Search content
Sort by
Showing 20 of 24 results by bitfarmer
The $17 mark is because one guy suddenly spent hundreds of thousands on coins in the last few days.
Indeed a wise investor has found bitcoin
Re: I questioned the "Bitcoin dev team" (Andresen & Co.) on complying with AML laws.
It looks as if you're getting the same response here as in the IRC channel, albeit much more drawn out.
Aren't the AML laws in place already? And they effect everyone? You can't accept cash for gold in any significant amount and not be required to report your business to the MAN. You know, for taxes and all that jazz.
If a government feels threatened by bitcoin, the DEV team(s) would simply be an easy starting point if they comply. If big brother starts leaning on them, I expect they'll step down. The math does not need to change, there would need to be more information contained about sender and receiver. Let's drop this, they can do their own damn figuring on how. Implementation would be a nightmare, and a fork would likely result, govcoin.
That being said, there are other attack vectors than code changes. Why bother with that fuss and bad PR of attacking open source software development when they can pass a law in relative secrecy banning the transacting of fiat with bitcoin related business, to stop the funding of terrorism.
Aren't the AML laws in place already? And they effect everyone? You can't accept cash for gold in any significant amount and not be required to report your business to the MAN. You know, for taxes and all that jazz.
If a government feels threatened by bitcoin, the DEV team(s) would simply be an easy starting point if they comply. If big brother starts leaning on them, I expect they'll step down. The math does not need to change, there would need to be more information contained about sender and receiver. Let's drop this, they can do their own damn figuring on how. Implementation would be a nightmare, and a fork would likely result, govcoin.
That being said, there are other attack vectors than code changes. Why bother with that fuss and bad PR of attacking open source software development when they can pass a law in relative secrecy banning the transacting of fiat with bitcoin related business, to stop the funding of terrorism.
When FPGA came out, did all the GPU miners pack up and call it quits, leaving only FPGa units? Nope.
Yeah the network hashrate didn't jump up a giant percentage when FPGA units joined
No, but they also did not increase hashing power on the scale that ASIC will either. Where are all the CPU miners today? GPU mining pushed them into obsolescence. When FPGA miners were released, people realised the end is neigh for GPU, and it seems as if ASIC will drive the nails into the coffin for GPU.
Perhaps we'll have botnet operators to thank for the backup distributed hashing power of CPU and GPU, if all else fails..
This is likely a non-issue, the thought occurred to me the other day and I'm looking for more powerful minds to hash out the details
As the ASIC miners start mining, and "outdated" miners go offline, does this not pose a risk to the network in the sense that there are fewer overall miners?
The network as it stands now is far more distributed amongst a greater number of computers & hardware mining. If the majority of these go offline due to obsolescence, in essence there would be a centralization of power to a far fewer number of miners.
Although the network hash rate will be significantly higher, the number of people involved will greatly reduce. Does anyone see a risk in this? Perhaps if the ASICs develop hardware issues in the future (I hope not) and cease mining operations, I would think the network would be very vulnerable to an attack. Granted, difficulty would drop and "regular" miners would return in a balancing act.
Is the efficiency and hash rate increase worth the trade off of a less distributed mining network?
The network as it stands now is far more distributed amongst a greater number of computers & hardware mining. If the majority of these go offline due to obsolescence, in essence there would be a centralization of power to a far fewer number of miners.
Although the network hash rate will be significantly higher, the number of people involved will greatly reduce. Does anyone see a risk in this? Perhaps if the ASICs develop hardware issues in the future (I hope not) and cease mining operations, I would think the network would be very vulnerable to an attack. Granted, difficulty would drop and "regular" miners would return in a balancing act.
Is the efficiency and hash rate increase worth the trade off of a less distributed mining network?
Why is this referred to as a "hoarding" problem? Why is saving not the correct term for this? To me, it's derogatory to call saving hording. At some point, the coins will be spent or sold. Hoarding is what those people on TV do, keep it until it is trash. Unless it's your plan to keep your BTC until you format them away, it's not hoarding.