Bitcoin Forum
November 15, 2019, 08:52:03 PM *
News: 10th anniversary art contest
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register More  
Pages: « 1 ... 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 1256306 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.
OgNasty
Donator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 3094
Merit: 1735


I 💚 Bitcoin


View Profile
January 30, 2016, 06:37:19 PM
 #13881

Memory bound hashing is very good suggestion: https://github.com/tromp/cuckoo

Does this mean that satoshi has been exploring cuckoo hashing?

1573851123
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1573851123

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1573851123
Reply with quote  #2

1573851123
Report to moderator
1573851123
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1573851123

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1573851123
Reply with quote  #2

1573851123
Report to moderator
The Bitcoin Forum is turning 10 years old! Join the community in sharing and exploring the notable posts made over the years.
1573851123
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1573851123

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1573851123
Reply with quote  #2

1573851123
Report to moderator
WBF1
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 418
Merit: 250


View Profile
January 30, 2016, 07:01:22 PM
 #13882

Selling my SP20E miners. Details here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1346627.0

Anonymous, no-registration, no-frills BCH Mining - http://luckypool.co - Get Lucky Today!
Tupsu
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1218
Merit: 1003



View Profile
February 01, 2016, 11:52:07 AM
 #13883

I'm getting tired of this kinder garden playground posts.
Will remove posts tomorrow.


Please start of all posts from not nice Dogie's posts.

Guy Corem
Donator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1246
Merit: 1029


Spondoolies, Beam & DAGlabs


View Profile WWW
February 01, 2016, 12:56:36 PM
 #13884

I'm getting tired of this kinder garden playground posts.
Will remove posts tomorrow.


Please start of all posts from not nice Dogie's posts.
While he is wasting his money and sue us, I'm not going to engage him or touch his posts.
Let him dig his own hole.

New Mimblewimble implementation: https://www.beam.mw
Spondoolies is back with the SPx36: https://www.spondoolies-tech.com/products/spx36
Fatman3001
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1372
Merit: 1010


Make Bitcoin glow with ENIAC


View Profile
February 01, 2016, 01:10:26 PM
 #13885

I'm getting tired of this kinder garden playground posts.
Will remove posts tomorrow.
Please start of all posts from not nice Dogie's posts.
While he is wasting his money and sue us, I'm not going to engage him or touch his posts.
Let him dig his own hole.

It's only a waste because you're broke. OTOH, maybe he'll do the community a service and tip you over the edge so people can move on.

You had good products, too bad you couldn't treat people in a way that inspired confidence from investors.

"I predict the Internet will soon go spectacularly supernova and in 1996 catastrophically collapse." - Robert Metcalfe, 1995
dogie
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1652
Merit: 1119


dogiecoin.com


View Profile WWW
February 01, 2016, 01:28:19 PM
 #13886

While he is wasting his money and sue us

Wouldn't your time be better spent doing CEO things, like, I don't know, instructing your junior solicitor how best to explain to the judge why you:
   a. feel you can just ignore your debts despite $m of fresh cash injections
   b. allegedly trade while insolvent
   c. continue to make decisions not in the best interest of your company - as per turning away millions in sales and investments
   d. shouldn't have your debts attached to your remaining assets
   e. shouldn't be personally included as a defendant?

p3yot33at3r
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 266
Merit: 250



View Profile
February 01, 2016, 02:25:32 PM
 #13887

I'm getting tired of this kinder garden playground posts.
Will remove posts tomorrow.


Please start of all posts from not nice Dogie's posts.
While he is wasting his money and sue us, I'm not going to engage him or touch his posts.
Let him dig his own hole.

TBH I don't see any of his (or his sidekicks) posts thanks to the ignore button, but it does make the thread untidy & difficult to have any meaningful conversation when faced with a wall of red "this user is ignored" text amongst the intelligent conversation/questions.
Moderators should move their spam to the scam section where it belongs & as forum rules require, but in the meantime I suggest thread readers report them as off-topic spam & click the ignore button if Spondoolies don't want to delete them.
dogie
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1652
Merit: 1119


dogiecoin.com


View Profile WWW
February 01, 2016, 02:33:30 PM
 #13888

+1

You do realise you're quoting Matthew Pattemore, the guy who just the other day spammed this thread with 10 different accounts? You sure do pick your partners well.

Guy Corem
Donator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1246
Merit: 1029


Spondoolies, Beam & DAGlabs


View Profile WWW
February 03, 2016, 03:03:06 PM
 #13889

Congratulations to Adam Back and Blockstream for completing $55M round A. Amazing.

Guy

New Mimblewimble implementation: https://www.beam.mw
Spondoolies is back with the SPx36: https://www.spondoolies-tech.com/products/spx36
Biodom
Legendary
*
Online Online

Activity: 2128
Merit: 1306



View Profile
February 03, 2016, 05:28:11 PM
 #13890

Congratulations to Adam Back and Blockstream for completing $55M round A. Amazing.

Guy

Blockstream/Core to Classic: I raise you 55 mil...
Classic.....
RoadStress
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1862
Merit: 1002


View Profile
February 03, 2016, 07:23:55 PM
 #13891

Congratulations to Adam Back and Blockstream for completing $55M round A. Amazing.

Guy

Blockstream/Core to Classic: I raise you 55 mil...
Classic.....

Well Classic is just another dead fork and it was dead before its inception because they will never have the army of bright heads that are in Core. And that applies to most of the forks past and future. We are kinda stuck with Core. I started to learn the subtle difference between Core and the rest of the forks and I'm happy with the Core even if I don't totally agree with their roadmap or decisions, but I am sure that they are currently on the right track.

H/w Hosting Directory & Reputation - https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=622998.0
Guy Corem
Donator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1246
Merit: 1029


Spondoolies, Beam & DAGlabs


View Profile WWW
February 03, 2016, 09:06:25 PM
 #13892

Congratulations to Adam Back and Blockstream for completing $55M round A. Amazing.

Guy

Blockstream/Core to Classic: I raise you 55 mil...
Classic.....

Well Classic is just another dead fork and it was dead before its inception because they will never have the army of bright heads that are in Core. And that applies to most of the forks past and future. We are kinda stuck with Core. I started to learn the subtle difference between Core and the rest of the forks and I'm happy with the Core even if I don't totally agree with their roadmap or decisions, but I am sure that they are currently on the right track.
+2

New Mimblewimble implementation: https://www.beam.mw
Spondoolies is back with the SPx36: https://www.spondoolies-tech.com/products/spx36
klondike_bar
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1918
Merit: 1001

ASIC Wannabe


View Profile
February 04, 2016, 07:09:15 PM
 #13893

Congratulations to Adam Back and Blockstream for completing $55M round A. Amazing.

Guy

Blockstream/Core to Classic: I raise you 55 mil...
Classic.....

Well Classic is just another dead fork and it was dead before its inception because they will never have the army of bright heads that are in Core. And that applies to most of the forks past and future. We are kinda stuck with Core. I started to learn the subtle difference between Core and the rest of the forks and I'm happy with the Core even if I don't totally agree with their roadmap or decisions, but I am sure that they are currently on the right track.
+2

I think its good to have alternative clients though that enable a way to 'vote' on changes in a real way (rather than in reddit and forums with no real polling methods). AFAIC, I want classic to succeed in creating a fork (or at least signalling >50% hashrate support as a signal to core devs that perhaps segwit alone isnt sufficient) to a simple 2MB blocksize and otherwise identical to BTC-Core (0.12 or anything that comes after)

besides a modest 30-50% space gain through segwit that takes a few months to really be noticed, i think we will start seeing a lot of full blocks and rising fees soon. at this point, fees are already moving above what spam transactions would pay, and if this continues it will start to push out microtransactions and make important transactions more costly. without a maxblocksize increase at that point, it basically forces bitcoin users into blockstream-designed sidechains under imposed economic conditions, rather than through appealing natural improvements/benefits that the blockchain cant provide (like 1min validation)

ps: whats up with the SP50? back when it announced (sept?) it sounded like it was weeks away from preliminary results and maybe a few months from Q1 sales. At this point theres been no real news and it could be vaporware for all we know. whens tapeout, if not the first prototype?

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!
RoadStress
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1862
Merit: 1002


View Profile
February 04, 2016, 08:08:03 PM
 #13894

I was in the Gavin-train for a good period of time, but recently I have come to the conclusion that I was a bit wrong and that the Core is currently on the right track. This doesn't mean that I will support them no matter what, but trying to find out if my choice is good or not I am constantly trying to find a weak spot by asking myself questions and then searching for the answer. I will apply that to your post too in order to have some constructive discussion.

Core working on the code doesn't mean only power to do whatever they want. They are also responsible and accountable if something goes wrong. If we get to a point where the blocks are always full it is their responsibility to manage that situation. If they will not be able or if they won't do anything then everyone else will simply fork the code, change the blocksize limit to whatever they agree upon as long as it is bigger than 1MB and they will do anything in their power to continue using bitcoin the same way as they did before. Remember that it only takes one single line to change the blocksize and that is something that everyone can do so we don't depend on Core to do that.
The rage will start from the normal users who will simply reduce their number of transactions and that will impact everyone. If everyone will be impacted by the reduced number of transactions then they will take measures and the easiest way is to simply fork the Core software, bump the blocksize limit with one single line of code.

I think its good to have alternative clients though that enable a way to 'vote' on changes in a real way (rather than in reddit and forums with no real polling methods). AFAIC, I want classic to succeed in creating a fork (or at least signalling >50% hashrate support as a signal to core devs that perhaps segwit alone isnt sufficient) to a simple 2MB blocksize and otherwise identical to BTC-Core (0.12 or anything that comes after)
How would voting work? Based on what? Are we able to have a fraud proof voting system?

besides a modest 30-50% space gain through segwit that takes a few months to really be noticed, i think we will start seeing a lot of full blocks and rising fees soon. at this point, fees are already moving above what spam transactions would pay, and if this continues it will start to push out microtransactions and make important transactions more costly. without a maxblocksize increase at that point, it basically forces bitcoin users into blockstream-designed sidechains under imposed economic conditions, rather than through appealing natural improvements/benefits that the blockchain cant provide (like 1min validation)

I have learned that the wheels of change from an ecosystem move slower and slower directly proportional with its size. Since bitcoin is today much bigger than it was 5 years ago it will take a bit of time for the wheels to turn when blocks will be full and the fees will start to rise. Fortunately we already have a solution to that here and now (SegWit) which also opens the door for new improvements and buys us time in order to deploy a bigger and more complex solution (like the hardfork).

H/w Hosting Directory & Reputation - https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=622998.0
Guy Corem
Donator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1246
Merit: 1029


Spondoolies, Beam & DAGlabs


View Profile WWW
February 05, 2016, 11:19:39 AM
 #13895

Congratulations to Nimrod Lehavi and Simplex team Smiley

http://www.coindesk.com/israeli-bitcoin-startup-raises-7m-in-series-a-round/

Buying Bitcoins will become much easier. Awesome company.

New Mimblewimble implementation: https://www.beam.mw
Spondoolies is back with the SPx36: https://www.spondoolies-tech.com/products/spx36
sjc1490
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 546
Merit: 500



View Profile
February 05, 2016, 03:06:31 PM
 #13896

Shameless Plug, but I have 5 SP20 for sale if anyone interested.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1352995.0


BTC ADDRESS: 12Qwd8VKLQ4xF44ytHXBpCAKuF9VknG4X2
klondike_bar
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1918
Merit: 1001

ASIC Wannabe


View Profile
February 05, 2016, 09:32:31 PM
 #13897

I was in the Gavin-train for a good period of time, but recently I have come to the conclusion that I was a bit wrong and that the Core is currently on the right track. This doesn't mean that I will support them no matter what, but trying to find out if my choice is good or not I am constantly trying to find a weak spot by asking myself questions and then searching for the answer. I will apply that to your post too in order to have some constructive discussion.

Core working on the code doesn't mean only power to do whatever they want. They are also responsible and accountable if something goes wrong. If we get to a point where the blocks are always full it is their responsibility to manage that situation. If they will not be able or if they won't do anything then everyone else will simply fork the code, change the blocksize limit to whatever they agree upon as long as it is bigger than 1MB and they will do anything in their power to continue using bitcoin the same way as they did before. Remember that it only takes one single line to change the blocksize and that is something that everyone can do so we don't depend on Core to do that.
The rage will start from the normal users who will simply reduce their number of transactions and that will impact everyone. If everyone will be impacted by the reduced number of transactions then they will take measures and the easiest way is to simply fork the Core software, bump the blocksize limit with one single line of code.

I think its good to have alternative clients though that enable a way to 'vote' on changes in a real way (rather than in reddit and forums with no real polling methods). AFAIC, I want classic to succeed in creating a fork (or at least signalling >50% hashrate support as a signal to core devs that perhaps segwit alone isnt sufficient) to a simple 2MB blocksize and otherwise identical to BTC-Core (0.12 or anything that comes after)
How would voting work? Based on what? Are we able to have a fraud proof voting system?

besides a modest 30-50% space gain through segwit that takes a few months to really be noticed, i think we will start seeing a lot of full blocks and rising fees soon. at this point, fees are already moving above what spam transactions would pay, and if this continues it will start to push out microtransactions and make important transactions more costly. without a maxblocksize increase at that point, it basically forces bitcoin users into blockstream-designed sidechains under imposed economic conditions, rather than through appealing natural improvements/benefits that the blockchain cant provide (like 1min validation)

I have learned that the wheels of change from an ecosystem move slower and slower directly proportional with its size. Since bitcoin is today much bigger than it was 5 years ago it will take a bit of time for the wheels to turn when blocks will be full and the fees will start to rise. Fortunately we already have a solution to that here and now (SegWit) which also opens the door for new improvements and buys us time in order to deploy a bigger and more complex solution (like the hardfork).


http://gavinandresen.ninja/a-guided-tour-of-the-2mb-fork


2mb is not a simple one-line change, and the implementation used for btc/classic is about 900 lines, based largely on coding crafted for XT. A lot of that is simply testing code, but even the core change of 2mb is almost 20 lines:
Quote
The first commit is “Minimal consensus/miner changes for 2mb block size bump”, and is small – under twenty lines of new code. You can see the one-line change of MAX_BLOCK_SIZE from 1,000,000 bytes to 2,000,000 bytes; the rest of the changes are needed by miners so they know whether it is safe to produce bigger blocks.

a node can easily do the 1-line change and it will accept and relay blocks <2mb, but most other nodes will see it as invalid and not relay them, hence making mining >2mb infeasible. Thats why it makes sense to include a "trigger" so that the client only accepts <1MB until the 2MB rule change is implemented. Otherwise XT would have made a few dozen 1-2 block chainforks already (before switching back to the main longest chain). The consensus mechanism only ensures that the 2mb fork will be successful when activated 28days after 75% majority.


As for core; I like thier roadmap. segwit has benefits to offer but they may be smaller and further away then currently anticipated, in the face of a growing network. Other improvements of the code that are planned are also generally quite good, but without an actual blocksize scaling event its easy to envision a path where blockstream is dedicated to making bitcoin a high-fee settlement layer with massive segwit sideblocks that power sidechains and lightning. Its a good direction, but I disagree with limiting bitcoin in its infancy to a 1mb limit that has gone without incident for years around improved computing and networking, particularly as it makes blockstream's business model more attractive

I firmly beleive in segwit+2mb and i think theres a developing similar consensus. in fact, segwit could make 2mb blocks much simpler by removing the complex validation needs of a small-but-many-signatures transaction.


I think its good to have alternative clients though that enable a way to 'vote' on changes in a real way (rather than in reddit and forums with no real polling methods). AFAIC, I want classic to succeed in creating a fork (or at least signalling >50% hashrate support as a signal to core devs that perhaps segwit alone isnt sufficient) to a simple 2MB blocksize and otherwise identical to BTC-Core (0.12 or anything that comes after)
How would voting work? Based on what? Are we able to have a fraud proof voting system?

its quite simple, you can identify your client  (such as  classic-0.11.2.b1) and you can view node count at https://coin.dance/nodes  (IIRC they filter out nodes if they detect multiple on a single address (ie: someone pretending to run 10 nodes on one computer)). If you are a miner, you can follow BIP009 to include a modified versionbits, or you could simply include a message or code in the coinbase transaction (almost every miner out there does this already, and many even include BIP100 voting tags)

hashrate is pretty much the most secure method of voting as it requires control over bitcoin mining. Of course, only miners can vote this way.

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!
tutorialevideo
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1117
Merit: 1001

Don`t invest more than you can afford to lose


View Profile WWW
February 05, 2016, 10:52:26 PM
 #13898

Congratulations to Nimrod Lehavi and Simplex team Smiley

http://www.coindesk.com/israeli-bitcoin-startup-raises-7m-in-series-a-round/

Buying Bitcoins will become much easier. Awesome company.

Any news on the sp-50?

Still here Smiley
TKeenan
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 874
Merit: 1000



View Profile
February 06, 2016, 04:07:35 PM
 #13899

Congratulations to Nimrod Lehavi and Simplex team Smiley

http://www.coindesk.com/israeli-bitcoin-startup-raises-7m-in-series-a-round/

Buying Bitcoins will become much easier. Awesome company.

Any news on the sp-50?
100% dead.  Ain't never coming.  Spondoolies and Guy Corem to get sued by creditors soon.
RoadStress
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1862
Merit: 1002


View Profile
February 07, 2016, 11:54:34 PM
 #13900


http://gavinandresen.ninja/a-guided-tour-of-the-2mb-fork


2mb is not a simple one-line change, and the implementation used for btc/classic is about 900 lines, based largely on coding crafted for XT. A lot of that is simply testing code, but even the core change of 2mb is almost 20 lines:
Quote
The first commit is “Minimal consensus/miner changes for 2mb block size bump”, and is small – under twenty lines of new code. You can see the one-line change of MAX_BLOCK_SIZE from 1,000,000 bytes to 2,000,000 bytes; the rest of the changes are needed by miners so they know whether it is safe to produce bigger blocks.

a node can easily do the 1-line change and it will accept and relay blocks <2mb, but most other nodes will see it as invalid and not relay them, hence making mining >2mb infeasible. Thats why it makes sense to include a "trigger" so that the client only accepts <1MB until the 2MB rule change is implemented. Otherwise XT would have made a few dozen 1-2 block chainforks already (before switching back to the main longest chain). The consensus mechanism only ensures that the 2mb fork will be successful when activated 28days after 75% majority.

The rest of 899 lines are just for consensus check and for unit tests, but the actual block size change is still one line if we assume there are exactly 0 bad actors. And in my scenario where everyone gets sick of Core and simply want to fork away with >1MB blocks there are 0 bad players in the ecosystem. At least that's how I see a split would take place.

As for core; I like thier roadmap. segwit has benefits to offer but they may be smaller and further away then currently anticipated, in the face of a growing network. Other improvements of the code that are planned are also generally quite good, but without an actual blocksize scaling event its easy to envision a path where blockstream is dedicated to making bitcoin a high-fee settlement layer with massive segwit sideblocks that power sidechains and lightning. Its a good direction, but I disagree with limiting bitcoin in its infancy to a 1mb limit that has gone without incident for years around improved computing and networking, particularly as it makes blockstream's business model more attractive

I firmly beleive in segwit+2mb and i think theres a developing similar consensus. in fact, segwit could make 2mb blocks much simpler by removing the complex validation needs of a small-but-many-signatures transaction.

If we agree that the segwit brings much more benefits for the long term than a 2MB block then I think that having segwit happen as fast as possible is the correct choice. A 2MB block now would only benefit the block space, while the segwit brings us so much more!

its quite simple, you can identify your client  (such as  classic-0.11.2.b1) and you can view node count at https://coin.dance/nodes  (IIRC they filter out nodes if they detect multiple on a single address (ie: someone pretending to run 10 nodes on one computer)). If you are a miner, you can follow BIP009 to include a modified versionbits, or you could simply include a message or code in the coinbase transaction (almost every miner out there does this already, and many even include BIP100 voting tags)

hashrate is pretty much the most secure method of voting as it requires control over bitcoin mining. Of course, only miners can vote this way.

How do you fraud proof if you identify by client version?
How would votes count? How much weight would miners have? Do they have 1 vote per entity?
There are so many questions that I could raise about this voting system that we can drag this for a very long time. I don't think that you could correctly weight every stakeholder in the ecosystem in order to have a voting mechanism in place. I think that we have so much diversity starting from the average Joe who has no idea about what the system is capable or not to the miners who operate large scale mining operations while running on a very thin margins to businesses who offer various services on the existing network. How do you make the difference between them in order to have a correct voting system?

H/w Hosting Directory & Reputation - https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=622998.0
Pages: « 1 ... 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!