Search content
Sort by
Showing 20 of 146 results by Saturn7
Would this work?
http://www.jameco.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/Product_10001_10001_2104719_-1
It's 9 volts with 16.7 amps output but only rated at 150 watts.
http://www.jameco.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/Product_10001_10001_2104719_-1
It's 9 volts with 16.7 amps output but only rated at 150 watts.
Re: How hard is it to make a bitcoin clone (or nearly a clone)
go to http://coingen.io/ and you can specify your parameters.
Difficulty adjustment already provides a mechanism to adjust a variable value with consensus. Why not just treat block size the same?
For example if the average size of the last 2016 blocks in 80% full then the block size would double.
For example if the average size of the last 2016 blocks in 80% full then the block size would double.
In the last 2016 blocks, or in the 2016 blocks which make up the previous difficulty calculation? (I think the latter would probably be a better choice.)
What, if anything, is the mechanism to shrink the blocks back down again? (Halve if the average size of the last 2016 blocks is 20% full, with a hard minimum of 1 meg?)
I suspect this might be vulnerable to blockchain-forking attacks which near-simultaneously release very differently sized blocks, but it's hard to say without a full specification.
Depending on your answer to the second question, it also might increase the incentives for miners to release blocks with as few transactions as possible.
It also generally makes the design of mining software more complicated and thus more vulnerable to attack. Being able to statically allocate the size of a block is a definite advantage, though I don't know off hand how the reference implementation handles this. I'd say some hard maximum is necessary, even if it's ridiculously huge. But then what's the advantage of not just setting the maximum at whatever that hard maximum is?
In the end this might be viable, but I'd want a lot more details.
I would say the 2016 blocks which make up the previous difficulty calculation.
I don't think it should shrink, there may be periods where blocks are not fully utilised but if that became an ongoing trend it would only mean people stopped using bitcoin.
I would say there are less risks in slowly growing the block size over time then just not having a limit at all (even if there was a large hypothetical limit). We also need to consider network propagation time. If out of the blue we had a 1 gigabyte block would all the clients globally have this data in ~10 minutes (about 6 minutes when the network hash rate grows)?
Difficulty adjustment already provides a mechanism to adjust a variable value with consensus. Why not just treat block size the same?
For example if the average size of the last 2016 blocks were 80% full then the block size would double.
For example if the average size of the last 2016 blocks were 80% full then the block size would double.
Any law in Switzerland can be overturned with 50,000 signatures.
Doubt it will get passed.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Referendum#Switzerland
Here is an awsome example:
http://boingboing.net/2007/12/02/swiss-dmca-petition.html
Doubt it will get passed.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Referendum#Switzerland
Here is an awsome example:
http://boingboing.net/2007/12/02/swiss-dmca-petition.html
If you see and click on this ad, it takes you to a website called http://asicrigs.ag
Plus they are using images from KNC Miner.
DNS involves trusting third parties, which is not (much) of an issue with the actual DNS system as it stands, but Bitcoin is controversial to some, so it might be problematic. As Saturn7 says, using the namecoin system could be a potential solution.
So namecoin doesn't require trusting third parties? I don't think most users will run full namecoin nodes, so probably they would trust external DNS-servers.
Yes but if one was inclined to check if a third party namecoin providers was blocking or changing entries the information to check that is available to you.
Namecoin really has some amazing potential if basic usability layers where added to it, which I believe are being developed, but there are not that many dev's focusing their attention on namecoin at the moment.
5870 at 900Mhz Clock speed and 300Mhz Ram will give you 430M/hashes no problem.
Use the AMD Overclock tool to set Ram and clock speed
http://www.techpowerup.com/downloads/1641/amd-gpu-clock-tool-v0-9-26-0-for-hd-5870/
Use the AMD Overclock tool to set Ram and clock speed
http://www.techpowerup.com/downloads/1641/amd-gpu-clock-tool-v0-9-26-0-for-hd-5870/
