Search content
Sort by
Showing 12 of 12 results by kazoo
One big thing distorting the Mt Gox recent bubble was the ability to game the averages by making a bid you had know way of backing up. I think this is a big recent for the recent attack. Per MtGox, their statement about changing this, starting Wednesday:
It must have been easy for the bad actors to inflate the price, under these conditions. Of course, if I'm missing something, that wouldn't be the first time.
Quote
Orders will only be accepted when there are enough funds available in your wallet! Dear users, starting on April 17th we will be rolling out a minor change on how people place orders via the Mt.Gox interface. Until recently, anyone could place a buy or sell order for Bitcoin, regardless of how much funds were actually available in their wallet, resulting in an order showing a "Not enough funds" error status in the Open Orders list. Starting on April 17th, this counter productive scenario will no longer be possible and will be automatically rejected before validating your order; until you have enough funds in your wallet to match the order value. While this change should only affect a minority of users, it will however have a major impact on our trading platform and improve our system overall performance.
It must have been easy for the bad actors to inflate the price, under these conditions. Of course, if I'm missing something, that wouldn't be the first time.
Re: Microsoft Researchers Suggest Method to Improve Bitcoin Transaction Propagation
i leave 4 separate clients open and i don't even mine. i do it for philosophical reasons to "help" the network. doesn't cost me anything.
Everything costs something!If bitcoin becomes fully fledged monetary system things like enthusiasm, altruism, philanthropy and philosophy will not be enough to secure its future! After all, it is about money! All tricks will be used both technically and economically to game the system and abuse it. Every expense that is possible to avoid paying will not be paid by participating agents in the network! There is no doubt about that... The big question here is whether all those avoidable expenses are fundamental incentives to keep bicoin network running?
I think this is the most important point. As a concept for a community, bitcoin has been better at making miners than at evangelists and transaction processors. I see this as a game that has made winners out of miners, but is missing players, now. This is a shortcoming of the system of incentives.
Re: Microsoft Researchers Suggest Method to Improve Bitcoin Transaction Propagation
But while transaction processing costs money to perform, it does not seem to be incentivized properly. While there are concrete rewards for generating currency, there is no corresponding concrete and immediate reward for processing the transaction, and voting in transaction approvals. This might be a real obstacle in general acceptance, and some of the root cause behind all of the "so where can I use this" kind of questions we hear all the time.
You seem to equate mining = generating bitcoins when that isn't true. Mining = hashing transactions into irreversable* blocks is part of transaction processing.
I do agree that the other parts seem to be neglected.
The entire processing chain involves
1) Validating & relaying transactions
2) Hashing transactions into blocks
3) Validating & relaying blocks.
Currently only step #2 is compensated but it IS part of transaction processing.
Yes, I agree I did seem to be making it appear as that was my understanding. I think I have a bit more refined notion of mining, but probably not by much.
My point was to differentiate mining and transaction processing kinds of activities, even though these are intertwined. So I attempt to draw a bright line, where there really is none.
The reason for trying to even make this distinction is that my impression is that there are (or were) a lot of people interested in getting into mining, while transaction processing has a lot fewer players. Mining is much simpler, requiring less sophistication and design than improving transaction processing. So we see a lot more effort in mining, and less in convenience and acceptance. If there were even a tenth as much progress in building transaction infrastructure as there has been in mining, bitcoins would be more commonly used than they are now.
Re: Microsoft Researchers Suggest Method to Improve Bitcoin Transaction Propagation
As with all things bitcoin, I am hesitant to chime up in the discussion without doing more research, but I have also always had the feeling that transaction processing is not properly incentivized. There are (at least) two major operations in the bitcoin network: currency generation and transaction processing. I think the generation part is remarkably viable, and well conceived, especially in this nascent stage.
But while transaction processing costs money to perform, it does not seem to be incentivized properly. While there are concrete rewards for generating currency, there is no corresponding concrete and immediate reward for processing the transaction, and voting in transaction approvals. This might be a real obstacle in general acceptance, and some of the root cause behind all of the "so where can I use this" kind of questions we hear all the time.
In this case, I believe that these researchers seem to have found a structural imperfection causing a block where there should be a flow. The health of this community really depends on identifying all such cases.
But while transaction processing costs money to perform, it does not seem to be incentivized properly. While there are concrete rewards for generating currency, there is no corresponding concrete and immediate reward for processing the transaction, and voting in transaction approvals. This might be a real obstacle in general acceptance, and some of the root cause behind all of the "so where can I use this" kind of questions we hear all the time.
In this case, I believe that these researchers seem to have found a structural imperfection causing a block where there should be a flow. The health of this community really depends on identifying all such cases.
Not so sure that I wish to wade into the toxic soup, but...
Someone please correct me if I misunderstood how far ArtForz was able to take this, BUT, to the best of my understanding:
ArtForz, a German person, successfully ordered and implemented his(?) own ASIC design. It set him back ~$60,000, and for his pains, he was mining about a 20-25% of all the bitcoin production, somewhere around May or June of this year.
The 60,000 might have been euros. The 20-25% might (and probably was) some other specific quantity.
Was this bunk, or did it happen? I read this somewhere out on the interwebs, but so what?
Someone please correct me if I misunderstood how far ArtForz was able to take this, BUT, to the best of my understanding:
ArtForz, a German person, successfully ordered and implemented his(?) own ASIC design. It set him back ~$60,000, and for his pains, he was mining about a 20-25% of all the bitcoin production, somewhere around May or June of this year.
The 60,000 might have been euros. The 20-25% might (and probably was) some other specific quantity.
Was this bunk, or did it happen? I read this somewhere out on the interwebs, but so what?
Hi!
I would like to improve my hardware development skills. I'm competent with C++ and other languages, but have never had much of an opportunity to get into almost serious hardware design.
I can't post to the forum for the fpga miner stuff, so I post here. Could someone please fix that for me?
I would like to improve my hardware development skills. I'm competent with C++ and other languages, but have never had much of an opportunity to get into almost serious hardware design.
I can't post to the forum for the fpga miner stuff, so I post here. Could someone please fix that for me?
...
I suspect a server overload here.
I have the same command line that worked before not working today.
(Not that I really know what's wrong of course.)
I have tried the direct IP as well as the pit prefix.
I have the same command line that worked before not working today.
(Not that I really know what's wrong of course.)
I have tried the direct IP as well as the pit prefix.