I found 0.1.3 through twobitcoin's linked thread. It purportedly is the same source tarball as 0.1.0, so I have what I needed. Thanks.

Mine are reference fans as well. All HD5970s are reference designs.


7% still proves my point as it is significantly inferior to the 17% of someone who doesn't even run at 100% fan speed. Besides, why would you want to mine with a 5-year old card that consumes 4 times the energy to produce the same amount of work? I expect to upgrade my 5970s after about 2-2.5 years. They are already more than halfway through their service life.

I think you guys also forget that skimping on cooling and running a card 10C hotter will wear out the electronic components faster.

My lower 7% AFR at a higher 100% fan speed proves you wrong.
My point is that dust, not fan speed, is a much bigger factor affecting ball bearing life span.

Dust, dust, dust. It's all about dust.

The cards are vertical (motherboards are horizontal).


4 out of 24 is a 17% failure rate for an average period of less than a year... For comparison my AFR (annualized failure rate) for fan ball bearings is 7%... far from the "OMG you will kill your cards in 6 months if you run the fan at 100%" FUD you find on the forums.


With air filters on the air ducts going to the server room.


I actually do force the fans to run at 100% with aticonfig.

I have HD5970s that have been mining 24/7 with the fan at 100% for 1+ year. My oldest one has been mining for 1.25 years. But then again I filter my air. There is barely any dust visible on the fan blades. They wouldn't last that long in a dusty environment.

Also, non-reference cards sometimes use fans of quality inferior to the ones found on reference AMD cards such as the HD5970.

Who has the source code of the first version of Bitcoin (0.1), as released in February 2009?
The oldest source tarball on Sourceforge is 0.2.0.
The first commit in the GitHub repo is 0.1.5 alpha.


Edit: As per my post below:
Hal sent me two archives of version 0.1.0 (a rar, and a tgz, both of the same source tree). I uploaded them to my site:

http://www.zorinaq.com/pub/bitcoin-0.1.0.rar
http://www.zorinaq.com/pub/bitcoin-0.1.0.tgz

SHA256:
8b17eb9a5707f2519defda4cdf8d14fa1b8dee630e11e6ef85ff9f5547555b56  bitcoin-0.1.0.rar
ce9da46516e3042741224a7f9061e3181a5a4d17abba72b6e82922af3753d756  bitcoin-0.1.0.tgz

SHA1:
ec9ed4ccbc990eceb922ff0c4d71d1ad466990dd  bitcoin-0.1.0.rar
35f83eaa334e0e447ceea77a7cc955a4ccdd1a1d  bitcoin-0.1.0.tgz

MD5:
91e2dfa2af043eabbb38964cbf368500  bitcoin-0.1.0.rar
dca1095f053a0c2dc90b19c92bd1ec00  bitcoin-0.1.0.tgz

Correct. My method would just raise the bar for a successful, massive theft. It is an application of the "defense in depth" concept.


No need to log on (of course, duh!) I edited my post.

The obvious solution is for Bitcoin exchanges to implement, on the server-side, one encrypted wallet per user. The site's password can be used as the passphrase. And tie the whole thing to the authenticated web session.

So that when you log in the server stores the passphrase in memory to access the wallet when necessary. And when you log out or when your session expires your wallet is re-encrypted to remain secure on the server, and the server securely erases the passphrase from memory.

That way, if an attacker gains access to the server, he would only be able to steal the money from users currently logged into Bitcoinica by stealing passphrases from memory, while the majority of the rest of the funds would be secure.

When you introduced Bitcoinica, you claimed one of your security advantages was that you "did not operate a Bitcoin wallet" and that "all your funds are stored on MtGox". Source: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=42267.msg514429#msg514429

However this theft makes it apparent that you changed your mind, as you lost a wallet. Why did you change your mind about hosting the wallet on your own servers? You had a great idea, you should have stuck with it.

fairCASH seems very similar to the (now defunct) eCash... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecash
Email them, and ask them how they differ from eCash  

This is the wrong video. It was uploaded in May 2011. The keynote happened in 2012. Nevermind.

the joint, any news from your accountant? I am curious about her having talked to the IRS about Bitcoin.

I have been part of the Bitcoin community for more than a year, and I still think there is no decent article introducing Bitcoin in a non-technical way while presenting its numerous technical advantages... So I wrote one, based on cypherdoc's "digital gold" analogy:

http://blog.zorinaq.com/?e=66

Bullshit.

Out of HIS, Sapphire, and Diamond cards I had to RMA in the past, Diamond was by far the easiest and fastest to process the RMA. At least in the US: 8 days between me shipping the dead card, and receiving a new one.

The end-user does not need to understand every single detail. All he needs is: the software to show his balance, a button to send coins to someone's address, the advantages of Bitcoins explained to him (limited supply, assets cannot be frozen, Bitcoin cannot be shut down, no central authority), and how to secure his coins (keep wallet.dat and the computer safe).

It was dmr, not mrb.

I think a "lolwut?" is appropriate here.

If a majority attack is in progress, dancupid transfers his coins to MtGox, sells them, and a reorg occurs, then his sold coins would "reappear" in his original wallet despite having been sold.

Not only do we know the deepbit owner (Tycho), but I would trust him more than any "trusted SolidCoin millionaires account". And nothing in SolidCoin prevents a "trusted account" from setting up a pool and performing a majority attack. True, there are only 10 trusted accounts, but the same is true for Bitcoin (less than 10 large pools). In fact, have you ever considered the following viewpoint:

You present trusted SolidCoin millionaire accounts as people who have a lot invested in SolidCoin, therefore are unlikely to cheat the system and can be trusted to solve all even blocks. A large Bitcoin pool owner, in effect, fills the same role. He has invested a lot in Bitcoin (time developing and maintaining his pool), has a lot to lose (pool revenues), had to work on gaining very public trust from the users over time, and his pool effectively solves a good fraction of the blocks. I would argue that the Bitcoin model is superior to the SolidCoin model whose "trusted accounts" are unknown and anonymous and chosen by someone other than the users. Bitcoin gives power to the users by letting them dynamically vote who they trust by choosing where they mine. SolidCoin dangerously set the trusted accounts in stone with arbitrary static rules.

What do you think?

That said, Bitcoin and SolidCoin are different:

• On one hand, for Bitcoin, majority attacks ("51% attacks") are a non-problem. The hashrate is too high to attack, no one will spend $10M to attack it today. Pools have too much to lose to attempt the attack themselves. And Bitcoin has a long-term solution easily implementable anyway, by giving pool users control of the blocks: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=9137.0 For all these reasons, your criticism of majority attacks being possible against Bitcoin is unfounded.
  
• On the other hand, majority attacks are a real problem for (and only for) startup cryptocurrencies, like SolidCoin, who have to start the hashrate from zero. So, in a way, I understand why you have to come up with a non-optimal mechanism to try to protect your network from attacks.

Yes, it is very rare that HT doubles performance, but it is nonetheless possible to construct synthetic micro-benchmarks that demonstrate this. The dubious usefulness of HT against real-world workloads, where performance gains more often tend toward 0% than 100%, is one of the reasons why AMD hasn't bothered implementing it yet.