Author

Topic: Wall Observer BTC/USD - Bitcoin price movement tracking & discussion - page 19604. (Read 26608807 times)

legendary
Activity: 1639
Merit: 1006
I love P2P pool, yes that is a great plan, but manufacturers are too greedy and want all of the profits. However, we should be DDOS every large miner constantly making it hell to scale as one entity. Make the cost of doing business as a large miner not worth it.... better to sell your miners to people and try and make money that way.

Encouraging a more combative environment instead of a collaborative environment can lead to potential consequences. I>E> Right now bitfury has indicted they are going to sell their new chips to the widest group of people to insure decentralization, similarly some chinese mines will lease hashing power to their competitors in solidarity without profit if there is a power outage.

Encouraging DDOS attacks will break these bonds of solidarity that lead to greater security.

There are other incentives that naturally promote decentralization that we can focus on -

1) The costs to secure a large mining farm are much more than 10k routers with mining chips in many homes. One requires no extra security, and the other is a target

2) Centralized mining farms have to deal with excessive heat which requires cooling and elaborate ventilation costs while thousands of individuals with small miners can recycle the heat and not worry about excessive heat

3) The liability of fire and damage from failed cooling systems is large with a mining farm , vs almost no liability for millions of small utility miners

ect...

solidarity?Huh what planet are you living on.... this is wild west, war zone, chaos rule, dystopia we are in and will be in for ever.
sr. member
Activity: 345
Merit: 250
So, I'm not really all that worried about the hard fork. Seems quite a few people are looking to instill as much panic as possible, and we've just barely dropped to high $300s. It's kind of funny, really.

yes it is not so long ago that "volatility" was a much talked about topic on this thread but the $200-$300 "long" period killed it off. I happen to think manipulators stopped it going down below $200 and so it 'appeared' as though volatility was less. Now that they seem to be happy with a price over $300  they have left bitcoin to ride a lot more and hence when we have a bit of a minor panic like now we will get to a period of 10% or more changes in price in a short time (ie days).. the old normal is back.

It was this time last year there was that giant crash down to $150. People have bills to pay after Christmas and New Year, and they must wait weeks for their monthly pay. The nights are long, and it's the most depressing time of the year. It only seems to need a trigger event to spark a crash in mid-January, and we had two today.
hero member
Activity: 546
Merit: 500
Warning: Confrmed Gavinista

according to the figures I see bitcoin is down 9.67%in USD but only 6.76% in CNY. Is such a gap usual?


depends on how usd/cny diverge during the day.
legendary
Activity: 994
Merit: 1035
I love P2P pool, yes that is a great plan, but manufacturers are too greedy and want all of the profits. However, we should be DDOS every large miner constantly making it hell to scale as one entity. Make the cost of doing business as a large miner not worth it.... better to sell your miners to people and try and make money that way.

Encouraging a more combative environment instead of a collaborative environment can lead to potential consequences. I>E> Right now bitfury has indicted they are going to sell their new chips to the widest group of people to insure decentralization, similarly some chinese mines will lease hashing power to their competitors in solidarity without profit if there is a power outage.

Encouraging DDOS attacks will break these bonds of solidarity that lead to greater security.

There are other incentives that naturally promote decentralization that we can focus on -

1) The costs to secure a large mining farm are much more than 10k routers with mining chips in many homes. One requires no extra security, and the other is a target

2) Centralized mining farms have to deal with excessive heat which requires cooling and elaborate ventilation costs while thousands of individuals with small miners can recycle the heat and not worry about excessive heat

3) The liability of fire and damage from failed cooling systems is large with a mining farm , vs almost no liability for millions of small utility miners

ect...
member
Activity: 115
Merit: 10

according to the figures I see bitcoin is down 9.67%in USD but only 6.76% in CNY. Is such a gap usual?
legendary
Activity: 2380
Merit: 1823
1CBuddyxy4FerT3hzMmi1Jz48ESzRw1ZzZ
member
Activity: 72
Merit: 10
Below $375, I am a buyer. Come on, make it happen!
legendary
Activity: 1639
Merit: 1006
You can't, so what we need is a open policy, no pool can exceed 5%. Then we need policemen to enforce that policy, how, DDOS attacks. Wild west baby, comply or get killed.

Problems -
A pool with 20% hashing power can be split in 4 , appoint separate managers in separate locations and have a single owner or company control all 4 pools through convoluted shell companies

or

4 pools of 5% collude together

Either way the better solution is to focus on getting users back into mining(there are natural incentives that can accomplish this) and to improve p2p pools

I love P2P pool, yes that is a great plan, but manufacturers are too greedy and want all of the profits. However, we should be DDOS every large miner constantly making it hell to scale as one entity. Make the cost of doing business as a large miner not worth it.... better to sell your miners to people and try and make money that way.
hero member
Activity: 546
Merit: 500
Warning: Confrmed Gavinista
looks like Core devs have thrown Theymos under the bus....

They are starting to distance themselves from the bitcoin reddits....

And bitcoin.org will now be bitcoinco.re

That'd be great. But what makes you think so? (Besides there's bitcoinco.re now)

From what has been said to me on another forum.

And this reddit which hasn't been censored yet!!
legendary
Activity: 994
Merit: 1035
You can't, so what we need is a open policy, no pool can exceed 5%. Then we need policemen to enforce that policy, how, DDOS attacks. Wild west baby, comply or get killed.

Problems -
A pool with 20% hashing power can be split in 4 , appoint separate managers in separate locations and have a single owner or company control all 4 pools through convoluted shell companies

or

4 pools of 5% collude together

Either way the better solution is to focus on getting users back into mining(there are natural incentives that can accomplish this) and to improve p2p pools
legendary
Activity: 981
Merit: 1005
No maps for these territories
Miners showing support so far:

Bitmain/Antpool
BitFury
BW.COM
HAOBTC.com
KnCMiner
Genesis Mining

Slush should join up on it at any time now which will bring the supporting hash rate to over 50% according to blockchain.info pool stats.

Coinbase, Bitstamp, OKCoin... Bitpay should join at any time now as well. Others will likely follow suite shortly.

Consensus is forming, brace yourselves
legendary
Activity: 1639
Merit: 1006
[...]
What matters is, NO POOL should be allowed more than ~6-17% of total hashing power, and advanced technical stopgaps to prevent and/or cripple this from happening should be implemented in at the protocol level if need be, even if that concedes a certain unfortunate 'central planning' cost for the greater good of safeguarding Decentralized Trustlessness against any attempts by agents into asserting more than the maximum allowed % control of the network.

A cryptocurrency's most core value proposition - trustlessness - cannot exist if its network is centralized!!!

How would the protocol distinguish two pools from a single pool masquerading as multiple pools (one pool split up into several pools, all still controlled by one guy)?

You can't, so what we need is a open policy, no pool can exceed 5%. Then we need policemen to enforce that policy, how, DDOS attacks. Wild west baby, comply or get killed.
hero member
Activity: 910
Merit: 1003
To save Bitcoin we must execute a benevolent, temporary 51% attack on Chinese pools

News for you: at this moment, the top 2 Chinese pools, Antpool and F2pool, have 28 + 23 = 51% of the  total hashpower; so all the rest together has only 49%.  With BTCC and BW.com that is 28 + 23 + 16 + 4 = 71% of the total haspower is in China.

Quote
vote to change Core to blacklist them (or use any similar method, I don't know - I'm not a programmer ;3)

That is trivial to program.  However, if you use any rule to select the "right" blockchain other than "the one that has the majority of the hashpower", including blacklisting some miners, you are no longe using the bitcoin protocol.  What you are using is a centralized payment system -- an incredibly stupid and inefficient one.
hero member
Activity: 748
Merit: 500
looks like Core devs have thrown Theymos under the bus....

They are starting to distance themselves from the bitcoin reddits....

And bitcoin.org will now be bitcoinco.re

That'd be great. But what makes you think so? (Besides there's bitcoinco.re now)
full member
Activity: 188
Merit: 100
Small cockers do suffer from some sort of Freudian Blockstream™-induced big(ger)-block anxiety which prevents them from seeing that Bitcoin is FUBAR unless the arbitrary limit is immediately raised.
member
Activity: 115
Merit: 10
So, I'm not really all that worried about the hard fork. Seems quite a few people are looking to instill as much panic as possible, and we've just barely dropped to high $300s. It's kind of funny, really.

yes it is not so long ago that "volatility" was a much talked about topic on this thread but the $200-$300 "long" period killed it off. I happen to think manipulators stopped it going down below $200 and so it 'appeared' as though volatility was less. Now that they seem to be happy with a price over $300  they have left bitcoin to ride a lot more and hence when we have a bit of a minor panic like now we will get to a period of 10% or more changes in price in a short time (ie days).. the old normal is back.
legendary
Activity: 2380
Merit: 1823
1CBuddyxy4FerT3hzMmi1Jz48ESzRw1ZzZ
sr. member
Activity: 293
Merit: 250
f2pool is now really sh*** , another ddos or what.. Huh
hero member
Activity: 513
Merit: 511
So, I'm not really all that worried about the hard fork. Seems quite a few people are looking to instill as much panic as possible, and we've just barely dropped to high $300s. It's kind of funny, really.
newbie
Activity: 1
Merit: 0
[...]
What matters is, NO POOL should be allowed more than ~6-17% of total hashing power, and advanced technical stopgaps to prevent and/or cripple this from happening should be implemented in at the protocol level if need be, even if that concedes a certain unfortunate 'central planning' cost for the greater good of safeguarding Decentralized Trustlessness against any attempts by agents into asserting more than the maximum allowed % control of the network.

A cryptocurrency's most core value proposition - trustlessness - cannot exist if its network is centralized!!!

How would the protocol distinguish two pools from a single pool masquerading as multiple pools (one pool split up into several pools, all still controlled by one guy)?
Jump to: