|
Title: Defying Mining Probabilities with Willpower Post by: the joint on February 19, 2012, 12:45:28 AM So, there have been scientific experiments that suggest that research participants were successfully able to modify "random" processes. Specifically, participants were able to significantly affect the outcome of a computer coin-flip program beyond what could be expected due to chance alone. So, if a participant wanted more "heads" to appear, more "heads" actually appeared in the outcome, and at a frequency beyond what could be expected due to chance.
Has anybody ever tried this with Bitcoin mining and noticed that they have been solving blocks at a faster-than-expected rate? Preferably, this would apply to people with significantly higher hash rates (> 10 g/hash) over a period of at least 1 year, or maybe 6 months. I doubt many people fall into this category. Title: Re: Defying Mining Probabilities with Willpower Post by: sveetsnelda on February 19, 2012, 12:53:07 AM Well... I am up to 42Ghash and I regularly go into my mining rooms and read "The Little Engine That Could" to them. Does this count?
Title: Re: Defying Mining Probabilities with Willpower Post by: the joint on February 19, 2012, 12:56:27 AM Well... I am up to 42Ghash and I regularly go into my mining rooms and read "The Little Engine That Could" to them. Does this count? ;D Title: Re: Defying Mining Probabilities with Willpower Post by: MysteryMiner on February 19, 2012, 12:57:05 AM If willpower also works from distance, some envious jerk in other side of world probably are causing you to find less blocks than expected.
Title: Re: Defying Mining Probabilities with Willpower Post by: westkybitcoins on February 19, 2012, 01:20:51 AM Bitcoin Mining Enhancers, Inc. Quote We improve your performance! For a small fee (payable in bitcoins!) we'll assign a team of specialists to meditate and focus on improved performance for YOUR mining rig. All we'll need is a picture of your setup and the name you've given it, and we can get to work immediately. Or are you instead very concerned about the power of large pools? For the same price, we'll assign our team toward lowering the performance of the major pool of your choice! BME. Trust us, it works! Results not guaranteed. No warranties included. All payments are non-refundable. Hmmm.... Didn't Art Bell try something like this, only with a hurricane? Title: Re: Defying Mining Probabilities with Willpower Post by: rjk on February 19, 2012, 01:45:26 AM So, there have been scientific experiments that suggest that research participants were successfully able to modify "random" processes. Specifically, participants were able to significantly affect the outcome of a computer coin-flip program beyond what could be expected due to chance alone. So, if a participant wanted more "heads" to appear, more "heads" actually appeared in the outcome, and at a frequency beyond what could be expected due to chance. Interesting. Link(s)? Do you mean by hopping, or some other method(s)?Has anybody ever tried this with Bitcoin mining and noticed that they have been solving blocks at a faster-than-expected rate? Preferably, this would apply to people with significantly higher hash rates (> 10 g/hash) over a period of at least 1 year, or maybe 6 months. I doubt many people fall into this category. Title: Re: Defying Mining Probabilities with Willpower Post by: teflone on February 19, 2012, 01:49:44 AM I just play the market, and it goes the opposite direction.. EVERYTIME!!
I am.. The Market Whisperer... Title: Re: Defying Mining Probabilities with Willpower Post by: the joint on February 19, 2012, 01:53:27 AM So, there have been scientific experiments that suggest that research participants were successfully able to modify "random" processes. Specifically, participants were able to significantly affect the outcome of a computer coin-flip program beyond what could be expected due to chance alone. So, if a participant wanted more "heads" to appear, more "heads" actually appeared in the outcome, and at a frequency beyond what could be expected due to chance. Interesting. Link(s)? Do you mean by hopping, or some other method(s)?Has anybody ever tried this with Bitcoin mining and noticed that they have been solving blocks at a faster-than-expected rate? Preferably, this would apply to people with significantly higher hash rates (> 10 g/hash) over a period of at least 1 year, or maybe 6 months. I doubt many people fall into this category. Honestly, I remember the whole coin-flip research stuff from like 8 years ago when I was in high school science class. Before I upgraded my hardware and was running a single 6970, I had actually placed a piece of tape on my case that said "50 BTC" and "00000000000000000000000000000000000000000" representing a low hash output. I didn't really solo-mine with it though, and I only left it on for about 2 weeks. Didn't solve any blocks with it -- not surprising. But, I'm seriously considering giving this another go with about 1.8 g/hash. I know it sounds a bit ridiculous, but I've been having some very weird coincidences happen to me lately that have been rather hard to ignore, and it's given me some psychological motivation to try this again. Title: Re: Defying Mining Probabilities with Willpower Post by: teflone on February 19, 2012, 03:26:21 AM So, there have been scientific experiments that suggest that research participants were successfully able to modify "random" processes. Specifically, participants were able to significantly affect the outcome of a computer coin-flip program beyond what could be expected due to chance alone. So, if a participant wanted more "heads" to appear, more "heads" actually appeared in the outcome, and at a frequency beyond what could be expected due to chance. Interesting. Link(s)? Do you mean by hopping, or some other method(s)?Has anybody ever tried this with Bitcoin mining and noticed that they have been solving blocks at a faster-than-expected rate? Preferably, this would apply to people with significantly higher hash rates (> 10 g/hash) over a period of at least 1 year, or maybe 6 months. I doubt many people fall into this category. Honestly, I remember the whole coin-flip research stuff from like 8 years ago when I was in high school science class. Before I upgraded my hardware and was running a single 6970, I had actually placed a piece of tape on my case that said "50 BTC" and "00000000000000000000000000000000000000000" representing a low hash output. I didn't really solo-mine with it though, and I only left it on for about 2 weeks. Didn't solve any blocks with it -- not surprising. But, I'm seriously considering giving this another go with about 1.8 g/hash. I know it sounds a bit ridiculous, but I've been having some very weird coincidences happen to me lately that have been rather hard to ignore, and it's given me some psychological motivation to try this again. nope... bad time to use it, you have used up your karma... fyi Title: Re: Defying Mining Probabilities with Willpower Post by: pla on February 19, 2012, 05:01:28 AM Even if the underlying concept has some merit, I don't think any of the major miners actually use a random process - They all just increment the nonce in a very deterministic manner. And even if they did, computers don't do very well at truly "random" numbers without an external source of them.
You could probably modify a published CPU miner to pick random nonces; You would need, at least, a kernel-level hardware-derived entropy driver, and preferably a radioisotope-based RNG (something like you can build as described at http://www.inventgeek.com/Projects/alpharad/OverView.aspx). But overall the idea wouldn't fit well with GPU mining, so if you manage to get a factor of 100 improvement by power of will, you should contact James Randi to collect your reward and forget about gaming BitCoins. ;D Title: Re: Defying Mining Probabilities with Willpower Post by: check_status on February 19, 2012, 05:28:02 AM Never tried it with mining but I did use it to increase download bandwidth 50-60kbps. ;D
You'll never collect any money from Mr. Randi, there is no requirement for him to accept proof. Disbelief in an outcome is just as powerful, but in opposition to, belief. At S.R.I. (Stanford Research Institute) a study was performed with 2 researchers, one pre-concluded positive outcome results, the other pre-concluded negative outcome results, in the observance of particles. Both published outcome results proved each researchers pre-concluded position. Title: Re: Defying Mining Probabilities with Willpower Post by: bitlane on February 19, 2012, 06:00:38 AM You guys got it all wrong......
This has nothing to do with Willpower, Karma or anything else along those lines. If you want results - ASK SATAN ;) Good old 666, Number of the Beast, Morning Star, Beelzebub and the rest of it.... Title: Re: Defying Mining Probabilities with Willpower Post by: bbulker on February 19, 2012, 08:40:40 PM You guys got it all wrong...... This has nothing to do with Willpower, Karma or anything else along those lines. If you want results - ASK SATAN ;) Good old 666, Number of the Beast, Morning Star, Beelzebub and the rest of it.... I don't think that has anything to do with it. When you read success books, they always KNEW they would succeed. With 100% determination and willpower you can do anything, but most people have trouble putting 0.001% willpower. Title: Re: Defying Mining Probabilities with Willpower Post by: the joint on February 19, 2012, 09:25:37 PM You guys got it all wrong...... This has nothing to do with Willpower, Karma or anything else along those lines. If you want results - ASK SATAN ;) Good old 666, Number of the Beast, Morning Star, Beelzebub and the rest of it.... I don't think that has anything to do with it. When you read success books, they always KNEW they would succeed. With 100% determination and willpower you can do anything, but most people have trouble putting 0.001% willpower. +1 Scientists took professional archers and did some brain scans while they were shooting at a target. They found out that right before the archers released their arrows, their was a momentary calming of their brain waves. The archers KNEW and FELT that they were going to hit the target -- there was no "if." They put their faith in their skill and they let the arrow go. Unprofessional archers didn't show this same calming of brain waves. They had doubt, they lacked faith. Title: Re: Defying Mining Probabilities with Willpower Post by: grue on February 19, 2012, 09:29:07 PM So, there have been scientific experiments that suggest that research participants were successfully able to modify "random" processes. Specifically, participants were able to significantly affect the outcome of a computer coin-flip program beyond what could be expected due to chance alone. So, if a participant wanted more "heads" to appear, more "heads" actually appeared in the outcome, and at a frequency beyond what could be expected due to chance. [citation needed]Title: Re: Defying Mining Probabilities with Willpower Post by: the joint on February 19, 2012, 09:30:23 PM So, there have been scientific experiments that suggest that research participants were successfully able to modify "random" processes. Specifically, participants were able to significantly affect the outcome of a computer coin-flip program beyond what could be expected due to chance alone. So, if a participant wanted more "heads" to appear, more "heads" actually appeared in the outcome, and at a frequency beyond what could be expected due to chance. [citation needed]If you need it go find it. I don't need it. Title: Re: Defying Mining Probabilities with Willpower Post by: grue on February 19, 2012, 09:33:37 PM So, there have been scientific experiments that suggest that research participants were successfully able to modify "random" processes. Specifically, participants were able to significantly affect the outcome of a computer coin-flip program beyond what could be expected due to chance alone. So, if a participant wanted more "heads" to appear, more "heads" actually appeared in the outcome, and at a frequency beyond what could be expected due to chance. [citation needed]If you need it go find it. I don't need it. Title: Re: Defying Mining Probabilities with Willpower Post by: the joint on February 19, 2012, 09:39:22 PM So, there have been scientific experiments that suggest that research participants were successfully able to modify "random" processes. Specifically, participants were able to significantly affect the outcome of a computer coin-flip program beyond what could be expected due to chance alone. So, if a participant wanted more "heads" to appear, more "heads" actually appeared in the outcome, and at a frequency beyond what could be expected due to chance. [citation needed]If you need it go find it. I don't need it. I don't have to back up anything. Take what I said or leave it. I said earlier that I remember learning about it in high school science class. I already know that when I think about moving my arm, I can move my arm, so it's already established that mental thoughts affect physical reality. Not sure why this is so much harder to believe. The peer review system is arguably the single largest obstacle to scientific progress, so I don't really give a shit about citations. I've been known to make up entire bibliographies for my papers in college and grad school (Big Dog Publishing Company, anyone?). Somehow I keep getting A's. Title: Re: Defying Mining Probabilities with Willpower Post by: bitdragon on February 19, 2012, 09:41:29 PM So, there have been scientific experiments that suggest that research participants were successfully able to modify "random" processes. Specifically, participants were able to significantly affect the outcome of a computer coin-flip program beyond what could be expected due to chance alone. So, if a participant wanted more "heads" to appear, more "heads" actually appeared in the outcome, and at a frequency beyond what could be expected due to chance. [citation needed]If you need it go find it. I don't need it. http://noosphere.princeton.edu/ http://noosphere.princeton.edu/measurement.html I tried this 12 months ago when I had subsribed to Vladimirs mining contract. I intended for better than average and then he sent me an email I got lucky with my first blocks :) The whole thing got switched to zero variance after though. Gregg Braden has some interesting points and science to share. Title: Re: Defying Mining Probabilities with Willpower Post by: grue on February 19, 2012, 09:45:28 PM I tried this 12 months ago when I had subsribed to Vladimirs mining contract. I intended for better than average and then he sent me an email I got lucky with my first blocks :) The whole thing got switched to zero variance after though. That's only anecdotal evidence. The whole problem with anecdotal evidence is that you only want to recall miraculous events, like a lucky streak of finding blocks. Sure, you found many blocks with less time than expected, but you ignore all the times you found blocks at the expected time, or longer than the expected time.I don't have to back up anything. Take what I said or leave it. I said earlier that I remember learning about it in high school science class. I already know that when I think about moving my arm, I can move my arm, so it's already established that mental thoughts affect physical reality. Not sure why this is so much harder to believe. The peer review system is arguably the single largest obstacle to scientific progress, so I don't really give a shit about citations. Yet it's standard world-wide. ::) Something tells me that you just can't find evidence to back your statement up, and you don't want to look like a fool.I've been known to make up entire bibliographies for my papers in college and grad school (Big Dog Publishing Company, anyone?). Somehow I keep getting A's. On a related note: Quote So, there have been scientific experiments that suggest that "the joint" is a retard. Specifically, "the joint" is able to significantly make retarded posts beyond what could be expected of a normal forum member... Title: Re: Defying Mining Probabilities with Willpower Post by: Schleicher on February 19, 2012, 09:48:54 PM If you think you can influence random events then it's probably a good idea to read this:
http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/1m-challenge.html (http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/1m-challenge.html) Title: Re: Defying Mining Probabilities with Willpower Post by: the joint on February 19, 2012, 09:52:32 PM I don't have to back up anything. Take what I said or leave it. I said earlier that I remember learning about it in high school science class. I already know that when I think about moving my arm, I can move my arm, so it's already established that mental thoughts affect physical reality. Not sure why this is so much harder to believe. The peer review system is arguably the single largest obstacle to scientific progress, so I don't really give a shit about citations. Yet it's standard world-wide. ::) Something tells me that you just can't find evidence to back your statement up, and you don't want to look like a fool.I've been known to make up entire bibliographies for my papers in college and grad school (Big Dog Publishing Company, anyone?). Somehow I keep getting A's. On a related note: Quote So, there have been scientific experiments that suggest that "the joint" is a retard. Specifically, "the joint" is able to significantly make retarded posts beyond what could be expected of a normal forum member... No, it's more like I simply don't want to waste my time looking up a citation because some stranger thinks he needs it. And apparently it's not a standard world-wide if they keep giving me A's on papers in which every single reference is completely fabricated. Title: Re: Defying Mining Probabilities with Willpower Post by: bitdragon on February 19, 2012, 09:55:55 PM how about we stop giving our power away continuously and stop believing we yield no effect nor influence on our life, health finances love and coincidences.
We don't need to be a boat swayed by the waves in all and any directions. Everything around us in this world started in the imagination from tesla to Einstein to all architects and bitcoin itself. That is not due to chance, it cannot be. Your life is the result of what you dwell on most of the time. I'll repeat the citation : http://noosphere.princeton.edu/ http://noosphere.princeton.edu/measurement.html edit: "The overall result is highly significant. The odds against chance are much greater than a million to one. " :) Title: Re: Defying Mining Probabilities with Willpower Post by: the joint on February 19, 2012, 10:00:20 PM how about we stop giving our power away continuously and stop believing we yield no effect nor influence on our life, health finances love and coincidences. We don't need to be a boat swayed by the waves in all and any directions. Everything around us in this world started in the imagination from tesla to Einstein to all architects and bitcoin itself. That is not due to chance, it cannot be. Your life is the result of what you dwell on most of the time. I'll repeat the citation : http://noosphere.princeton.edu/ http://noosphere.princeton.edu/measurement.html edit: "The overall result is highly significant. The odds against chance are much greater than a million to one. " :) Well said. Title: Re: Defying Mining Probabilities with Willpower Post by: grue on February 19, 2012, 10:05:26 PM No, it's more like I simply don't want to waste my time looking up a citation because some stranger thinks he needs it. And apparently it's not a standard world-wide if they keep giving me A's on papers in which every single reference is completely fabricated. That does not prove anything. It simply means whom ever marked your paper neglected to verify the citations.also Quote Skeptics such as Robert T. Carroll, Claus Larsen, and others have questioned the methodology of the Global Consciousness Project, particularly how the data are selected and interpreted,[3][4] saying the data anomalies reported by the project are the result of "pattern matching" and selection bias which ultimately fail to support a belief in psi or global consciousness.[5] Other critics, whilst disagreeing with GCP findings, have noted that the open operation of GCP "is a testimony to the integrity and curiosity of those involved."[6] I can already see why the experiment is flawed. The events that are chosen to be "significant" are chosen by the experimenters, who, like all humans, have confirmation bias.Title: Re: Defying Mining Probabilities with Willpower Post by: the joint on February 19, 2012, 10:14:52 PM No, it's more like I simply don't want to waste my time looking up a citation because some stranger thinks he needs it. And apparently it's not a standard world-wide if they keep giving me A's on papers in which every single reference is completely fabricated. That does not prove anything. It simply means whom ever marked your paper neglected to verify the citations.Citations don't prove anything either, and neither do published, peer-reviewed articles that accompany them. Have you ever really sat and READ most of these research articles? The vast majority of them are either horribly designed, terribly written, assert conclusions that simply cannot be implied from test results, or have results that are themselves fabricated by the researchers for personal gain or notoriety. On the other hand, creating a research design to test the effects of intention on a random computer process is pretty hard to fuck up, so I'm more inclined to trust what I heard, especially when I have overwhelming amounts of first hand corollary experience that give credence to its plausibility. Also, I'd bet that for many people, adherence to the belief of the infallibility of the peer-review system only discourages them from actually finding the reference article and dissecting it. "Oh, so it looks like you got some good citations here. You must be well informed! A+!!!" Title: Re: Defying Mining Probabilities with Willpower Post by: bitdragon on February 19, 2012, 10:25:38 PM come on Grue!
You will find whatever you seek. Quoting some citation without delving in the project itself and make your own informed decision? "data anomalies reported by the project are the result of "pattern matching" and selection bias which ultimately fail to support a belief in psi or global consciousness. " That is intellectually very poor and proof that you have not followed progress in science one iota. It's like using quackwatch.org to improve your health. Why deprive you of the wonders of curiosity and think for one instant that everything you knew was wrong. Whatever you believe, you will find true and we are all, including you, a prime example of that. One belief is more empowering, the other weakens us but both are made true. It may be interesting a while, but it does not need to be continued for ever long, the belief that you have no impact whatsoever and anything at all in this world and your life. Title: Re: Defying Mining Probabilities with Willpower Post by: bitdragon on February 19, 2012, 10:32:51 PM how about reading the project itself, this one and others and not rely on wikipedia for your understanding?
Title: Re: Defying Mining Probabilities with Willpower Post by: grue on February 19, 2012, 10:34:52 PM Citations don't prove anything either, and neither do published, peer-reviewed articles that accompany them. Have you ever really sat and READ most of these research articles? The vast majority of them are either horribly designed, terribly written, assert conclusions that simply cannot be implied from test results, or have results that are themselves fabricated by the researchers for personal gain or notoriety. On the other hand, creating a research design to test the effects of intention on a random computer process is pretty hard to fuck up, so I'm more inclined to trust what I heard, especially when I have overwhelming amounts of first hand corollary experience that give credence to its plausibility. Never said it was perfect. Nor did I imply that citation = must be true. The only reason I asked for a citation in the beginning is to know if there are any solid scientific studies based on it. Why did i ask for that? I found it suspicious for you to use vague terms like "scientific experiments".Also, I'd bet that for many people, adherence to the belief of the infallibility of the peer-review system only discourages them from actually finding the reference article and dissecting it. "Oh, so it looks like you got some good citations here. You must be well informed! A+!!!" come on Grue! I did, but all it did was list some major events, and the supposed deviation from normal. The site is obviously not going to list its flaws, not even the flat-earth society is going to do that. Hence why i went to wikipedia to get an alternate perspective. Is it so wrong to look at a source outside the official project?You will find whatever you seek. Quoting some citation without delving in the project itself and make your own informed decision? "data anomalies reported by the project are the result of "pattern matching" and selection bias which ultimately fail to support a belief in psi or global consciousness. " That is intellectually very poor and proof that you have not followed progress in science one iota. It's like using quackwatch.org to improve your health. Why deprive you of the wonders of curiosity and think for one instant that everything you knew was wrong. Whatever you believe, you will find true and we are all, including you, a prime example of that. One belief is more empowering, the other weakens us but both are made true. It may be interesting a while, but it does not need to be continued for ever long, the belief that you have no impact whatsoever and anything at all in this world and your life. how about reading the project itself, this one and others and not rely on wikipedia for your understanding? Title: Re: Defying Mining Probabilities with Willpower Post by: bitdragon on February 19, 2012, 10:43:16 PM Citations don't prove anything either, and neither do published, peer-reviewed articles that accompany them. Have you ever really sat and READ most of these research articles? The vast majority of them are either horribly designed, terribly written, assert conclusions that simply cannot be implied from test results, or have results that are themselves fabricated by the researchers for personal gain or notoriety. On the other hand, creating a research design to test the effects of intention on a random computer process is pretty hard to fuck up, so I'm more inclined to trust what I heard, especially when I have overwhelming amounts of first hand corollary experience that give credence to its plausibility. Never said it was perfect. Nor did I imply that citation = must be true. The only reason I asked for a citation in the beginning is to know if there are any solid scientific studies based on it. Why did i ask for that? I found it suspicious for you to use vague terms like "scientific experiments".Also, I'd bet that for many people, adherence to the belief of the infallibility of the peer-review system only discourages them from actually finding the reference article and dissecting it. "Oh, so it looks like you got some good citations here. You must be well informed! A+!!!" come on Grue! I did, but all it did was list some major events, and the supposed deviation from normal. The site is obviously not going to list its flaws, hence why i went to wikipedia to get an alternate perspective.You will find whatever you seek. Quoting some citation without delving in the project itself and make your own informed decision? "data anomalies reported by the project are the result of "pattern matching" and selection bias which ultimately fail to support a belief in psi or global consciousness. " That is intellectually very poor and proof that you have not followed progress in science one iota. It's like using quackwatch.org to improve your health. Why deprive you of the wonders of curiosity and think for one instant that everything you knew was wrong. Whatever you believe, you will find true and we are all, including you, a prime example of that. One belief is more empowering, the other weakens us but both are made true. It may be interesting a while, but it does not need to be continued for ever long, the belief that you have no impact whatsoever and anything at all in this world and your life. how about reading the project itself, this one and others and not rely on wikipedia for your understanding? There is 12 years of data. Yet 3 lines from wikipedia is sufficient for your soul to close the deal? Bless you, young man. May you be happy in whatever you pursue in life. Title: Re: Defying Mining Probabilities with Willpower Post by: bitdragon on February 19, 2012, 10:46:42 PM "Is it so wrong to look at a source outside the official project?"
nothing is wrong, but be honest with yourself. Edit: thanks for the laugh though. One of those outside sources is from http://www.skepdic.com/globalconsciousness.html Fair and balanced. Title: Re: Defying Mining Probabilities with Willpower Post by: interlagos on February 19, 2012, 11:11:17 PM Isn't it a mainstream science already that tells us that consciousness defines the reality?
I'm talking about "Double Slit Experiment" in quantum physics. In this experiment the electron only takes the form of matter when there is a conscious observer, without which it forms an interference pattern being a superposition of all possible outcomes. So yes, the willpower is there and it works, there is no doubt about that, it forms the reality around you. As to the "reliable" or "credible" sources, the only source of knowledge is your own consciousness and the ability to connect the dots while getting information from as many sources as possible. If you only limit yourself with "official" sources it's an invitation for abuse. The real power is decentralization, this is how bitcoin works after all. Title: Re: Defying Mining Probabilities with Willpower Post by: grue on February 19, 2012, 11:15:23 PM There is 12 years of data. If it refutes the 12 years of data, even one sentence fragment will do. The data is valid, but the interpretation is flawed.Yet 3 lines from wikipedia is sufficient for your soul to close the deal? Bless you, young man. May you be happy in whatever you pursue in life. Quote The U.S. invasion of Iraq began on March 19, 2003. The data showed no sign of it. The space shuttle Columbia broke up on re-entry on February 1, 2003, but had no effect on the random number generators. An earthquake in Turkey on August 17, 1999 killed nearly 4,000 people, but you wouldn’t know it from examining the pattern of random numbers. tl;dr confirmation bias strikes again 8) Title: Re: Defying Mining Probabilities with Willpower Post by: the joint on February 20, 2012, 12:06:06 AM There is 12 years of data. If it refutes the 12 years of data, even one sentence fragment will do. The data is valid, but the interpretation is flawed.Yet 3 lines from wikipedia is sufficient for your soul to close the deal? Bless you, young man. May you be happy in whatever you pursue in life. Quote The U.S. invasion of Iraq began on March 19, 2003. The data showed no sign of it. The space shuttle Columbia broke up on re-entry on February 1, 2003, but had no effect on the random number generators. An earthquake in Turkey on August 17, 1999 killed nearly 4,000 people, but you wouldn’t know it from examining the pattern of random numbers. tl;dr confirmation bias strikes again 8) Double-slit experiment implies that we literally create reality (keep in mind that a lone experiment is not the sole basis for my reasoning). This experiment shows that at the quantum level, there are observable and detectable changes directly influenced by observation. But, when you scale up to macro levels, this effect becomes increasingly smaller until it is undetectable at the systemic level. Believe it or not, this implies that no reality exists independent of an individual's perception of it. The changes are undetectable at the largest level because you ARE the largest level, and thus you don't notice the changes because you are the change. In this way, a paradox is formed wherein change at the micro-level implies a static reality, and where no change at the macro-level implies pervasive, Universal change, hence the wave-particle paradox. TL;DR: Everyone is essentially a mini-universe, like a holographic or isomorphic image of the entire Universe, or the set of all sets. Title: Re: Defying Mining Probabilities with Willpower Post by: grue on February 20, 2012, 12:14:29 AM Double-slit experiment implies that we literally create reality (keep in mind that a lone experiment is not the sole basis for my reasoning). This experiment shows that at the quantum level, there are observable and detectable changes directly influenced by observation. But, when you scale up to macro levels, this effect becomes increasingly smaller until it is undetectable at the systemic level. You have failed to produce a rebuttal to my argument and you respond by changing the topic? How does this have anything to do with a human changing the outcome of a random process? You're pretty much out of arguments and now you're trying to derail the topic to make yourself look smart. ::)Believe it or not, this implies that no reality exists independent of an individual's perception of it. The changes are undetectable at the largest level because you ARE the largest level, and thus you don't notice the changes because you are the change. In this way, a paradox is formed wherein change at the micro-level implies a static reality, and where no change at the macro-level implies pervasive, Universal change, hence the wave-particle paradox. TL;DR: Everyone is essentially a mini-universe, like a holographic or isomorphic image of the entire Universe, or the set of all sets. On topic: that doesn't change the fact hashing is a mathematical operation that produces the same result every time. Although the output from a hashing function is random, there's nothing you can do to affect it. If you can produce actual results (no theoretical physics theories, please) that a human can change the outcome of a random function, I will believe you. Title: Re: Defying Mining Probabilities with Willpower Post by: bitdragon on February 20, 2012, 12:28:13 AM Let's do it! I will gladly contribute my thoughts and intention to such an experiment.
Same results all the time although random. Seems like the perfect setup. Title: Re: Defying Mining Probabilities with Willpower Post by: interlagos on February 20, 2012, 12:33:44 AM Double-slit experiment implies that we literally create reality (keep in mind that a lone experiment is not the sole basis for my reasoning). This experiment shows that at the quantum level, there are observable and detectable changes directly influenced by observation. But, when you scale up to macro levels, this effect becomes increasingly smaller until it is undetectable at the systemic level. You have failed to produce a rebuttal to my argument and you respond by changing the topic? How does this have anything to do with a human changing the outcome of a random process? You're pretty much out of arguments and now you're trying to derail the topic to make yourself look smart. ::)Believe it or not, this implies that no reality exists independent of an individual's perception of it. The changes are undetectable at the largest level because you ARE the largest level, and thus you don't notice the changes because you are the change. In this way, a paradox is formed wherein change at the micro-level implies a static reality, and where no change at the macro-level implies pervasive, Universal change, hence the wave-particle paradox. TL;DR: Everyone is essentially a mini-universe, like a holographic or isomorphic image of the entire Universe, or the set of all sets. On topic: that doesn't change the fact hashing is a mathematical operation that produces the same result every time. Although the output from a hashing function is random, there's nothing you can do to affect it. If you can produce actual results (no theoretical physics theories, please) that a human can change the outcome of a random function, I will believe you. With your intention you will not change the outcome of the hash function itself, but you will choose a different reality in which your hashing device will process a different set of data resulting in a solved block. Our science is only getting to the point of understanding these phenomena, and providing any sort of proof will be very subjective. If you see something with your own eyes is it an ultimate proof? Someone might just say it was a hallucination... If you are interested in what might be possible once we reach the next stage, check out this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b5_6R8YBlv4 I'm afraid, it will make our current science obsolete. Title: Re: Defying Mining Probabilities with Willpower Post by: grue on February 20, 2012, 12:40:08 AM With your intention you will not change the outcome of the hash function itself, but you will choose a different reality in which your hashing device will process a different set of data resulting in a solved block. uh oh, don't go philosophy on me bro. :(Our science is only getting to the point of understanding these phenomena, and providing any sort of proof will be very subjective. If you see something with your own eyes is it an ultimate proof? Someone might just say it was a hallucination... If you are interested in what might be possible once we reach the next stage, check out this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b5_6R8YBlv4 I'm afraid, it will make our current science obsolete. Let's do it! I will gladly contribute my thoughts and intention to such an experiment. :DSame results all the time although random. Seems like the perfect setup. Title: Re: Defying Mining Probabilities with Willpower Post by: bitdragon on February 20, 2012, 01:09:41 AM in terms of science, even CERN has proven the existence of a field by splitting up a photon and sending both particles in different directions. Affecting one immediately affects the other. And yes, faster than the speed of light. Oh my God!
Gregg Braden has some interesting science to share and bridge some gaps. and with the same token, how about willing and appreciating the success and adoption of bitcoin in the world. Dwelling on some positive thoughts, albeit my humble ones for now. Bitcoin or something better brings many blessings and positive effects in all areas of the world and especially in the financial world. Bitcoin is a success Bitcoin is positive for humankind Bitcoin spurs economic development Bitcoin serves the greater good from the bottom up Bitcoin is empowering Bitcoin is powerful Bitcoin is used across all continents Bitcoin is amazing Bitcoin is easy to use and spreads exponentially Bitcoin is part of progress and helps other far fetched areas Bitcoin is supported by sound and effective developers Bitcoin is evolving constantly Bitcoin is strong and resilient Bitcoin is decentralized Bitcoin allows for a smooth transition from the past debt system Bitcoin is a means of exchange Bitcoin supports other means of exchange Bitcoin brings people together Everyone who would benefit from bitcoin, is drawn to it Bitcoin is viable and sustainable Bitcoin is everywhere Bitcoin is here to stay Bitcoin is creative Bitcoin is portable Bitcoin is safe Bitcoin is friendly Bitcoin is beautiful Bitcoin helps education I take action to promote Bitcoin I use Bitcoin I love Bitcoin I benefit from Bitcoin I have a successful bitcoin business I add value to the bitcoin economy My bitcoin business helps the bitcoin economy I help others setup their own bitcoin business If an idea is not absurd, there is no hope for it. A Einstein. Please add/edit to it to it make more absurd albeit positive. movie, audio tapes and subliminal tapes will follow. As I will gladly watch and listen and feel bitcoin succeeding. Title: Re: Defying Mining Probabilities with Willpower Post by: the joint on February 20, 2012, 01:34:09 AM Double-slit experiment implies that we literally create reality (keep in mind that a lone experiment is not the sole basis for my reasoning). This experiment shows that at the quantum level, there are observable and detectable changes directly influenced by observation. But, when you scale up to macro levels, this effect becomes increasingly smaller until it is undetectable at the systemic level. You have failed to produce a rebuttal to my argument and you respond by changing the topic? How does this have anything to do with a human changing the outcome of a random process? You're pretty much out of arguments and now you're trying to derail the topic to make yourself look smart. ::)Believe it or not, this implies that no reality exists independent of an individual's perception of it. The changes are undetectable at the largest level because you ARE the largest level, and thus you don't notice the changes because you are the change. In this way, a paradox is formed wherein change at the micro-level implies a static reality, and where no change at the macro-level implies pervasive, Universal change, hence the wave-particle paradox. TL;DR: Everyone is essentially a mini-universe, like a holographic or isomorphic image of the entire Universe, or the set of all sets. On topic: that doesn't change the fact hashing is a mathematical operation that produces the same result every time. Although the output from a hashing function is random, there's nothing you can do to affect it. If you can produce actual results (no theoretical physics theories, please) that a human can change the outcome of a random function, I will believe you. Who says it's a mathematical operation? Who says it's random? It's you, and the only reason you believe it is because everyone else does too (ad populum is a logical fallacy, though it doesn't make something less pluasible). And by the way, random is a bullshit word, anyway -- "It was caused by randomness." Go figure that one out. Additionally, absolutely every single definition of anything is essentially a theory of it; we live in a world of theories whether you like it or not. This includes operational definitions which are the basis for knowing what the hell it is you want to measure in the first place. When you say you want "results," you are asking for the results of what happens when one piece of reality (us) tries to measure some other piece of reality, without taking into account the entire system in which we both inhabit. But, without understanding the 'theory of theories,' (aka Universe) you are simply asking for results to pile atop a nonexistent foundation. Fortunately, the things that help us learn about the 'theory of theories' are self-evident. The 'results' you are looking for are an indirect route to knowledge whereas direct experience is, well, a direct route to knowledge. "What one can prove, he does not know. What one knows, he cannot prove." ~ Me On a side note, I wasn't trying to form a rebuttal. I was following up on the 'double slit experiment' because it was mentioned by someone else. Title: Re: Defying Mining Probabilities with Willpower Post by: grue on February 20, 2012, 03:56:21 PM Who says it's a mathematical operation? Who says it's random? It's you, and the only reason you believe it is because everyone else does too (ad populum is a logical fallacy, though it doesn't make something less pluasible). And by the way, random is a bullshit word, anyway -- "It was caused by randomness." Go figure that one out. Additionally, absolutely every single definition of anything is essentially a theory of it; we live in a world of theories whether you like it or not. This includes operational definitions which are the basis for knowing what the hell it is you want to measure in the first place. When you say you want "results," you are asking for the results of what happens when one piece of reality (us) tries to measure some other piece of reality, without taking into account the entire system in which we both inhabit. But, without understanding the 'theory of theories,' (aka Universe) you are simply asking for results to pile atop a nonexistent foundation. What part of a miner's work is "random"? All the possible nonces in a work are tested (2^32). The work is simply a merkle root, which is generated from hashes of pending transactions. Do the transactions appear randomly out of thin air? No, they come from people who send transactions. There's nothing random about any of that, everything is deterministic.Fortunately, the things that help us learn about the 'theory of theories' are self-evident. The 'results' you are looking for are an indirect route to knowledge whereas direct experience is, well, a direct route to knowledge. "What one can prove, he does not know. What one knows, he cannot prove." ~ Me On a side note, I wasn't trying to form a rebuttal. I was following up on the 'double slit experiment' because it was mentioned by someone else. And before you argue some random point about chaos theory or double slit experiment, this thread is about affecting the result of mining in a controlled way. It doesn't matter if your breath can affect the merkle root that you get, it only matters if it can make the merkle root have a higher probability of containing a valid nonce. Title: Re: Defying Mining Probabilities with Willpower Post by: rini17 on February 20, 2012, 04:33:47 PM Interesting discussion, I was too thinking about. It may be better trying with litecoins, they can be mined solo. But my first LTC block, with suspiciously low difficulty was found in pool, anyway.
And AFAIK to do it you need support from your subconscious, that is incredibly hard. You have to be totally convinced that it is natural for the block to be solved this way for you. So that you don't even thave to think much about it. Title: Re: Defying Mining Probabilities with Willpower Post by: notme on February 20, 2012, 05:10:47 PM And AFAIK to do it you need support from your subconscious, that is incredibly hard. You have to be totally convinced that it is natural for the block to be solved this way for you. So that you don't even thave to think much about it. Right, it's more about believing that is how it's supposed to happen so you stay out of the way. Title: Re: Defying Mining Probabilities with Willpower Post by: the joint on February 20, 2012, 11:17:10 PM And before you argue some random point about chaos theory or double slit experiment, this thread is about affecting the result of mining in a controlled way. It doesn't matter if your breath can affect the merkle root that you get, it only matters if it can make the merkle root have a higher probability of containing a valid nonce. I created the thread, I'll post in it what I please. And yeah, I'll admit I only read the white paper once and I have limited-to-nil experience in computer programming. But, I don't think I need to be a computer programmer when I'm talking about some Universal syntax that distributes to all conditional events contained therein. That's what Universal laws do -- they distribute. Truth is only established through ratio (the root word of rationale), and so if I can understand how the law operates in one set of conditional events, I can begin to imagine how it would operate in others. While the thread of the title is meant to be specific to mining, it's really a thread about the relationship between mental and physical reality. Title: Re: Defying Mining Probabilities with Willpower Post by: DeathAndTaxes on February 20, 2012, 11:26:45 PM Even if the underlying concept has some merit, I don't think any of the major miners actually use a random process - They all just increment the nonce in a very deterministic manner. And even if they did, computers don't do very well at truly "random" numbers without an external source of them. Why would nonces need to be random? SHA-256 hash is for all effective intents and purposes random relative to the input. |