NobleCoin[NOBL] - 8% PoS | 1Yr+ | MARKETPLACE | PAY | GIFT | CHARITIES/MERCHANTS

[Honeypot]

I feel....a RISE in the force.

Haven't felt this since.......


(cue nov. 2013)

[miKnutty]

I feel....a RISE in the force.

Haven't felt this since.......


(cue nov. 2013)

The momentum is building.

as Samuel Jackson would say...




PS: Don't forget to vote!

https://www.mintpal.com/voting

[agx.io]

NobleCoin is part of the latest promotion at Austin Global Exchange, brought to you by AGX, NobleCoin, DigiByte, and VirtualCoin! Come check out the changes to AGX and trade NOBL!

- The Austin Global Team

Find us at:
agx.io
bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=507474
bitcointalk handles: "agx.io," "AustinGlobal"
twitter.com/AustinGlobalX
austinglobal.tumblr.com

[NorrisK]

I like the promotions over at agx.io, nice job

Looking forward to the announcements from the dev team!

[agx.io]

Did you participate in the Austin Global Exchange + Noblecoin Deposit Bonus Promotion? All bonus payouts have been made to your AGX NOBL wallet. Please submit a Support Ticket through agx.io if you have questions about yours!

Thanks for supporting AGX and be sure to check out all the changes just made!

- The Austin Global Team

Find us at:
agx.io
bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=507474
bitcointalk handles: "agx.io," "AustinGlobal"
twitter.com/AustinGlobalX
austinglobal.tumblr.com

[agx.io]

@NorrisK: What do you think of the changes made to AGX overnight?

Thanks,

- The Austin Global Team

Find us at:
agx.io
bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=507474
bitcointalk handles: "agx.io," "AustinGlobal"
twitter.com/AustinGlobalX
austinglobal.tumblr.com

I like the promotions over at agx.io, nice job

Looking forward to the announcements from the dev team!

[session056]

I hope to see more concise introduction.

[Hueristic]

I don't see a link to chain explorer in OP and CoinEX needs to be removed from Pool and exchange list (at least temporarily: I expect it is done).

OK, found Block Explorer in OP. kind of buried though not sure how to change that maybe larger bolded font?

[james6546]

Did you participate in the Austin Global Exchange + Noblecoin Deposit Bonus Promotion? All bonus payouts have been made to your AGX NOBL wallet. Please submit a Support Ticket through agx.io if you have questions about yours!

Thanks for supporting AGX and be sure to check out all the changes just made!

- The Austin Global Team

Find us at:
agx.io
bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=507474
bitcointalk handles: "agx.io," "AustinGlobal"
twitter.com/AustinGlobalX
austinglobal.tumblr.com

Got my bonus payments which are great, thanks

I really like the changes that you have made. One thing though, I usually look prices on my phone and when I view it on the browser on my phone there isn't a link to Markets on the home page, and you also seem to have to log in to get to anything?

[miKnutty]

Be careful when withdrawing your BTC on Poloniex right now... I tried to withdraw 1BTC this morning and it somehow landed in a different address when I look at the block chain even with confirmation to my personal wallet. Waiting for a response from support right now.

[Hueristic]

Be careful when withdrawing your BTC on Poloniex right now... I tried to withdraw 1BTC this morning and it somehow landed in a different address when I look at the block chain even with confirmation to my personal wallet. Waiting for a response from support right now.

Oh shit that's all we need is another exchange issue.

You guys read this?

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=549572.0

I'm reading it now.

[hellscabane]

Be careful when withdrawing your BTC on Poloniex right now... I tried to withdraw 1BTC this morning and it somehow landed in a different address when I look at the block chain even with confirmation to my personal wallet. Waiting for a response from support right now.

Oh shit that's all we need is another exchange issue.

You guys read this?

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=549572.0

I'm reading it now.

There is understandable trepidation behind scrypt ASICs. And that's fine.

However, it is not fine to affect hundreds of millions of dollars and investment because of said trepidation. Going renegade is a disservice to the developers and to the community. Even with all of the anti-ASIC rhetoric, I still feel a change to the algorithm is still a fringe movement. If they truly cared about LTC, they would have posted this on the LTC forum first and linked it to the BTC forum.

All I see again, is profit motive.

[miKnutty]

Be careful when withdrawing your BTC on Poloniex right now... I tried to withdraw 1BTC this morning and it somehow landed in a different address when I look at the block chain even with confirmation to my personal wallet. Waiting for a response from support right now.

Oh shit that's all we need is another exchange issue.

You guys read this?

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=549572.0

I'm reading it now.

There is understandable trepidation behind scrypt ASICs. And that's fine.

However, it is not fine to affect hundreds of millions of dollars and investment because of said trepidation. Going renegade is a disservice to the developers and to the community. Even with all of the anti-ASIC rhetoric, I still feel a change to the algorithm is still a fringe movement. If they truly cared about LTC, they would have posted this on the LTC forum first and linked it to the BTC forum.

All I see again, is profit motive.

The death of LTC if this happens to be perfectly honest.

[Hueristic]

Be careful when withdrawing your BTC on Poloniex right now... I tried to withdraw 1BTC this morning and it somehow landed in a different address when I look at the block chain even with confirmation to my personal wallet. Waiting for a response from support right now.

Oh shit that's all we need is another exchange issue.

You guys read this?

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=549572.0

I'm reading it now.

There is understandable trepidation behind scrypt ASICs. And that's fine.

However, it is not fine to affect hundreds of millions of dollars and investment because of said trepidation. Going renegade is a disservice to the developers and to the community. Even with all of the anti-ASIC rhetoric, I still feel a change to the algorithm is still a fringe movement. If they truly cared about LTC, they would have posted this on the LTC forum first and linked it to the BTC forum.

All I see again, is profit motive.

I think LiteCoin was designed to be Asic proof was it not? That was what differentiated it from bitcoin.

Here is Litecoin community thread.

https://litecointalk.org/index.php?topic=18122.0

I think I would support Asic protection but I'm not sure if X11 is the right choice for LTC.

[jamieb81]

Be careful when withdrawing your BTC on Poloniex right now... I tried to withdraw 1BTC this morning and it somehow landed in a different address when I look at the block chain even with confirmation to my personal wallet. Waiting for a response from support right now.

Oh shit that's all we need is another exchange issue.

You guys read this?

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=549572.0

I'm reading it now.

There is understandable trepidation behind scrypt ASICs. And that's fine.

However, it is not fine to affect hundreds of millions of dollars and investment because of said trepidation. Going renegade is a disservice to the developers and to the community. Even with all of the anti-ASIC rhetoric, I still feel a change to the algorithm is still a fringe movement. If they truly cared about LTC, they would have posted this on the LTC forum first and linked it to the BTC forum.

All I see again, is profit motive.

The death of LTC if this happens to be perfectly honest.

I agree, and I've seen somewhere that the official dev's from Litecoin clearly stated that they would not change from scypt to N or X11 or whatsoever  

[hellscabane]

Be careful when withdrawing your BTC on Poloniex right now... I tried to withdraw 1BTC this morning and it somehow landed in a different address when I look at the block chain even with confirmation to my personal wallet. Waiting for a response from support right now.

Oh shit that's all we need is another exchange issue.

You guys read this?

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=549572.0

I'm reading it now.

There is understandable trepidation behind scrypt ASICs. And that's fine.

However, it is not fine to affect hundreds of millions of dollars and investment because of said trepidation. Going renegade is a disservice to the developers and to the community. Even with all of the anti-ASIC rhetoric, I still feel a change to the algorithm is still a fringe movement. If they truly cared about LTC, they would have posted this on the LTC forum first and linked it to the BTC forum.

All I see again, is profit motive.

I think LiteCoin was designed to be Asic proof was it not? That was what differentiated it from bitcoin.

Here is Litecoin community thread.

https://litecointalk.org/index.php?topic=18122.0

I think I would support Asic protection but I'm not sure if X11 is the right choice for LTC.

The intent of LTC when released was to be resistant to GPUs/FPGAs/ASICs for the foreseeable future. One quickly went down, and with the advance in lithographic technologies and geometry creation, the second is being bypassed and it's going straight to the third one.

As a note, the thread on the LTC forum is not from the "developers" who want to fork LTC. So it still looks like profit motive. Maybe this is the new paradigm that people are going to use to make money now: forking already existing coins to new algorithms with the intent of "ASIC-resistance."

I will say, ASICs are just a new starting barrier for a coin. In no way does it decentralize the system as anyone is still able to participate in the system. In fact, ASICs provide the service of securing a blockchain which is just as important. After all, the same arguments happened with CPU vs. GPU. And in fact, for a long time, GPU was akin to ASICs as only certain cards could mine more effectively and we had a whole bunch of hobbyists trying to outdo each other by tweaking existing components to gain an additional edge. ASICs to me are just the next evolution of that. The difference is that instead of manipulation from the hardware level, it's being done at the wafer level.

[Hueristic]

...
The intent of LTC when released was to be resistant to GPUs/FPGAs/ASICs for the foreseeable future. One quickly went down, and with the advance in lithographic technologies and geometry creation, the second is being bypassed and it's going straight to the third one.

As a note, the thread on the LTC forum is not from the "developers" who want to fork LTC. So it still looks like profit motive. Maybe this is the new paradigm that people are going to use to make money now: forking already existing coins to new algorithms with the intent of "ASIC-resistance."

I will say, ASICs are just a new starting barrier for a coin. In no way does it decentralize the system as anyone is still able to participate in the system. In fact, ASICs provide the service of securing a blockchain which is just as important. After all, the same arguments happened with CPU vs. GPU. And in fact, for a long time, GPU was akin to ASICs as only certain cards could mine more effectively and we had a whole bunch of hobbyists trying to outdo each other by tweaking existing components to gain an additional edge. ASICs to me are just the next evolution of that. The difference is that instead of manipulation from the hardware level, it's being done at the wafer level.

You should drop this post in that thread. I don't think I agree that ASIC secures a blockchain. Once a quantum computer comes out any blockchain is in danger and centralizing with ASIC is the wrong direction in my mind. Think On this, any large enough government can and may use ASIC tech to centralize hash and take control (Bitcoin better watch for this). It can be done now with the Us gov if the will was there.

[hellscabane]

...
The intent of LTC when released was to be resistant to GPUs/FPGAs/ASICs for the foreseeable future. One quickly went down, and with the advance in lithographic technologies and geometry creation, the second is being bypassed and it's going straight to the third one.

As a note, the thread on the LTC forum is not from the "developers" who want to fork LTC. So it still looks like profit motive. Maybe this is the new paradigm that people are going to use to make money now: forking already existing coins to new algorithms with the intent of "ASIC-resistance."

I will say, ASICs are just a new starting barrier for a coin. In no way does it decentralize the system as anyone is still able to participate in the system. In fact, ASICs provide the service of securing a blockchain which is just as important. After all, the same arguments happened with CPU vs. GPU. And in fact, for a long time, GPU was akin to ASICs as only certain cards could mine more effectively and we had a whole bunch of hobbyists trying to outdo each other by tweaking existing components to gain an additional edge. ASICs to me are just the next evolution of that. The difference is that instead of manipulation from the hardware level, it's being done at the wafer level.

You should drop this post in that thread. I don't think I agree that ASIC secures a blockchain. Once a quantum computer comes out any blockchain is in danger and centralizing with ASIC is the wrong direction in my mind. Think On this, any large enough government can and may use ASIC tech to centralize hash and take control (Bitcoin better watch for this). It can be done now with the Us gov if the will was there.

I may drop that post in that thread if it gains further traction.

On the realm of quantum computing, that is a fair concern. After all, quantum computing that resolves both entanglement and the eigenvector trap (both a physical and a code-based restrictions) would easily simplify all of the integer-based algorithms and make solving them relatively trivial. Instead of taking 2^O(n) time, that's reduced to 2^O(log n) time (from exponential to polynomial) in the best case scenario [and at worst, with a bad implementation, we would have something in quasi-polynomial time].

Once that happens, any crypto-currency that is secured with an algorithm that runs in exponential time will be well...fucked. So even a switch to X11 and so forth would be moot. At the minimum, in order to resolve this, the new algorithms will need to have 2^(2^O(log n)) time, i.e. double exponential run time so that at the best, Shor's Algorithm will reduce it to something that is still NP-time. [It would be fun to see a blockchain secured with something like Akerman's function though...]

In this sense, ASICs are a better security mechanism than what we have right now. I still disagree that ASICs will have the centralizing affect if enough people participate. I'm still of the opinion that if the government wanted to take down a coin like Bitcoin, they could easily do so by implementing their own sort of ASIC chip, and having a fab or foundry produce/assemble them. Of course, now it's actually significantly more expensive then it was prior to the advent of ASICs for the SHA-256 algorithm [based on current network power, lithographic advances in the realm of ASICs and continuously improved adaptation, it'll likely be a ~$500 million proposition right now, back in mid-2012 while ASICs were in the development stages, it would have only been a ~$35 million proposition].

[Hueristic]

...
The intent of LTC when released was to be resistant to GPUs/FPGAs/ASICs for the foreseeable future. One quickly went down, and with the advance in lithographic technologies and geometry creation, the second is being bypassed and it's going straight to the third one.

As a note, the thread on the LTC forum is not from the "developers" who want to fork LTC. So it still looks like profit motive. Maybe this is the new paradigm that people are going to use to make money now: forking already existing coins to new algorithms with the intent of "ASIC-resistance."

I will say, ASICs are just a new starting barrier for a coin. In no way does it decentralize the system as anyone is still able to participate in the system. In fact, ASICs provide the service of securing a blockchain which is just as important. After all, the same arguments happened with CPU vs. GPU. And in fact, for a long time, GPU was akin to ASICs as only certain cards could mine more effectively and we had a whole bunch of hobbyists trying to outdo each other by tweaking existing components to gain an additional edge. ASICs to me are just the next evolution of that. The difference is that instead of manipulation from the hardware level, it's being done at the wafer level.

You should drop this post in that thread. I don't think I agree that ASIC secures a blockchain. Once a quantum computer comes out any blockchain is in danger and centralizing with ASIC is the wrong direction in my mind. Think On this, any large enough government can and may use ASIC tech to centralize hash and take control (Bitcoin better watch for this). It can be done now with the Us gov if the will was there.

I may drop that post in that thread if it gains further traction.

On the realm of quantum computing, that is a fair concern. After all, quantum computing that resolves both entanglement and the eigenvector trap (both a physical and a code-based restrictions) would easily simplify all of the integer-based algorithms and make solving them relatively trivial. Instead of taking 2^O(n) time, that's reduced to 2^O(log n) time (from exponential to polynomial) in the best case scenario [and at worst, with a bad implementation, we would have something in quasi-polynomial time].

Once that happens, any crypto-currency that is secured with an algorithm that runs in exponential time will be well...fucked. So even a switch to X11 and so forth would be moot. At the minimum, in order to resolve this, the new algorithms will need to have 2^(2^O(log n)) time, i.e. double exponential run time so that at the best, Shor's Algorithm will reduce it to something that is still NP-time. [It would be fun to see a blockchain secured with something like Akerman's function though...]

In this sense, ASICs are a better security mechanism than what we have right now. I still disagree that ASICs will have the centralizing affect if enough people participate. I'm still of the opinion that if the government wanted to take down a coin like Bitcoin, they could easily do so by implementing their own sort of ASIC chip, and having a fab or foundry produce/assemble them. Of course, now it's actually significantly more expensive then it was prior to the advent of ASICs for the SHA-256 algorithm [based on current network power, lithographic advances in the realm of ASICs and continuously improved adaptation, it'll likely be a ~$500 million proposition right now, back in mid-2012 while ASICs were in the development stages, it would have only been a ~$35 million proposition].

I may have to stop discussions with you. you make me think and I'm getting too long in the tooth for that!

I think we agree on a lot of points and has just been posted in the thread for this discussion which I quoted for truth "The only way to be ASIC proof" Is to hard fork when needed.

Now where we disagree is upon whether ASIC will centralize. We can debate that forever I think as no-one knows the future but bitcoin is much more centralized than before ASIC. Even botnets which everyone seems to have their panties in a bunch about decentralizes.

As to Gov takeover you need to add the law of returns to your calculation. As the price has changed in a non-liner fashion that actually makes it much more cost effective to accomplish now than then.

You made me start reading algorithms and I had to force myself to stop as At this point in my life I am not going to fall down that hole. I'd rather goto the casino tonight then start that path.

Yes QC will be a game breaker with time being the key to the castle. But I am of the assumption that when we break that barrier the next will naturally follow.


EDIT:
As you can see I am speaking all off the cuff. I will not waste the time and effort that these questions need to be properly vetted without a return.

[hellscabane]

...
The intent of LTC when released was to be resistant to GPUs/FPGAs/ASICs for the foreseeable future. One quickly went down, and with the advance in lithographic technologies and geometry creation, the second is being bypassed and it's going straight to the third one.

As a note, the thread on the LTC forum is not from the "developers" who want to fork LTC. So it still looks like profit motive. Maybe this is the new paradigm that people are going to use to make money now: forking already existing coins to new algorithms with the intent of "ASIC-resistance."

I will say, ASICs are just a new starting barrier for a coin. In no way does it decentralize the system as anyone is still able to participate in the system. In fact, ASICs provide the service of securing a blockchain which is just as important. After all, the same arguments happened with CPU vs. GPU. And in fact, for a long time, GPU was akin to ASICs as only certain cards could mine more effectively and we had a whole bunch of hobbyists trying to outdo each other by tweaking existing components to gain an additional edge. ASICs to me are just the next evolution of that. The difference is that instead of manipulation from the hardware level, it's being done at the wafer level.

You should drop this post in that thread. I don't think I agree that ASIC secures a blockchain. Once a quantum computer comes out any blockchain is in danger and centralizing with ASIC is the wrong direction in my mind. Think On this, any large enough government can and may use ASIC tech to centralize hash and take control (Bitcoin better watch for this). It can be done now with the Us gov if the will was there.

I may drop that post in that thread if it gains further traction.

On the realm of quantum computing, that is a fair concern. After all, quantum computing that resolves both entanglement and the eigenvector trap (both a physical and a code-based restrictions) would easily simplify all of the integer-based algorithms and make solving them relatively trivial. Instead of taking 2^O(n) time, that's reduced to 2^O(log n) time (from exponential to polynomial) in the best case scenario [and at worst, with a bad implementation, we would have something in quasi-polynomial time].

Once that happens, any crypto-currency that is secured with an algorithm that runs in exponential time will be well...fucked. So even a switch to X11 and so forth would be moot. At the minimum, in order to resolve this, the new algorithms will need to have 2^(2^O(log n)) time, i.e. double exponential run time so that at the best, Shor's Algorithm will reduce it to something that is still NP-time. [It would be fun to see a blockchain secured with something like Akerman's function though...]

In this sense, ASICs are a better security mechanism than what we have right now. I still disagree that ASICs will have the centralizing affect if enough people participate. I'm still of the opinion that if the government wanted to take down a coin like Bitcoin, they could easily do so by implementing their own sort of ASIC chip, and having a fab or foundry produce/assemble them. Of course, now it's actually significantly more expensive then it was prior to the advent of ASICs for the SHA-256 algorithm [based on current network power, lithographic advances in the realm of ASICs and continuously improved adaptation, it'll likely be a ~$500 million proposition right now, back in mid-2012 while ASICs were in the development stages, it would have only been a ~$35 million proposition].

I may have to stop discussions with you. you make me think and I'm getting too long in the tooth for that!

I think we agree on a lot of points and has just been posted in the thread for this discussion which I quoted for truth "The only way to be ASIC proof" Is to hard fork when needed.

Now where we disagree is upon whether ASIC will centralize. We can debate that forever I think as no-one knows the future but bitcoin is much more centralized than before ASIC. Even botnets which everyone seems to have their panties in a bunch about decentralizes.

As to Gov takeover you need to add the law of returns to your calculation. As the price has changed in a non-liner fashion that actually makes it much more cost effective to accomplish now than then.

You made me start reading algorithms and I had to force myself to stop as At this point in my life I am not going to fall down that hole. I'd rather goto the casino tonight then start that path.

Yes QC will be a game breaker with time being the key to the castle. But I am of the assumption that when we break that barrier the next will naturally follow.


EDIT:
As you can see I am speaking all off the cuff. I will not waste the time and effort that these questions need to be properly vetted without a return.

Hehe, fair enough. I'm also speaking from what I can quickly recall. So I'm not entirely sure if those are the correct time complexity formulas.

Yeah, the calculation I made for a takeover was based on the normalized development of a new 20nm line at a wafer fab (I work for a major semiconductor company, so I'm fairly familiar with those numbers) and an estimation on how much hash each assembled chip inputted into a finalized hashing ASIC makes in comparison to the current network hashrate. There are lots of factors to account for, but I was lazy and just multiplied the costs by 2.25 (sounded like the right factor to me).

I'm glad I could make you read algorithms? Hehe. Never hurts to keep the mind sharp though. Although, going to a casino sounds really nice right now. Too bad that's a two hour drive for me. Gah...

[Personally, I'm still saving up for a Vegas trip for me and some friends. So I guess I'll go crazy then. Ha!]