Search content
Sort by
Showing 20 of 62 results by wilth1
Discover the origin of this sub. It is excaptionally interesting and reads like a new genre (crime, history, documentary, psychology).
If you'd like to have a good description of our current sentiment visit:
Page 255 https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?board=57.10160
to page 262 https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?board=57.10440
If you'd like to have a good description of our current sentiment visit:
Page 255 https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?board=57.10160
to page 262 https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?board=57.10440
two orders of magnitude over 3 years still seems as absurd as it did 3 years ago
It's clear that retail sales are not in the manufacturers' best interests for the near term unless they are done with big markup. SP's sell out and Bitmain's S5 price ramp-up demonstrate this. Their margins are good now, but aren't big enough at the moment to make the considerable investment required to go the new chip route over graduated underclocking, either. What's more is that we've nearly hit an efficiency wall short of huge investment.
Of course, if the exchange rate were to bounce up to 5 or 600 USD we'd see a large rollout of current gen equipment from all of the builders at the very least, probably paired with expedited chip dev and production as well.
Now that efficiency has nearly plateaued, do you think we'll see another huge (latent) hash rate climb with the next price hike, or will it be much flatter?
Of course, if the exchange rate were to bounce up to 5 or 600 USD we'd see a large rollout of current gen equipment from all of the builders at the very least, probably paired with expedited chip dev and production as well.
Now that efficiency has nearly plateaued, do you think we'll see another huge (latent) hash rate climb with the next price hike, or will it be much flatter?
-Partition into as many wallets as can be managed so that no loss is catastrophic
-Store all wallets offline
-Make multiple encrypted wallet backups
-Use multisig
Who is your hypothetical "thief" adversary? It makes all the difference.
Here's some relevant work: http://spritesmods.com/?art=hddhack&page=1
It's not the exploits themselves that are surprising, but the sophisticated deployment often years prior to specimen disclosure or similar research. Docs indicate there are implants across the board that target free software OSes aplenty.
It's not the exploits themselves that are surprising, but the sophisticated deployment often years prior to specimen disclosure or similar research. Docs indicate there are implants across the board that target free software OSes aplenty.
If we are changing from a static to a dynamic limit, it ought to be sensitive to the need for increase rather than exponentially increasing. This could be either too high of a limit (and creating the potential for vastly increasing network costs unsupported by Bitcoin economy), or it could be too low (and we end up back where we are now).
++ Make it scale organically according to need
VISA and religion aside, difficulty optimizes mining for an ideal market condition. What desirable mining environment should block markets maximize?
A)Potential for inclusion of any and all transactions always
B)Immediate space for 40x current volume with a blind increase and another eventual hard limit
C)Inclusion of most non-spam* transactions most of the time, based on necessity
D)A scarcity magnifying limit that caps transaction volume and velocity starting soon
Most users don't want D. Non-generating nodes don't want A or probably B. Generating nodes want the most profitable [valuable] thing possible. Adversaries want A or D
*Most would agree that creating volume to intentionally fill blocks and slow the network qualifies as "spam"
A)Potential for inclusion of any and all transactions always
B)Immediate space for 40x current volume with a blind increase and another eventual hard limit
C)Inclusion of most non-spam* transactions most of the time, based on necessity
D)A scarcity magnifying limit that caps transaction volume and velocity starting soon
Most users don't want D. Non-generating nodes don't want A or probably B. Generating nodes want the most profitable [valuable] thing possible. Adversaries want A or D
*Most would agree that creating volume to intentionally fill blocks and slow the network qualifies as "spam"
Ray, the earliest version of the pre-release code I've found is dated 11/15/08, a couple weeks after Satoshi's post. Did someone else from the list put it together, or was he the direct author?
Re: I have a bad feeling (we might 'never' see this cheap coins again) :(
if it put some of the large data farms in a pickle and thus eventual bankruptcy and then btc pulled its usual
rise from the dead bounce again price wise after that fact..might be worth it to get decentralization back
rise from the dead bounce again price wise after that fact..might be worth it to get decentralization back
This would be a welcome side effect. I think we'd need to take a sharp sub-100 dive at current difficulty for an extended period of 2-3 months to wipe out most of the big boys, though. Unfortunately the smart ones have probably been hedging to shut everything down completely for a while should this happen.
Re: Permanently keeping the 1MB (anti-spam) restriction is a great idea ...
Satoshi didn't have a 1MB limit in it. The limit was originally Hal Finney's idea. Both Satoshi and I objected that it wouldn't scale at 1MB. Hal was concerned about a potential DoS attack though, and after discussion, Satoshi agreed. The 1MB limit was there by the time Bitcoin launched.
It would be great if Satoshi would chime in. Maybe if the coin does indeed begin to snap in two?
Re: Permanently keeping the 1MB (anti-spam) restriction is a great idea ...
Why couldn't MAX_BLOCK_SIZE be self-adjusting?
That very vague.... based on what?Max block size could be retargeted periodically alongside difficulty adjustments using average block size and the frequency of full blocks in a period with the hard-coded value as a floor.
Imagining the necessity of 20MB blocks relies on the assumption that a massive increase in transaction volume develops, but what if it slows significantly? Bloated block broadcast delay might temporarily even be useful as a competitive advantage. When fees outweigh reward, doesn't the mining market encourage bloat?
Also, with a hard limit on size, won't the conversation on manual adjustment resurface indefinitely with increasing political difficulty?
Re: Permanently keeping the 1MB (anti-spam) restriction is a great idea ...
Why not implement maximum block size alongside mining difficulty adjustment using the same mechanism?
Rather than an arbitrary 20MB limit or rolling quadruple/exponential maximum size increases, why not incorporate a self-adjusting maximum block sized based on the number of the last n blocks solved that hit the existing hard limit?
The exchange rate is still reflective of tiny speculative trade volume and only a blip of use. It could move up or down 10x from here in short order and would still not be indicative of long-term adoption or "failure".
The manufacturers are also more capable of rapidly building out new capacity than they were in the past. If the exchange rate were to shoot up to $600 next week, adding power to the network would probably be done at the flip of a switch, accelerating your hardware's loss of value.
Mined coins might also be less identity-oriented than ones purchased.
Mined coins might also be less identity-oriented than ones purchased.