Pages:
Author

Topic: Looks more and more like a 2011 repeat - page 4. (Read 14959 times)

member
Activity: 84
Merit: 10
A quick progress update. Between peaks is 671 days




A poor analysis. You could easily draw two horizontal lines between at 100 and 140 based on the data shown. There is very significant resistance at the 100 level. It will not fall so easily.

It just did. In fact it was selling in the 80s yesterday on BitStamp. 70s here we come.
sr. member
Activity: 378
Merit: 250
Born to chew bubble gum and kick ass
I think different timeframes should be used to compare both bubbles


legendary
Activity: 966
Merit: 1001
Energy is Wealth
Meanwhile little has changed on this front
legendary
Activity: 1638
Merit: 1001
₪``Campaign Manager´´₪
But under the current circumstances, when there is a vastly more efficient machine for the current algorithm, its good that these are being used.

Define: "vastly more efficient".

at generating hashes with the current algorithm....
Try mining with your CPU versus the ASICs in the network.
legendary
Activity: 1246
Merit: 1000
There's one more problem with using CPU/GPU only for mining: Botnets. ...

According to your previous definition Botnets are good ("... more combined hashing power strengthens the network and makes it less vulnerable to attacks ...")

Botnets can be one example of such an 'attack', more combined hashing power is what made these Botnets lose their power.
sr. member
Activity: 434
Merit: 250
Botnets are good for the Bitcoin network.
hero member
Activity: 1162
Merit: 500
There's one more problem with using CPU/GPU only for mining: Botnets. ...

According to your previous definition Botnets are good ("... more combined hashing power strengthens the network and makes it less vulnerable to attacks ...")
legendary
Activity: 1246
Merit: 1000
- 5 ASIC miners can totally destroy 5,000,000 CPU miners (is CPU mined chain safe ? .. answer: it is not).
- Is p2p infrastructure with 10,000-100,000 ASICS safer then 5,000,000 CPU ? (answer: yes)

Please, gentlemen, a little bit more outside-the-box thinking!

Who says Bitcoins hashing algorithm (SHA-256) is god given - and can never be changed?

Why buy additional hardware (ASICS) to get back to the original decentralization when there's a much simpler way: Change the hashing algorithm (to e.g. scrypt).

Bitcoins idea was to democratize currency. At the moment we see quite the opposite.

There's one more problem with using CPU/GPU only for mining: Botnets. With ASICs around they are not much of a threat anymore. I think changing the hashing algorithm to scrypt brings way more trouble than it's worth. And I really don't see how ASIC hardware undermines the democratic nature of Bitcoin as opposed to CPU or GPU mining, I just don't see any fundamental difference.
legendary
Activity: 1400
Merit: 1000
- 5 ASIC miners can totally destroy 5,000,000 CPU miners (is CPU mined chain safe ? .. answer: it is not).
- Is p2p infrastructure with 10,000-100,000 ASICS safer then 5,000,000 CPU ? (answer: yes)

Please, gentlemen, a little bit more outside-the-box thinking!

Who says Bitcoins hashing algorithm (SHA-256) is god given - and can never be changed?

Why buy additional hardware (ASICS) to get back to the original decentralization when there's a much simpler way: Change the hashing algorithm (to e.g. scrypt).

Bitcoins idea was to democratize currency. At the moment we see quite the opposite.

You have to evolve or die. (no matter if it is SHA-256 or ....) There will be always smarter guys who will come with inventions and will take profit.(only 1 winner, 99 have to lose ... do not cry "WE WILL MINE WITH CPU" it is your choice)
hero member
Activity: 1162
Merit: 500
But under the current circumstances, when there is a vastly more efficient machine for the current algorithm, its good that these are being used.

Define: "vastly more efficient".

A Bitcoin mined at difficulty 10,000,000 is not better than a Bitcoin mined at difficulty 1.

Bitcoins idea was to break the monopoly of the banks. To democratize currency. To become the money of the people. Now it seems it becomes the money of the ASIC companies.

Satoshi would be turning in his grave ...
legendary
Activity: 1638
Merit: 1001
₪``Campaign Manager´´₪
- 5 ASIC miners can totally destroy 5,000,000 CPU miners (is CPU mined chain safe ? .. answer: it is not).
- Is p2p infrastructure with 10,000-100,000 ASICS safer then 5,000,000 CPU ? (answer: yes)

Please, gentlemen, a little bit more outside-the-box thinking!

Who says Bitcoins hashing algorithm (SHA-256) is god given - and can never be changed?

Why buy additional hardware (ASICS) to get back to the original decentralization when there's a much simpler way: Change the hashing algorithm (to e.g. scrypt).

Bitcoins idea was to democratize currency. At the moment we see quite the opposite.

I agree that a hashing algorithm that has a normal pc as its ASIC (meaning there is no hardware more suitable to mine than a normal pc) would be ideal.  
But under the current circumstances, when there is a vastly more efficient machine for the current algorithm, its good that these are being used.
hero member
Activity: 1162
Merit: 500
- 5 ASIC miners can totally destroy 5,000,000 CPU miners (is CPU mined chain safe ? .. answer: it is not).
- Is p2p infrastructure with 10,000-100,000 ASICS safer then 5,000,000 CPU ? (answer: yes)

Please, gentlemen, a little bit more outside-the-box thinking!

Who says Bitcoins hashing algorithm (SHA-256) is god given - and can never be changed?

Why buy additional hardware (ASICS) to get back to the original decentralization when there's a much simpler way: Change the hashing algorithm (to e.g. scrypt).

Bitcoins idea was to democratize currency. At the moment we see quite the opposite.
legendary
Activity: 1400
Merit: 1000
You can leave out that condescending tone of yours if you want to discuss things in a civilized manner, it only makes you look bad.

When I look at your explanation, that "condescending tone" is obviously needed in your case.

To answer your question: more combined hashing power strengthens the network and makes it less vulnerable to attacks.

Let me ask you another question: Which Bitcoin network is "less vulnerable to attacks": a) or b) ?

a) 5 Avalon ASIC Miners, combined hashing power: a whooping 325 Gh/s
b) 5,000,000 PCs with CPU miners, combined hashing power: only 50 Gh/s


It seems you failed to understand basic Bitcoin concepts. Like "difficulty" ...
- 5 ASIC miners can totally destroy 5,000,000 CPU miners (is CPU mined chain safe ? .. answer: it is not).
- Is p2p infrastructure with 10,000-100,000 ASICS safer then 5,000,000 CPU ? (answer: yes)
hero member
Activity: 1162
Merit: 500
You can leave out that condescending tone of yours if you want to discuss things in a civilized manner, it only makes you look bad.

When I look at your explanation, that "condescending tone" is obviously needed in your case.

To answer your question: more combined hashing power strengthens the network and makes it less vulnerable to attacks.

Let me ask you another question: Which Bitcoin network is "less vulnerable to attacks": a) or b) ?

a) 5 Avalon ASIC Miners, combined hashing power: a whooping 325 Gh/s
b) 5,000,000 PCs with CPU miners, combined hashing power: only 50 Gh/s


It seems you failed to understand basic Bitcoin concepts. Like "difficulty" ...
legendary
Activity: 1148
Merit: 1018
Both Google trends and forum activity are lagging indicators. Quite nice to picture the current situation, and to compare "today" with "yesterday", but complete useless anything else.
sr. member
Activity: 348
Merit: 250
There are approx. 2 billion PCs -> decentralized.
There are some thousand ASICs -> centralized.

Not really true.  While there may be some 2 billion PCs, only a tiny fraction of that number ever mined bitcoin. 

If you are going to count non-mining computers, I will count non-mining ASIC devices, and suddenly there are a lot more than "thousands" of ASIC.

legendary
Activity: 1442
Merit: 1000
Antifragile
You seem to be pretty resilient to logic, so I make it simple for you - and ask you again:

And more hashing power is actually better for the network as a whole.

Why?

You can leave out that condescending tone of yours if you want to discuss things in a civilized manner, it only makes you look bad. To answer your question: more combined hashing power strengthens the network and makes it less vulnerable to attacks.

+1 and wouldn't it also lessen the effect of DDOS attacks? (If they can actually attack that portion of the Network)...
legendary
Activity: 1246
Merit: 1000
You seem to be pretty resilient to logic, so I make it simple for you - and ask you again:

And more hashing power is actually better for the network as a whole.

Why?

You can leave out that condescending tone of yours if you want to discuss things in a civilized manner, it only makes you look bad. To answer your question: more combined hashing power strengthens the network and makes it less vulnerable to attacks.
legendary
Activity: 1638
Merit: 1001
₪``Campaign Manager´´₪
You seem to be pretty resilient to logic, so I make it simple for you - and ask you again:

And more hashing power is actually better for the network as a whole.

Why?

Because it increases the cost for a potential 51% attacker.
hero member
Activity: 1162
Merit: 500
You seem to be pretty resilient to logic, so I make it simple for you - and ask you again:

And more hashing power is actually better for the network as a whole.

Why?
Pages:
Jump to: