Search content
Sort by
Showing 20 of 234 results by jmw74
The reason P2Pool never took off is because it's performance and rewards are sub-optimal and pay out less than other pools (only slightly but it's been enough to keep P2Pool from having wide adoption. )
So far as I can tell none of the major pools have committed either way and no mined XT blocks have been found.
So far as I can tell none of the major pools have committed either way and no mined XT blocks have been found.
I mined a bit on p2pool and I'm pretty sure this is not true.
The rewards on p2pool are exactly the same as any other pool. There's larger variance than some pools, but honestly I have no idea why this is such a huge concern. It's as if people are going to mine for 1 minute only, and they want their 1 minute's worth of reward and they're not prepared to wait longer than that for the variance to even out.
I question the need for new messages to help SPV clients find the right path because 1) they seem exploitable to me and 2) all they need is the header chain to find the right path and headers are already short and fast to transmit. Waiting for x blocks again seems to protect them if you assume a majority of well connected miners.
This is a far weaker security model that what is achievable.If you can point a way to exploit this technique, I'd appreciate having it pointed out:
https://gist.github.com/justusranvier/451616fa4697b5f25f60
I'm a bit shocked that no one is talking about this idea.
It would greatly increase the security (and hence the value) of SPV clients and allow far greater scaling with almost no sacrifice in security.
One of the many reasons I haven't invested more time in the design is my mining equipment is still producing a profit in excess of 50% of the input costs.
Not sure I'm following you. Are you suggesting that it doesn't make sense for you to mod your gear [to be a part of your hot water heater] now, because your profits are high without doing it?
Are you planning to modify the gear eventually, once the profits drop? If so, why not mod it now? Unless the mod will cost you less at a later date, you're simply losing money. Especially since you claim that you've underclocked your gear to 60% due to heat issues (summer). It either makes sense to do it right away, or it *never* makes sense.
If you're not planning to mod your gear, then my point is made.
Quote
2) the concern you point out is valid but not problematic, if the water in the tank is hot, the miner runs but is not used to heat hot water. (so your wast heat is wasted) but for the rest of the time, the cost of hot water is free, or the bitcoin are being mined for free. you can still mine with 100% efficiency 100% of the time and not mine if your efficiency drops below say 99% or whatever your threshold is.
But that adds further costs--the need for dual cooling systems & switchover valving/control circuitry.
In short, impractical.
1) It won't be hard to integrate into hot water heaters when the chips are no longer obsoleted every 6 months or less. That will have to happen eventually.
2) The miner will shut off when the heat is no longer needed. If it continued running it would be at a loss, because the re-use of heat is the only thing keeping it profitable.
You're making this out to be way more difficult than it really is.
Am I missing something? I can't think of a single way to design a system where it is economically advantageous to move away from centralization (where we are intentionally neglecting the possibility that bitcoins might be worth more in a more decentralized environment).
Heat dissipation, possibly.
A huge mining datacenter will produce a lot of heat, and may not be able to make efficient use of it.
Whereas, a million individuals with ASICs in their hot water heater, may be able to utilize close to 100% of the heat. Then their marginal cost to run the miner is close to zero. The difficulty would rise to make the marginal revenue close to zero also, but it would still be an advantage to decentralized mining.
Is it safe to purchase a Trezor wallet from someone else (that you might not trust)? Is there any way that something could go wrong if the wallet was tampered with somehow?
It's possible, although not an easy attack.
If you buy a possibly tampered trezor, you could just overwrite the firmware to make sure it's not been tampered with. But it is theoretically possible for the hardware to be changed such that it will accept the official firmware and STILL send the bitcoin to a different address than it displays to you.
But long story short, the few dollars you save buying a used trezor is very likely not worth it.
He's made a strong case for what the original vision was, and maybe from the perspective of "social contract" that should be kept regardless of whether it is viewed as the "best thing" for Bitcoin. Obviously opinions strongly differ on the latter, and maybe that has to do with the context of us now living in a post-Snowden era which didn't exist when that "original vision" was defined. But the argument against the original vision being nodes all in data centers, most people using SPV, etc. is getting very thin.
There are security challenges with a network consisting mostly of light nodes.Why aren't more people talking about ways to address them rather than using their existence as an excuse to prevent progress?
The free market doesn't do anything "by itself", it's an abstract concept.
The act of building software (or anything else for that matter) is done by people who need to organize to complete the task. They can't all just sit back and wait for a magical "free market" to come along and do the work for them.
This is unique as far as I can see, I am looking forward to seeing how the 20MB fork plays out largely as the first real test of how well "voluntary consensus" works in practice.
200 years ago the very idea of trying democracy was considered a "grand experiment" (one that many predicted would fail). Today "voluntary consensus" is the grand experiment.
200 years ago the very idea of trying democracy was considered a "grand experiment" (one that many predicted would fail). Today "voluntary consensus" is the grand experiment.
I'm sure that like most experiments, the very first time it is attempted it will be a total mess and many people will run around proclaiming that it can never work.
Choosing new names for at least one of the forks is going to be messy. How about a BIP that deterministically chooses names based on the first block on each side of the fork?
I don't get all this hand-wringing about hard forks.
Everyone is paranoid that their fork won't be popular (whether among end-users or miners).
They seem to forget that on a world scale, nobody gives a crap about bitcoin still. Whether your fork occupies 0.0004% or 0.00004% of the world money supply is a rather minor distinction.
Look at it another way, would it be that horrible if your fork of bitcoin was "only" as popular as bitcoin was in 2011? That didn't stop anyone in 2011. And your fork would be way easier to use than bitcoin was then.
Put yet another way, I'd rather bitcoin be "right" than "popular". Whichever fork is what I want, that's what I'm going to use. If I wanted a "popular" currency and payment system, the dollar and Visa would be obvious choices, but that's not what any of us want.
Everyone is paranoid that their fork won't be popular (whether among end-users or miners).
They seem to forget that on a world scale, nobody gives a crap about bitcoin still. Whether your fork occupies 0.0004% or 0.00004% of the world money supply is a rather minor distinction.
Look at it another way, would it be that horrible if your fork of bitcoin was "only" as popular as bitcoin was in 2011? That didn't stop anyone in 2011. And your fork would be way easier to use than bitcoin was then.
Put yet another way, I'd rather bitcoin be "right" than "popular". Whichever fork is what I want, that's what I'm going to use. If I wanted a "popular" currency and payment system, the dollar and Visa would be obvious choices, but that's not what any of us want.
and therein lies the answer of which fork will be most popular and will win at the end of the day. hint: look at the polls.
in other words, devs can dev all they want but they won't if they aren't being funded.
You just did it again!
If popularity means winning, then we might as well all go home. I hate to break it to you, but bitcoin is terribly, terribly unpopular. At best, 0.01% of the world has used it.
The whole reason we're still here is that we want tools that work for us, and if the whole world decides to join us, great! If not, it'll go on just fine as a niche product.
I personally think bitcoin can be a much better-known niche product than it is today, but it will always be niche. And not just due to limitations on bandwidth. Consensus takes time. If you're willing to trust a 3rd party (no consensus needed!), they can run circles around bitcoin. They don't yet, but they could.
Bitcoin will become the pressure relief valve. If banks and governments don't give us a fair deal, we use bitcoin instead. Bitcoin will never be the default though, it will always be the censorship-resistance tool.
I don't get all this hand-wringing about hard forks.
Everyone is paranoid that their fork won't be popular (whether among end-users or miners).
They seem to forget that on a world scale, nobody gives a crap about bitcoin still. Whether your fork occupies 0.0004% or 0.00004% of the world money supply is a rather minor distinction.
Look at it another way, would it be that horrible if your fork of bitcoin was "only" as popular as bitcoin was in 2011? That didn't stop anyone in 2011. And your fork would be way easier to use than bitcoin was then.
Put yet another way, I'd rather bitcoin be "right" than "popular". Whichever fork is what I want, that's what I'm going to use. If I wanted a "popular" currency and payment system, the dollar and Visa would be obvious choices, but that's not what any of us want.
Everyone is paranoid that their fork won't be popular (whether among end-users or miners).
They seem to forget that on a world scale, nobody gives a crap about bitcoin still. Whether your fork occupies 0.0004% or 0.00004% of the world money supply is a rather minor distinction.
Look at it another way, would it be that horrible if your fork of bitcoin was "only" as popular as bitcoin was in 2011? That didn't stop anyone in 2011. And your fork would be way easier to use than bitcoin was then.
Put yet another way, I'd rather bitcoin be "right" than "popular". Whichever fork is what I want, that's what I'm going to use. If I wanted a "popular" currency and payment system, the dollar and Visa would be obvious choices, but that's not what any of us want.
People can't directly submit txns because they are too expensive due to limited space. So coin used for spending must be held by larger institutions who handle payments internally, and periodically make blockchain transfers among themselves. These institutions will inevitably go fractional reserve even though they claim they won't.
Congratulations, you've reinvented the gold backed banking system of the 19th century!
Congratulations, you've reinvented the gold backed banking system of the 19th century!
Nonsense.
Care to elaborate on that? Those who cannot afford to transact on the blockchain, what will they use instead?
did you listen to the above audio? it doesn't necessarily have to make money for the OEM. they stand to profit from other ways.
So I listened to most of it. I don't really care whether OEM's profit or how, I want to know why regular people would have any interest in this at all.
He's changing the original plan as stated on their website. Their website says in big bold words:
"We've developed a chip for embedded bitcoin mining."
But this guy is talking about distributed apps - eg turing complete computation. Those are two different and mutually exclusive things. So I don't know who's correct here.
Let's say the audio guy is correct and they're embedding distributed app computation into all your devices. The guy says "oh you'll get *slightly* higher priority for stuff because your device spent energy on someone else's computation". This still makes no sense. If I want the 1 cent of electricity I burned to get me slightly higher chance of getting a parking space, why can't I just spend money directly?
He still doesn't address why it's beneficial for devices to sell their computing power, breaking even or at a loss, vs just using money that the device's owner earned, for example, from their job.
in the audio they explain that they want to automate those tx's as opposed to having humans make them. from what i could glean, an app would allow you to preset your preferences to allow, for instance, an Amazon drone to fly over your garage as opposed to your kids sandbox. the drone center would have this info in their controlling servers which could then pre-compute a flight path over your house. or the other example they gave was 2 Google driverless cars arriving at an open parking spot at the same time requiring an immediate decision/negotiation to take place determining which car gets the space. the audio emphasized the "immediacy" of a decision making process enabled by essentially a bidding process somewhere out on some ethereal exchange which would determine who gets what first. humans arguing in a public garage won't cut it. in order for these types of decision making tx's to take place, "cycles" (or Satoshi's i guess) need to be on the phone ready to be utilized. the only way to ensure that these are in place ready to go is to have the phone itself mine them continuosly. if you depend on someone to get a paycheck, go out onto an exchange to buy Satoshi's, pay the exchange fee, and then send them to their phone to enable this whole process, it will never happen.
Yeah, I get all that.
First of all, the use cases are nonsensical, are these the best they can think of?
It presumes a world where there is demand to make digital payments of very tiny amounts that don't exist today, but no demand to make payment of larger everyday amounts. That seems highly unlikely.
The car example doesn't even require money at all. It depends on the cars cooperating anyway - a non-cooperating car can always refuse to yield. So they might as well play a digital form of rock-paper-scissors. No mining or special hardware required.
In general, a device does not need money to communicate or "make decisions". They already do that today.
The real driverless car use case is the car paying automatically for a paid parking spot. There's no way mining would yield enough for that. The real solution here is payment channels - between your main wallet and your devices, and devices amongst themselves.
There is no special hardware required. This is a world where people are going to have to have digital cash anyway.
did you listen to the above audio? it doesn't necessarily have to make money for the OEM. they stand to profit from other ways.
So I listened to most of it. I don't really care whether OEM's profit or how, I want to know why regular people would have any interest in this at all.
He's changing the original plan as stated on their website. Their website says in big bold words:
"We've developed a chip for embedded bitcoin mining."
But this guy is talking about distributed apps - eg turing complete computation. Those are two different and mutually exclusive things. So I don't know who's correct here.
Let's say the audio guy is correct and they're embedding distributed app computation into all your devices. The guy says "oh you'll get *slightly* higher priority for stuff because your device spent energy on someone else's computation". This still makes no sense. If I want the 1 cent of electricity I burned to get me slightly higher chance of getting a parking space, why can't I just spend money directly?
He still doesn't address why it's beneficial for devices to sell their computing power, breaking even or at a loss, vs just using money that the device's owner earned, for example, from their job.
sure, they will go after those mkts too. but, imo, smartphones is the Big Kahuna. that is where the greatest money to be had lies.
remember, those OEM's that understand Bitcoin want to grab the majority of mkt share in developing nations by offering severe discounts to new previously unbanked customers. get the phone into their hands, lock them in, and worry about significant monetization later. the only way to do this, in the 21 model of mining chips, is to make the smartphones hash as a payback. whether mining "on it's own" will be profitable or not, it's hard to tell. but it could be with enough efficiency in the chip, assuming customers will attempt to pass on charging costs to "others", and coordinating the hashing power to generate blocks. either way, i don't think that's the main thrust. they want to get Satoshi's onto ppl's phones so as to allow the phones to "negotiate" micropayments for all sorts of unimaginable things like parking, fast lanes on hwys, who knows. the OEM's will have one huge coordinated network to which they can sell all sorts of other products and services as well. it's also their stated objective to decentralize mining which i think is a worthy goal even if it means they lose money on it. i've seeing all sorts of crying about "centralization" as a result. that's ridiculous. who honestly thinks that bringing on millions, if not billions, of new individual miners into the economy will do that? do you honestly think the #pools we have now will stay constant and just absorb all this new value? no way. as many new pools will crop up as device manufacturers who are willing to do this. in fact, each OEM should set up their own pool if they want to maximize the gain. it's easy. i ran my own sort of pool back when i was pointing 15 or so of my own miners at my stratum solo mining server. and i'm not a geek or CS. it was relatively easy. all sorts of new pool operators are going to come out of the woodwork to take any outsourcing that might occur. why not? free money in fees for easy work. no, we are going to see a mushrooming of the absolute #pools as well as a spreading out of the distribution into a much more decentralized piechart than we've already seen.
there will be also many ppl here in developed nations who will want these mining phones. esp with all the free electricity we have access to.
if you haven't listened to the audio dropt posted above, you should. it highlights and expands on many of the things i have been saying about this.
What are you smoking? You forget what proof of work IS. It's proof of burn of electricity. You cannot earn more in the long term, than the value of the electricity you burned. How much electricity can a smartphone burn?
Charging a smartphone costs a whopping 41 cents PER YEAR. Nobody gives a shit about those pennies, and even less about 25% of those pennies. Not even the poorest people in Africa, with free power and 10 smartphones, can earn anything close to a worthwhile return.
And that's assuming they have free power! Maybe shop owners NOW don't mind if people charge their phones, but what happens when their shop is filled with freeloaders who will just steal power and not buy anything? Of course they're going to cut off the free power.
I really can't believe people are falling for this bullshit.
you sound angry. what are you, a Monero holder or something? thinking you're smarter than the wealth of talented minds in the 21 camp is what i'd consider "smoking". did you read anything i said above? it could, in fact, be a loss leader. but getting a majority share of a known burgeoning market that will leapfrog the pc and laptop mkt is hugely valuable. otoh, if they indeed have worked out the power reqs, which is what i think they mean when they referred to power scaling per device, then it will be an even bigger win. you can't discount this from a group that includes major industry leaders like Qualcomm & Cisco. furthermore, advancing the goal of mining decentralization stands to kill a major bear tard argument against Bitcoin in the long run. it's a worthy goal. and as far as the mkt responding to "stealing" electricity. unfortunately for you anti-Bitcoin beartards, the mkt will be slow to respond, as in years. it always is. what we're talking about is empowering millions of disadvantaged, yet ambitious, smart individuals who want to make money like you and me. the whole concept leverages on Bitcoin's Sound Money principles which makes it worthwhile to do whatever it takes to make it work. you can't stop that and i think 21 understands this principle. stop your whining.
I'm not sure why being skeptical of 21's business plan equates to anti-bitcoin, in your mind.
Anyway, they stated their plan, I pointed out glaring flaws in it, and the response is "these guys are industry leaders, they know what they're doing". Well, maybe, but I can't critique what is only in their heads. Their plan that they have actually made public is ludicrous beyond belief. Consumers can't make money, manufacturers and 21 can only make money by creating a massive scam.
It makes no sense at all and frankly I'm shocked that someone like you (who is normally very astute) doesn't see the problem here.
I'm all for mining decentralization BUT THIS ISN'T IT! In order to be decentralized, the owner of the device has to be able to control the mining policy. In this case, they can't. That power will be concentrated in the hands of the manufacturer and 21. Come on cypherdoc, you know this stuff. Makes me wonder if you're on someone's payroll.
not on anyone's payroll, except my own.
i don't understand how you can use such emphatic terms like "ludicrous beyond belief", this is "bullshit", BUT THIS ISN'T IT!, etc. i thought i've been quite clear about how i understand and view this situation which i don't think any of your terms describes. there's plenty of customer and OEM motivation built in here.
yeah, it might not be your ideal way of decentralizing mining, but i think it can be if you envision new pools popping up by the OEM's wanting to manage their own BTC accts directly. i easily see how that can happen. instead of every individual enabling decentralization we'll have thousands of small pools. there's nothing wrong with that and was in Satoshi's original vision. it's also consistent with the thought that every major company ought to be running their full node to clear tx's and monitor their sales. well, this kills 2 birds with one stone, doesn't it?
What can I say, 21's plan really rubs me the wrong way. I'll try to put aside the emotional tone.
Sure, these devices COULD allow the users to control the mining policy or change pools. But that is in direct conflict with other parts of the plan, which was to bring these devices to consumers who don't even know or care what bitcoin is. Either they understand mining policy or they don't. If they don't, then control falls to the manufacturer, which will be the case with 99% of the devices. That's what leads me to believe it will not even be possible to change pools - the number of consumers who will use that feature will be negligible.
You still haven't addressed the fact that mining will only produce roughly the value of electricity burned. Which in the case of mobile devices, is basically zilch. So we are really only talking about home appliances. And then consumers are going to notice the power consumption that they do not get repaid for.
So what exactly is the value that 21 is bringing to the people? I don't see any. Nobody is even able to come up with pure conjecture that makes any sense, and apparently nobody thinks that is a problem.
sure, they will go after those mkts too. but, imo, smartphones is the Big Kahuna. that is where the greatest money to be had lies.
remember, those OEM's that understand Bitcoin want to grab the majority of mkt share in developing nations by offering severe discounts to new previously unbanked customers. get the phone into their hands, lock them in, and worry about significant monetization later. the only way to do this, in the 21 model of mining chips, is to make the smartphones hash as a payback. whether mining "on it's own" will be profitable or not, it's hard to tell. but it could be with enough efficiency in the chip, assuming customers will attempt to pass on charging costs to "others", and coordinating the hashing power to generate blocks. either way, i don't think that's the main thrust. they want to get Satoshi's onto ppl's phones so as to allow the phones to "negotiate" micropayments for all sorts of unimaginable things like parking, fast lanes on hwys, who knows. the OEM's will have one huge coordinated network to which they can sell all sorts of other products and services as well. it's also their stated objective to decentralize mining which i think is a worthy goal even if it means they lose money on it. i've seeing all sorts of crying about "centralization" as a result. that's ridiculous. who honestly thinks that bringing on millions, if not billions, of new individual miners into the economy will do that? do you honestly think the #pools we have now will stay constant and just absorb all this new value? no way. as many new pools will crop up as device manufacturers who are willing to do this. in fact, each OEM should set up their own pool if they want to maximize the gain. it's easy. i ran my own sort of pool back when i was pointing 15 or so of my own miners at my stratum solo mining server. and i'm not a geek or CS. it was relatively easy. all sorts of new pool operators are going to come out of the woodwork to take any outsourcing that might occur. why not? free money in fees for easy work. no, we are going to see a mushrooming of the absolute #pools as well as a spreading out of the distribution into a much more decentralized piechart than we've already seen.
there will be also many ppl here in developed nations who will want these mining phones. esp with all the free electricity we have access to.
if you haven't listened to the audio dropt posted above, you should. it highlights and expands on many of the things i have been saying about this.
What are you smoking? You forget what proof of work IS. It's proof of burn of electricity. You cannot earn more in the long term, than the value of the electricity you burned. How much electricity can a smartphone burn?
Charging a smartphone costs a whopping 41 cents PER YEAR. Nobody gives a shit about those pennies, and even less about 25% of those pennies. Not even the poorest people in Africa, with free power and 10 smartphones, can earn anything close to a worthwhile return.
And that's assuming they have free power! Maybe shop owners NOW don't mind if people charge their phones, but what happens when their shop is filled with freeloaders who will just steal power and not buy anything? Of course they're going to cut off the free power.
I really can't believe people are falling for this bullshit.
you sound angry. what are you, a Monero holder or something? thinking you're smarter than the wealth of talented minds in the 21 camp is what i'd consider "smoking". did you read anything i said above? it could, in fact, be a loss leader. but getting a majority share of a known burgeoning market that will leapfrog the pc and laptop mkt is hugely valuable. otoh, if they indeed have worked out the power reqs, which is what i think they mean when they referred to power scaling per device, then it will be an even bigger win. you can't discount this from a group that includes major industry leaders like Qualcomm & Cisco. furthermore, advancing the goal of mining decentralization stands to kill a major bear tard argument against Bitcoin in the long run. it's a worthy goal. and as far as the mkt responding to "stealing" electricity. unfortunately for you anti-Bitcoin beartards, the mkt will be slow to respond, as in years. it always is. what we're talking about is empowering millions of disadvantaged, yet ambitious, smart individuals who want to make money like you and me. the whole concept leverages on Bitcoin's Sound Money principles which makes it worthwhile to do whatever it takes to make it work. you can't stop that and i think 21 understands this principle. stop your whining.
I'm not sure why being skeptical of 21's business plan equates to anti-bitcoin, in your mind.
Anyway, they stated their plan, I pointed out glaring flaws in it, and the response is "these guys are industry leaders, they know what they're doing". Well, maybe, but I can't critique what is only in their heads. Their plan that they have actually made public is ludicrous beyond belief. Consumers can't make money, manufacturers and 21 can only make money by creating a massive scam.
It makes no sense at all and frankly I'm shocked that someone like you (who is normally very astute) doesn't see the problem here.
I'm all for mining decentralization BUT THIS ISN'T IT! In order to be decentralized, the owner of the device has to be able to control the mining policy. In this case, they can't. That power will be concentrated in the hands of the manufacturer and 21. Come on cypherdoc, you know this stuff. Makes me wonder if you're on someone's payroll.
sure, they will go after those mkts too. but, imo, smartphones is the Big Kahuna. that is where the greatest money to be had lies.
remember, those OEM's that understand Bitcoin want to grab the majority of mkt share in developing nations by offering severe discounts to new previously unbanked customers. get the phone into their hands, lock them in, and worry about significant monetization later. the only way to do this, in the 21 model of mining chips, is to make the smartphones hash as a payback. whether mining "on it's own" will be profitable or not, it's hard to tell. but it could be with enough efficiency in the chip, assuming customers will attempt to pass on charging costs to "others", and coordinating the hashing power to generate blocks. either way, i don't think that's the main thrust. they want to get Satoshi's onto ppl's phones so as to allow the phones to "negotiate" micropayments for all sorts of unimaginable things like parking, fast lanes on hwys, who knows. the OEM's will have one huge coordinated network to which they can sell all sorts of other products and services as well. it's also their stated objective to decentralize mining which i think is a worthy goal even if it means they lose money on it. i've seeing all sorts of crying about "centralization" as a result. that's ridiculous. who honestly thinks that bringing on millions, if not billions, of new individual miners into the economy will do that? do you honestly think the #pools we have now will stay constant and just absorb all this new value? no way. as many new pools will crop up as device manufacturers who are willing to do this. in fact, each OEM should set up their own pool if they want to maximize the gain. it's easy. i ran my own sort of pool back when i was pointing 15 or so of my own miners at my stratum solo mining server. and i'm not a geek or CS. it was relatively easy. all sorts of new pool operators are going to come out of the woodwork to take any outsourcing that might occur. why not? free money in fees for easy work. no, we are going to see a mushrooming of the absolute #pools as well as a spreading out of the distribution into a much more decentralized piechart than we've already seen.
there will be also many ppl here in developed nations who will want these mining phones. esp with all the free electricity we have access to.
if you haven't listened to the audio dropt posted above, you should. it highlights and expands on many of the things i have been saying about this.
What are you smoking? You forget what proof of work IS. It's proof of burn of electricity. You cannot earn more in the long term, than the value of the electricity you burned. How much electricity can a smartphone burn?
Charging a smartphone costs a whopping 41 cents PER YEAR. Nobody gives a shit about those pennies, and even less about 25% of those pennies. Not even the poorest people in Africa, with free power and 10 smartphones, can earn anything close to a worthwhile return.
And that's assuming they have free power! Maybe shop owners NOW don't mind if people charge their phones, but what happens when their shop is filled with freeloaders who will just steal power and not buy anything? Of course they're going to cut off the free power.
I really can't believe people are falling for this bullshit.
the only financial plan i've heard of is the 25/75% split btwn the consumer and 21, so the consumer is going to get spending coin. and that would be business savvy for the companies b/c that allows consumers to purchase other services and features. yes, the mining and hardware wallet will be on autopilot and already setup which makes it brain dead easy for even guys like you to use so you won't feel so bad for having not bought @ $13.
I can't quite tell but I think you're serious?
The consumer is going to get 25% of jack shit, and a bigger electricity bill. You can't possibly think this is a business model.
These ASICs are going to be nearly obsolete by the time anyone plugs them into a socket. They are not going to mine anything of value, certainly not enough to pay for any real world resources. A few satoshis is below the dust limit and unspendable.
Even if that were somehow overcome, do you really think that all the power outlets that people can use today for free, will still be free, once it becomes clear freeloaders will be making real profits by stealing power? Of course not. They're only free today because no one is trying to take advantage of them.
21's plan, as stated, is pure bullshit. The only question is whether they know it or not.
Bitcoin needs to do an Uber and scoop up as many users as fast as possible round the world before gvts, regulators, and banks can stop it. we may already be there fortunately but we do have a ways to go and it's clear that 1MB is an artificial cap on growth.
That's the biggest concern I have.Bank-based Bitcoin competitors are not stopping to take a break and study issues - they are actively working to hire developers and build systems that can grow faster than Bitcoin.
Meanwhile, the anti-scaling crowd is telling us we need more time to study the scaling issues even though they've been saying that since the first time this issue came up in 2012.
Apparently they are the only developers capable of making any change at all.
Wait they're not? So what exactly is stopping some developers from coding the fork and releasing it? Are people worried miners will attack and destroy it? That attack can't succeed in the long term. If the attack works once, you just fork again with a 1 line change to move the fork point forward. Miners are not going to keep wasting resources on that forever, once they see your fork isn't going away, they may see it as more profitable to mine on it honestly.
I'd run it, and I'd probably sell at least part of my stake in the 1mb fork.
problem with that is that it's tantamount to lack of advertising. if you don't get a consensus, you risk large swaths of the community not even knowing about your fork and others advocating against it. it would be ideal to get a consensus so that everyone knows and are all onboard to make the switch to the new code.
most ppl don't really understand how Bitcoin works or the anything about the whole process of consensus or open source. they'll get confused about what to do if there continues to be battling btwn information sources. so yes, it's best to get a consensus if possible.
Gavin's already started coding a possible fork, you're telling me he's not well known enough in the community to get any backing? He may not go that route for political reasons, but anyone could build his code and run it.
Bitcoin needs to do an Uber and scoop up as many users as fast as possible round the world before gvts, regulators, and banks can stop it. we may already be there fortunately but we do have a ways to go and it's clear that 1MB is an artificial cap on growth.
That's the biggest concern I have.Bank-based Bitcoin competitors are not stopping to take a break and study issues - they are actively working to hire developers and build systems that can grow faster than Bitcoin.
Meanwhile, the anti-scaling crowd is telling us we need more time to study the scaling issues even though they've been saying that since the first time this issue came up in 2012.
Apparently they are the only developers capable of making any change at all.
Wait they're not? So what exactly is stopping some developers from coding the fork and releasing it? Are people worried miners will attack and destroy it? That attack can't succeed in the long term. If the attack works once, you just fork again with a 1 line change to move the fork point forward. Miners are not going to keep wasting resources on that forever, once they see your fork isn't going away, they may see it as more profitable to mine on it honestly.
I'd run it, and I'd probably sell at least part of my stake in the 1mb fork.
It's about time people are fighting back. These idiots need to be flat out embarrassed in public over and over:
http://www.dailydot.com/politics/second-crypto-war-hearing-washington/
http://www.dailydot.com/politics/second-crypto-war-hearing-washington/
My fear is that in the end this is just theatrics and the 3 letter agencies will do as they please regardless.
You say this as if they don't already do as they please.