Bitcoin Forum
November 21, 2017, 04:31:13 PM *
News: Latest stable version of Bitcoin Core: 0.15.1  [Torrent].
 
   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 ... 1400 1401 1402 1403 1404 1405 1406 1407 1408 1409 1410 1411 1412 1413 1414 1415 1416 1417 1418 1419 1420 1421 1422 1423 1424 1425 1426 1427 1428 1429 1430 1431 1432 1433 1434 1435 1436 1437 1438 1439 1440 1441 1442 1443 1444 1445 1446 1447 1448 1449 [1450] 1451 1452 1453 1454 1455 1456 1457 1458 1459 1460 1461 1462 1463 1464 1465 1466 1467 1468 1469 1470 1471 1472 1473 1474 1475 1476 1477 1478 1479 1480 1481 1482 1483 1484 1485 1486 1487 1488 1489 1490 1491 1492 1493 1494 1495 1496 1497 1498 1499 1500 ... 1558 »
  Print  
Author Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.  (Read 2010835 times)
TheRealSteve
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 686

FUN > ROI


View Profile
July 18, 2015, 04:15:19 PM
 #28981

GHash.IO was indeed scary looking at that time (briefly over 50% of the hashing power).  But, I was not well hooked into BTC mining talk.  What happened?  Did a bunch of hardware owners switch to other miners?

There were fears Ghash.io was reaching 51% in the past.. the first time people were discouraged from using, and some left... but most (and a good chunk of this was BitFury) stayed, and eventually people came back.  The second time around BitFury ended up leaving, and then more people left until it was almost completely marginalized.



Thanks, and sorry for the O/T.
Have you seen the thread title lately?  I don't think this thread has been particularly on-topic in quite a while.  cypherdoc tried, valiantly, to bring it back on topic a page back Smiley

1511281873
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1511281873

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1511281873
Reply with quote  #2

1511281873
Report to moderator
1511281873
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1511281873

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1511281873
Reply with quote  #2

1511281873
Report to moderator
Join ICO Now A blockchain platform for effective freelancing
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1511281873
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1511281873

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1511281873
Reply with quote  #2

1511281873
Report to moderator
OROBTC
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1316



View Profile
July 18, 2015, 04:19:59 PM
 #28982

...

There it is, thanks TheRealSteve!  BitFury, ahh...

OK, well let me not be guilty (not guilty at least once), and brings us back on topic:

Gold, bitchez!  (BTC too, I would be happy to see BTC rise even faster)

cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
July 18, 2015, 04:23:41 PM
 #28983

Have you seen the thread title lately?  I don't think this thread has been particularly on-topic in quite a while.  cypherdoc tried, valiantly, to bring it back on topic a page back Smiley

given that gold is entering the next crisis phase, i don't think that will be particularly hard.
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
July 18, 2015, 04:30:10 PM
 #28984



There were fears Ghash.io was reaching 51% in the past.. the first time people were discouraged from using, and some left... but most (and a good chunk of this was BitFury) stayed, and eventually people came back.  The second time around BitFury ended up leaving, and then more people left until it was almost completely marginalized.


that's a very accurate description of what happened and a lesson that is greatly underappreciated by the community.

as i've said many times since then, i think that was the very last time we'll see any miner approaching anywhere near 50% as Bitcoin and the mining industry has grown significantly more decentralized since that time as the charts so well show.  and this is why i hate it when guys like gmax and the other BS devs go around stating as fact that mining is centralized as justification for fixing Bitcoin with offchain solutions like SC's and LN.  this is the crux of my issues with them; their bearishness and view of the space as something that needs to be changed.
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
July 18, 2015, 06:22:30 PM
 #28985



There were fears Ghash.io was reaching 51% in the past.. the first time people were discouraged from using, and some left... but most (and a good chunk of this was BitFury) stayed, and eventually people came back.  The second time around BitFury ended up leaving, and then more people left until it was almost completely marginalized.


that's a very accurate description of what happened and a lesson that is greatly underappreciated by the community.

as i've said many times since then, i think that was the very last time we'll see any miner approaching anywhere near 50% as Bitcoin and the mining industry has grown significantly more decentralized since that time as the charts so well show.  and this is why i hate it when guys like gmax and the other BS devs go around stating as fact that mining is centralized as justification for fixing Bitcoin with offchain solutions like SC's and LN.  this is the crux of my issues with them; their bearishness and view of the space as something that needs to be changed.

as evidence of this, right now, Discus is showing 16% of the network while BTCChina is 17%.

TheRealSteve
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 686

FUN > ROI


View Profile
July 18, 2015, 06:35:03 PM
 #28986

Instantaneous measurements are pretty iffy, but yes, hash rate seems reasonably distributed over a 1 week period.. albeit primarily skewed toward pools in a single country and a few private companies.

tvbcof
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2324


View Profile
July 18, 2015, 06:37:40 PM
 #28987


as evidence of this, right now, Discus is showing 16% of the network while BTCChina is 17%.

http://i.imgur.com/kPsKq5R.png

A pool once got around 50% of the mining and fritzed everyone out.  The most obvious and common sense thing large miners could have done was to break apart their 'empire' at least on paper so they could mitigate concerns along these lines going forward.  It's almost inconceivable that this would not have happened.  Cypherdoc and other blatant propagandists studiously ignore this possibility.  What sets cypherdoc (Generalissimo, Free Shit Army) apart is that he continues to rely heavily on charts and graphics which are supposed to somehow prove that mining consolidation is not a threat and is not likely to every be because Huh.

Cypherdoc's work when he now known to be shilling (using the term formally) was pretty basic and obvious.  Even had I discovered the work in real-time rather than after the fact I would have characterized it as so.  He is not known to be shilling for those who seek to bloat Bitcoin at present but his methods are similarly simplistic to the point of being laughable.


justusranvier
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1400



View Profile WWW
July 18, 2015, 06:47:08 PM
 #28988

A pool once got around 50% of the mining and fritzed everyone out.  The most obvious and common sense thing large miners could have done was to break apart their 'empire' at least on paper so they could mitigate concerns along these lines going forward.  It's almost inconceivable that this would not have happened.  Cypherdoc and other blatant propagandists studiously ignore this possibility.  What sets cypherdoc (Generalissimo, Free Shit Army) apart is that he continues to rely heavily on charts and graphics which are supposed to somehow prove that mining consolidation is not a threat and is not likely to every be because Huh.

Cypherdoc's work when he now known to be shilling (using the term formally) was pretty basic and obvious.  Even had I discovered the work in real-time rather than after the fact I would have characterized it as so.  He is not known to be shilling for those who seek to bloat Bitcoin at present but his methods are similarly simplistic to the point of being laughable.
I'm not sure what kind of goal you're espousing here.

Is a single owning a lot of hashing power intrinsically harmful because it's wrong somehow, or is the actual problem the attacks someone might perform which are made easier by owning a lot of hashing power?

If it's the latter, then if miners who own a lot of hashing power are forced to behave in the exact same why they'd behave if they had less hashing power in order to avoid a financial loss, and in particular give up control over their hashing power to multiple entities such that they are not in a position to conduct an attack, why is that not a perfectly valid solution to the problem?
TheRealSteve
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 686

FUN > ROI


View Profile
July 18, 2015, 07:10:01 PM
 #28989

The concern with over-reliance on statistics (lies, damn lies, etc.) is that a single entity could have their hash rate split up among several pools, slowly building out to well over 50%, without anybody really noticing.  Then if for any reason they wanted to attack the network or a specific pool or a specific idea, they could do so by consolidating their hash power back their own command.  So while having that single entity spread out their hash rate is a good thing, it's not so much a solution to the problem as it is obscuring the fact that there is a problem in the first place.  Thus the emphasis on 'seems' in my post.

Whether a single entity having a majority of the network is an actual problem or an academic one (until actual abuse occurs) is another matter, but a single entity is much easier to influence by outside actors even if the entity itself has no ill will.

cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
July 18, 2015, 07:42:32 PM
 #28990


as evidence of this, right now, Discus is showing 16% of the network while BTCChina is 17%.

http://i.imgur.com/kPsKq5R.png

A pool once got around 50% of the mining and fritzed everyone out.  The most obvious and common sense thing large miners could have done was to break apart their 'empire' at least on paper so they could mitigate concerns along these lines going forward.  It's almost inconceivable that this would not have happened.  Cypherdoc and other blatant propagandists studiously ignore this possibility.  What sets cypherdoc (Generalissimo, Free Shit Army) apart is that he continues to rely heavily on charts and graphics which are supposed to somehow prove that mining consolidation is not a threat and is not likely to every be because Huh.

Cypherdoc's work when he now known to be shilling (using the term formally) was pretty basic and obvious.  Even had I discovered the work in real-time rather than after the fact I would have characterized it as so.  He is not known to be shilling for those who seek to bloat Bitcoin at present but his methods are similarly simplistic to the point of being laughable.



yeah, and the flip side of your criticism of me is that you are an overly pessimistic and conspiratorial troll who thinks we're headed towards a totalitarian regime that dominates the masses.  Occam's Razor applies perfectly well here to mining.  what we see in the charts is what we get, afaic.  one needs to weigh the fundamentals of the industry, the free mkt that Bitcoin allows, the open source nature of the code, the mathematics behind mining, the geopolitical distribution of the mining industry, and the massive profit potential of what Bitcoin offers, and what is going on in the fiat & pm world in determining whether what we see in the charts i present is real.  i think it is.

yes, i think there is so much freely floating fiat out there in the world today that it would be close to impossible for a single owner to achieve close to 50% of the hashrate today.  it would simply cost too much and there are too many entities with very deep pockets to dominate the industry.  and how is a gvt supposed to be able to deanonymize separate but single owned pools while all of us in the industry can't, let alone subvert them for an attack?  the stakes are just too high for a single pool to risk what happened to ghash by playing dirty.
iCEBREAKER
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1834


[LOL2X]


View Profile WWW
July 18, 2015, 11:31:00 PM
 #28991


Birds of a free shit army feather flock together.

I am not shocked to find Generalissimo Frap.doc of the FSA pushing the anti-gold Keynesian 'barbarous relic'/Bernankian 'not real money' party line.

He just wants to add our gold to his stash, on the cheap.



6,000 years of civilization say Frap.doc is full of it (it being hubris).


██████████
█████████████████
██████████████████████
█████████████████████████
████████████████████████████
████
████████████████████████
█████
███████████████████████████
█████
███████████████████████████
██████
████████████████████████████
██████
████████████████████████████
██████
████████████████████████████
██████
███████████████████████████
██████
██████████████████████████
█████
███████████████████████████
█████████████
██████████████
████████████████████████████
█████████████████████████
██████████████████████
█████████████████
██████████

Monero
"The difference between bad and well-developed digital cash will determine
whether we have a dictatorship or a real democracy." 
David Chaum 1996
"Fungibility provides privacy as a side effect."  Adam Back 2014
Buy and sell XMR near you
P2P Exchange Network
Buy XMR with fiat
smooth
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1596



View Profile
July 18, 2015, 11:39:47 PM
 #28992

Occam's Razor applies perfectly well here to mining.

Sure it does, and the simplest explanation is simply that huge miners hide their scary network % by breaking them up. Anything else requires a convoluted and unlikely explanation to negate the natural economies of scale for industrial mining.
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
July 18, 2015, 11:49:50 PM
 #28993

Occam's Razor applies perfectly well here to mining.



Sure it does, and the simplest explanation is simply that huge miners hide their scary network % by breaking them up. Anything else requires a convoluted and unlikely explanation to negate the natural economies of scale for industrial mining.


So why haven't they attacked?
brg444
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 644

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks


View Profile
July 18, 2015, 11:53:25 PM
 #28994

Occam's Razor applies perfectly well here to mining.



Sure it does, and the simplest explanation is simply that huge miners hide their scary network % by breaking them up. Anything else requires a convoluted and unlikely explanation to negate the natural economies of scale for industrial mining.


So why haven't they attacked?

Because they have no incentive to? You do know that's how the game works right?

"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
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
July 18, 2015, 11:57:14 PM
 #28995

Occam's Razor applies perfectly well here to mining.



Sure it does, and the simplest explanation is simply that huge miners hide their scary network % by breaking them up. Anything else requires a convoluted and unlikely explanation to negate the natural economies of scale for industrial mining.


So why haven't they attacked?

Because they have no incentive to? You do know that's how the game works right?

Why don't you explain it to us?
brg444
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 644

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks


View Profile
July 19, 2015, 12:00:06 AM
 #28996

Occam's Razor applies perfectly well here to mining.



Sure it does, and the simplest explanation is simply that huge miners hide their scary network % by breaking them up. Anything else requires a convoluted and unlikely explanation to negate the natural economies of scale for industrial mining.


So why haven't they attacked?

Because they have no incentive to? You do know that's how the game works right?

Why don't you explain it to us?

What is there to explain? Can you not imagine a scenario where an entity controls more than 51% of the network yet decides it is in their best interest not to attack it?

"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
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
July 19, 2015, 12:02:07 AM
 #28997

Occam's Razor applies perfectly well here to mining.



Sure it does, and the simplest explanation is simply that huge miners hide their scary network % by breaking them up. Anything else requires a convoluted and unlikely explanation to negate the natural economies of scale for industrial mining.


So why haven't they attacked?

Because they have no incentive to? You do know that's how the game works right?

Why don't you explain it to us?

What is there to explain? Can you not imagine a scenario where an entity controls more than 51% of the network yet decides it is in their best interest not to attack it?

If that's what you think you should sell your coins now.
brg444
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 644

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks


View Profile
July 19, 2015, 12:08:44 AM
 #28998


If that's what you think you should sell your coins now.

I don't necessarily believe that is the case right now but certainly won't pretend this is not possible, see smooth's comment again for explanation.

The point is we have no way to know and it is a big enough risk that we shouldn't ignore its existence even if we are to pretend the odds for this to occur are small

"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
iCEBREAKER
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1834


[LOL2X]


View Profile WWW
July 19, 2015, 12:12:50 AM
 #28999



Wait..for...it...











Wait..for...it...












































██████████
█████████████████
██████████████████████
█████████████████████████
████████████████████████████
████
████████████████████████
█████
███████████████████████████
█████
███████████████████████████
██████
████████████████████████████
██████
████████████████████████████
██████
████████████████████████████
██████
███████████████████████████
██████
██████████████████████████
█████
███████████████████████████
█████████████
██████████████
████████████████████████████
█████████████████████████
██████████████████████
█████████████████
██████████

Monero
"The difference between bad and well-developed digital cash will determine
whether we have a dictatorship or a real democracy." 
David Chaum 1996
"Fungibility provides privacy as a side effect."  Adam Back 2014
Buy and sell XMR near you
P2P Exchange Network
Buy XMR with fiat
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
July 19, 2015, 12:14:56 AM
 #29000


If that's what you think you should sell your coins now.

I don't necessarily believe that is the case right now but certainly won't pretend this is not possible, see smooth's comment again for explanation.

The point is we have no way to know and it is a big enough risk that we shouldn't ignore its existence even if we are to pretend the odds for this to occur are small

No one ever said ignore the possibility. But since you are so adamant about the need to worry about it, what do you propose we do?
Pages: « 1 ... 1400 1401 1402 1403 1404 1405 1406 1407 1408 1409 1410 1411 1412 1413 1414 1415 1416 1417 1418 1419 1420 1421 1422 1423 1424 1425 1426 1427 1428 1429 1430 1431 1432 1433 1434 1435 1436 1437 1438 1439 1440 1441 1442 1443 1444 1445 1446 1447 1448 1449 [1450] 1451 1452 1453 1454 1455 1456 1457 1458 1459 1460 1461 1462 1463 1464 1465 1466 1467 1468 1469 1470 1471 1472 1473 1474 1475 1476 1477 1478 1479 1480 1481 1482 1483 1484 1485 1486 1487 1488 1489 1490 1491 1492 1493 1494 1495 1496 1497 1498 1499 1500 ... 1558 »
  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!