Topic: diff thread Mar 3 to Mar 17? picks are closed.... prize = 0.1 btc - page 2. (Read 6573 times)
March 16, 2016, 05:11:35 PM
https://bitcoinwisdom.com/bitcoin/difficulty
Bitcoin Difficulty: 158,427,203,767
Estimated Next Difficulty: 167,402,752,877 (+5.67%)
Adjust time: After 215 Blocks, About 1.4 days
Hashrate(?): 1,213,604,553 GH/s
Block Generation Time(?):
1 block: 9.5 minutes
3 blocks: 28.4 minutes
6 blocks: 56.8 minutes
Updated: 17:5 (4.2 minutes ago)
-1.2 = philipma1957 If I hit I will roll it over
+0.0 = adaseb
+1.3 = VRobb
+2.3 = leowonderful
+2.7 = HerbPean
+3.1 = tertius993 ---- will donate back if he wins thanks!
+4.2 = VirosaGITS
+4.4 = ingiltere
+5.0 = tlhIlwI
+5.1 = wlefever
+5.2 = blindminer
+5.4 = alh
+5.5 = pusttiu
+5.6 = fr4nkthetank
+5.7 = wpt1wpt1
+5.8 = flikflak
+6.0 = radiumsoup
+6.4 = zebedee
+6.5 = mavericklm
+6.6 = indiemax
+6.7 = Amph
+6.8 = RichBC
+7.0 = ezeminer
+7.2 = edonkey
+7.5 = HagssFIN
+7.8 = Kexkey
+8.8 = lanfeusst
+9.0 = alfacro
+12.4 = psi
the group in bold is the closest. with 215 blocks left
https://blockchain.info/
402985 (Main Chain) 2016-03-16 21:02:19
402847 (Main Chain) 2016-03-16 00:10:46
139 blocks in the time for 127 so we will be near 158 for the day
March 16, 2016, 04:37:51 PM
It can stay stuck at $415 for as long as it wants as far as I'm concerned, it was stuck at $215 for too long!
I am kind of excited for the halving to get here, I think it's going to kill off a lot of the big farms, we might just see home mining become viable again. If not this halving then almost certainly the one following, unless btc price goes to the moon.
I am kind of excited for the halving to get here, I think it's going to kill off a lot of the big farms, we might just see home mining become viable again. If not this halving then almost certainly the one following, unless btc price goes to the moon.
The problem is if they kill off the big farms, this means most hobby/home miners are gone. And if that happens I see BTC going down in price, but I could be wrong.
The big farms I think will still be here for the most part though. I think there are two paths most will follow. 1) They have so low of electricity they keep running and it makes no difference to them 2) With info structure already built they switch to next gen gear and are good for quite a while running it.
I would agree though I'm ready for having just to see what it does.
Need to remember that we have just been through an unofficial, difficulty driven, halving. What we saw was some older miners being removed by Bitmain & BW plus I expect most other Farms. So a small pullback in difficulty but then back to business as usual. I think so long as the 14 / 16nm products are available in time we will see the same again.
Rich
March 16, 2016, 01:54:19 PM
It can stay stuck at $415 for as long as it wants as far as I'm concerned, it was stuck at $215 for too long!
I am kind of excited for the halving to get here, I think it's going to kill off a lot of the big farms, we might just see home mining become viable again. If not this halving then almost certainly the one following, unless btc price goes to the moon.
I am kind of excited for the halving to get here, I think it's going to kill off a lot of the big farms, we might just see home mining become viable again. If not this halving then almost certainly the one following, unless btc price goes to the moon.
The problem is if they kill off the big farms, this means most hobby/home miners are gone. And if that happens I see BTC going down in price, but I could be wrong.
The big farms I think will still be here for the most part though. I think there are two paths most will follow. 1) They have so low of electricity they keep running and it makes no difference to them 2) With info structure already built they switch to next gen gear and are good for quite a while running it.
I would agree though I'm ready for having just to see what it does.
March 16, 2016, 01:18:50 PM
It can stay stuck at $415 for as long as it wants as far as I'm concerned, it was stuck at $215 for too long!
I am kind of excited for the halving to get here, I think it's going to kill off a lot of the big farms, we might just see home mining become viable again. If not this halving then almost certainly the one following, unless btc price goes to the moon.
I am kind of excited for the halving to get here, I think it's going to kill off a lot of the big farms, we might just see home mining become viable again. If not this halving then almost certainly the one following, unless btc price goes to the moon.
March 16, 2016, 12:47:11 PM
It's also interesting that BTC price has been pretty much stuck in a narrow trading range (as I recall). No major swings, up or down. Unfortunately it's been stuck around $415, and not $450.
March 16, 2016, 12:33:42 PM
https://bitcoinwisdom.com/bitcoin/difficulty
Bitcoin Difficulty: 158,427,203,767
Estimated Next Difficulty: 166,039,852,686 (+4.81%)
Adjust time: After 250 Blocks, About 1.7 days
Hashrate(?): 1,183,867,619 GH/s
Block Generation Time(?):
1 block: 9.6 minutes
3 blocks: 28.6 minutes
6 blocks: 57.3 minutes
Updated: 12:30 (3.3 minutes ago)
-1.2 = philipma1957 If I hit I will roll it over
+0.0 = adaseb
+1.3 = VRobb
+2.3 = leowonderful
+2.7 = HerbPean
+3.1 = tertius993 ---- will donate back if he wins thanks!
+4.2 = VirosaGITS
+4.4 = ingiltere
+5.0 = tlhIlwI
+5.1 = wlefever
+5.2 = blindminer
+5.4 = alh
+5.5 = pusttiu
+5.6 = fr4nkthetank
+5.7 = wpt1wpt1
+5.8 = flikflak
+6.0 = radiumsoup
+6.4 = zebedee
+6.5 = mavericklm
+6.6 = indiemax
+6.7 = Amph
+6.8 = RichBC
+7.0 = ezeminer
+7.2 = edonkey
+7.5 = HagssFIN
+7.8 = Kexkey
+8.8 = lanfeusst
+9.0 = alfacro
+12.4 = psi
the group in bold is the closest.
Bitcoin Difficulty: 158,427,203,767
Estimated Next Difficulty: 166,039,852,686 (+4.81%)
Adjust time: After 250 Blocks, About 1.7 days
Hashrate(?): 1,183,867,619 GH/s
Block Generation Time(?):
1 block: 9.6 minutes
3 blocks: 28.6 minutes
6 blocks: 57.3 minutes
Updated: 12:30 (3.3 minutes ago)
-1.2 = philipma1957 If I hit I will roll it over
+0.0 = adaseb
+1.3 = VRobb
+2.3 = leowonderful
+2.7 = HerbPean
+3.1 = tertius993 ---- will donate back if he wins thanks!
+4.2 = VirosaGITS
+4.4 = ingiltere
+5.0 = tlhIlwI
+5.1 = wlefever
+5.2 = blindminer
+5.4 = alh
+5.5 = pusttiu
+5.6 = fr4nkthetank
+5.7 = wpt1wpt1
+5.8 = flikflak
+6.0 = radiumsoup
+6.4 = zebedee
+6.5 = mavericklm
+6.6 = indiemax
+6.7 = Amph
+6.8 = RichBC
+7.0 = ezeminer
+7.2 = edonkey
+7.5 = HagssFIN
+7.8 = Kexkey
+8.8 = lanfeusst
+9.0 = alfacro
+12.4 = psi
the group in bold is the closest.
March 16, 2016, 08:02:52 AM
It would appear that heavy math and cryptography don't actually eliminate the "human element" from Bitcoin. As long as folks "trust it", it can work. Remove that, and no amount of math will save it (IMHO).
Makes sense. Until robots, IoT, autonomous systems, become massive users of Bitcoin.
I guess then trust in the system won't be a factor for it to survive. Nodes are run by humans... For now. Well it could actually be a realty in the future that nodes will be run by the autonomous systems using it. lolWho knows!
March 16, 2016, 04:40:05 AM
The problem with block size will be explained in my opinion.
This will become an impulse for the strong growth on BTC/USD pair.
Uncertainty about the future of BTC makes a lot of people coming out of the BTC. BTC is accumulated by the strong hands. It's part of my hypothesis.
This will become an impulse for the strong growth on BTC/USD pair.
Uncertainty about the future of BTC makes a lot of people coming out of the BTC. BTC is accumulated by the strong hands. It's part of my hypothesis.
March 16, 2016, 03:09:02 AM
So Yesterday was +11.81% with 161 Blocks, however we seem to have stabilised the period run Rate for the last couple of days in the band +3% to +5% There is if anything a very slight upward trend so hopefully we will end up between +4% & +6%.
Rich
Rich
March 15, 2016, 11:57:35 PM
If we end up under 5... i will be decently happy. I can handle jumps in this area with a little over 2 day's left it's looking possible.
I for the life of me cannot explain the negative last change. And that still scares me, I just have not seen a good verified reason. I am still hoping for a while of current gen mining before next gen. Eventually we are going to hit next gen, and I see some big jumps coming there.
I for the life of me cannot explain the negative last change. And that still scares me, I just have not seen a good verified reason. I am still hoping for a while of current gen mining before next gen. Eventually we are going to hit next gen, and I see some big jumps coming there.
March 15, 2016, 01:20:25 PM
It would appear that heavy math and cryptography don't actually eliminate the "human element" from Bitcoin. As long as folks "trust it", it can work. Remove that, and no amount of math will save it (IMHO).
In some ways it's kind of amusing to watch. As always: Don't spend/invest/waste more on Bitcoin than you can afford to lose (please don't take offense at the word "waste").
In some ways it's kind of amusing to watch. As always: Don't spend/invest/waste more on Bitcoin than you can afford to lose (please don't take offense at the word "waste").
Set a max loss cap and do not go over it is simply the best way to think about the game.
Or as you say do not spend/invest/waste more on Bitcoin than you can afford to lose.
Note:
I cut waste but not because I find it offensive.
March 15, 2016, 01:09:52 PM
It would appear that heavy math and cryptography don't actually eliminate the "human element" from Bitcoin. As long as folks "trust it", it can work. Remove that, and no amount of math will save it (IMHO).
In some ways it's kind of amusing to watch. As always: Don't spend/invest/waste more on Bitcoin than you can afford to lose (please don't take offense at the word "waste").
In some ways it's kind of amusing to watch. As always: Don't spend/invest/waste more on Bitcoin than you can afford to lose (please don't take offense at the word "waste").
March 15, 2016, 09:14:20 AM
It's actually not a "fork attempt", but an attempt to solve a problem. You see, the goal is not the fork, it's the improvement.
The first five words at https://bitcoinclassic.com/ is "We are hard forking bitcoin", that looks pretty clearly like a fork attempt to me.I do not agree their goal is improvement, I think that is a byproduct, a way to entice people over to their fork and seize development control.
Well that's why I was talking about perceptions, if your perception is their goal is to take over Bitcoin, you'll interpret everything they say that way. But if you take a step back and think, their solution is to increase the max block size and the only way to achieve it is by a hard fork, so technically that's what they develop. The way they express it on the site is direct, probably to be as clear as possible and not trying to hide the hard fork path.
BTW, I'm trying to be as objective as possible when I say that. There's no obvious choice in this story. I actually think the best thing would have been Core increasing the max block size earlier. Everybody would be working on all the other ways to scale and productivity would not be slowed down by media/community management. All the drama would have been inexistent and developers would all be drinking beer together.
I don't think hijacking the entire Bitcoin network by controlling it is something possible.
There was a statement in the faq on the xt site (that probably exists somewhere on the classic site, too) that gave all dispute resolution powers to 2 developers - hardly what I would call decentralized. I don't trust people with agenda like that.I don't trust people with hidden agenda neither. Once again, are you sure their intentions were to control the system, or maybe it was to propose a way to break deadlocks with some kind of benevolent dictatorship or whatever like the way it works in a lot of other open source projects? I don't have the answer, I actually don't know a lot about anything, but I'm good in asking questions to make sure everything has been well thought.
yeah so simple but noooooo! well maybe it works out better with the fighting then with a simple idea being done.
meanwhile the diff is about 5%
https://bitcoinwisdom.com/bitcoin/difficulty
Bitcoin Difficulty: 158,427,203,767
Estimated Next Difficulty: 166,334,041,833 (+4.99%)
Adjust time: After 430 Blocks, About 2.8 days >>>>>>>> some time friday we find the exact number.
Hashrate(?): 1,145,463,919 GH/s
Block Generation Time(?):
1 block: 9.5 minutes
3 blocks: 28.4 minutes
6 blocks: 56.8 minutes
Updated: 9:10 (3.5 minutes ago)
March 15, 2016, 08:30:27 AM
It's actually not a "fork attempt", but an attempt to solve a problem. You see, the goal is not the fork, it's the improvement.
The first five words at https://bitcoinclassic.com/ is "We are hard forking bitcoin", that looks pretty clearly like a fork attempt to me.I do not agree their goal is improvement, I think that is a byproduct, a way to entice people over to their fork and seize development control.
Well that's why I was talking about perceptions, if your perception is their goal is to take over Bitcoin, you'll interpret everything they say that way. But if you take a step back and think, their solution is to increase the max block size and the only way to achieve it is by a hard fork, so technically that's what they develop. The way they express it on the site is direct, probably to be as clear as possible and not trying to hide the hard fork path.
BTW, I'm trying to be as objective as possible when I say that. There's no obvious choice in this story. I actually think the best thing would have been Core increasing the max block size earlier. Everybody would be working on all the other ways to scale and productivity would not be slowed down by media/community management. All the drama would have been inexistent and developers would all be drinking beer together.
I don't think hijacking the entire Bitcoin network by controlling it is something possible.
There was a statement in the faq on the xt site (that probably exists somewhere on the classic site, too) that gave all dispute resolution powers to 2 developers - hardly what I would call decentralized. I don't trust people with agenda like that.I don't trust people with hidden agenda neither. Once again, are you sure their intentions were to control the system, or maybe it was to propose a way to break deadlocks with some kind of benevolent dictatorship or whatever like the way it works in a lot of other open source projects? I don't have the answer, I actually don't know a lot about anything, but I'm good in asking questions to make sure everything has been well thought.
March 15, 2016, 06:33:50 AM
Oups missed this one! 
The new diff is way better. 3-4 % is acceptable.
The new diff is way better. 3-4 % is acceptable.
March 15, 2016, 02:53:25 AM
So we pushed up a little bit during the first half of Yesterday and finished with +5.56% add 152 blocks. Since then we have been running flat with the Period Run Rate now at +4%
Rich
Rich
March 15, 2016, 01:00:41 AM
It's actually not a "fork attempt", but an attempt to solve a problem. You see, the goal is not the fork, it's the improvement.
The first five words at https://bitcoinclassic.com/ is "We are hard forking bitcoin", that looks pretty clearly like a fork attempt to me.I do not agree their goal is improvement, I think that is a byproduct, a way to entice people over to their fork and seize development control.
I don't think hijacking the entire Bitcoin network by controlling it is something possible.
There was a statement in the faq on the xt site (that probably exists somewhere on the classic site, too) that gave all dispute resolution powers to 2 developers - hardly what I would call decentralized. I don't trust people with agenda like that. March 15, 2016, 12:09:32 AM
I know this much, the answer isn't as simple as "make blocks bigger". If it were we'd of solved it a while ago.
I do not like the XT or classic fork attempts, to me that is two guys trying to hijack the entire bitcoin network and bring it under their control via a fork.
The answer to the block size problem has not been found yet, but it will be in time, and it will be solved more eloquently than simply proving bigger blocks.
At least price is holding above $400 and not tanking like the last time the block size debate was raging full strength and XT came out.
I do not like the XT or classic fork attempts, to me that is two guys trying to hijack the entire bitcoin network and bring it under their control via a fork.
The answer to the block size problem has not been found yet, but it will be in time, and it will be solved more eloquently than simply proving bigger blocks.
At least price is holding above $400 and not tanking like the last time the block size debate was raging full strength and XT came out.
I think you are right about certain people trying to control what happens next. I'm not sure on the amount but a few I have seen.... put themself or company obviously as benefiting from decisions.
I think we will battle it for a while sadly as so many have hidden agenda's. And even if something is decided.... after the ones who "lost" will keep putting out info. So hard for anyone to win.
It is why I like baby steps. The move to 2mb is stop gap but here in NJ and in any cold weather place with asphalt based roads in the spring road crews come out on a good weather day and patch winter caused potholes.
Everyone knows it is temporary fix but they do the temporary fix when they can in order to give some time to users of the road with a better fix down the road.
This temporary pot hole patch would be helpful in that it would show people can agree on some thing short term.
They maybe we can assess how it works in the short term.
March 15, 2016, 12:01:39 AM
I know this much, the answer isn't as simple as "make blocks bigger". If it were we'd of solved it a while ago.
I do not like the XT or classic fork attempts, to me that is two guys trying to hijack the entire bitcoin network and bring it under their control via a fork.
The answer to the block size problem has not been found yet, but it will be in time, and it will be solved more eloquently than simply proving bigger blocks.
At least price is holding above $400 and not tanking like the last time the block size debate was raging full strength and XT came out.
I do not like the XT or classic fork attempts, to me that is two guys trying to hijack the entire bitcoin network and bring it under their control via a fork.
The answer to the block size problem has not been found yet, but it will be in time, and it will be solved more eloquently than simply proving bigger blocks.
At least price is holding above $400 and not tanking like the last time the block size debate was raging full strength and XT came out.
I think you are right about certain people trying to control what happens next. I'm not sure on the amount but a few I have seen.... put themself or company obviously as benefiting from decisions.
I think we will battle it for a while sadly as so many have hidden agenda's. And even if something is decided.... after the ones who "lost" will keep putting out info. So hard for anyone to win.
March 14, 2016, 09:50:55 PM
I do not like the XT or classic fork attempts, to me that is two guys trying to hijack the entire bitcoin network and bring it under their control via a fork.
It's actually not a "fork attempt", but an attempt to solve a problem. You see, the goal is not the fork, it's the improvement. The way we see it can have an impact on our reactions and opinions. The perceptions of the taken actions are often more important than the actions themselves. I don't think hijacking the entire Bitcoin network by controlling it is something possible. Do you?
Ethereum just forked. Nice and easy. You know why everything went smoothly? Because people agreed even if they didn't think exactly the same.
Quote
The answer to the block size problem has not been found yet, but it will be in time, and it will be solved more eloquently than simply proving bigger blocks.
It will be a combination of every good ideas, including block size limit increase. The question is: when? Will it be too late? My fear is halving will be catastrophic.
That being said, I'm confident there will be peace and great things will happen with Bitcoin after the halving and scaling issues are solved.
Jump to: