i have not seen any difference in mhash between optimized minersoftware/kernel on windows to the same machine on linux.

2.02

Windows caps at 4 GPU

2900$ for the mhash you get out of this is really bad bang for the buck

so the left chart is wrong yes? i had assumed it was a 3 step system. i will make a change to reflect that later today. thanks for the feedback

the issue is not the same, its not about naming 0,001 btc but changing the naming and numeration system towards SI and shifting the bitcoin unit down

There are pretty negative and wrong statements on BTC in the press, suggesting there is an actual shortage of granularity in the payment system, quoting techcrunch: "And, crucially, no more than 21 million will ever exist.".
To overcome this big hurdle of perception i decided to suggest a complete SI-style renaming system in the dev forum, heres a link: http://forum.bitcoin.org/index.php?topic=9299.0

a decent 750w unit is sufficient for two cards.
i am running three 5870 off an 800w superflower amazon, it works very well.
it is more important to get a decent brand of psu, i had 750w cheapo ones die on 2 cards in contrast to the brand 800w working 3 cards at ease.

Hey guys,

right now the reporting about Bitcoin is taking off. A recurring mistake i see in each and every posting regarding Bitcoin is the percieved limit of payment units, giving people a sense that the BTC is the smallest unit around and only 7m exist right now. Bitcoin is hard to grasp as it is, so understanding that there are one million pieces to a bitcoin seems to be too far fetched to tech journalists and the average joe user.
I see the percieved value of bitcoins as key issue to more widespread acceptance, after all most people would see themselves limited to having 0,00135 something if accepted globally, giving people a permanent feeling of not having anything.
To overcome this "perception" issue and to introduce a naming pattern for bitcoin i suggest the following, without changing ANY values, just the naming and display pattern:

a) re-brand the current type of unit used within the system from BTC to MBTC

b) use the term Bitcoin for what is currently 1 millionth of a Bitcoin

optionally c) leave the 0,x to be the subdivision of a bitcoin

Here is a quick mock-up on how such change could appear, with or without option c:




In the end, it all boils down to giving people a simple terminology that uses terms they have come to learn in the past decade through personal computers seems to be the most consumer friendly approach.

edit: for reference, here is the link to the current unit charts and some other suggestions

https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Units
https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Universal_Bitcoin

dishwara i am not a fan of tax coin, however your banker etc scheme seems a bit far fetched.
tycho has his servers at hetzner, a provider that is very reliable but mostly known to it professionals in germany. so lets assume tycho is an it professional in the know from germany.
he possibly realized the potential of bitcoin early on and decided to start a pool service with features desireable to avg joe miners who want instant gratification.
you talk about bankers etc to back this initial startup process, however you seem to toally ignore, that an investment into btc, say for 2000 euro, and another 500 for hardware is well within easy reach for anyone in germany it industry.
so please keep your conspiracy theory out of the logic.

let me see, i looked at the isk i have, how much are you interested in?
500m? 1bn? more? let me know!

It puzzles me that there are plenty of very specific questions on operational efficiency have been raised by others and me and from all the replies you post, these are always excempt and never recieve any reply. Why is that?
It was asked, repeatedly, why mining with initial rigs has not started, it costs shareholder money.
It was asked how exactly the rigs are set up, the mhas/s numbers and cost you state are far from ideal, so it could be either an "unoptimized newbie build" or a "cash-sink".
It was just today again asked how exactly the mining operation will commence. This was again not answered. A Zero-% Pool would give, via API access to shareholder, a third party datasource regarding generated BTC, a feature highly desireable to shareholders at ZERO cost via say btcmine.com.
Why are these concerns not taken seriously, especially since points raised and suggestions made would significantly improve the business you are so fond of.

i think we will see a diff close to 300k on the next update.

To me your suggestion is a typical "Snake Oil" suggestion that seems very common here and in the marketplace, why? It has the same issues that so many others have:

- the benefit for you is very clear
- the benefit for your investor is not clear
- there is a significant risk that any "investor" or "customer" will never see his original investment return, let alone any roi, due to lack of accountability
- lack of trust and faith in competence is implicit when there are huge claims of opportunities and abilites when even the initial suggestion indicates that a) fundamentals of btc generation are not understood and b) zero of the claimed capabilites have been realized so far
- if all "BTC SnakeOil Schemes" would be as great as they claim, one would expect that the Salesman would have realized the massive potential and line his pockets with BTC, instead, despite a super great business scheme and claimed capabilites, zero progress was realized

Hello,

i have a vast array of assets in EVE, if anyone is interested in buying anything for BTC let me know.
I even have a 70m SP pure combat and another similarly skilled industrial character, if interest is there i will put more details up.

so let me rephrase that:

you have money for 3 of your rigs already now, 4 if you would take a more optimized build, capable of give or take 1gh/s. you could already be mining with 3 rigs taking in, given current valuation, a few hundret bucks. instead, it seems part of your plan to let this go waste, the money of your investors. if ROI if your investors is a concern for you, why arent the first btc already there? we are looking at anything between 40 to 60 btc not mined just since the week started.

Yeah, thing is that noone reads that, i was thinking more of a double confirmation red letter thing in the investment process

I think GLBSE can try to actively warn users to be cautious and selective due to the crypto nature of btc. After all if too many cases of scam exist GLBSE will suffer.

big kudos to you for providing such a service

i lol'ed