> How much will that cost me?
> The network is hashing at 310PetaHash/sec right now.
> Takes 600 seconds to find a block, so 186,000PH per block
> 186,000 * 0.00038 = 70 extra PH
>
> If it takes 186,000 PH to find a block, and a block is worth 25.13 BTC
> (reward plus fees), that 70 PH costs:
> (2
> > dnsseed.bitcoin.dashjr.org SERVFAIL, tried multiple ISPs
dnsseed.bitcoin.dashjr.org. 60 IN NS jun.dashjr.org.
but jun.dashjr.org isn't responding to dns queries (as at 18.10 GMT
2014-05-16)
that would be a fundamental problem with the dns infrastructure for that
domain (an
> The average person is not going to be confident that the prefix they
> are using is the correct one,
The use of any 'prefix' is one of choice and entirely unnecessary, and there
are already established 'divisions' in u/mBTC for those that feel they need
to use such things.
> people WILL send 1
> My program should run on lightweight/embedded hardware. The execution
> environment provides access to the Bitcoin network but not enough
> resources to set up a trusted node along with my program.
So you want to 'benefit' from the network without contributing to it ?
> I would need a way to a
> But there's so much 'dry powder' out there (GPUs), I wonder if *not*
> supporting merge-mining is any better? At least the attacker has to do
> some unique PoW, so you hope it's costing them something.
With lots of people having access to 100TH+ there's not really much
'cost' to doing a 51% att
> The Problem:
> Say Alice built a block, A1, from previous block 0. She doesn't let
> other miners know about it. She then works on A2 with previous block
> A1. Bob on the other hand is still working on B1 with previous block
> 0. Bob now finds a block and he broadcasts it. The assumption here is
> But the regulatory environment in many geographical regions in
> uncertain. Do we need to pay capital gains? Do we need to pay a
> sales taxs etc. etc.
In most regions it's not only 'simple' but trivial - BTC is just
'another currency' and accounted for exactly the same way - it doens't
ma
> (there's no way to be completely trust-free without this).
Not quite true, as I said balance-at-point-in-time would solve that
(and make the storage requirements much lower)
>> If going that route, then solutions to the 'consolidate
>> addresses/wallets'
>> question and formal 'discard' of ad
> bitcoin protocol needs an archival system so the blockchain doesn't
> become too big to download
Some people may want it all ...
Balance at Point-In-Time summaries (say up to the penultimate
difficulty adjustment) would be one simple way.
And make new-adopters get up and running in minutes not
> It appears that we will soon be at a hashrate where all the desktop
> CPUs in the world couldn't really make a dent in it... certainly not
> desktop cpus using the slow integrated cpu miner,
I thought the integrated miner was retired a version or so ago - I
dontrecall seeing it for some time in
10 matches
Mail list logo
