation or attack ”would be obvious it was happening, and pretty easy to defend against. The transparent nature of the blockchain provides unprecedented insight for all to investigate and report such behaviours.

We also recognise however that a long term preventative solution to the threat of a 51% attack does have to be found, the current situation we find ourselves in (essentially being punished for our success) is damaging not only to us, but to the growth and acceptance of Bitcoin long term, which is something we are all striving for.

To that effect we are in the process of arranging contact to the leading mining pools and Bitcoin Foundation to propose a ‘round table’ meeting of the key players with the aim of discussing and negotiating collectively ways to address the decentralisation of mining as an industry. Our aim is to do this quickly with a possible date coinciding with the CoinSummit Conference in London.

[suchmoon]

Love PR speak. 5 paragraphs of text for what is essentially two letters: F U.

[kingscrown]

interview updated with Ghash/Cex extra question from today - http://fuk.io/cexio-ghashio-jeffrey-smith-interview-exclusive/

[fractal02]

Cex.io it's all in your hand to reassure the BTC community

But i think this whole story benefit someone...the 1000BTC question is : WHO ?

[jjdub7]

Rapid growth of GHash.IO mining pool, seen over the past few months, has been driven by our determination to offer innovative solutions within the Bitcoin ecosystem combined with significant investment in resource. Our investment, participation and highly motivated staff confirm it is our intention to help protect and grow the broad acceptance of Bitcoin and categorically in no way harm or damage it. We never have and never will participate in any 51% attack or double spend against Bitcoin. Still, we are against temporary solutions, which could repel a 51% threat.

In any market, competition and innovation drives growth and that is particularly true in an emerging and disruptive environment such as Bitcoin. Successful and innovative companies cannot be expected to limit their growth or competitiveness as a direct result of their success. However, this is the situation we find ourselves in when faced with the community perception of the threat of a 51% attack on Bitcoin. Asking our users to not use our services or to use competing solutions is not conducive to fostering innovation. Implementing a pool fee to our pool contradicts principles of our operation from the very launch of GHash.IO. It also does not address the core issue only pushing the problem a few weeks or months down the road when another pool or perhaps GHash.IO again grows towards 51%.

We do fully recognise the concerns and possible threat posed by an entity with malicious intent taking control of enough mining power to exploit the 51% scenario, but we also have confidence and agree with the views expressed by the Bitcoin Foundation that any such exploitation or attack ”would be obvious it was happening, and pretty easy to defend against. The transparent nature of the blockchain provides unprecedented insight for all to investigate and report such behaviours.

We also recognise however that a long term preventative solution to the threat of a 51% attack does have to be found, the current situation we find ourselves in (essentially being punished for our success) is damaging not only to us, but to the growth and acceptance of Bitcoin long term, which is something we are all striving for.

Sorry, but to set up such a scalable and dare I say relatively high-margin operation, you had to have seen this coming, right?

Also, can anyone verify - I thought I'd heard some time ago that due to the "spot" nature of network hashing share, the 51% attack actually discretely manifests itself as the production of 6 or more blocks in a row by one entity (51% power is just what you would need, on average, to accomplish such a feat).  If this is correct...I mean, GHash.io has produced 6  consecutive blocks in the chain on a number of occasions.  I've personally observed a chain of 8 (tracking via Blockchain homepage) on at least one occasion - and let me tell you, nobody said jack until their averaged share of the network power (measured by floating average share of blocks produced over the past 24/48/96 hours) began to near the false-warning 51% mark.

Again, correct me if I'm wrong, but even without 51% of the active hashing power on the network you can still carry out the exact bruteforce attack described by what most people refer to as "the dreaded 51% attack" - all you need is enough luck to mine 6 consecutive blocks.  Satoshi himself referred to the single-entity (pool) 6-block-mark as the point of 'computational irreversibility'...

[Parazyd]

Rapid growth of GHash.IO mining pool, seen over the past few months, has been driven by our determination to offer innovative solutions within the Bitcoin ecosystem combined with significant investment in resource. Our investment, participation and highly motivated staff confirm it is our intention to help protect and grow the broad acceptance of Bitcoin and categorically in no way harm or damage it. We never have and never will participate in any 51% attack or double spend against Bitcoin. Still, we are against temporary solutions, which could repel a 51% threat.

In any market, competition and innovation drives growth and that is particularly true in an emerging and disruptive environment such as Bitcoin. Successful and innovative companies cannot be expected to limit their growth or competitiveness as a direct result of their success. However, this is the situation we find ourselves in when faced with the community perception of the threat of a 51% attack on Bitcoin. Asking our users to not use our services or to use competing solutions is not conducive to fostering innovation. Implementing a pool fee to our pool contradicts principles of our operation from the very launch of GHash.IO. It also does not address the core issue only pushing the problem a few weeks or months down the road when another pool or perhaps GHash.IO again grows towards 51%.

We do fully recognise the concerns and possible threat posed by an entity with malicious intent taking control of enough mining power to exploit the 51% scenario, but we also have confidence and agree with the views expressed by the Bitcoin Foundation that any such exploitation or attack ”would be obvious it was happening, and pretty easy to defend against. The transparent nature of the blockchain provides unprecedented insight for all to investigate and report such behaviours.

We also recognise however that a long term preventative solution to the threat of a 51% attack does have to be found, the current situation we find ourselves in (essentially being punished for our success) is damaging not only to us, but to the growth and acceptance of Bitcoin long term, which is something we are all striving for.

Sorry, but to set up such a scalable and dare I say relatively high-margin operation, you had to have seen this coming, right?

Also, can anyone verify - I thought I'd heard some time ago that due to the "spot" nature of network hashing share, the 51% attack actually discretely manifests itself as the production of 6 or more blocks in a row by one entity (51% power is just what you would need, on average, to accomplish such a feat).  If this is correct...I mean, GHash.io has produced 6  consecutive blocks in the chain on a number of occasions.  I've personally observed a chain of 8 (tracking via Blockchain homepage) on at least one occasion - and let me tell you, nobody said jack until their averaged share of the network power (measured by floating average share of blocks produced over the past 24/48/96 hours) began to near the false-warning 51% mark.

Again, correct me if I'm wrong, but even without 51% of the active hashing power on the network you can still carry out the exact bruteforce attack described by what most people refer to as "the dreaded 51% attack" - all you need is enough luck to mine 6 consecutive blocks.  Satoshi himself referred to the single-entity (pool) 6-block-mark as the point of 'computational irreversibility'...

They won't have the luck to do it. Not with 30% of the hashrate (by the way, they could go even lower).
It doesn't matter that they had 6 consecutive blocks, GHash.IO/CEX.IO isn't a threat. It was just a pointer that such an attack is possible.
If you think a 51% attack will happen, it won't be CEX.IO. That 51% of the network hashrate would just appear out of nowhere when someone powers on the units. With Ghash closing in to 51% in a timespan of 2-3 months, we had the necessary time to prepare for a hard fork...

Oh, and the 6 blocks is when the tx is confirmed for good, that's what you mean by "computational irreversibility". Yes, an attack as such (the 51%) could be done with a lot lower hashrate, that's true. The 51% just means that you have a 100% chance of the attack succeeding, and that's what we were afraid of.

[ozycash]

growth? more people are leaving cex than joining!
cex are trying to force whoever is left to stay
i have been saying for some time now that cex is in trouble and are struggeling and that is why they introduced all the extra fees and charges
they did not even allow me to withdraw all my earnings, they did this i believe so they could keep enough btc or ghs just to keep going!
i was even being charged maintenance fees on my own hardware!

to prevent the so called 51% attack all cex has to do is to stop increasing their mining power for a short time, and not turn off the mining power all the time, it goes to show what type of people are running cex, they are not very bright they just have a lot of money invested and want more money from everyone!

[jjdub7]

Sorry, but to set up such a scalable and dare I say relatively high-margin operation, you had to have seen this coming, right?

Also, can anyone verify - I thought I'd heard some time ago that due to the "spot" nature of network hashing share, the 51% attack actually discretely manifests itself as the production of 6 or more blocks in a row by one entity...

They won't have the luck to do it. Not with 30% of the hashrate (by the way, they could go even lower).
It doesn't matter that they had 6 consecutive blocks, GHash.IO/CEX.IO isn't a threat. It was just a pointer that such an attack is possible.
If you think a 51% attack will happen, it won't be CEX.IO. That 51% of the network hashrate would just appear out of nowhere when someone powers on the units. With Ghash closing in to 51% in a timespan of 2-3 months, we had the necessary time to prepare for a hard fork...

Oh, and the 6 blocks is when the tx is confirmed for good, that's what you mean by "computational irreversibility". Yes, an attack as such (the 51%) could be done with a lot lower hashrate, that's true. The 51% just means that you have a 100% chance of the attack succeeding, and that's what we were afraid of.

Great clarification, thanks.  I hadn't thought about the timing/time-scale in relation to the magnitude of the attack...should be interesting to see what happens when we start to hit the 14nm and 10nm chip architectures.