ASICMINER: Entering the Future of ASIC Mining by Inventing It

[muyuu]

I'd argue the blockchain is supposed to do whatever people can do with it. Anything unwanted is a design flaw, not a user flaw.

+1

if this kind of transaction bothers anyone, he should press for mandatory fees or something like that, but as long as the protocol allows it, then you should blame the protocol.

The protocol says that miners decide which transactions go in and which don't.

Vote by mining in a pool with a policy you agree with. This is why I mine with Eligius.

This is probably not a sufficient solution in all cases, but thinking that any transaction allowed by a protocol has to happen is also untrue.

[1713512262]

1713512262

[1713512262]

1713512262

[1713512262]

1713512262

[rdponticelli]

Will the new bitcoin client cause a problem for ASICMINER by limiting dust transactions or can ASICMINER now relay their own Satoshi size transactions?

Well, they can, but they should really stop spamming the blockchain regardless :/

Spamming the blockchain?  Asicminer do it once a week, in a big transaction... go blame SDice for spam.  Asicminers usage of satoshies/dust at least has real utility.

It's a matter of principle, and regardless of how often it happens, it's spam. The blockchain isn't supposed to transmit arbitrary data like "you own that many shares" or "it's xx degrees here in florida".

And we can add that this particular transaction doesn't add any significant information. IMHO it would be way better maintaining a public spreadsheet where shareholders can verify theirs holdings some time before the dividends, in case they have to claim something. But this process of marking holding, followed immediately by dividends, is way, way pointless and harmful...

[daemondazz]

I'd suggest anyone who hasn't, and refuses to return the double div, be blacklisted from btct.co.

This is totally nonsense.
One of the biggest piles of nonsense I've ever witnessed.

The whole point of "returning the funds" is that you return them at your own will, as opposite to forcing you to return them.
So you are suggesting that you do "at your own will OR ELSE you get banned"... lol I'm astonished on how utterly broken this "suggestion" is.

I mean, I know this problem has been solved now, but noticing such an enormous amount of broken-ness in just a single post amazed me, I couldn't refrain from replying.

So you're the kind of person that if a store undercharges you (by giving you too much change back) you don't be honest and correct the mistake? If I was the store owner and noticed that you had been undercharged and then asked you to pay the difference and you refused, you don't think I'd have the right to ban you from the store, since what you are essentially doing is stealing?

[Factory]

I'd argue the blockchain is supposed to do whatever people can do with it. Anything unwanted is a design flaw, not a user flaw.

This sums it up quite well.

[Lohoris]

So you're the kind of person that if a store undercharges you (by giving you too much change back) you don't be honest and correct the mistake? If I was the store owner and noticed that you had been undercharged and then asked you to pay the difference and you refused, you don't think I'd have the right to ban you from the store, since what you are essentially doing is stealing?

Of course not, I already said I was willing to return the money.

I am only stating that "return it or I ban you" is a logic nonsense, because it is perfectly equivalent to a forced refund, so you should have said "do a forced refund" instead.

Either it is voluntary or it is forced.

Your suggestion was to make it appear voluntary but be forced in practice, and that is VERY BAD™.

Please bear in mind I don't think you did that on purpose, likely you didn't notice your mistake, and I'm so anal I wanted to point it out (to prevent anyone, in future, from thinking it was a good suggestion).
Please take no offence, and sorry if my tone was rude, I did't mean to.


ps: again, I'm not saying that a forced refund is bad (though many did say it, and with many good reasons), I'm saying that if you do so, it must be crystal clear what is happening, as opposite to pretending it is something else.

[Rant2112]

Asicminers usage of satoshies/dust at least has real utility.

What is the utility?  (honest question)

[Factory]

Asicminers usage of satoshies/dust at least has real utility.

What is the utility?  (honest question)

Returning capital to shareholders so that they may continue to support and grow the bitcoin-based economy.

[ThickAsThieves]

Asicminers usage of satoshies/dust at least has real utility.

What is the utility?  (honest question)

It verifies the amount of shares held by each shareholder on a schedule.

[aahzmundus]

Asicminers usage of satoshies/dust at least has real utility.

What is the utility?  (honest question)

It verifies the amount of shares held by each shareholder on a schedule.

Not only this, but its in the blockchain FOREVER... not some spreadsheet that can just disappear or be changed.  If someone wants to know how many shares I have, I can prove it by signing the div address... how would I prove ownership with a spreadsheet?  Sure there are ways... but considering the block chain is available and can handle the function nicely, its a good use.

[runeks]

I finally finished coding the calculations of the 24-hour, 3-day and 7-day average hash rates for solo mining. You can view it here:

http://runeks.dk/bitcoin/

The graph looks like this:



As you can see, we've seen a significant ramp-up in the solo hash rate in the past couple of days.

24-hour average is quite jumpy, but it seems we're sailing at a comfortable cruise speed of around 17 Thash/s right now.

Oh, and the chart updates every time new ASICMiner blocks come in, although you'll have to refresh the page to see the changes.

[rdponticelli]

Asicminers usage of satoshies/dust at least has real utility.

What is the utility?  (honest question)

It verifies the amount of shares held by each shareholder on a schedule.

Not only this, but its in the blockchain FOREVER... not some spreadsheet that can just disappear or be changed.  If someone wants to know how many shares I have, I can prove it by signing the div address... how would I prove ownership with a spreadsheet?  Sure there are ways... but considering the block chain is available and can handle the function nicely, its a good use.

The percentage of the dividends received on your address is as good a proof as the sathoshis themselves, if not better, considering that they're not spam. And they're also forever on the blockchain. There's an easily done deterministic process to go from percentage of dividend received on a given time to amount of shares owned...

[Birdy]

The percentage of the dividends received on your address is as good a proof as the sathoshis themselves, if not better, considering that they're not spam. And they're also forever on the blockchain. There's an easily done deterministic process to go from percentage of dividend received on a given time to amount of shares owned...

That's only true for the exact time frame you've received the dividends.
Shares may have changed hands after that.

[rdponticelli]

The percentage of the dividends received on your address is as good a proof as the sathoshis themselves, if not better, considering that they're not spam. And they're also forever on the blockchain. There's an easily done deterministic process to go from percentage of dividend received on a given time to amount of shares owned...

That's only true for the exact time frame you've received the dividends.
Shares may have changed hands after that.

Yeah, this also applies to the satoshis spam.

[mem]

I'd argue the blockchain is supposed to do whatever people can do with it. Anything unwanted is a design flaw, not a user flaw.

+1

if this kind of transaction bothers anyone, he should press for mandatory fees or something like that, but as long as the protocol allows it, then you should blame the protocol.

The catch here is ASICMINER is quite capable of including their own txids into blocks to ensure they are submitted. Which imho there is nothing wrong with, they are doing the work and as many have said can include whatever txids the protocol can support.

[talnted]

I'd argue the blockchain is supposed to do whatever people can do with it. Anything unwanted is a design flaw, not a user flaw.

+1

if this kind of transaction bothers anyone, he should press for mandatory fees or something like that, but as long as the protocol allows it, then you should blame the protocol.

The catch here is ASICMINER is quite capable of including their own txids into blocks to ensure they are submitted. Which imho there is nothing wrong with, they are doing the work and as many have said can include whatever txids the protocol can support.

I completely agree and was going to say the same thing.

[Lohoris]

if this kind of transaction bothers anyone, he should press for mandatory fees or something like that, but as long as the protocol allows it, then you should blame the protocol.

The catch here is ASICMINER is quite capable of including their own txids into blocks to ensure they are submitted. Which imho there is nothing wrong with, they are doing the work and as many have said can include whatever txids the protocol can support.

I completely agree and was going to say the same thing.

This is a non-issue.

As I said, at most you can press to change the protocol rules, i.e. declaring invalid a transaction without your desired requirements.
This would prevent any miner from including it.

Of course, this is an hard-fork and you would need to be pretty convincing.
Still, until you do, there's no complaining.

[rdponticelli]

if this kind of transaction bothers anyone, he should press for mandatory fees or something like that, but as long as the protocol allows it, then you should blame the protocol.

The catch here is ASICMINER is quite capable of including their own txids into blocks to ensure they are submitted. Which imho there is nothing wrong with, they are doing the work and as many have said can include whatever txids the protocol can support.

I completely agree and was going to say the same thing.

This is a non-issue.

As I said, at most you can press to change the protocol rules, i.e. declaring invalid a transaction without your desired requirements.
This would prevent any miner from including it.

Of course, this is an hard-fork and you would need to be pretty convincing.
Still, until you do, there's no complaining.

Sorry for being rude, but it's for the sake of clearness.

There's no rule nor protocol or law preventing anybody from shitting on their food. There's no need for it, because it's absolutely obvious the inadvisability of doing such a thing...

Now. if ASICMINER wants to shit over the blockchain, it's ok that they're able to do it. I can't see why somebody should go to the hassle of finding a way to stop them. But that's hardly advisable for themselves, considering that they're eating from the blockchain too...

[VeeMiner]

Sorry for being rude, but it's for the sake of clearness.

There's no rule nor protocol or law preventing anybody from shitting on their food. There's no need for it, because it's absolutely obvious the inadvisability of doing such a thing...

Now. if ASICMINER wants to shit over the blockchain, it's ok that they're able to do it. I can't see why somebody should go to the hassle of finding a way to stop them. But that's hardly advisable for themselves, considering that they're eating from the blockchain too...

come on. This is not shitting in the blockchain. It makes sense that the company ASICMINER is sending out a message about how many shares you hold any given week. And anyway, why is every bitcoin issue always discussed in this thread? The 51 percent issue, now the blockchain spam/size. This thread is about ASICMINER so please keep on the topic.

I finally finished coding the calculations of the 24-hour, 3-day and 7-day average hash rates for solo mining. You can view it here:

http://runeks.dk/bitcoin/

The graph looks like this:



As you can see, we've seen a significant ramp-up in the solo hash rate in the past couple of days.

24-hour average is quite jumpy, but it seems we're sailing at a comfortable cruise speed of around 17 Thash/s right now.

Oh, and the chart updates every time new ASICMiner blocks come in, although you'll have to refresh the page to see the changes.

this is great stuff, it would be even nicer if you were able to incorporate the btcguild hashrate so that we see how much has been mined since the last dividend in total.

[tkone]

the satoshi confirmation is good, whats wrong with that? it helps by clearly showing how much shares are connected to the address,
thats why we have satoshis and small transactions, so this kind of stuff will be possible, thats the whole point about bitcoin and being decentrialized, so you can send how much you want to who ever you want with nobody else telling you your not allowed, or no1 else trying to stop you,
thats the whole idea about bitcoin.... lol

[Lohoris]

Sorry for being rude, but it's for the sake of clearness.

There's no rule nor protocol or law preventing anybody from shitting on their food. There's no need for it, because it's absolutely obvious the inadvisability of doing such a thing...

Now. if ASICMINER wants to shit over the blockchain, it's ok that they're able to do it. I can't see why somebody should go to the hassle of finding a way to stop them. But that's hardly advisable for themselves, considering that they're eating from the blockchain too...

Oh, I partly agree, you're not being rude.

Point is, you're looking at this problem as if it could be considered a "social" problem, while I look at it as if it was a "security" problem.

Sure, you could kindly ask AM to stop polluting the blockchain, but it would be kind of pointless: other people can still do that, and you're not going to "kindly ask" them all: this is a social dynamic that "just doesn't work".

Handling it as a security/protocol issue is IMAO a better approach, because you really have a chance of success, even if people do not wish (or care) to cooperate.