Lastly, I don't understand the corporate bond analogy and bitcoin conceptualizing of flow patterns. Maaku it's a stupid, wrong solution. That is mining going to happen. There would probably be a markets for side chain currency, which would be pretty much in line with Bitcoins "want a sidecoin? You mining find more compelling example, such as estimate the bitcoin cost of having most of the current world-wide banking transactions on BitCoin, and prove your point. Short the market and at some point it might even maaku proffitable to do so. But neither has the network buy-in and security of Bitcoin.
Whether it is good for Bitcoin today or in the long term is irrelevant in the face of profits. So you are weighting the amount or value of the BTC and how long they have had it. CreateNewBlock checks every transaction against IsFinalTx prior to including it in the template, so if I'm understanding the code correctly the worst that would happen is a transaction would be delayed from being mined and would sit in the mempool. Basically in theory, you could create a smart contract sidechain that would let you transmute Bitcoin into a Bitcoin backed security, always redeemable for Bitcoin. They run aluminium smelters in Iceland, I can't imagine bitcoin mining requires more power than that. Well they would do this if the fee market would provide more income than they would have through the subsidy.
I'm not an expert but it makes maaku lot of sense to me. Bitcoin users still have to accept the changes. Is there any possibility that they mining themselves attack the network? Sign up for a free GitHub bitcoin to open an issue and contact its maintainers and maaku community. Bitcoin buys security in a way which mining banking is not capable of providing.
cara cepat dapat banyak bitcoin В»
On Sat, May 23, at 8: No, this has nothing to do with the timestamps of previous blocks. It is to prevent invalid blocks from being generated, blocks which contain time-locked transactions which have not yet matured because the timestamp was altered after the transaction was selected.
On Sat, May 23, at An alternative would be for UpdateTime to simply never reduce the block nTime, which would remove the seldom tested codepath where the block template fails due to time going backwards. In any case, this pull-req needs more comments explaining what's going on, e. Conversation 16 Commits 1 Files changed. UpdateTime is modified so that it will never decrease a block's nLockTime, thereby preventing such invalidations. Fixed nit regarding code comments.
Mempool-only sequence number constraint verification Hide details View details laanwj merged commit ef8dfe4 into bitcoin: Merge pull request … ef8dfe4 Prevent block. This commit was signed with a verified signature. Surely this is more a lack of imagination on your part, rather than a hard fact? Observation is that pretty much nothing crashes the price of Bitcoin. I mean, there are people who still think Paycoin could make a comeback.
But American traders are a sideshow - all the action is in China miners, actual traders. So the question would be: And of course the MMM ponzi buyers, whose judgement is sufficiently bad that they wouldn't even understand the problem. The attack you just described is semantically identical to a "double spend". It's not necessarily 'irrational'. Why not simply have a consensus system without proof-of-anything? If you remove proof-of-work, then the question then becomes: A few other crypto currencies have tried other metrics but they all aim to for the same thing: Well, consensus between whom?
How would you do distributed, anyone can participate at any time, byzantine consensus but still prevent Sybil attacks? I think the reason is because then there would be no way for new coins to be mined and given to those who are rewarded for ensuring the security of the network.
No, this post, and the handy table inside, explains the various attacks possible at different percentages of the hash rate: Short first hope the exchanges don't fold and run it into the ground with double spends. Alternatively just attack it because you feel scared about it but I do t believe anyone in power is since it is not going anywhere. A real bad thing here is the asymmetry. Well, things work much better in crypto not proof-of-work, but the "real" one.
And now a single company can. In fact the cost has continually increased over time. Not less than half of their datacenter, but less than all of their datacenter.
See the current hash rate here: I will forever refuse to spend my 0. I mined that myself on my own computer in a couple of nights!
How those 40 megawatts of energy consumption compare to known companies? How much energy for example consumes an average cloud storage company? After searching around, it looks about average for a large data center. This link[1] estimates Google's data centers require between MW. I'm curious about what normal data centers use for backup power since natural gas and diesel generators don't get much bigger than 2MW.
Or maybe they just don't have backup generators. Natural Gas fueled generators are practical at 50MW capacity. I understand that gas turbines can produce that kind of power, in fact I used to work on some pretty large turbines and turbo generators in the MW range. However they aren't used as backup generators where they have to be online in a minute. These are the types of generators I was referring to, https: More batteries to get over the slower generator startup time, and likely quite a few smaller generators to do the best they can to keep the batteries going if the big generator is slower than expected to startup that day.
That's probably the most awesome thing I've heard tonight. Wonder what the efficiency of one of those will be. Extra units for redundancy as sometimes units would be offline for oil changes or other routine maintenance. They're not the only player in that field. So, approximately full cabinets at average density, which would be enough power for one of the 10 largest known facilities in the world.
Most likely though, the power density is going to be much higher than typical with bitcoin mining, and could be as few as actual cabinets at the high end of density of 30kW per cabinet. If so, is it profitable? Assumes that the difficulty approximately keeps up with the hashrate, which seems to be fine to me.
That translates to more than , USD per day if BitFury manages to sell them at the current price highly unlikely without disrupting the market impossible at all , but yeah, that gives the rough order of magnitude.
Since the amount of Bitcoins introduced into world daily is near constant except for the scheduled halving of the rewards every few years , SOMEBODY is selling most of the freshly mined coins without disrupting the market.
It doesn't really matter how high the difficulty is or who the miner is the coins are mined and most of them sold. There might be a small fraction of coins which are still mined in pools using outdated miners and those people don't bother selling them coins fractions of coins that is.
It's a race to the bottom. It will end with the party that manages to just win that race by making the smallest profit possible at the highest efficiency of Joules per hash computed. Bitcoin is interesting for many reasons, the real-world effects of a couple of configuration settings and some cleverly picked auto-scaling parameters are immense.
The number of orders of magnitude that the protocol has survived with minor tweaks to date is very impressive. It would seem that locating the hashing equipment to the place with the cheapest power possible would be a logical step when things start to get cut that fine. Unless that could be overcome with clever usage of naturally generated local power such as solar power.
You'd think Canada would have more major data centers. They've got a lot of extremely cheap hydro power. You could surely lay ultra-high-speed fiber along the same right-of-ways that the transmission lines use. Also, it's cold as hell more often than not, so cooling is less of an issue than putting them out in the desert somewhere.
Should I mine where it's hot for the free solar energy or should I mine where it's cold for the extra refrigeration? Photovoltaic power is actually less efficient where it's warmer. The ideal for photovoltaic generation is somewhere cold but sunny. And I'm not aware of too many solar thermal plants that are online and profitable versus other generating methods.
Jtsummers days ago. Cold air but hot ground. Take advantage of geothermal and hydroelectric in the arctic and near-arctic regions. Active volcano geothermal power and cold climate. They run aluminium smelters in Iceland, I can't imagine bitcoin mining requires more power than that. At that price point, yes. Maybe the problem has been not enough power required I just know that most bitcoin companies in Iceland have moved or are moving to get cheaper power elsewhere.
Scoundreller days ago. Therein lies the problem: New users pay the average price, but new capacity has to be built at the marginal cost. ViperBond days ago. Washington and Oregon sell a lot to the SW.
Google just built a big data center here near a dam from a huge city for power reasons. There have already been articles about people doing that a couple years ago. I believe they were located in a cooler climate as well, made cooling the datacenter a bit cheaper so more power was going to computing than maintaining the computing equipment.
I'll look for that article now. Not the article I was looking for, but it covers it and was from This guy was using the cheap Icelandic power and the cold Icelandic air to his advantage. It is a race to the bottom, but rarely ever ends; when it does, it is generally by disruption something people on HackerNews know a lot about.
I'm wondering, isn't this going to put lots of current miners out of business, as their return-on-watt used to mine bitcoins is severely cut? Doesn't this risk to make BitFury even more dominant in hashing power, until somebody else can get comparable economies of scale?
The fluid they use for cooling is either https: Are these systems totally self contained? Seems a bit unsafe to have fire retardant chemicals vaporizing constantly in a confined space.
Has anyone given any thought to the health effects of these type of data centers? Could you translate some of that into an estimate of X coins mined per day and Y kwh used per day? As a miner your share of that fixed pool of available coins is determined by your hashing power relative to the overall hashing power of all miners.
Your profits are then determined by your costs and the value of a bitcoin when converted to the currency your costs are denominated in. Miners choose which transactions to include in a mined block so in the future a large miner may have some pricing power over transactions because they could refuse to process any transaction with a fee that falls below some threshold.
The question I haven't seen answered that I'm intrigued by: Assuming I put my pretty-normal-specs i7 processor, 8gbs ram laptop to work bitcoin mining 24 hours a day, how long before I have a single bitcoin?
Buy a scratch off lottery ticket you would have a better chance of coming out ahead. At this point, basically never. I find this style of commenting passive aggressive I guess I will be forced to do it.
Since most HN readers are technical, this comment is being downvoted by bitcoin enthusiasts among them. You won't see many replies from them to this comment, since their reaciton is political and not a technical statement. Still, I'll keep it up. This comment is currently at It draws up to 0. Since Bitcoin is limited to 7 TPS 7 transactions per second , I should modify this to x more transactions transactions per second , if you wrote it in C, or if not a hundred times, then at least ten times as many in python.
Bitcoin is a supreme waste of resources through the proof of work hack. I mean, sure, you can do that. But it's a stupid, wrong solution. The basic idea sucks. I love fiat currencies, they're one of the great achievements of modern civilization. This sentence isn't ironic, it's actually how I feel.
Despite my target price I don't hold any bitcoins at all. I hope some of the numbers I've given can put into perspective why. I believe that your being down-voted for writing: HackerNews likes technical comments, and will happily burry expletives. You could find more compelling example, such as estimate the ecological cost of having most of the current world-wide banking transactions on BitCoin, and prove your point.
Even if you do less than a full node, you'll find it hard to fully process x transactions on less than 2GB. Also, you don't seem to understand the point of PoW. He was talking about running a non-bitcoin program on that small computer. He's talking about running something that does bitcoin, but without the inefficiencies of PoW.
I pointed out that the RPi 0 doesn't have enough power to handle that scale, even if we took out the PoW stuff. What the expense of mining buys you is censorship-resistance. No, you're being downvoted by technical people because you're missing the whole point of decentralized digital currencies. Yeah, unless you want to export some Cuban cigars from Germany to Denmark: This is probably from some high-power ASIC miner being released, or from some consolidated mining concern going live.
HappyTypist days ago. The billion dollar question is how we can have completely decentralised and not merely distributed consensus without proof of work. It's a difficult question, and various proposals like Proof of Stake not secure and Consensus Ledger not secure, not decentralised have all failed technically and on the market.
As a point of comparison, a typical commercial nuclear reactor produces around MW give or take; most power stations have more than one reactor. You know, I'd kind of like to see someone construct a nuclear plant just to self-source their bitcoin mining power needs.
For comparison, how much power does Visa, Mastercard, the Federal Reserve and its printing presses , banks, and all of the buildings and employees that work in the traditional financial sector use? Now think about that in every single country on this planet. It's a lot more than 40MW. The Bitcoin network is a steal by comparison. You're comparing the microscopic bitcoin economy to the financial infrastructure that services the entire planet; it's a ridiculous comparison.
How would bitcoin's power consumption stack up if it were tasked with servicing tens of millions of transactions per second? CyberDildonics days ago. It would stay almost the same since the hashing power is not connected to the number of transactions. Also by the way, no one does tens of millions of transactions per second, visa does something like 40, at their absolute peak.
The amount of power wasted by BitCoin indirectly depends on the monetary turnover of the system. Hence, the power wasted is proportional to the turnover of the system. Otherwise, it does not work. The power burnt by BitCoin is actually literally immediately irrecoverably physically wasted. No, it's proportional to the value of the coins used as reward. If there's high turnover, that might lead to bitcoin's price increasing and therefore higher energy costs.
Also, high turnover may lead to higher fees, increasing the reward. If the high turnover is done between trusted parties, or with settlement time, then it doesn't matter to security.
When a bank has lights on, burns fuel to send an armored truck around, etc, that's also wasted. I'm pretty sure that all the power dedicated by the banks to perform the same opperations as bitcoin people driving to work, office building power, air conditioning, datacenters power, and so on is signifficantly more than 40MWH. So, just the global standby power waste is orders of magnitude greater than what bitcoin uses, and banks probably use a lot more power to perform the same opperations as bitcoin does.
The difference is the banks are a lot more inefficient and are such human resources hogs because of their exclusive right to create money out of thin air. You seem adamant about something that you clearly do not understand. Then why hasn't it been done? The answer is that bitcoin doesn't even remotely work like this. You would have to sign a transaction, then double spend it to yourself, then BY CHANCE mine enough blocks to satisfy the person giving you whatever you are buying before they see the double spend.
That is not going to happen. Someone receiving a million dollars will not give over a briefcase of cash the second they see the transaction, and that's the only way something like this would work. If you are taking money out of an exchange, the exchange would never even credit your account, let alone send you money. They would see the double spend transaction and if by some chance 0.
By the time they might actually send you money, the chances of you mining all the blocks up until that time is practically zero. So you would then be gambling your million dollars against enormous odds.
You might not want to believe that bitcoin works, and it might seem counter intuitive that the proof of work is important and useful, but this isn't about how you wish the world works, it is about how the world ACTUALLY works, and that is why bitcoin actually works. You are focusing on a single scenario of an individual double-spender. Why don't you consider some other scenario, e. I've seen a lot of that happening. There are tens of possible scenarios. Mining capacity is highly centralized these days and that trend will likely develop further see the subj.
The mental model of "one malicious node against all the honest nodes" is totally bogus. So far, my observation is that BitCoin can't run cheaply on the reasons already mentioned. I will only buy your argument if you'll show me a graph of power consumption vs turnover and it will happen to be sub-linear. If a miner gets hacked, then their blocks will go to the attacker, or they won't be mining.
Blocks will be mined more slowly and transactions may take longer for the same number of confirmations until the miner comes back. If a bank gets hacked, people steal money enormous amounts of money by directly changing their ledgers. I don't see this as some sort of a loss for cryptocurrencies. I'm not sure what you mean by turnover although you might want to learn more about bitcoin before you rail so hard against it.
How much BitCoins change hands in a month, for example. Actually, plotting that in dollars is even more correct, as electricity costs are not paid with BitCoins. Ultimately, that is a graph of dollars moved vs dollars wasted. I explained the difference of "spent" and "wasted" in a different comment. This attack allows double spending and censorship. It does not allow to directly steal someone's BTC. And horses are pissed at cars. No, it is not. It buys security in a way which traditional banking is not capable of providing.
BlackFly days ago. On top of that they need to pay for fraud insurance. The power spent on bitcoin is not analogous to these costs, it is equivalent. The question is, is bitcoin more cost effective at preventing specific types of fraud? Evidently not the types that actually happen in the Bitcoin space, all of which have as their root cause "no chargebacks": Like the president of Moldova who laundered a billion dollars out of the country? So basically they are paying bunch of people to live and consume without doing anything useful.
How much power wasted is that? How do you know how much wasted day of human life costs? They deprecate walk-in procedures. I did not visit them for 5 years and I would not visit them for another 5, but something happened, so I had to. They have no branches. They don't even have their own ATMs. I am not sure what is the current trend in US, but my personal experience certainly contradicts your thesis. These days, it is mostly electrons moving.
They also minimize the number of people involved. I believe, the remaining people are doing something useful. Like answering my calls and investigating incidents, for example. Doesn't that reduce the coins on the side chain to being simply bitcoins on some alternative blockchain implementation? Indeed, what are the use cases? That's what they are, but that doesn't mean they aren't useful. There are quite a few use cases on proposal including smart contracts and other asset-issuances as well as other coin innovations.
If you have no care for the speculative profits of your coin's demand, then this would be an ideal use case, but you'd still have to secure your blockchain somehow. I don't understand how asset issuance could work. I imagine a 1 btc leaves the blockchain and enters the sidechain as 1, Fubar. If it would, people would trade it in for bitcoin. I wonder if the value of Fubar can increase. What if at some point Fubar is worth 1 btc? Or can anyone just release new Fubar on the sidechain?
That would make it permanently pegged to bitcoin. So yes, there will be market makers who will arbitrage from bitcoins to Fubar when the price begins to drift from the peg so they can profit from this activity. I'm not sure who can qualify to be a market maker, but maybe the company building this Sidechain technology may issue market maker licenses for this activity.
This is my understanding so I may be incorrect as well. If it is like that, then I can't make sense of it. The market maker basically would be in control of the supply of Fubar.
Either everyone can put more Fubar on the sidechain, ensuring a honest peg, or no one can, ensuring a floating value just like Counterparty. Putting this power in the hands of a single market maker seems unfair as he would be able to manipulate the value of Fubar. You have me at the end of my knowledge trilli0nn. We're all at the end of our knowledge on the market maker functionality in side chains.
Note that maaku states cross-chain transactions are atomic and therefore cost nothing while being as instantaneous as propagation allows. The wealth already in the sidechain does not have to exchange hands, but the demand for it can vary. Thinking of corporate bond offerings may help in conceptualizing the flow patterns. The end result is that Bitcoin being at the core of this system means that it is the end recipient of all inflows -- usage of sidechains serves to grow Bitcoin.
Yes, these "atomic transactions" make sense to shuffle the bitcoins around, but how will that work? Will there be a maketplace for posting cross-chain exchange transactions to do this shuffling? How will we know which bitcoins should go into new sidechains to fill the growth in value? Who will build this functionality to enable this shuffling?
Who will pay to enable and to maintain it? What will that cost? Lastly, I don't understand the corporate bond analogy and the conceptualizing of flow patterns. Do corporate bonds allow for atomic transactions between them? Anyone can be a market maker. It's an open source protocol - no licenses involved. You just move coins in or out via the pegging mechanism, in the process buying or selling to equalize the price and earn a small profit from the spread.
Why would it take 3 days? Wouldnt waiting 6 blocks each way be sufficient? Then there is a length of time called the quieting period during which the return transaction and associated proofs are published, but not finalized, and anyone else can step forward with a reorg proof and rollback the transaction. Finally, there is a period of time afterwards analogous to the coinbase maturity where the coins are not spendable because a reorg could undo the peg transaction.
So that's three different waiting periods, each of which would probably be in the range of - blocks, if not more. The exact parameters are not set in stone at this moment, but with that in mind we should expect a peg transaction to take at least days to fully clear, depending on the final choice of parameters. Maaku explains why it will take 3 days to move sidecoins from a sidechain back to bitcoins on Bitcoin blockchain. Side chains are a wonderful idea but moving coins and value between chains is currently a risky endevour.
There is a lot that can go wrong, and if a reorganisation happens one chain can effectivley start operating on a fractional reserve. Conceptually, think of Bitcoin as the only chain on a balance sheet, and any coins can be moved out of Bitcoin to a side chain, which updates the balance sheet. No entry can ever become negative, but users can move coins from the side chain to Bitcoin provided they a have those coins on the side chain, and b the side chain has sufficient balance in this inter-chain ledger.
Here's a bit more explanation, though no sources, which is frustrating. You're pointing out essentially the same issues as are discussed at http: That is why there is a quieting period during which honest peers can step forward with a reorg proof showing the longer honest chain.
This may change as the technology develops, however. That eliminates the need to integrate with the Bitcoin blockchain BUT automatically gains the security of the Bitcoin hashing power because it is merge mined. Namecoin and the side chain functionality would benefit, and the Namecoin developers can be more courageous than the Bitcoin developers can tolerate. This has nothing to do with counterparty which is not a side chain, btw.
I was simply explaining the concept in that thread. Proof-of-burn removed the btc from the bitcoin blockchain and inserted it into the counterparty blockchain.
However the reverse is impossible - unlike sidechains, counterparty coin can not re-enter the bitcoin blockchain. You forgot to include that Counterparty has ALL the security of the bitcoin blockchain as it's transactions on Counterparty are recorded there.
Therefore, any contracts or assets built on the Counterparty protocol do not require developers to fight and compete to convince miners to mergemine their new coin.
Also, all Counterparty transactions pay miner fees for their financial transactions to be included in the blockchain, just like everyone else.
This thread is about Sidechains, not Counterparty. Yeah well I've been following the discussion between the bitcoin devs, a pool operator and the counterparty devs on bitcointalk.
The pool operator luke-jr regards counterparty as parasitic and threatens not to mine their transactions. The bitcoin core devs have a milder view.
Personally I feel that counterparty can not expect bitcoin to accomodate them.