Never doubt the stupidity of people. Just because a direct route of information is ssl encrypted does not mean every place he could have sent relevant information is encrypted as well. Information gathering is key to an operation, and if the reward is high enough plenty of these 'hackers' would spend enough time to not only gather info from unencrypted data, but also try to get a keylogger or any other type of malicious software onto the victims computer. If the reward is high enough, the difficulty doesn't matter; It is only a matter of time. Is it the easiest possibility? No, so occam's razor applied you might find that it is a simple case of misplaced coins from a fallible human being.
Just please don't think the use of one ssl encrypted site means much to a dedicated wardriver. Trust me; it doesn't.
So you're saying that a wardriver, who knows that Bitcoin is only used by 0.007% of the population, is driving around, looking for open or crackable WiFi, in the hopes that one of those 0.007% of people is actually using Bitcoin instawallet (used by even fewer people), and that person just so happens to be accessing their instawallet at the same time said wardriver is watching their network, and that person also just so happens to be accessing their instawallet via http instead of https (even though instawallet is always accessed through https, so there would be no reason for an instawallet URL to be stored as http)? I feel like it would be more likely for me to win the lottery twice than for this to happen. See: https://bitcointalk.org/annoyance.phpSo the wardriver sets up a fake instawallet and redirects the user's traffic to said fake instawallet. Wouldn't the SSL certs prevent this from happening? The user's browser would warn him that it is not a valid cert, this looks like the wrong website, etc? Otherwise, I don't know what you are attempting to infer by sending me to that link. |
|
|
|
Never doubt the stupidity of people. Just because a direct route of information is ssl encrypted does not mean every place he could have sent relevant information is encrypted as well. Information gathering is key to an operation, and if the reward is high enough plenty of these 'hackers' would spend enough time to not only gather info from unencrypted data, but also try to get a keylogger or any other type of malicious software onto the victims computer. If the reward is high enough, the difficulty doesn't matter; It is only a matter of time. Is it the easiest possibility? No, so occam's razor applied you might find that it is a simple case of misplaced coins from a fallible human being.
Just please don't think the use of one ssl encrypted site means much to a dedicated wardriver. Trust me; it doesn't.
So you're saying that a wardriver, who knows that Bitcoin is only used by 0.007% of the population, is driving around, looking for open or crackable WiFi, in the hopes that one of those 0.007% of people is actually using Bitcoin instawallet (used by even fewer people), and that person just so happens to be accessing their instawallet at the same time said wardriver is watching their network, and that person also just so happens to be accessing their instawallet via http instead of https (even though instawallet is always accessed through https, so there would be no reason for an instawallet URL to be stored as http)? I feel like it would be more likely for me to win the lottery twice than for this to happen. |
|
|
|
So, it randomly started working again before we tried much of this out last time... but now it's not working again. We tried the following:
- Restarting the computer
- Clearing java cache
- Downloading the latest BitMinter from the website
- Uninstalling Java (6.x and 7.9 were installed)
- Reinstalling Java (7.19) x86
- Reinstalling Java (7.19) x64
- Clearing the java cache again
Honestly, I'm kind of out of ideas at this point... do you have any other suggestions to try?
Is it stuck downloading, with the progress bar stopping just before completion? You're sure it's not the anti-virus or firewall interfering? Yes, the progress bar is stopping just before completion. Yes, we tried disabling both the antivirus and the firewall to test. Would like to note, we uninstalled AVG and installed Microsoft Security Essentials instead, it is working well now! |
|
|
|
So, it randomly started working again before we tried much of this out last time... but now it's not working again. We tried the following:
- Restarting the computer
- Clearing java cache
- Downloading the latest BitMinter from the website
- Uninstalling Java (6.x and 7.9 were installed)
- Reinstalling Java (7.19) x86
- Reinstalling Java (7.19) x64
- Clearing the java cache again
Honestly, I'm kind of out of ideas at this point... do you have any other suggestions to try?
Is it stuck downloading, with the progress bar stopping just before completion? You're sure it's not the anti-virus or firewall interfering? Yes, the progress bar is stopping just before completion. Yes, we tried disabling both the antivirus and the firewall to test. |
|
|
|
I watched the client on stats mode for awhile, it turns out I am getting speeds above 350MH/s. It goes up to about 600Mh/s for about 1 second then a red light appears on the speedometer and the hash rate drops down to 320MH/s before returning to 350MH/s, stays at 350MH/s for the next 5 minutes then repeats the cycle. Why?  Is this on GPU or FPGA? The red light just flashes when your hashrate goes more than 10% above the hashrate expected from the particular device. Nothing to worry about (except burning out the GPU if you overclock too much). Got a question... a friend who is running Bitminter ran into trouble after his power supply died. He replaced the power supply, Windows ran checkdisk upon startup, and then BitMinter would fail to start, just stuck at this screen:
It's usually one of two things causing this problem. Upgrading Java, at least from version 6 to version 7, sometimes breaks something and you need to clear out the java temporary files. The next time you start the app after that it will download everything anew and it works. How to clear java temporary files: http://www.java.com/en/download/help/plugin_cache.xmlThe other frequent cause of this is antivirus software. Sometimes they like to inspect file transfers. Sometimes they do that and accidentally break file transfers so that Java web start isn't able to finish downloading the files. I think this is usually AVG antivirus. But it may be that other antivirus programs can do this too. Try whitelisting the javaws.exe program or turning off file transfer inspection. Consider the security implications of what solution you use. Turning antivirus completely off on a Windows computer is not recommended. Thanks - we'll try those things out! So, it randomly started working again before we tried much of this out last time... but now it's not working again. We tried the following: - Restarting the computer - Clearing java cache - Downloading the latest BitMinter from the website - Uninstalling Java (6.x and 7.9 were installed) - Reinstalling Java (7.19) x86 - Reinstalling Java (7.19) x64 - Clearing the java cache again Honestly, I'm kind of out of ideas at this point... do you have any other suggestions to try? |
|
|
|
|
All of these things the OP mentions may be the case, but is there really a better alternative for US customers at this point? Not really, that I've seen...
|
|
|
|
Now if you argue that he could give everything but 1 coin away, but whose to say he didn't give 1 million coins to 1 million addresses that he owns that just happen to look like legitimate other users? I don't see any way to verify that the coins are indeed given away, and not just redistributed back to himself. Either his accomplices/clones/puppets act substantially the same as non-accomplices or they don't. If the accomplices act substantially the same as non-accomplices, then it doesn't matter. The supply and demand will be the same. The currency will still be just as useful as either a means of exchange or a store of value. If his accomplices act substantially different from the way non-accomplices would act, then you have a way to tell -- the supply and demand will be what would be consistent with accomplices rather than what would be consistent with non-accomplices. That's not to say it doesn't matter if someone cheats, lies or steals. That's definitely bad and probably criminal. It's inexcusable and we would probably hope that such a person is punished. But it's not going to effect the usefulness of the currency, assuming the supply and demand are the same. (Although, of course, it might be useless for other reasons.) If the concern is that someone might hoard large amounts of currency and dump them on the market as some sort of secret plan to make lots of money, that has nothing to do with the initial distribution. Someone could buy up a currency to do that. Once you have something, how you can make the most money from it is independent of how you go it. (And these schemes never work anyway.) Interesting thoughts... I honestly cannot think of any decent rebuttal to this, but somehow, the idea of it still doesn't jive with me wanting to get involved in utilizing such a currency. I appreciate it from a logical standpoint, just not from a "gut feeling" standpoint, and I can't pinpoint why, given these arguments. |
|
|
|
|
Why does anyone trust other people with their money? Especially significant amounts of irreversible currency?
Thanks for the tip for the rest of us (whether it was instawallet or not is another matter), but man, you should have seen this coming!
|
|
|
|
It would defeat the purpose of Bitcoin if a single person were to be in control of minting it.
Zero people will be minting bitcoins after 2140, so how would that defeat the purpose? This basically starts right at that 2140 position where no bitcoins are minted, and the only way to acquire them is to trade. And just like bitcoin, the more you trade early on, the better off you will be long term. Only if in 2140, a single guy has every Bitcoin in existence and can distribute them however he sees fit. And if that was the case, bitcoin would be worthless, just like it was when Satoshi just released bitcoin. If he keeps it to himself, it will continue to be worthless. If it is distributed, just like Satoshi told people about mining, it will start to gain value. The more people that have at least some fraction of coin, the more popular it will become, and the more it will be worth. Therefore it would be in the best interest of the first miner to distribute their coins so his remaining coins will start to have value. The more coins you keep, the higher the risk is that the currency will never take off because there isn't enough in circulation. I completely disagree. To mean, a major part of the appeal of Bitcoin is that its distribution is not controlled by any single person. If it was, it would be worthless to me, both before and after he started distributing it himself. Now if you argue that he could give everything but 1 coin away, but whose to say he didn't give 1 million coins to 1 million addresses that he owns that just happen to look like legitimate other users? I don't see any way to verify that the coins are indeed given away, and not just redistributed back to himself. If you think this is a good idea, then start an altcoin, give part or all of them away, and see what happens. |
|
|
|
It would defeat the purpose of Bitcoin if a single person were to be in control of minting it.
Zero people will be minting bitcoins after 2140, so how would that defeat the purpose? This basically starts right at that 2140 position where no bitcoins are minted, and the only way to acquire them is to trade. And just like bitcoin, the more you trade early on, the better off you will be long term. Only if in 2140, a single guy has every Bitcoin in existence and can distribute them however he sees fit. |
|
|
|
Why exactly would he give anybody that 0.01? For downloading software? What happens after after 100 downloads, and still nobody is running the client? (because, why run it?)
How would you market this? "Hey I created a new currency and gave it all to myself. Please use it."
Keep in mind, Satoshi basically used the same strategy for bitcoin. And the same questions can be asked in the beginning of bitcoin. Giving people .01 is equivalent to him telling people to download the software. He could have mined forever by himself, accumulating all the bitcoins, but they would be worthless. Giving away .01 or telling people to download the software prevents him from acquiring every bitcoin but hopefully works out in the long run by making it worth more. And realize this was before blockchain.info & other online wallets. So the only way to see your balance or even generate an address to send bitcoins to was to download & run the software. This idea does remove the incentive to run the software 24/7, but Satoshi could just leave theirs on until more people were transacting & people were making money from transaction fees. It would defeat the purpose of Bitcoin if a single person were to be in control of minting it. |
|
|
|
indeed... |
|
|
|
|
The same might have been said of Apple stock in its beginning stages as well.
|
|
|
|
Very cool! P.S. I'm listening to you right now...  |
|
|
|
Holy cow, thanks for all the replies guys! It's nice to know that there's ways to earn bitcoins without mining. But my favorite option has to be that you can earn a decent amount playing Minecraft at MinecraftCC...!
Technically though, that WOULD be earning bitcoins with mining.  |
|
|
|
|
The fee system was created to prevent transaction spam.... use it!
|
|
|
|
|
You can earn a decent amount playing Minecraft at MinecraftCC...!
On the last payout, the top player received around 0.18 BTC for a week of playing on the server.
|
|
|
|
1) If block size is increased anywhere up to 10 MB, I will still run a full node on my home computer. Beyond that, I may not be able to. At least with today's technology, anyway.
2) Mining pools would not be affected by such a change. They would (appropriately so) balance the size of a block with the transaction fees that make up said block. They would likely not accept any free transactions, but fees even lower than the default might be ok in some cases. It'll come down to the balance of the potential cost of an orphaned block vs the transaction fees that make up said block. Most blocks would likely be far below a 10 MB limit for quite some time.
3) People who cannot handle 10 MB blocks (around 520GB/year at the MAX, but in reality and for now, much smaller than that) should not run full nodes. This is not a problem - as long as at least SOME people run full nodes, the rest of us are protected. Those who really believe that additional decentralization is necessary should be willing to pay for it. I am. It's only $25/year to buy a new 2TB drive every four years, and it'll only keep getting cheaper (unless another freak flood shows up).
4) I would encourage an increase in the block size because it is beneficial to miners and beneficial to those who wish to make transactions. It is only not beneficial to those who wish to run full nodes, but certainly, it would not put it entirely out of the reach of them.
Not many countries have that kind of bandwidth available for cheap enough. What you suggest would limit mining to a few countries + an elite in the rest of the world. I think upping the hard limit any time soon would be overkill. Just let the fees roll. Mining is absolutely not limited by this. Mining POOLS have to relay the blocks and such, but miners who mine through pools only have to relay tiny hashes. An extra incentive for centralization that we don't quite need. We do need it if we can ever hope to process enough transactions for people to WANT to stick with Bitcoin. |
|
|
|
1) If block size is increased anywhere up to 10 MB, I will still run a full node on my home computer. Beyond that, I may not be able to. At least with today's technology, anyway.
2) Mining pools would not be affected by such a change. They would (appropriately so) balance the size of a block with the transaction fees that make up said block. They would likely not accept any free transactions, but fees even lower than the default might be ok in some cases. It'll come down to the balance of the potential cost of an orphaned block vs the transaction fees that make up said block. Most blocks would likely be far below a 10 MB limit for quite some time.
3) People who cannot handle 10 MB blocks (around 520GB/year at the MAX, but in reality and for now, much smaller than that) should not run full nodes. This is not a problem - as long as at least SOME people run full nodes, the rest of us are protected. Those who really believe that additional decentralization is necessary should be willing to pay for it. I am. It's only $25/year to buy a new 2TB drive every four years, and it'll only keep getting cheaper (unless another freak flood shows up).
4) I would encourage an increase in the block size because it is beneficial to miners and beneficial to those who wish to make transactions. It is only not beneficial to those who wish to run full nodes, but certainly, it would not put it entirely out of the reach of them.
Not many countries have that kind of bandwidth available for cheap enough. What you suggest would limit mining to a few countries + an elite in the rest of the world. I think upping the hard limit any time soon would be overkill. Just let the fees roll. Mining is absolutely not limited by this. Mining POOLS have to relay the blocks and such, but miners who mine through pools only have to relay tiny hashes. |
|
|
|
TITL: Statistical analysis in educational research.
ODAT: 4Mar40; A139097 RREG: E. R. Lindquist ; 13Dec67; R424323.
Copyrighted 1923-1963
Books initially copyrighted in the US from 1923 through 1963 are still protected by copyright law if the initial copyright was renewed. The initial copyright term was 28 years and the renewal was 67 more years (formerly only 47 years). For example, a book initially copyrighted in 1923, and renewed, will pass into the public domain in 2019 (i.e., 1923+28+67+1). It looks like this ones copyright expired in 1967 if this is correct. How do you know it wasn't renewed? |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
