Personal computing discussed

Moderators: mac_h8r1, Nemesis

 
Captain Ned
Gold subscriber
Global Moderator
Posts: 27379
Joined: Wed Jan 16, 2002 7:00 pm
Location: Vermont, USA

Re: So who here is actually mining?

Mon Jan 29, 2018 6:25 pm

meerkt wrote:
I'd say there are 3 mainstream cryptos: Bitcoin, Litecoin, Ethereum (maybe largely due to being the infrastructures for all these ICOs).

And exactly what is the daily liquidity position for exchanges dealing in same? Is this position reported to market participants? What are the regulatory requirements for daily liquidity positions and the hard-currency assets in which these positions are held? How do exchanges communicate price information to a central clearinghouse to prevent exchange arbitrage? How are disputes resolved? Under which set of laws? What are the customer protections against fraudulent transactions?

Until it looks and acts like a properly-regulated financial market, it's just a toy upon which no one should spend any more than they're willing to lose. Coins aren't part of your net worth until they're freely and instantly convertible into hard currency with no limits on transaction size.

I'll likely be collecting my pension before that occurs.
Humans sleep soundly in their beds because rough cats stand ready in the night to visit violence on those who would do us harm.
 
Redocbew
Gold subscriber
Gerbil Jedi
Posts: 1747
Joined: Sat Mar 15, 2014 11:44 am

Re: So who here is actually mining?

Mon Jan 29, 2018 6:33 pm

meerkt wrote:
Not elevating anything. Just saying I find the general idea useful, and apparently I'm not the only one.


I'd say it's useful in about the same way as an old pressure cooker is useful. I guess the ones we have now are better and have little or no chance of exploding at random, but until we have a "new one" in terms of crypto-currency I'm personally not comfortable being involved there.
Do not meddle in the affairs of archers, for they are subtle and you won't hear them coming.
 
meerkt
Gerbil Elite
Posts: 988
Joined: Sun Aug 25, 2013 2:55 am

Re: So who here is actually mining?

Mon Jan 29, 2018 6:37 pm

Captain Ned wrote:
Until it looks and acts like a properly-regulated financial market, it's just a toy upon which no one should spend any more than they're willing to lose.

I'm using the word "mainstream" here in the context of cryptos, not finance at large. Sure, not a good idea to have in cryptos more than you can lose.
 
Convert
Grand Gerbil Poohbah
Posts: 3431
Joined: Fri Nov 14, 2003 6:47 am

Re: So who here is actually mining?

Mon Jan 29, 2018 6:39 pm

Captain Ned wrote:
no one should spend any more than they're willing to lose.

Great advice that anyone should follow in any kind of financial situation, especially gambling!
Tachyonic Karma: Future decisions traveling backwards in time to smite you now.
 
Captain Ned
Gold subscriber
Global Moderator
Posts: 27379
Joined: Wed Jan 16, 2002 7:00 pm
Location: Vermont, USA

Re: So who here is actually mining?

Mon Jan 29, 2018 6:42 pm

meerkt wrote:
Captain Ned wrote:
Until it looks and acts like a properly-regulated financial market, it's just a toy upon which no one should spend any more than they're willing to lose.

I'm using the word "mainstream" here in the context of cryptos, not finance at large. Sure, not a good idea to have in cryptos more than you can lose.

I'd also like the mudcore crowd to grok that their gains are so illusory as to not even be ephemeral. Not even the Charm of Making will turn those dragons' breaths into reality.
Humans sleep soundly in their beds because rough cats stand ready in the night to visit violence on those who would do us harm.
 
mudcore
Gerbil
Posts: 49
Joined: Mon Sep 11, 2017 3:16 pm

Re: So who here is actually mining?

Mon Jan 29, 2018 6:48 pm

Captain Ned wrote:
meerkt wrote:
Captain Ned wrote:
Until it looks and acts like a properly-regulated financial market, it's just a toy upon which no one should spend any more than they're willing to lose.

I'm using the word "mainstream" here in the context of cryptos, not finance at large. Sure, not a good idea to have in cryptos more than you can lose.

I'd also like the mudcore crowd to grok that their gains are so illusory as to not even be ephemeral. Not even the Charm of Making will turn those dragons' breaths into reality.


What gains? I do believe I'm "down" since I posted what I have (which is, in practical terms, insignificant to me money wise). It's not something I check with any regularity because its not the aspect of this I'm most interested in or care about. And its not something I've recommend anyone do, here or elsewhere.

EDIT: I must be playing my role wrong.

Sorry... here I'll try it again... uhm...

Captain Ned, what I meant to say is that obviously my fat gainz have been astronomical and that its all thanks to maxing out my available credit and refusing to pay my bills unless they accept BTC or LTC. This is a fool proof plan and all you lame nocoiners should jump on board before its too late. TO THE MOON
 
Convert
Grand Gerbil Poohbah
Posts: 3431
Joined: Fri Nov 14, 2003 6:47 am

Re: So who here is actually mining?

Mon Jan 29, 2018 7:09 pm

Captain Ned wrote:
meerkt wrote:
Captain Ned wrote:
Until it looks and acts like a properly-regulated financial market, it's just a toy upon which no one should spend any more than they're willing to lose.

I'm using the word "mainstream" here in the context of cryptos, not finance at large. Sure, not a good idea to have in cryptos more than you can lose.

I'd also like the mudcore crowd to grok that their gains are so illusory as to not even be ephemeral. Not even the Charm of Making will turn those dragons' breaths into reality.

How are you defining gains? I'm not sure who the mudcore crowd is, other than mudcore of course. But I know several people in real life that converted crypto into USD with gains. Thankfully they heeded my suggestion to make sure that any USD they put in they've gotten back. So if it all goes belly up today they would have lost nothing real. Though the line of real or not is pretty gray sometimes when I've watched them turn dragon breath into USD, knowing they can do it, and knowing if they did it right now they could pay off a mortgage or student loan sure makes it seem real sometimes. And incredibly frustrating, like why wouldn't you just walk away right now? The allure of there being even more gains is just too great.

But the point is, there's nothing illusory about their gains, and from what I've seen them do, it wasn't that much of a headache to convert it to USD.
Tachyonic Karma: Future decisions traveling backwards in time to smite you now.
 
layerup
Gerbil
Posts: 40
Joined: Tue Jun 02, 2015 6:41 pm

Re: So who here is actually mining?

Mon Jan 29, 2018 7:41 pm

mudcore wrote:
Redocbew wrote:
So then... question here. Why is it even possible not to run a full node? Is that just a concession made to help spread the adoption of the network?

its an evolving and changing ecosystem with many people having different visions of how it looks. So... it depends on which crypto you're talking about and what may be the goals there or more importantly what the user wants out of it (because as is so often, the users ideas/goals are different than the creators). But frankly I don't believe the idea, with Bitcoin at least, was ever to have every wallet out there be a full node with all the history. It simply isn't necessary for many of the more basic, day to day uses.


I haven't read past this post yet, but I'm with Glorious here, this comment tells me exactly nothing. What are the outlined "Basic, day to day uses" that do not require the full node? Why should I trust any .dat file I can find available, or alternatively, why should I not download an entire node? FYI, looking for constructing answers here, not a flame war.
 
JustAnEngineer
Gold subscriber
Gerbil God
Posts: 18297
Joined: Sat Jan 26, 2002 7:00 pm
Location: The Heart of Dixie

Re: So who here is actually mining?

Mon Jan 29, 2018 8:40 pm

meerkt wrote:
JustAnEngineer wrote:
meerkt wrote:
I can't accept credit card payments that easily, or with decent fees.
What planet are you from?
https://squareup.com/pricing
The one outside of the few countries supported by Square. :) Oh, I'm sure there are solutions. But that wasn't the point. Cash and credit cards just aren't always an ideal solution. Why does PayPal exist? And actually, Glorious brought it up in the context of sending payments rather than receiving. Also there credit cards have room for improvement, like foreign currency conversion fees.
Say what? Your major credit cards offer you the best currency conversion rates that you're likely to get anywhere. Better than the money changer, better than your home-town bank or ATM, better than any local vendor will offer you...
i7-8700K, H100i v2, RoG Strix Z370-G Gaming, 16 GiB, RX Vega64, Define Mini-C, SSR-850PX, C32HG70, RK-9000BR, MX518
 
meerkt
Gerbil Elite
Posts: 988
Joined: Sun Aug 25, 2013 2:55 am

Re: So who here is actually mining?

Mon Jan 29, 2018 8:52 pm

I get better rates at the bank, though it involves more hassle. The rates vary between cards, and the cards have various stupid limitations and stipulations that sometime make life harder than it needs to be. But either way, no fees is better than lower fees.
 
just brew it!
Gold subscriber
Administrator
Posts: 51850
Joined: Tue Aug 20, 2002 10:51 pm
Location: Somewhere, having a beer

Re: So who here is actually mining?

Mon Jan 29, 2018 9:18 pm

IIRC the major credit card processors got whacked with a class action settlement several years back, regarding their currency conversion practices. So they're on good behavior (at least for now), to avoid a repeat.
Nostalgia isn't what it used to be.
 
mudcore
Gerbil
Posts: 49
Joined: Mon Sep 11, 2017 3:16 pm

Re: So who here is actually mining?

Mon Jan 29, 2018 9:36 pm

layerup wrote:
mudcore wrote:
Redocbew wrote:
So then... question here. Why is it even possible not to run a full node? Is that just a concession made to help spread the adoption of the network?

its an evolving and changing ecosystem with many people having different visions of how it looks. So... it depends on which crypto you're talking about and what may be the goals there or more importantly what the user wants out of it (because as is so often, the users ideas/goals are different than the creators). But frankly I don't believe the idea, with Bitcoin at least, was ever to have every wallet out there be a full node with all the history. It simply isn't necessary for many of the more basic, day to day uses.


I haven't read past this post yet, but I'm with Glorious here, this comment tells me exactly nothing. What are the outlined "Basic, day to day uses" that do not require the full node? Why should I trust any .dat file I can find available, or alternatively, why should I not download an entire node? FYI, looking for constructing answers here, not a flame war.


You do not need to be running a full node to send and receive transactions. Since Bitcoin's beginning the ability to verify payments without running a full node has been part of it referred to as simplified payment verification. You are making a privacy and security trade off by using an SPV node wallet. The risk being your SPV node could be mislead if a majority of miners acted in a coordinated manor to mislead them and if there isn't a backbone of running full nodes, which would not accept the blocks in such an instance. There are also web wallets, which rely on putting trust entirely in a centralized service, and obviously that only goes as far as you can trust that entity (but it may be reasonable to trust that entity, this is up to you, there's nowhere in the BTC whitepaper or some Crypto-Currency Rulebook that says you can never trust centralized services again, to my knowledge). Using a mobile client on your phone that is an SPV node would be reasonable for the low amount, low volume purchasing you do daily using your debit or credit card or paper cash. Buying groceries, paying for gas, sending a friend some money because he covered drinks last night, paying most of your bills, etc.

Full nodes contribute to the economic strength of the blockchain and enforce the consensus rules. They're the back bone. They're also the only way to use Bitcoin in a trustless way, plus they provide network services to the SPV nodes. It is critical that the network has a large, robust pool of full nodes. But it isn't viable or practical for all users/use cases (i.e. the devices we use it on are not capable or really ideal for a full node) and the acknowledgement of this has been in the Bitcoin whitepaper from the start. Businesses who use Bitcoin should run full nodes and users who feel motivated and want to use it with the maximum security/privacy. Maybe in the future advancements in Bitcoin itself or other technology will allow everyone to run full nodes or some other trustless manor, that would be great but has never been "the only way."

Other cryptos can vary quite significantly from this model so... yeah.
 
Redocbew
Gold subscriber
Gerbil Jedi
Posts: 1747
Joined: Sat Mar 15, 2014 11:44 am

Re: So who here is actually mining?

Mon Jan 29, 2018 10:26 pm

mudcore wrote:
Other cryptos can vary quite significantly from this model


Surely, the choice of whether to run a full node or not, is not specific to certain ICOs? We know that mining Bitcoin is now in the realm of ASICs, and that Ethereum is very memory intensive, but that has to do with their specific implementations of how the work is done. I could be wrong, but I'd be surprised if there was much variation on how the block chain its self operated from one ICO to another.

When using SPV, I suppose you're not only trusting the node you're connecting to, but you're also trusting the software to pick a node that's appropriately deep for the amount covered in each transaction. Unless there's a lot more people than I imagine using their mobile devices to initiate large payments it may not matter much in reality, but I could see how that may be another weakness in the system. As far as I can tell there is no reason why a person should be using SPV on a desktop, and using crypto-currency for small amounts seems like a recipe for a headache anyway.
Do not meddle in the affairs of archers, for they are subtle and you won't hear them coming.
 
Glorious
Gold subscriber
Gerbilus Supremus
Posts: 11280
Joined: Tue Aug 27, 2002 6:35 pm

Re: So who here is actually mining?

Tue Jan 30, 2018 9:26 am

meerkt wrote:
Some compromise in privacy and potentially security, for reduced requirements in storage, bandwidth, number-crunching. Useful for cellphone clients, though many people use it on desktop as well. Look up SPV wallets for Bitcoin.


As I said, there are "users" of "crypto-currency" who aren't really using crypto-currency at all. You're letting someone else use it and then basically taking their word for it. Which, of course, means the using crypto-currency as unit of account is completely incidental & superfluous. It could have been anything, really.

meerkt wrote:
Oh, I'm sure there are solutions. But that wasn't the point. Cash and credit cards just aren't always an ideal solution. Why does PayPal exist? And actually, Glorious brought it up in the context of sending payments rather than receiving. Also there credit cards have room for improvement, like foreign currency conversion fees.


The point is that crypto-currency is not even close to being ideal, despite all your pretensions to the contrary. It is essentially universally worse in every applicable context.

meerkt wrote:
Not elevating anything. Just saying I find the general idea useful, and apparently I'm not the only one. It would be better if one could stick with just Bitcoin and not have to use alts, but as long as that isn't the case, switching to common alts is not a big deal.


Nonsense.

You clearly don't find "the general idea" useful. You aren't even using it!

Completely trusting a centralized party to send money is the *LITERAL ANTITHESIS* of the general idea.

I mean, in actuality here what you are really prattling on about is the equivalent of Linden-Dollars.

meerkt wrote:
What? I found a useful tool, I'm using it. If it lives up to its long-term promise, even better.


Delusion. You've already admitted that you "use" it extremely rarely, which is because of the reasons I've already detailed: when you find some random person-to-person item for sale that you even wish to buy, you can only use LTC if the other person does.

I mean, that's the best you can muster despite the fact that coiners constantly overstate and overplay this sort of thing. The claims get ridiculous, coiners are like "ATMs are everywhere" when in fact there's three in a particular region which only allow USD DEPOSITS and one of which is broken and one is missing.

meerkt wrote:
My benchmark for calling Litecoin a mainstream crypto is not what's in the top N of the day (if so, why not pick the 3-month old Cardano, or Tron that was there recently and almost still is). Litecoin would have a problem if it was so far behind that it didn't have market support or liquidity. I'd say there are 3 mainstream1 cryptos: Bitcoin, Litecoin, Ethereum (maybe largely due to being the infrastructure for all these ICOs).


Yes, *YOU* say. Other cryptocurrency guys might have different opinions.

Do you seriously not see how absurd this is? You see an ad on craigslist for something you want, and it even says "I accept crypto". This isn't even a success for your argument here, because now you get to argue with that guy about whether or not litecoin is mainstream and therefore he should accept it. :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

That guy could easily say "lolwut, Charlie Lee just pumped & dumped it (HIS OWN COIN) and it's a complete knock-off clone of btc anyway. I'm long on Monero, I consider that mainstream and useful. I don't truck with ltc, sorry".

Coiners say stuff like that all the time.

convert wrote:
But the point is, there's nothing illusory about their gains, and from what I've seen them do, it wasn't that much of a headache to convert it to USD.


When I said "something is wrong here" about mt gox just weeks before it imploded, people *here* argued with me and said they *PERSONALLY* had *WITHDRAWN USD* from it and therefore I was FUD etc...

Of course, not only did the mt. Gox website belie that, but it was public knowledge that for months and months USD withdraws were impossible or and btc withdrawals were backlogged into infinity etc..

Hence, since coiners routinely state, emphatically, things that are outright make-believe, I take all such claims with a HUGE GRAIN OF SALT. Especially since people involved in frauds typically self-diminish their decisions and losses. It's simply not realistic that everyone who claims to have 100% RoI'd out actually did so.

Yes, you can get real money out of it, but only in small batches (they have explicitly stated withdrawal limits, which Captain Ned is desperately trying to tell you is A GIGANTIC RED FLAG). And, of course, most people don't even do that, they just let it ride.

Even then, that's basically blood money: every USD you suck out beyond the ones you put in is going to be the eventual loss of some other poor sucker. It's even worse than that, like the third law of thermodynamics it doesn't even balance out: there is a huge cost to running the system that no investor could ever get back.

meerkt wrote:
But either way, no fees is better than lower fees.


These fees again...

You must have really strange nightmares.

You know, I have family members abroad, and I don't mean in highly developed normal global market participant countries.. Out of all the plentiful frustrations such a situation causes, currency fees have never once been mentioned.

mudcore wrote:
You do not need to be running a full node to send and receive transactions. Since Bitcoin's beginning the ability to verify payments without running a full node has been part of it referred to as simplified payment verification. You are making a privacy and security trade off by using an SPV node wallet. The risk being your SPV node could be mislead if a majority of miners acted in a coordinated manor to mislead them and if there isn't a backbone of running full nodes, which would not accept the blocks in such an instance.


The whitepaper's SPV means downloading the entire chain but only keeping the block headers.

Section 8 of the whitepaper wrote:
It is possible to verify payments without running a full network node. A user only needs to keep a copy of the block headers of the longest proof-of-work chain


https://bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf

This is not what what the sort of SPV wallets you are referring to do, because they never touch the full chain. They all seem rely on a centralized service providing the UTXOs, because things like bip37 seem to be disabled by full nodes for the obvious reason that such a thing provides for an easy avenue to DOS: requesting a node randomly do lookups in a 150GB database is, ummm, rough, especially since the transaction indexing defaults to off because it has normal operation performance implications...

mudcore wrote:
There are also web wallets, which rely on putting trust entirely in a centralized service, and obviously that only goes as far as you can trust that entity (but it may be reasonable to trust that entity, this is up to you, there's nowhere in the BTC whitepaper or some Crypto-Currency Rulebook that says you can never trust centralized services again, to my knowledge).


Again, these aren't all that fundamentally different from the real-world SPV wallets, for the reason I've mentioned.

And, if you are relying on a centralized service, why are you using bitcoin? You might as well be using any other unit of account, as previously discussed.

mudcore wrote:
Using a mobile client on your phone that is an SPV node would be reasonable for the low amount, low volume purchasing you do daily using your debit or credit card or paper cash. Buying groceries, paying for gas, sending a friend some money because he covered drinks last night, paying most of your bills, etc.


Bitcoin couldn't handle the transaction volume of my COUNTY if everyone in it used it for that. And that's allowing for 24 hours of settlement delay: during peak times it would be completely unusable. People would wait for hours and hours in the lines at the grocery store etc...

mudcore wrote:
Full nodes contribute to the economic strength of the blockchain and enforce the consensus rules. They're the back bone. They're also the only way to use Bitcoin in a trustless way, plus they provide network services to the SPV nodes.


Except, in reality, they basically don't.

Which isn't surprising, because there is zero incentive for them to do it. Only miners get fees & block rewards, full nodes get nothing, and the amount of I/O etc... to handle everyone's filters to find the transactions they're interested in is unrelentingly brutal.

Full nodes are very centralized, and they are solely run on the goodwill of people who are ideologically committed to the project.

In other words, your vaunted "backbone" of this entire thing is entirely non-economic.

It's running on charity.

mudcore wrote:
and the acknowledgement of this has been in the Bitcoin whitepaper from the start.


No, the SPV in the whitepaper explicitly involves downloading the full chain but only keeping the blockheaders. That is not what the SPV wallets you are referring to actually do, and as I've said, they all seem to rely on a centralized service for the utxos because the overall network has very few full nodes and most, if not all, of them don't properly provide the functionality necessary for ad hoc filter-based querying of their UTXOs.
 
mudcore
Gerbil
Posts: 49
Joined: Mon Sep 11, 2017 3:16 pm

Re: So who here is actually mining?

Tue Jan 30, 2018 11:15 am

Glorious, I do not see in the whitepaper where it is stated the SPV node must download the full block chain and then discard that data except the block headers. That doesn't seem the take away from the following:

A user only needs to keep a copy of the block headers of the longest proof-of-work chain, which he can get by querying network nodes until he's convinced he has the longest chain, and obtain the Merkle branch linking the transaction to the block it's timestamped in.


Likewise, I am not making a claim that it is now reasonable to do those daily transactions with Bitcoin at this present time (though I think your grocery store comment is misleading as the need to stay and wait for full verification isn't critically necessary for such transactions). I was talking about transactions I would consider reasonably performed given the security/privacy trade offs of using SPV. Likewise, I did not provide any evaluation of any existing wallets and their implementations, you seem to have done these evaluations but you're withholding from the public (or maybe you've posted your in depth work and can provide a link). And I specifically noted that there are centralized wallets and that I think using them can be a reasonable choice, but alas I know even saying this causes the "but that's NOT THE REAL THING" flare ups. (and I don't care)

Debunking your claim that one must download the full transaction history to get going is what I did, I not claim to provide an evaluation and analysis of every wallet out there or remotely seek to do that.

On the subject of full nodes... I have no choice but to consider other sources. Which generally point to the more full nodes the better, but nothing where the sky is falling because there's not enough currently. The size of the pool and the degree its decentralized seem to both be improving steadily with time. Plus there's quite a bit of effort in making run full nodes quicker, easier, cheaper, etc. But as is there seem to be sufficient enough, and not purely altruistic, reasons for many to run the nodes be it security reasons or the collective incentive to contribute to the network strength. (But hey, maybe you've got some blistering analysis that shows I'm dead wrong. I'm just a poor fool comparing different groups claims, after all)


I am fully aware that Bitcoin is not perfect. Or anywhere remotely close right now. What you seem completely unwilling to acknowledge is that people are willing to work with this current state and move towards better.
 
Glorious
Gold subscriber
Gerbilus Supremus
Posts: 11280
Joined: Tue Aug 27, 2002 6:35 pm

Re: So who here is actually mining?

Tue Jan 30, 2018 11:40 am

mudcore wrote:
Glorious, I do not see in the whitepaper where it is stated the SPV node must download the full block chain and then discard that data except the block headers. That doesn't seem the take away from the following:


How does one "keep a copy of the block headers" if one didn't originally have the full blocks?

mudcore wrote:
Likewise, I am not making a claim that it is now reasonable to do those daily transactions with Bitcoin at this present time (though I think your grocery store comment is misleading as the need to stay and wait for full verification isn't critically necessary for such transactions).


It is critically necessary for them to ensure that you actually paid them, of which they have zero certainty until at least one block confirmation. If they let you leave without that, they have no idea if you just robbed them or not.

Since the sole function of a grocery store is to provide groceries in return for payments, if the "payments" thing isn't such a good bet, I mean, you figure out the rest... :roll:

mudcore wrote:
Likewise, I did not provide any evaluation of any existing wallets and their implementations, you seem to have done these evaluations but you're withholding from the public (or maybe you've posted your in depth work and can provide a link). And I specifically noted that there are centralized wallets and that I think using them can be a reasonable choice, but alas I know even saying this causes the "but that's NOT THE REAL THING" flare ups. (and I don't care)


No, I understand your distinction between "web wallets" and "SPV wallets" and I fully agree they are technically distinct things. I was simply saying that, in practice, a SPV wallet isn't philosophically all that different because, in practice, they are relying on particular trusted nodes essentially hardcoded in those particular wallets.

I mean, I haven't done anything exhaustive, but I'm been following this space for years and years and that's my understanding. So, no, I'm not withholding anything, but if you want to suggest a particular SPV wallet I can certainly look into it. Maybe I'm wrong and there is one out there that really does generically try to use the network. I'm actually curious if there is, because I'm even more curious about how well that would work.

But, for instance, electrum's spv wallet doesn't make it easily obvious, but it connects to electrum servers.

mudcore wrote:
On the subject of full nodes... I have no choice but to consider other sources. Which generally point to the more full nodes the better, but nothing where the sky is falling because there's not enough currently. The size of the pool and the degree its decentralized seem to both be improving steadily with time. Plus there's quite a bit of effort in making run full nodes quicker, easier, cheaper, etc. But as is there seem to be sufficient enough, and not purely altruistic, reasons for many to run the nodes be it security reasons or the collective incentive to contribute to the network strength. (But hey, maybe you've got some blistering analysis that shows I'm dead wrong. I'm just a poor fool comparing different groups claims, after all)


You don't say anything meaningful in this entire paragraph.

I would ask this: What "other source" claims that there is a financial incentive to run a full node?

mudcore wrote:
I am fully aware that Bitcoin is not perfect. Or anywhere remotely close right now. What you seem completely unwilling to acknowledge is that people are willing to work with this current state and move towards better.


I acknowledge that you have faith they will make it better, but I am telling you that faith is ignorant and faulty.

Based on facts, arguments and analysis.

The people on your side continually just wave their hands and rely 100% on faith. :roll:

People "working" on something "better" is empty drivel: there are people "working" on perpetual motion machines that are "better". You are still an ignorant idiot if you think they are going to succeed.

Obviously bitcoin isn't quite at THAT level of ridiculousness, but I make the point to illustrate the principle that naively crediting people "working" on "better" without understanding the realities of what is being worked on and how it might become better is, well, broken & backwards thinking.
 
just brew it!
Gold subscriber
Administrator
Posts: 51850
Joined: Tue Aug 20, 2002 10:51 pm
Location: Somewhere, having a beer

Re: So who here is actually mining?

Tue Jan 30, 2018 11:47 am

mudcore wrote:
I am fully aware that Bitcoin is not perfect. Or anywhere remotely close right now. What you seem completely unwilling to acknowledge is that people are willing to work with this current state and move towards better.

I didn't get that impression at all. He's not claiming people aren't willing to do so; he just thinks they're nuts.
Nostalgia isn't what it used to be.
 
Glorious
Gold subscriber
Gerbilus Supremus
Posts: 11280
Joined: Tue Aug 27, 2002 6:35 pm

Re: So who here is actually mining?

Tue Jan 30, 2018 1:15 pm

It's on the bloomberg terminal ticker now: bitfinex/tether have been subpeona'd by the CFTC.

PAGING DR. PAUL
 
Captain Ned
Gold subscriber
Global Moderator
Posts: 27379
Joined: Wed Jan 16, 2002 7:00 pm
Location: Vermont, USA

Re: So who here is actually mining?

Tue Jan 30, 2018 1:24 pm

And the SEC is seizing the cryptocurrency assets/ill-gotten USD gains of AriseBank, a fake bank out of Dallas, which spun up a fraudulent ICO.

http://markets.businessinsider.com/news ... 1014571716
https://www.wsj.com/articles/sec-moves- ... 1517326284
Humans sleep soundly in their beds because rough cats stand ready in the night to visit violence on those who would do us harm.
 
just brew it!
Gold subscriber
Administrator
Posts: 51850
Joined: Tue Aug 20, 2002 10:51 pm
Location: Somewhere, having a beer

Re: So who here is actually mining?

Tue Jan 30, 2018 1:42 pm

Sounds like ArseBank and ArseCoin would've been better names for the company and their "product".
Nostalgia isn't what it used to be.
 
Glorious
Gold subscriber
Gerbilus Supremus
Posts: 11280
Joined: Tue Aug 27, 2002 6:35 pm

Re: So who here is actually mining?

Tue Jan 30, 2018 1:51 pm

Felonbank would be good too

(they didn't disclose that both named founders are felons--one of which is still on probation).

I mentioned this is in the other thread, but claiming that the regulators are on the precipice of approving the (always touted, never actually arriving :roll: ) "big money" flood is laughably backwards.

On the contrary, they're doing the regulatory equivalent of screaming "WE'RE COMING FOR YOU MUTHA*@!%!s" and the filings are coming out on a day-by-day basis now.

EDIT: Some of these filings are legendary. I mean, these ICO guys are blatantly lying about one easily verifiable thing after another, they're sunk. It's like dynamiting fish in a barrel.

Not surprising, it's gotten completely out of control: JUST YESTERDAY an ICO exit-scammed with millions by leaving just the word for male genitalia on their site.

Just google prodeum.

We're beyond surreal now.
Last edited by Glorious on Tue Jan 30, 2018 1:53 pm, edited 1 time in total.
 
derFunkenstein
Gold subscriber
Gerbil God
Posts: 24712
Joined: Fri Feb 21, 2003 9:13 pm
Location: Comin' to you directly from the Mothership

Re: So who here is actually mining?

Tue Jan 30, 2018 1:52 pm

I read that and thought you were talking about some weird NCAA football scandal.
I do not understand what I do. For what I want to do I do not do, but what I hate I do.
 
meerkt
Gerbil Elite
Posts: 988
Joined: Sun Aug 25, 2013 2:55 am

Re: So who here is actually mining?

Tue Jan 30, 2018 2:56 pm

Glorious wrote:
there are "users" of "crypto-currency" who aren't really using crypto-currency at all. You're letting someone else use it and then basically taking their word for it. Which, of course, means the using crypto-currency as unit of account is completely incidental & superfluous. It could have been anything, really.
Yeah, some people use it like any other payment system provider. I don't see a point in Coinbase or similar web wallets. On the other hand, SPV wallets aren't quite the same and do have some merit, so I can't fault people who use them.

The point is that crypto-currency is not even close to being ideal, despite all your pretensions to the contrary.
I never said it's ideal. I also use other non-ideal things like cash, credit cards, bank transfers, PayPal.

You aren't even using it!
That's news to me.

You must have really strange nightmares.
Different people have different uses, needs, priorities.

Glorious wrote:
How does one "keep a copy of the block headers" if one didn't originally have the full blocks?
getheaders. BTW, Bitcoin Core downloads headers first.
 
Glorious
Gold subscriber
Gerbilus Supremus
Posts: 11280
Joined: Tue Aug 27, 2002 6:35 pm

Re: So who here is actually mining?

Tue Jan 30, 2018 3:12 pm

meerkt wrote:
getheaders.


How do you use that to "keep" something that you didn't previously have?

I mean, if that was what the whitepaper meant, wouldn't it ACTUALLY say:

whitepaper wrote:
A user only needs to GET a copy of the block headers of the longest proof-of-work chain


But, no, it says:

whitepaper wrote:
A user only needs to KEEP a copy of the block headers of the longest proof-of-work chain


And, of course, getheaders wasn't even added until right after Satoshi left ~Dec 2010
 
Glorious
Gold subscriber
Gerbilus Supremus
Posts: 11280
Joined: Tue Aug 27, 2002 6:35 pm

Re: So who here is actually mining?

Tue Jan 30, 2018 3:16 pm

 
freebird
Gerbil
Posts: 82
Joined: Thu Aug 31, 2006 4:03 pm

Re: So who here is actually mining?

Tue Jan 30, 2018 3:40 pm

Glorious wrote:
https://www.recode.net/2018/1/30/16950926/facebook-mark-zuckerberg-bans-crypto-advertising-bitcoin-james-altucher

People are getting the message.


That's pretty funny... I went to the link of the article on Facebook banning Crypto adverts and there is an advertisement on the web page promoting "The next big Bit-coin"...
Image
 
Glorious
Gold subscriber
Gerbilus Supremus
Posts: 11280
Joined: Tue Aug 27, 2002 6:35 pm

Re: So who here is actually mining?

Tue Jan 30, 2018 3:49 pm

freebird wrote:
That's pretty funny... I went to the link of the article on Facebook banning Crypto adverts and there is an advertisement on the web page promoting "The next big Bit-coin"...


I'm hoping google does it too, I'm getting really tired of having Tai Lopez yell at me while he wanders around his empty and obviously rented house.
 
DancinJack
Maximum Gerbil
Posts: 4106
Joined: Sat Nov 25, 2006 3:21 pm
Location: Kansas

Re: So who here is actually mining?

Tue Jan 30, 2018 3:52 pm

Glorious wrote:
I'm hoping google does it too, I'm getting really tired of having Tai Lopez yell at me while he wanders around his empty and obviously rented house.

Yeah, that looks like am AMP page. If Google banned crypto ads on AMP pages and search results, that'd cut down on a ton of traffic. Here's to hoping.
i7 6700K - Z170 - 16GiB DDR4 - GTX 1080 - 512GB SSD - 256GB SSD - 500GB SSD - 3TB HDD- 27" IPS G-sync - Win10 Pro x64 - Ubuntu/Mint x64 :: 2015 13" rMBP Sierra :: Canon EOS 80D/Sony RX100
 
DancinJack
Maximum Gerbil
Posts: 4106
Joined: Sat Nov 25, 2006 3:21 pm
Location: Kansas

Re: So who here is actually mining?

Tue Jan 30, 2018 3:54 pm

freebird wrote:
That's pretty funny... I went to the link of the article on Facebook banning Crypto adverts and there is an advertisement on the web page promoting "The next big Bit-coin"...
[img url]https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/gvfSFG-trA6Q61bxGw8ZebW3ZDg=/400x0/filters:no_upscale()/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/10123885/IMG_1052.jpeg[img url]


Wait...that's not your image. That's the image from the Recode page. Did YOU see a crypto ad, or just grab the image from Recode?
i7 6700K - Z170 - 16GiB DDR4 - GTX 1080 - 512GB SSD - 256GB SSD - 500GB SSD - 3TB HDD- 27" IPS G-sync - Win10 Pro x64 - Ubuntu/Mint x64 :: 2015 13" rMBP Sierra :: Canon EOS 80D/Sony RX100
 
meerkt
Gerbil Elite
Posts: 988
Joined: Sun Aug 25, 2013 2:55 am

Re: So who here is actually mining?

Tue Jan 30, 2018 3:59 pm

Glorious wrote:
And, of course, getheaders wasn't even added until right after Satoshi left ~Dec 2010

I don't know what he had in mind when writing the original paper. Does it matter?

Since you seem to be a devout member of the the Church of Bitcoin, with the initial paper as your bible and Satoshi as your prophet... :)
It might have been implemented by Him, or at least with His implicit approval:

satoshi, November 28, 2010 wrote:
jgarzik, November 28, 2010 wrote:
Presumably at some point there will be a lightweight client that only downloads block headers
80 bytes per header and no indexing work. Might take 1 minute.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: just brew it! and 4 guests