watching
It's discontinued... Doesn't mean there can't still be interesting discussion of it. Or a future reinstatement announcement. Fortunately, MPOE-PR seems to have dried up and blown away for the most part.
I think they are simply honoring my request not to further comment on this. |
|
|
|
So a new address was created and assigned to my wallet, even though that new address doesn't show anywhere on my BTC client GUI?
That's weird and confusing
You're not supposed to care about this. The information displayed by the GUI is exactly the information you need. |
|
|
|
0.01 was sent back to yourself as change. |
|
|
|
I think you're confusing "chaos isn't about randomness (and the study of chaos typically deals with deterministic systems)" with "a chaotic system must by definition be deterministic".
Thats new to me. I think there would be some dispute about that... Some dispute that a stochastic system can exhibit chaos. Or if it can, it is a function of the determinism in the system. In any case, Ill try to pose my statements more carefully. It's purely a matter of definition, I don't think there is any question about the underlying facts. I'm certainly not a chaos expert and some care might be required to give a precise definition that can encompass the stochastic case. I'm guessing it could have something to do with the accuracy required in the initial conditions to reach a certain accuracy in the distribution of the final condition. |
|
|
|
Chaos can exist in a theoretical deterministic system, but nature isn't deterministic,
That means nature is not chaotic. Or better, that chaos theories, like all theories of nature (or observations) are models and not blueprints. If the working definition of a chaotic system is that it's sensitive to initial conditions, then a stochastic system certainly can be chaotic (eg, take any deterministic chaotic system and superimpose a randomizing element). I think you're confusing "chaos isn't about randomness (and the study of chaos typically deals with deterministic systems)" with "a chaotic system must by definition be deterministic". |
|
|
|
So why chaos? Probably has something to do with the pseudo-random nature of hashing.
Chaos however is not random at all. It is completely deterministic. Chaos is when slight changes in initial conditions lead to big changes in final conditions. Of course big and slight are relative terms and accordingly chaos can only be relatively defined. But one thing it is not is stochastic. So is hashing, that's why it's pseudo-random. It's deterministic but any change in the input changes the output completely, in a way that to the unaided eye (and to any statistical test) seems random. Saying that "chaos is completely deterministic" is meaningless. Chaos can exist in a theoretical deterministic system, but nature isn't deterministic, and chaos is what translates microscopic randomness to macroscopic randomness. In fact chaos can be precisely defined, it's when the accuracy required in the initial conditions to obtain a given accuracy in the final conditions is exponential in the time span between the start and finish, as opposed to normal systems where it's polynomial. |
|
|
|
I'm not sure if it was clear to everyone but me up to this point, but I've only now consciously realized it. It's a chaos theory theme. The logo is a simplified plot of a solution in the Lorenz attractor. This is related to butterflies in two ways, hence the name: 1. The plot resembles butterfly wings. 2. Chaos theory is popular for the butterfly effect. So why chaos? Probably has something to do with the pseudo-random nature of hashing. |
|
|
|
What is the advantage, if any of using DGS vs PPLNS ? Or is this just two ways to skin the same cat?
With DGM it's possible to have less long-term variance. But Eclipse with its particular parameters is very similar to PPLNS in this respect, the main difference is that with DGM you can encode a miner's history with a single score value. |
|
|
|
I also don't ever recall seeing ABC pool (~800 G/hash) on there.
ABC is a pool-hopping proxy, it doesn't mine blocks itself. They've said that they do mine their own blocks when there aren't any pools to hop, so if there aren't very many prop pools left, then they could be making their own blocks. The best thing for them is probably to split their hashrate among the hopping-proof pools when there are no profitable pools. It's possible they're doing just that and that this is the reason they're not showing up in the stats (there are many other plausible explanations of course). |
|
|
|
You didn't specify your address. Also, you can try the Faucet. |
|
|
|
I also don't ever recall seeing ABC pool (~800 G/hash) on there.
ABC is a pool-hopping proxy, it doesn't mine blocks itself. |
|
|
|
Coupon payment summary for April 2012 (total 0.0183439763 BTC per bond): Block number Timestamp Timestamp (Unix) Elapsed time Difficulty Block reward Coupon Status
177743 Apr 29 2012 11:50:02 1335700202 188328 1508589.67206 50 0.0014532954 Paid
177407 Apr 27 2012 07:31:14 1335511874 208629 1577913.48568 50 0.0015392233 Paid
177071 Apr 24 2012 21:34:05 1335303245 210537 1577913.48568 50 0.0015533002 Paid
176735 Apr 22 2012 11:05:08 1335092708 196334 1577913.48568 50 0.0014485132 Paid
176399 Apr 20 2012 04:32:54 1334896374 202079 1577913.48568 50 0.0014908987 Paid
176063 Apr 17 2012 20:24:55 1334694295 214922 1577913.48568 50 0.0015856518 Paid
175727 Apr 15 2012 08:42:53 1334479373 232779 1577913.48568 50 0.0017173972 Paid
175391 Apr 12 2012 16:03:14 1334246594 203256 1626553.48133 50 0.0014547393 Paid
175055 Apr 10 2012 07:35:38 1334043338 196855 1626553.48133 50 0.0014089262 Paid
174719 Apr 08 2012 00:54:43 1333846483 226725 1626553.48133 50 0.0016227111 Paid
174383 Apr 05 2012 09:55:58 1333619758 223984 1626553.48133 50 0.0016030933 Paid
174047 Apr 02 2012 19:42:54 1333395774 204861 1626553.48133 50 0.0014662266 Paid
|
|
|
|
A perfect Bayesian agent would have a probability distribution over the time of default. For mere humans this information can be approximately condensed into a single "typical time of default" value. For a person who believes the typical default time is 9 months (and is ok with supporting whatever Pirate is doing), the expected payout from investing in Pirate outweighs all other factors, and so he should invest at least some amount. For a person who believes the typical default time is 1 months, the expected payout from investing in Anti-Pirate outweighs all other factors, and so he should invest at least some amount. For a person who believes the typical default time is 3 months, the expected payout from investing in Pirate is close to zero, and is outweighted on one hand by the variance in investing in Pirate, and by the variance, fee, collateral, and counterparty risk with myself in investing in Anti-Pirate, and so he shouldn't invest in either. I think the conclusion is there aren't people who have sufficient confidence there will be a default in the 1-2 months timeframe. Yes I would have a difficult time investing in a mining operation based on the upkeep alone.
With the costs of individual mining so high its almost hard to understand how popular mining is as it is.
I'm not sure what this is a reply to. |
|
|
|
|
Does the Bitcoin client not run at all, or does it not display the wallet's balance and transactions? If the latter, try running Bitcoin with the -rescan parameter.
|
|
|
|
|
A week has passed since the IPO, and not a single bond was sold, officially making this a spectacular failure.
Judging by the demand so far, handling the bond will not be worth the trouble, and hence I have retracted the ask orders and discontinued the offering indefinitely.
If anyone wishes me to reinstate this offering or a similar one, they are welcome to contact me.
|
|
|
|
I just don't understand why he won't admit that the idea of PoS is a PoS.
Because it's not. Getting a majority of the bitcoins is much harder than getting a majority of the hashrate, meaning that increasing the reliance on the former improves security. Also, it looks like the PoS detractors haven't taken the time to study how the proposals for PoS actually work. In particular the proposals aim for combining PoS and PoW. |
|
|
|
Look at https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Mining_hardware_comparison and compare the hashrate to the price with which you are able to get them. Basically any ATI Radeon 5XXX and up will be good. You need a good PSU and good cooling but other than that all parts can be as cheap as they get. The trend now is moving to FPGA and ASIC but availability of the best offerings is very limited so with sponsored electricity you have some mileage left for a GPU-based system. |
|
|
|
If you have 2 rigs, 1 hashing 1500 MH/s and the other hashing at 2400 MH/s, you could point the 1 1500 rig at p2pool and the 2nd 2400 rig at EMC. Each rig has it's own instance of a miner, so just point each at a different pool. This is what I get out of the OP.
Is the proxy method being suggested for single rig miners?
These are two means to the same end. The proxy method is more general, more accurate and potentially simpler. Manually pointing each rig to a different pool is more of a workaround if that's unavailable. What would be the minimum hashing ability that would benefit from splitting between 2 pools? Like those with one 6850/5830/5850?
Assuming the pools use a reward method with moderate variance such as PPLNS with X=1, the miner needs to have a hashrate of at least on the order of H/D (where H is the pool hashrate and D is the difficulty) to see significant gains. So for example if the pool is 1 TH/s and D=1.5M then the miner needs to be more than about 1 MH/s, which is pretty much everyone. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
