Search content
Sort by
Showing 20 of 188 results by HardwareReviewer
A long term ASIC-resistant solution would be where the PoW algo itself is dynamic:
The algo, consistent of base code blocks, will be compiled using (previous) block parameters.
So the exact algo will not be known beforehand, thus ASIC-resistant.
Does it make sense?
The algo, consistent of base code blocks, will be compiled using (previous) block parameters.
So the exact algo will not be known beforehand, thus ASIC-resistant.
Does it make sense?
A change of PoW as a quickfix (to fool currently manufactured ASICS) without too much risk of bugs can be as follows:
Instead of checking for n zero bits, implement checking for n one bits instead.
If you are bold, you can have the sequence of leading bits to check to be dependant on the trailing bits of the previous block.
Instead of checking for n zero bits, implement checking for n one bits instead.
If you are bold, you can have the sequence of leading bits to check to be dependant on the trailing bits of the previous block.
We've expressed our opinion about this matter a million times, and we all agreed your view to be ridiculous indeed.
Your blatant appeal to local popularity is duly noted.
Outside of this thread, the rest of the universe agrees windfalls are disallowed by common law principles of equity, due process, etc.
Although unpopular here in The Village, independent outside expert opinions from qualified people who matter (IE judges and AGs) recognize the fact risky start-ups go bankrupt all the time, and lack of success does not indicate presence of scam.
Is HardwareReviewer your real name? According to cedivad, hiding behind a "fake name" means you're "just a puppet," don't ya know?
Yes it is:
First name: Hard
Last name: Warereviewer
Look, the idiot is back. Would you mind repeating me your full name, idiot?
We are discussing your crazy fantasy about '1-to-1 no matter what' BTC refunds (AKA windfalls).
You can't defend your ridiculous opinion, so you threaten to attack me personally.
Shoot the messenger if you must.
But that won't change the fact you were and are wrong about the topic at hand:
The 'sue first, ask questions later' strategy was largely your idea and it has turned out (as predicted) to be an expensive, wasteful disaster.
After goading others to hire lawyers to perform their hideously overpriced Kabuki dance in bankruptcy theater, you didn't even follow through and pay for one yourself.
We've expressed our opinion about this matter a million times, and we all agreed your view to be ridiculous indeed.
Can I still send my ballot for acceptance or rejection of 'the plan', or is it already too late? 
You can always. Send it via email and you will get a response.
Done. Thanks.
Re: CoinDesk's reporters submission to the Australian Senate
Hi,
Yes, getting a login to access the 'governmental' database is somewhat similar to the procedure of applying for a new credit card.
With the difference that if someone with bad intentions would be able to compromise your login at this database, they would 'only' see your public addresses but they would not be able to retrieve any funds from them.
This would be the scenario in the end:
- Your local 'bank': in possession of your username (some random numbers) only (you'd have to change the initial password at first database login).
- The 'governmental' database where registered addresses are stored and the people operating it: can only see this random username linked to public addresses, no personally identifiable information would be stored there.
The tool that would be used for registering addresses, could be an (offline) open source application.
---
As for my position:
Actually I am quite the rebel myself, but also a realist.
I think that for bitcoin to go mainstream, this or similar kind of system would be necessary.
PS: Anyway, those are my thoughts and I'll be happy being wrong.
Yes, getting a login to access the 'governmental' database is somewhat similar to the procedure of applying for a new credit card.
With the difference that if someone with bad intentions would be able to compromise your login at this database, they would 'only' see your public addresses but they would not be able to retrieve any funds from them.
This would be the scenario in the end:
- Your local 'bank': in possession of your username (some random numbers) only (you'd have to change the initial password at first database login).
- The 'governmental' database where registered addresses are stored and the people operating it: can only see this random username linked to public addresses, no personally identifiable information would be stored there.
The tool that would be used for registering addresses, could be an (offline) open source application.
---
As for my position:
Actually I am quite the rebel myself, but also a realist.
I think that for bitcoin to go mainstream, this or similar kind of system would be necessary.
PS: Anyway, those are my thoughts and I'll be happy being wrong.
Does anyone else here reading this thread agree with iCEBREAKER's perspective on HashFast??
I'd like to know how many people agree with iCEBREAKER's superb, undeniable, god-like understanding of all things of law and economics concerning HashFail.
Thanks in advance.
I'd like to know how many people agree with iCEBREAKER's superb, undeniable, god-like understanding of all things of law and economics concerning HashFail.
Thanks in advance.
I suppose nobody, including iCEBREAKER himself.
He is however very convinced that he can convince people to believe otherwise.
In other words, a dirty leftover from HashFail's - well - failure.
Time to adjust your New Year's resolutions iCEBREAKER.
Happy New Year!
Now when are we gonna get our 0.001% back?
Code:
# python
Type "help", "copyright", "credits" or "license" for more information.
>>> 400-700 > 0
False
Type "help", "copyright", "credits" or "license" for more information.
>>> 400-700 > 0
False
Oh right, I forgot!
Tried evaluating in a different programming language, unfortunately with the same result.
Re: CoinDesk's reporters submission to the Australian Senate
I post here hoping that Mr Dario Di Pardo a reporter from CoinDesk http://www.coindesk.com/author/dario-di-pardo/ might read this forum. The submission you suggest is ridiculous and limits innovation. What you are proposing ties all vendors of hardware terminals, invoicing software and any other wallet to one vendor. The government.
From Document 6, page 2:
"2. Proposed scenario
Addresses will be registered/issued by an entity that is in possession of the user's verified identity.
This entity could be a governmental institution or regulated financial institution. In this proposal we choose a bank to fulfill this task, because of its expertise in the area of security and finance."
There are hundreds of reasons why this is a bad idea; security risks, trusting the government not to store you private keys, trusting they have implemented enough entropy, no bugs in the system, no third party vendors or providers or contractors sniffing the network along the way.... we could go on.
One of my clients generate literally thousands of addresses per day. Most of them unused.
For some who claims "Dario has been working as an IT consultant for almost ten years, mainly in the telecommunications industry. Since he first heard about bitcoin in 2013, he's been a keen follower of cryptocurrencies." you simply don't get it. These kind of submissions only confuse government further and will aid them making rash and misinformed decisions regarding legislation.
http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate/Economics/Digital_currency/Submissions
http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate/Economics/Digital_currency
From Document 6, page 2:
"2. Proposed scenario
Addresses will be registered/issued by an entity that is in possession of the user's verified identity.
This entity could be a governmental institution or regulated financial institution. In this proposal we choose a bank to fulfill this task, because of its expertise in the area of security and finance."
There are hundreds of reasons why this is a bad idea; security risks, trusting the government not to store you private keys, trusting they have implemented enough entropy, no bugs in the system, no third party vendors or providers or contractors sniffing the network along the way.... we could go on.
One of my clients generate literally thousands of addresses per day. Most of them unused.
For some who claims "Dario has been working as an IT consultant for almost ten years, mainly in the telecommunications industry. Since he first heard about bitcoin in 2013, he's been a keen follower of cryptocurrencies." you simply don't get it. These kind of submissions only confuse government further and will aid them making rash and misinformed decisions regarding legislation.
http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate/Economics/Digital_currency/Submissions
http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate/Economics/Digital_currency
Hi,
Security is addressed here: https://bitcoinfoundation.org/forum/index.php?/topic/1021-ideal-legislation-model-for-state-level/page__st__20#entry12231.
What would change with regard to your friend generating thousands of addresses per day, is that he/she would then use a different tool for this.
What is somewhat naive (or ridiculous if you prefer) though, is thinking that millions of pseudonymous bitcoin transactions per day, will be transparent without any kind of identification system.
PS: I am/was a CoinDesk contributor.
iCEBREAKER can live in his broken reality but the fact that some US legal representative(s) do not see how the economics of Bitcoin works doesn't mean that what their ruling is right and just.
Fact is there hasn't been a single decision from any court yet dealing with the issues of Hashfast's promise of refunds, or the legality of Hashfast's shady business practices.
Icebreaker seems to think so. Did I misread that?
No, you read what he wrote correctly; he is miss informed or misrepresenting what has happened so far to mean something it does not.
Like he has been doing all the time.
Now when are we gonna get our 0.001% back?
Every single customer knows/feels he/she has been scammed by HashFast.
Nothing can change that, not even you, iCEBREAKER. If any, you are making it worse
The only thing a court ruling would reveal in this case, is whether it was a competent scam (well-executed scam, no evidence that it was a scam) or an incompentent scam (revealing the truth).
So they will go down in history as competent scammers, at best.
Cheers.
Nothing can change that, not even you, iCEBREAKER. If any, you are making it worse
The only thing a court ruling would reveal in this case, is whether it was a competent scam (well-executed scam, no evidence that it was a scam) or an incompentent scam (revealing the truth).
So they will go down in history as competent scammers, at best.
Cheers.
It's not that "simple" but we understand that it may appear so to your simple minds.
Business with valuable assets, promising technology, and multiple creditors do not just "go away."
HF is in Chapter 11, which means they have the chance to turn the company around as that is in the best interests of their creditors.
Your pouty attitude of 'they hurt my feelings and I want them to GO AWAY' is very immature and downright childish.
Claims that HF are "scammers" or "incompetent" have already been heard and rejected by the bankruptcy court. Repeating that defamation won't make it true. I'd love to see you stamp your feet and throw your tantrums in front of Judge Montali; it would be entertaining to watch the bailiff put you in handcuffs and throw you in jail for contempt.
The sooner you grow up and face these facts, the sooner your butthurt will get better.
Business with valuable assets, promising technology, and multiple creditors do not just "go away."
HF is in Chapter 11, which means they have the chance to turn the company around as that is in the best interests of their creditors.
Your pouty attitude of 'they hurt my feelings and I want them to GO AWAY' is very immature and downright childish.
Claims that HF are "scammers" or "incompetent" have already been heard and rejected by the bankruptcy court. Repeating that defamation won't make it true. I'd love to see you stamp your feet and throw your tantrums in front of Judge Montali; it would be entertaining to watch the bailiff put you in handcuffs and throw you in jail for contempt.
The sooner you grow up and face these facts, the sooner your butthurt will get better.
HAHAHAHAHA!
A company which left
You're right, HashFast (puke) is clearly a successful company rather than being incompetent!
What a load of shit(fall), dude!
But hey, still funny!
