Affordable, Comprehensive, Easy to Use Bitcoin ATM Kiosk
For the past year, CoinOutlet has been working towards the goal of an easy to use, easy to configure, easy to afford, and easy to own crypto coin ATM. The CoinOutlet ATM realizes the culmination of that goal. By combining a durable and secure cabinet with state-of-the-art peripherals and software, CoinOutlet has earned a unique place in the Bitcoin ATM space.
Quark is a decentralized digital monetary system. It facilitates sending Quarks to Friends, Family Members Online Payments free of charges and charge-backs. Military Grade Encryption. No Bank or Government Control. Quark coins are based on the original idea of Bitcoin but improved, more secure, faster transaction times and zero fees. With improvements to design and security. There is also a greater coin supply with higher block rewards for miners. Quark is fully Open Source.
More Comedy GODL in r/Bitcoin: "Finally got my father, a factory owner, into bitcoin mining and guess who’s getting all the money. Me. My idea my money \_😎_/" ... and proceeds to fight with r/Bitcoiners, calls them "bitch niggaz", and claims "Electricity is free in my country" 🤣🤣🤣
08-08 16:15 - 'u/bashco \- this user is a scammer. / Messaged me on reddit's chat feature to "share some ideas" with me. The usual preamble which always results in a link to a scam exchange or mining venture.' by /u/Ok_Zookeepergame1967 removed from /r/Bitcoin within 0-7min
09-20 16:25 - 'dumb idea to pay 4 usd in fees for a 2 usd drink... use monero, im sorry, but its just superior. 1-5 cents fee per transaction, fully private, softcapped so it wont die after last one is mined' by /u/cerpadlo removed from /r/Bitcoin within 37-47min
Bitcoin mining with cooler and leave by the balcony, good idea?
Leaving Bitcoin with cooler, good idea to leave by the balcony? I'm afraid of condensation. If everything is cool then that's good but someone mentioned how if it shutdown and then start could be a problem, if that's the case then what is the solution? I hope I can leave it by the balcony with a cooler that has both holes. So rain and snow will not go through also I have a filter that will protect against dust and insect, but condensation is what I am afraid of, please someone let me know. Thanks,
Debunking the Idea that Bitcoin Mining is going to "eat the world" in terms of energy consumption
Hi Folks of Bitcoin! This week on The Local Maximum, I decided to go through a simple analysis of the idea that energy use from Bitcoin Mining is going to be a problem: Episode 83 - Bitcoin Energy Alarmists, Musk and Ma in Different AI Universes, and Gab picks a fight https://www.localmaxradio.com/episode/83 The basic approach is the assumption that miners are chasing after the block rewards, and therefore won't spend more than what they expect the block reward to be worth. Since we know the block rewards with close-to-certainty into the future, and we can make a very generous assumption about the price of bitcoin, we can figure out how much miners would be willing to spend in the future. I believe that in practice they will spend much less, and only a fraction of those resources will be used for energy consumption.
Moloch seems a perfect storm of smart guy dumbness. A DAO, inspired by Slatestarcodex/LessWrong ideas - the same source of "invent from scratch" bad thinking that led to Vitalik's quantum bitcoin mining foolishness.
Here's the general idea: once hideouts are implemented into the game, PMCs can collect power cords, CPUs, PSUs, graphics cards and circuit boards in a given quantity (1 cord, 1 CPU, 1 PSU, 2-3 graphics cards, 2 circuit boards per machine) to build networks or PCs to mine for bitcoins in game. The mining rate might have to be randomized or perhaps just really slow mining rate to keep people from building 10 machines and subsequently never having to raid again. This could bring a fun tech element to the hideout game, besides building more rooms and food/water storage. Anyway, it's an idea. Prolly Planned™ but if not, maybe some hype could get it on the dev's minds.
08-03 21:56 - 'I see Bitcoin as the first implementation of a great idea. The energy consuming mining process is not a problem of every cryptocurrency in existence. I'm a fan of Nano, which is very green (the entire network at maximum...' by /u/barrybario removed from /r/belgium within 1562-1572min
''' I see Bitcoin as the first implementation of a great idea. The energy consuming mining process is not a problem of every cryptocurrency in existence. I'm a fan of Nano, which is very green (the entire network at maximum theoretical capacity could be powered by a single 3MW wind turbine), it's extremely fast and has no fees ''' Context Link Go1dfish undelete link unreddit undelete link Author: barrybario
Mining is how you vote for rule changes. Greg's comments on BU revealed he has no idea how Bitcoin works. He thought "honest" meant "plays by Core rules." [But] there is no "honesty" involved. There is only the assumption that the majority of miners are INTELLIGENTLY PROFIT-SEEKING. - ForkiusMaximus
The title of this post is a compressed summary combining some important quotes from several recent comments by u/ForkiusMaximus, which I thought were worth highlighting here in a post of their own. His comments remind us that Bitcoin was already brilliantly designed by Satoshi so that the majority of "honest""intelligently profit-seeking" miners will always be economically incentivized to use their hashpower to vote for the rule changes which will maximize their (and everyone else's) Bitcoin profits - and they will always do this regardless of any censorship or centralized dev teams. Meanwhile, Core/Blockstream (and their supporters) totally fail to understand this subtle but vital point: they think that devs somehow control Bitcoin, by forcing people to run certain code... or moderators somehow control Bitcoin, by censoring certain forums... or now non-mining nodes can somehow control Bitcoin by suggesting a futile and pointless "user-activated soft-fork" (UASF) - ie a fork not supported by actual mining hashpower. This all shows that Core/Blockstream (and their supporters) have a fundamental misunderstanding of the most important aspect of Bitcoin - the fact that:
Bitcoin is controlled by not by devs... or censors... or non-mining nodes.
Bitcoin is controlled by the economic incentives designed by Satoshi, where the vast majority of "honest" "intelligently profit-seeking" miners will always use their hashpower to vote for the rules which will maximize their Bitcoin profits (and our Bitcoin profits as well :-).
This is why the 21 million coin cap will never get increased. And this is why blocksizes will always continue to moderately increase. Not because some dev team made it "hard" to modify these settings in the code. And not because some moderator censored some discussion about some alternative clients. The reason Bitcoin works is simply because the vast majority of miners are "honest" "intelligently profit-seeking". This is why mining support for Core/Blockstream's centrally-planned blocksize has dropped to 2/3 of network hashpower (despite their big team of "experts" and all their censorship and fiat funding). And this is why 1/3 of mining hashpower has already started voting for some form of market-driven blocksizes... ... not because BU or Classic suddenly "gave" them this power (after all, they always had this power themselves)... ... but simply because the vast majority of miners are "honest" "intelligently profit-seeking", and they know that bigger blocks will bring higher profits. So, miners have always been able to use their hashpower (and even modify the Bitcoin client source code if they wanted) in order to vote for rule changes which would support bigger blocksizes and higher Bitcoin profits for everyone - with or without any help from BU, Classic, etc. - and there is nothing that any dev team (or any censored forum) can do to prevent miners from doing this. So it is inevitable that miners will use their hashpower to vote for bigger blocksizes, because this means much higher Bitcoin profits for them (and also bigger Bitcoin profits for the rest of us :-)... simply because (as Satoshi clearly did understand, but most Core/Blockstream devs clearly do not understand):
The vast majority of miners are "honest" "intelligently profit-seeking".
We don't have to trust [miners] to be "honest" as Satoshi unfortunately worded it. Replace the term honest with "intelligently profit-seeking." Bitcoin assumes miners are intelligently profit-seeking, meaning that they have a decent enough read on what the ecosystem wants that they can and will make any necessary changes to please the ecosystem and thus boost their own bottom line. Greg's recent comments on BU totally discredited him, as he revealed himself to have no friggin' idea how Bitcoin works. He actually thought "honest" meant something like "plays by Core rules." That's a completely broken understanding of Bitcoin, and implies centralization. It's the kind of misconception I'd expect from a run-of-the-mill nobody on a forum, not from the mighty leader of Core/BS. I'm kinda pissed I wasted mental clock ticks trying to debate this guy without realizing he has not just a flawed understanding, but zero understanding of how Bitcoin works at all. And of course all his supporters parrot his nonsense view of how Bitcoin supposedly works.
Mining control is the key invention of Bitcoin. It's how it doesn't just devolve into yet another failed subjective monetary scheme. If you don't like it, you should figure out another scheme. Perhaps proof of stake is more your thing? Also, it's pretty amazing that you think just because BU makes it more convenient for miners to do what they always could do, that that somehow dooms Bitcoin. If that dooms it, it was already a dead man walking. How do you propose to stop miners from altering their own blocksize settings? If you have no answer, you have no grounds to attack BU without falling into the category of being a Bitcoin skeptic.
It's actually fairly subtle: mining IS how you vote for rule changes, BUT miners have every incentive to vote with the market, so they DON'T have any meaningful ability to push rules on the community (even under BU). There is no trust or "honesty" involved, as Satoshi unfortunately worded it. There is only the underlying assumption that makes Bitcoin work: the assumption that the vast majority of miners are INTELLIGENTLY PROFIT-SEEKING. The only way this system can break is if the majority of miners seek something other than profit (say a government took the major mining pools over and somehow hashers couldn't switch away in time), or the miners misjudge what the market wants (due to a failure of market communication). However, in this case and on these timescales it is obvious the current crop of miners are generally profit-seeking. And if they are misjudging the market, we have a remedy: we can resolve that through fork futures trading on the exchanges. Note that this is just moving the decision from the first kind of investors (miners) to the general investing public. Miners are a first-line proxy for investors in general. If they fail to reflect investor will, investors are free to take it to the market by forking and trading the two sides of the fork (preferably as futures so as to avoid scrambling to upgrade urgently). Also important would be to maximize freedom of discussion so that market communication is not distorted. Finally, the whole idea of the UASF people, that we would poll the ecosystem somehow to prove the economic majority wants some change, already means that merely showing this proof to the miners should convince them, as they are intelligently profit-seeking. But that obviates the need for a UASF in the first place (!).
I used to think they don't understand markets, but in fact they are stuck at an even more basic level than that. I took a spin through the wreckage of /Bitcoin today for the first time in weeks. It was pleasantly surprising to see how with the ramping up of miner support for BU, the Core arguments have been reduced to obvious fundamental misunderstandings of Bitcoin that are now trivial to rebut. In a word, they haven't actually grasped the concept of incentives. This goes all the way to the top, not just the supporters but the key Core devs themselves. They don't understand markets, yes, but it's not like they are even close. They lack the understanding of even the fundamental building blocks of markets. When you think about it, governance by incentives is pretty subtle. Even if one reads the whitepaper and goes, "Oh yeah I see, miners would be motivated not to kill the golden goose in that situation," it is quite another matter to fully internalize the fact that the only reason Bitcoin is a thing at all is because of the assumption that miners are not idiots. Or more accurately, that miners as a group will never have a gross failure to correctly apprehend the wishes of the market. This is the source of all the weird claims about miners controlling or not controlling Bitcoin. Core and Blockstream dev Matt Corallo thinks that if miners were allowed to (not mentioning how they could be disallowed to), they would mine extra coins for all the "extra profits." Again this goes beyond failing to understand markets, all the way down to failing to understand or take seriously incentives as a concept at all. I'm not blaming him, he's a coder; I blame those who take his commentary on non-coding matters seriously, merely by dint of his coding skill. A constant refrain from Core supporters as BU gain hashpower is that "miners don't control Bitcoin." This is actually correct: miners don't control Bitcoin, they won't act against the economic majority. But not because they can't. They certainly can, just like oncoming traffic can swerve toward you on the freeway. But they don't, because that would destroy them as well. Thus is the subtlety of governance by incentives. Miners have control, but they won't use it to do anything that displeases the ecosystem, on balance. Or they might, but in that case Bitcoin is a failed concept as its fundamental assumption is then proven to be broken. Many or most anti-BU arguments unwittingly take that form: they start with the premise that Bitcoin is broken [i.e., miners are idiots or that they grossly fail to read the market] and reason from there to conclude that BU is broken. Examples include the median EB attack, the various big block attacks, and the bizarre claim that BU has a "new security model" because it "lets miners do something they couldn't before" (ironically implying Core has snuck in a new security model where they try to restrain miners by making it inconvenient for them to change a blocksize setting). Hence we see that it isn't merely a matter of Core and Blockstream people having initially dismissed Bitcoin and then later seeing the light when the price rises forced them to look deeper. They in fact still haven't seen the light. They never fully understood the basic dynamic that makes Bitcoin tick, let alone understanding higher level concepts like markets. This is why they so easily fall into the central planning mindset, seeing Bitcoin as a fragile little thing that must be defended by their wise paternalistic guidance. The Core devs have replaced the fundamental assumption in the whitepaper, that most miners are honest (I prefer "most miners are not idiots" as it is harder to misinterpret), with the fundamental assumption that the right set of people (or the right repository governance structure) is in charge of the "reference implementation." This manifests as a kind of envy toward the miners and comes with all the other curious trappings of the Core worldview: the code is the spec, hard forks are dangerous, Core = Bitcoin, anything that deviates from Core diktats is an "altcoin," it doesn't count as censorship to delete discussion of alternative clients as they are "off topic," nodes > miners, anything that makes it a bit easier for miners to do something Core doesn't like is an "attack" on Bitcoin, centralized control by Core is necessary to preserve decentralization, UASF is a viable idea, Segwit has consensus among "the Bitcoin experts," and so on.
Estimated Core hashrate down below 2/3 already. Core has lost supermajority status, even with all the historical inertia, miner conservatism, and crackerjack programmers they are reported to have on their side. Even with the "consensus" of "the experts." Even with two years of mindbendingly extreme censorship in their favor on the two biggest Bitcoin discussion forums.
The Core devs have directly created this situation by keeping the blocksize cap locked down long after it became controversial. The logic of how users make needed changes to the protocol, as mentioned in the whitepaper, requires that users be able to easily adjust any settings that are controversial, so as to be able to "vote with their CPU" power in a smooth manner. Core tries to leverage their waning "reference implementation" status to rig the vote by deliberately leaving the now maximally controversial blocksize limit hard-coded, forcing the user to venture out into relatively new dev team offerings if they want to cast a vote. This is exactly how you create the conditions for a contentious split. They have brought this upon themselves entirely.
Adam implies BU is pre-alpha, yet it is winning in the only arena where people actually put their money where their mouths are. How pathetic does it make Core that they are losing to a pre-alpha client?
New Cloud Mining Contract idea for bitcoin.com: 300 kb blocksize mining contracts
I saw the other day that bitcoin.com added a toggle to automatically switch to mine the most profitable coin. I really liked that idea and it got me thinking. Would it be possible to have a cloud mining contract that would only mine 300 kb blocks on Bitcoin Core? I would pay for a lifetime contract to mine 300 kb blocks. I think this would have its many advantages. 1) The bitcoin fees will rise, Thus increased profitability 2) Small blockers would be happier ;) giving them exactly what they want, plus now they will have a mining contract they can get behind 3) This will exaggerate the differences of Bitcoin Core and Bitcoin Core Is etc etc Is this possible? What are your thoughts EDIT: I'm not trying to be malicious, these are valid blocks and would increase the profitability of mining. This would then in turn would increase both security and decentralization (which is good!) I'm surprised how controversial small blocks are, I was under the impression that this was the consensus.
As a follower of Lean Startup, I offer my computational power for mining Bitcoin for 6/12 months. Why? 1. Test idea. 2. Feedback. 3. Improved product. I have a limited number of machines, so I cannot accept large orders. Promise deliver good pricing for first followers.
Idea: Cloud-mining = solution for getting Bitcoin without KYC / ID verification?
Just had an idea, what do you guys think of a bitcoin mining pool that rents out it's members hash power or hardware to any buyer for a set period of time payable in USD? So you can rent 10,000 TH/s for 1 day. Let's say 20 TH/s earns you "likely" $0.41 per day (example figure). That is $205 earned in one day. Let's also say there is a rental fee of 10% so you actually get $183.60 worth of BTC back after paying $205. The beauty of this hardware rental system is that you're not buying Bitcoin, so you shouldn't need KYC. You'll get much better privacy. Since you're renting hardware to mine, and not directly buying Bitcoin, I don't see a reason why AML applies. You wouldn't need to show your driver's license and passport to rent a shovel for a day, if you were digging for gold.
Could someone ELI5 the idea of mining for bitcoin even though someone "created it"?
So, someone made bitcoin. But people have to mine them by breaking complex math problems. Where do those math problems come from? Who is the one granting out the bitcoin for solving the problems? Why can't someone just program some more bitcoins into their online wallet?
4. Bitcoin Mining Pools. Mining is an extremely competitive game. Even if you buy the best possible miner out there, you’re still at a huge disadvantage compared to professional Bitcoin mining farms.That’s why mining pools came into existence.. The idea is simple – miners group together to form a “pool” so they can combine their mining power and compete more effectively. Bitcoin is the first implementation of a concept called "cryptocurrency", which was first described in 1998 by Wei Dai on the cypherpunks mailing list, suggesting the idea of a new form of money that uses cryptography to control its creation and transactions, rather than a central authority. Individuals, businesses, developers: learn from our simple Bitcoin guides. How Bitcoin works, what is Bitcoin, what is blockchain, how to buy Bitcoin, what is Bitcoin mining and more. The New York Finger Lake Region is known for its wine and glacial formed waterways. It is a beautiful place. And it now hosts one of the largest Bitcoin mining facilities in the U.S. Mining Bitcoins is an essentially risky endeavor, and you need to be well aware of the risks and potential rewards before entering. The good news is that there are a number of low-risk methods to get started, so get your facts straight first. First, it’s important to consider the right environment for getting started with Bitcoin mining.
Get our free Bitcoin course here - https://chrisdunn.com/free-bitcoin-course This Bitcoin basics video series will explain Bitcoin for beginners. You'll lear... ♨ Coinbase live - BTC price prediction 5️⃣0️⃣0️⃣0️⃣ Bitcoin event ♨ #bitcoin news Coinbase Bitcoin 329 watching Live now Should you buy a Bitmain Antminer S9 Bitcoin Miner in ... April 2020 Update - https://youtu.be/ymdQaRXXmBg January 2020 Update on my Crypto Mining Farm at my Apartment. I'll be going over my mining rigs, my cpu rig,... Download link: https://earnbitcoinzone.com/ Email: [email protected] TAG: #blockchain hacked #Transactionprocessing #paymenttransactionprocessing #bit... Sweden is mining PC for some Bitcoin. Poland is confused in the mean time. Thank you ??? for a great idea _____ COMMENT _____ Poland: Hey Swe...