gogxmagog
Legendary
 Offline
Activity: 1456
Merit: 1010
Ad maiora!
|
 |
June 19, 2013, 11:23:00 PM |
|
Is it unreasonable to think that friedcat should address the current hashrate issues? obviously something is up. also...where the hell my dividends!? should have received them hours ago!
|
|
|
|
|
Taxidermista
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1148
Merit: 1001
|
|
June 19, 2013, 11:28:20 PM |
|
My money is on a rolling power outage What's a "rolling" power outage? |
|
|
|
|
neilol
|
|
June 19, 2013, 11:41:14 PM |
|
My money is on a rolling power outage What's a "rolling" power outage? Intentional, happens more in areas with shoddy power grids, for example parts of China.. From Wikipedia: A rolling blackout, also referred to as load shedding, is an intentionally engineered electrical power shutdown where electricity delivery is stopped for non-overlapping periods of time over different parts of the distribution region. Rolling blackouts are a last-resort measure used by an electric utility company to avoid a total blackout of the power system. They are a type of demand response for a situation where the demand for electricity exceeds the power supply capability of the network. Rolling blackouts may be localized to a specific part of the electricity network or may be more widespread and affect entire countries and continents. Rolling blackouts generally result from two causes: insufficient generation capacity or inadequate transmission infrastructure to deliver sufficient power to the area where it is needed." |
|
|
|
Adrian-x
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1372
Merit: 1000
|
|
June 19, 2013, 11:41:18 PM |
|
My money is on a rolling power outage What's a "rolling" power outage? A lack of supply and a high demand for power - state set the price and infrastructure the result is a low incentive to meet demand. Solution everyone has their power cut for 2 hours during the day (district by district) hence the power outage is plan and rolls around so everyone suffers from the planned economy equally. |
Thank me in Bits 12MwnzxtprG2mHm3rKdgi7NmJKCypsMMQw
|
|
|
canth
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1442
Merit: 1001
|
|
June 20, 2013, 12:30:02 AM |
|
Hot weather is a good point for decrease of the whole network
Yes! Because the entire world lies above the equator. Well, most of the people with electricity, the internet and the purchasing power to buy mining hardware certainly do.  |
|
|
|
iCEBREAKER
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2156
Merit: 1072
Crypto is the separation of Power and State.
|
|
June 20, 2013, 12:48:46 AM |
|
UPS and generators should keep us mining through blackouts. If the net goes down, failover to wireless?
Friendcat may deploy gen 2 at some posh tier 4/5 Colos and we won't have to worry/speculate about hosting issues.
|
██████████
██████████████████
██████████████████████
██████████████████████████
████████████████████████████
██████████████████████████████
████████████████████████████████
████████████████████████████████
██████████████████████████████████
██████████████████████████████████
██████████████████████████████████
██████████████████████████████████
██████████████████████████████████
████████████████████████████████
██████████████
██████████████
████████████████████████████
██████████████████████████
██████████████████████
██████████████████
██████████
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
|
| | |
|
|
|
|
Pierre
|
|
June 20, 2013, 01:21:47 AM |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Eric Muyser
Full Member
Offline
Activity: 224
Merit: 100
You can't kill math.
|
|
June 20, 2013, 01:35:14 AM |
|
Yah, why is your graph so different Pierre? |
@EricMuyser | EricMuyser.com | OTC - "Defeat is a state of mind; no one is ever defeated until defeat has been accepted as a reality" - Bruce Lee
|
|
|
|
Pierre
|
|
June 20, 2013, 01:37:56 AM |
|
That's just what it looked like at the time I took the screenshot. No shenanigans I promise!
|
|
|
|
|
|
VolanicEruptor
|
|
June 20, 2013, 01:53:50 AM |
|
That's just what it looked like at the time I took the screenshot. No shenanigans I promise!
 |
|
|
|
benm
Newbie
Offline
Activity: 27
Merit: 0
|
|
June 20, 2013, 02:26:29 AM |
|
I haven't looked into this too closely, but all/most of the recent blocks awarded to ASICMINER have a much lower transaction count than those awarded to other miners/pools. Is that a coincidence, is it a consequence of the hardware design, is it somehow indicative of the recent drop in hashrate?
|
|
|
|
|
|
bitfair
|
|
June 20, 2013, 02:30:19 AM |
|
I haven't looked into this too closely, but all/most of the recent blocks awarded to ASICMINER have a much lower transaction count than those awarded to other miners/pools. Is that a coincidence, is it a consequence of the hardware design, is it somehow indicative of the recent drop in hashrate?
I noticed too. I just imagined that the node they are running is not terribly well connected... |
|
|
|
|
|
ianp
|
|
June 20, 2013, 02:38:17 AM |
|
I haven't looked into this too closely, but all/most of the recent blocks awarded to ASICMINER have a much lower transaction count than those awarded to other miners/pools. Is that a coincidence, is it a consequence of the hardware design, is it somehow indicative of the recent drop in hashrate?
Coincidence. I saw one earlier with 600+ transactions. Regardless, there is no mechanism in BTC to selectively mine blocks. I.e., you can't mine a 100 transaction block more easily than you can mine a 1,000 transaction block with a given difficulty. This cannot be done by adjusting hashrate either. At a given difficulty, your probability for mining a block is fixed to a certain hashrate over a period of time. A lower hashrate will have a lower probability, and a higher hashrate will have a higher probability. In short, hashrate and difficulty have nothing to do with the size of the block you mine. Ian |
|
|
|
|
|
bitfair
|
|
June 20, 2013, 03:08:31 AM |
|
I haven't looked into this too closely, but all/most of the recent blocks awarded to ASICMINER have a much lower transaction count than those awarded to other miners/pools. Is that a coincidence, is it a consequence of the hardware design, is it somehow indicative of the recent drop in hashrate?
Coincidence. I saw one earlier with 600+ transactions. Regardless, there is no mechanism in BTC to selectively mine blocks. I.e., you can't mine a 100 transaction block more easily than you can mine a 1,000 transaction block with a given difficulty. This cannot be done by adjusting hashrate either. At a given difficulty, your probability for mining a block is fixed to a certain hashrate over a period of time. A lower hashrate will have a lower probability, and a higher hashrate will have a higher probability. In short, hashrate and difficulty have nothing to do with the size of the block you mine. Ian Hashrate and difficulty are unrelated to number of transactions, but a poorly connected node may show low number of transactions - which may also be a problem when broadcasting blocks! I.e. if two miners find a block almost at the same time, the well-connected node wins the block because it is broadcast more widely. Not saying that's the case, but a low transaction number could be a signal of a poorly connected node, which could be a disadvantage in a race. |
|
|
|
|
|
Pierre
|
|
June 20, 2013, 03:09:04 AM |
|
Is anyone else seeing this or is it just me?  |
|
|
|
|
|
empoweoqwj
|
|
June 20, 2013, 03:14:32 AM |
|
Is anyone else seeing this or is it just me? Yep! Pump it up!! |
|
|
|
|
nubbins
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1554
Merit: 1009
|
|
June 20, 2013, 03:14:48 AM |
|
No, it's on the way back up. Any thoughts as to why it started dropping at the moment BTCGuild mining went to zero?  |
|
|
|
dhenson
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 994
Merit: 1000
|
|
June 20, 2013, 03:29:26 AM |
|
Any thoughts as to why it started dropping at the moment BTCGuild mining went to zero?
I have thoughts relating to timing, but am turning over a new leaf and won't air them here. It's a struggle for me so I've come up with a daily affirmation: It is for me to decide which companies to invest in. It is for those that run them to decide how to do so. Friedcat has proven himself to be above suspicion so I will choose to trust in his ability to safeguard my investment. And darnit, I'm a good person.
 |
|
|
|
|
benm
Newbie
Offline
Activity: 27
Merit: 0
|
|
June 20, 2013, 03:38:54 AM |
|
I haven't looked into this too closely, but all/most of the recent blocks awarded to ASICMINER have a much lower transaction count than those awarded to other miners/pools. Is that a coincidence, is it a consequence of the hardware design, is it somehow indicative of the recent drop in hashrate?
Coincidence. I saw one earlier with 600+ transactions. Regardless, there is no mechanism in BTC to selectively mine blocks. I.e., you can't mine a 100 transaction block more easily than you can mine a 1,000 transaction block with a given difficulty. This cannot be done by adjusting hashrate either. At a given difficulty, your probability for mining a block is fixed to a certain hashrate over a period of time. A lower hashrate will have a lower probability, and a higher hashrate will have a higher probability. In short, hashrate and difficulty have nothing to do with the size of the block you mine. Ian Hashrate and difficulty are unrelated to number of transactions, but a poorly connected node may show low number of transactions - which may also be a problem when broadcasting blocks! I.e. if two miners find a block almost at the same time, the well-connected node wins the block because it is broadcast more widely. Not saying that's the case, but a low transaction number could be a signal of a poorly connected node, which could be a disadvantage in a race. So... the drop in effective hashrate could actually be the result of a DDOS on the ASICMINER node(s)? It did conveniently stop after the dividend payout - it could be someone trying to manipulate the price, or one of the other pool operators. |
|
|
|
|
|
