Topic: Dead Cat Bounce ??!! (Read 9241 times)

Picture world peace.

Well, it's more likely than that, got to give you that much.

Visualize a 1U server packed full of custom ASIC crypto-hashers chips, then picture a rack of 30 of those 1U servers, then picture a row of 20 racks of those:


Then picture an aircraft hangar-sized building filled with that:


Then picture more than ten of those aircraft hangars around the world. And these pictures are just Facebook, not a government.

No, there's no way to be confident given that MM scaled up and then stopped once they reached 50% of the total network power.

But scaling up to 280 times their earlier rate is not an easy thing to do, and is not as simple as buying 280 times more hardware: MM would require additional floorspace likely in a hosted location, HVAC, more power outlets, more breakers, bigger power drop, etc. If each machine/device gets 1 GH, they'd need 140,000 machines/devices.  There might not even be enough floorspace in a local hosted location, and they'd have to construct their own facility to house the operation, a multi-year project in and of itself.

Also, there's installation time: it took MM two weeks to scale up to 500 GH, and at that installation rate, it would take 10 years to install 140 TH.  Clearly it would need to be a whole team to work on such a project, perhaps two: one larger one for install, and another for upkeep.

MM's scale and timing was just about right for an unused or underused render farm between projects.  500 GH is a couple of thousand machines, and three weeks of scaling then suddenly ending sounds about right from a business perspective, too.

And if you are still worried, support your local FPGA miner!  It's the only way to attempt to scale up and compete with this or any other future Mystery Miner.

Is there any reason to be confident that was MM's full power and not just a small test to see if the system worked? Or that even if it was his full power at the time he hasn't invested in more hardware?

Dude, far out. You could've just written: sorry, I had a thinko. Now you've proven that you don't understand the basics of the global convergence of the Bitcoin protocol. I guess I now better understand the plight of Gavin and other core developers that simply clam up and don't discuss any changes in the core protocol. One one hand miners are essential to the overall security, but on the other hand miners most likely don't understand what makes that network stable.

I normally cut the quotes, but this one is worth preserving in full.

Looks like mystery miner only mined a max of 500 GH:

.. which is now less than 5% of the global hashrate of 10 TH.  I'm guessing this is someone at Pixar or some other render farm.

To mine an entire difficulty adjustment in a day would take 14 times the current network speed of, or 140 TH, which is 280 times the mystery miner's peak hashrate.  We're safe from this mystery miner, but it doesn't say anything about the NSA, who does have the resources to

I'm guessing most of the NSA thinks bitcoin is cool - they're just a bunch of crypto-geeks, after all.  It's about what the top brass thinks: is bitcoin an emerging threat that should be taken out, or is it a technological breakthrough that should be nurtured, not fucked with?  My guess is the latter, but not for reasons of the public good.  Rather, with their intel capabilities, the public blockchain could be a boon for their investigative teams.

Pools don't need to trust other pools.  IF the block is valid difficulty is adjusted.  Using an exponential decay function would avoid fluctuations and instead a smoother difficulty adjustment.  Currently pools need to trust the 2016th block when they recompute the difficulty once every 2016 blocks.

Difficulty adjustments don't split networks.  Orphaned blocks split networks.  I mean what is going to happen a pool is going to trust the block as valid ans work on that block chain but then not trust the difficulty adjustment despite their client computing the exact same difficulty adjustment?

I don't think that would converge globally. With frequent adjustments each pool would distrust blocks from the others and the network would split into islands. Infrequent adjustments decrease the probability of network splits. 2016 may not be optimal, but seem very safe to assume that in two weeks a clear maximum difficulty leader will stabilize globally.

No.  It only adjusts every 2016 blocks.  In hindsight some sort of continually adjusting formula (likely exponential decay of past 2016 blocks) which altered difficulty after each block would have been better ... for a lot of reasons.  For example namecoin would have never gotten "trapped" if difficulty adjusted after each block.

Difficulty doesn't just adjust in huge steps as I understand it; if the past several blocks are solved quickly, the real-time difficulty will adjust as well.

2016 blocks = 100800 BTC. At the start of a new difficulty, a dedicated agency like the NSA could probably mine 100,000 BTC in a day. Keeping the same hashrate they could mine another 100,000 in four days at the new difficulty they set. If you doubt this, remember the NSA has their own chip fab...they might have even tested their tech, search for "mystery miner"...


Getting back on topic, I'm ready to go bounce these cats...

Do you understand how difficulty works.  There is no invention that can generate more than 7,200 BTC daily for the entire planet.  In about a year that will be 3,600 BTC daily.

I still think overmining is teh problem. yet I am expecting teh invention of a new technology that can mine 100,000 BTC a day.

But teh question is how many world wide would belive in it after all the BTCs have been harvested and daily transactions are pice of cake ?

Um, yeah, the average person probably wouldn't invest 20k in bitcoin. You're telling me you determine a currency's value by whether or not the average person would be able to buy up every unit of that currency? Are you kidding me? Not to mention that you can't buy them all that easily and can't buy them all at all most likely. The price will go up as you buy them, and will rise exponentially after you've gotten the first couple million. Even if it did drop to .005 or even .00001, once you bought all the bitcoins being offered for that price you'd have to pay the next higher seller, and so on.

But regardless of the mini-essay I just wrote, let's get back to the main point, which is how hilarious it is that you think a currency's value should be determined by whether or not a single user of that currency could buy up all the units.

Well Actually buying the whole BTC for 20k $ is kinda over priced. As the whole project is still under development and 20k $ is not the kind of money that would any one put in something to find out in couple weeks or months it worth of 10 $.

Someone should make a game kinda like those 2d scroller pseudo golf games like that one from Yeti Sports, but with a dead cat ragdoll with a Bitcoin symbol in it being thrown around instead of a penguin.

This thread is still going?  I thought it might have "died faster than bitcoin" ha ha ha ha ha

The point about the minimum "market value" is relevant here, and this reinforces it.  Other threads and the bitcoin users in general have an appetite to have some coin even if only as a curiosity.  A few people with $100 each supports that 0.001 price, but more likely if it got below $100k I would be genuinely surprised ($70,000 for 7 million coins is 1 cent each).  At the moment it's still 200+ times tat amount.

Please be a troll.

0.0025 means one can buy the entire market for 20k USD. Get some sleep and think this over.

The real reason behind the bitcoin death is the fact:



There are 7.5 million BTC .. 6 million out of them bought or mined at the price of (200 bitcoins for one dollar).

so no matter how much new investments to buy BTC .. there will be always a lot more BTC to dump.


Until the price stabilize again at 0.005 or in fact at 0.0025 as we are in the sell mood.

loooool. well it was .. but the flower shop does not accept BTC any more!