Bitcoin Forum

I kid you not, massive thread closed "pending an investigation from upper management".

http://www.bitcoinblogger.com/2011_04_01_archive.html

Any you thought overclockers were just a bunch of dedicated techies. More like a buch of ***holes.

Don't take it personally. Many people think bitcoin is somehow, a scam.

First they call you a scam, then they shut your thread, then they setup their own mining pool - then you win !

http://bitclockers.com/ (http://bitclockers.com/)

BitCoin is stealing there free-lunch fan base  .... and kicking sand in their face too.

it's more fun ripping the guts out of the machine and making money than having it all glitzy and spendy-looking  and sucking up money.

It's like 24-hour rally-car racing for money versus friday night rice-rockets for kicks

Yeah, I've heard that too, and it boggles my mind.  How can people say it's a scheme for the early adopters.. aren't ALL new businesses a "get rich" scheme for the early adopters?  Isn't that the reward for taking the chance on something!?  I hope Satoshi and the early adopters DO have their btc and make a buttload, they deserve the reward for the effort and taking a chance!

For my part, I am using Bitcoins because I can see both how simple yet robust Bitcoin is, and I WANT to be a part of it, to use it, to help it gain traction.  If that means other people get rich, good for them for finding and recognizing it before I did.  I hope to also make out when BTC hits $50 a pop, and my savings wallet is suddenly worth something.  But in the mean time, I will keep gambling on Betco.in, buying and using gift cards, trading with btc, getting my server and VPN with btc, and trying to stimulate the bitcoin economy because I think it should be used.

I believe it is called the "fairness" heuristic, but it is so wrong to apply the "fairness" heuristic to modern life. Some things need to be unequal for things to work.

Yeah, most people don't realize that inequality is a GOOD thing.  If means you can get more than somebody else.

How does one come to a conclusion that inequality is good is beyond me

Inequality of what?  Height?  Weight?  Intelligence?  Gender?  Strength?  Taste?  Humor?  Color?  Odor?  ....

Ban inequality!!!!!  Ban inequality in all its evil forms!

Some inequalities are good and some are bad. It depends entirely on their cause. I think that people should be allowed to keep what they create and this means that if one person creates more than another he will also have more than the other. This inequality is good and just as far as I'm concerned.

If you build two houses and I only build one, it's perfectly fair that you have one house more than me.

You.Will.Be.Assimilated.Earthling

It is not clear, what does overclock.net have against bitcoin?

Saturday, April 30, 2011

The staff are all mining and don't want their userbase driving the difficulty up further?

Fear of their users migrating to Bitcoin thus messing with their third place F@H rank?

http://folding.extremeoverclocking.com/team_list.php?s=&t=37726#37726 (http://folding.extremeoverclocking.com/team_list.php?s=&t=37726#37726)

Ahahaha, I hope that is what they are worried about. That's hilarious.

I don't know why but them closing the thread is why I am here

:(

Welcome.

Stopping discussion is such a silly strategy.

Wow, that's a nice list of GPU power.  If one wanted to promote bitcoins, one could simply post a simple "mine bitcons" posts on those forums.  Converting those free workers into bitcoin miners would be, like, a no-brainer.

I wonder if bitcoin is now a censored word on overclock.net?

Perhaps a dissipation of their folding power was so fast so that their "upper management" took a notice and could identify the cause.

And a conclusion is that all the @home type of projects will have a much harder time from now on.  Bitcoin will suck out all their users.

Well the thing is, Bitcoin mining and F@H don't really compete with each other that well. F@H runs great on nVidia GPUs and we all know mining Bitcoins is best done on AMD GPUs.

I can see their point, however. Overclocking for the sake of higher hashrates is not the same as overclocking for gameplay. Because this and other forums exist for more hashrate-specific overclocking advice, their banning of bitcoin talk isn't really hurting anyone's access to information.

However, it's bad marketing strategy on their part, if at all their interested in increasing their userbase.


I disagree. Maybe in the short term, this will happen, but at a certain point, when power costs equal earnings, bitcoin mining will become unfeasible and leave a lot of folks with a lot of overclocked hardware just itching for something worthwhile to do with it.

There's another, greater possibility as well, however. Bitcoin has the potential to be established as de-facto currency of processing power for other projects. It's already a currency representing processing time, after all, and that's why @home and SETI people are wetting their shorts, because there's a dollar value on what their members do for free.

While parallel processing projects that pay users are rare, it's not unprecedented. Folding@home, after all, is still an experiment. The day that a pharmaceutical company figures out how to make and share money on a similarly-designed project is coming soon. If at all they could pay people for slightly more than power costs, there would be a bitcoin-like gold rush to these research projects.

Terms for this future "dry biochemistry" have been bandied about for about a decade now. The far-off (100 year) goal is doing chemistry in an entire, perfectly-represented virtual cell. But that kind of scale is not necessary to enable the moment when an experiment is deemed "cheaper to do dry than wet". @Home, so far, is involving projects that can only feasibly be done via computers, rather than as a cheaper alternative to existing real world, wet, expensive, risky experimentation.

Or, to put it in another experimentation analogy: You don't use humans as your model organism when apes will do. You don't use apes when you could just as well use pigs. You don't use pigs when you can use rats. You don't use rats when you can use zebrafish. You don't use zebrafish when you can use flies. You don't use flies when you can use yeast. You don't use yeast when you can use e. coli. You don't use e. coli. when you can instead possibly use e. coli. with some luminescence genes to make pretty pretty colors, which you can use to spell "kick me" in bacteria on the lab coats of people you dislike.

And you don't use any of those if you could instead sit at your desk and pay a bunch of idiots with loads of graphics cards to do the experiment virtually while you snicker and play Portal 2 until your adviser notices.

Physical inequality not political inequality. Physical inequality is what causes money to flow and people to connect. This is about inequality in the face of the universe itself. Not some arbitrary political filter.

Our minds make up for any physical inequality. Stephen Hawking for example.

Don't confuse reality with discrimination.