But it also has less resale value. You're right about cost per watt and heat, 7970 was running way too hot when I got it and I have to undervolt it.

I do know the psychology. I've switched from dollars to Bitcoins. In my opinion the added precision is a good thing because for the Internet micropayments are essential. Just because you don't care about losing a cent it doesn't mean in the future when a Bitcent is worth more than a Euro or dollar cent that we won't care about losing that. When a Bitcent is worth 10 bucks we are going to really l care about losing the Bitcent and that added precision will matter. At the same time micropayments will allow us to get paid all over the Internet in Bitcent which today might seem ridiculous, we can get paid in fractions of a penny for Internet content with Bitcoins easier than breaking a penny up into smaller and smaller fractions but those micropayments will be very valuable to us and we will care about them even if we don't right now.

What I'm saying is it's probably beneficial for us to think more about those zeros. It is a change but it's not that hard, right now a Bitdollar is 0.01*, in the future it will be 0.0001* and it will take months or years to get to that. So I'm not really having much difficulty thinking in Bitcoin already. To me it's actually more natural to think in smaller and smaller amounts but I admit maybe it's just me, also I don't mind using a calculator prior to matching a purchase and I don't see how it's difficult to display the dollar amount next to the Bitcoin amount to help train people.

The increased precision might be psychologically difficult for people but it also means more money in your pocket which eventually you'll be able to use to buy stuff and then it will be associated with those products in your brain.


But it's not my job to prove Litecoin is less secure. It's Litecoin's job to prove it's more secure and it doesn't. In my personal and professional opinion it's less secure, but I accept that I could be proved wrong. Do you believe Litecoin is more secure?

I'll offer my perspective, I believe the security of the network depends on how widely and evenly distributed the hashing power is on the network. I think ASICs if not quickly distributed to as many people for as cheaply as possible, could actually compromise the security of Bitcoin. Basically what this comes down to is whether or not you think SHA256 or Scrypt is a better hashing algorithm and whether or not you think Bitcoin/Litecoin will be vulnerable to a 51% attack.

I don't think either Bitcoin or Litecoin will be vulnerable to these attacks provided they have enough network hashing power and it's widely distributed.

In the US Dollar we have cents to represent the 1.**, why don't we just get rid of cents and make it psychologically easier? Better yet why not get rid of 20 dollar bills, 10 dollar bills, 5 dollar bills, and just trade in 100 dollar bills to make it even easier still?

The reason I think is you lose an amount of precision in exchange for that psychology. How do you handle micropayments without that added precision?

Litecoin is less secure because GPU mining while it might be more profitable is not going to secure a network as quickly as ASICs. This is just basic knowledge, if you have ASICS already developed then all you really have to do to keep the network secure is distribute the ASICS to as many people as possible. ASICS do not cost a lot of electricity and run at 30 watts or less compared to GPU which costs much more in terms of electricity and is much more inefficient. So just on energy efficiency and overall efficiency alone ASICS are better in my opinion for security. Also the complaints about confirmation time are psychological complains from people who don't like the idea of having to wait 30 minutes to an hour for the security to go through. These people would rather sacrifice a degree of certainty for transaction speed. There is no proof right now that Litecoin offers any security advantage over Bitcoin. My conclusion is that Litecoin is a well marketed coin catering to the miner demographic.

I communicated with SunnyKing himself. He says that PPcoin has no set in stone amount but that it will adhere to the model set by Bitcoin and Litecoin. Basically it's not generating a whole lot of coins at a very fast rate and eventually will be Proof of Stake so it's going to take a long time to reach 2 billion even if that is the cap and I don't think it is as he said he is only using that number internally for consistency. If you ask me what I think Sunny King is doing I think he's going to position PPcoin to be more scarce than Litecoin no matter what and competitive with Bitcoin in terms of the per capita amounts in circulation.

Prove it. And no it's not just the total number of coins created but also the rate of creation that contributes to pump and dump. If you create 50,000 coins a week from one coin then that one coin is going to have a lot of people trying to dump it at the end of the week because the supply will outpace the demand. What I want is for the demand to always outpace the supply so that these coins will have reasonable prices and be released at a reasonable rate and while miners might not be able to get quick profits I think it's better to slow the pace of inflation down. The total cap should be small because of psychological effect but the rate of inflation isn't just a psychological appeal to coin collector instincts but is real mathematics and is in my opinion really bad for markets. The rate of inflation has to be slowed and with Feathercoin and Chinacoin this did not happen and the result is these coins are now over mined, very cheap and psychologically a cheap coin has less people demanding to buy it.

Because why is are people all over Litecoin? It's nothing more than a well marketed coin catering to GPU miners. It's not more secure than Bitcoin. It's got a larger total cap for marketing purposes so people feel richer, it's allows for GPU mining so miners can make money, it has a catchy name and a really nice logo. It's in second place while PPcoin which actually is very innovative, is at best in third place. It's debatable if you think Proof of Stake will work but at least it's significantly different from Bitcoin and for security reasons not just to make miners happy or make speculators happy like with Litecoin and Mincoin.

In my opinion people jump on in mass because of marketing. Coins which have terrible marketing or no logo have less support and PPcoin is perfect example of such a coin with very good technology and ideas behind it and very little marketing which proves technology doesn't market itself.

Hello MichaelS, thank you for your response. Allow me to clarify my positions.

There is more to a coin than mathematics and technology. My argument is that we have two variables with the first being the coin price and the second being the coin value. According to my argument the coin price is influenced by psychology and the coin value is influenced by it's technological utility. My argument is that speculation is based around psychology. I argue that appealing to the psychology of speculators is important because it attracts early adopters to the coin just like appealing to the psychology of miners is important to attract them to secure the network.

Bitbar in specific may very well be more scarce than Mincoin but from their website they do a terrible job explaining the technology behind it and it's barely readable. I admit I don't know the technical details of Bitbar because I have not examined the source code. I can understand your view that Mincoin could be viewed as a clone of Litecoin but it can never be a pump and dump coin because it takes far too long to create a large portion of coins from which to dump. I view Mincoin as an experimental coin because at the time it was the first coin to have a smaller amount in total units than Bitcoin by more than half. If you're prone to view this as purely psychological then perhaps it should be considered a long term psychological experiment which can be used in the future as a case study, but I do not see it behaving as a pump and dump coin as it's not even on the major exchanges, it has never been pumped or dumped and has stayed at relatively the same price range. Feathercoin however was pumped almost overnight and ended up on BTC-E in record time and got dumped over the course of a few hours. I was there and I watched the psychology of the people doing the dumping and the psychology of the people doing the buying and the main interest expressed in public was short term profit, while when I look at Mincoin the main interest expressed in public is of long term profit and talking about how Mincoin could someday by worth much more than it is. This isn't the sign of a pump and dump coin and if it was meant to be that then it has failed as a short term investment.


Every theory I have comes from obvervation. But if you'd like to prove any of my theories wrong there are plenty of behaviors to observe and case studies to conduct, it's easy to use that behavior as part of a case study. We have charts and records of everything that happened with Feathercoin, Mincoin, or any other coin and we can see the psychology of the panic seller and we can see the psychology of the coin collector, it's all in the charts. Speculation if you view it as a sport, hobby or profession is based around psychology and any successful speculator on this forum will know that.
 
It's also something we can see from the trollbox at BTC-E, or from observing many other virtual currencies and the behavior in that. You're in from a mathematics background but in my opinon if you divorce the math from the psychology then you're not going to understand behavior. Human behavior is not rational, people who are collecting coins are not always doing it for rational reasons, what I'm saying is that the foundation of the Bitcoin economy is not rational and this is why there is volatility. Automated trading has only made it easier to exploit that irrationality but once again it's not rational and no you cannot introduce a coin without appealing to psychology, but this is my opinion. Litecoin appeals to psychology even in the name of the coin, the name is cool and catchy, the logo is cool and catchy, it's got faster confirmation time, it's got more total units, this is all about psychology. At the same time Mincoin does the same thing, it's got less total units than Bitcoin, it's got a catchy name and logo, it's got faster confirmation time, it's marketed as rare.

But really how do you see Mincoin as a pump and dump coin but you see Litecoin as legit? Litecoin was designed to appeal to the psychology of miners who mine it while Mincoin was designed to appeal to the psychology of speculators who collect and trade coins. Scrypt does not enhance the security of the network, it simply allows GPU miners to continue mining and that is about it. SHA256 is better and the use of ASICS do not necessarily hurt the network provided that the ASICs are distributed. So basically the GPU miners wanted a coin other than Bitcoin that they could mine with their GPUs and still make a profit, it was all built around psychology and not some improvement in the mathematics or in the security. If you can see some improvement in the security, tell me how it improves the security over Bitcoin to have faster confirmation time? Tell me how moving away from SHA256 can possibly improve the security? Litecoin is very well marketed.

The success of Facebook is also a result of marketing. Myspace was the better technology but why did Facebook beat Myspace? Facebook appealed to the Ivy league universities at first claiming in order to join Facebook you had to be a member of an Ivy league university. Then they opened it up to all universities next, and then finally they opened it up to everyone. It started as an exclusive club atmosphere. It appealed to psychology and the feeling of belonging to a cool exclusive club to beat Myspace which didn't have that cool exclusive feel. It offered no technological advantage over Myspace, it had no first mover advantage over Myspace, but it beat Myspace entirely on psychology and marketing. Even now to this day it's not better than the competition but it uses psychology to lock people in.

I think you have the attitude that if a technically and mathematically superior coin is created that this alone is all that is needed. My argument is that yes you really do have to appeal to the psychology of coin collectors. A coin really has to seem rare, feel scarce. A coin must have a catchy name that people remember. A coin must have an eye pleasing logo. A coin must fill a psychological niche or several. A coin must appeal to speculators and to miners if it's going to get an army of early adopters to support it. Technology might attract you and me, I really do appreciate technological innovations in Bitcoin, PPcoin, Qubic, Namecoin. But I also appreciate the psychological appeal of Litecoin, Novacoin, Terracoin, Mincoin. The coin to challenge Bitcoin in my opinion will need to be technologically superior while also having the psychological appeal and I think your primary focus is only on the technological innovation. If this in fact is the case then how can you explain why Litecoin is in second place when it's basically a clone of Bitcoin which uses scrypt to appeal to the psychology of miners? It's not really all that different from Bitbar appealing to the psychology of gold bugs, or Mincoin appealing to the psychology of coin collectors, and then you have Terracoin and Novacoin which are speculator dream coins.


I understand the users perspective. The perspective of users is that the is no infrastructure. There is no place to earn Bitcoins, there is no place to easily buy Bitcoins, there are limited places to spend Bitcoins, and all of these options come with risks of losing Bitcoins. It's bad enough exchanges are being hacked, but cryptostocks was hacked, Gox was DDOSed, and the price reflects the psychological attitude of the users. The problem the users are having is infrastructure doesn't exist to make Bitcoin a true medium of exchange and if Bitcoin worked as a true medium of exchange there really isn't much of a need right now for Litecoin. Litecoin isn't more secure than Bitcoin in any way that I can see and it's only a different psychological appeal, but not actually better and even the Silver to Bitcoin gold thing is a psychological appeal. All of the appeal in Litecoin is based around the psychology I'm talking about and if my arguments were so wrong then Namecoin, Devcoin, PPcoin, all should be higher priced than Litecoin because they all have more value  and more innovation than Litecoin. PPcoin is Proof of Stake and is a new protocol. Namecoin is a sort of name based value exchange protocol which will have all sorts of technological appeal. Devcoin is an extremely important coin because it's the one coin which attempts to solve the infrastructure problem.

Why aren't PPcoin, Devcoin and Namecoin ahead of Litecoin? Litecoin appeals to miners and miners are the most powerful group. The next most powerful group in the community are speculators. Ordinary every day users aren't who currently decide the fate of the different coins. Speculators decide to pour their money into one coin or another and it gets pumped and if they pull their money out of any coin including Bitcoin then they price will drop way down and the coin will die in the eyes of the media. Miners are also essential because if they pull out then the network is no longer secure. Appealing to the psychology of these two demographics is critical and my views have not changed but only strengthened.
And this ^ is an example of psychological appeal. Adam intuitively gets what I'm talking about.

I agree also that a carefully parameterized logarithmic approach can work, but the key word is it has to be very careful. This would require a mathematician or math genius to pull off and it just seems easier to take a known model which works (Bitcoin) and tweak it up or down a few percentage points because you can just use chart history to have an indication of how that market operates. Going entirely into the theoretical mathematics approach is considerably more difficult in my opinion because now you will have to run some simulations to have any idea how it will work. I'd be open to this idea if you'd like to run some simulations on a test network and analyze the results. If you can show that it can work in a simulation or through a case study that would be enough for me to become a believer but right now I favor the approach that Satoshi used with some miner tweaks, basically I'll call it Bitcoin on steroids. Take what worked with Bitcoin and do it slightly better, make it slightly faster, slightly more secure, slightly more scarce. In some areas perhaps it might even be that Netcoin is much more secure. I'd like to see Netcoin become the Platinum to Bitcoin gold while also being faster and more secure.
I agree. I'm open to look at it from all sides as well. Please continue to support Netcoin with your knowledge on mathematics, I actually value that contribution because I learn a thing or two even if I don't always agree it advances the debate in the right direction.

You make a very interesting point about how clients can deal with this. I agree that is the approach which should be used because what we are talking about is mostly a psychological thing and not a technical thing. Somehow Satoshi pulled off something unique because he turned Bitcoin into a digital gold and I think this psychological accomplishment is important to the success of a coin. I propose Netcoin clients actually implement something like this from default, like perhaps let the user decide between Netcoin and MC2.

I do think scarcity is important but only early on. The purpose of scarcity or at least the effect it seems to have in the Bitcoin experiment is that it creates bubbles. There are many who argue these bubbles are a bad thing because of the collapse but if you look at the overall trend of Bitcoin it's going up and these bubbles actually are creating media attention and attracting people to Bitcoin. I think Netcoin could launch without having the same kind of bubble growth and collapse because by the time it launches there will be much more actual currency infrastructure. That being said the price of a Netcoin being high for whatever reason I cannot explain, it's like once the price of a Netcoin surpasses the dollar now it's considered a major currency, now it's passed a psychological barrier,  and when Bitcoin passed $100 it passed a psychological barrier and now it's still over $100 only in my opinion because it was over $100 previously and surpassed that psychological barrier. When it got over $100 it also attracted attention from the media, and people started asking questions about it. If each Bitcoin were 50 cent right now it would be much more difficult to bring it up in conversations but if the price is $100 or $1000 each then it gives users the excuse to be talking about it.

Basically I'm saying scarcity is good for marketing and PR if it results in high prices and the idea that Netcoin/Bitcoin/Litecoin is ahead of the dollar in the currency race and ahead of whatever the most expensive currency is. It's all psychological, can you explain to me why this happens? Can you also explain to me why the dollar and Euro are considered to be of greater value than other currencies besides ideology, politics and psychology? I don't see what else the dollar and Euro have going on beyond the fact that a lot of people want them, view them as valuable, and want to move to Europe or the USA to work for them. The American dream explains why people want dollars, that and the fact that with dollars you can send money back home, what can attract dollar holders to Netcoins in the same way? What about Euro holders?

Yeah you can say Netcoins is technically superior, mathematically sound, a global currency, but it's going to be considered a sort of play money until it passes the psychological barriers and then it becomes "real" money to most people. Bitcoin had to go through that phase and only when it passed $100 is it being considered real money.

My Sapphire Vapor X 7970s were running too hot. I had to shut down one of them because it was going up to 95c. It runs okay with two of them around 85c each but its still unstable.

How do you keep them cool? I'm getting around 666-700khash each.

Why is it that I keep seeing the same arguments from mathematician types about how we need more total coins and all of those arguments are going like "When the market cat reaches 20 trillion then we will run out of decimal places so we need to launch Netcoin with 10 trillion coins to prevent this from happening".  <-- This is an actual argument on mathematic merit which can be countered by simply stating that the total number of possessed coins per capita measured and charted should include all cryptocurrencies (Bitcoin and all altcoins). Since we have Feathercoins, Litecoins, PPcoins, and there will continue to be more coins like these inflating the total units in the market I see no point in straying far away from the Bitcoin deflationary model.

When I promote the deflationary model I'm saying that I expect and the mathematics currently support that the total amount of alt-coin variations will increase, the total amount of coins held per capita will increase, so that inflation will happen that way even if Bitcoins have a hard limit of 21 million. I'm also saying Netcoin should at least start out for the first 30 years as being less inflationary than Bitcoin so that it can compete with Bitcoin in scarcity but there is also no reason why we cannot after 30 years vote on a level of inflation. When you start looking ahead 100 years however, and looking all the way until the sun burns out, that is the sign of a mathematician who is divorced from reality. It's pointless to try and predict 100 years into the future when we don't even know if capitalism will exist 100 years into the future. That is just too far away when you consider the technological rate of change to expect Netcoin to even exist. Windows 95 dominated the 90s, Windows 2000 and other operating systems like XP and Vista were popular in the 2000 era. Bitcoin is going to dominate at least for the next 5 years but Netcoin might ultimately win long term.

The point I'm making is we don't need to produce a coin with 1 trillion units, or 1 billion units, or even necessarily greater than 21 million units, I want the coin to be as scarce as necessary, so inflation grows very very slowly and with diversity. My thought is that it's better if per capita we have a handful of very rare very valuable coins with unique properties rather than to have a whole lot of a specific coin which floods the market with units and dominates through inflation. I'm saying that for something like micropayments it makes sense to have more units and faster transactions but then when you want to buy a car, a house, or actually work and get paid in that currency then to me it doesn't make much sense to have trillions of units because then the value of each unit as a negotiable instrument of payment in my opinion tends to decrease, buying power tends to decrease, credit and debt tends to increase and while I'd like to be wrong about this, this is what has happened to the dollar.

I think maintaining diversity of different coins and having some coins act as deflationary hedges while others are used for micropayments and quick spend is a good balance. I see Bitcoin as being the new normal on the bellcurve of total units making 21 million the absolute center because Bitcoin is the center right now. I think going significantly less than Bitcoin or significantly more is a risk and I don't think we should trust mathematicians because if their formula is for instance expecting a 20 trillion market cap then yeah it starts making sense to have a lot more coins but a 20 trillion market cap is an extremely unlikely scenario and even the biggest bulls aren't predicting more than a few trillion market cap in the next 10 years. Also if you look ahead 100, 1000, or 1 million years then you're going to get very different math than if you look ahead a more reasonable 10, 20, or 30 years.

In the next 30 years in my opinion a strongly deflationary currency makes more sense. I cannot speak for what life will be like 100 years from now to even know capitalism will still be needed. We might not even have to work at all in 100 years so having to discuss 100 years into the future is probably an error in judgment.  What would be best for the next 10 years?

In my opinion the main issues we have right now in 2013 are credit, debt, the psychological inability to save, corporations thinking only of short term quick profits and in short quarters instead of the long term, the environment and as a result our health suffering from the lack of long term investor mentality. I think it's critical that the alt-coins do everything possible to avoid promoting the destructive short term profit mentality that is the current normal. If alt-coins are going to change the world and cryptocurrencies are going to make a better society then they must promote better economic behavior and that means long term investing, saving, actually thinking about the big picture, and deflationary currencies seem to be better at doing that.

From the look at how Bitcoin is influencing behavior it seems people aren't likely to waste their money.  Sure some people are trading thousands of Bitcoins for a pizza and now feel guilty about it but I think this guilt they are feeling is a good thing. It's this guilt that ultimately will make them think long and hard about future purchases. Bitcoin makes us think before we buy instead of the sort of inflated currencies that make us impulse buy or the micropayment currencies where we monetize everything so everything gets a fraction of a cent and while this might be a fair way of doing it, it's not a guarantee that everyone will be able to survive on a fraction of cent income a day in all parts of the world. This means the actual exchange rate between the currency with 10 trillion units has to be favorable to get people to trade trillions of dollars for it. If we assume 20 trillion dollar market cap then 10 trillion units might work, if we assume 500 billion to 1 trillion dollar market cap how exactly will 10 trillion units work?

Faster confirmation and better suited for micropayments because there's a bit more totalLTC than BTC.

That said the timing of these posts are just to try and pump PPC and LTC. The alt-coin market has been greatly diminished by the rise in difficulty in mining, the pump and dumps, and the pump and dump scam coins.

PPC is 6 months to a year away from being put on Gox.  LTC probably wont make it on Gox until July or August at the earliest. By the time PPC is being discussed to be put on Gox it will have to compete with Netcoin which is hybrid POW/POS and I don't see PPC having an easy time winning that competition.

When Netcoin is released it's going to smash all release records for any coin. It's probably going to be over $1 in value the day it's released and will probably stay there because the initial investors will be long term investors. It's going to be a pump and dump proof coin.

I'm all over this coin. Mining it HARD. And I will be buying thousands.

You just explained it. The hackers are probably dumping the coins and ruining price for all.

The argument that people can and should work for free isn't going to build infrastructure. I agree with you all the various blockchains have to be secured, that hashing power has to be increased, that each coin needs to be promoted with websites, word of mouth, blogs, twitter, full marketing campaigns have to be launched for each.

So what we need to do as a community is actually put our minds together to develop a fair model to reward the behaviors we want to encourage. If we aren't willing to pay for infrastructure then we can't complain about the lack of distributed exchanges or MtGox going down or sites being hacked all the time and so on. In order to build this infrastructure, members of the community have to be compensated and Devcoin isn't working and probably isn't going to work either. My advice is instead of a centralized Devcoin which isn't really working, we should design an IPO funding model and test that model out and see exactly how well that model works in practice, then write up case studies and papers detailing what did work and why so the next generation can rely on those research papers and the scientific method to refine their launches to make them even more fair and more impressive.

To start we need to assume each developer will need $100,000, as this isn't enough to make a developer rich but it is enough to pay a US or Japanese citizen in the most expensive part of the country to live for at least 1 year. Also this is only slightly more than what developers usually make, so it's a fair amount and will get developers to quit their jobs and want to do this. The funding mechanism has to be something we continue to improve on and we have to find a mechanism to reward the people who do that, so that those people can research full time, develop new prototypes based on that research so that future launches can become even more fair than the last.

We can disagree on numbers, on how to get it done, but infrastructure has to be developed, new coins have to be developed, research has to be funded, and we cannot expect it to just happen or for it to happen for free, we have to figure out how to generate enough money as a community to create a vibrant self sustaining economic eco-system.

Time isn't free. So basically only rich people or retired people will get to work on these projects? Not fair at all. And to think people will dedicate years of their lives for free or to expect slave labor to produce quality is basically the sweat shop model.

Developers should be allowed to get paid. How much is fair? Whatever they would be paid in the private sector + 10%. So $100,000 would be fair for the developer, but to expect the developer to work essentially for free, full time? We are talking PHD level work. Linux was developed by private corporations like Redhat, Suse, IBM, Oracle, they all funded Linux. The developers working on the Linux kernel and other critical components like Mozilla are getting paid.

The risks are still there today. What if the government decides to crack down on everyone? These risks still exist and every new cryptocoin faces these risks and every miner, investor, developer and early adopter faces these risks. Allowing them all to profit doesn't reduce the risk but it might give them enough money to move to a less oppressive location or hire a lawyer at least.

The purpose of developing a coin shouldn't be to get rich, but it shouldn't be expected that people will work for free. The purpose of developing these coins is to make peoples time worth something to the economy and to monetize things. The idea that the developers time is worthless, or that electricity is just free, is unfair. The developers time is not worthless, and electricity is not free. Developing a successful cryptocoin is not easy on any level, and while Bitcoin launched on the cheap it also took 4 years to go mainstream. The next generation coins may only have a year, or 6 months to launch and that is if they are planned out, it's also going to require a lot more effort in terms of programming.

Go read the Bitcoin code and see how it was hacked together. The design of Bitcoin is the design of a mathematician but the code is a hack job. New coins need to be designed by full time programmers with highly modular and secure code bases. No more just taking the Bitcoin code and adding a hack or two or a new hash or two, but we need new better rewrites of the code and that can cost hundreds of thousands of dollars and months of time. As a programmer go compare the QT5 code to GTK and see for yourself the difference in quality.  

I have used nootropics and I think your business would benefit greatly by accepting cryptocurrencies.

When I have enough coins I'll make sure to check out your site and buy some nootropics. When deciding to adopt a coin you want to look at the market cap of the different coins. Bitcoin of course, then Litecoin, then PPcoin, then Namecoin. That seems to be how it's looking and from there the smaller coins are fighting it out for market share.

Certain coins in development however you'll want to adopt right away and Netcoin is one of those coins so keep your eyes open for the release of that coin. Add Netcoin to your watchlist: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=169204.0

It's three cards in a row. It seems to be getting good airflow as the whole room heats up from it.

What should I undervolt it to? What is a good level? I will have to give that a try today.

I'm using SAPPHIRE 100352-4L Radeon HD 7950 3GB GDDR5 PCI-Express Video Card x3 and it's overheating to the point of shutting down. So I reversed the overclock and still it's doing it. I'll keep tweaking.

Only if they used proper encryption. No encryption and they own all your coins!

The Vircurex news will crash the price over the weekend.

One of my 7970s is running up into the 95C range while the others are in the 80s. Any explanation for why this could happen?

It's summer time for one, and also these cards seem to naturally run very hot. 60s isn't running hot.

Devcoin is now officially dead. This hack killed the currency before it could crawl.  Either we lost all our devcoins or we will sell them all immediately. I know the first thing I'm going to do if I can access my Devcoins is sell them and I'm prett sure everyone else is thinking the same after seeing this news.

I had over 100,000 Devcoins too.