- Joined
- Sep 16, 2002
- Location
- Montreal, Canada
I think FBI stated they would be selling DPR's seized coins at auction. Shouldn't make too many waves if so.
-
Welcome to Overclockers Forums! Join us to reply in threads, receive reduced ads, and to customize your site experience!
Bitcoin exchange rate discussion
- Thread starter torin3
- Start date
- Joined
- Jul 29, 2011
- Location
- Buenos Aires, Argentina
Who knows...wouldn't trust what they say anyway.
I'll remain skeptic, BTC might go up a lot but I don't think it's the ultimate coin.
It has many flaws.
I'll remain skeptic, BTC might go up a lot but I don't think it's the ultimate coin.
It has many flaws.
- Joined
- Sep 16, 2002
- Location
- Montreal, Canada
I don't trust a word they say either, but what else do we have to go on.
BTC... Depends what you mean by ultimate coin. Technically, right now, probably not. Where it counts is adoption, and that makes it the ultimate coin by far. It would take something HUGE for that to change, and then BTC could just integrate whatever that is if needed.
BTC... Depends what you mean by ultimate coin. Technically, right now, probably not. Where it counts is adoption, and that makes it the ultimate coin by far. It would take something HUGE for that to change, and then BTC could just integrate whatever that is if needed.
- Joined
- Jul 29, 2011
- Location
- Buenos Aires, Argentina
Yet they didn't change a thing...I see the mining thing as a big problem, same as block times (super slow confirms).
Sha256 proof of work, with an outdated difficulty retarget generate the current ASIC situation, where only top dog manufacturers can mine the coin profitably, and in the end it's not sustainable, same with the bloated blockchain (too friggin big).
Just a few points that can be improved on, but the devs seem to be lazy.
Sha256 proof of work, with an outdated difficulty retarget generate the current ASIC situation, where only top dog manufacturers can mine the coin profitably, and in the end it's not sustainable, same with the bloated blockchain (too friggin big).
Just a few points that can be improved on, but the devs seem to be lazy.
- Joined
- Feb 1, 2009
- Location
- Illinois
I don't see the block time as an issue unless there is a single entity with a huge part of the hashrate (and they have to have malicious intent). As far as I'm concerned, the network is easily large enough and secure enough to use only 1 confirmation to accept payments. If you wait any longer, you're just overly worried.
SHA-256 is an alright encryption method as of right now. In the future it will become obsolete, but that's a while away and can easily be adjusted for.
But I do agree with you. It's not the perfect coin. It needs some work for sure. I think the biggest issues can be handled by the developers. As of now, the issues above aren't hugely glaring.
SHA-256 is an alright encryption method as of right now. In the future it will become obsolete, but that's a while away and can easily be adjusted for.
But I do agree with you. It's not the perfect coin. It needs some work for sure. I think the biggest issues can be handled by the developers. As of now, the issues above aren't hugely glaring.
- Joined
- Sep 7, 2013
I see big issues with the block time.
Take FOREVER to get 1 confirmation. Big downside for retailers.
Also sick to wait just to see if the BTC you sent made it to the receiver. (Waiting for confirms anyway)
Devs need to cut the blocktime down for it to be useful as "the online currency"
- Joined
- Sep 7, 2013
- Joined
- Feb 1, 2009
- Location
- Illinois
Nope. And actually Super beat me to saying that. Transaction ID's are added to the network before the block with that transaction is actually mined.
Bitpay does in fact use transaction ID's to accept their payments. I don't know if you've used Bitpay, but they give you an address which is good for 15 minutes. If they waited for even a single confirmation, then on a bad luck day, someone could send the BTC to that address but the transaction wouldn't be accepted. To counter this, they monitor transaction ID's which are related to the address they supply you with. Once you click "send" in your Bitcoin (or alt coin) client, the transaction ID hits the network within one minute (usually a matter of seconds).
If you can't wait up to one minute for a transaction, then you might as well stop using all currencies. The only one I know if which is faster than a few seconds is cash. And good luck sending that long distances quickly.
I understand the block solving target isn't ideal. But that doesn't mean the network is worthless because of it. Waiting for only 1 confirmation is a smart move for transactions with people you've never dealt with before. But in general, once a transaction ID hits the network, it doesn't leave the network.
The only instances I can think of (off the top of my head) where a transaction ID could lie to you is if there is a BTC core client hard fork, or if there was a single, malicious entity with a large hash rate that was able to double spend.
Bitpay does in fact use transaction ID's to accept their payments. I don't know if you've used Bitpay, but they give you an address which is good for 15 minutes. If they waited for even a single confirmation, then on a bad luck day, someone could send the BTC to that address but the transaction wouldn't be accepted. To counter this, they monitor transaction ID's which are related to the address they supply you with. Once you click "send" in your Bitcoin (or alt coin) client, the transaction ID hits the network within one minute (usually a matter of seconds).
If you can't wait up to one minute for a transaction, then you might as well stop using all currencies. The only one I know if which is faster than a few seconds is cash. And good luck sending that long distances quickly.
I understand the block solving target isn't ideal. But that doesn't mean the network is worthless because of it. Waiting for only 1 confirmation is a smart move for transactions with people you've never dealt with before. But in general, once a transaction ID hits the network, it doesn't leave the network.
The only instances I can think of (off the top of my head) where a transaction ID could lie to you is if there is a BTC core client hard fork, or if there was a single, malicious entity with a large hash rate that was able to double spend.
- Joined
- Jul 29, 2011
- Location
- Buenos Aires, Argentina
Why I don't like ASICs...look at the recent ghash.io fiasco, and the recent scrypt asic dude with 51% of the ltc network.
- Joined
- Sep 16, 2002
- Location
- Montreal, Canada
Block times aren't an issue. When a network is as powerful as bitcoin's is (think it's faster than the worlds top 100 super computers combined by now), you don't need to worry. Just having the transaction show up is proof enough. Waiting on 6 confs is pointless. Lesser coins, on the other hand, are easily 51% and are not secure enough. 20 confs @ 30 secs block time is not better than 1 conf @ 10 mins block time.
ASICs are inevitable, unfortunately. People don't settle on "good enough". There will always be someone one step ahead.
ASICs are inevitable, unfortunately. People don't settle on "good enough". There will always be someone one step ahead.
- Joined
- Jul 29, 2011
- Location
- Buenos Aires, Argentina
You see, that's the problem right there...mining as PoW is not a requirement.
Useful hashing is a much better idea, and you can't create an ASIC for distributed computing projects for instance, and you can rely on PoS and alternate algorithms combined to secure the network. High memory requirements will keep asics and botnets out.
Useful hashing is a much better idea, and you can't create an ASIC for distributed computing projects for instance, and you can rely on PoS and alternate algorithms combined to secure the network. High memory requirements will keep asics and botnets out.
- Joined
- Feb 1, 2009
- Location
- Illinois
The developers of Bitcoin, namely gmaxwell, have already stated that the best combination for security and useability would be a combination of PoW and PoS. The problem is that changing BTC over would not work, and he doesn't believe purely PoS coins are better than purely PoW. They each have trade offs which make them less desirable than a combination coin.
As a side note, disliking ASIC's doesn't stop them from happening. People used to say that memory requirements would keep ASIC's off of scrypt mining. And we know the situation we are currently in.
According to current technology, ASIC's are not feasible for distributed projects, but let's all be honest. Moore's law pretty much says that anything we say isn't feasible this year, will be feasible in a year or two. It's very hard to future proof, well anything. And quite honestly, Bitcoin has had the longest life and the fewest technological issues. ASIC's are a bit of a pain for consumers, but in terms of a secure network, there is no better solution.
Application specific technology is the future for just about everything. In essence, a gpu is just an application specific cpu for parallel graphics processing.
They are a part of the natural progression in computing.
As a side note, disliking ASIC's doesn't stop them from happening. People used to say that memory requirements would keep ASIC's off of scrypt mining. And we know the situation we are currently in.
According to current technology, ASIC's are not feasible for distributed projects, but let's all be honest. Moore's law pretty much says that anything we say isn't feasible this year, will be feasible in a year or two. It's very hard to future proof, well anything. And quite honestly, Bitcoin has had the longest life and the fewest technological issues. ASIC's are a bit of a pain for consumers, but in terms of a secure network, there is no better solution.
Application specific technology is the future for just about everything. In essence, a gpu is just an application specific cpu for parallel graphics processing.
They are a part of the natural progression in computing.
- Joined
- Jul 29, 2011
- Location
- Buenos Aires, Argentina
PoS helps with inflation rates, and security without depending 100% on PoW.
PoS and PoW coins don't have fixed coin caps.
EDIT: Problem with natural progression is in the crypto field, that business is ran by heartless mobsters who deserve to be shot point blank by some contractor worker. The whole we build this thing and run this show, fund our units with your money and then spit on you motto is terrible.
PoS and PoW coins don't have fixed coin caps.
EDIT: Problem with natural progression is in the crypto field, that business is ran by heartless mobsters who deserve to be shot point blank by some contractor worker. The whole we build this thing and run this show, fund our units with your money and then spit on you motto is terrible.
- Joined
- Sep 16, 2002
- Location
- Montreal, Canada
The developers of Bitcoin, namely gmaxwell, have already stated that the best combination for security and useability would be a combination of PoW and PoS. The problem is that changing BTC over would not work, and he doesn't believe purely PoS coins are better than purely PoW. They each have trade offs which make them less desirable than a combination coin.
As a side note, disliking ASIC's doesn't stop them from happening. People used to say that memory requirements would keep ASIC's off of scrypt mining. And we know the situation we are currently in.
According to current technology, ASIC's are not feasible for distributed projects, but let's all be honest. Moore's law pretty much says that anything we say isn't feasible this year, will be feasible in a year or two. It's very hard to future proof, well anything. And quite honestly, Bitcoin has had the longest life and the fewest technological issues. ASIC's are a bit of a pain for consumers, but in terms of a secure network, there is no better solution.
Application specific technology is the future for just about everything. In essence, a gpu is just an application specific cpu for parallel graphics processing.
Great post!
It's definitely unfortunate, but it won't last forever. We all like to pretend that they are *******s, but lets face it... If we had the intelligence, resources, and money to build ASICs ourselves we would, and we wouldn't be too keen on selling them for reasonable prices. An ASIC being sold today for $10k probable only costs about $200 to build.
- Joined
- Sep 7, 2013
$522 USD this morning
Pretty soon it'll be back to the start of the thread. ($550 USD)
Pretty soon it'll be back to the start of the thread. ($550 USD)
- Joined
- Sep 7, 2013
- Joined
- Feb 1, 2009
- Location
- Illinois
There really hasn't been any news. Which I guess can be a bullish signal if you're looking for it. No news means no bad news. Also, there had been some good news a while ago which hadn't seen any real movement because of it. Some people say this is just a delayed response to the good news (and lack of bad news).
Others think that we just reached the end of the capitulation phase after the last bubble, and the next one is on its way.
For example. this is a graph taken from a thread over at bitcointalk:
And then there are things like this:
and this:
http://www.cnbc.com/id/101693790
Others think that we just reached the end of the capitulation phase after the last bubble, and the next one is on its way.
For example. this is a graph taken from a thread over at bitcointalk:
And then there are things like this:
and this:
http://www.cnbc.com/id/101693790
