Bitcoin Blockchain Crypto Surface
Now ... Eight Megabytes And Constantly Swapping Things just got tougher for little miners. http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-40800270 -- Russell Sent by K-9 Mail
It's "up to" 8MB. The first block was about 2MB and the rest have been much much smaller: https://cash.coin.dance/blocks#blockDetails On 2 August 2017 at 09:11, Russell via talk <talk@gtalug.org> wrote:
Now ... Eight Megabytes And Constantly Swapping
Things just got tougher for little miners.
http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-40800270
-- Russell Sent by K-9 Mail --- Talk Mailing List talk@gtalug.org https://gtalug.org/mailman/listinfo/talk
On August 2, 2017 9:17:21 AM EDT, Tim Tisdall <tisdall@gmail.com> wrote:
It's "up to" 8MB. The first block was about 2MB and the rest have been much much smaller: https://cash.coin.dance/blocks#blockDetails
On 2 August 2017 at 09:11, Russell via talk <talk@gtalug.org> wrote:
Now ... Eight Megabytes And Constantly Swapping
Things just got tougher for little miners.
http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-40800270
-- Russell Sent by K-9 Mail --- Talk Mailing List talk@gtalug.org https://gtalug.org/mailman/listinfo/talk
Just wait a while. It will take time for EMACS pinky to set in. Kitson was recently announced to be the last of Itanium hardware, it looks like the blockchain world is sizing up as a battle of the cuda cores. https://www.google.ca/amp/www.pcworld.com/article/3169623/components-process... I wonder if you would call Itanium an EPIC fail or just a bump in the VLIW hiway? -- Russell Sent by K-9 Mail
Uh... ... did you just have a stroke? Or is EMACS Pinky, Itanium and Bitcoin Cash all related in some way I'm not aware of? On 2 August 2017 at 10:03, Russell <rreiter91@gmail.com> wrote:
On August 2, 2017 9:17:21 AM EDT, Tim Tisdall <tisdall@gmail.com> wrote:
It's "up to" 8MB. The first block was about 2MB and the rest have been much much smaller: https://cash.coin.dance/blocks#blockDetails
On 2 August 2017 at 09:11, Russell via talk <talk@gtalug.org> wrote:
Now ... Eight Megabytes And Constantly Swapping
Things just got tougher for little miners.
http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-40800270
-- Russell Sent by K-9 Mail --- Talk Mailing List talk@gtalug.org https://gtalug.org/mailman/listinfo/talk
Just wait a while. It will take time for EMACS pinky to set in.
Kitson was recently announced to be the last of Itanium hardware, it looks like the blockchain world is sizing up as a battle of the cuda cores.
https://www.google.ca/amp/www.pcworld.com/article/3169623/ components-processors/intel-ships-latest-itanium-chip- called-kittson-but-grim-future-looms.amp.html
I wonder if you would call Itanium an EPIC fail or just a bump in the VLIW hiway? -- Russell Sent by K-9 Mail
On August 2, 2017 10:20:15 AM EDT, Tim Tisdall <tisdall@gmail.com> wrote:
Uh... ... did you just have a stroke? Or is EMACS Pinky, Itanium and Bitcoin Cash all related in some way I'm not aware of?
On 2 August 2017 at 10:03, Russell <rreiter91@gmail.com> wrote:
On August 2, 2017 9:17:21 AM EDT, Tim Tisdall <tisdall@gmail.com> wrote:
It's "up to" 8MB. The first block was about 2MB and the rest have been much much smaller: https://cash.coin.dance/blocks#blockDetails
On 2 August 2017 at 09:11, Russell via talk <talk@gtalug.org> wrote:
Now ... Eight Megabytes And Constantly Swapping
Things just got tougher for little miners.
http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-40800270
-- Russell Sent by K-9 Mail --- Talk Mailing List talk@gtalug.org https://gtalug.org/mailman/listinfo/talk
Just wait a while. It will take time for EMACS pinky to set in.
Kitson was recently announced to be the last of Itanium hardware, it looks like the blockchain world is sizing up as a battle of the cuda cores.
https://www.google.ca/amp/www.pcworld.com/article/3169623/ components-processors/intel-ships-latest-itanium-chip- called-kittson-but-grim-future-looms.amp.html
I wonder if you would call Itanium an EPIC fail or just a bump in the VLIW hiway? -- Russell Sent by K-9 Mail
No I didn't have a stroke and yes they are all related in a way you are not aware of. Thats pretty obvious. This is a social list with technical commentary related to Linux. Mine were all sociatal comments regarding the evolution of computing tools and concurrency in technical environments with hardware which is running a linux kernel. Can't you just ask the question without the insulting rhetoric? It makes for a nicer environment. -- Russell Sent by K-9 Mail
Sorry.. I was just so completely confused (and still am) as to how everything related. I didn't mean to insult. On 2 August 2017 at 10:39, Russell <rreiter91@gmail.com> wrote:
On August 2, 2017 10:20:15 AM EDT, Tim Tisdall <tisdall@gmail.com> wrote:
Uh... ... did you just have a stroke? Or is EMACS Pinky, Itanium and Bitcoin Cash all related in some way I'm not aware of?
On 2 August 2017 at 10:03, Russell <rreiter91@gmail.com> wrote:
On August 2, 2017 9:17:21 AM EDT, Tim Tisdall <tisdall@gmail.com> wrote:
It's "up to" 8MB. The first block was about 2MB and the rest have been much much smaller: https://cash.coin.dance/blocks#blockDetails
On 2 August 2017 at 09:11, Russell via talk <talk@gtalug.org> wrote:
Now ... Eight Megabytes And Constantly Swapping
Things just got tougher for little miners.
http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-40800270
-- Russell Sent by K-9 Mail --- Talk Mailing List talk@gtalug.org https://gtalug.org/mailman/listinfo/talk
Just wait a while. It will take time for EMACS pinky to set in.
Kitson was recently announced to be the last of Itanium hardware, it looks like the blockchain world is sizing up as a battle of the cuda cores.
https://www.google.ca/amp/www.pcworld.com/article/3169623/ components-processors/intel-ships-latest-itanium-chip- called-kittson-but-grim-future-looms.amp.html
I wonder if you would call Itanium an EPIC fail or just a bump in the VLIW hiway? -- Russell Sent by K-9 Mail
No I didn't have a stroke and yes they are all related in a way you are not aware of. Thats pretty obvious.
This is a social list with technical commentary related to Linux. Mine were all sociatal comments regarding the evolution of computing tools and concurrency in technical environments with hardware which is running a linux kernel.
Can't you just ask the question without the insulting rhetoric? It makes for a nicer environment. -- Russell Sent by K-9 Mail
On August 2, 2017 11:10:20 AM EDT, Tim Tisdall <tisdall@gmail.com> wrote:
Sorry.. I was just so completely confused (and still am) as to how everything related. I didn't mean to insult. On 2 August 2017 at 10:39, Russell <rreiter91@gmail.com> wrote:
On August 2, 2017 10:20:15 AM EDT, Tim Tisdall <tisdall@gmail.com> wrote: <snip> Russell Sent by K-9 Mail
So much for my attempt to convey a point using hacker humor. I'll try and UN-muddy the water a bit. Eight megabytes and constantly swapping, is the pet name which kind of describes the love hate relationship code writers have with emacs. Has to do with all that memory bloat, which in fact reflects its best feature; all those endless lisp hooks. In fact so many hooks that it could almost be described as an operating system in its own right. The rest about Itanium is wondering if IBM's EPIC & VLIW are being fully displaced by CUDA & OpenCl as a dominant authority in instruction level parallelisim. -- Russell Sent by K-9 Mail
On 02/08/2017 09:17 AM, Tim Tisdall via talk wrote:
It's "up to" 8MB. The first block was about 2MB and the rest have been much much smaller: https://cash.coin.dance/blocks#blockDetails
Not only that the time between blocks is very long (hours), but every 6 blocks the mining difficulty is adjusted. The target is to have Bitcoin cash blocks mined approximately every 10 minutes as with Bitcoin. Initially then, the blocks will be even smaller.
On Wed, Aug 02, 2017 at 12:54:05PM -0400, Scott Frederick via talk wrote:
On 02/08/2017 09:17 AM, Tim Tisdall via talk wrote:
It's "up to" 8MB. The first block was about 2MB and the rest have been much much smaller: https://cash.coin.dance/blocks#blockDetails
Not only that the time between blocks is very long (hours), but every 6 blocks the mining difficulty is adjusted. The target is to have Bitcoin cash blocks mined approximately every 10 minutes as with Bitcoin. Initially then, the blocks will be even smaller.
Hmm, seems while block 478559 was 2MB, then some smaller ones, 478571 was 4.6MB, so even larger. No idea what that means though. -- Len Sorensen
On August 2, 2017 2:54:32 PM EDT, Lennart Sorensen via talk <talk@gtalug.org> wrote:
On Wed, Aug 02, 2017 at 12:54:05PM -0400, Scott Frederick via talk wrote:
On 02/08/2017 09:17 AM, Tim Tisdall via talk wrote:
It's "up to" 8MB. The first block was about 2MB and the rest have been much much smaller: https://cash.coin.dance/blocks#blockDetails
Not only that the time between blocks is very long (hours), but every 6 blocks the mining difficulty is adjusted. The target is to have Bitcoin cash blocks mined approximately every 10 minutes as with Bitcoin. Initially then, the blocks will be even smaller.
Hmm, seems while block 478559 was 2MB, then some smaller ones, 478571 was 4.6MB, so even larger.
No idea what that means though.
Larger blocks mean lower fee percentages for miners. A miner has to be in consensus with other miners on the profitability of crunching the numbers on a block of any given size. https://medium.com/@johnblocke/a-brief-and-incomplete-history-of-censorship-...
-- Len Sorensen --- Talk Mailing List talk@gtalug.org https://gtalug.org/mailman/listinfo/talk
-- Russell Sent by K-9 Mail
On Wed, Aug 02, 2017 at 03:46:57PM -0400, Russell wrote:
On August 2, 2017 2:54:32 PM EDT, Lennart Sorensen via talk <talk@gtalug.org> wrote:
On Wed, Aug 02, 2017 at 12:54:05PM -0400, Scott Frederick via talk wrote:
On 02/08/2017 09:17 AM, Tim Tisdall via talk wrote:
It's "up to" 8MB. The first block was about 2MB and the rest have been much much smaller: https://cash.coin.dance/blocks#blockDetails
Not only that the time between blocks is very long (hours), but every 6 blocks the mining difficulty is adjusted. The target is to have Bitcoin cash blocks mined approximately every 10 minutes as with Bitcoin. Initially then, the blocks will be even smaller.
Hmm, seems while block 478559 was 2MB, then some smaller ones, 478571 was 4.6MB, so even larger.
No idea what that means though.
Larger blocks mean lower fee percentages for miners. A miner has to be in consensus with other miners on the profitability of crunching the numbers on a block of any given size.
https://medium.com/@johnblocke/a-brief-and-incomplete-history-of-censorship-...
OK, I had understood that part. That seems to be the reason for the fork. I just don't know why there was one huge block among a lot of smaller ones. I suppose maybe a lot of stuff just happened in that period. I don't pay much attention to the crypto currencies. (Not nothing, just not much). -- Len Sorensen
On August 2, 2017 4:12:17 PM EDT, lsorense@csclub.uwaterloo.ca wrote:
On Wed, Aug 02, 2017 at 03:46:57PM -0400, Russell wrote:
On August 2, 2017 2:54:32 PM EDT, Lennart Sorensen via talk <talk@gtalug.org> wrote:
On Wed, Aug 02, 2017 at 12:54:05PM -0400, Scott Frederick via talk wrote:
On 02/08/2017 09:17 AM, Tim Tisdall via talk wrote:
It's "up to" 8MB. The first block was about 2MB and the rest have been much much smaller: https://cash.coin.dance/blocks#blockDetails
Not only that the time between blocks is very long (hours), but every 6 blocks the mining difficulty is adjusted. The target is to have Bitcoin cash blocks mined approximately every 10 minutes as with Bitcoin. Initially then, the blocks will be even smaller.
Hmm, seems while block 478559 was 2MB, then some smaller ones, 478571 was 4.6MB, so even larger.
No idea what that means though.
Larger blocks mean lower fee percentages for miners. A miner has to be in consensus with other miners on the profitability of crunching the numbers on a block of any given size.
https://medium.com/@johnblocke/a-brief-and-incomplete-history-of-censorship-...
OK, I had understood that part. That seems to be the reason for the fork.
I just don't know why there was one huge block among a lot of smaller ones.
Testing perhaps? Everyone has to make money while testing this concept.
I suppose maybe a lot of stuff just happened in that period.
Well some of the issues are related to the speed of the net itself. Remember all the Forex fuss with timed trades, ordinary users were ddos'd out of play and couldnt buy in. The network was actually slowed by spam at trade time. I'm not exactly sure what a bad seed block is exactly, but it could be one which slows the chain compile down.
I don't pay much attention to the crypto currencies. (Not nothing, just not much).
I'm more interested in processing cartography myself, but what are the big miners running? Can you trust a gamer who is also a miner running OpenCL on Nvidia in spare cycles for building your blockchain? Can a gpu cluster even really compete with a cpu cluster in thruput? With a two mb limit the little players can at least grab a bit of the field. At eight mb I think economy of scale kicks in. I read a couple of years ago about some miners failing because the power costs outweighed the revenues. Fascinating tech, but who really needs another fiat currency; digital or otherwise. -- Russell Sent by K-9 Mail
On 02/08/2017 09:11 AM, Russell via talk wrote:
Now ... Eight Megabytes And Constantly Swapping
Things just got tougher for little miners.
http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-40800270
From the linked article:
"A market seems to be emerging for Bitcoin Cash that looks to be relatively robust," he told the BBC.
There is hardly a "Robust" market in Bitcoin Cash. The only BCH being traded is coin that was split from Bitcoin that was being stored on currency exchanges, a relativly small amount as many traders pulled their coin off exchanges pending the split. Most Bitcoin (and Bitcoin Cash) is held in private wallets. There won't be true price discovery until exchanges begin accepting BCH deposits and set up trading pairs.
On 2017-08-02 09:11 AM, Russell via talk wrote:
Things just got tougher for little miners.
Yet another crypto currency. Just what the world needs. :P -- Cheers! Kevin. http://www.ve3syb.ca/ |"Nerds make the shiny things that distract Owner of Elecraft K2 #2172 | the mouth-breathers, and that's why we're | powerful!" #include <disclaimer/favourite> | --Chris Hardwick
participants (5)
-
Kevin Cozens -
lsorense＠csclub.uwaterloo.ca -
Russell -
Scott Frederick -
Tim Tisdall