Bitcoin Forum
December 05, 2016, 08:56:33 PM *
News: To be able to use the next phase of the beta forum software, please ensure that your email address is correct/functional.
 
   Home   Help Search Donate Login Register  
Poll
Question: Will you support Gavin's new block size limit hard fork of 8MB by January 1, 2016 then doubling every 2 years?
1.  yes
2.  no

Pages: « 1 ... 933 934 935 936 937 938 939 940 941 942 943 944 945 946 947 948 949 950 951 952 953 954 955 956 957 958 959 960 961 962 963 964 965 966 967 968 969 970 971 972 973 974 975 976 977 978 979 980 981 982 [983] 984 985 986 987 988 989 990 991 992 993 994 995 996 997 998 999 1000 1001 1002 1003 1004 1005 1006 1007 1008 1009 1010 1011 1012 1013 1014 1015 1016 1017 1018 1019 1020 1021 1022 1023 1024 1025 1026 1027 1028 1029 1030 1031 1032 1033 ... 1560 »
  Print  
Author Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.  (Read 1804783 times)
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
January 04, 2015, 10:03:08 PM
 #19641

Yet this from you:

what is this bizarro world where any ledger of ownership qualifies as a blockchain  Huh

You have spoken at length about federated servers without ever actually understanding how they work.

Why should I take your opinion seriously or even consider your attacks on sidechains if I cannot trust anymore whether or not you grok them?

This discussion has been all over the place and plastered with comments and critiques from people who have apparently not even taken a minute to understand the concepts behind the sidechain technology.

What's more concerning is the actions of others who are blindly supporting these assertions and increasing the confusion.

I appreciate the contributions of most here, especially Adam but some would really benefit from stepping outside this cacophony and sharpen their understanding instead of adding to the noise.

It doesn't change any of the conclusions I've made. We've talked about this many times and you've never bothered to clarify the concept so I doubt you understand any better than the rest of us. Your noise to signal ratio is so high.
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1480971393
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1480971393

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1480971393
Reply with quote  #2

1480971393
Report to moderator
1480971393
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1480971393

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1480971393
Reply with quote  #2

1480971393
Report to moderator
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
January 04, 2015, 10:35:37 PM
 #19642


And confirmed by Odalv, your partner in crime.

You are so confused. :-)

actually i think you are incredibly confused since you're trying to secure all these supposed federated server SC's you claim are running with minimal MM'ing.  you should let me know where these are located so i can go perform a 51% and destroy them  Grin
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
January 04, 2015, 10:48:00 PM
 #19643

 It doesn't matter how the back-end of a sidechain happens to work, and there are a vast number of possibilities (that's one of the main points of sidechains!)  

if that's how you view SC's then we don't need them.
JorgeStolfi
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 868



View Profile
January 04, 2015, 10:51:33 PM
 #19644

Please let me try again to spread my ignorance about sidechains.  Grin

Perhaps the sidechains project could be renamed "ways in which the bitcoin network (BCN) can interact with other internet services, and how the bitcoin protocol (BCP) would have to be modified to allow them".  These "other services" being the "sidechains".

Different people have different ideas of what sort of services would qualify for "sidechains", but let's not focus on that, focus instead on the interactions.  In order to exclude those variable assumptions, I will use the term "bitcoin-dependent service" (BDS) instead of "sidechain".

I gather that there are at least three kinds of interactions that are being discussed:

1. Bitcoins may be somehow be "moved"  from the BTC blockchain to the BDS, who would handle them in some way, and eventually "return" them to the BTC blockchain.  

   This kind of interaction does not seem to require any change in the BCP
   or the BCN, and in fact is routinely used by exchanges
   and other similar services.   It would suffice to move the coins
   to BTC addresses whose private keys are known and
   managed by the BDS. To "return" the coins, the BDS
   would have only to sign transactions out of those
   addresses.
  
   The BDS is free to manage the private keys of its
   addresses any way it sees fit. The BDS may allow its
   users to generate those addresses and keep the keys, or
   it may keep the keys in its central servers, or it may
   use the standard bitcoin multisig mechanism, etc.
  
   Thus the bitcoin network does not even need to know that
   the BDS exists; and this use of the BCN by the BDS is
   "fair use" by tradition and design.

2. The BDS may exploit the power of the BCN to secure its data structures against tampering or rewind

   This interaction too does not seem to require any
   additional mechanism in the BCN or the BCP. The BDS
   computes a SHA hash of the data it wants to secure, and
   sends to the BCN a transaction request containing that
   hash, possibly disguised.  Once the transaction is
   included in the bitcoin blockchain, anyone can detect if
   the original data is posted by the BDS and has
   not been tampered with.
  
   The BDS could do this operation at a rate higher than the
   bitcoin block rate, in which case each bitcoin block will
   contain several of those hashes. However, BDS users wishing
   to verify the hashes would still have to wait for the
   next bitcoin block, and possibly several blocks. These
   BDS hashes may be Merkle-chained and combined with any
   Byzantine generals mechanism by the BDS to achieve other
   kinds of security.  The BCN does not need to know that.
  
   One thing "morally wrong" with this solution is that it
   is "parasitic": the BDS would enjoy, almost for free,
   the same level of  security against tampering that would
   otherwise require a separate network with the same power
   of the BCN. The BDS would have to pay a transaction fee
   to the BCN for each stamp, but the fees currently are
   negligible compared to  the cost of the BCN. That is an
   unfortunate consequence of the BCP, that offloads
   the cost of the BCN to the the buyers of new bitcoins.
  
3. The BDS could use the full power of the BCN to implement its own PoW mechanisms by merged mining

   I don't understand enough of the discussion to tell
   whether this kind of interaction would provide more
   utility to the BDS than item 2 above, but let's suppose
   it does.  On the other hand, it would provide more
   incentives to the BCN, though which may be important
   if the rewards and fees derived from bitcoin mining
   were to dwindle.
  
   If I understood correctly, in the simplest scheme each
   node in the BCN would collect work requests from the
   affiliated BDSes. Each request would contain a hash of some
   arbitrary data that the BDS wants to secure. The node
   assembles a bitcoin block containing some bitcoin
   transactions and those BDS hashes, and then tries to solve
   the PoW puzzle for that block, as in the current
   protocol.

   Each work request would also specify an
   associated difficulty level and a reward value, either in
   bitcoins or in some tokens defined by the BDS. The bitcoin block
   itself would be one of those requests. As the node keeps
   working, its best solution will satisfy an increasing
   subset of the work requests. At any moment the node may
   decide to stop, collect the rewards it has won, and start
   all over, or continue trying to find a better solution.
   To claim the rewards the node sends the whole bitcoin
   block, with the best nonce, to each BDS in that subset.
  
   Is this a vaguely correct description of merged mining?
  
   If so, I suppose that some nontrivial mechanism/protocol
   would be needed to ensure that the affiliated BDSes pay
   the promised rewards, either in BTC or in their own
   tokens.  Would this require a change in the BCP?
  
   Merged mining would proveide an incentive for miners to service
   all BDSes that pay enough rewards.  The BDSes, in turn, would again
   get the power of the full BCN for a fraction of the cost.
   Indeed, merge mining would support a larger network than
   could be supported by bitcoin alone.  

   A BDS could get faster turnaround than bitcoin's (say 1 request
   every 10 seconds) by specifying a lower difficulty and
   proportionally lower reward.
  
   A possible "danger" that I see in this idea is that
   bitcoin itself would be just a BDS like any other
   (except that it dictates the format of the solved block,
   which the other BDSs would have to accept). Thus the
   miners may eventually abandon bitcoin if it is not
   profitable enough compared with the other BDSes.
  
Does this make any sense?

Academic interest in bitcoin only. Not owner, not trader, very skeptical of its longterm success.
Odalv
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1064



View Profile
January 04, 2015, 10:55:54 PM
 #19645


And confirmed by Odalv, your partner in crime.

You are so confused. :-)

actually i think you are incredibly confused since you're trying to secure all these supposed federated server SC's you claim are running with minimal MM'ing.  you should let me know where these are located so i can go perform a 51% and destroy them  Grin

You do not understand tech. :-)
 - 1 timestamp is equal to 100% MM
 - SC can use POS or login to central server ... I really do not need to share my blockchain with 7B unknown people. (I work together with only few people, and do shopping in less than 100 local shops )
brg444
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 630

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks


View Profile
January 04, 2015, 11:02:47 PM
 #19646

Please let me try again to spread my ignorance about sidechains.  Grin

Perhaps the sidechains project could be renamed "ways in which the bitcoin network (BCN) can interact with other internet services, and how the bitcoin protocol (BCP) would have to be modified to allow them".  These "other services" being the "sidechains".

Different people have different ideas of what sort of services would qualify for "sidechains", but let's not focus on that, focus instead on the interactions.  In order to exclude those variable assumptions, I will use the term "bitcoin-dependent service" (BDS) instead of "sidechain".

I gather that there are at least three kinds of interactions that are being discussed:

1. Bitcoins may be somehow be "moved"  from the BTC blockchain to the BDS, who would handle them in some way, and eventually "return" them to the BTC blockchain.  

   This kind of interaction does not seem to require any change in the BCP
   or the BCN, and in fact is routinely used by exchanges
   and other similar services.   It would suffice to move the coins
   to BTC addresses whose private keys are known and
   managed by the BDS. To "return" the coins, the BDS
   would have only to sign transactions out of those
   addresses.
  
   The BDS is free to manage the private keys of its
   addresses any way it sees fit. The BDS may allow its
   users to generate those addresses and keep the keys, or
   it may keep the keys in its central servers, or it may
   use the standard bitcoin multisig mechanism, etc.
  
   Thus the bitcoin network does not even need to know that
   the BDS exists; and this use of the BCN by the BDS is
   "fair use" by tradition and design

I'm sorry but these are not sidechains. In this scenario there exist only one blockchain, Bitcoin's, where the units are stored/assigned to wallets and not a secondary blockchain.

Exchanges for example have multiple wallets storing their clients' fund and an internal ledger of ownership that determines how much bitcoins every clients are storing.

"I believe this will be the ultimate fate of Bitcoin, to be the "high-powered money" that serves as a reserve currency for banks that issue their own digital cash." Hal Finney, Dec. 2010
tvbcof
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1974


View Profile
January 04, 2015, 11:14:12 PM
 #19647

 It doesn't matter how the back-end of a sidechain happens to work, and there are a vast number of possibilities (that's one of the main points of sidechains!)  

if that's how you view SC's then we don't need them.

Looks like you've been reduced to utter babble as best I can tell.  You must have had a peek at my question and it fused your couple dozen neurons together.


JorgeStolfi
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 868



View Profile
January 04, 2015, 11:33:48 PM
 #19648

I gather that there are at least three kinds of interactions that are being discussed:
1. Bitcoins may be somehow be "moved"  from the BTC blockchain to the BDS, who would handle them in some way, and eventually "return" them to the BTC blockchain.  
I'm sorry but these are not sidechains. In this scenario there exist only one blockchain, Bitcoin's, where the units are stored/assigned to wallets and not a secondary blockchain.
Exchanges for example have multiple wallets storing their clients' fund and an internal ledger of ownership that determines how much bitcoins every clients are storing.

Sorry, I was not clear.  The three items I listed are not alternative views of "sidechains", but three independent interaction mechanisms that would together comprise the "sidechains proposal".  (Or perhaps only 1+2, or 1+3 if 2 is superfluous once one has 3).

My understanding is that interactions of type 1 and 2 do not require a change in protocol or in the mining software, and in fact the bitcoin network cannot prevent them.  I suppose that interactions of type 3 (merged mining) would require restructuring of the BCN but no change in the BCP, and each miner would be free to choose which "sidechains" it wants to merge-mine.

Academic interest in bitcoin only. Not owner, not trader, very skeptical of its longterm success.
adam3us
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 400


in bitcoin we trust


View Profile WWW
January 04, 2015, 11:40:48 PM
 #19649

I said what on the thread that you trimmed Smiley  security...
I though you meant one particular method of doing 100k tps was insecure, not the mere fact of achieving that rate.

Can you explain what about higher transaction rates inherently makes the blockchain less secure?

You probably didnt read what I said about pettycoin, nor the 1hr video where Rusty Russel explains it at a conference.

It is the particular approach to sharding that makes it less secure, to reduce bandwidth.  He proposes to shard it 100 ways and have each node only validate two shards, but mine all 100 via (the other 98 blind assuming the other miners are not cheating, they have a way to prove fraud, so long as no one succeeds to jam them)

Not directly less secure, but indirectly Bitcoin security also relies on decentralisation and that'd be a 15 GB block, and not many people have enough bandwidth to do that.  (And sharding it is also less secure).

Snarks could do something but we cant rely on this yet IMO and I am not sure if they're fast enough to keep up computationally.

Quote from: JustusRanvier
Seems he does not understand what is "100k TPS".

100,000 transactions * 260 bytes * 60 seconds * 60 minutes * 24 hours = 2 246 400 000 000 bytes per day  =  2.25 TB / day
Yes, I can do math.

What's your point?

That if your home computer had to do 2.25TB/day down to be a full node you might not be able to do it, which is a centralising factor.

Adam

hashcash, committed transactions, homomorphic values, blind kdf; researching decentralization, scalability and fungibility/anonymity
adam3us
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 400


in bitcoin we trust


View Profile WWW
January 04, 2015, 11:53:05 PM
 #19650

Quote from: adam3us
With federated peg there is a real side-chain, including mining, consensus rules etc and then the federated peg servers act as a protocol adaptor - the peg servers are full nodes on the side-chain, and pegged coins are paid to their multisig address (eg 10 of 15) and the side-chain fullnodes and miners watch the multisig address on the bitcoin network, and coins arriving there count as a peg to put coins into the side-chain; and when the side-chain hashrate majority approves a return peg to reanimate a coin, the federated pegs are watching the side-chain as they are full nodes there too, so they release the funds to the address the return peg tells them to.

Ok, this is new info to all of here who assumed federated server implementations of SC's were just that, server based only,  without blockchains. This sounds more like a Ripple type system with gateways and a blockchain.  

Yeah  you know now you point it out, that is not super clear in the appendix A (that the thing being protocol adapted is a full side-chain), it justs says

"The key observation is that any enhancement to Bitcoin Script can be implemented externally by
having a trusted federation of mutually distrusting functionaries13 evaluate the script and accept by
signing for an ordinary multisignature script. That is, the functionaries act as a protocol adaptor by
evaluating the same rules we would have wanted Bitcoin to evaluate, but cannot for lack of script
enhancements. Using this we can achieve a federated peg."

I did say earlier protocol adaptor but I see in hindsight "insufficient information"!

Adam

hashcash, committed transactions, homomorphic values, blind kdf; researching decentralization, scalability and fungibility/anonymity
adam3us
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 400


in bitcoin we trust


View Profile WWW
January 05, 2015, 12:09:28 AM
 #19651

There are many brilliant people working on crypto technologies, but they are so in love with the technology and with their own ideas, they neglect to consider how their academic, theoretical work may apply to the world of finance. After all, bitcoin directly relates to finance.

I agree, and have had that discussion with a number of people on this, with me doing the pointing out.  We have some advisors/investors who know a thing or two about finance & economics.  We plan hire an economist and/or finance wizard (who can be trusted!) in due course.

Quote from: MarketNeutral
At this point, I think it's very important for people working on Bitcoin, sidechains, and all blockchain-related technologies, whatever they may be, to clearly state in lay terms WHY their work is important and necessary, which is to say, what problems their proposed solutions solve. Satoshi was very good at this.

The thread is kind of long, but it was explained at some point that the problem is it is hard to change code with $ billions of irrescindable ecash sitting on it so core changes have focussed on maintenance, cleanup refactoring, security as well as the odd new feature.  There are many features people would like to have, even including basic needed features, that can not realistically be included into bitcoin-main, or not any time soon, some examples being zerocash, snark-contracts, high volume micropayments, native issued assets at least without some environment to gain an understanding of their behavior.  Similarly its difficult to do hard-forks (major upgrade) because there is no live-beta mechanism.  The sidechain was proposed to solve this set of problems.

Adam

hashcash, committed transactions, homomorphic values, blind kdf; researching decentralization, scalability and fungibility/anonymity
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
January 05, 2015, 12:30:44 AM
 #19652


And confirmed by Odalv, your partner in crime.

You are so confused. :-)

actually i think you are incredibly confused since you're trying to secure all these supposed federated server SC's you claim are running with minimal MM'ing.  you should let me know where these are located so i can go perform a 51% and destroy them  Grin

You do not understand tech. :-)
 - 1 timestamp is equal to 100% MM
 - SC can use POS or login to central server ... I really do not need to share my blockchain with 7B unknown people. (I work together with only few people, and do shopping in less than 100 local shops )

i think you do not understand SC's OR Bitcoin. :-)

there is no reason for a private coalition of central servers to adopt a blockchain to secure its data.  it's a waste and insecure.  let's say you have 10 centralized server businesses (federated servers) in your local area securing your blockchain and with whom you do business.  one of them, unbeknownst to you, is the head of Discus Fish.  once your local blockchain acquires enough scBTC, one day you'll wake up and they will be all gone.
Odalv
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1064



View Profile
January 05, 2015, 12:48:30 AM
 #19653


And confirmed by Odalv, your partner in crime.

You are so confused. :-)

actually i think you are incredibly confused since you're trying to secure all these supposed federated server SC's you claim are running with minimal MM'ing.  you should let me know where these are located so i can go perform a 51% and destroy them  Grin

You do not understand tech. :-)
 - 1 timestamp is equal to 100% MM
 - SC can use POS or login to central server ... I really do not need to share my blockchain with 7B unknown people. (I work together with only few people, and do shopping in less than 100 local shops )

i think you do not understand SC's OR Bitcoin. :-)

there is no reason for a private coalition of central servers to adopt a blockchain to secure its data.  it's a waste and insecure.  let's say you have 10 centralized server businesses (federated servers) in your local area securing your blockchain and with whom you do business.  one of them, unbeknownst to you, is the head of Discus Fish.  once your local blockchain acquires enough scBTC, one day you'll wake up and they will be all gone.

It is not possible because I'll hire you as my personal SC advisor.

Edit:
And we will siphon all bitcoin from Discus Fish into my SC. :-)
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
January 05, 2015, 01:01:42 AM
 #19654


And confirmed by Odalv, your partner in crime.

You are so confused. :-)

actually i think you are incredibly confused since you're trying to secure all these supposed federated server SC's you claim are running with minimal MM'ing.  you should let me know where these are located so i can go perform a 51% and destroy them  Grin

You do not understand tech. :-)
 - 1 timestamp is equal to 100% MM
 - SC can use POS or login to central server ... I really do not need to share my blockchain with 7B unknown people. (I work together with only few people, and do shopping in less than 100 local shops )

i think you do not understand SC's OR Bitcoin. :-)

there is no reason for a private coalition of central servers to adopt a blockchain to secure its data.  it's a waste and insecure.  let's say you have 10 centralized server businesses (federated servers) in your local area securing your blockchain and with whom you do business.  one of them, unbeknownst to you, is the head of Discus Fish.  once your local blockchain acquires enough scBTC, one day you'll wake up and they will be all gone.

It is not possible because I'll hire you as my personal SC advisor.

Edit:
And we will siphon all bitcoin from Discus Fish into my SC. :-)

no offense, but it is difficult talking to you about this with all the sarcasm. 

Adam, is there a problem with my logic?
MarketNeutral
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 364


View Profile
January 05, 2015, 01:43:20 AM
 #19655

There are many brilliant people working on crypto technologies, but they are so in love with the technology and with their own ideas, they neglect to consider how their academic, theoretical work may apply to the world of finance. After all, bitcoin directly relates to finance.

I agree, and have had that discussion with a number of people on this, with me doing the pointing out.  We have some advisors/investors who know a thing or two about finance & economics.  We plan hire an economist and/or finance wizard (who can be trusted!) in due course.

Quote from: MarketNeutral
At this point, I think it's very important for people working on Bitcoin, sidechains, and all blockchain-related technologies, whatever they may be, to clearly state in lay terms WHY their work is important and necessary, which is to say, what problems their proposed solutions solve. Satoshi was very good at this.

The thread is kind of long, but it was explained at some point that the problem is it is hard to change code with $ billions of irrescindable ecash sitting on it so core changes have focussed on maintenance, cleanup refactoring, security as well as the odd new feature.  There are many features people would like to have, even including basic needed features, that can not realistically be included into bitcoin-main, or not any time soon, some examples being zerocash, snark-contracts, high volume micropayments, native issued assets at least without some environment to gain an understanding of their behavior.  Similarly its difficult to do hard-forks (major upgrade) because there is no live-beta mechanism.  The sidechain was proposed to solve this set of problems.

Adam


Keep up the great work, Adam.
Adrian-x
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1330



View Profile
January 05, 2015, 04:56:12 AM
 #19656


That if your home computer had to do 2.25TB/day down to be a full node you might not be able to do it, which is a centralising factor.

Adam

Lets put problems in perspective, when I'm faced with the problem of managing 2.2TB/day in Bitcoin tx's the value stored in my 10 BTC that I've held onto all this time will take my hobby to a whole new level.

Building that data storage system would be a labour of love many will do it just to make sure there 10 BTC are secure.

Thank me in Bits 12MwnzxtprG2mHm3rKdgi7NmJKCypsMMQw
brg444
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 630

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks


View Profile
January 05, 2015, 05:12:52 AM
 #19657


That if your home computer had to do 2.25TB/day down to be a full node you might not be able to do it, which is a centralising factor.

Adam

Lets put problems in perspective, when I'm faced with the problem of managing 2.2TB/day in Bitcoin tx's the value stored in my 10 BTC that I've held onto all this time will take my hobby to a whole new level.

Building that data storage system would be a labour of love many will do it just to make sure there 10 BTC are secure.

The problem is not so much the storage. Bandwidth is where you'll run into a bottleneck

"I believe this will be the ultimate fate of Bitcoin, to be the "high-powered money" that serves as a reserve currency for banks that issue their own digital cash." Hal Finney, Dec. 2010
solex
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1078


100 satoshis -> ISO code


View Profile
January 05, 2015, 05:28:05 AM
 #19658


That if your home computer had to do 2.25TB/day down to be a full node you might not be able to do it, which is a centralising factor.

Adam

Lets put problems in perspective, when I'm faced with the problem of managing 2.2TB/day in Bitcoin tx's the value stored in my 10 BTC that I've held onto all this time will take my hobby to a whole new level.

Building that data storage system would be a labour of love many will do it just to make sure there 10 BTC are secure.

Exactly.
And, the demand to support 100k TPS will not happen anytime soon, maybe two or three decades from now. I remember, about 1990, buying 30MB hard disk drives and thinking they held a lot of data. 2TB is common today, and by the 2030s high density optical data storage could be standard:

Quote
In this paper, we present a review of the recent advancements in nanophotonics-enabled optical storage techniques. Particularly, we offer our perspective of using them as optical storage arrays for next-generation exabyte data centers.
http://www.nature.com/lsa/journal/v3/n5/full/lsa201458a.html

The problem is not so much the storage. Bandwidth is where you'll run into a bottleneck

With that, IBLT can slash bandwidth requirements by at least 2 orders of magnitude. Only full node bootstrapping and re-sync will remain bandwidth intensive.

STT
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1190



View Profile WWW
January 05, 2015, 05:32:02 AM
 #19659

Two terabytes of data has a cost of transportation to it, there has to be some feedback into the coin at some point.    It would not be worth propagating that data without a decent set worth like bitcoin has, alot of the side chain coins arent really worth much so how could they be mixed in at some cost like this

smooth
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1246



View Profile
January 05, 2015, 05:36:50 AM
 #19660

2TB is common today

Make that 4 TB while you weren't paying attention.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16822178338

6 and 8 TB are also available, but more expensive. 12 TB coming in a few weeks.
Pages: « 1 ... 933 934 935 936 937 938 939 940 941 942 943 944 945 946 947 948 949 950 951 952 953 954 955 956 957 958 959 960 961 962 963 964 965 966 967 968 969 970 971 972 973 974 975 976 977 978 979 980 981 982 [983] 984 985 986 987 988 989 990 991 992 993 994 995 996 997 998 999 1000 1001 1002 1003 1004 1005 1006 1007 1008 1009 1010 1011 1012 1013 1014 1015 1016 1017 1018 1019 1020 1021 1022 1023 1024 1025 1026 1027 1028 1029 1030 1031 1032 1033 ... 1560 »
  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!