Bitcoin Forum
September 20, 2018, 11:56:20 AM *
News: ♦♦ Bitcoin Core users must update to 0.16.3 [Torrent]. More info.
 
   Home   Help Search Donate Login Register  
Pages: « 1 ... 644 645 646 647 648 649 650 651 652 653 654 655 656 657 658 659 660 661 662 663 664 665 666 667 668 669 670 671 672 673 674 675 676 677 678 679 680 681 682 683 684 685 686 687 688 689 690 691 692 693 [694] 695 696 697 698 699 700 701 702 703 704 705 706 707 708 709 710 711 712 713 714 715 716 717 718 719 720 721 722 723 724 725 726 »
  Print  
Author Topic: [ANN] Spondoolies-Tech - carrier grade, data center ready mining rigs  (Read 1253064 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.
2112
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2114
Merit: 1027



View Profile
January 24, 2016, 12:22:48 AM
 #13861

There is no "the mempool"

Relativity means there can never be an objective mempool.

I don't think this is really a problem though. Transaction fees are precisely a bribe to a miner to include the transaction in the block. The mechanism exists, so use it.
It would be relatively easy to approximate the existence of the global pending transaction list. I hate the term "mempool" because it is just an example of terminal in-box-thinking. "The mempool" is just a database stored in a really primitive way in memory, instead of some more advanced way like storing them in a https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In-memory_database .

The implementation would require folding the p2p-pool mining protocol into the main protocol where it would serve as a sort of proof-of-transmission that is resistant to the Sybil attacks. This has been discussed many times before.

Anyway, that isn't going to be implemented in Bitcoin for political reasons, not for any technical/scientific/economic reasons.


Please comment, critique, criticize or ridicule BIP 2112: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=54382.0
Long-term mining prognosis: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=91101.0
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1537444580
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1537444580

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1537444580
Reply with quote  #2

1537444580
Report to moderator
smooth
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1904
Merit: 1050



View Profile
January 24, 2016, 12:30:25 AM
 #13862

There is no "the mempool"

Relativity means there can never be an objective mempool.

I don't think this is really a problem though. Transaction fees are precisely a bribe to a miner to include the transaction in the block. The mechanism exists, so use it.
It would be relatively easy to approximate the existence of the global pending transaction list. I hate the term "mempool" because it is just an example of terminal in-box-thinking. "The mempool" is just a database stored in a really primitive way in memory, instead of some more advanced way like storing them in a https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In-memory_database .

The implementation would require folding the p2p-pool mining protocol into the main protocol where it would serve as a sort of proof-of-transmission that is resistant to the Sybil attacks. This has been discussed many times before.

Yes and every time it is discussed it is a dead end because in order to succeed it needs exactly the sort of consensus algorithm that proof-of-work implements. There is no such thing as "proof-of-transmission" as a consensus algorithm that is sybil resistant, at least none that has been shown.

2112
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2114
Merit: 1027



View Profile
January 24, 2016, 12:47:33 AM
 #13863

Yes and every time it is discussed it is a dead end because in order to succeed it needs exactly the sort of consensus algorithm that proof-of-work implements. There is no such thing as "proof-of-transmission" as a consensus algorithm that is sybil resistant, at least none that has been shown.
P2P-pool works and is Sybil-resistant. Its faster and easier blocks serve as a very good approximation of global convergence to a single second-level slower and harder block.

The obstacles are purely non-technical. Many people find it profitable not to look for solutions. That's pretty much most of the story. Edit: the rest of the story is more like religious/theological argumentation in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eschatology .

Please comment, critique, criticize or ridicule BIP 2112: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=54382.0
Long-term mining prognosis: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=91101.0
smooth
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1904
Merit: 1050



View Profile
January 24, 2016, 01:12:20 AM
 #13864

Yes and every time it is discussed it is a dead end because in order to succeed it needs exactly the sort of consensus algorithm that proof-of-work implements. There is no such thing as "proof-of-transmission" as a consensus algorithm that is sybil resistant, at least none that has been shown.
P2P-pool works and is Sybil-resistant. Its faster and easier blocks serve as a very good approximation of global convergence to a single second-level slower and harder block.

P2pool doesn't really "work" because its cost is outsize with its benefits. I used p2pool when I used to mine so I'm well aware of both. You can't really justify using it unless you are trying to be altruistic.

scyth3
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Activity: 494
Merit: 251


View Profile
January 24, 2016, 02:20:43 AM
 #13865

Can you imagine giving ASIC manufacturers the power to influence a PoW system?
Have you read the article ?

I have, and I agree with Guy. We should boycott Bitcoin Classic.
p3yot33at3r
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 266
Merit: 250



View Profile
January 24, 2016, 10:19:29 AM
 #13866


Anyway, that isn't going to be implemented in Bitcoin for political reasons, not for any technical/scientific/economic reasons.


If "politics" is stopping Bitcoin evolving then Bitcoin is already doomed. Politics = people, ie: greed & control.

I like the p2pool proposal, although p2pool in it's current form (python) wouldn't cut it - there has been much discussion on the p2pool thread about a complete re-write in multithreaded (C/++ or something similar) code but nothing has come of it unfortubately. If the whole network was p2pool based, that would remove any "politics" or influence from large pools/farms immediately - leaving Bitcoin free to evolve without intervention.

Lets not forget, Bitcoin is still in beta.
Fatman3001
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1218
Merit: 1001


Make Bitcoin glow with ENIAC


View Profile
January 24, 2016, 11:33:52 AM
 #13867


I think the question everyone has been asking is, why are you advocating for PoW changes that delete your own company?

Bizarre.

Can we take it as granted, that there will be no SP50? It's a real pity watching!
 

Looks like they merged with a company as bankrupt as themselves. I guess Guy feels the Bitcoin community needs to be punished.

"I predict the Internet will soon go spectacularly supernova and in 1996 catastrophically collapse." - Robert Metcalfe, 1995
Spondoolies-Tech
Donator
Legendary
*
Online Online

Activity: 952
Merit: 1016


Good to be back


View Profile WWW
January 24, 2016, 11:37:10 AM
 #13868

Congratulation to Eli Ben-Sasson and Eran Tromer for the launch of z.cash
Awesome project!

https://z.cash/team.html

el_rlee
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1550
Merit: 1000



View Profile
January 24, 2016, 12:31:11 PM
 #13869

What's the status of the Spondoolies-Tech Pickaxe ASICs?
takagari
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 966
Merit: 1000


View Profile WWW
January 24, 2016, 03:54:10 PM
 #13870

Congratulation to Eli Ben-Sasson and Eran Tromer for the launch of z.cash
Awesome project!

https://z.cash/team.html

Yet another useless copy and paste email. While ignoring consumers.
I'd say this company is dead. I have zero trust in them.
To bad too. Solid hardware
klondike_bar
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1834
Merit: 1001

ASIC Wannabe


View Profile
January 24, 2016, 04:27:25 PM
 #13871

Can you imagine giving ASIC manufacturers the power to influence a PoW system?
Have you read the article ?

I find it hard to beleive that it would open up a brand new area for ASIC/specialized hardware. systems with a plethora of the possible ASIC deviations and/or PCI-e 1x sockets, combined with cheap&fast memory soldered directly to the board, or optionally 8-32 ddr ram slots.  Such a design could surely be made and scaled where power is cheap, once again leading to a centralised system (though maybe to much lesser extreme than with pure-sha256)

even at the start, hardcore miners will go straight to server setups that can handle 4x Intel CPUs and often offer 8-16 ddr slots and a multitude of pcie connections. Even before FPGA, some people were operating $25,000+ of GPUs in garages to mine a $80 bitcoin. That will happen again, but at 10x or 100x the scale, in new multi-megawatt facilities.

Presumably spondoolies has a business model for BOTH scenarios.  Right??

24" PCI-E cables with 16AWG wires and stripped ends - great for server PSU mods, best prices https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=563461
No longer a wannabe - now an ASIC owner!
2112
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2114
Merit: 1027



View Profile
January 24, 2016, 05:30:14 PM
 #13872

P2pool doesn't really "work" because its cost is outsize with its benefits. I used p2pool when I used to mine so I'm well aware of both. You can't really justify using it unless you are trying to be altruistic.
Dude, you are so wrapped in your old polemics and boxed-in thinking, that it beggars belief.

Of course, it will not be straight as-it-is p2pool integration with the main protocol. p2pool currently is focused on tracking only "shares" of work towards the upper layer block. But it has show itself resistant to Sybil attacks and shown that the global convergence to common goal can be achieved in less than 10 minutes of the plain Bitcoin network.

The concept of p2pool can easily be extended to keep tracking not only shares towards common block hash target but also Merkle sub-trees pf transactions contributing to the global common Merkle tree in the common block header.

The new added benefit will outweight the known drawback of slightly increased losses due to stale shares and more frequent orphaning at the lower-layer block level.

So the knowledge and technology to maintain globally converging "mempool" or list of pending transactions is already there. There is simply no will to implement it.

Please comment, critique, criticize or ridicule BIP 2112: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=54382.0
Long-term mining prognosis: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=91101.0
2112
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2114
Merit: 1027



View Profile
January 24, 2016, 05:43:29 PM
 #13873

If "politics" is stopping Bitcoin evolving then Bitcoin is already doomed. Politics = people, ie: greed & control.
I only agree to the "control" part. The "greed" part is a flip side of the same coin that has "stupidity" on the other face. Lots of folks went into Bitcoin hooked on various populist propaganda slogans and without real understanding of the underlying technology.

I like the p2pool proposal, although p2pool in it's current form (python) wouldn't cut it - there has been much discussion on the p2pool thread about a complete re-write in multithreaded (C/++ or something similar) code but nothing has come of it unfortubately. If the whole network was p2pool based, that would remove any "politics" or influence from large pools/farms immediately - leaving Bitcoin free to evolve without intervention.

Lets not forget, Bitcoin is still in beta.
p2pool doesn't enforce the political goal of system distribution. It only allows it at a cost of a slight overhead. So by itself p2pool (and similar extensions) would do nothing to prevent the dominance of large farms.

The goal of "evolving without intervention" is a completely different story. I still have my proposal (BIP 2112) from many years ago in my signature. But the current prevailing climate is that people prefer to fight over branding (My coin is the Bitcoin, yours is an altcoin!) instead of working for the common goal.

Please comment, critique, criticize or ridicule BIP 2112: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=54382.0
Long-term mining prognosis: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=91101.0
p3yot33at3r
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 266
Merit: 250



View Profile
January 24, 2016, 06:28:26 PM
 #13874

But the current prevailing climate is that people prefer to fight over branding (My coin is the Bitcoin, yours is an altcoin!) instead of working for the common goal.

Exactly.
smooth
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1904
Merit: 1050



View Profile
January 25, 2016, 01:07:46 AM
 #13875

P2pool doesn't really "work" because its cost is outsize with its benefits. I used p2pool when I used to mine so I'm well aware of both. You can't really justify using it unless you are trying to be altruistic.
Dude, you are so wrapped in your old polemics and boxed-in thinking, that it beggars belief.

Of course, it will not be straight as-it-is p2pool integration with the main protocol. p2pool currently is focused on tracking only "shares" of work towards the upper layer block. But it has show itself resistant to Sybil attacks and shown that the global convergence to common goal can be achieved in less than 10 minutes of the plain Bitcoin network.

Yes you can certainly achieve that in less than 10 minutes, but it comes at a high cost, just as it does in PoW coins that use 30 second or 1 minute blocks, or somewhat more speculatively, even faster with tweaks such as in ETH.

Bitcoin uses 10 minute blocks to keep reorgs and centralization pressure within "acceptable" limits. Obviously 10 minutes is not the perfect number, but both increasing and decreasing have clear tradeoffs.

In the case of p2pool, for example, even the small share of hash rate represented by p2pool includes a portion that is effectively centralized pools that use p2pool as a back end. The reason is the high cost in bandwidth and latency tolerance of p2pool exerts additional centralization pressure on top of what already exists in Bitcoin, so you end up with a second tier of centralization.

2112
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2114
Merit: 1027



View Profile
January 25, 2016, 06:46:14 PM
 #13876

Yes you can certainly achieve that in less than 10 minutes, but it comes at a high cost, just as it does in PoW coins that use 30 second or 1 minute blocks, or somewhat more speculatively, even faster with tweaks such as in ETH.

Bitcoin uses 10 minute blocks to keep reorgs and centralization pressure within "acceptable" limits. Obviously 10 minutes is not the perfect number, but both increasing and decreasing have clear tradeoffs.

In the case of p2pool, for example, even the small share of hash rate represented by p2pool includes a portion that is effectively centralized pools that use p2pool as a back end. The reason is the high cost in bandwidth and latency tolerance of p2pool exerts additional centralization pressure on top of what already exists in Bitcoin, so you end up with a second tier of centralization.
Thanks for the thoughtful reply, I'm glad to be able to read your words when you really apply yourself instead of posting dismissive single sentences.

The "high cost" of p2pool as it is right now is because it applies to full, high hash power into the lower-level blockchain with fast blocks (less than minute).

When p2p-pool idea would be applied to the propagation tracing only a fraction of hash power would be applied to the fast-chain. The majority of hash power would still go to the slow, decaminute normal Bitcoin chain.

When p2pool would be used just as a proof-of-propagation the required fraction of total hash power would be rather low, probably around single percent. Therefore the cost of orphans would also be insignificant in comparison to the total hash power. I'm not going to repeat the whole analysis done in Microsoft Research's "Red Balloons" paper. Interested readers could easily find it themselves.

The general idea still stands. Why it isn't getting much interest in Bitcoin milieu is a different story, rooted in political-science not in computer-science.

Please comment, critique, criticize or ridicule BIP 2112: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=54382.0
Long-term mining prognosis: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=91101.0
valkir
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1372
Merit: 1000



View Profile
January 27, 2016, 12:05:41 PM
 #13877

Any updates on the merge with BTCS Huh

██     Please support sidehack with his new miner project Send to :

1BURGERAXHH6Yi6LRybRJK7ybEm5m5HwTr
dogie
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1526
Merit: 1050


dogiecoin.com


View Profile WWW
January 27, 2016, 12:36:52 PM
 #13878

Any updates on the merge with BTCS Huh

One of the risks they posted in an SEC filing on Wednesday.
Quote
Our Partner Companies may be subject to legal liability.

Some of our Partner Companies may be subject to legal claims. Claims could involve matters such as defamation, invasion of privacy, copyright infringement etc. Any of our Partner Companies that incur this type of unexpected liability may not have insurance to cover the claim or its insurance may not provide sufficient coverage. If our Partner Companies incur substantial cost because of this type of unexpected liability, the expenses incurred by our Partner Companies will increase and their profits, if any, will decrease.

"Btw our creditors might sue us if we just decide to not pay our debts, who'd have thought?"

tmfp
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1204
Merit: 1139


MLM: Many Layers of Misery


View Profile
January 27, 2016, 12:59:08 PM
 #13879

Any updates on the merge with BTCS Huh

One of the risks they posted in an SEC filing on Wednesday.
Quote
Our Partner Companies may be subject to legal liability.

Some of our Partner Companies may be subject to legal claims. Claims could involve matters such as defamation, invasion of privacy, copyright infringement etc. Any of our Partner Companies that incur this type of unexpected liability may not have insurance to cover the claim or its insurance may not provide sufficient coverage. If our Partner Companies incur substantial cost because of this type of unexpected liability, the expenses incurred by our Partner Companies will increase and their profits, if any, will decrease.

"Btw our creditors might sue us if we just decide to not pay our debts, who'd have thought?"

Just the sort of thing that investors like to read.

Did you get anything out of them yet, apart from the occasional patronizing quip?

Extraordinary Claims require Extraordinary Evidence
dogie
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1526
Merit: 1050


dogiecoin.com


View Profile WWW
January 27, 2016, 04:36:33 PM
 #13880

Did you get anything out of them yet, apart from the occasional patronizing quip?

We filed at the Kiryat Gat Miagistrates Court on the 11th Jan, served to their lawyers (who rejected it) shortly after, and again by registered mail on 18th Jan. They've yet to file a response. The case is open to the public which means anyone can request documents from it, and although there isn't a public case docket I can post the documents on here and give a rough translation from Hebrew. I'll transfer these to a scam accusation eventually.

Quote
Finding the case online:
https://www.court.gov.il/NGCS.Web.Site/HomePage.aspx
In the top right text box enter "19105", then "01-16" in the next text box.
Click the far left button

Categories are on the right, show that the defendant is Spondoolies-Tech and that I'm suing for $114,420 in unpaid debts and interest.

Quote
Documents so far:

1. Receipt for filing court fees...

2. Proof of service


3. English translation of statement of claims (via Google translate, some of the names go weird but its mainly there)






Pages: « 1 ... 644 645 646 647 648 649 650 651 652 653 654 655 656 657 658 659 660 661 662 663 664 665 666 667 668 669 670 671 672 673 674 675 676 677 678 679 680 681 682 683 684 685 686 687 688 689 690 691 692 693 [694] 695 696 697 698 699 700 701 702 703 704 705 706 707 708 709 710 711 712 713 714 715 716 717 718 719 720 721 722 723 724 725 726 »
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Sponsored by , a Bitcoin-accepting VPN.
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!