Dude, you can't use one day sample as measurement unless someone deploys 100 THs over night. |
|
|
|
|
Dude, you wee lucky enough to hit 5% of the honest BTC arena players. Go get something to drink, this is rare event.. The rest are busy screwing up everything else..
|
|
|
|
Not to mention that encouraging suicide directly or indirectly can be punishable by law.
The law of morality, maybe. But not any criminal law. There is a criminal law in my country addressing exactly this subject, I assume it is the same in most other countries, just FYI. |
|
|
|
|
Moderators should send this guy IP to any emergency institution they can find first in USA (assuming he lives there)..
|
|
|
|
Hi,
I also have a stuck payment....hopefully they get this fixed soon.
I have two stuck payments now.. after the 0.3BTC, the next one also ended stuck. At that moment I switched pool. UPDATE: It seems the issue is fixed, I was able to transfer the stuck coins today. |
|
|
|
Stuck payment..  |
|
|
|
Difficulty changed
blockchain.info has had some issues today I heard
Ah, TY man. I was like, omg, 150 blocks in half an hour and blockchain is delaying displaying them.. |
|
|
|
|
Did the difficulty just changed or there are still 150 blocks left as bitcoincharts.com reports?
|
|
|
|
|
Maybe some security measure. I remember Inaba saying he have some of those active against low hash rate miners after he got hit by several botnets. Maybe try to switch pool for a while?
|
|
|
|
You didn't mention that you were only talking about your tests on big pools.  And the pressure-on-unlucky-round-argument would only matter, if you switch pools right after such an unlucky long run (which wouldn't make much sense for you), if you just stay on the same pool it really doesn't matter, a lucky round will come and everything is fine again. Anyway, i'm not saying one should use this, or that pool, feel free to use whatever pool you like for whatever reason. We all talking about our experience, there is no study/chart to corroborate PPS / size / stability. Then, if I use PPS, its quite reasonable to assume that I will switch pools from time to time, and I am doing based on several factors, mostly based on pool load, if pool is under DDOS or experiences heavy load, it will serve me less getworks per second and my workers efficiency will drop. If I switch on a small pool and it will suddenly see an increase of 30 - 50% in hash power, they may start experience payment difficulties if pool has a small wallet. I would like to avoid this. |
|
|
|
The highest PPS and stable atm is 50btc.
Sorry to say, but that's not true. Bitparking has a lower fee plus you get some alt-coins from merged mining with them. Hey, no offense, I am talking about my tests on big pools. I have alot of hash power and I avoid small pools on the ground that I may put pressure on their hot wallets in case there is a long unlucky run. Also, server bandwidth is a real issue, I still use getwork. |
|
|
|
|
The highest PPS and stable atm is 50btc. Next highest stable is btcguild (as stable as 50btc but with 5% tax). Then, probably deepbit with 10% tax.
Ozcoin has 3% PPS as 50btc (and you will gain some extra with NMC merged mining and conversion to btc) but unfortunately they are less stable than 50btc or btcguild.
|
|
|
|
|
There is only 100 million BTC worth produced so far, hard to get 80 million overnight..
|
|
|
|
I am thinking they will have a big window of opportunity at least ..
A big window of opportunity to do what, exactly? Guys, you miss the point I raised, the problem is that, in my view, the control (at least at potential level - still, this wont change the fact) over network crunched after 4 years in hands of one entity, instead of keep dispersing among the many.. |
|
|
|
|
I am thinking they will have a big window of opportunity at least ..
|
|
|
|
I am not crying about anything. And ASIC could be avoided if it developers wouldn't try so hard to stay in their comfort zone.
I am just noticing that today status is 180 degrees of what Satoshi probably had in his mind. And no worries, LTC ASICs are way more harder to be built than BTC.
What did he have in mind? Please post a reference. Decentralized currency, p2p, transactions signed by anonymous people around the world, definitely not 1 guy in China with 51% hash power, at least this I understand from his paper. Again, I'm not saying its a bad project, I congratulate friedcat and his friends, well done guys. |
|
|
|
If you're crying for an algorithmic change, you didn't really understand the technology underlying bitcoin mining. There's no escaping from ASICs in the long run. The only thing you will gain from algorithmic changes is to destabilize the mining industry and make the POW system vulnerable.
With respect to litecoin... same story - but nobody would seriously spent the NRE cost on that blockchain, that's why there are no ASICs for LTC - yet (and I doubt there ever will be any).
I am not crying about anything. And ASIC could be avoided if it developers wouldn't try so hard to stay in their comfort zone. I am just noticing that today status is 180 degrees of what Satoshi probably had in his mind. And no worries, LTC ASICs are way more harder to be built than BTC. |
|
|
|
Well, GZ guys.
At the same time, I must admit, IMO bitcoin developers (Gavin and CO) should have forced a hard fork with a new alg, not allowing ASIC taking over BTC. Right now, it seems, 51% of hashing power will be in short time in the hands of few individuals which will mine for themselves. I bet this wasn't the original idea behind BTC..
Well since it is possible some people would eventually do it for any alog. IMO this is the best scenario for it to actually happen. Several groups working on their own designs and a community willing to buy such hardware to decentralize as much as possible and secure the network. The first horse advantage? Now how would you prevent that in any scenario? Just be glad the first horse is not planning on shitting all over us!  Algorithm change and fork. As I said, it seems to me, BTC creator thought it as a decentralized currency to be hashed on peoples around the world computers. We are now in worst case scenario, with one very small group able to control more than 51% of hashing power. Ofc, nothing can be done now and we should congrats the guys which put so much effort and won this race. But again, I cant stop noticing where BTC started and where it ended today.. |
|
|
|
Update
The samples passed all functionality tests. The power consumption is also within the expected range. And as our overclocking tests had shown, they still have a lot of potentials compared to our original spec. This means that the biggest risk of our project is gone and our NRE is a fruitful spend.
The first production batch of chips will be out of the packaging service tomorrow. Our deploying is on its way.
Well, GZ guys. At the same time, I must admit, IMO bitcoin developers (Gavin and CO) should have forced a hard fork with a new alg, not allowing ASIC taking over BTC. Right now, it seems, 51% of hashing power will be in short time in the hands of few individuals which will mine for themselves. I bet this wasn't the original idea behind BTC.. |
|
|
|
|
And your btc address is (so we can check)?
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
