In this case, will the Tornado developer benefit from the smart contracts? I think the service charge about 0.3%, so that money mainly go to the TORN holders?
The miner can include some non-standard transactions makes Bitcoin not so perfect, and once that non-standard transactions included in a block, other miners won't validate its script at all, that make it worse.
The bitcoin transaction format has numerous points of intentional forward compatibility: Fields, flags, bits, etc. which intentionally have no effect at this time but which could be further restricted in the future in order to create functionality. Examples include future transaction version numbers and future script version numbers.
Use of these forward compatibility features is "non-standard" which means that unmodified software will not relay, mine, or display-while-unconfirmed transactions which use them. But if they happen to show up inside blocks, they'll be accepted.
This protects these fields for future use. Otherwise, some software would start randomly setting them (e.g. due to programming mistakes or confusion) and then these systems would catch fire when later the fields were given a defined meaning.
This article is about output with version 1 instead of version 0. Currently v1 is defined to have no effect. At block 709632 (in November roughly) that will change and v1 will have a meaning defined by BIP-341 (https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0341.mediawi...).
Nodes don't relay non standard transactions to be mined, but blocks with non standard transactions are relayed and accepted by all nodes. These rules together make soft forks possible.
For me it's the other way around, haven't had any banners or anything on Android, whereas the desktop client has, and messages have been throwing 50x errors, while the mobile messages just seem to take ages to send.
The desktop app shows a yellow "DISCONNECTED - Check your network connection" warning. They probably should work on better error/status reporting in next version.
Centralization of Filecoin is an issue, but not the point of these tweets. The tweets focus on rekt Filecoin miners, they have spent more than $200M on hardware, but seems impossible to get back that with FIL mining, and since most miners are from China, no west media report this thing yet.
My question is, why did the miners not anticipate this- aren't the rules more or less agreed to in advance? Or were the rules changed out from under them?
Or is this something nobody anticipated would be an issue?
Most miners thought they bought 10TB storage, they will mine $FIL with that 10TB, but according to the rules, they can only start from like 1TB, most of the storage they bought are useless for mining.
Regardless of the actual reason why they cant use the 200M hardware, isnt int kinda funny that they even assumed that they could make money from the full capacity at day 1. Who the heck would be the customer of cloud storage hardware worth 200M at day 1. Clearly demand grows over time, that cant be skipped. Reward "miners" for whatever they provide even if no one uses it - sound unsustainable.
Rewarding miners for reserved but unused capacity is an explicit feature of Filecoin that I guess is intended to build up capacity in advance of customer need. These miners just did what Protocol Labs told them to do.
Reserves sure, but at the start you dont know how much is needed so to just assume reward for whatever show up is comically naive. It could take months for real demand actually using a significant portion of the storage. Pay everyone else anyway is literally trowing money away.
Just imagine if one of the large cloud storage player would have set this up and simply offered all their reserves which they could do as there is no way anyone would use it.
If they would get paid for that It would be very lucrative.
Datacenter license only counts if you're leasing out the hardware directly. It's fine to use consumer grade but you can't subdivide it or sell it to customers (for ML as an example)
Quoting: “To clarify this, we recently added a provision to our GeForce-specific EULA to discourage potential misuse of our GeForce and Titan products in demanding, large-scale enterprise environments.”
According to this article, they want to discourage but I would expect legal retaliation if FileCoin proves to be profitable. There is one area where AWS never launched: gaming servers and I suspect this could be the reason.
I looked at the requirements earlier and was blown away. Their official recommendation is three servers with some very expensive hardware. Three Epyc processors, one machine with 128GB of RAM (and a lot more swap space), and one with 2x GPUs. And all that to "seal" like one TB an hour. But it's OK, because this is totally not a proof of work system.
How often (on average?) do you need to seal each TB you have?
For example if it's four months and you can do a terabyte per hour then that's about 3 petabytes and the cost of the sealing servers is a small fraction of the cost of the storage server. Is it much less?
But also the tweet says something about one terabyte per day?
Assuming one is starting off by sealing pledged sectors, they would also need to re-seal any such sector upon upgrading to store actual content pursuant to some deal they have accepted.
I'm assuming there is probably not enough real storage demand yet, so large miners will end up pledging sectors a fair chunk of the time, in order to increase their power, at least while they have spare disk space remaining.
