Just as a note, I tested out some amounts with my NOBL and BTC and they both worked. So make of that as you may.
I personally do hope they are able to seal up their security gaps, even though they have had some pretty bad issues in the past, they've always done right and did what they could to set everything straight.
Topic: NobleCoin[NOBL] - 8% PoS | 1Yr+ | MARKETPLACE | PAY | GIFT | CHARITIES/MERCHANTS - page 351. (Read 1053168 times)
March 30, 2014, 10:42:40 PM
March 30, 2014, 10:28:18 PM
If there is a drama with this latest exchange doing a cut and run my previous offer stands for a donation to a pot for 'aid' for Noble community members to gain back some losses of Noblecoin.
Really hope it comes back but aint holding my breath. Sad
Really hope it comes back but aint holding my breath. Sad
March 30, 2014, 10:08:41 PM
Well hopefully anyone who has noble on there can access it.
I just now moved my 3,000,000 NOBL I have been stressing about from there to agx.io... Shew! So glad to finally have them out of there.Did you receive them? I just tried to move my Doges out of the coinex but never received them.
edit. 2 hours ago, no mention about transfer in doge blockchain..
Well coinex says it was processed and withdrawn but nothing on agx.io yet... been 2 hours
March 30, 2014, 09:08:57 PM
Well hopefully anyone who has noble on there can access it.
I just now moved my 3,000,000 NOBL I have been stressing about from there to agx.io... Shew! So glad to finally have them out of there.Did you receive them? I just tried to move my Doges out of the coinex but never received them.
edit. 2 hours ago, no mention about transfer in doge blockchain..
Well coinex says it was processed and withdrawn but nothing on agx.io yet... been 2 hours
March 30, 2014, 07:27:05 PM
Well hopefully anyone who has noble on there can access it.
I just now moved my 3,000,000 NOBL I have been stressing about from there to agx.io... Shew! So glad to finally have them out of there.Did you receive them? I just tried to move my Doges out of the coinex but never received them.
edit. 2 hours ago, no mention about transfer in doge blockchain..
March 30, 2014, 07:23:23 PM
Well hopefully anyone who has noble on there can access it.
I just now moved my 3,000,000 NOBL I have been stressing about from there to agx.io... Shew! So glad to finally have them out of there. March 30, 2014, 06:04:42 PM
Well hopefully anyone who has noble on there can access it.
March 30, 2014, 05:36:16 PM
Lol, must be something in the Ontario water, I'm in Ontario aswell lol.. BTW CoinEx is back up it seems.
Lets hope it stays that way for awhile. I'm a little dubious on them now. Lack of communication is a omen. I'm actually very surprised they are back (I did come out and defend them in the beginning) and wish them the best of luck recovering the losses but I think it took too long and their core base has moved on.
Yeah it's going to be tough for me to move my NOBL back over there after that length of downtime.
I hear yah.
March 30, 2014, 05:35:42 PM
Lol, must be something in the Ontario water, I'm in Ontario aswell lol.. BTW CoinEx is back up it seems.
Lets hope it stays that way for awhile. I'm a little dubious on them now. Lack of communication is a omen. I'm actually very surprised they are back (I did come out and defend them in the beginning) and wish them the best of luck recovering the losses but I think it took too long and their core base has moved on.
Yeah it's going to be tough for me to move my NOBL back over there after that length of downtime.
March 30, 2014, 05:33:36 PM
Lol, must be something in the Ontario water, I'm in Ontario aswell lol.. BTW CoinEx is back up it seems.
Lets hope it stays that way for awhile. I'm a little dubious on them now. Lack of communication is a omen. I'm actually very surprised they are back (I did come out and defend them in the beginning) and wish them the best of luck recovering the losses but I think it took too long and their core base has moved on.
March 30, 2014, 05:28:32 PM
Lol, must be something in the Ontario water, I'm in Ontario aswell lol.. BTW CoinEx is back up it seems.
March 30, 2014, 04:36:17 PM
hey guys, don't forget to sign the white house petition against the new tax rules and spread it along !
https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/amend-irs-notice-2014-2taxing-virtual-currencybitcoin-property-stifles-new-technologycreates/z7WtKZGY
https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/amend-irs-notice-2014-2taxing-virtual-currencybitcoin-property-stifles-new-technologycreates/z7WtKZGY
I don't agree with the wording nor the reasoning. But I do agree the law is unjust and incorrectly implemented.
March 30, 2014, 04:34:24 PM
hey guys, don't forget to sign the white house petition against the new tax rules and spread it along !
https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/amend-irs-notice-2014-2taxing-virtual-currencybitcoin-property-stifles-new-technologycreates/z7WtKZGY
https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/amend-irs-notice-2014-2taxing-virtual-currencybitcoin-property-stifles-new-technologycreates/z7WtKZGY
March 30, 2014, 04:33:00 PM
Well if it ain't a small world! I used to be Senior Hardware technician at GE, Cherry Semiconductor and On Semiconductor (after acquisition) back when my brain used to work.
I don't miss the Bunny suits.ON Semi? Huh, I know that company. (I work for Quality Engineering at ON.) And yeah, I don't miss bunny suits either. Was in the fab for two years, and I don't plan on returning. Hehe.
Nice a fellow Ontarian
March 30, 2014, 04:20:06 PM
Well if it ain't a small world! I used to be Senior Hardware technician at GE, Cherry Semiconductor and On Semiconductor (after acquisition) back when my brain used to work.
I don't miss the Bunny suits.*** Semi? Huh, I know that company. (I work for Quality Engineering at ***.) And yeah, I don't miss bunny suits either. Was in the fab for two years, and I don't plan on returning. Hehe.
PM inbound, going to edit my post. too much personal info. do the same.
March 30, 2014, 04:09:10 PM
Well if it ain't a small world! I used to be Senior Hardware technician at GE, Cherry Semiconductor and On Semiconductor (after acquisition) back when my brain used to work.
I don't miss the Bunny suits.ON Semi? Huh, I know that company. (I work for Quality Engineering at ON.) And yeah, I don't miss bunny suits either. Was in the fab for two years, and I don't plan on returning. Hehe.
March 30, 2014, 04:04:45 PM
...
The intent of LTC when released was to be resistant to GPUs/FPGAs/ASICs for the foreseeable future. One quickly went down, and with the advance in lithographic technologies and geometry creation, the second is being bypassed and it's going straight to the third one.
As a note, the thread on the LTC forum is not from the "developers" who want to fork LTC. So it still looks like profit motive. Maybe this is the new paradigm that people are going to use to make money now: forking already existing coins to new algorithms with the intent of "ASIC-resistance."
I will say, ASICs are just a new starting barrier for a coin. In no way does it decentralize the system as anyone is still able to participate in the system. In fact, ASICs provide the service of securing a blockchain which is just as important. After all, the same arguments happened with CPU vs. GPU. And in fact, for a long time, GPU was akin to ASICs as only certain cards could mine more effectively and we had a whole bunch of hobbyists trying to outdo each other by tweaking existing components to gain an additional edge. ASICs to me are just the next evolution of that. The difference is that instead of manipulation from the hardware level, it's being done at the wafer level.
The intent of LTC when released was to be resistant to GPUs/FPGAs/ASICs for the foreseeable future. One quickly went down, and with the advance in lithographic technologies and geometry creation, the second is being bypassed and it's going straight to the third one.
As a note, the thread on the LTC forum is not from the "developers" who want to fork LTC. So it still looks like profit motive. Maybe this is the new paradigm that people are going to use to make money now: forking already existing coins to new algorithms with the intent of "ASIC-resistance."
I will say, ASICs are just a new starting barrier for a coin. In no way does it decentralize the system as anyone is still able to participate in the system. In fact, ASICs provide the service of securing a blockchain which is just as important. After all, the same arguments happened with CPU vs. GPU. And in fact, for a long time, GPU was akin to ASICs as only certain cards could mine more effectively and we had a whole bunch of hobbyists trying to outdo each other by tweaking existing components to gain an additional edge. ASICs to me are just the next evolution of that. The difference is that instead of manipulation from the hardware level, it's being done at the wafer level.
You should drop this post in that thread. I don't think I agree that ASIC secures a blockchain. Once a quantum computer comes out any blockchain is in danger and centralizing with ASIC is the wrong direction in my mind. Think On this, any large enough government can and may use ASIC tech to centralize hash and take control (Bitcoin better watch for this). It can be done now with the Us gov if the will was there.
I may drop that post in that thread if it gains further traction.
On the realm of quantum computing, that is a fair concern. After all, quantum computing that resolves both entanglement and the eigenvector trap (both a physical and a code-based restrictions) would easily simplify all of the integer-based algorithms and make solving them relatively trivial. Instead of taking 2^O(n) time, that's reduced to 2^O(log n) time (from exponential to polynomial) in the best case scenario [and at worst, with a bad implementation, we would have something in quasi-polynomial time].
Once that happens, any crypto-currency that is secured with an algorithm that runs in exponential time will be well...fucked. So even a switch to X11 and so forth would be moot. At the minimum, in order to resolve this, the new algorithms will need to have 2^(2^O(log n)) time, i.e. double exponential run time so that at the best, Shor's Algorithm will reduce it to something that is still NP-time. [It would be fun to see a blockchain secured with something like Akerman's function though...]
In this sense, ASICs are a better security mechanism than what we have right now. I still disagree that ASICs will have the centralizing affect if enough people participate. I'm still of the opinion that if the government wanted to take down a coin like Bitcoin, they could easily do so by implementing their own sort of ASIC chip, and having a fab or foundry produce/assemble them. Of course, now it's actually significantly more expensive then it was prior to the advent of ASICs for the SHA-256 algorithm [based on current network power, lithographic advances in the realm of ASICs and continuously improved adaptation, it'll likely be a ~$500 million proposition right now, back in mid-2012 while ASICs were in the development stages, it would have only been a ~$35 million proposition].
I may have to stop discussions with you. you make me think and I'm getting too long in the tooth for that!
I think we agree on a lot of points and has just been posted in the thread for this discussion which I quoted for truth "The only way to be ASIC proof" Is to hard fork when needed.
Now where we disagree is upon whether ASIC will centralize. We can debate that forever I think as no-one knows the future but bitcoin is much more centralized than before ASIC. Even botnets which everyone seems to have their panties in a bunch about decentralizes.
As to Gov takeover you need to add the law of returns to your calculation. As the price has changed in a non-liner fashion that actually makes it much more cost effective to accomplish now than then.
You made me start reading algorithms and I had to force myself to stop as At this point in my life I am not going to fall down that hole. I'd rather goto the casino tonight then start that path.
Yes QC will be a game breaker with time being the key to the castle. But I am of the assumption that when we break that barrier the next will naturally follow.
EDIT:
As you can see I am speaking all off the cuff. I will not waste the time and effort that these questions need to be properly vetted without a return.
Hehe, fair enough. I'm also speaking from what I can quickly recall. So I'm not entirely sure if those are the correct time complexity formulas.
Yeah, the calculation I made for a takeover was based on the normalized development of a new 20nm line at a wafer fab (I work for a major semiconductor company, so I'm fairly familiar with those numbers) and an estimation on how much hash each assembled chip inputted into a finalized hashing ASIC makes in comparison to the current network hashrate. There are lots of factors to account for, but I was lazy and just multiplied the costs by 2.25 (sounded like the right factor to me).
I'm glad I could make you read algorithms?
Hehe. Never hurts to keep the mind sharp though. Although, going to a casino sounds really nice right now. Too bad that's a two hour drive for me. Gah...[Personally, I'm still saving up for a Vegas trip for me and some friends. So I guess I'll go crazy then. Ha!]
Well if it ain't a small world! I used to be Senior Hardware technician at ***** back when my brain used to work.
I don't miss the Bunny suits. March 30, 2014, 04:02:49 PM
Still having problems out of cryptocoons, I finally got all of my coin confirmed...
But now since it confirmed so many all at once, its say warning I'm over the threshold. There is no manual payout...
I think I'm done mining there I've submitted several tickets now with no response.
But now since it confirmed so many all at once, its say warning I'm over the threshold. There is no manual payout...
I think I'm done mining there I've submitted several tickets now with no response.
March 30, 2014, 03:58:57 PM
...
The intent of LTC when released was to be resistant to GPUs/FPGAs/ASICs for the foreseeable future. One quickly went down, and with the advance in lithographic technologies and geometry creation, the second is being bypassed and it's going straight to the third one.
As a note, the thread on the LTC forum is not from the "developers" who want to fork LTC. So it still looks like profit motive. Maybe this is the new paradigm that people are going to use to make money now: forking already existing coins to new algorithms with the intent of "ASIC-resistance."
I will say, ASICs are just a new starting barrier for a coin. In no way does it decentralize the system as anyone is still able to participate in the system. In fact, ASICs provide the service of securing a blockchain which is just as important. After all, the same arguments happened with CPU vs. GPU. And in fact, for a long time, GPU was akin to ASICs as only certain cards could mine more effectively and we had a whole bunch of hobbyists trying to outdo each other by tweaking existing components to gain an additional edge. ASICs to me are just the next evolution of that. The difference is that instead of manipulation from the hardware level, it's being done at the wafer level.
The intent of LTC when released was to be resistant to GPUs/FPGAs/ASICs for the foreseeable future. One quickly went down, and with the advance in lithographic technologies and geometry creation, the second is being bypassed and it's going straight to the third one.
As a note, the thread on the LTC forum is not from the "developers" who want to fork LTC. So it still looks like profit motive. Maybe this is the new paradigm that people are going to use to make money now: forking already existing coins to new algorithms with the intent of "ASIC-resistance."
I will say, ASICs are just a new starting barrier for a coin. In no way does it decentralize the system as anyone is still able to participate in the system. In fact, ASICs provide the service of securing a blockchain which is just as important. After all, the same arguments happened with CPU vs. GPU. And in fact, for a long time, GPU was akin to ASICs as only certain cards could mine more effectively and we had a whole bunch of hobbyists trying to outdo each other by tweaking existing components to gain an additional edge. ASICs to me are just the next evolution of that. The difference is that instead of manipulation from the hardware level, it's being done at the wafer level.
You should drop this post in that thread. I don't think I agree that ASIC secures a blockchain. Once a quantum computer comes out any blockchain is in danger and centralizing with ASIC is the wrong direction in my mind. Think On this, any large enough government can and may use ASIC tech to centralize hash and take control (Bitcoin better watch for this). It can be done now with the Us gov if the will was there.
I may drop that post in that thread if it gains further traction.
On the realm of quantum computing, that is a fair concern. After all, quantum computing that resolves both entanglement and the eigenvector trap (both a physical and a code-based restrictions) would easily simplify all of the integer-based algorithms and make solving them relatively trivial. Instead of taking 2^O(n) time, that's reduced to 2^O(log n) time (from exponential to polynomial) in the best case scenario [and at worst, with a bad implementation, we would have something in quasi-polynomial time].
Once that happens, any crypto-currency that is secured with an algorithm that runs in exponential time will be well...fucked. So even a switch to X11 and so forth would be moot. At the minimum, in order to resolve this, the new algorithms will need to have 2^(2^O(log n)) time, i.e. double exponential run time so that at the best, Shor's Algorithm will reduce it to something that is still NP-time. [It would be fun to see a blockchain secured with something like Akerman's function though...]
In this sense, ASICs are a better security mechanism than what we have right now. I still disagree that ASICs will have the centralizing affect if enough people participate. I'm still of the opinion that if the government wanted to take down a coin like Bitcoin, they could easily do so by implementing their own sort of ASIC chip, and having a fab or foundry produce/assemble them. Of course, now it's actually significantly more expensive then it was prior to the advent of ASICs for the SHA-256 algorithm [based on current network power, lithographic advances in the realm of ASICs and continuously improved adaptation, it'll likely be a ~$500 million proposition right now, back in mid-2012 while ASICs were in the development stages, it would have only been a ~$35 million proposition].
I may have to stop discussions with you. you make me think and I'm getting too long in the tooth for that!
I think we agree on a lot of points and has just been posted in the thread for this discussion which I quoted for truth "The only way to be ASIC proof" Is to hard fork when needed.
Now where we disagree is upon whether ASIC will centralize. We can debate that forever I think as no-one knows the future but bitcoin is much more centralized than before ASIC. Even botnets which everyone seems to have their panties in a bunch about decentralizes.
As to Gov takeover you need to add the law of returns to your calculation. As the price has changed in a non-liner fashion that actually makes it much more cost effective to accomplish now than then.
You made me start reading algorithms and I had to force myself to stop as At this point in my life I am not going to fall down that hole. I'd rather goto the casino tonight then start that path.
Yes QC will be a game breaker with time being the key to the castle. But I am of the assumption that when we break that barrier the next will naturally follow.
EDIT:
As you can see I am speaking all off the cuff. I will not waste the time and effort that these questions need to be properly vetted without a return.
Hehe, fair enough. I'm also speaking from what I can quickly recall. So I'm not entirely sure if those are the correct time complexity formulas.
Yeah, the calculation I made for a takeover was based on the normalized development of a new 20nm line at a wafer fab (I work for a major semiconductor company, so I'm fairly familiar with those numbers) and an estimation on how much hash each assembled chip inputted into a finalized hashing ASIC makes in comparison to the current network hashrate. There are lots of factors to account for, but I was lazy and just multiplied the costs by 2.25 (sounded like the right factor to me).
I'm glad I could make you read algorithms?
Hehe. Never hurts to keep the mind sharp though. Although, going to a casino sounds really nice right now. Too bad that's a two hour drive for me. Gah...[Personally, I'm still saving up for a Vegas trip for me and some friends. So I guess I'll go crazy then. Ha!]
March 30, 2014, 03:43:08 PM
...
The intent of LTC when released was to be resistant to GPUs/FPGAs/ASICs for the foreseeable future. One quickly went down, and with the advance in lithographic technologies and geometry creation, the second is being bypassed and it's going straight to the third one.
As a note, the thread on the LTC forum is not from the "developers" who want to fork LTC. So it still looks like profit motive. Maybe this is the new paradigm that people are going to use to make money now: forking already existing coins to new algorithms with the intent of "ASIC-resistance."
I will say, ASICs are just a new starting barrier for a coin. In no way does it decentralize the system as anyone is still able to participate in the system. In fact, ASICs provide the service of securing a blockchain which is just as important. After all, the same arguments happened with CPU vs. GPU. And in fact, for a long time, GPU was akin to ASICs as only certain cards could mine more effectively and we had a whole bunch of hobbyists trying to outdo each other by tweaking existing components to gain an additional edge. ASICs to me are just the next evolution of that. The difference is that instead of manipulation from the hardware level, it's being done at the wafer level.
The intent of LTC when released was to be resistant to GPUs/FPGAs/ASICs for the foreseeable future. One quickly went down, and with the advance in lithographic technologies and geometry creation, the second is being bypassed and it's going straight to the third one.
As a note, the thread on the LTC forum is not from the "developers" who want to fork LTC. So it still looks like profit motive. Maybe this is the new paradigm that people are going to use to make money now: forking already existing coins to new algorithms with the intent of "ASIC-resistance."
I will say, ASICs are just a new starting barrier for a coin. In no way does it decentralize the system as anyone is still able to participate in the system. In fact, ASICs provide the service of securing a blockchain which is just as important. After all, the same arguments happened with CPU vs. GPU. And in fact, for a long time, GPU was akin to ASICs as only certain cards could mine more effectively and we had a whole bunch of hobbyists trying to outdo each other by tweaking existing components to gain an additional edge. ASICs to me are just the next evolution of that. The difference is that instead of manipulation from the hardware level, it's being done at the wafer level.
You should drop this post in that thread. I don't think I agree that ASIC secures a blockchain. Once a quantum computer comes out any blockchain is in danger and centralizing with ASIC is the wrong direction in my mind. Think On this, any large enough government can and may use ASIC tech to centralize hash and take control (Bitcoin better watch for this). It can be done now with the Us gov if the will was there.
I may drop that post in that thread if it gains further traction.
On the realm of quantum computing, that is a fair concern. After all, quantum computing that resolves both entanglement and the eigenvector trap (both a physical and a code-based restrictions) would easily simplify all of the integer-based algorithms and make solving them relatively trivial. Instead of taking 2^O(n) time, that's reduced to 2^O(log n) time (from exponential to polynomial) in the best case scenario [and at worst, with a bad implementation, we would have something in quasi-polynomial time].
Once that happens, any crypto-currency that is secured with an algorithm that runs in exponential time will be well...fucked. So even a switch to X11 and so forth would be moot. At the minimum, in order to resolve this, the new algorithms will need to have 2^(2^O(log n)) time, i.e. double exponential run time so that at the best, Shor's Algorithm will reduce it to something that is still NP-time. [It would be fun to see a blockchain secured with something like Akerman's function though...]
In this sense, ASICs are a better security mechanism than what we have right now. I still disagree that ASICs will have the centralizing affect if enough people participate. I'm still of the opinion that if the government wanted to take down a coin like Bitcoin, they could easily do so by implementing their own sort of ASIC chip, and having a fab or foundry produce/assemble them. Of course, now it's actually significantly more expensive then it was prior to the advent of ASICs for the SHA-256 algorithm [based on current network power, lithographic advances in the realm of ASICs and continuously improved adaptation, it'll likely be a ~$500 million proposition right now, back in mid-2012 while ASICs were in the development stages, it would have only been a ~$35 million proposition].
I may have to stop discussions with you. you make me think and I'm getting too long in the tooth for that!
I think we agree on a lot of points and has just been posted in the thread for this discussion which I quoted for truth "The only way to be ASIC proof" Is to hard fork when needed.
Now where we disagree is upon whether ASIC will centralize. We can debate that forever I think as no-one knows the future but bitcoin is much more centralized than before ASIC. Even botnets which everyone seems to have their panties in a bunch about decentralizes.
As to Gov takeover you need to add the law of returns to your calculation. As the price has changed in a non-liner fashion that actually makes it much more cost effective to accomplish now than then.
You made me start reading algorithms and I had to force myself to stop as At this point in my life I am not going to fall down that hole. I'd rather goto the casino tonight then start that path.
Yes QC will be a game breaker with time being the key to the castle. But I am of the assumption that when we break that barrier the next will naturally follow.
EDIT:
As you can see I am speaking all off the cuff. I will not waste the time and effort that these questions need to be properly vetted without a return.
Jump to: