Search content
Sort by
Showing 20 of 903 results by kendog77
Re: Ultimate Bitcoin Stress Test - Monday June 22nd - 13:00 GMT
I'm wondering why you are doing this. You say that you are a millionaire who's losing patience with Bitcoin, yet you do this stress test. So I wonder what the background really is.
Results will be very important.
This test only cost 20BTC which is about $5000 per day, not much money for USA or Russia or China government.
They could probably even afford much much stronger "stress test" lasting weeks or months.
I applaud your efforts. This test should give folks a very good idea about exactly what will happen on the Bitcoin network in the near future if the block size is not increased.
If the Bitcoin network is not resilient enough to withstand this test, then it is not designed very well.
Thank you and good job!
My understanding of Gavin's motive is that the hard fork is purely ego driven. There's no urgency to change block size. He just wants to be dramatic and make his personal mark on it. But controversy, technical-wise, is that some Bitcoin users may have their coins lose compatibility with the new implementation. In a sense, it may be Gavin and Hearn's attempt to hijack the Bitcoin name and implement their own coin or make changes to the protocol.
Bullshit. Companies are making decisions on bitcoin right now based on the current 1MB block limit.
Imagine if a large tech company, like Amazon or Apple, were to put their full weight behind Bitcoin by promoting it and offering customers a discount to use it? I think such a move would almost instantly overwhelm the Bitcoin network, and these large companies know that so they won't do it until the Bitcoin network is ready...
What if NASDAQ or the NYSE wanted to record trades on the block chain? Again, right now that is a non-starter and would overwhelm the network.
The internet of things sounds interesting, but again, if IBM or Intel were to put their full weight behind it they could almost instantly saturate the Bitcoin network.
The 1MB block limit is already harming bitcoin.
If you see a very limited bitcoin future where the market cap is small, usage is limited, and people can run a full node on a POS 5 year old laptop with a slow DSL connection, stick with the 1MB block limit.
If you see a future where bitcoin is a worldwide currency with a much larger market cap, where the blockchain is used for smart contracts and to record stock market trades, and where bitcoin is the foundation of the internet of things, bitcoin needs to scale substantially and it needs to start right now...
The core devs need to reach consensus on a scaling solution ASAP before they do irreparable harm to bitcoin. Uncertainty around the max block size is already starting to cause the price to tank.
The 1MB block limit is harming Bitcoin right now and needs to be addressed ASAP
One argument I often hear people make against raising the block limit is the fact that we still have extra network capacity because the current average block size is well below the 1MB limit. This could not be further from the truth.
Millions of dollars worth of funding has been invested in Bitcoin companies so far in 2015, and many of these companies are developing what they hope will be the killer app for Bitcoin.
Imagine if a large tech company, like Amazon or Apple, were to put their full weight behind Bitcoin by promoting it and offering customers a discount to use it? I think such a move would almost instantly overwhelm the Bitcoin network, and these large companies know that so they won't do it until the Bitcoin network is ready...
What if NASDAQ or the NYSE wanted to record trades on the block chain? Again, right now that is a non-starter and would overwhelm the network.
The internet of things sounds interesting, but again, if IBM or Intel were to put their full weight behind it they could almost instantly saturate the Bitcoin network.
I don't know if raising the block size limit to 20MB is the right answer, but something needs to be done soon.
The sooner the community reaches consensus and comes up with a solution to the 1MB block limit, the better, because right now future Bitcoin growth is being seriously harmed by this limitation.
Millions of dollars worth of funding has been invested in Bitcoin companies so far in 2015, and many of these companies are developing what they hope will be the killer app for Bitcoin.
Imagine if a large tech company, like Amazon or Apple, were to put their full weight behind Bitcoin by promoting it and offering customers a discount to use it? I think such a move would almost instantly overwhelm the Bitcoin network, and these large companies know that so they won't do it until the Bitcoin network is ready...
What if NASDAQ or the NYSE wanted to record trades on the block chain? Again, right now that is a non-starter and would overwhelm the network.
The internet of things sounds interesting, but again, if IBM or Intel were to put their full weight behind it they could almost instantly saturate the Bitcoin network.
I don't know if raising the block size limit to 20MB is the right answer, but something needs to be done soon.
The sooner the community reaches consensus and comes up with a solution to the 1MB block limit, the better, because right now future Bitcoin growth is being seriously harmed by this limitation.
Re: New York Times identifies Nick Szabo as Satoshi Nakamoto
I think the NY Times nailed this story. Nick Szabo is exactly the type of guy I would expect to be Satoshi.
He's wicked smart, not the least bit materialistic, unassuming, was around in the beginning, has a libertarian mind-set, and managed to stay below the radar since 2011 despite still being involved in the Bitcoin scene.
He's wicked smart, not the least bit materialistic, unassuming, was around in the beginning, has a libertarian mind-set, and managed to stay below the radar since 2011 despite still being involved in the Bitcoin scene.
I bought 3 KncMiner Jupiters that the end of 2013 that provided a nice profit.
Those were the good old days when you could ROI in ~3 months and actually mine a decent amount of BTC each day without having to consume an insane amount of electricity.
The downside was that hardware purchases back then were a major gamble. No in stock ASIC hardware was available, so pre-ordering was the only option, and many hardware companies either didn't deliver or delivered very late.
Those were the good old days when you could ROI in ~3 months and actually mine a decent amount of BTC each day without having to consume an insane amount of electricity.
The downside was that hardware purchases back then were a major gamble. No in stock ASIC hardware was available, so pre-ordering was the only option, and many hardware companies either didn't deliver or delivered very late.
If Coinbase added ApplePay support, one could link their Coinbase account to ApplePay and instantly be able to use BitCoin to pay anywhere ApplePay is supported.
I sure hope the folks at Coinbase are smart enough to realize the massive potential here and are already working on this.
I sure hope the folks at Coinbase are smart enough to realize the massive potential here and are already working on this.
Re: A simple solution to the Blocksize war, but you won't like it.
If (the amount of unconfined transactions > some limit && the last 2016 blocks contain 9x% of 1MB worth of data)
decrease the difficulty by x %
This means:
Faster transactions if needed
More transactions if needed
More inflation if needed
The block reward driving mining costs will be obsolete sooner and the 21 mil coin limit can remain *only it will happen sooner
decrease the difficulty by x %
This means:
Faster transactions if needed
More transactions if needed
More inflation if needed
The block reward driving mining costs will be obsolete sooner and the 21 mil coin limit can remain *only it will happen sooner
This method provides an economic incentive for large miners to spam the blockchain with many very small transactions, which is one reason why it will never work well.
There don't even seem to be an excessive amount of transactions in these blocks that are approaching 1 meg.
Perhaps someone found out how to create really large transactions and clog up the network?
Perhaps someone found out how to create really large transactions and clog up the network?
Quote
the PSU they already have,
they don't have a psu, they buy in bulk what they needcalculating an 4th miner put in function 2 months ago is ~600$
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16817377050
To get 4TH we talking a lot more power and standard home outlets don't allow over 1800w so unless this is JUST for data centers we won't see a 2kw home miner s6.
2x 1200 watt server psu's = 2400 watts easy peasy
.4 watts a gh = 6000gh done if they want to do it.
Plenty of home miners could run that. All you need is one 20A/240V outlet. Perhaps you mean "A home miner that is not willing to spend a dime upgrading their homes electrical system cannot run it."
Re: [ANN] Spondoolies-Tech - carrier grade, data center ready mining rigs
Its still hard for me the belive that sp20s made SP-tech no money.
-The chips are already developed and ready
-Boards are hillariously cheap . It has 3 boards basically if you count the controller.
-No power supply.
The only thing I can think is the cost comes from the steel casing , if thats the case strip it down and sell the miner for the same price with just the hashing boards and a fan. And charge extra
for an encased board.
The only oher thing i can think is they don't want competion for thier new bulk hardware which is strange to me since the hardware is not even in production yet?
-The chips are already developed and ready
-Boards are hillariously cheap . It has 3 boards basically if you count the controller.
-No power supply.
The only thing I can think is the cost comes from the steel casing , if thats the case strip it down and sell the miner for the same price with just the hashing boards and a fan. And charge extra
for an encased board.
The only oher thing i can think is they don't want competion for thier new bulk hardware which is strange to me since the hardware is not even in production yet?
Have you ever manufactured semi conductors? Please enlighten me on how boards are "hilariously cheap", pull one apart and price up the components to start to get yourself a feel for it...
Guy seems like an honest, stand up guy, so when he says SPTech didn't make money on the SP20 I believe him.
Re: [ANN] Spondoolies-Tech - carrier grade, data center ready mining rigs
Honestly unless the price of bitcoin goes substantially higher in the near future. There will be no industrial sales at all.
Reason being is that a about a year ago. You could buy a $10,000 miner, get ROI after 5 months and make a few thousands afterwards with that miner. So for industry reasons buying 50-250 miners at a time was well worth it. Especially in many underdeveloped nations where electricity and labor was cheap.
Now miners are slightly little more efficient as before, but difficulty keeps increasing, and yet price fails to increase.
The same industries are not going to pay $1000 for a miner, which will get ROI after 5 months or so just to make a few hundred dollars profit per miner.
There is a big difference in, buying a $10,000 miner, and making $5,000 with that miner after a year or use THEN buying a $1,000 miner and making $500.
Buying 10 times as much miners isn't an option because it takes up more space and uses much more power and heat.
This is just my humble opinion. Who knows what the future will bring.
Reason being is that a about a year ago. You could buy a $10,000 miner, get ROI after 5 months and make a few thousands afterwards with that miner. So for industry reasons buying 50-250 miners at a time was well worth it. Especially in many underdeveloped nations where electricity and labor was cheap.
Now miners are slightly little more efficient as before, but difficulty keeps increasing, and yet price fails to increase.
The same industries are not going to pay $1000 for a miner, which will get ROI after 5 months or so just to make a few hundred dollars profit per miner.
There is a big difference in, buying a $10,000 miner, and making $5,000 with that miner after a year or use THEN buying a $1,000 miner and making $500.
Buying 10 times as much miners isn't an option because it takes up more space and uses much more power and heat.
This is just my humble opinion. Who knows what the future will bring.
Agreed, the mining market appears to be saturated right now based on the current BTC price, which is obvious because the difficulty has leveled out.
Unless the price of BTC goes up soon, it doesn't make much sense for hardware manufacturers to design and manufacturer more efficient hardware, and it also doesn't make much sense for miners to buy more efficient hardware.
I doubt we'll see much money invested in new mining hardware after the first half of 2015 unless the price of BTC spikes.
At some point, even the biggest Bitcoin bulls need to face reality and pay the bills.
Re: [ANN] Spondoolies-Tech - carrier grade, data center ready mining rigs
You make it sound like it will be a 7 foot 60kw tower :p
While the average person might have 100 amp service and could maybe spare half of that, some others may have 200 amp service, half of that is about 24kw at 100% load.
12U, 16kw, 10 replaceable hashing boards.While the average person might have 100 amp service and could maybe spare half of that, some others may have 200 amp service, half of that is about 24kw at 100% load.
Damn. Can you offer a model that cuts that in half?
Re: [ANN] Spondoolies-Tech - carrier grade, data center ready mining rigs
2014 was a pretty brutal year for miners and mining hardware manufacturers since the price of bitcoin declined from ~$800 to ~$300. That is pretty much a worst case scenario and caused a lot of pain.
Re: [ANN] Spondoolies-Tech - carrier grade, data center ready mining rigs
Not with our 2nd gen. Time will tell if there will be retail market for the 3rd gen.
Are you basically saying as of now Spondoolies is out of the race and now it's between the private entity 21e6 and Bitmain?
There are three markets: retail, bulk and self mine. Currently, we're doing only the first two.
I think the community would appreciate you sticking to that. Manufacturers mining with their own gear while it's new and most profitable and then selling to end users once they've taken the lion's share of the prime lifespan is getting old.
I don't think it will be good for Bitcoin.
centralization incoming
I really hope Spondoolies sells gen3 hardware to the retail market. Barring a bitcoin price meltdown, I plan on loading up on gen3 hardware and running it as long as it covers the cost of electricity.
I think the biggest thing depressing retail mining hardware sales right now is the bitcoin bear market. Hopefully things will turn around in 2015 and we'll see a nice bitcoin bull market.
I think a lot of these "hacks" were inside jobs where the owners or employees just took the money and ran. How can a cold wallet get "hacked"? Really? I don't believe it for a second.
Anyway, all of these hacks combined pale in comparison to this 1 billion dollar fiat hack:
http://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/2015/02/15/hackers-steal-billion-in-banking-breach/23464913/
At least a lot of these really poorly run businesses will cease to exist. Bitcoin companies that don't take security seriously and adhere to best practices will not last long in this environment.
Anyway, all of these hacks combined pale in comparison to this 1 billion dollar fiat hack:
http://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/2015/02/15/hackers-steal-billion-in-banking-breach/23464913/
At least a lot of these really poorly run businesses will cease to exist. Bitcoin companies that don't take security seriously and adhere to best practices will not last long in this environment.
the security costs a LOT. Imagine that a bank can spend tens of millions and they can be hacked. How can a small-medium exchange business to hire very good programmers? impossible.
even you take the security very serious, they don't have the resources to do it.
a small-medium exchange is earning around of 5-7K per month, maybe less. a very good programmer cost around 90-100 USD/hour.
a good server administrator is the same.
the initial website costs a lot too.
Agreed, but all that means is that a lot of these fly by night, undercapitalized exchanges are in over their head and have no business trying to run an exchange.
Handling other peoples money is serious business and should not be done by amateurs.
I can't wait until amateur hour is over and we get some real exchanges that actually know what they are doing.
Re: Coinbase and Circle "Bitcoin Insurance": how does it work?
I'm sure the insurance doesn't cover user error or negligence.
Most exchanges use 2 factor authentication, and it's very unlikely that someone using 2 factor authentication would get "hacked".
If you have a poor password, don't use 2 factor authentication, and get "hacked", I think the exchange would tell you to go pound sand.
Also, if the hacked amount is substantial, I'm sure the exchange would have a fraud department look into it. They can check into ip addresses and things like that.
Most exchanges use 2 factor authentication, and it's very unlikely that someone using 2 factor authentication would get "hacked".
If you have a poor password, don't use 2 factor authentication, and get "hacked", I think the exchange would tell you to go pound sand.
Also, if the hacked amount is substantial, I'm sure the exchange would have a fraud department look into it. They can check into ip addresses and things like that.
I think a lot of these "hacks" were inside jobs where the owners or employees just took the money and ran. How can a cold wallet get "hacked"? Really? I don't believe it for a second.
Anyway, all of these hacks combined pale in comparison to this 1 billion dollar fiat hack:
http://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/2015/02/15/hackers-steal-billion-in-banking-breach/23464913/
At least a lot of these really poorly run businesses will cease to exist. Bitcoin companies that don't take security seriously and adhere to best practices will not last long in this environment.
Anyway, all of these hacks combined pale in comparison to this 1 billion dollar fiat hack:
http://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/2015/02/15/hackers-steal-billion-in-banking-breach/23464913/
At least a lot of these really poorly run businesses will cease to exist. Bitcoin companies that don't take security seriously and adhere to best practices will not last long in this environment.
Re: Bitcoin Was Also The Worst Performing Investment In 2011, 2012 And 2013 o.O !
This is probably the worst analysis I've ever seen. The OP simply cherry picked the high and low for each year, and then concluded that BTC lost a certain percentage based on the high and low for the year! Unfortunately for the OP, the price of BTC wasn't at the high on January 1st of each year and at the low on December 31st.
Using the same logic in reverse, one can also conclude that BTC was the best investment in those years because it gained an astronomical amount during that year based on the difference between the high and the low.
Move along, there is nothing to see here...
Using the same logic in reverse, one can also conclude that BTC was the best investment in those years because it gained an astronomical amount during that year based on the difference between the high and the low.
Move along, there is nothing to see here...