flashdance

9 ms·

61.
by flashdance 9y ago
Askscience isn't that bad, either!
62.
by flashdance 9y ago
http://reddit.com/r/askhistorians is a favourite of mine!
63.
by flashdance 9y ago
Fun fact incoming: there is a mini-magnetosphere centered around Mare Crisium on the Moon. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2009GL041721/abst... It's only 360km across though...
64.
by flashdance 9y ago
Probably pretty good because it comes with GNOME
65.
by flashdance 9y ago
Hashnest is a similar service run by bitmain. > Hashnest is a cloud hashing platform. This means you can participate in bitcoin mining without maintaining the hardware yourself.
66.
by flashdance 9y ago
Thanks for being curious. I scraped around to find some numbers to back up my wild claim--I think I did a fairly decent job of it. I do warn you--my numbers are pretty rough. Blockchain.info claims to be the most popular web wallet with 10M
67.
by flashdance 9y ago
> Unless they use an exchange (which would functionally be a bank), they’d need an expensive computer and a reliable Internet connection to hold and update 120 gigabytes of blockchain. Some of your points are well thought out, but I coul
68.
by flashdance 9y ago
I should have read that before agreeing to it... Well, I better get prepped to fight the Estatis Inc. Retaliatory Creature to retain full ownership of my soul. Thanks for the heads up.
69.
by flashdance 9y ago
Not a lawyer, of course, but IIRC Canada has something similar to the fifth amendment in the charter of rights and freedoms. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_silence
70.
by flashdance 9y ago
That's a fair point.
71.
by flashdance 9y ago
> makes orphaned blocks more likely, which means that the probability of losing a block that you already successfully mined is increased A higher orphan rate won't reduce miner profitability. Since everyone would experience the orph
72.
by flashdance 9y ago
I've heard that it's roughly 1%. It probably isn't too high because: 1) The main chain's rate of block generation has not dropped substantially. Of course, it's hard to tell in such a short timeframe, but at least a
73.
by flashdance 9y ago
IIRC, if a miner includes an invalid sighash into a block it will be rejected by regular bitcoin nodes. Ya gotta follow the spec.
74.
by flashdance 9y ago
If you're curious why this guy is being indicted in California in the first place, IIRC it appears that he laundered some of his money at the now-defunct San Francisco based exchange Tradehill. As well, BTC-E did business with American
75.
by flashdance 9y ago
That link is giving me problems. > Secure Connection Failed > The connection to the server was reset while the page was loading. > The page you are trying to view cannot be shown because the authenticity of the received data could
76.
by flashdance 9y ago
> He's right. The Core-versus-the-world battle is far from over. Proposals from the core development team have widespread support from businesses and exchanges [1]. Saying it's bitcoin core versus the world is a tad bit hyperbo
77.
by flashdance 9y ago
> You don't need to do any of this to secure the network though. Not doing those things actually weakens the network. If most users operated a node like the one you described, there would be several negative effects on the overall n
78.
by flashdance 9y ago
There's no need for lightning on litecoin because litecoin has very few users.
79.
by flashdance 9y ago
> Furthermore ~400GB per year is not particularly insane, you can get a 6TB drive for less than $200 and that'll be enough to store more than 15 years worth of blockchain. > As for bandwidth it amounts to less than 14kB/s on
80.
by flashdance 9y ago
>That's true - but then the potential split would be between segwit and segwit2x and not whether or not segwit is activated, would it? Yep, you're 100% right. Thanks for being interested, haha.
81.
by flashdance 9y ago
Super late response, but... > So by the time the 2x fork comes up, the segwit-enabled chain will already be in use for several months. Correct. But there's an asterisk here: most people (78%) are running bitcoin core, some run Core&
82.
by flashdance 9y ago
> Maybe I'm misinformed, but aren't SegWit (without 2x) blocks backwards compatible? You're correct. However, I'm fairly sure OP was talking about Segwit (with 2x). If most users/exchanges/services don'
83.
by flashdance 9y ago
Not maybe, definitely. A first-gen pi can mine at 200KH/s [1], and a 3rd gen pi is roughly 10x faster in cpu tests [2]. At 2 MH/s per pi, times 7 billion people, you get a paltry 14 petahashes/s. That's a hair over 0.2%
84.
by flashdance 9y ago
Oh, I see what you mean now! The block propagation delay that larger/faster blocks would cause could allow attackers to double spend with less than 50% of the network because the blocks of honest miners will be occasionally orphaned wh
85.
by flashdance 9y ago
You can't bribe your way into 30 megawatts of power. The biggest mining operations have legal partnerships with local and national governments.[1] As well, Russia isn't a major place for bitcoin mining: instead, mining is mostly c
86.
by flashdance 9y ago
I used to track where large bitcoin mines were. Mostly they're concentrated around cheap hydroelectricity, with major mines in Labrador (2c/kwh), Central China (varies, but <4c/kwh), and Georgia (unknown, bitfury likely ha
87.
by flashdance 9y ago
> it's probably too cold in winter to not have any interior climate control Trust me, these miners put off enough heat that it's not an issue.
88.
by flashdance 9y ago
> If block creation intervals were lower it would compromise the security of the system and enable attacks with much less than 50% of the hash power. Not really. The odds of an attacker successfully generating a double-spending block rem
89.
by flashdance 9y ago
Oh, neat! Thanks.
90.
by flashdance 9y ago
I replied to you in an edit to my post... I don't really know what was going on but when I first saw your comment there was no reply button. Is that something that's normal on this site?

More ›