2010 the same bitcoin politicians do with your tax money?. Now this is just an expectation, ram doesn't mean it will be. Slashdot new comments can be posted. It actually irks me just a little when I see something on the market like Goldschlager, what a waste of a fantastic metal: No new comments can be posted.
speculation bitcoin litecoin value В»
Precious metals are no different. This was "Gold vs. Power is a real concern too Score: The transaction fee is probably minimal compared to the purchases being made, and might actually help keep costs down and fit through certain tax loop-holes. Could BTC be "lost" this way, I wonder.
Could we just get a random reddit slashdot instead? Neither are tumblers, black 2010, etc. Give it time it will become boring like the rest. As background, I used to run a cluster at a Bitcoin New England University and got involved in some of the chargeback models that were ram up. So 2010 sits in a vault doing nobody bitcoin good. The Antminer S9 at 14Terahash is slashdot current power vs. Or do you mean to ram people should trade only using potatoes.
That k may have been only a day of sporadic use in total. Not including the support contract, the server software, the database software, the server support contract, the database support contract, the web ui software and matching support,. A super computer is not just a tower with 30 gigs of ram and 10 processors, this is a building full of wires and computer components. I can just imagine the power draw on one. Hundreds of leading scientist crowd around them to hopefully get 30 minutes to run some computations.
Sure, it's not going to set any records, but with cores and TB of RAM, it's a lot more than most users will ever see. Again, not a supercomputer, but certainly a lot more power than in most single systems. It's a fantasy in as much as the police reporting the "bust" of 4. Electricity for the machines is not free.
And supercomputers take a lot of that. Unless you have free electricity, bitcoin is at the point where its almost impossible to mine it and break even in less than 9 months to a year or so. Both universities determined that this was an unauthorized use of their IT systems.
The researcher asserted that he was conducting tests on the computers, but neither university had authorized him to conduct such tests -- both university reports noted that the researcher ac.
Supercomputing clusters generally have sophisticated job queues for handling job request by thousands of users. I doubt ze was running only on truly spare nodes, since someone can usually find a use for them. He was using a quota which said 'you can use X many nodes for this'. If he hadn't been using them, then they would've been allocated to finish other queued jobs faster and its not like we're running out of protein folding work anytime soon.
Politicians are the lowest of the low who misuse taxpayer funds. They should be barred from life. But they get away with it because the police are cowards when it comes to prosecuting them. Bit convenient ain't it, pushing all the blame to the police? It's their job to keep politicians clean, not your problem? What about the voters who keep electing the same dirty officials into office term after term? Not their fault, I'm sure.
It's based on the rate that the owning entity typically a university or the DoE charges for time on it, which is at least in theory correlated with the machine's electric, AC i.
All of these are nontrivial. He was likely doing CPU based mining. You could mine those profitably with a GPU up until recently. In the systems I have used, the supercomputers are composed of a cluster of nodes, with each node containing several compute cores. Each compute core is basically equivalent and fully capable of general tasks. I got in trouble in high school for "stealing" timesharing time at the local University early 80s and back then at least the time was valued based on some "retail" cost of the computing time based on operational costs.
Back then it was really bullshit, because unless you kept other jobs from running the damn system was up anyway and really didn't use any less resources if nothing was running.
The same overpaid fulltimers and grad students still worked at the computer center, etc. Is that figure just based on some arbitrary appraisal of the the machine's time or what? So how did they get that number? Prorated over the expected useful lifetime, so quite possibly one or two days of CPU time at million dollars total depreciated over 18 months? Electricity is just one of the costs involved and probably not even close to the biggest one. Furthermore you have to consider the opportunity cost [wikipedia.
It was the price they could have sold. This figure is probably based on the actual rates that the supercomputing facility charges to research projects. For example, look at: It's not just machine time. It's also personnel time, electricity, possibly wasted time for others since resources were being used, etc.
This guy is incredibly stupid. I can't imagine what was going through his head when he tried to do this. As background, I used to run a cluster at a Major New England University and got involved in some of the chargeback models that were set up.
Some of the money for the cluster came from federal funds so I learned some of the high level rules associated with this. You take all the charges associated with putting a cluster together - the hardware, software licenses, maintenance, system administrators, storage, storage administrators, network hardware and network administrators, data.
Perhaps even before the Peak Coin event, using electricity and the resources of others was attractive to a certain type of miner I would have definitely put a miner bot in a broom closet next to a computer lab in a freshmen dorm or something I hope they don't get felonies unless unavoidable and either way no prison time I think it should be a civil matter This is really no different from an office worker abusing employer equipment for personal gain; e.
And why shouldn't an office worker embezzling from an employer be subject to criminal penalties? What is your distinction between a civil and criminal matter? Proportionality and criminal intent. Most people will agree that these are not small sums and should be treated seriously, hence criminal penalties are due. In the example of the parent post of an office worker making long duration international calls to family paid by his employer, the sums are likely in the small hundreds at most and there was no intention to make money for himse.
Restitution is certainly warranted but whether it is a civil or criminal matter depends on the laws and whether he broke any. The fact that he took pains to hide his identity seems to indicate awareness that what he was doing was wrong. If the dollar amount of what he took is high enough then it becomes a criminal matter. If one of my employees stole company resources I would certainly fire them and seek restitution and if it was more than a pad of post-it-notes I'd probably call the police as well.
Personal profit so more like charging people to use the employers phone system and pocketing the cash while the employer pays the bill. Would you feel the same way if he'd walked off with six figures worth of hardware rather than "computer time?
The difference between talking about something and doing it is the difference between amusing talk and a crime. We've also talked about putting bitcoin miners in all the high power FPGAs we use for real time feedback. As far as the penalty - this is like any other theft of materials.
There must be applicable laws. Imagine if a bank employee had just taken an equivalent out of the universities' accounts and spent it. Would that not be enough for a felony, in your opinion?
My estimates are that he could easily have downloaded enough pirated content with that much internet to cause enough damage to bankrupt the entire world.
I do most of my research on supercomputers. They are usually either node hours or core hours. Typical allocations are in the hundreds of thousands to millions of SUs. I don't know what formula they used to come up with a dollar value. It would be nice to know, however, as I am in academia where real dollar grants get all the attention since they come with that sweet overhead.
I'm sure my dean would appreciate the symbolism of getting the college over. The abuse of the supercomputer is an extreme case. But there are other less clear-cut areas.
They can be compared in that there are ethical considerations in both cases. As I said, abusing the supercomputer is a much more extreme case. In many ways, my examples are victimless crimes, while the supercomputer case had a far more tangible impact. They're merely building a giant pyramid out of nothing. The reason not to abstain from using it as a currency e. Spending bitcoin even though you think the price will increase is no more crazy than not exchanging all your investments for bitcoin even though you think the price will increase.
Lost profit from spending your bitcoins is no different than lost profit from having never bought bitcoins. I'm sure many people actually do think this way, and this may be their personal yet irrational reason fo. Perhaps we should try this again. I think this is the main reason that bitcoin will never be useful as a alternative to currency. It is to much like gold Krugerrand's or something. Technically, you can use both as money but they have no real fixed value. At least with a a dollar, or even a shekel, euro, peso, I have some concept of what it is worth.
An based on what I know it being worth today, I can reasonably figure out what it will be worth next week, next month, or even next year. You can't do that with bitcoins. This is only happening because it's still the very early stages. Once the real money is in, and it's coming, then the price will stabilize. But by then you've priced yourself out of it. Transferring bitcoin between people can not be done without fees, and it can not be done instantly well I guess it's done instantly, but you won't know if you're successful for several minutes.
Additionally if you want full and complete control over your wallet, you need to store an absurd amount of data, and update it with every transaction done by anyone worldwide. This means that the only value in Bitcoin is in speculating with it, and speculative commodities tend to have large price swings. Note that my criticisms are specific to bitcoin in this regard, and a different crypto-currency may still make practical sense in the future. Bitcoin is far more like gold than like cash really.
Theoretically you can buy things with either, but in practice neither one is good to use for that purpose. So yes, I think it will become more stable than it is now price-wise, but I don't see it as ever being used as a real currency in any meaningful way.
Additionally there is a huge risk of government action against it several governments have already banned it's use which could cause major problems going forward, and there's also always the risk of some cryptographic flaw being discovered that could make every bitcoin worthless overnight. I have a very small amount of bitcoin because I think they're pretty neat, but I think there's still a huge amount of risk here, and I don't think this will ever replace currency.
I'm not sure I agree. Bitcoin as such is inherently unsuited to use as currency. So, it's not practical for buying a sandwich from Subway, or a bag of nails from Home Depot.
For trading between two major corporations, or buying drugs from Mexico, or large international deals, it's probably ideal. The transaction fee is probably minimal compared to the purchases being made, and might actually help keep costs down and fit through certain tax loop-holes.
Bitcoin could find itself a medium for large-value currency exchanges but not for Bob and Sue to spend at Walmart. I try not to invest in anything I don't understand. I mean, I have some tenuous grasp of mathematical transforms and enough cryptography to be aware of its dangers, but yeah, the financial part of bitcoin seems like an awful lot of speculation from other people who probably don't understand it.
Apparently the main thing that makes bitcoin valuable is its scarcity, which may be mathematically guaranteed I also don't like investing in money to make money out of mon. There are a good set of online stores that accept bitcoin.
NewEgg and Overstock are likely the biggest. I also don't like investing in money to make money out of money, especially when the moneymakers are the ones writing the rules of the game. Oh I like that. I'm filing the serial numbers off that and adding it my list of favorite quotes.
Sure, with a dollar I could buy a gallon of gas, then with a dollar I could buy three quarts of gas, then with a dollar I could buy a quart of gas, then with a dollar I could buy a half gallon of gas At least non-energy goods are more predictable, they almost always go up in price.
The price of gas is a good example. Depending on what chart I'm looking at. Based on that example I can reasonably expect the price of gallon of gas to be around this price this time next year. Now this is just an expectation, it doesn't mean it will be. There could be any number of economic reasons that could push the price of a gallon of gas outside that range.
But with that being said ba. If you factor in all the oil wars in the middle east and Africa then the "real" cost of oil is a "bit" higher. Say a few trillion in taxpayer money, thou some might say a war would be manufactured somewhere else to continue the Mil-Indust complex feeding frenzy. Bitcoin is not a stable store of value at least not yet.
Back when it was a good medium of exchange, it didn't really matter what the price was. If you wanted to buy something, you would just use less bitcoins if the value of bitcoin increased and more if it dropped. I don't need to know what pesos will be worth in a year from now to buy things in pesos. The bank or whatever just does a conversion between currencies. Has anyone actually cashed out their gains with Bitcoin is what I want to know. Executed a big sale to someone who isn't also trading Bitcoin.
The dizzying upward trend tells me probably no. I'll wait until there are actual corrections in this market before I believe it's real. A market without corrections is too good to be true. I think that what you did is the way to go. I rook out all the value that I had originally put in, plus a rough guess of interest as well. Right now, I have a nice sum left and am watching it to see what happens left.
If it bursts, I will have lost nothing except a free experiment. Do I think it will burst any time soon? If it carries on either growing or levelling off, for a year or two, I will be highly amused at all the experts who have been prophecying its imminent destruction.
It reminds me of th. Should you really kick yourself? The way I see it, buying bitcoin for currency speculation purposes is basically just gambling. You can only make money in proportion to how much you're willing to gamble on the future price of bitcoin. I think this is basically just Tulipmania On Computers, and at some point governments around the world will grow intolerant of cryptocurrency's only notable point of usefulness, criminal finance, and outlaw the exchange of cryptocurrencies, at least without proper documentation.
Recently, my mom heard about it on the radio, and asked me to research it for her. Until then, I'd thought it died in the MtGox era. I thought it looked interesting, and put in a small amount. With my usual flawless timing, it went down right after. Then it went back up! Then mom decided she'd try it, so I put some in for her. Between it being an ATH All time high and the fact that she was invested, I expected a dip, but it kept going up!! If you're looking at it as an investment and concerned with whether it goes "up" or "down" in terms of dollars, then you don't understand the point of bitcoin.
I tell people that cryptocurrencies are not at all investment vehicles all the time. I buy bitcoin to get away from inflationary fiat currencies. I buy it because it's a great store of value -- not because of what it's worth in terms of dollars because who cares but bitcoin is actually deflationary because the number that will ever exist is hard-capped at 21 million and an estimated million are permanently lost. Way down the road, when the technology is mature, is when I'll start using it.
Actually, that is a major problem with bitcoins. Not there is a limit to how many that can be made but the "permanently" lost thing.
Once the limit is mined out, with no way to recover lost coins, the ones that will remain will get more scarce. This will drive the cost of the remaining ones up. So its only a "deflationary" currency, as you put it, because new ones can still be added. Once that is done, it will become a inflationary currency just like almost everything else.
Also, someone pointed out to me once that bitcoin is also like gold in this manner. There is only so much gold int the world, which isnt' true. What is true is there is only so much gold that is available by current technological ability. There is actually no limit on the amount of gold. But anyway gold coin isn't like a bitcoin. If a gold coin is lost it isn't destroyed. It can be found again. This isn't true with a bitcoin.
Once its lost its gone. Bitcoin is a deflationary currency and when you can no longer mine new ones, will become even more deflationary over time from list coins, not inflationary. If I pay by check, and the recipient of the check loses it, I can stop payment on that particular check and write another. Similarly, would you agree, there is a great need to add this feature to cryptocurrencies?
People should be able to "stop payment" on a lost coin, and replace it with another coin, at a cost that's as minimal as writing out another check to replace a lost check. There is only so much gold int the world, which isn't' true. Once the alchemists get that sorted out, you mean?
Actual, practical nuclear transmutation is a long long way off; for all intents and purposes, gold is finite. Or until we start mining asteroids, if they have any gold. That's also a long way off. Well when I posted my OP is was thinking of extracting gold from sea water and asteroid mining. I was specifically thinking of Eros that is supposed to contain more gold than ever has been mined on Earth.
There are already plans in place to start mining it and bringing it back to Earth. Personally, I think the gold would have better use if we used it in space rather than hording like some dragon on Earth. This method only works faster by simply offloading the actual checking recalculating the hash onto the network which has to do it anyway but now you've increased the workload on the network with a ton of false positives.
From reading the linked page which is woefully short on details , this isn't approximation, it's more akin to overclocking hardware so it goes faster even though it occassionally will make a mistake. Sending it on to the network without double-checking that it's valid would be stupid, though, considering it takes less than a microsecond to check a resu.
Reading the paper further, while they do discuss overclocking, they are also allowing for occasional errors in an adder, specifically by assuming that long carry chains won't occur, thus avoiding the need for carry lookahead circuits to ripple the whole word length.
That means occassionally an add will get the wrong result, but not very often, but the add circuit can be made faster. It's still deterministic, just that a few specific bit patterns aren't handled correctly. The real problem isn't the false positives but the false negatives, as those are missed wins. Could BTC be "lost" this way, I wonder. Do candidates get checked by more than one person, or is it organized like other distributing computing systems where blocks of work are allocated to avoid duplication of effort?
Allowing errors is somewhat like how GPUs work. The reason the professional cards cost more despite having the same hardware is that they are guaranteed to produce correct results. Gaming grade cards might produce the occasional error, but it will likely be unnoticable to the player and the ca.
Basically, it is the same sort of thing that has been done in medicine for ages -- use a cheaper test with a high rate of false positive, but low rate of false negative, and verify the few positives with a more expensive and reliable test.
Mining pools use a similar scheme to distribute work, sending each miner what amounts to a partial problem only, while checking answers to see if they're valid before submitting to the network and awarding any bounty to the miner. This was done so that miners with varying hardware could all effectively help the pool without their tasks expiring and so that miners couldn't submit work to the pool and then submit any blocks found.
A virtual currency that really shouldn't even have any value at all, if it weren't for the idiots who decided it was worth something when it really isn't. I don't think that's a very good analogy. You know that they sell unrefined ore, right? They do an assay and figure out an estimated value, agree on a price, and they buy the rocks and then refine the ore.
I'm pretty sure there's operations for that with a bunch of different valuable metals. The mining company isn't always the same compan. So does water, iron, and air. Yes, modern society requires a small amount of gold but gold is only worth anything because of its scarcity and it's perceived value. You can see that taking place in the oil market right now.
Like water, if water was scarce people would pay hundreds of dollars per gallon for it but it's not scarce so it's worth relatively little. Its scarcity is quite real: The world supply of gold is quite limited. It has very real industrial value because it's easy to refine when found, it's very soft and easy to smith when refined, and it's extremely stable and non-reactive with other.
It's also extremely conductive, both thermally and electrically, and is invaluable for making good electrical contacts between. He also notes "Based on available information, the ,tonne figure seems to be the most accurate. Industry use is small?
Gold is required for many medicines, plating electrical contacts for corrosion resistance, used as power leads for every LED die, processor pins, aerospace, dental fillings, etc. I don't live in the US, so i can't pay any of those things with USD either, nor can i pay those things with gold or stocks. However what all of these and bitcoin have in common is that they can be exchanged for local currency which i can use for all of the things you've listed.
Just scam them from Martin Shkreli's dumb ass. That is what is done with writing research papers these days: Increases rate of publications significantly, and that's what people get paid for these days. Tell that to the "soft science" journals. I did my postgrad degrees in stem, but studied psychology as an undergrad.
The math in every single psych paper I've read from onward is not only wrong as fuck, but so wrong that everyone with even a modicum of sense for basic statistics will be able to instantaneously figure out that it's garbage. My favorite was when one paper that experimente. Completing 'fake' shares, which ultimately enrich yourself at the cost of the total profits of your pool and other miners.
If I can mine up a coin, cash it in for If the hardware misidentifies a solution as valid, the network will quickly identify that the solution is invalid when the miner broadcasts it. Why broadcast the block straight away? Surely checking if a given solution is valid is quick enough that it could be checked by a different system before being broadcast? It has nothing to do with submitting false positives.
False positives as easily weeded out by a regular CPU in less time than it takes to prepare a block and send it over the network. So it's just how mining has been done since at least , soon after we developed the first FPGA miners. Clock rates are gradually increased until a suitable error rate is reached, which depends on the individual chip and other factors. True, but if you're talking about money, be it bitcoin, USD, or rupees - that's all subjective value.
Oh cool, another economist on Slashdot. Well then you're probably familiar with how Smith's theory of value has been superseded by Menger's subjective theory of value and marginal utility; and how Marx is total garbage for doing anything useful. Physicists know about heliocentrism, Kepler's laws, and Newton's laws. Some are pretty good theories that work well for day-to-day kinematics, some are total garbage that don't even give us good enough estimates to do anything useful with, and if you want to launch a.
Indeed, that came across crass. I should have said Oh cool, there's a fellow economist on Slashdot. It is my passion, and I think it is the hardest science we have. Indeed, economists invented game theory.
I really can't think of anything that doesn't have a subjective value - at least at an individual level. I am not trolling, I am not being snide, I am not fishing for an answer to then pounce and say, "Ah ha! I can assure you that you know more about the subject than I do and I will happily defer to your expertise. I hope that no one believes that Bitcoin has no value. It has whatever value is assigned to it by the people willing to use it.
The problem with Bitcoin is not that is has no value, the problem with it is that it has significantly less utility than legal currencies, can have significant shifts in value, and that things like this "innovation" can affect the value in a way that isn't representative of any economic indicator.
However, much could be said about fiat currencies especially if they are poorly manage. You missed one of the largest problems with Bitcoin: It was designed to be deflationary. Most fiat currencies are designed to be slightly inflationary, which encourages people to spend or invest it the economy,. Just for asking a question? Don'y you think that is a bit extreme or do you answer all questions in the negative with "go fuck yourself".
Technically, its already widely adopted on consumer computing hardware. There may be more comments in this discussion. Without JavaScript enabled, you might want to turn on Classic Discussion System in your preferences instead. Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter. Sign up for the Slashdot Daily Newsletter!
An anonymous reader writes: A recent paper from the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign shows that bitcoin mining profits can be increased considerably if mining hardware is allowed to produce occasional errors. The research shows that mining hardware that allows occasional errors "approximate mining" can run much faster and take up less area than a conventional miner. Furthermore, the errors that are produced by the miner do no corrupt the blockchain since such errors are easily detected and discarded by the bitcoin network.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted. Archived Discussion Load All Comments.