are you a chemist ? I'd say patient who didn't use up the whole pack... |
|
|
|
The person who guesses closest to the date when someone with a solid reputation proves they have received the product and that it does what is claimed the person making the guess will get 5 BTC from me. Are we guessing the actual delivery date or the date when someone "reliable" makes a post saying he received a unit ? |
|
|
|
You'll be making more bitcoins visiting one time the bitcoinfaucet than mining a whole day with your cpu. This  And otherwise, it will be probably much cheaper to buy them than to mine them on a CPU. At 350 MH/s I make around 1-1.5 BTC a week. With a CPU at a few MH/s (at best, 10MH/s?), I let you do the math, with, say, 150W 24/7. |
|
|
|
That ignore button turned orange quickly
Btw, what does it mean when an ignore button is orange? Is that a suggestion or sth? The blockchain data can be easily compressed, collapsed, or otherwise stored more efficiently without any changes to the protocol. This is merely a client issue that can (and will) be improved in new client versions soon. A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush...  |
|
|
|
Any reason not to mention https://btc-e.com/ ? So there is absolutely no way to mine from my CPU?
It's possible but worthless. You get a few MH/s while using as much electricity as when mining on a GPU at 200MH/s (quite random figures, but sound about right though) |
|
|
|
I think the responses from a few thread participants have been a bit more... strident and heated than is productive. Well, worrying about scalability seems legitimate as long as we want BTC to become more mainstream, which necessarily means lots more transactions (and lots more wallets and addresses, too). The main apparent fact is that SatoshiDice transactions are crowding out and slowing other bitcoin transactions.
Thus, ignoring all other technical arguments, we can show that SatoshiDice is hurting other bitcoin users' confirmation times. Well, yes but I think one of the points of a cryptocurrency is to remain reliable/usable no matter how hostile the environment is. SatoshiDice is a nice "attacker" who simply uses the system a bit much, and pays for it. Bitcoin really has to be able to deal with that nicely... with a better solution than just blocking this usage (or asking SatoshiDice to stop...) |
|
|
|
Note that it also makes it very, very difficult for people to run old nodes (they wont sync properly), which in light of recent node statistic generation by luke, is looking like a very, very poor idea for network security. Security = Confidentiality, Integrity, Availability. When the blockchain doesn't fit on a 1TB hard drive anymore (or probably sooner ), we'll have an issue with the 2 last points... |
|
|
|
As it stands i would say stealing someones earned balance is indeed a scam.
Well if you agree to the terms and they say your account can be closed at any time then yes it would stand up in court. Reminds me very much of Google Adsense... In case anyone here wonders, they do just that: close account without any explanation (and you can't even connect to see how your stats were indeed weird or not). Still haven't received my payment, btw. But as I put the ads on my lowest traffic site, it didn't get any new click yet. Although, I wonder what can be so hard in programming a cron payment... |
|
|
|
Sent. Now I'm late for ping pong  |
|
|
|
|
I can't really pretend I know how much my site should be weighted, particularly since I'm quite new to this system, but I think I can make fairly good guesses at whether or not it should be weighted higher or lower compared to the sites I mentioned previously. Will send a few details via PM tomorrow (or maybe I should wait a bit more - have all those sites already be manually weighted in the first place ?).
|
|
|
|
|
To be fair, just received a reply to my ticket. Apparently my account had a "temporary suspension", which is now removed, but to receive payout I need to run the ads again (I guess it's because there's no cron-job doing the payments...). I'll try that on the site where I only removed the ad but didn't replace it yet...
|
|
|
|
Haha, just saw an ad for this thread in my new anonymousads banner (ad text "Take down BitcoinAdvertisers banners - they are fraudsters!"). I had to check it out Anyway : - still no reply from support - still not received payment - account still in good standing (if I hadn't removed the ads, I would still be giving them free exposures...) - on a side note, for those who didn't bother to click the link to my stats, my CTR is around 0.06% (8 clicks / 14k impressions) So, as far as I know, the answer to the OP is : yes, not even a doubt about it. Can anyone here say they did receive a payment from this service in the first place ? |
|
|
|
Funny, I was just going to post the same thing. I've never been paid on anything what is this " Turn your website into a money making monster" B.S ? Same here. Been waiting for payment for about a week. Contacted "support" via contact form a couple of days ago and no reply. Took the ads offline yesterday. 14k impressions for nothing  http://www.bitcoinadvertisers.com/partnerstat.php?p=18Gs5KMhhzyZB31Xpn4Qf2493298j9s7qpAnyway, ads were low quality (no offense to advertisers, by this I just mean: nothing interesting for non-BTC people) and some were about gambling although I specifically asked not to show gambling ads... I won't miss them as much as my 0.10 BTC... |
|
|
|
Temps here in IL were near 90 the past couple of days with a heat index in the mid-90's. I had to downclock my 3x6970 rig to 840 core to maintain sub 80C temps. At night, I can crank it back up to stock.
Am I the only one who finds it weird to measure GPU temp and air temp in different units ?  |
|
|
|
Got it too, thanks  |
|
|
|
I see my address but it's truncated (2 characters missing at the end !) Is this normal or should I send you the full one via PM? Edit: just realized it's in my sig anyway |
|
|
|
I hope your 100BTC Myan apocalypse vision comes to pass, I stand to gain tremendously if suddenly every other human on the planet stops valuing money. Meh, if they don't want money, why would they enforce crazy fees on transactions in the first place? |
|
|
|
Kinda looks like a doubling every two years-ish, no? Yeah, but they're not reaching the stores as fast as they used to... I still can't find any 4TB HD at my usually retailer, and the prices of 3TB HDs are still quite insane. With Bitcoin there is no fixed transaction fee, miners can charge whatever they want. So if a miner charges you 100 BTC to send a transaction then you have to pay. Luke-jr is currently doing this with coiledcoin, so it's not a theoretical thing, it's actually happening. Anyone can mine but if you don't have enough power it could take you 5 years to mine a block and not be charged 100 BTC. So if your life savings are less than the transaction fee then it's essentially like losing your life savings if you ever wanted to actually spend them. This isn't true right now in Bitcoin, but it could potentially happen because transaction fees in Bitcoin are not fixed. Miners are also users. If they can't use their BTC (can't even withdraw them, actually) because the pools they use has fees far too high, they'll switch to others, obviously... |
|
|
|
Yes we are. It will be scalable, both because of Moore's law (transistor density doubling every two year) BS. Have you seen how HD capacity evolved during the last couple of years? Barely any size increase... Additionally, Moore's law wasn't supposed to go on indefinitely, it just described a prediction of component evolution for a few decades. and because the blockchain can be stored distributed as well if necessary (still completely there and accessible to all, but distributed over multiple peers like a gigantic RAID). This, on the other hand, sounds much cooler. Still needs to be implemented though, and doesn't seem trivial to me... The complete transaction history is one of the main strengths of Bitcoin, good job removing that in your altcoin I don't really think the complete transaction history is a strength. For a currency supposed to be anonymous, I'd rather call it a weakness, and not a minor one. Otherwise, I suppose it's a requirement for the thing to work, at the moment. But getting rid of it (reliably, and after a decently long time) would definitely be a step forward, not backward. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
