Limited use? Bitcoin had limited use upon its creation as well. All it takes is time, there's already projects being developed for LTC and it will continue to grow.
"Hope springs eternal." Bitcoin isn't even mainstream yet. Litecoin doesn't stand a chance. Litecoin is the latest worthless alt-coin Pump & Dump being chased by the miners for a few extra bucks. It will fail just like the other two dozen "alt-coin" blockchains before it. You show me one of these "projects" in the works for Litecoin, and I'll show you a dozen for Bitcoin. If you show me 2 projects for Litecoin, I'll show you 2 dozen. And so forth. Don't know why your here if you can so clearly predict the future you should be rich by now... |
|
|
|
why would i get a "all devices disabled, cannot mine" error?
win 7 geforce gtx 260
installed amd app sdk v2.8 windows 64 bit, ati 11.12
thanks
Well helps if you use the right drivers geforce uses nvidia drivers not ati, btw those cards suck at mining. |
|
|
|
I've been spamming replies on it all day (good legitimate replies, that is). Hopefully discarding some of the myths people have about bitcoin.
I completely agree with Erik - never talk about mining. It is pointless these days. Point out the merits of Bitcoin as a transaction system. "You can send money to anyone anywhere in the world, instantly and for free, and there is no government or bank acting as a middleman." When you make simple statements like that that people can relate to, they begin to understand why Bitcoin is such a revolutionary idea.
Then they see you have lied to them and don't trust anything you have to say later, there are very few ways to send BTC that don't cost money and plenty of middlemen getting their cut along the way. |
|
|
|
Ah poor baby scared it might steal some of the BTC profits away. If it can't handle the competition it deserves to die.
It's not that BTC can't handle it, but that the whole idea at risk. Now, it's quickly apparent that you're looking forward to graduating junior high in a few months, but you failed to even address the concern in my post. What GOAL could litecoin have except for bringing down all cryptocurrency? A fix for one of the obvious flaws in btc for one the long wait times by having faster blocks which also protects against large loss of hash rate that will cripple btc if it ever happens. And my point stands if btc is that fragile good riddance. |
|
|
|
The only success litecoin or any alt-scam has is to prove that cryptocurrency is unstable and worthless.
Imagine: "Oh, you use BTC? Try litecoin! Or whatever new one comes out next! Wait...where are you going? Why aren't you taking this seriously?!"
Get out.
We're all sorry that your sad that you weren't an early adopter of BTC and don't have 10,000 stashed away, but trying to ruin the whole thing because of your tears ain't the way to go.
Ah poor baby scared it might steal some of the BTC profits away. If it can't handle the competition it deserves to die. |
|
|
|
I need to rate RB26DETT -10 for stealing 33 BTC from me and lying about having a rating before the transaction.
While nice of the poster above me he missed the key part of your post namely the user you want to rate has no rating therefore you cannot rate him at all. As well for any future deals make sure the person idents before any transactions so you know you are dealing with the person who controls the key that is rated. http://wiki.bitcoin-otc.com/wiki/GPG_authenticationEdit: And make sure to register your nick with freenode so no one can impersonate you. http://freenode.net/faq.shtml#nicksetup |
|
|
|
5. Customer service. I don't know what the customer service is like from this other site. I'm sure it is good otherwise they'd probably be out of business but some people may prefer how I work with them. Complete customer opinion and their choice there.
The NCIX customer service is nothing special and you will be calling it if you do business with them. On that point if you do business with them then you better put that item you are going to buy into something like pricebat.ca to search for the lowest price available as they will charge you a higher price on their site for the exact same item you are buying from them that is available at a lower price on there. Don't know how much money they scammed me for before I caught on to that rip off they do. That said they are usually pretty good as the shipping is low and you can price match with their shell companies (check the address if it says North Viking Way = NCIX shell) they have on the web to get good deals and if your order has not shipped in a day you damn well better call or it will be a week or so before they get around to you also helps get them off their ass on the partially shipped orders they like to do seems they have never heard of inventory management and its application to modern business practices. Actually they usually have it in stock just in one of the shell companies that they have to transfer it from to get it to you. |
|
|
|
Something like namecoin but for nzbs? Just talking out loud here.
Yeah namecoin is the idea for all this BS no way to screw over the domains if they start blocking IPs then all that is needed is a change in the record in namecoin by the holder of it. What is really needed though is to break the lock the content mafia have on the channel of distribution itself. In other words a reboot of the internet on a P2P distributed network with something like namecoin running the domains end to end encrypted by default. |
|
|
|
He ran to a lawyer because it benefits him.
That and he needs one if you have not noticed he went to criminal lawyer not a commercial lawyer who does business deals. |
|
|
|
A bond is an instrument that provides a fixed rate of return on the investment made. It could be considered a form of contract the difference here is in the claims process you are swearing out a legal document that in its own words says to the best of your knowledge what you are claiming is true. Now the people doing this claims process know it was not a contract they bought but a bond purchase as they were sold it. So this whole thing has been structured to foist a fraud upon the legal process with anyone who submits a claim form as it is written committing perjury.
This doesn't make any sense to me. A bond "instrument" is a contract: it is a contract of debt sale. One party provides value up front, and the other party provides the contractual right to receive payments in the future in such amounts and under such conditions as the bond specifies. From what you write, you seem to think that it's true and accurate for an affidavit to state: "Giga is indebted to me for this many shares of the mining proceeds because there was an agreement that ties certain chunks of indebtedness to an original act of giving Giga money, and I have subsequently bought these rights." ...And yet you are trying to say that it's "fraudulent" for an affidavit to state, as Quentin's does: "I am the owner of one party's rights and obligations in a number of contracts to which Giga is the other party, and so I hereby make a claim to the payments that Giga needs to make in order to fulfill his end." (The actual text being "I am the lawful beneficial asignee" of contracts). I'm pretty sure these really, really are the same thing. The real debate and griping on this thread seems actually to center on the "lawful" part rather than the "contracts" part. People are noting that the parties originally thought it would work one way, and then by subsequent events (GLBSE closure) and revelations (legal advice) it turns that executing the contracts lawfully will require more from both sides. They seem to be saying that that Giga should, for the sake of honor or something, execute the original vision rather than the revised "actually legal" vision, sacrificing compliance on the altar of the original contract's purity and integrity. That strikes me as a bit silly -- but not nearly as silly as trying to claim that there are no "contracts" at all. They were bonds issued not contracts they are now being claimed to not be bonds because his criminal lawyer has told him he is in deep doggie poo. Now he tries to re-write history because he knows what he has already done is illegal bringing in all his claimants as participants in the deception as he tries to spin his actions as something they were not in a legal process where you are obligated to tell the truth. It's like you quoted what I wrote and didn't even read it. If it made actual sense it may have been worth responding to point by point but as it is you do nothing but try to excuse his attempt to commit fraud and draw others into it. PLONK. |
|
|
|
If gigavps can pressure its asset holders to get back assets, why he cant sue Nefario for shutdown?
GLBSE shutdown caused all problem & if you are a true person, then SUE Neafrio for doing felony things.
You don't have the courage to pressure legally Nefario , but can pressure assets holders, coz THEIR MONEY IS WITH YOU by asking personal things ?
Drag Nefario to court & prove you are in the side of asset holders.
He will need to admit that he issued an illegal security and will be in a jail cell alongside nefario. If he wants us, the investors to go in CORRECT LEGAL WAY to get back claims, then gigavps MUST ALSO GO SAME CORRECT LEGAL WAY. Is he ready to go jail, for not doing legal things, like creating and issuing illegal security? Indeed and a claims form that is making the claimants commit perjury to recover their funds is not a legal way to do it. |
|
|
|
A bond is an instrument that provides a fixed rate of return on the investment made. It could be considered a form of contract the difference here is in the claims process you are swearing out a legal document that in its own words says to the best of your knowledge what you are claiming is true. Now the people doing this claims process know it was not a contract they bought but a bond purchase as they were sold it. So this whole thing has been structured to foist a fraud upon the legal process with anyone who submits a claim form as it is written committing perjury.
This doesn't make any sense to me. A bond "instrument" is a contract: it is a contract of debt sale. One party provides value up front, and the other party provides the contractual right to receive payments in the future in such amounts and under such conditions as the bond specifies. From what you write, you seem to think that it's true and accurate for an affidavit to state: "Giga is indebted to me for this many shares of the mining proceeds because there was an agreement that ties certain chunks of indebtedness to an original act of giving Giga money, and I have subsequently bought these rights." ...And yet you are trying to say that it's "fraudulent" for an affidavit to state, as Quentin's does: "I am the owner of one party's rights and obligations in a number of contracts to which Giga is the other party, and so I hereby make a claim to the payments that Giga needs to make in order to fulfill his end." (The actual text being "I am the lawful beneficial asignee" of contracts). I'm pretty sure these really, really are the same thing. The real debate and griping on this thread seems actually to center on the "lawful" part rather than the "contracts" part. People are noting that the parties originally thought it would work one way, and then by subsequent events (GLBSE closure) and revelations (legal advice) it turns that executing the contracts lawfully will require more from both sides. They seem to be saying that that Giga should, for the sake of honor or something, execute the original vision rather than the revised "actually legal" vision, sacrificing compliance on the altar of the original contract's purity and integrity. That strikes me as a bit silly -- but not nearly as silly as trying to claim that there are no "contracts" at all. They were bonds issued not contracts they are now being claimed to not be bonds because his criminal lawyer has told him he is in deep doggie poo. Now he tries to re-write history because he knows what he has already done is illegal bringing in all his claimants as participants in the deception as he tries to spin his actions as something they were not in a legal process where you are obligated to tell the truth. |
|
|
|
What is the difference, technically, between a bond and a contract in this sense?
I'm honestly in the dark on this as someone who doesn't work with securities, bonds, contracts, and the like.
For what it is worth I also have no stake in Gigamining whatsoever. I'm just curious of the difference between these particular terms in the sense they're being applied here.
A bond is an instrument that provides a fixed rate of return on the investment made. It could be considered a form of contract the difference here is in the claims process you are swearing out a legal document that in its own words says to the best of your knowledge what you are claiming is true. Now the people doing this claims process know it was not a contract they bought but a bond purchase as they were sold it. So this whole thing has been structured to foist a fraud upon the legal process with anyone who submits a claim form as it is written committing perjury. |
|
|
|
For us Canadians, Apostilles do not exist. Is there an alternative?
Yes Notary Public where you get to commit perjury to claim your funds, in short better edit that doc before submitting to reflect the true nature of what you are claiming. |
|
|
|
|
Either I was too quick on the draw or you have not updated the version string as a fresh git clone tells me I will compile a version 2.9.6.
|
|
|
|
See you still have the perjury wording in there so that anyone submitting a claim commits it, as they know damn well it is a bond they are claiming not a contract. |
|
|
|
Thank you, I got platform: 0 Devices: 2 0 Cypress 1 Cypress ....... Dual GPUs detected: 0 and 1 2 GPU Devices max detected I changed my config --intensity 13,13 --shaders 1600 --worksize 256 -g 1 But i still only see GPU 0 and GPU 1 mining, the same with just one intensity setting ahhh i just saw that you posted i need a dummy plug....damn i thought that changed with the new drivers. Time to install linux. Linux doesn't have a problem with headless miners right? So you do not see the same as I have here.
GPU 0: 77.5C 2243RPM | 357.0K/353.1Kh/s | A:66646 R:1197 HW: 0 U:15.89/m I:18
GPU 1: 79.0C 50% | 426.0K/415.3Kh/s | A:78496 R:1453 HW:12 U:18.71/m I:18
With the I:18 at the end of the GPU 1. Perhaps try this command/config line --intensity 13,13 --thread-concurrency 8000,8000 --worksize 256,256 -g 1. Changing the 8000 to whatever the second card needs from the looks of it the one you specify is a 5870 which can go to intensity 18 BTW. |
|
|
|
you can select each card individually in cgminer with "-d #" where number is the # of the device if you wanna test them card by card
how do I get CGminer to see my second card initially? Cgminer started, but all I see is the one hooked up to my monitor. Use firstly cgminer -n to see if the program actually detects them, output should look something like this.
cgminer -n
[2012-12-05 20:01:56] CL Platform 0 vendor: Advanced Micro Devices, Inc.
[2012-12-05 20:01:56] CL Platform 0 name: AMD Accelerated Parallel Processing
[2012-12-05 20:01:56] CL Platform 0 version: OpenCL 1.2 AMD-APP (923.1)
[2012-12-05 20:01:56] Platform 0 devices: 2
[2012-12-05 20:01:56] 0 Cayman
[2012-12-05 20:01:56] 1 Cayman
[2012-12-05 20:01:56] 2 GPU devices max detected
Then using the cgminer -i 8,8 tells it to use both gpus at an intensity of 8 upon startup. Edit: And if using windows then you need monitor or dummy plug plugged into to it for windows to see another card in the system. |
|
|
|
I expect BFL to ship when the quality it right.
I see your verbal diarrhea continues. Would that be the same stellar quality control that allowed the FPGAs to ship with POS power supplies, fans not attached rattling around, bad thermal pasting... |
|
|
|
I sure hope there is a LARGE sweetener with 'teramining', if the contract is written up with the old ideas i think people may break down the forum :\
He used the opportunity of the ASICs free upgrade to come up with an additional paid option when it first happened what makes you think he is going to do anything different now he has your money and the shit has hit the fan. What are the legal ramifications of accepting funds from such locations in the first place?
The same except now he cannot claim no knowledge of the fact as it could possibly be argued with initial scoop of your cash. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
