This thread is so much fail.

Why? So the government does that BUT does not tell you? This is how bitcoin works, and blockchain.info exposes that. They are doing a service.

Fail article detected

Cgminer is a false positive.

That site DOES list the GTX 650 ti, learn how to read please.

Year 2013, litecoin... no wait nothing.

I do not agree.
More transactions with lower fee per transaction can give in total more fees than less transactions with higher fees.

Wich is exactly what i was thinking. But so far there is no real work done about that. If we want to speak about increasing the blocksize, then pruning must be considered too.

Here is the truth:

Some people use paperwallet for backup reason, not for safety. And yes franky, your idea is nice, the problem is that almost no one know about this problem, so they of course can't do something to avoid it.

Yes, it's easy to say "you should inform yourself" but when things are so hidden and counterintuitive, good luck. Everywhere it is suggested to do a paperwallet, but nowhere it is said that "oh note that everytime you spend your btc the change goes to a new address"

Since everyone and his dog is openin thread about that, i'll hop on the bandwagon too 

But my doubt is another one, right now, with the 1MB limit, the blockchain at max can grow of like 55GB per year. If we have the necessity to increase the block size, this mean that every block is already 1MB and that in a year the blockchain will be like 60GB.
If we double the blocksize, it will be 110GB per year. In 4 years it will be like 440GB. With the current limit, 220GB, still a lot

I am not against increasing the blocksize, if we have lot of transactions, it must be done. Also more transactions per block means more fees for the miners, after all it is not expensive to make a 1mb or a 2mb block, but a 2mb block will have more transactions. Yes, the 1mb block would have less transactions but with higher fees but i think the 2mb block in total would have more fees.

And as i said, having a blockchain of 220 or 440gb is not a big difference, it is a huge chain anyway. The problem is that it is huge, even with the current limit. A bit too huge.

Weird, why these two pools are still using version 1?

It doubled because the old blockchain is still there?

Epic

Not a good idea when there are already people mining with an ASIC paid 1300$ wich is more powerful than 250 cards.

Note that ordering an ASIC today means that it will arrive in... dunno, months. The people that today have their ASICs ordered them months ago.

Useless.
And using your graphic card is useless too, you are wasting much more energy than what you "gain". 50mhash/s is almost nothing these days...

It will be useless

Gabi guide to mining:
CPU mining: useless
GPU mining: almost useless

What to do: get ASICs

 

Yes, cpu mining is totally useless

Nah, they just are looking for blockchain.info, not learning how the blockchain work

I remember the 2011 bubble. Everyone and his dog were saying "no it is not a bubble, the revolution just started blabla, media blabla" and so on.

Now, maybe this is not a bubble, i have no idea. But the fact that everyone are saying again the same things... uh well is a bit worrying.

You receive coins to address x. You put address x on paperwallet.

Then you spend a part of the bitcoins on address x. The "change" is sent back not to address x but to a NEW one. Why? For anonimity. Nothing of course stop the client from sending the change to the address x, but this is not how the bitcoin-qt client work. It does not even offer the option to send it back to x address... and almost no one know about this thing.

Now, if you later lose the wallet on bitcoin-qt and you use the paperwallet, well, btc no more are on that address... they are on a new one. Surprise  And that new one of course is not on the paperwallet.

As you notice by reading that thread there are some services who send the btc back to address x