BFL is not testing any ASICs on EMC. Our increase appears solely due to OzCoin's fee introduction.
I would be completely open about any ASIC testing happening on a live server, believe me. It would not be a stealth issue. I'd have up a page dedicated to it so people can watch. Because it would be #%#@$ awesome!
Topic: (16 TH/s -> 23 TH/s) + ($15 -> $8) = Coincidence? (Read 2592 times)
Maybe the network is getting really, really, really lucky.
How long have we been "lucky"? Depending on how many blocks you look at, you might come to different speeds and different volatility of the speed measured.
http://bitcoincharts.com says 23.762 Thash/s
http://bitcoinwatch.com/ says 16.99 Thash/s
http://bitcoin.sipa.be/ says 20 Thash/s
The last retarget sets the difficulty according to about 16Ghash/s.
I can't see anything in the charts that would get me excited (and this thread almost got me to spam my poor Facebook friends about bitcoin again. +10TH in one day after pirate announcing to pay back his dept just sounded too juicy.)
i just received my 200 jalapenos
pirate still has his gpumax.com weapon
The stupidity round hereGpumax would not 'increase' network hashrate at all, it only distributes it
The system has actually been running for a few months, a large block of GPUs were released by a user and they were added to the idle cluster.
The "23 TH" surge is purely luck based, compounded by the fact that the network speed -IS- increasing due to the surge in price from $6.50 last month. We are not at 23 TH/s right now, simply looking at the chart makes it painfully obvious it's not a natural network growth causing that number to display.
However, always remember that difficulty lags behind price. The price/difficulty ratio takes a long time to balance because price can fluctuate much faster than new hashing power can be added during a rally, and people are hesitant to turn off the new hardware they've added unless it runs at an absolute loss during a crash.
However, always remember that difficulty lags behind price. The price/difficulty ratio takes a long time to balance because price can fluctuate much faster than new hashing power can be added during a rally, and people are hesitant to turn off the new hardware they've added unless it runs at an absolute loss during a crash.
a) random fluctuation (most probable)
b) someone developed ASICs three months before BFL and mining for themselves
c) someone is attempting 51% attack to destroy bitcoin
Is (a) most probable? Perhaps one our local math whizs can figure the statsitical likelihood of a 50% move in < 24 hours. I don't think it's even remotely likely given a base of this size.b) someone developed ASICs three months before BFL and mining for themselves
c) someone is attempting 51% attack to destroy bitcoin
I'm leaning towards some other company with an ASIC design. They likely pushed really hard to get them active as the price was rising. Even still, we ought to see that skew the pool stats unless they intentionally spread them over all pools to remain hidden.
a) random fluctuation (most probable)
b) someone developed ASICs three months before BFL and mining for themselves
c) someone is attempting 51% attack to destroy bitcoin
b) someone developed ASICs three months before BFL and mining for themselves
c) someone is attempting 51% attack to destroy bitcoin
BFL claims they only burn in on the testnetwork, for whatever that's worth.
Regardless, I don't think it has anything to do with the price change.
Regardless, I don't think it has anything to do with the price change.
And it's still rising - now at 25.1 TH/s according to Bitcoincharts.com. And 0.5 in last few minutes.
9.6 blocks in last hour. This is strange or is it just a temporary super luck wave?
9.6 blocks in last hour. This is strange or is it just a temporary super luck wave?
FYI, 700 GH added in one day on EMC - confirmed by pool op.
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.1113700
Thank you for the clarification. Now,... where is that 3 TH coming from?
FYI, 700 GH added in one day on EMC - confirmed by pool op.
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.1113700
700GH/s=200 Jalapeños
Haven't BFL used that pool before for burning?
BFL supposedly uses a dedicated account on EMC to perform testing.
Reviewing EMC's miner stats it would appear that multiple accounts are contributing to the 700 GH increase.
Still, this is strange.
Haven't BFL used that pool before for burning?
FYI, 700 GH added in one day on EMC - confirmed by pool op.
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.1113700
That's a significant portion of mining power a single entity has.
And yet blockchain.info isn't showing a change in distribution. Maybe it takes longer to update? I wouldn't expect all new mining to come online perfectly across all pools. And if only one or two new entities I would expect either a big jump in unknown or just one pool.Maybe it's the way the different charts calculate the hashrate. Someone fooling around with the timestamps?
That's a significant portion of mining power a single entity has.
And yet blockchain.info isn't showing a change in distribution. Maybe it takes longer to update? I wouldn't expect all new mining to come online perfectly across all pools. And if only one or two new entities I would expect either a big jump in unknown or just one pool. 
Maybe the network is getting really, really, really lucky.
That's a significant portion of mining power a single entity has.
Jump to: