Bitcoin: We've reached the end of the postchain.

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Serious Hardware/Software Crap > YOSPOS > Bitcoin: We've reached the end of the postchain.

Hilbert Spaceship: Mar 15, 2007; If I was dyslexic I'd even hate dog too.

JadeRaven posted:

So you guys are just going to have to loving trust me on this one
http://www.goatse.cx/

You knew about this because goatse is your homepage, isn't it?

# ¿ Feb 8, 2014 02:59

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 18, 2024 14:26

Hilbert Spaceship: Mar 15, 2007; If I was dyslexic I'd even hate dog too.

logcharts

# ¿ Feb 14, 2014 08:36

Hilbert Spaceship: Mar 15, 2007; If I was dyslexic I'd even hate dog too.

quote:

This loving community (re: Gox) (self.Bitcoin)
submitted 5 hours ago* by SunriseSurprise
"C'mon everyone, ignore Gox! Remove Gox from all charts! Pretend it doesn't exist!"
No. That's not how this works. If someone in your small town gets robbed, you don't go "let's pretend this didn't happen so that our town will still be thought of as safe!"
Well hey, actually in real life that does happen. Politicians and governments everywhere - the exact people you hate and bitch about all the time in this community - do that sort of poo poo as a means of propaganda to make themselves seem better than they really are to everyone else.
This Gox situation is very real. Lots of people are losing a ton of money because of this. Moreover, they're losing their trust in bitcoin. The drop in price at Gox is EXACTLY what people are afraid of when they buy bitcoin, though the general thought is that it'd be more of a flash crash down to nothing, which is probably in Gox's future but it's been more of a slow death since people still have hope.
I'm seeing a lot of people that have absolutely no sympathy for those who are getting screwed - focusing entirely on either "yay Gox is dead" or "oh crap, don't let this affect my holdings at my other exchange or overall confidence in bitcoin", lots of the usual "this isn't BAD news it's GREAT news" that goes on here anytime actual bad news happens.
Don't ignore this, because I guarantee you people in the non-bitcoin world won't be. This is a microcosm of what many people feel will eventually happen to bitcoin, so trying to ignore this or sweep it under a rug is going to immediately alienate anyone who had any doubts about bitcoin after seeing this news.
Stop thinking of yourself for once in your life. There are a lot of people incredibly affected by this, and a massive amount more that are not affected by this but see this as a huge issue with bitcoin, that this sort of thing can happen and there's nothing anyone can do because no regulation. Care about those people and their concerns - don't ignore them. Unless you want to see your holdings torpedo regardless of where it is because confidence in bitcoin shoots down while you all have your heads in the sands worrying only about yourselves.

hey guys stop being libertarians, im losing money

# ¿ Feb 21, 2014 03:28

Hilbert Spaceship: Mar 15, 2007; If I was dyslexic I'd even hate dog too.

Greed is eternal posted:

welp my dad asked me about butts

my dads first email to me about bitcoin was asking me my opinion on it

his second was linking me mtgox crashing and laughing at bitcoiners

# ¿ Mar 17, 2014 01:15

Hilbert Spaceship: Mar 15, 2007; If I was dyslexic I'd even hate dog too.

flashback two months

http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/1uccfz/i_am_a_tax_attorney_here_are_my_answers_to_the/

quote:

#1: Are gains on Bitcoins taxable?
Yes. This is one of the only unequivocal answers you'll find in this post. All income is taxable, regardless of source or form, unless the Internal Revenue Code specifically states otherwise. Bitcoins present a lot of interesting tax questions, but whether gains are taxable is not one of them.
#2: When do my gains become taxable?*
Gains are taxable in the year they are realized. Realization occurs when you exchange bitcoins for any type of other property; such as cash, merchandise, or services. This includes everything from haircuts to yachts. Essentially, any transaction involving Bitcoin is a realization event and triggers taxable gain.
Because I've seen a lot of misinformation on this point, I want to make myself perfectly clear. If you own bitcoins that have appreciated in value, you cannot use them to purchase goods or services without realizing gain. Such a purchase is an accession to wealth. It puts you in the same position as if you had first sold the bitcoins for cash and then used the proceeds to purchase the goods or services directly. Yet, one would be a taxable transaction while the other would not? The IRS would never tolerate such a blatant loophole, and neither would the courts. In fact, this exact argument has already been rejected for other types of assets. The outcome for bitcoins will be the same.

[�]neotrippster 30 points 2 months ago
After reading all this, all I got was "paying taxes on bitcoins is too hard so just don't worry about it".

# ¿ Mar 26, 2014 05:04

Hilbert Spaceship: Mar 15, 2007; If I was dyslexic I'd even hate dog too.

theflyingorc posted:

ok, no question somebody is trying to prop up bitstamp

it's a lot less effective than when gox used to do it

like, the price is at 360, why would you buy 50 coins at 365?

its embarrassing seeing poo poo like this get posted honestly, it demonstrates that you don't know how to interpret the tracker.

an exchange maintains a list of buy and sell orders and allows users to create new buy and sell orders (along with other, more advanced things), but you have to buy bitcoins from someone and conversely you need to sell to someone. when a decent number of coins get moved, it will clear out a decent number of orders, in this case it clears out a decent number of sell orders, this leaves a margin between the books. now if someone sells 2500 bitcoins and drops the price from 350 to 330 and right after some dumb schmuck wants to buy himself a new bitcoin? the lowest buy order will be >350, and this idiot will need pay that if he wants his bitcoin right now. alternatively he could wait until new buy orders are posted in the margin and get it cheaper.

the number you're looking at is just the price paid in the most recent trade (actually, it's the price you would have to pay to buy MORE bitcoins after the most recent trade completed) and the behavior youre describing is just buttcoiners being stupid

# ¿ Apr 11, 2014 02:41

Hilbert Spaceship: Mar 15, 2007; If I was dyslexic I'd even hate dog too.

so the startup ive been at just died last week, in no small part to a bullshit artist ideas guy product manager who loved to go on about how many startups he's "been a part of". out to drinks on friday after everyone got the bad news and had to know so asked him if he owned any bitcoins

and immediately found myself dragged into a conversation about how china is going to buy all the bitcoins and merge them with the yuan and make them the new global currency or some poo poo. this poo poo is less funny (but only slightly) when these idiots start loving things up close to home.

# ¿ Apr 16, 2014 04:27

Hilbert Spaceship: Mar 15, 2007; If I was dyslexic I'd even hate dog too.

duTrieux. posted:

you should have hit him

im too civilized maybe

e; also has a huge hard on for nodejs

# ¿ Apr 16, 2014 04:30

Hilbert Spaceship: Mar 15, 2007; If I was dyslexic I'd even hate dog too.

way too much poop touching going on

# ¿ Apr 27, 2014 23:55

Hilbert Spaceship: Mar 15, 2007; If I was dyslexic I'd even hate dog too.

Thesoro posted:

don't do this, we tried it in seattle and some surveyor missed a six inch pipe so now the machine's broken and stuck for 18+ months

on the other hand it was digging a cars-only tunnel so maybe it was just karma

maybe also just karma when the viaduct straight up loving collapses because they never repaired the drat thing.

e: at least the new light rail plans look alright

seattle chat

Hilbert Spaceship fucked around with this message at 05:45 on May 25, 2014

# ¿ May 25, 2014 05:41

Hilbert Spaceship: Mar 15, 2007; If I was dyslexic I'd even hate dog too.

Adult Sword Owner posted:

its also amazing that the general feeling is "the poors will come flock to this and thank us for saving them so much time and giving them better nutrition"

and stuff like lentil soup is basically impossible to screw up and costs like 20c a meal and tastes pretty good

# ¿ May 31, 2014 22:58

Hilbert Spaceship: Mar 15, 2007; If I was dyslexic I'd even hate dog too.

Proteus4994 posted:

oh look a thing happened once

very few things count as an immediate disqualification for secret/top secret clearances, but lying during your interview is one of them, even about pot. it's a really stupid thing to do if you're trying to get clearance.

# ¿ Jun 5, 2014 03:26

Hilbert Spaceship: Mar 15, 2007; If I was dyslexic I'd even hate dog too.

nah theyre good, you gotta make them with mayonnaise though

# ¿ Jun 13, 2014 02:33

Hilbert Spaceship: Mar 15, 2007; If I was dyslexic I'd even hate dog too.

Nintendo Kid posted:

you don't actually gently caress over the other pool doing this.

the easiest thing to do is to simply not run ur are spare miners

not sure you're understanding this very well.

the hypothetical here is that ghash has a chunk of mining hardware that is being subsidized by mining contracts they sold, if they don't run that hardware, they still have to payout (in bitcoins) to whoever purchased the contract. additionally, they have an incentive to not put all of their mining power in their pool directly, because concern of them controlling 51%+ could/does cause customers to go to other pools (obviously not that many, but some).

solution? use them to mine in another pool, easy, but why not take it just a little bit further and get the extra small amount of benefit by collecting rewards from that pool without ever actually contributing a correct solution, even if you get one?

# ¿ Jun 14, 2014 01:24

Hilbert Spaceship: Mar 15, 2007; If I was dyslexic I'd even hate dog too.

i mean discarding the solutions isn't some master plan that's going to destroy the competition, but it would be marginally better than actually submitting them if indeed ghash is using extra mining power in other pools

# ¿ Jun 14, 2014 01:25

Hilbert Spaceship: Mar 15, 2007; If I was dyslexic I'd even hate dog too.

Nintendo Kid posted:

i understand it perfectly well, it simply doesn't work to cover the costs of running the hardware versus not running the hardware

all you can do is attempt to make the other guy lose a few hundred bucks while you burn thousands.

running mining equipment paid for by mining contracts is literally ghash's business model though

doing it in another pool and getting payouts proportional to their (substantial) hashing ability is not in any significant way different than running the hardware in their own pool. i dont understand why you think that running the hardware in a different pool would somehow drastically change their (apparently working) business model.

# ¿ Jun 14, 2014 01:44

Hilbert Spaceship: Mar 15, 2007; If I was dyslexic I'd even hate dog too.

Nintendo Kid posted:

they can just not run the equipment, and pocket the money. in fact they are likely already doing this.

and then where do the bitcoins that they pay back to the people who bought the contracts come from?

note, it would be pretty immediately obvious if they paid back those contracts with old bitcoins from somewhere

# ¿ Jun 14, 2014 01:49

Hilbert Spaceship: Mar 15, 2007; If I was dyslexic I'd even hate dog too.

so the hardware they run in their own pool provides the bitcoins they pay back to people who give them real money to buy the hardware, but it's more profitable for them to not run the hardware because...

you are not thinking this through

# ¿ Jun 14, 2014 01:50

Hilbert Spaceship: Mar 15, 2007; If I was dyslexic I'd even hate dog too.

i mean unless the pool fees are large enough to eat their profit margin on contracted mining (in addition to the effective % reduction in mining efficiency they would get from discarding full solutions), then as long as their normal operation is somehow profitable for them, then it does not make more sense to just buy the hardware and not use it while still having to pay back the people who contracted with them.

# ¿ Jun 14, 2014 01:54

Hilbert Spaceship: Mar 15, 2007; If I was dyslexic I'd even hate dog too.

Nintendo Kid posted:

this is why it doesnt make any sense to be "hiding hashing power", and especially not by joining other pools with sabotaged mining software that requires fisrt spending time and money to perfect.

the only reason to hide hashing power is if they're concerned about people getting nervous that they run ~50% of the network.

# ¿ Jun 14, 2014 02:02

Hilbert Spaceship: Mar 15, 2007; If I was dyslexic I'd even hate dog too.

Nintendo Kid posted:

so if they were doing this they wouldn't be trying to attack an actual pool by hacking the software to never return correct blocks

why do you think it would be so difficult to change your software to not return correct blocks?

you wouldnt even have to necessarily change the mining software, it could be done at a network level. if you're running a full datacenter, youre very likely to have network appliances where you could write traffic rules to drop results matching a certain pattern. this is not more than a day or two worth of work for a reasonably clever person to do.

# ¿ Jun 14, 2014 02:20

Hilbert Spaceship: Mar 15, 2007; If I was dyslexic I'd even hate dog too.

Nintendo Kid posted:

please explain how you would do this and test it.

i'd probably use an irule on one of the viprions i work with and point the pool miners at that to act as a laodbalancer/traffic filter for the pool management server that they return solutions to. snort rules could also handle it quite easily, or really any proxy software at all. the point being that since the communication protocol of the miner software is known and it's really trivially easy to spot a "full solution", blocking the reporting of them is really easy.

# ¿ Jun 14, 2014 02:27

Hilbert Spaceship: Mar 15, 2007; If I was dyslexic I'd even hate dog too.

Nintendo Kid posted:

except testing this first requires actually getting a successful hash, which even with a full up data center is going to take a very long time,

or using a previously solved one and making sure your regular expression isnt hosed

also ghash solves a block every 10-15 minutes or so

# ¿ Jun 14, 2014 02:30

Hilbert Spaceship: Mar 15, 2007; If I was dyslexic I'd even hate dog too.

if ghash is actually doing this against another pool, it's likely because someone(s) who works there just "knows" that this is a more effective use of their power than solo mining in an unknown pool because... it's clear that bitcoiners are stupid and believe stupid things like

quote:

[�]dcc4e 14 points 3 hours ago
While that would help, selfish mining or also known as a block withholding attack leverages hash power more effectively against a malicious pool. An attack of this nature will lower the payout and incentivize miners to look elsewhere. As miners leave the attack becomes even more effective as the payout will lower even further.
This leverages hash power more effectively because a smaller amount of hash power could get a larger amount of hash power to leave a malicious pool.

Nintendo Kid posted:

you will not do this successfully, and this assumes you are even putting the miners in a facility that allows doing this.

you really have no idea what you're talking about and should probably just stop

# ¿ Jun 14, 2014 02:34

Hilbert Spaceship: Mar 15, 2007; If I was dyslexic I'd even hate dog too.

betalarmannen posted:

Fakemining is also a way to convert hashing power to bitcoins without increasing the network difficulty, as it doesn't increase the number of blocks mined, so it might make sense for a part of huge hardware farm.

this is actually a pretty fascinating point, and it's a little too late right now for me to try and work through the implications but i'm pretty sure it means that a large pool like ghash would make optimal returns over the short to medium term by sabotaging other pools (if they were to fake mine with a substantial portion of the other pools total output they would tank payout rates, proportionally to the hashing power they contribute compared to the rest of the pool), effectively taking money from a competitor (twice, if their customers wind up moving to ghash) while also not-contributing to raising difficulty.

# ¿ Jun 14, 2014 09:29