Bitcoin Forum
February 01, 2023, 07:20:31 AM *
News: Latest Bitcoin Core release: 24.0.1 [Torrent]
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register More  

Warning: Moderators do not remove likely scams. You must use your own brain: caveat emptor. Watch out for Ponzi schemes. Do not invest more than you can afford to lose.

Warning: One or more bitcointalk.org users have reported that they strongly believe that the creator of this topic is a scammer. (Login to see the detailed trust ratings.) While the bitcointalk.org administration does not verify such claims, you should proceed with extreme caution.
Pages: « 1 ... 447 448 449 450 451 452 453 454 455 456 457 458 459 460 461 462 463 464 465 466 467 468 469 470 471 472 473 474 475 476 477 478 479 480 481 482 483 484 485 486 487 488 489 490 491 492 493 494 495 496 [497] 498 499 500 501 502 503 504 505 506 507 508 509 510 511 512 513 514 515 516 517 518 519 520 521 522 523 524 525 526 527 528 529 530 531 532 533 534 535 536 537 538 539 540 541 542 543 544 545 546 547 ... 1348 »
  Print  
Author Topic: ASICMINER: Entering the Future of ASIC Mining by Inventing It  (Read 3914707 times)
runeks
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 966
Merit: 1008



View Profile WWW
July 15, 2013, 08:54:16 AM
 #9921

So what's the best place to buy ASICMINER put options?

BTC-TC only has TWO contracts available. And they both have huge premiums.

Is there something better anywhere?

Put out how many you're looking for, what strike and premium you're looking for and what your time frame is - you'll get people to put them up. Possibly myself included.
Fair request.

I'm looking to buy 20 American style put options with a strike price of 3.0 BTC and a duration of 90 days for 0.25 BTC per contract.

I'm tempted I must admit. I'm a bit pushed for time at the moment - how many were you thinking of buying?


Offering .28 per contract at 3.0, 90d. I will pay and have purchased many options already.

Alternatively, if you'd like more return on your frozen assets in exchange for more risk, I'll offer 0.3 for 3.2 (this has been a standing offer).

BTCT only.
I want to buy around 20 contracts. But less will do.

I will trump Vycid's bid and pay 0.31 per contract for 90d puts with a strike price of 3.2.
"The nature of Bitcoin is such that once version 0.1 was released, the core design was set in stone for the rest of its lifetime." -- Satoshi
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction.
1675236031
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1675236031

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1675236031
Reply with quote  #2

1675236031
Report to moderator
1675236031
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1675236031

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1675236031
Reply with quote  #2

1675236031
Report to moderator
runeks
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 966
Merit: 1008



View Profile WWW
July 15, 2013, 08:59:03 AM
 #9922

I'm not dying to know the answer right now... but someday I'd like to know why ASICMiner doesn't include more transactions in its blocks. If you look at this block:

http://blockchain.info/block-index/398726/000000000000004a96eb5e666d882b238ab2bf5c51f6b3c0cc3eb420517b64a1

You'll notice that it was found a full hour after the previous block... so, 60 minutes worth of transactions were being collected in that time... and yet ASICMiner's block has only 8 transactions. Seems like a lot of missed transaction fees, no? Am I missing something?
I actually did an analysis of all ASICMiner mined blocks, and they only get around 60% of the amount of fees that all other blocks get on average. And they only include 65% the number of transactions that other nodes include.

Code:
Analyzed 7,141 blocks containing 2,023,595 transactions.
-----Stats-----:

ASICMiner stats (1190 blocks, 232,779 transaction):
Average transaction count per block: 195.6
Maximum number of transactions in a block: 1323
Minimum fee: -0.00000000
Average fee: 0.00084612
Average fees per block: 0.1655
Other blocks stats (5951 blocks, 1,790,816 transaction):
Average transaction count per block: 300.9
Maximum number of transactions in a block: 1333
Minimum fee: -0.00000000
Average fee: 0.00089534
Average fees per block: 0.2694
yuchuanzhen
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 234
Merit: 100



View Profile WWW
July 15, 2013, 09:06:16 AM
 #9923

I'm curious. Are you a PLA officer? As your avatar implies?
yes, a was
I don't understand: why did you answer for him, and why did your answer differ from his?
Maybe he knows something about me,whatever.
And I think this is off-topic.So..

Tip:17YxKtDNYWjkhPYTKieh4xSGuyAfL4kJ5o
canth
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1442
Merit: 1001



View Profile
July 15, 2013, 11:08:43 AM
 #9924

I'm not dying to know the answer right now... but someday I'd like to know why ASICMiner doesn't include more transactions in its blocks. If you look at this block:

http://blockchain.info/block-index/398726/000000000000004a96eb5e666d882b238ab2bf5c51f6b3c0cc3eb420517b64a1

You'll notice that it was found a full hour after the previous block... so, 60 minutes worth of transactions were being collected in that time... and yet ASICMiner's block has only 8 transactions. Seems like a lot of missed transaction fees, no? Am I missing something?
I feel like friedcat should check that his node is well connected and receiving transactions. It makes a bad public image, considering the recent blockchain spam and congestion.

Yes, unfortunately the node isn't well connected; it never includes many transactions per block. While I'm a glad investor, it would be nice to see them supporting the blockchain a bit more.

China's network infrastructure isn't really comparable to the rest of the world.

1) It's a large country - roughly the size of the US and divided into 22 provinces.
2) There are multiple ISPs - bringing 100s of millions of nodes into existence over the course of a decade or so is not without some growing pains.
3) China is peered somewhat haphazardly with itself and other regions around the world. Latency from Tokyo to Beijing can sometimes be faster than Beijing to Beijing between 2 separate ISPs. Latency to New York might be better than latency to Sydney - depends upon the ISPs and what is going on with #4. Your mileage may vary.
4) The great firewall of China. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_Shield_Project ISPs practice self censorship. The government censors everything it feels like. Blocking or slowing down connections and then asking questions later, if at all is the standard practice.

Perhaps as Friedcat adds offshore operations, the AM node will end up being better connected.

binaryFate
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1484
Merit: 1001


Still wild and free


View Profile
July 15, 2013, 11:21:07 AM
 #9925

I'm not dying to know the answer right now... but someday I'd like to know why ASICMiner doesn't include more transactions in its blocks. If you look at this block:

http://blockchain.info/block-index/398726/000000000000004a96eb5e666d882b238ab2bf5c51f6b3c0cc3eb420517b64a1

You'll notice that it was found a full hour after the previous block... so, 60 minutes worth of transactions were being collected in that time... and yet ASICMiner's block has only 8 transactions. Seems like a lot of missed transaction fees, no? Am I missing something?
I feel like friedcat should check that his node is well connected and receiving transactions. It makes a bad public image, considering the recent blockchain spam and congestion.

Yes, unfortunately the node isn't well connected; it never includes many transactions per block. While I'm a glad investor, it would be nice to see them supporting the blockchain a bit more.

China's network infrastructure isn't really comparable to the rest of the world.

1) It's a large country - roughly the size of the US and divided into 22 provinces.
2) There are multiple ISPs - bringing 100s of millions of nodes into existence over the course of a decade or so is not without some growing pains.
3) China is peered somewhat haphazardly with itself and other regions around the world. Latency from Tokyo to Beijing can sometimes be faster than Beijing to Beijing between 2 separate ISPs. Latency to New York might be better than latency to Sydney - depends upon the ISPs and what is going on with #4. Your mileage may vary.
4) The great firewall of China. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_Shield_Project ISPs practice self censorship. The government censors everything it feels like. Blocking or slowing down connections and then asking questions later, if at all is the standard practice.

Perhaps as Friedcat adds offshore operations, the AM node will end up being better connected.

Given the ratio of the network hashrate of AM, that seems a crucial point to me, not as an AM shareholder but for the overall bitcoin network health.
Additionally, as an AM shareholders, does not look very good for AM reputation.
Hope things will get better soon.

Monero's privacy and therefore fungibility are MUCH stronger than Bitcoin's. 
This makes Monero a better candidate to deserve the term "digital cash".
Jimmy2011
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 589
Merit: 500



View Profile
July 15, 2013, 11:40:37 AM
 #9926

I'm not dying to know the answer right now... but someday I'd like to know why ASICMiner doesn't include more transactions in its blocks. If you look at this block:

http://blockchain.info/block-index/398726/000000000000004a96eb5e666d882b238ab2bf5c51f6b3c0cc3eb420517b64a1

You'll notice that it was found a full hour after the previous block... so, 60 minutes worth of transactions were being collected in that time... and yet ASICMiner's block has only 8 transactions. Seems like a lot of missed transaction fees, no? Am I missing something?
I feel like friedcat should check that his node is well connected and receiving transactions. It makes a bad public image, considering the recent blockchain spam and congestion.

Yes, unfortunately the node isn't well connected; it never includes many transactions per block. While I'm a glad investor, it would be nice to see them supporting the blockchain a bit more.

China's network infrastructure isn't really comparable to the rest of the world.

1) It's a large country - roughly the size of the US and divided into 22 provinces.
2) There are multiple ISPs - bringing 100s of millions of nodes into existence over the course of a decade or so is not without some growing pains.
3) China is peered somewhat haphazardly with itself and other regions around the world. Latency from Tokyo to Beijing can sometimes be faster than Beijing to Beijing between 2 separate ISPs. Latency to New York might be better than latency to Sydney - depends upon the ISPs and what is going on with #4. Your mileage may vary.
4) The great firewall of China. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_Shield_Project ISPs practice self censorship. The government censors everything it feels like. Blocking or slowing down connections and then asking questions later, if at all is the standard practice.

Perhaps as Friedcat adds offshore operations, the AM node will end up being better connected.

1) Not 22 provinces, but 34.
2) optical fiber connection is necessary for the miner farm
3) it depends
4) GFW is indeed a burden for the usual users, but it has limited effect on bitcoin, and actually no obvious block of bitcoin by the government

I think it will be solved very soon, for example, offshore miner farm in HK with better internet connection environment may be considered and built.
TsuyokuNaritai
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 574
Merit: 500



View Profile
July 15, 2013, 11:59:31 AM
 #9927

I think it will be solved very soon, for example, offshore miner farm in HK with better internet connection environment may be considered and built.

The sooner the better. With better connectivity we not only get more fees, we should get more blocks for the same hashing power. Right now, if another pool is much better connected to the network, an AM found block could be orphaned even if it found first.

runeks
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 966
Merit: 1008



View Profile WWW
July 15, 2013, 12:53:01 PM
 #9928

I'm not dying to know the answer right now... but someday I'd like to know why ASICMiner doesn't include more transactions in its blocks. If you look at this block:

http://blockchain.info/block-index/398726/000000000000004a96eb5e666d882b238ab2bf5c51f6b3c0cc3eb420517b64a1

You'll notice that it was found a full hour after the previous block... so, 60 minutes worth of transactions were being collected in that time... and yet ASICMiner's block has only 8 transactions. Seems like a lot of missed transaction fees, no? Am I missing something?
I feel like friedcat should check that his node is well connected and receiving transactions. It makes a bad public image, considering the recent blockchain spam and congestion.

Yes, unfortunately the node isn't well connected; it never includes many transactions per block. While I'm a glad investor, it would be nice to see them supporting the blockchain a bit more.

China's network infrastructure isn't really comparable to the rest of the world.

1) It's a large country - roughly the size of the US and divided into 22 provinces.
2) There are multiple ISPs - bringing 100s of millions of nodes into existence over the course of a decade or so is not without some growing pains.
3) China is peered somewhat haphazardly with itself and other regions around the world. Latency from Tokyo to Beijing can sometimes be faster than Beijing to Beijing between 2 separate ISPs. Latency to New York might be better than latency to Sydney - depends upon the ISPs and what is going on with #4. Your mileage may vary.
4) The great firewall of China. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_Shield_Project ISPs practice self censorship. The government censors everything it feels like. Blocking or slowing down connections and then asking questions later, if at all is the standard practice.

Perhaps as Friedcat adds offshore operations, the AM node will end up being better connected.

1) Not 22 provinces, but 34.
2) optical fiber connection is necessary for the miner farm
3) it depends
4) GFW is indeed a burden for the usual users, but it has limited effect on bitcoin, and actually no obvious block of bitcoin by the government

I think it will be solved very soon, for example, offshore miner farm in HK with better internet connection environment may be considered and built.

Yeah, that average traffic rate of 3 KB/s really needs a dedicated fiber line.
tinus42
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 784
Merit: 501



View Profile
July 15, 2013, 01:04:27 PM
 #9929

I think it will be solved very soon, for example, offshore miner farm in HK with better internet connection environment may be considered and built.

Shenzen (where they are located) is only 10 miles away from Hong Kong, so that would make sense.
canth
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1442
Merit: 1001



View Profile
July 15, 2013, 01:23:45 PM
 #9930

I think it will be solved very soon, for example, offshore miner farm in HK with better internet connection environment may be considered and built.

Shenzen (where they are located) is only 10 miles away from Hong Kong, so that would make sense.

Quality of network latency and reliability between China and outside of China is not necessarily related to geographic distance. HK uses different ISPs and is outside the great firewall. Moving to HK for example, would be much better in terms of networking speed but I'm not sure that the regulatory concerns would be completely solved by that.

tinus42
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 784
Merit: 501



View Profile
July 15, 2013, 01:38:44 PM
 #9931

I think it will be solved very soon, for example, offshore miner farm in HK with better internet connection environment may be considered and built.

Shenzen (where they are located) is only 10 miles away from Hong Kong, so that would make sense.

Quality of network latency and reliability between China and outside of China is not necessarily related to geographic distance. HK uses different ISPs and is outside the great firewall. Moving to HK for example, would be much better in terms of networking speed but I'm not sure that the regulatory concerns would be completely solved by that.

Wasn't thinking about network latency. Just simple logistics, build blades in Shenzen and have them up and running a few hours later in Hong Kong without much delay. Don't know anything about the internet in China and Hong Kong nor about the regulatory environments there.
binaryFate
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1484
Merit: 1001


Still wild and free


View Profile
July 15, 2013, 01:45:56 PM
 #9932

It's true that latency can have a small effect on block mining rewards (higher probability of orphaned), but should not impact the number of transactions that are known to the mining node (except for those that arrive in the last moment before a block is found), so it cannot explain these low numbers.


Monero's privacy and therefore fungibility are MUCH stronger than Bitcoin's. 
This makes Monero a better candidate to deserve the term "digital cash".
runeks
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 966
Merit: 1008



View Profile WWW
July 15, 2013, 04:59:14 PM
 #9933

It's true that latency can have a small effect on block mining rewards (higher probability of orphaned), but should not impact the number of transactions that are known to the mining node (except for those that arrive in the last moment before a block is found), so it cannot explain these low numbers.
I agree. We're seeing a 40% difference in the number of transactions included per block. Unless the Great Firewall is picking out transactions, I don't see how this is possible. One explanation is that ASICMiner has a custom filter to decide which transactions to include.
binaryFate
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1484
Merit: 1001


Still wild and free


View Profile
July 15, 2013, 05:06:02 PM
 #9934

It's true that latency can have a small effect on block mining rewards (higher probability of orphaned), but should not impact the number of transactions that are known to the mining node (except for those that arrive in the last moment before a block is found), so it cannot explain these low numbers.
I agree. We're seeing a 40% difference in the number of transactions included per block. Unless the Great Firewall is picking out transactions, I don't see how this is possible. One explanation is that ASICMiner has a custom filter to decide which transactions to include.

The custom filter is a good explanation. It's the only one I can think of actually. Great firewall appart... Smiley
Anybody has feelings, or even better, statistics on the type of transactions included in their blocks, in particular on their category (free or not), and the fee per KB (for the non-free), and their priority?
I think I saw something along that lines recently, don't remember if it was here or the speculation thread, or about AM at all.

EDIT: That would make a good official question for friedcat! I'm really curious about these filter policies and their motivations, if they do exist.

Monero's privacy and therefore fungibility are MUCH stronger than Bitcoin's. 
This makes Monero a better candidate to deserve the term "digital cash".
chkgk
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 63
Merit: 10


View Profile
July 15, 2013, 05:12:18 PM
 #9935

EDIT: That would make a good official question for friedcat! I'm really curious about these filter policies and their motivations, if they do exist.
+1

I would very much like to see that question included!
canth
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1442
Merit: 1001



View Profile
July 15, 2013, 05:55:01 PM
 #9936

The custom filter is a good explanation. It's the only one I can think of actually. Great firewall appart... Smiley

I hope this is not the case.  Filtering transactions is not good for bitcoin.  It is also not good for ASICminer shareholders.

I personally have had several transactions that were not initially confirmed when ASICminer found a block.  I had to wait for the next block to be found by someone other than ASICminer to get an initial confirmation.  I included a .0005 fee on each of those transactions, which I thought was enough to get my transaction included.

I doubt it's this - I would say it's more likely that connections from within China are able to get to fewer connections outside of China. It's not just the government firewall, peering is just not straightforward when it comes to this country.

binaryFate
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1484
Merit: 1001


Still wild and free


View Profile
July 15, 2013, 06:17:06 PM
 #9937

The custom filter is a good explanation. It's the only one I can think of actually. Great firewall appart... Smiley

I hope this is not the case.  Filtering transactions is not good for bitcoin.  It is also not good for ASICminer shareholders.

I personally have had several transactions that were not initially confirmed when ASICminer found a block.  I had to wait for the next block to be found by someone other than ASICminer to get an initial confirmation.  I included a .0005 fee on each of those transactions, which I thought was enough to get my transaction included.

I doubt it's this - I would say it's more likely that connections from within China are able to get to fewer connections outside of China. It's not just the government firewall, peering is just not straightforward when it comes to this country.

Poor peering introduces latency, and you might get transactions 10s after the average rest of the world, but you'll get them anyway. Unless you're totally cut on a sub-network, poor peering should be still good enough.

Monero's privacy and therefore fungibility are MUCH stronger than Bitcoin's. 
This makes Monero a better candidate to deserve the term "digital cash".
canth
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1442
Merit: 1001



View Profile
July 15, 2013, 06:19:06 PM
 #9938


Poor peering introduces latency, and you might get transactions 10s after the average rest of the world, but you'll get them anyway. Unless you're totally cut on a sub-network, poor peering should be still good enough.

OK. There's no logical reason to intentionally filter transactions, except those that don't include fees, right?

AMuppInTime
Donator
Sr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 290
Merit: 250



View Profile
July 15, 2013, 06:23:49 PM
 #9939


Poor peering introduces latency, and you might get transactions 10s after the average rest of the world, but you'll get them anyway. Unless you're totally cut on a sub-network, poor peering should be still good enough.
OK. There's no logical reason to intentionally filter transactions, except those that don't include fees, right?
Might it be they are trying to limit incoming traffic to not attract attention?
binaryFate
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1484
Merit: 1001


Still wild and free


View Profile
July 15, 2013, 06:38:08 PM
 #9940

I doubt it's this - I would say it's more likely that connections from within China are able to get to fewer connections outside of China. It's not just the government firewall, peering is just not straightforward when it comes to this country.

In that case, then the mining operations of ASICminer need to be moved outside China.  Long term, transaction fees are going to be a susbtanial portion of ASICminer's mining income.  In order to ensure a steady stream of mining income, they need to make sure that they are getting all of the transactions fees that are available.

As it is now, if you look at blocks found immediately after ASICminer finds a block, you will see a larger number of transactions and thus a larger amount of transaction fees in that block.  ASICminer is giving away those transaction fees to the next miner to find a block.  It may not seem like ASICminer is giving up much now, but if the value of bitcoin increases substantially, then these missed transaction fees are going to add up.

That's also bad for the AM reputation. Us, we mostly care about missing fees for shareholders, but I can imagine many of the unrational anti-AM people out there would be happy to point this out as a subsequent problem of AM hashrate. Usually I don't care about their screaming, but on this I'd feel uncomfortable.

Monero's privacy and therefore fungibility are MUCH stronger than Bitcoin's. 
This makes Monero a better candidate to deserve the term "digital cash".
Pages: « 1 ... 447 448 449 450 451 452 453 454 455 456 457 458 459 460 461 462 463 464 465 466 467 468 469 470 471 472 473 474 475 476 477 478 479 480 481 482 483 484 485 486 487 488 489 490 491 492 493 494 495 496 [497] 498 499 500 501 502 503 504 505 506 507 508 509 510 511 512 513 514 515 516 517 518 519 520 521 522 523 524 525 526 527 528 529 530 531 532 533 534 535 536 537 538 539 540 541 542 543 544 545 546 547 ... 1348 »
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!