Generally speaking no. 

Scarcity of a product isn't inflation.  It simply is supply and demand.

One def on inflation is expanding monetary base.  Regardless of price of products if the money supply expands 5% you have 5% inflation.

Another def of inflation is a PERSISTENT RISE in GENERAL LEVEL of prices.  One product going up in price isn't inflation.  If all products (on average) are rising in price it isn't because of a rise in demand it is because the amount of money has expanded faster than the available goods & services.  Each unit of currency is worth less thus is requires more to get same amount of goods.

Scarcity driven price increases isn't inflation.  If a war with Iran broke out and oil spiked to $400 per barrel we wouldn't say we have 400% inflation.  Scarcity can drive prices up irregardless of inflation just as a lack of demand for a particular product can drive prices down.

The only "debate" on inflation is:
a) inflation = rate of monetary expansion

vs

b) inflation = rate of monetary expansion / rate of economic expansion

"specify that address using the command line when you run the p2pool node using the -a parameter"

then it won't be unknown.  If you have it setup for dynamic address it will change everytime p2pool restarts so even if you figure it out it will be different next time.  Just follow the recommendation.  STOP p2pool, start it with -a (payout address) parameter.  Then you will always know what it is.

The simple answer is "no".

The more complex answer is that the relay address is just that.  The first node seen by blockchain.info to broadcast the block.  If your pool (or you as a solo miner) didn't want to be seen you could simply ensure your node never connects to blockchain.info and instead only connects to other miners so that they will be the IP address seen by blockchain.info.  The "mystery" bot miner did this.

From the analysis link.


What does a bitcoin caclulator need access to Local Security Authority Subsystem Service in Windows?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Local_Security_Authority_Subsystem_Service

no IP addresses are stored in the blockchain.  Solo miner or pool. 

You sure about that.   A BFL single gets 25 MH/ BTC or ~5 MH/$?  Sweet.  I need to buy me some of those $166 BFL Singles.

BTW I don't own any of giga's bonds and I don't intend on buying them at 5MH/BTC but your conclusions are ... off.

Just think a deal for 5 MH/s for the same 1 BTC would be 500% better?  Would you be interested in that deal?

If 1 MH/s for 1 BTC is good then 5 MH/s for 1 BTC must be insanely good.

Any user linking to an image on another site.

You aren't reading.

If there is an image on the page NOT hosted by bitcointalk.org chrome will warn you by showing slash through the  https.

Nothing was fixed and nothing is broken.  Chrome is correctly indicating a page is not completely secure as some of the content comes form an insecure 3rd party.

Hmm scammer with small number of posts providing links to unknown binaries.

Plenty of web based claculators.  Installing unknown binaries from an untrusted source generally isn't a good idea.

That was never the main reason.  The main reason for open source is to avoid duplication of work.  When you gave up on the project had it been open source someone could have taken over where you left off.

Without the source there is no "taking over".  It is more like "I am surprised nobody started over from scratch to make an alternative".  Well they did there are numerous Bitcoin niche distros that started from scratch.

Those aren't mutually exclusive.

I am usually the one telling people that needing confirmations for all tx is silly.  Especially low value reversible ones.

That being said I have to think a 0-confirm ATM is likely a bankrupt ATM. 
Double spend = free money (literally). 

The defense of a double spend comes from the cost and complexity necessary to achieve it.   It likely isn't worth it to try and double spend a porn site or a McDonald's cheeseburger but I have think think double spending free cash is an attractive target.  Likely the most attractive target.

Duplicated work, security, and the fact that bitcoind is in beta (v 0.6).  

Every time there is a change to bitcoind, p2pool developers would need to spend time figuring out what the change it, how to integrate it into bitcoind/p2pool hybrid.  bitcoind exposes JSON for a reason to allow integration without requiring a custom hybrid application.

Making a GUI or web dashboard for p2pool is currently possible.  If a static address is used you can even lookup total revenue via blockchain.info. You could also lookup low level miner stats via cgminer JSON API.  Someone just needs to do it.

Lastly making p2pool friendly to complete noobs is likely futile.  As p2pool grows it becomes less attractive to tiny noob miners no matter how easy the code becomes.  So building robust tools which are attractive to medium sized miners is likely a better use of resources.

You flaw is you assume just having a cover means you will have the "tip of the cone" while other services without a cover won't.

That isn't proven.   If anything a cover with insufficient liquidity will simply mean less of the "tip of the cone" will even make any account much less trade.

Now if someone like MtGox decided they wanted to specialize in large money accounts and decided to implement a annual fee and flatter pricing (1BTC + 0.1% per trade)  they likely could get away with it especially if they used that annual fee to improve customer service.  They already have a premium service and likely could retain the "big money".  Their change in pricing would drive out the small accounts and allow them to focus on larger accounts.  Now it may not be optimal but they could do it.

TL/DR:
Simply putting a $100 cover on a cardboard box isn't likely to make the "club" swarming with hot chicks.

I mean if $100 cover alone somehow attracts the big money then a  $10,000 cover should work even better right?

Best of luck in your marketplace though having competition is always good.

No block records the origin IP address.  Some tools show the first IP address from which they first saw a block but that is just the first IP address that the node is aware of that relayed the block.   The IP address of a block's origin can never be definitively confirmed.

To answer you question there are no tools yet to support pruning the blockchain.

One thing to be aware if you can't just prune tx older than x days.  You can only prune tx which have been "spent" (used as an input in some subsequent tx).

The oldest spendable coinbase reward has never been spent (block #1, due to a bug the genesis block can never be spent).  If you pruned that tx and tomorrow someone used it in a tx your node wouldn't be able to validate that tx.  Worse it would consider that tx invalid and thus the block that includes it invalid too.   By incorrectly invalidating that block (and every block built on top of it) your node would be forked from the main chain forever.

Simple version:
No and even if/when they exist you will only be able to prune spent outputs.

Even if it is "free" as in free beer it won't be "free" as in free speech.

No darker magic.  When you change cards you need to rebuild xorg config.  

The --initial param ONLY changes xorg for the sections which are invalid.  If they are valid but wrong (like when swapping cards in and out) it will not make ANY change to that section.

"-f" forces a change.  It makes aticonfig blow away the entire xorg config file and rebuild it regardless of it is valid or not on the next reboot.


Yes if AMD had any brains they would remove the -f param and make --initial perform as --initial -f does now but that likely is never happening.

You can use either bitcoind or bitcoin-qt (GUI) while mining w/ p2pool.
bitcoind when running unintuitively is blocking and responds to no commands.
Once bitcoind is running you can simply run the desired command from a second command line (in windows).


to get a list of all RPC

Including wallet functionality in p2pool doesn't seem like a good solution.


I agree and hopefully forrestv sees this.  The default option should be a static payment address.  Not just for your particular case but because dynamic unspecified payment address isn't intuitive to most users.   Those who would want that option are likely savy enough to manually specify it. 

"Normal" pools ask users for a payment address so by default it is more intuitive if p2pool does also.

There often are complaints about "not getting paid" because user is looking at address A in blockchain.info but address B is now being used.  Many new users just startup p2pool with no options and then are confused as to where they the payment is going.  Even those who figure it out may not realize that each time p2pool starts it can pick a new address. 

Tools like http://p2pool.info are more useful with  a static payment address.

Honestly I think dynamic addresses as the default just create confusion and produce very little value.  It is similar to how solo-mining works (and I guess the reason forrestv made it work that way) but most users no longer solomine.

If it were me I would drop the -a option make an address a required parameter which can be overridden by a new "-d | --dynamic" parameter.

i.e. something like