Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Nota: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Nose porque, pero a mí me da que vamos a seguir bajando... mal augurio! jaja
habremos pasado la bear trap previa al nuevo estallido? en todos los anteriores hubo una similar 🙂)🙂)
Y si GHash.IO tiene ahora un 45%, ayer noche ví que alcanzaba un 49%, quién o qué les va a impedir alcanzar el 51% ?
A veces me da la sensación de que todos los eruditos de este foro no somos más que pececillos coleteando de aquí para allá, en diferentes versiones, unos salmonetes a contracorriente, tiburones, delfines y algún que otro besugo que se cree grumete.
Espero no haber herido los sentimientos de nadie, yo no soy más que plancton argumentando, acorazonado por la ballena Ghash. :vomito:
¿quien iba a querer hundir la red y el btc? Desde luego quien tiene el 51% del hash es el que tiene menos motivos para hacerlo.
De todas formas a mi lo del 51% siempre me ha parecido una chorrada, ¿quien iba a querer hundir la red y el btc? Desde luego quien tiene el 51% del hash es el que tiene menos motivos para hacerlo.
Pueden hacer muchas cosas sin necesidad de hundir la red. Por ejemplo transferirse los cientos de miles de bitcoins que parecen perdidos...
Pueden hacer muchas cosas sin necesidad de hundir la red. Por ejemplo transferirse los cientos de miles de bitcoins que parecen perdidos...
Pueden hacer muchas cosas sin necesidad de hundir la red. Por ejemplo transferirse los cientos de miles de bitcoins que parecen perdidos...
Edito: elemento se me ha adelantado.
Peter Todd, core developer de Bitcoin, anuncia que vende el 50% de sus bitcoins por el problema del 50% de GHash:
Tienes que estar registrado para ver este contenido
lo importante de ese enlace, aparte de que este hombre ha vendido a 650CAD, según él, es que es una discusión donde le están dando al coco para intentar resolver el problema.
Siempre se ha dicho que si la comunidad quería, podría cambiar el protocolo. Veremos si lo consiguen.
Lo que se me escapa es quién cambia el código de Bitcoin cuando se decide una modificación.
quién le da al botón de compilar esto
😛ienso:
GHash.IO shows that the economic incentives behind Bitcoin are probably very flawed, it might take a disaster to get the consensus to fix it, and if that happens I want to make sure I can pay my rent and buy food while we're fixing it.
I made a promise to myself a while back that I'd sell 50% of my bitcoins if a pool hit 50%, and it's peine. I've known for awhile now that the incentives Bitcoin is based on are flawed for many reasons and seeing a 50% pool even with only a few of those reasons mattering is worrying to say the least.
Where do we go from here? We need to do three things:
1) Eliminate pools.
2) Provide a way for miners to solo-mine with low varience and frequent mining payouts even with only small amounts of hashing power.
3) Get rid of ASICs.
Unfortunately #3 is probably impossible - there is no known way to make a PoW algorithm where an ASIC implementation isn't significantly less expensive on a marginal cost basis than an implementation on commodity hardware. Every way people have tried has the perverse effect of increasing the cost to make the first ASIC, which just further centralizes mining. Absent new ideas - ideas that will be from hardware engineers, not programmers - SHA256² is probably the best of many bad choices. (and no, PoS still stands for something other than 'stake')
We are however lucky that we have physics and (maybe) international relations on our side. It will always be cheaper to run a small amount of hashing power than a large amount, at least for some value of 'small' and 'large'. It's the cube-square law, as applied to heat dissipation: a small amount of mining equipment has a much larger surface area compared to a large amount, and requires much less effort per unit hashing power to keep cool. Additionally finding profitable things to do with small amounts of waste heat is easy and distributed all over the planet - heating houses, water tanks, greenhouses, etc. As for international relations, restricting access to chip fabrication facilities is a very touchy subject due to how it can make or break economies, and especially militaries. (but that's a hopeful view)
Solving problem #1 and getting rid of pools is probably possible - Andrew Miller came up with the idea of aTienes que estar registrado para ver este contenido. While tricky to implement, the basic idea is simple: make it possible for whomever finds the block to steal the reward, even after the fact, in a way that doesn't make it possible to prove any specific miner did it. Adding this protection to Bitcoin requires a hard-fork as described, though perhaps there's a similar idea that can be done as a soft-fork. Block withholding attacks - where miners simply don't submit valid solutions - could also achieve the same goal, although in a far uglier way.
Solving problem #2 and letting miners achieve low varience even with a small amount of hashing power is also possible - p2pool does it already, and tree chains would do it as a side effect. However p2pool is itself just another type of pool, so if non-outsourceable puzzles are implemented they'll need to be compatible. p2pool in its current form is also less then ideal - it does need a lot of bandwidth, and if you have lower latency than average you have a significant unfair advantage. But these are problems that (probably) can be fixed before adding it to the protocol. (this can be done in a soft-fork)
Do I still think Bitcoin will succeed in the long run? Yes, but I'm a lot less sure of it than I used to be. I'm also very skeptical that any of the above will be implemented without a clear failure of the system happening first - there's just too many people, miners, developers, merchants, etc. whose heads are in the sand, or even for that matter, actively making the problem worse. If that failure happens it's quite likely that the Bitcoin price will drop to essentially nothing - not a good way to start a few months of work fixing the problem when my expenses are denominated in Canadian dollars. I hope I'm on the wrong side of history here, but I'm a cautious guy and selling a significant chunk of bitcoins is just playing it safe; I'm not rich.
BTW If you owe me fiat and normally pay me via Bitcoin, for the next 2.5 weeks you can pay me based on the price I sold at, $650 CAD.
Teneis razon que no se pueden gastar los bitcoins sin firmar con la clave secreta, pero si alguien dominase la red, no podria cambiar toda la blockchain? Los mineros chequean la totalidad de los hashes? Alguien lo hace? Se pueden agregar nuevos bloques a una blockchain ilegitima?
Teneis razon que no se pueden gastar los bitcoins sin firmar con la clave secreta, pero si alguien dominase la red, no podria cambiar toda la blockchain?
Se pueden agregar nuevos bloques a una blockchain ilegitima?
Los mineros chequean la totalidad de los hashes? Alguien lo hace?
Para mi ahora mismo el valor de bitcoin es de 10$.
Una red en que se puede hacer doble gasto, no es una red segura.Y esto de que estoy tranquilo pq Ghash son buena gente, me lo paso por el pandero.
Apuesto a por caidas apocalipitcas en los proximos dias.
La abuela fuma.Ya se sabia, pero ahora la han pillado.