|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It is a common myth that Bitcoin is ruled by a majority of miners. This is not true. Bitcoin miners "vote" on the ordering of transactions, but that's all they do. They can't vote to change the network rules.
|
|
|
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
TaxReturn
Member
 Offline
Activity: 67
Merit: 10
|
 |
June 20, 2013, 07:20:07 PM |
|
Shows 46 TH/s for last hour right now. According to http://runeks.dk/bitcoin/ that's higher than ever by about 10 TH/s. |
|
|
|
|
|
ianp
|
|
June 20, 2013, 07:23:07 PM |
|
Again -- you have to know the sample size that he's using. http://www.dpcapital.net/blockchain/?hours=24,48,72,96,120If you look at that, you can see the 24 hour sample size matches exactly to that of runeks.dk/bitcoin. In other words, at the current difficulty, it will take 46 th/s to find two blocks in one hour. Just so everyone knows, all of the ASICMINER data that is presented is inferred. Because they (ASICMINER) do not post the actual hashrate, we have to infer the hashrate from the number of blocks found in a given timeframe and the difficulty. If we did know the hashrate, we could do fun things like determine the probability of finding 5 blocks in an hour at the current difficulty. |
|
|
|
|
|
neilol
|
|
June 20, 2013, 07:23:46 PM |
|
Most of the people here really don't understand how this works, do they? |
|
|
|
|
ianp
|
|
June 20, 2013, 07:27:00 PM |
|
Most of the people here really don't understand how this works, do they?
The answer to that is a definitive no. Most people do not realize that we do not have actual hashrate data from ASICMINER, only inferred hashrate data that we figure based on number of blocks found during a given timeframe and the current difficulty. |
|
|
|
|
TaxReturn
Member
Offline
Activity: 67
Merit: 10
|
|
June 20, 2013, 07:27:49 PM |
|
Most of the people here really don't understand how this works, do they? Made a mistake, chill out or sue me if you are american. |
|
|
|
|
|
ianp
|
|
June 20, 2013, 07:29:12 PM |
|
Made a mistake, chill out or sue me if you are american.
Regardless of who that statement was intended towards (I think it was intended towards me,) take it as an opportunity to learn more about how hashrate is derived at the current difficulty. It's interesting stuff  |
|
|
|
|
TaxReturn
Member
Offline
Activity: 67
Merit: 10
|
|
June 20, 2013, 07:35:39 PM |
|
Made a mistake, chill out or sue me if you are american.
Regardless of who that statement was intended towards (I think it was intended towards me,) take it as an opportunity to learn more about how hashrate is derived at the current difficulty. It's interesting stuff Wasn't directed at you. I really thought we had hashrate data to work on. Since we don't I realize looking at stats with hour resolution is pretty meaningless, probably everything under 4 hours is more or less bogus. |
|
|
|
|
|
ianp
|
|
June 20, 2013, 07:38:29 PM |
|
Made a mistake, chill out or sue me if you are american.
Regardless of who that statement was intended towards (I think it was intended towards me,) take it as an opportunity to learn more about how hashrate is derived at the current difficulty. It's interesting stuff Wasn't directed at you. I really thought we had hashrate data to work on. Since we don't I realize looking at stats with hour resolution is pretty meaningless, probably everything under 4 hours is more or less bogus. Well, not bogus, but not reliable. Anything with a 4 unit sample size is error prone. However, you can make some pretty interesting assumptions off of the data. I posted yesterday that when I see a series of blocks mined that looks like "AM-AM-BTCGUILD-AM-AM", that I know it's variance (or luck.) However, if I saw the same thing that looked like "AM-AM-BTCGUILD-AM-AM-AM" then I would believe that it is due to a higher quantity of hashing power than is reflected in the 24 hour average. There's no real way to quantify what I'm explaining, it's just a feeling I get from looking at the data. Right or wrong, it's still interesting to look at. Now -- with a 48 hour sample size -- we *should* get a pretty good estimate of what the actual average hashing power is over that time. |
|
|
|
|
|
velacreations
|
|
June 20, 2013, 07:38:39 PM |
|
is there a way AM could set up a simple data feed, like a json feed or something that gives live hashrate? That would solve a lot of this guessing.
|
|
|
|
|
ianp
|
|
June 20, 2013, 07:39:38 PM |
|
is there a way AM could set up a simple data feed, like a json feed or something that gives live hashrate? That would solve a lot of this guessing.
Sure. Will they? No. I wouldn't if I were them. It is definitely a competitive advantage to keep that information proprietary. For all we know they could be cycling through new hardware at this very moment. If they're cycling through 40 th/s groups of hardware for testing purposes and they left three groups on at once.. Competitors would know "they have at LEAST 120 th/s of hashing power available at any moment." Whereas if they do not do that, and we infer that there was 100+ th/s over the previous hour, that can be attributed to variance. |
|
|
|
|
|
velacreations
|
|
June 20, 2013, 08:06:55 PM |
|
is there a way AM could set up a simple data feed, like a json feed or something that gives live hashrate? That would solve a lot of this guessing.
Sure. Will they? No. I wouldn't if I were them. It is definitely a competitive advantage to keep that information proprietary. For all we know they could be cycling through new hardware at this very moment. If they're cycling through 40 th/s groups of hardware for testing purposes and they left three groups on at once.. Competitors would know "they have at LEAST 120 th/s of hashing power available at any moment." Whereas if they do not do that, and we infer that there was 100+ th/s over the previous hour, that can be attributed to variance. well, I assume they could control the feed, like what gets counted and what doesn't. They announce their production and equipment levels openly, as it is. The other thing is... what competition  |
|
|
|
thecodyshow
Newbie
Offline
Activity: 30
Merit: 0
|
|
June 20, 2013, 08:17:28 PM |
|
Where is an update from Friedcat? With all of the craziness you would think it would have come by now. AKA lower dividends, hashrate fluctuation etc.
|
|
|
|
|
freedomno1
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1722
Merit: 1070
Learning the troll avoidance button :)
|
|
June 20, 2013, 08:29:36 PM |
|
is there a way AM could set up a simple data feed, like a json feed or something that gives live hashrate? That would solve a lot of this guessing.
Sure. Will they? No. I wouldn't if I were them. It is definitely a competitive advantage to keep that information proprietary. For all we know they could be cycling through new hardware at this very moment. If they're cycling through 40 th/s groups of hardware for testing purposes and they left three groups on at once.. Competitors would know "they have at LEAST 120 th/s of hashing power available at any moment." Whereas if they do not do that, and we infer that there was 100+ th/s over the previous hour, that can be attributed to variance. well, I assume they could control the feed, like what gets counted and what doesn't. They announce their production and equipment levels openly, as it is. The other thing is... what competition There's quite a few competitors but their just starting to seriously move out and develop some decent stuff well the serious contenders not BFL but maybe their also moving http://imgur.com/a/fqpME Anyways going with cycling myself Or maybe that hot girl in the data center theory  I trust in Friendcat |
|
|
|
|
themagicdrake
Newbie
Offline
Activity: 50
Merit: 0
|
|
June 20, 2013, 08:47:08 PM |
|
is there a way AM could set up a simple data feed, like a json feed or something that gives live hashrate? That would solve a lot of this guessing.
Sure. Will they? No. I wouldn't if I were them. It is definitely a competitive advantage to keep that information proprietary. For all we know they could be cycling through new hardware at this very moment. If they're cycling through 40 th/s groups of hardware for testing purposes and they left three groups on at once.. Competitors would know "they have at LEAST 120 th/s of hashing power available at any moment." Whereas if they do not do that, and we infer that there was 100+ th/s over the previous hour, that can be attributed to variance. well, I assume they could control the feed, like what gets counted and what doesn't. They announce their production and equipment levels openly, as it is. The other thing is... what competition There's quite a few competitors but their just starting to seriously move out and develop some decent stuff well the serious contenders not BFL but maybe their also moving http://imgur.com/a/fqpME Anyways going with cycling myself Or maybe that hot girl in the data center theory Who? What? Why are we? |
|
|
|
|
|
Lohoris
|
|
June 20, 2013, 08:53:00 PM |
|
Please do us a favor and let us know when you're going to sell, we'll be happy to be there when the price falls!
If you really do, then you can just put a buy order at the preferred price... |
|
|
|
canth
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1442
Merit: 1001
|
|
June 20, 2013, 09:08:45 PM |
|
Please do us a favor and let us know when you're going to sell, we'll be happy to be there when the price falls!
If you really do, then you can just put a buy order at the preferred price... I'd actually be happy to sell puts, but the market isn't liquid enough to make it viable - at least not on btct. I hardly see any option orders that have successfully taken place. |
|
|
|
|
SOSLOVE868
|
|
June 20, 2013, 09:38:42 PM |
|
Please do us a favor and let us know when you're going to sell, we'll be happy to be there when the price falls!
If you really do, then you can just put a buy order at the preferred price... If you put buy order I will go for it .... but should be below some level, like 2.7...I really happy to pick up... |
|
|
|
|
Vycid
Sr. Member
Offline
Activity: 336
Merit: 250
♫ the AM bear who cares ♫
|
|
June 21, 2013, 12:25:04 AM |
|
Please do us a favor and let us know when you're going to sell, we'll be happy to be there when the price falls!
If you really do, then you can just put a buy order at the preferred price... I'd actually be happy to sell puts, but the market isn't liquid enough to make it viable - at least not on btct. I hardly see any option orders that have successfully taken place. I have said several times in this thread I am buying puts. 0.14 BTC premium, Strike 2.0 BTC, 90 day exp. I have bought many of these already and I plan on at least a dozen more contracts. |
|
|
|
statdude
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1498
Merit: 1000
|
|
June 21, 2013, 12:43:43 AM |
|
Please do us a favor and let us know when you're going to sell, we'll be happy to be there when the price falls!
If you really do, then you can just put a buy order at the preferred price... I'd actually be happy to sell puts, but the market isn't liquid enough to make it viable - at least not on btct. I hardly see any option orders that have successfully taken place. I have said several times in this thread I am buying puts. 0.14 BTC premium, Strike 2.0 BTC, 90 day exp. I have bought many of these already and I plan on at least a dozen more contracts. Vycid, I will write you up to 10 on BTCTC for 86 days at .25, offer valid for 24 hours. Or, 10 for 56 days for .15. Whoever wrote you at .14 is an idiot if they did it at current prices. I know my offer is fair. Thanks and gl to you |
|
|
|
|
