Personal computing discussed

Moderators: mac_h8r1, Nemesis

  • 1
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 12
 
meerkt
Gerbil Elite
Posts: 969
Joined: Sun Aug 25, 2013 2:55 am

Re: So who here is actually mining?

Wed Dec 13, 2017 2:13 pm

Glorious wrote:
How do I know the balances?

Ah, right. It would also require a distributed UTXO set. I've read some ideas about that, but I don't remember where it was.

What randomness?: Sybil says hello.

Currently you already download and trust the block headers chain, and the blocks. Here you just don't download all blocks.
If someone has full control over your connection, couldn't they just as well send you fake top-of-chain instead of messing with the middle of it?
 
blitzy
Gerbil Jedi
Posts: 1831
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2004 6:27 pm
Location: New Zealand

Re: So who here is actually mining?

Wed Dec 13, 2017 3:12 pm

Glorious wrote:
JBI wrote:
I still take issue with the assertion that blockchain is somehow inherently "too complex" though; it's certainly less complex than many other things that power our digitally connected lives, and the underlying mathematics/cryptography is well-defined and well-understood.


Yeah, it's a really simple data structure and the basic concept is used (with more actually complexity, not chains but trees) in plenty of commonly used already existing things: ZFS completely pre-dates bitcoin, for one example.


Yeah I agree in that respect, I was thinking that introducing dependency on a distributed network that you don't completely control is added complexity. But to be honest, I don't know the inner working of current financial systems to really claim that outright. My main point is that the media would have you believe blockchain is flat out better, a panacea that could benefit multiple industries, without conveying any of the potential difficulties or limitations. It's largely a hype wave running off the back of the bitcoin gold rush.
 
DPete27
Silver subscriber
Grand Gerbil Poohbah
Posts: 3493
Joined: Wed Jan 26, 2011 12:50 pm
Location: Wisconsin, USA

Re: So who here is actually mining?

Thu Dec 14, 2017 3:15 pm

This ARS article from today's shortbread is hard to disagree with. In just the past couple weeks of crypto price movement I've found myself saying "how are these gains even possible?" more and more. Pretty much if you threw a dart at the top 20 coins a month ago (or less), you've enjoyed anywhere from 70%-800% gains.... In June/July, I was able to rationalize this as many of the big gainers were new to the space with promising products. Now it seems to be a combination of pumps (of questionable reason and origin) and the new-era Bitcoin investors discovering Bittrex/Binance/etc/etc with their Bitcoin profits. This has stemmed rampant price run-ups from typically unsubstantiated rumors (IOTA for example is up 10x on the back of a rumor that they were partnering with Microsoft, was recently found to be false, but the price has been slow to return to previous levels). Even though I'd consider myself fully immersed in crypto, recent trends are triggering my insanity alarm.

IMO, it would seem that we're nearing the top of the current market cycle.

The CME futures are still set to launch on 12/18, which could be good or bad. Coincidentally Bitcoin is forming a pennant that intersects almost the exact date of the CME futures launch, and we could be looking at the potential for a triple top around that same date.
Coinbase is purportedly gearing up to list new cryptos on their exchange in the coming month (pretty easy to formulate a guess looking at the top 10-15 coins by volume). I believe many of the recent price run-ups are a result of speculation for which cryptos will make the cut. Hard to predict what this will mean for the market, but I can almost guarantee that Bitcoin will lose some attention, especially if remains stagnant or if it starts a downward trend after the CME futures launches. Since everyone seems to look at Bitcoin as an indicator for the rest of the market, we could see an overarching pullback that may be amplified by the "new money" getting out at the first sign of trouble.

That's what I see. If things pan out, we could be looking at a perfect storm for a big pullback.
Main: i5-3570K, ASRock Z77 Pro4-M, MSI RX480 8G, 500GB Crucial BX100, 2 TB Samsung EcoGreen F4, 16GB 1600MHz G.Skill @1.25V, EVGA 550-G2, Silverstone PS07B
HTPC: A8-5600K, MSI FM2-A75IA-E53, 4TB Seagate SSHD, 8GB 1866MHz G.Skill, Crosley D-25 Case Mod
 
JustAnEngineer
Gold subscriber
Gerbil God
Posts: 18216
Joined: Sat Jan 26, 2002 7:00 pm
Location: The Heart of Dixie

Re: So who here is actually mining?

Thu Dec 14, 2017 8:09 pm

i7-8700K, H100i v2, RoG Strix Z370-G Gaming, 16 GiB, RX Vega64, Define Mini-C, SSR-850PX, C32HG70, RK-9000BR, MX518
 
just brew it!
Gold subscriber
Administrator
Posts: 51523
Joined: Tue Aug 20, 2002 10:51 pm
Location: Somewhere, having a beer

Re: So who here is actually mining?

Fri Dec 15, 2017 12:23 am

DPete27 wrote:
That's what I see. If things pan out, we could be looking at a perfect storm for a big pullback.

Nearly everyone else here has been predicting a big pullback for a while now. :wink:
Nostalgia isn't what it used to be.
 
ptsant
Gold subscriber
Gerbil XP
Posts: 310
Joined: Mon Oct 05, 2009 12:45 pm

Re: So who here is actually mining?

Fri Dec 15, 2017 1:14 am

I mined some coins in 2013 and actually made a very small profit (in hard currency). Now, I could have made a lot more but I stopped a few months later, in 2014 because I realized that I was spending a lot of CO2, disk space (full node is now at 180GB) and network bandwidth for something that could be done more efficiently. Without being an expert I don't see a solution that is more efficient while still being anonymous and truly decentralized: either everyone has all copies of all transactions or the system loses its properties. If only some entities have all records then these entities become the equivalent of "banks". If all people have some transactions then the network is no longer truly redundant. Generally I agree with Glorious, there is no obvious way out that does not use insane amounts of resources if scaled to the size of even a minor economy.

The collapse of the current bubble will probably be trigerred by a minor event, as usual. I see cryptocurrencies as viable in the longterm but only for very few transactions, possibly questionable in nature (illegal?). There is no way bitcoin will replace VISA or ApplePay or PayPal.
Image
 
meerkt
Gerbil Elite
Posts: 969
Joined: Sun Aug 25, 2013 2:55 am

Re: So who here is actually mining?

Fri Dec 15, 2017 1:22 am

ptsant wrote:
either everyone has all copies of all transactions or the system loses its properties. If only some entities have all records then these entities become the equivalent of "banks". If all people have some transactions then the network is no longer truly redundant.

What do you mean? The number of active full nodes on the Bitcoin network is in the low 10000s, and possibly below 10000.
 
just brew it!
Gold subscriber
Administrator
Posts: 51523
Joined: Tue Aug 20, 2002 10:51 pm
Location: Somewhere, having a beer

Re: So who here is actually mining?

Fri Dec 15, 2017 1:56 am

Bitcoin's big issues these days aren't related to security; they are transaction rate, per-transaction cost, and net energy consumption. Security of the overall ecosystem is a concern too, but not in the top 3.
Nostalgia isn't what it used to be.
 
JustAnEngineer
Gold subscriber
Gerbil God
Posts: 18216
Joined: Sat Jan 26, 2002 7:00 pm
Location: The Heart of Dixie

Re: So who here is actually mining?

Fri Dec 15, 2017 1:37 pm

Here's a better-written discussion of the energy consumption issue:
https://www.wired.com/story/bitcoin-global-warming/
Adam Rogers, Wired wrote:
32.71 terawatt-hours consumed by the bitcoin network—or 0.15 percent of the total world consumption of electricity. More efficient hardware won’t sove that problem. Power consumption went up, and bitcoin miners are now building ASIC clouds in places where electricity is cheap, like... China (where electricity is underwritten by the government and bitcoin is a good way to speculate without regulation). Because that’s where they can bring more servers on line to mine more Bitcoin. Miners took advantage of faster, more efficient hardware not to use less electricity but to do more mining.

Digiconomy estimates that the entire Visa credit network uses about a three-thousandth the total energy of Bitcoin. Google—all of Google, the whole Google—used only 5.7 TWh in 2015 and went completely renewable in 2017.

All right, then, let’s take a different tack. Right now, the hash algorithm is useless work, intentionally. It’s burned. How about making it do something useful? It’s a p2p network doing collaborative computation. What about making it find signals from aliens, or figure out how to make proteins useful to medical science, or solve real-world crypto problems and prime factorization? And but no. “I’ll tell you why that didn’t happen, and it’s perverse,” Sirer says. “Had bitcoin been mined by doing something useful, then there would be a correspondence between useful work and the number of bitcoins you get…That creates a mental anchor point in people’s mind for how much a bitcoin should cost.” See, right now, the cost of a bitcoin floats arbitrarily. It’s socially determined. True, but it also has the something-for-nothing vibe that makes physicists nuts. It also requires building a whole new infrastructure around ASIC clouds, even though everyone knows that mining hardware improves and changes. The fact is, the cheapest, highest-density energy comes from climate-change-causing fossil fuels, and the Bitcoin mining system incentivizes the cheapest energy.

Right now, bitcoin looks increasingly like a tool for speculation rather than a viable, mainstream currency. And one scientific law that math, physics, and economics all share is this: Bubbles pop.
i7-8700K, H100i v2, RoG Strix Z370-G Gaming, 16 GiB, RX Vega64, Define Mini-C, SSR-850PX, C32HG70, RK-9000BR, MX518
 
ptsant
Gold subscriber
Gerbil XP
Posts: 310
Joined: Mon Oct 05, 2009 12:45 pm

Re: So who here is actually mining?

Fri Dec 15, 2017 2:50 pm

meerkt wrote:
ptsant wrote:
either everyone has all copies of all transactions or the system loses its properties. If only some entities have all records then these entities become the equivalent of "banks". If all people have some transactions then the network is no longer truly redundant.

What do you mean? The number of active full nodes on the Bitcoin network is in the low 10000s, and possibly below 10000.


I ran a full node. Still have it actually. If I am going to trust my money to another entity, what's the point of a decentralized system? In fact, I'd rather trust a bank, which has guarantees and regulations.
Image
 
anotherengineer
Gerbil Jedi
Posts: 1549
Joined: Fri Sep 25, 2009 1:53 pm
Location: Northern, ON Canada, Yes I know, Up in the sticks

Re: So who here is actually mining?

Fri Dec 15, 2017 9:12 pm

Captain Ned wrote:
Yan wrote:
anotherengineer wrote:
Mining?

Open pit or U/G?

I see you're really in Northern Ontario. ;-)

Sudbury has that effect on people.


lol True, further north than Sudbury though ;)
Timmins

Did a stint overseas also, in the Govi, that was kinda like this
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tm4BrZjY_Sg
no longer in that industry, in the hydro-electric one now

Kids, crunching algorithms with their gaming video cards and calling it mining.......................
you can at least listen to this while your folding or crunching or whatever
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pO8kTRv4l3o
Life doesn't change after marriage, it changes after children!
 
meerkt
Gerbil Elite
Posts: 969
Joined: Sun Aug 25, 2013 2:55 am

Re: So who here is actually mining?

Sat Dec 16, 2017 5:17 am

ptsant wrote:
I ran a full node. Still have it actually. If I am going to trust my money to another entity, what's the point of a decentralized system?
This aspect is not a recent change. I don't know if the percentage of full nodes in the network was higher in recent history, but I don't think a high percentage is required to keep the decentralization aspect. And you don't need to be a full node to not trust others. Pruned mode is just as secure.
 
Glorious
Gold subscriber
Gerbilus Supremus
Posts: 11085
Joined: Tue Aug 27, 2002 6:35 pm

Re: So who here is actually mining?

Tue Jan 02, 2018 11:30 am

meerkt wrote:
Ah, right. It would also require a distributed UTXO set. I've read some ideas about that, but I don't remember where it was.


Again, if any those "ideas" worked, you've just invalidated the very premise behind having a blockchain.

I... uh... don't know how to stress that enough, I guess?

I mean, if those "ideas" *DID* work, you didn't find a workaround to the size of the blockchain, you've completely obsoleted the need for anything remotely like it entirely.

To be clear, I've seen those sorts of "ideas" too: they're handwaving nonsense suggested by utterly clueless people. There are a ton of people talking about this "problem" with bitcoin without (seemingly) any of them realizing it's the same exact, with a capital-p even, -Problem- that bitcoin solved. Which. Is. Very. Frustrating.

meerkt wrote:
Currently you already download and trust the block headers chain, and the blocks. Here you just don't download all blocks.
If someone has full control over your connection, couldn't they just as well send you fake top-of-chain instead of messing with the middle of it?.


But it's a trust that is verified by the fact that what they are sending me is stupendously, ludicrously, insanely hard to fake: If you verify that the valid hashes for just the three top blocks (honestly, just the first one is basically enough) have ~17-18 leading zeros, it's the real one. It *HAS* to be. If they can "fake" that, they just *practically* broke SHA-256 into *triviality*: fake *your* blockchain? You mean, "fake" the real one? Fake tons of other very important stuff?

Really, if they have "full control of your connection" they'd just fake the software and steal your keys or fool you into something else or who only knows what. That is *EXACTLY* how Craig Wright carnie-conned an unbelievably gullible Gavin Andresen, for a real-world and very prominent example.

---

Again, the problem with lacking the full blockchain means you don't know the balances, which means that while you can verify blocks, you can't verify that the transactions within them aren't double-spends or even fake spends. Which is, once again according to the very whitepaper itself, !!! -> the entire point of the whole fricking thing! <- !!!

DPete27 wrote:
In just the past couple weeks of crypto price movement I've found myself saying "how are these gains even possible?"


Oh, but they are eminently possible: All it takes is the magic of "paper", a required spell component for such arcane arts.

DPete27 wrote:
This has stemmed rampant price run-ups from typically unsubstantiated rumors (IOTA for example is up 10x on the back of a rumor that they were partnering with Microsoft, was recently found to be false, but the price has been slow to return to previous levels)


Not just false, but falsely promoted: IOTA was spreading that rumor with what can only be the full knowledge it was false. Not just behind the scenes, but prominently on their official blog.

This isn't a mistake or a miscalculation via the madness of the crowd, no, it's just flatly and completely illegal.

Which is what drives me crazy: for all the cryptocurrency talk of the drag that financial regulation puts upon the fiat world and innovation, good-god, how these clowns dance in abject ignorance of sword of damocles hanging over them with a thread that seems like it will never-ever break! (I'm sure it will, but the amount of rope they are being given to hang themselves with is incredible).

DPete27 wrote:
The CME futures are still set to launch on 12/18, which could be good or bad. Coincidentally Bitcoin is forming a pennant that intersects almost the exact date of the CME futures launch, and we could be looking at the potential for a triple top around that same date.


I see distinguishable shapes in clouds too, but I don't try to predict the weather with them. Maybe I should, OK, I say we're in for a Daffy Duck day!

DPete27 wrote:
That's what I see. If things pan out, we could be looking at a perfect storm for a big pullback.


Enough Technical Analysis malarkey, what about fundamental analysis like "what does bitcoin even do, practically speaking?"

I mean, I think Uber is overvalued, and find Tesla to be an ongoing misadventure in hilarity by a high-functioning (but, yes, on occasion in certain circumstances, sometimes earnest & legitimate) mountebank, but I know people who regularly use Uber and the price of a Medallion breaking a million in NYC was an obscene creature borne only of legendarily perverse regulatory capture. And electric cars are real things with an easily imagined future, etc...

Bitcoin though, come on. What is all this money chasing except the exclusivity of an eventual exit?

meerkt wrote:
The number of active full nodes on the Bitcoin network is in the low 10000s, and possibly below 10000.


Which doesn't matter, because the people "buying" bitcoin solely as speculatively instruments aren't even using it and indeed cannot. Yes, yes, exchanges of equities trade internally too, etc..., but that's matter of convenience and lack of any relevancy (complete lack of arbitrage available for retail investors): There is no technical reason prohibiting real settlement & resolution. Bitcoin? Yeah, optimistically only like ~5 *ADDRESSES* (not even actual individuals!) can move funds per second. EVERYWHERE and for the foreseeable future (core has shown *NO* signs of losing the small-block faith).

Thus, we see 1K+ arbitrage "opportunities" abound. :roll: :roll: :roll:

And that's before we get to *WHY* the concept of a "full-node" even exists in the first place! :roll: I mean, good grief, this speculation has nothing to do with bitcoin in and of itself, on so many levels it's tiresome to continually explain them all.

meerkt wrote:
I don't know if the percentage of full nodes in the network was higher in recent history, but I don't think a high percentage is required to keep the decentralization aspect.


It is.

The centralization of miners means, unavoidably, that they can do things like censor certain addresses by simply never including them in the blocks. The vaunted "economic majority" cannot prevent that, and would have difficulty demonstrating that it is even happening. That's before we get to protocol-forcing things miners could conceivably do, because in mining all the blocks they control the destiny of that blockchain, just not its popularity. In other words, if the miners decide to change stuff, who forked? Them, or core? It's a matter of opinion, but the fact is that, should it happen, core will *HAVE* to hard-fork too: Keeping the same proof of work would mean spoiling attacks by the miners would be trivial. This is not just my personal opinion: core has publicly and repeatedly threatened to the change the PoW as the nuclear option against that kind of miner interference.

In any event, Satoshi plainly didn't anticipate how the popularity of bitcoin would inevitably lead to an economy of scale being applied to it. Once that happens, the system, as a system, is no longer "decentralized" in an unequivocal way.

meerkt wrote:
Pruned mode is just as secure.


Only if *YOU* pruned it, which requires that you've had the full blockchain, just not contiguously in time.
 
NovusBogus
Silver subscriber
Graphmaster Gerbil
Posts: 1287
Joined: Sun Jan 06, 2013 12:37 am

Re: So who here is actually mining?

Tue Jan 02, 2018 7:48 pm

I maintain that BTC is a fantastic idea for people like me who don't necessarily play well with others to build an economic subculture free of those dirty poli-sci sorts, but all the wild speculation, derivatives, and double secret hedge plays go way over my head and strike me as exactly the sort of fiscal shenanigans that the early proponents circa 2011 wanted to be free of. Obviously some folks are doing very well with it, but I can't see it lasting forever. No idea when it'll break though; there's a lot of R&P elements both here and especially in Asia that make the situation far more complex than a normal bubble.

Personally, I did a little mining back in 2012 or 2013 with one of those USB ASIC sticks, and got a nice case and a few odds and ends from Newegg a few months ago for my trouble, but I never went all in.
 
meerkt
Gerbil Elite
Posts: 969
Joined: Sun Aug 25, 2013 2:55 am

Re: So who here is actually mining?

Thu Jan 04, 2018 1:50 pm

Glorious wrote:
Again, if any those "ideas" worked, you've just invalidated the very premise behind having a blockchain.
Some altcoins are more overall-balance-oriented rather than trace-whole-history. Maybe Bitcoin will evolve into that as well.

If they can "fake" that, they just *practically* broke SHA-256 into *triviality*: fake *your* blockchain?
Just the top few blocks. Pointless to do on most people, but on the right target...

The centralization of miners means, unavoidably, that they can do things like censor certain addresses by simply never including them in the blocks.
The "full nodes" mentioned earlier was about blockchain storage and serving, nor mining. But yes, it would be good if mining was still doable by small players.
 
Glorious
Gold subscriber
Gerbilus Supremus
Posts: 11085
Joined: Tue Aug 27, 2002 6:35 pm

Re: So who here is actually mining?

Thu Jan 04, 2018 2:28 pm

meerkt wrote:
Some altcoins are more overall-balance-oriented rather than trace-whole-history. Maybe Bitcoin will evolve into that as well.


Could you give me an actual example?

I mean, those are equivalent. As you alluded yourself weeks ago when you freely (and entirely correctly) substituted the most precise term of UTXOs for my less precise abstract concept of "balances", there isn't a difference: The "balance" *IS* the history of transactions, specifically, all those that have not yet been spent. It does not actually have an independent existence on the chain: it is fully normalized.

meerkt wrote:
Just the top few blocks. Pointless to do on most people, but on the right target...


The amount of computational power to do this is not only insanely infeasible, but as I stated, would equally endanger the integrity of the actually legitimate chain. If you can freely throw around EXA-hashes of SHA256(SHA256()), (YES 10 to the %#@^% exponent of 18) this isn't a matter of whether or not any given person is a pointless target, but why you are targeting individuals instead of just mining all the blocks you want yourself and "making" something like 1 Million USD per hour.

I mean, do you understand what I said, at all?

meerkt wrote:
The "full nodes" mentioned earlier was about blockchain storage and serving, nor mining. But yes, it would be good if mining was still doable by small players.


Yeah, fair enough: I didn't even explain that half of it. Let me have another go.

Without full nodes, you are completely trusting the miners. Without full nodes, you are relying entirely on their good faith to not double-spending. With full nodes, you can at least know they did. In other words, if the verifiers become centralized, and those we intend to verify with them are already dangerously centralized themselves, I mean, at that point, we're not even talking about it's not decentralized unequivocally, but rather the opposite: It's unequivocally centralized!

Hence, yes, a high percentage of full nodes is necessary, especially as the entire "decentralized" concept is already thoroughly embattled. I mean, you can't even pretend if the full nodes are a tiny percentage of the participants. And, even then, it's still very problematic: decentralized, kinda? Not like the initial design, but rather that we can threaten to counter-fork if they do?
 
meerkt
Gerbil Elite
Posts: 969
Joined: Sun Aug 25, 2013 2:55 am

Re: So who here is actually mining?

Thu Jan 04, 2018 3:48 pm

Glorious wrote:
Could you give me an actual example?

There's Iota's snapshots, which is a halfway solution. I recall one of the rising cryptos of recent times (== the last week or two) also tracked balances differently, but I'll have to search more to figure out which one it was. If Bitcoin moves to some form of distributed UTXO set, depending on how aggressive it is, yes, it might make the blockchain mosty or completely unneccesary.

Glorious wrote:
meerkt wrote:
Just the top few blocks. Pointless to do on most people, but on the right target...
... insanely infeasible, but as I stated, would equally endanger the integrity of the actually legitimate chain

The large miners today each control 10-20% of the hash rate (though, not sure if large pools could be steered to do arbitrary work by the pool operators). If they had a way to benefit from targeting someone with 100M$ in BTC, and were inclined to do so, they could afford to spend a few hours to build a new top-of-chain just for that target.

Whether that means downloading the complete blockchain is less vulnerable than just the blockchain headers plus random blocks in the middle or end... I'll have to ponder some more.

Hence, yes, a high percentage of full nodes is necessary, especially as the entire "decentralized" concept is already thoroughly embattled.

Assuming there are 1-10M Bitcoin users, the current full node count is likely around 0.1-1%. Is that high percentage?
 
Glorious
Gold subscriber
Gerbilus Supremus
Posts: 11085
Joined: Tue Aug 27, 2002 6:35 pm

Re: So who here is actually mining?

Thu Jan 04, 2018 4:41 pm

meerkt wrote:
There's Iota's snapshots, which is a halfway solution. I recall one of the rising cryptos of recent times (== the last week or two) also tracked balances differently, but I'll have to search more to figure out which one it was. If Bitcoin moves to some form of distributed UTXO set, depending on how aggressive it is, yes, it might make the blockchain mosty or completely unneccesary.


Iota is ludicrous snake-oil. The whitepaper is indescribably bad, essentially just meaningless gibberish whenever they don't say something so abjectly and idiotically wrong that it feels like performance artistry:

Iota Whitepaper wrote:
For the same reason, a “large weight” attack would also be much more efficient on a quantum computer. However, capping the weight from above, as suggested in Section 4, would effectively prevent a quantum computer attack as well. This isevident in iota because the number of nonces that one needs to check in order to find a suitable hash for issuing a transaction is not unreasonably large


^ THIS IS THEM LITERALLY ARGUING THEIR SCHEME IS "QUANTUM RESISTANT" BECAUSE IT'S TOO EASY CONVENTIONALLY ANYWAY, LOL.

?!?!?!WTFBBQOMGCATMEOW?!!?!?!

----
I can't even
----

What I can, heh, what I do know is that they openly say they're using a closed-source "coordinator" (WTF!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o ), that they got busted for rolling their own idiotically broken hash and responded ENTIRELY INAPPROPRIATELY by whining like unimaginably spoiled children who blamed the people who were helping, OH, -AND- they're openly engaging in blatant security fraud (official blog had the false MS partnership which could. not. have. happened. without scienter).

It's a scam by incompetent charlatans. This isn't going to supplant bitcoin. Will it eventually supplant Mackerelcoin( :wink: @hawkwing74)? Sure, once the SEC finally (hopefully!) makes their threats real.

I mean, let me say the words "CLOSED-SOURCE COORDINATOR" again, because we are not talking about "decentralization" at that point. We're not even talking about crypto-currency. We are talking WTF OBVIOUS SCAM.

meerkt wrote:
The large miners today each control 10-20% of the hash rate (though, not sure if large pools could be steered to do arbitrary work by the pool operators). If they had a way to benefit from targeting someone with 100M$ in BTC, and were inclined to do so, they could afford to spend a few hours to build a new top-of-chain just for that target.


If you are $100 Mil whale and you're not running a full node, like, we're in PEBKAC territory. Even if they're not, how do you get them to download your personalized faux chain? Even if you did, so what? If you don't induce them to sign transactions in a very specific window of time, what did you accomplish? Even if you did, how do you construct a scenario in which they mistakenly do transactions that benefit you, or heck, even hurts them?

Meanwhile, you are forgoing real revenue for each and every possible opportunity. You spend hours of using all your hashrate to build something that you have to use very rapidly, hours in which you would have probabilistically mined a least a few blocks.

It's not feasible. Pointing an exahash per second at this has enormous real world opportunity cost for some sort of rubeberg's contraption of hilarious improbabilities and virtually impossible contrivances.

meerkt wrote:
Whether that means downloading the complete blockchain is less vulnerable than just the blockchain headers plus random blocks in the middle or end... I'll have to ponder some more.


Yes, it is. You're trusting other people when they tell how much money anyone has. Why not use a bank? You can actually use that money.
 
Glorious
Gold subscriber
Gerbilus Supremus
Posts: 11085
Joined: Tue Aug 27, 2002 6:35 pm

Re: So who here is actually mining?

Fri Jan 05, 2018 2:38 pm

Ugh, your mention of Iota has now triggered me... urgghhhhh

Remember when I said this?

Glorious wrote:
To be clear, I've seen those sorts of "ideas" too: they're handwaving nonsense suggested by utterly clueless people. There are a ton of people talking about this "problem" with bitcoin without (seemingly) any of them realizing it's the same exact, with a capital-p even, -Problem- that bitcoin solved. Which. Is. Very. Frustrating.


Well, I wasn't even thinking about Iota, because those guys aren't even wrong. I mean, they are so hysterically, moon-barkingly mad and malignant, that I don't even consider them as being on the same plane. It's not a mistake, it's a criminal scheme.

Before we get into demonstrating why, let's first earnestly treat with the notion these snapshots do anything at all towards solving the problem you suggest: How does a centralized authority deciding the entire state of the system at *any* interval have anything to do with cryptocurrency? This isn't a half-way solution, it's a complete repudiation of the problem: Trustless? Trust us! :roll:

They are completely open about this in practice, they merely dissemble about it in theory:

https://blog.iota.org/gui-v2-5-2-latest ... d364d6241a

Iota wrote:
we have taken precautionary measures to safeguard funds residing at specific addresses to an IOTA Foundation controlled address


^ They just arbitrarily just took your money. You have to petition them to get it back.

Again, this is not a "half-solution": it's anathema. It's crazy.

---

Here's why they are simply not even wrong:

http://www.tangleblog.com/wp-content/up ... une_17.pdf

Come-From-Beyond is Sergey Ivancheglo one of the four co-founders of Iota, is their head "engineer":

https://iotasupport.com/foundation.shtml
https://www.tangleblog.com/what-is-iota ... he-tangle/

Look at his responses to just random and obviously non-technical people throwing out completely basic questions about how this is supposed to work:

http://www.tangleblog.com/wp-content/up ... une_17.pdf

Sunny Aggarwal [10:12 PM]
@come-from-beyond Are you suggesting that there will only be a *single* global mesh network for
all IoT devices in the work? (edited)
Micah Zoltu [10:12 PM]
Sure, I go to some spot on earth drop down a radio transmitter and a supercomputer. I tell all my
neighbors, "I'm connected to a billion neighbors behind me."
[10:12]
No node can disprove that I am not actually connected to a billion neighbors.
Come-from-Beyond [10:12 PM]
> Are you suggesting that there will only be a *single* global mesh network for all IoT devices in
the work?
It depends on level of detalization
[10:13]
> Sure, I go to some spot on earth drop down a radio transmitter and a supercomputer. I tell all my
neighbors, "I'm connected to a billion neighbors behind me."
You cannot do it physically


"It depends on the level of detalization" WTF does that even mean? That's the response to a simple question about whether or not there is going to be a *single* global mesh? I mean, forget why that even matters, it doesn't, but what? wat?

And then the next one: I mean, WAT WAT WAT??!?!? "You cannot do it physically" :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o

The question is simple: How does this "tangle" possibly know that I'm not actually a supercomputer pretending to be a billion different nodes?

It just, uh, magically knows that I didn't do that "physically"?

The *HEAD ENGINEER* of Iota just spouts one-liner after one-liner of just utterly contradictory nonsense to questions from people who clearly aren't tremendously technical. It's almost surreal!

---

That's not even the end of it, remember how I told you they totally inappropriately handled the disclosure that they were (INSANELY STUPIDLY) rolling their own hash function? Before we get to that, let's take a sidetrack to how they're now using SHA-3, but, remember how I quoted the whitepaper say the PoW is "not unreasonably large".

Well, they actually (for once) get very specific:

Iota Whitepaper wrote:
On average, it is around 3^8.


That's, uh, 6561.

A single ~$700 Geforce 1080 Ti can approach throughput of a BILLION SHA-3 hashes a second

In other words, it ain't going to take a supercomputer. (to be clear, they are explicitly using SHA-3 for signing, I don't even know if they are also using it for PoW for the nodes on the tangle because the whitepaper doesn't say, but we are talking such a trivial amount of effort here it basically doesn't matter what they picked).

Oh, and they explicitly say that we're talking about a hard limit here: this ain't NEVER GONNA SCALE:

Iota Whitepaper wrote:
More importantly, the algorithm used in the iota implementation is structured such that the time to find a nonce is not much larger than the time needed for other tasks that are necessary to issue a transaction.


ANYWAY BACK TO THAT DISCLOSURE:

Do you know what how they explained why they used something so broken first?

Copy-Protection! :roll: :o

https://gist.github.com/Come-from-Beyon ... 6f9e35b84a

Then, do you know he claimed second? This is one is great, it'll knock your socks off, so hold on for the ride:

https://www.reddit.com/r/Iota/comments/ ... _has_come/

INSANE PERSON wrote:
Curl-P was created by following the idea of simplicity. While de-jure I can say that it was me who created Curl-P, de-facto it was created by a primitive AI created by me.


WE NEED MEN IN WHITE COATS wrote:
IOTA was created to be immune to quantum computer attacks, today I have revealed that it was also created to be immune to attacks from an AI.


THIS IS THE *HEAD ENGINEER* FOR IOTA.

And, here's the thing: You don't need to understand anything. The guy just blatantly admitted that he completely lied the first time. I mean, he's lying the second time too, they're lying all the time, about everything, but I mean...


....do you understand why I dismiss this "we don't need the blockchain" thing as make-believe and ignorant hand-waving?

I'm being KIND!
 
meerkt
Gerbil Elite
Posts: 969
Joined: Sun Aug 25, 2013 2:55 am

Re: So who here is actually mining?

Sun Jan 07, 2018 5:33 pm

I haven't examined the technical details in depth, nor am I qualified. But Iota has become a widely used network in recent months, with more public scrutiny and I assume more attack attempts. Their custom hash was a problem, but they've changed it. Snapshotting is still around for the moment. Too early to tell, but even if they had or have other problems, and never mind marketing, politics, honesty, some technical ideas might end up having merit.
 
NovusBogus
Silver subscriber
Graphmaster Gerbil
Posts: 1287
Joined: Sun Jan 06, 2013 12:37 am

Re: So who here is actually mining?

Mon Jan 08, 2018 6:37 am

I hadn't heard of it until you guys started talking about it. So is it really that widely used, or just widely hyped amongst alt-currency enthusiasts? In any case, I have to go with Glorious on this one...an altcoin with some shadowy central authority picking winners and losers is no better than fiat which can at least be spent at normal stores. Someone will probably manage to make money with it though.
 
meerkt
Gerbil Elite
Posts: 969
Joined: Sun Aug 25, 2013 2:55 am

Re: So who here is actually mining?

Mon Jan 08, 2018 10:51 am

It's both. Relatively new, but already "established" in cryptocurrency standards (hey, about a year!). Whether a $10B market cap and a few $100M daily trade volume mean much? Maybe a bit, combined with being around for a year. It at least seems more legit than Tron.

Having temporary, or less temporary, centralized parts is a crutch various altcoins use.
 
Glorious
Gold subscriber
Gerbilus Supremus
Posts: 11085
Joined: Tue Aug 27, 2002 6:35 pm

Re: So who here is actually mining?

Mon Jan 08, 2018 11:13 am

meerkt wrote:
I haven't examined the technical details in depth, nor am I qualified. But Iota has become a widely used network in recent months, with more public scrutiny and I assume more attack attempts.


Less than three months ago, the network completely froze for over two days straight.
Less than two months ago and more than once, the network was unusable due to a "spam" attack.

That is not me examining "technical details", I am countermanding your declarations with very simple and verifiable facts.

As to the other parts of what you said, what public scrutiny? Iota just published an official multiple part article YESTERDAY continuing their fight with the Cryptocurrency division of MIT's media lab. Why? Because of how those demonstrated an issue with Iota FOUR MONTHS ago, and Iota still cannot come to grips with it.

Widely used? There's less than a transaction per second on their network, and even that doesn't establish that they are all generated by distinguishable individuals.

Too early to tell, but even if they had or have other problems, and never mind marketing, politics, honesty, some technical ideas might end up having merit.


The "technical idea" is wild-eyed day-dreaming which they are so incapable of explaining that they cannot even correctly parse simple questions about it.

The tangle is make-believe. Their network is currently run by their coordinator, because when it doesn't work, the network PROVABLY DOESN'T EITHER: that 48 hour plus outage in October.

In other words, what they have now is completely orthogonal to what they say they will have in the future: The practical present is not predicate of their foretold future.

It's like seats on the Space Elevator. Ok, you've designed some seats or whatever but your progress towards the actual space elevator project remains 0.00000... %

The Tangle, as they hand-wave in their paper, is not some poorly functioning coordinator-controlled toy network of negligible volume (they actually preen about ~250 nodes having 100 TPS with 10 second latency :o ), it is, as they say themselves, a network that has positive-feedback scalability:

https://blog.iota.org/a-primer-on-iota- ... a6eb2cc621

Official IOTA blog wrote:
IOTA was designed to enable transactional settlement at scale. Since consensus is parallelized, and not done in sequential intervals of batches as in Blockchain, the network is able to grow and scale dynamically with the number of transactions. The more transactions are made, the more secure and the more efficient the Tangle gets.


How do they achieve this UTTERLY ASTOUNDING COMPUTER SCIENCE RESULT?

Oh, dummy, read the white-paper: each transaction has to confirm two other existing transactions. It doesn't even matter if all participants even have any idea what transactions are out there, we explicitly state that it still works just fine:

meerkt wrote:
The beauty of the Tangle is that you can fluidly branch off and back into the network.


...it's just that simple, really: Scalability = COMPLETELY UNBOUNDED pyramid scheme.

---

Snake-oil is being too kind.

NovusBogus wrote:
I hadn't heard of it until you guys started talking about it. So is it really that widely used, or just widely hyped amongst alt-currency enthusiasts? In any case, I have to go with Glorious on this one...an altcoin with some shadowy central authority picking winners and losers is no better than fiat which can at least be spent at normal stores. Someone will probably manage to make money with it though.


Yes, bitcoin, litecoin, ethereum they all do what they describe in their papers.

IOTA, on the other hand, is a scam with a victim-sorting mechanism a la 419s: implicitly claiming, with zero evidence, that every computer scientist isn't just blatantly & fundamentally wrong, but hopelessly & uselessly idiotic, drives away anyone with either a clue or an ounce of discernment.
 
meerkt
Gerbil Elite
Posts: 969
Joined: Sun Aug 25, 2013 2:55 am

Re: So who here is actually mining?

Mon Jan 08, 2018 11:20 am

Glorious wrote:
Less than two months ago and more than once, the network was unusable due to a "spam" attack.

Widely used? There's less than a transaction per second on their network

Widely used, as in, enough monetary value and public interest for people to invest time in studying it and trying to attack it.

If the above two, one year from release, are enough to discredit them, what would you say about Bitcoin in its 9th year? It's to a large degree unusable for a whole month now, and currently peaks at 3-4 TPS.

Time will tell.
 
Glorious
Gold subscriber
Gerbilus Supremus
Posts: 11085
Joined: Tue Aug 27, 2002 6:35 pm

Re: So who here is actually mining?

Mon Jan 08, 2018 11:30 am

It's both. Relatively new, but already "established" in cryptocurrency standards (hey, about a year!). Whether a $10B market cap and a few $100M daily trade volume mean much? Maybe a bit, combined with being around for a year. It at least seems more legit than Tron.

Having temporary, or less temporary, centralized parts is a crutch various altcoins use.


It's not legit.

It is 100% fake.

They aren't just claiming to be in possession of magic, they repudiate anyone who tries to establish the bounds of what that magic can do in the real world by just saying that their magic "just knows" without any description of what it can potentially know, let alone how.

I quoted the Head Engineer explicitly doing that, in that he claimed that we can't "physically" do something that anyone could do: my single 3 year old Geforce 970 can generate more of their PoW SHA-3 signings in a *SINGLE SECOND* (~300 MH/s) than their entire network does in ~HALF A DAY~.

With the ~40,000x computational advantage I have in just a single graphics card, I can make my tangle look like any other potentially existing tangle. The tangle, therefore, becomes irrelevant towards the security of the system: it doesn't matter how they describe any algorithm that operates upon it, mine can be computationally indistinguishable.

Thus they start implying things that 1) have nothing to do with their data structure 2) are not even handwaved in the paper itself: Oh, we can detect that you don't physically have a bunch of nodes.

That's magic.
 
meerkt
Gerbil Elite
Posts: 969
Joined: Sun Aug 25, 2013 2:55 am

Re: So who here is actually mining?

Mon Jan 08, 2018 11:35 am

Glorious wrote:
It's not legit.

Never mind absolutes. Surely you will agree it's more legit than Tron? :)
 
just brew it!
Gold subscriber
Administrator
Posts: 51523
Joined: Tue Aug 20, 2002 10:51 pm
Location: Somewhere, having a beer

Re: So who here is actually mining?

Mon Jan 08, 2018 11:38 am

meerkt wrote:
Glorious wrote:
It's not legit.

Never mind absolutes. Surely you will agree it's more legit than Tron? :)

Set the bar low enough, and anything else can look "more legit". :wink:
Nostalgia isn't what it used to be.
 
Glorious
Gold subscriber
Gerbilus Supremus
Posts: 11085
Joined: Tue Aug 27, 2002 6:35 pm

Re: So who here is actually mining?

Mon Jan 08, 2018 11:56 am

meerkt wrote:
Widely used, as in, enough monetary value and public interest for people to invest time in studying it and trying to attack it.


Uh... From what I gather they took the pre-existing wallet implementation (which, btw, is widely decried as "one of the worst in crypto") and starting shooting off transactions with zero value.

Time? A~7000 average try valid nonce for SHA-3? I don't see why a 286 couldn't do that once per second...?
Study? Uh....? Study what?
Attack? Typing zero and hitting send repeatedly?

meerkt wrote:
If the above two, one year from release, are enough to discredit them, what would you say about Bitcoin in its 9th year?


I would say that Bitcoin works as described, because it does.

IOTA doesn't, because it can't.

The Bitcoin whitepaper explains how it works and why. In fact, despite how I'm obviously no proponent of bitcoin, I've repeatedly & approvingly cited that whitepaper to explain what bitcoin actually does. My problem isn't that what the whitepaper claims is impossible, because it plainly isn't, or even with bitcoin in and of itself. My problem is that bitcoin is, as I've said: "a neat trick for an extremely specific and domain-limited problem which is not applicable to virtually everyone" which everyone ignores and says is applicable to everything ever, to the exclusion of the use the whitepaper claims: payments (as it's now a "STORE OF VALUE, DUH, DAD!" :roll: ).

Sure, bitcoin has had bugs and hiccups, but the fundamentally key piece has worked the same way from the beginning-to-end: there was no "boot-strapping" or "to be demonstrated later" nonsense.

It's not the same thing, not even remotely.

meerkt wrote:
It's to a large degree unusable for a whole month now, and currently peaks at 3-4 TPS.


But it works as promised.

IOTA cannot work as promised. Someone promising the philosopher's stone of CompSci who cannot even begin to describe it is obviously scamming you. I don't know what else to say.

---

Remember how this whole discussion started? I said that the blockchain had caveats that cannot just be handwaved away?

These guys are handwaving with one hand while the other is outstretched, palm up.

Please don't be a sucker.
Last edited by Glorious on Mon Jan 08, 2018 11:58 am, edited 1 time in total.
 
Glorious
Gold subscriber
Gerbilus Supremus
Posts: 11085
Joined: Tue Aug 27, 2002 6:35 pm

Re: So who here is actually mining?

Mon Jan 08, 2018 11:58 am

meerkt wrote:
Never mind absolutes. Surely you will agree it's more legit than Tron?


The floor is zero legitimacy.

Iota is zero legitimate.

Tron cannot be "more zero" legitimate.

---

What you are even trying to do here is indicative of seriously broken thinking.
 
meerkt
Gerbil Elite
Posts: 969
Joined: Sun Aug 25, 2013 2:55 am

Re: So who here is actually mining?

Mon Jan 08, 2018 12:07 pm

You said you partially approve of Ethereum, so let's instead go with this:
https://github.com/ethereum/wiki/wiki/Sharding-FAQ
  • 1
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 12

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests