Just lost 20 minutes because I was using my email as a login, instead of the login. You should probably make it clear that you want the LOGIN instead of the EMAIL (half the sites I use use the email as a login).

I was forgetting... The main point of mining (if you read the faq) is that the work to find the right nonce is very hard, but everyone can check that the value is right (and that the work was done, and when it was done, and who did it). And anyone can check it, without a central server. With IP coins who would check the fact that you are using an IP? A general agreement? So if you need the agreement of 10 PCs, you simply take 10 PC, rig them and they'll give you the agreement that you are using any one IP.

And remember, the fact that there is at least a persons with 500k bitcoin isn't a problem for bitcoin... It's an healthy thing! :-)

With so much money you can probably control the market. If it's true that the 400k transaction is the money that MtGox moved in a secure place, it's probable that it's nearly all the BTC money of MtGox, so 230k is more than half. What can you do with more than half the BTC of a pool? You can make the market "stable" and gain from its micro-movements, stopping the macro-movements. So the "stableness" of the last week could have been enginereed with this money.

Let's put it from another POV: only few private persons "own" an IP. You normally only "lease" it. Probably the bitcoin you would mint would be "owned" by the real owner of the IP (so your ISP). Another problem: today the DoD ignores IPcoins, and it has firewalls, so no one can use its IPs to gain coins. Tomorrow it decides to crash the market (it's used by terrorists and pedos, right?), and it "enters" owning 11/225 (or something similar... 0, 10, 127, 224-255 are reserved, so it's 256 - 31 blocks)... The idea isn't totally wrong, and it's quite good, but still it gives to the already rich the money and they don't even have to do anything, and it creates the possibility of lawsuits for the owning of coins generated by IPs.

The advantage is that you would give money to the persons that know how to use it! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_assigned_/8_IPv4_address_blocks . Some examples of 24 million block richs: IBM (9.0.0.0/8), AT&T, Ford, Apple, HP, the Department of Defense (military always need money, and they have 11 Type A blocks...) Plus I'm quite sure MS has many IPs... Money isn't good for poors!

As the title suggest.... Ignoring the mega-transactions ( http://blockexplorer.com/tx/7e7839a52f7eab5841e21eb597bd037ec29aac28b38204c6b5a5f29829f1cc48#i1294990 ) that are probably just internal securing of MtGox... how much rich is the richest? I know someone sold 263k of his bitcoins at 0.1, but before arriving at 0.1, how much did it sold from the account?

(deleted)

We are all poor! :-)

Difficulty of Bitcoin: 877227
Difficulty of Namecoin: 55882

Value of a Namecoin (from https://exchange.bitparking.com/main): around 0.060-0.063

Theoretical value of a Namecoin in BTC based on difficulty: 0.0637

So at this point mining for Namecoin will give the same result as mining for BTC.

I would suggest a feature. It would break a little BTC, but not very much.

When you make a transaction you can mark as "Parked" or something similar. It means that any transaction that is based on that transaction is reversible in n time (where n is fixed when you create the originating transaction) (we could say that any transaction outgoing from that transaction is slow to start). This attribute is public, so anyone can see it.

The use (and an example): let's say I have 25.000 bitcoins and I want to protect them, but I still want to be able to spend them. I know that simply saving them on an external disk is useless, because an opportunistic virus could wait and steal this secondary wallet. I send them to myself marking them with "park, 1440 blocks (10 days give or take, right?)". We call this the transaction A. Now any transaction B that is based directly from transaction A is reversible in 1440 blocks from the creation of B and won't become confirmed before 10 days pass and so I can cancel it (I know a feature to cancel an unconfirmed transaction is already in the work). There are two scenarios from here:

A) I need the money: I will have to transfer it to a "standard" transaction waiting 10 days. Then it becomes again "standard" BTC. (in fact only transactions directly connected to transaction A have to wait)
B) Someone steals my money: he can try to spend them, but I can cancel its spending if I notice it in 10 days (we could make the client remark that a "Parked" transaction has been "activated"). Technically me and the thief could begin cancelling each other the transactions based on the transaction A and the money would get in a limbo... But it's probable that the thief would lose interest... More times it tries to cancel the transaction more risks he has. And in the end it's better "lost" than "stolen".

As an add-on, on this "special" transaction we could save a "master password" (a signature with a different public-private key, protected on the wallet.dat by a different password than the "standard" password that will protect the everyday keys), so anyone that has the master password can activate the transaction without waiting the time, but I'm not sure this would be a good idea (we would return to the original problem)

Ok... My english isn't very good... Please someone can make it comprehensible?

I was thinking, some minutes ago...

• Bitcoins don't have intrinsic value
• Namecoin do have an intrinsic value (they can be "bartered" with the "system" for a new domain/for renewing the domain)

Both can be traded between persons. Clearly the value of a domain isn't "fixed" but...

I have written a C# 4.0 version of poclbm (the command line program). I wanted to try "bold new ways"... In the end I can tell you three things:

• you can't make a DirectCompute 11/11.1 (DirectX 11/11.1) kernel/program faster than the OpenCL version
• you can't speed up poclbm by changing the "front end" (the part that is written in Python or, in my case, in C#).
• I have wasted the money I used to buy a 5970 + power supply... The difficulty is growing too much and in two or three weeks I'll be out-of-the-game, without even recouping the money spent... But at least I have a good graphical adaptor :-)

BUT

There are always persons that LOVE to tinker a little. And C# is probably one of the two/three most "known" languages. So I'm putting on sale the C# program (the source, and the exe/dll if you truly need them). To give some numbers... counting comments and blank lines it's 1500 lines of code, 620 effective LOC using the Code Metrics Tool of VS 2010. I would love a collective offer to open source it (poclbm is MIT licensed, and I think the MIT license is very good).

What I'm "selling":
a complete, working conversion, nearly line-by-line of poclbm PLUS a retooled version that uses multiple threads (so much line-by-line that if you rename the exe to poclbm.exe and put it in the folder of GUIMiner it will run flawlessly). Both of them, on my 4 core intel with an ATI HD 5970 are nearly as much fast as the original poclbm (my computer does 380 mhash/sec) (I think my multithreaded version is around 0.15%-0.20% faster than poclbm, but I could be wrong, and my version uses 1%-2% more CPU). I'm even working on a multi-kernel version (extracting the code that "speaks" to the kernel in a different module)

If a single person wants to buy it, we will discuss what he is buying (probably a one-year exclusive license and then I can open source it, or something similar... a longer license if he feels he truly need it. We aren't speaking of the secret sauce for the most good cake on Earth... We are speaking of a C# conversion of a working program). If it's bought by a collective group, it can be licensed as you prefer.

The target price... I don't know... In the end it won't be much (especially if we compare it to the days it took me to convert it). First I want to see if there is an "interest", then someone can throw a number :-) Otherwise I'll throw it in the bin of useless projects...

Ok... this is quite stupid... And I know it... And I don't even truly need the money... It's more a matter of principle...

Tried the first... No measurable difference (technically I first tried it with 64, but it was much slower, then changed it to 256, and there was no difference with the version without the attribute). Tried the second... Mmmmh... perhaps there was a difference, but it was very small. Tried even changing the size of the output buffer. You use a one-unit array, poclbm uses a 256 sized array, but no difference. The memory bandwitdth of the graphical adaptor is probably great enough that 1kb of data every second or so isn't truly measurable.

Tomorrow I'll modify the poclbm kernel to work with your frontend. It shouldn't be much difficult.

Here there is the "poclbm" version. You use it with poclbm by replacing the BitcoinMiner.cl with the file I'm providing. Remember that the base file I used (amd_bitcoin.cl) is licensed under GPL and so is the work I'm redistributing (I don't know if it's GPL v2, v2 or later or v3, ask the original author).
This version supports the BIT_INT "trick". It doesn't work correctly without the -v flag (because it does 3 hashes at a time, but poeclbm supports only 1 or 2 hashes at a time, and I think the frontend doesn't know when it should increment the root because it has already tested all the nonce values).

If you TRULY want to test the 3 hashes at a time mode, modify BitcoinMiner.py at line 96 from:

    (self.defines, self.rateDivisor, self.hashspace) = if_else(vectors, ('-DVECTORS', 500, 0x7FFFFFFF), ('', 1000, 0xFFFFFFFF))

to

    (self.defines, self.rateDivisor, self.hashspace) = if_else(vectors, ('-DVECTORS', 500, 0x7FFFFFFF), ('', 333, 0x55555555))

and call poclbm without the -v flag.

To call poclbm use something like:

    ./poclbm -d 0 -v -w 256 -f1 -u username --pass password -o address -p port

(skip the ./ if you are under Windows)

On my 5870 this kernel is a 2/3% slower than the standard poclbm kernel, but it could be that the small mods I have done to make it compatible to poclbm have "unbalanced" it.

The link with the file: http://www.mediafire.com/file/c3id5ruw4o7wadi/BitcoinMiner.cl

Oh... If anyone wants to tip me... I would be very happy :-) My first tip as a programmer! :-) (ok... I DO it for a work, but a tip is a tip :-) )

---

Tips appreciated: 1AwtyweUV9GBUhEHPtowAmgcj5uoUq4y1c

I'll add that I have converted the Hashkill "amd kernel" to be usable by the pocblm "front end". I'm using a single 5970. When not setting the VLIW4 #define the speed was very low, when setting VLIW4 the speed was equal (a little lower) than the pocblm standard kernel. So your observations confirm mine (but note that I had to make some changes to the hashkill kernel, like how the parameters are passed to the kernel, so my modified kernel isn't totally equal to the "original" hashkill kernel). I cannot release the "modified" kernel because the license of the kernel isn't "clear". But I CAN probably release a diff with the instructions on how to apply it. If anyone is interested just ask.

Was anyone able to recompile the program under Windows? I would try to modify some things (to thinker a little), but I don't have a linux box with a good graphical adaptor... I tried a little under Win but there are too many dependancies that need compiling, and I don't want to begin installing VS2008 just to recompile the pyopencl.

It's always difficult to recognize compliments from sarcams:-) But I'm an optimist (I always think the glass is half empty but at least it isn't totally empty) so I'll interpret it as a compliment and I'll thank you :-)

This wouldn't make it "less secure". It would make it "optionally less anonymous". Technically it would make it MORE secure (because you would have less chances to lose money because you don't have a newer backup). There is a sliding scale security<->anonymity. Some persons want one, some want the other. I think Joe Six-pack would prefer not to lose money if given the choice, while the Joe-Everyone-Spies-Me would prefer to be totally anonymous. And then, if it's an option in a menu, when you need a more anonymous transaction (and it probably isn't truly more anonymous, because the money can still be tracked if you don't know what you are doing) you can still reactivate the "advanced" mode.

Ah... And why isn't wallet.dat an xml? It would be easier to edit it "by hand" in this way (for example to split/merge wallets).

Would it be possible to add a "stupid proof" mode where new addresses aren't generated/used (I know of the 100 pregenerated addresses) (so for example no direct IP transfer of money, the New Address is grayed out, flashes a big warning dialog if used, and send money sends the "remaining" money back to the same address/to a "default" "already fixed and shown" address) so that users don't have to always backup? I have to admit, every time I move btc I'm quite scared I don't have a backup. (yeah, I know that these feature are to be used to anonymize your operations, but many persons don't truly need so much anonymity. Shops will use one time addresses to collect money, so the money you expend can't be connected to what you buy)
Oh... I would even add a nag window to remind to backup the wallet and a backup function on a menu (just to be more "stupid proof")

Now, I do know that the difficulty auto-calibrates on the "power" of the combined "cloud". My question is different: if more (many more) users come, will the economy of the pool "handlers" change? More users (and greater difficulty) equals more weight on the pool servers (and so less "net" money to pool handlers). And there is probably a maximum number of users a pool handler can handle before his network pipe gets full (and I don't know if the weak link is the network pipe, the processor or the disk). Or will simply increasing the difficulty of the "simple" shares used by pools solve this?
How much powerful must be the pool servers? (or, more importantly, how much less powerful than their clients can they be?)