I wonder how many of you would buy a car known to run at the red line for 30 days at close to retail price?
If you know the car can run at the red line for another couple years and you plan to do that with the car after you purchase it, i don't see why not. But if you don't think the price is fair, what do you think I should ask for them? |
|
|
|
|
I still have 2 that I need to sell. If you think the price is too high, make me an offer.
|
|
|
|
Doesn't work in the slightest. localhost:bin $ python3.2 ./pywallet.py
File "pywallet.py", line 54
_p = 0xFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFEFFFFFC2FL
^
SyntaxError: invalid syntax
hmmm.... I think this only works with python 2. |
|
|
|
Bruce, it's unfortunate that you didn't move your money out sooner. I would second the recommendation to use something like vanitygen to generate your own key and put that key in a safe place. Since it sounds like you plan to have a savings account where you just put money in and don't take it out. I would suggest you do this: |
|
|
|
Sorry if this was already answered. Is there a way to easily verify that a private/public key pair is valid without having to import it?
Specifically, I want to use vanitygen to generating a few savings account address offline and possibly just write those keys down or print them out. I would prefer to not have to connect my computer to the internet to be safe. But I'm worried about a possible bug in the vanitygen code that may cause it to generate invalid keys. So I don't want to generate an address, put in 1000 bitcoins, then 5 years later find out that the corresponding private key doesn't work!
As vanitygen and pywallet "privkey to pubkey" functions weren't programmed by the same person you can use pywallet (getinfo function) to reassure you I only see am importprivkey command. I assume that takes in a private key. That doesn't really confirm that the private key matches the public key. And I won't be able to be sure unless I send some money to the public key. Would it be easy for you to add a command to let me validate priv/pub key pair without importing anything? I don't care for importing it into a wallet.dat file. |
|
|
|
|
Sorry if this was already answered. Is there a way to easily verify that a private/public key pair is valid without having to import it?
Specifically, I want to use vanitygen to generating a few savings account address offline and possibly just write those keys down or print them out. I would prefer to not have to connect my computer to the internet to be safe. But I'm worried about a possible bug in the vanitygen code that may cause it to generate invalid keys. So I don't want to generate an address, put in 1000 bitcoins, then 5 years later find out that the corresponding private key doesn't work!
|
|
|
|
|
I'd like to propose a variant of CPPS that borrows from RSMPPS. Maybe call it RCPPS.
This variant will pay out full PPS pay to the most recent unpaid X shares, where X is the difficulty. So every time a block is found, the last X shares that were not paid will be paid. If the latest round is a short round, most recent unpaid shares from previous rounds (if any) will be paid.
This does a better at focusing on the current and future miners. The downside is that pool needs to keep track of more info about each share.
Luke-Jr, what do you think?
|
|
|
|
|
Let's say I'm super paranoid and wanted to store a hard copy of my private key in a safe and I'd like to keep a portion (the vanity part) of my private key in memory. So even if someone breaks into my safe and sees the partial private key, they still won't be able to brute force my actual private key.
Private keys are 51 length base 58 characters, right?
How safe are each of these solutions?
1) Use the first or last x number of characters as vanity part. 186YpATQehFZwhVpnGzVTKb8VLtmeBITCOINRULES
2) Have the vanity part embedded inside and remember the location. 186YpATQeBITCOINRULEShFZwhVpnGzVTKb8VLtme
3) Have 2 vanity sections and remember both locations. 186YpATQeBITCOINhFZwhVpRULESnGzVTKb8VLtme
Obviously the last method is the most safe. How safe is it? And are either of the first 2 good enough?
|
|
|
|
|
m0mchil, can you make it such that rate is not force to be 60 when verbose is set? I'd like to keep rate at 1 with verbose turned on.
|
|
|
|
|
I sold 4 of these. Only 2 left! PM me if interested.
|
|
|
|
|
Can I get an invite?
Also, can you give a quick summary about what flexcoin is? Is it similar to MyBitcoin and Instawallet?
|
|
|
|
|
I like the concept but don't like the name. Green is used these days as something eco friendly, which has nothing to do with this concept.
You should call it something like "trusted address" or maybe a geeky name like "zero conf address"
Just my 2 bitcents.
|
|
|
|
How do you get the realtime hashrate of deepbit and btcguild? Their stats are delayed by one hour...
Sorry, I didn't realize their hashrate numbers are also delayed. So yeah, i'm using those delayed numbers then. |
|
|
|
I decided to put together a quick Google Spreadsheet page that gets the realtime hashrate of the top 10 mining pools. http://bit.ly/hashrateThis page auto updates every 5 minutes. Enjoy! |
|
|
|
Would you do this even if triplemining is switching to PPLNS or SMPPS after this round? :p
At low hashrate, I think SMPPS would be suicidal?  How so? |
|
|
|
I would like to get this pool's opinion on something. There is a discussion between pool hoppers going on that instead of going to a PPS pool when there is nothing to hop that they should move over (at least at times) to those pools with an absurdly long block. Right now, you should have discovered 4 blocks in the space of this last block, and I bet it would be appreciated if you had hoppers jump in and help you get past this epoch of bad luck. Opinions?
Why would pool hoppers want to do this? The only reason why they hop is to maximize profit. If they do this, they will make less coins. So why hop in the first place? What do you suggest ? Switch to RSMPPS or PPLNS or a hybrid of the two. |
|
|
|
Why would pool hoppers want to do this? The only reason why they hop is to maximize profit. If they do this, they will make less coins. So why hop in the first place?
Because maximizing profits isn't everything. It would make hoppers look less like ferengi, and more like a swarm of a lot of hashpower to help solve blocks. Good PR is worth more than a few btc  I'm not saying every hopper will do it, but if it is the default behavior in the proxy, then I think most would. The problem is, right now there is such a disconnect between miners and hoppers, and I think it would be beneficial for us all to realize we are first and foremost members of the bitcoin network with the same goal. Hopping isn't for everyone, you have to micromanage the software, and constantly make updates, but they are a big force and can be beneficial. Would you do this even if triplemining is switching to PPLNS or SMPPS after this round? :p |
|
|
|
I would like to get this pool's opinion on something. There is a discussion between pool hoppers going on that instead of going to a PPS pool when there is nothing to hop that they should move over (at least at times) to those pools with an absurdly long block. Right now, you should have discovered 4 blocks in the space of this last block, and I bet it would be appreciated if you had hoppers jump in and help you get past this epoch of bad luck. Opinions?
Why would pool hoppers want to do this? The only reason why they hop is to maximize profit. If they do this, they will make less coins. So why hop in the first place? |
|
|
|
|
What about a hybrid between PPLNS and SMPPS? Both are hopping-proof. This should reduce the variance of pure PPLNS with fixed SMPPS payouts. And help the pool get out of a negative buffer hole when it will inevitably get into sooner or later.
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
