|
Thanks for writting this. Its very important that bitcoins become more accepted by traders.
|
|
|
|
I think the amount of money involved is getting large enough to hold some people (at least moraly) accountable of something goes wrong. And I think this also holds for not speaking up.
Accountable of what? What contract or oral promise did they break? Im honestly interested on knowing what do you think they are accountable of. |
|
|
|
|
With a bitcoin sign as background would be perfect.
|
|
|
|
|
You might want this post moved to the marketplace sub-forum.
|
|
|
|
Sure. Illegal drugs have been survivng and flourishing for decades even after they instituted the war on drugs. Illegal immigrants (how a human being could possibly be considered "illegal" is beyond me) have been continuing to flow across the border and work and live prosperous lives even as they are being hunted down by ICE and Republicans. +1 |
|
|
|
Has never dropped to zero.
And that goes back to Mesopotamian times and even earlier.
The ancient Egyptians used gold bars as money among the nobility. Greeks. Romans. Aztecs. Incas. China. Japan. India. You name it. They all valued gold as a store of value. (not necessarily always units of account or units of exchange. Sometimes gold was viewed as being too precious to be mere money.)
Well bitcoin is also too precious at the moment just to be a currency. Hence people are hording and saving them. Just yesterday I made a payment in bitcoins. |
|
|
|
Just for the hell of it I swapped to btcguild yesterday... I like everything about the site and implementation but I have one issue which caused me to go back to deepbit..
I ran my miner all night and only got 0.01 in the morning.. if I run on deepbit I will have at least 0.03 - 0.05 when i wake up..
So mathmatically speaking, do you make less by joining smaller pools?
I don't care about opinions, I just want to know the actual raw numbers if any of you brainy math type can break it down that would be appriciated..
I feel like I was making less after switching to the smaller pool.
BTCGuild got a block after only 4 minutes yesterday evening and then spend 3 hours and a half for the next one. It was lucky and then very unlucky and I feel today its been an unlucky day in general. You really can not say by mining only one day. |
|
|
|
hey guys.. need some advice. I am running my rig headless on ubuntu. I have three miners running in a separate screen session (one for each GPU). Sometimes a miner will hang up for nefarious reasons. I can still SSH into the machine, and work and the other 2 miners will run as normal. BUT... if I try to do a kill -15 or even a kill -9 on the PID of the froze miner, the entire system will hang and I cant do anything. Even if I plug a monitor and keyboard back up it will still be froze.
The same thing happens if I try to reboot the machine from CLI when a mining script is hung. Whats the best way to unstick this froze process without killing the entire system?
Is there a way to detach the particular module for the hung GPU from the kernel without killing the system?
I have exactly the same problem. I am using Ubuntu 11.04 (had the same problem with Ubuntu 10.04 LTS), phoenix with phatk, two 5870's. It happens more when I overclocked it more (temperature always under 70). |
|
|
|
Hi I just started playing around with two 5870, but I am having stability issues. I first installed Ubuntu 10.04 LTS and followed the instructions here to install the drivers and the miners. But the system was not stable, it would freeze randomly with some tame overclocking configuration (temperature was always under 70 degrees, usually around 55-65). So I installed Ubuntu 11.04 thinking that maybe the "old" sotware of the LTS was causing problems with the drivers. I am having the same exact problems. I am using phoenix with the Phatk kernel and overcloaking the 5870's to 1000:1000 (gpu speed:memory speed) and the temperature never goes over 70, staying around 55-65. Curiously I get the freezes if I set the memory speed under 1000. I get 424 Mhash/s. Also, I have tried to overclock the gpu over 1000, even trying 1025. One works fine and I get over 430 Mhash/s, temperature is fine, but when I launch the second one (also at 1025) the whole system freezes and I need to reboot. Its not one card since I have tried in the inverse order and the result is the same. Both cards alone do 1025 fine, but when the second starts the systme freezes. My rig is using a single core AMD cpu, can that be a problem because is not able to handle both gpu's? Does adding more cards will create problems for this cpu or is cpu power not an issue for mining with the gpu's? Im guessing that the 5870 can go over 1000 Mhz because the temperature is fine. Any advice on what to do or test? PS: I am using Phatk because I read its the quicker, but I have also read that Hashkill is very good on linux. Any comments? |
|
|
|
If you aren't a Linux user...
the windows hashrate and ease of set up is much more preferred, not to mention most of the (better) OC tools are also on windows.
I only use Linux for 2 major things, aside from the very small % hashrate increase.
I need SSH, ssh allows me to remotely restart miners, check tempature, set OC and other tech related stuff.
Hashkill allows me to run multi-gpu configurations with 1 miner instance. Is Hashkill better for linux than phatck? |
|
|
|
Third and most important, talking about "the gold standard" is terribly vague. The monetary systems that people label under "gold standard" are extremely different and only someone very ignorant about economics would join them together and treat them all the same. There are times where people used gold as money without any government intervention. Then governments usually start the shenerigans by imposing some type of specific gold coin, to later on create a central bank with paper (suposedly) backed by gold. But each monetary system is completely different (even when they all are using gold in some way) and its stupid to treat them all the same.
Specifically for the period of time you are mentioning: When the Federal Reserve was created in 1913 it wasnt that bad actually. It could only create dollars if they were backed by so called "real goods" and 40% of gold. Obviously this was only temporary and not 5 years were gone when they started changing the law so the Fed could expand. The first big expansion was for IWW where the Fed doubled prices in the USA in 5 years (if I recall corectly). To pay for the war the government gave the Fed the power to buy government bonds. Housing bubbles appeared all over the USA, specially in Florida. Finally the bubble popped and there was the crisis of 1921-22. This is a crisis keynesians dont like to talk about and ignore it because the government lowered taxes and reduced spending: the crisis was over in a year and a half, even when it started worse than the Great Depression.
Then the Fed finally got definitive powers to expand and it created the roaring 20's with a big stock market bubble that popped in 1929. How is this the fault of gold? And how is this related to other type of monetary systems like the ones I have explained earlier? Its stupid to group all the monetary systems that use gold in some way together because they can be very different.
For the record, during the 20's Fisher congratulated the Fed for its great job at managing the economy and during 1929 said that the collapse would not happen, that it was only a plateau. In 1927 Keynes said that they had now the hability to control the economy and that crisis were a thing of the past. Hayek and Mises said there was a bubble and that a crisis was coming. Mises even rejected a job at a big bank and remained in his professor job (earning a lot less money) because he said the bank would fail and he did not wanted his name associated with all that. His wife was not happy, but the bank end up failing 2 years later. There is unwritten law in economics: When a keynesian says they have now control of the economy and crisis are things of the past, a big crisis is coming.
First of all please let me take a stance regarding fractional reserve banking: accepting deposits, putting a fraction aside and lending out the remainder is the standard way any and all banks operate, regardless if they use gold, green paper or bitcoins. The notion that fractional reserve banking is somewhat only possible if enabled by a central bank is a Zeitgeist conspirationista type of fallacy. One who doesn't understand what fractional reserve banking is, and the way it enables monetary expansion from M1 to M2, like our friend here AV, is nothing but a crackpot armchair economist who does not even warrant a response. Are you a troll? I did not even mention once fractional reserve banking. I did not state that fractional reserve banking was or not possible with or wihtout a central bank. Is this some kind of message you have stored in your computer that use for everybody or are you directly crazy? Secondly, the issue in question is not whether a government-imposed gold standard is better than other types of "sound money", but rather if deflation is good or bad for the economy. Yes, that was the issue, until you changed it here as I denounced. So you changed the issue, I called you on that but decided to answer you anyway, and now you accuse me of chaning the issue... I have no words. Regardless if it's 100% or 40% backed by gold, any fixed money supply has the same natural tendency to deflate and choke the economy, by rewarding the hoarders and punishing debtors. Baseless statement. A price deflationary monetary system does not choke the economy as seen in history. You keep disregarding reality. The US maintained the 40% gold standard until the winter of 1933-1934, No, the USA did not mantain a 40% gold standard until the winter of 1933-1934. The Fed did not keep a 40% gold way before that. Please learn some monetary history. which unsurprisingly coincided with the very bottom of the depression. The Great Depression did not end until the 40's. What some keynesians like to point as "prove" of their mesures working is just some statistics improving because of the government manipulations. But those manipulations is what caused the economy to stall until the 40's. There was no recovery, just some statistical improvements in the same way Obama likes to point out to some statistics as "prove" that the recession is over while everybody knows we are in a depression. Comparatively, the keynesian decision to float the Pound in UK lead to a much quicker recovery. The situation in the UK was extremely different than in the USA, because the pound was overvalued during the 20's because of the decission of the Bank of England to return to a gold ratio it could not mantain after what he printed for the IWW. So it made sense that the economy benefited from loosing that stupid position that the central bank kept for so long. The situation in the UK and the USA during the 20's was completely different, and comparing them just shows your historic ignorance again. The anecdotal evidence you present regarding the deep foresights of Austrian economists is largely irrelevant. Fisher was in no way a keynesian, not even Keynes was until after the onset of the depression (The General Theory was published in 1936). Indeed the depression was such a catalytic event that it provided deep insights to Keynes, much to the despair of Hayek who painstakingly prepared a compelling rebuttal of Keynes earlier work, only to be scoffed with the famous quip "I no longer believe that". Yes, Keynes is well known for changing his economic views constantly. In fact, weeks before his death, he said he did not agree with a lot of what the keynesians were saying. How is constantly changing your views in contradictory ways a good thing? It shows that he did not understand how the economy worked. So any quote from the Keynes before cca 1930 should be taken with a pound of salt. And any quote of Keynes after 1930 too. The ability to predict the future would have made Misses a very rich man shorting the stock market, I believe in this instance we're simply dealing with selection bias. I am sorry to tell you that the one having selection bias is you. You can check the statements of Mises and Hayek predicting the 1929 crash. If you dont like reality and prefer to ignore it its not our problem. I just wanted to answer you for the record, but I think you are just a troll so this is the last answer. |
|
|
|
You have two periods during the USA XIX century. One, after Andrew Jackson closed the Second Bank of the USA (the central bank of the USA back then) until the civil war, and then after the depression that the civil war brought until the beggining of the XX century, although during this last period there was the National Banks Act that centralized the credit in the New York banks and allowed for some expansion of credit and some bubbles. But it was very tame compared to what a central bank could do, so there was still price deflation. Its very important that you keep in mind that a lot of the statistics during this period are just bullshit. Because the data of this period was not precise lot of economists applied models to extrapolate the data and they pushed their own view with the model. Even keynesians like Cristina Rommer (worked for the Obama admin) admits that the data was grossly exagerated for the worse. If you want to get a good picutre you need to look at big intervals like 10 or 20 years.
Canada during big periods of the XIX century had a price deflationary economy. Scotland during the XVIII and XIX centuries. Etc...
Much obliged! There are some forum members here who respond very negatively to anyone who doesn't know as much as they do about a given topic. Thanks for not being one of those and taking the time to elaborate in a polite and informative manner!   No problem.  |
|
|
|
Buying lots of bitcoins with dollars, driving the price up (and maybe creating an expectations bubble), then waiting for the price to stabilize before selling all you've bought (hoping to create panic selling) would, in my humble opinion, be an effective attack by anybody who had a lot of money to spend, didn't mind making the owners of the bitcoin exchanges very wealthy, and wanted to create fear, uncertainty, and doubt in the bitcoin market.
Of course, if there was somebody with a lot of bitcoins willing to sell on the way up and buy on the way down to stabilize prices... Someone trying this would probably affect the price of bitcoins in a big way, but would also end up loosing a lot of money. The price of bitcoins would collapse quickly until it reached a new equilibrium not allowing the seller to regain all the money he payed for bitcoins. You can see this dinamics all the time when someone tries to corner the market. If they want to sell quick, they end up loosing money. |
|
|
|
|
Yes, Lew Rockwell dot com (who also manages mises.org) has published a couple of very favorable articles about Bitcoin.
As a supporter of the austrian school of economics and a very early supporter of Bitcoin I wish a few austrians were not so caught up with gold. Gold is only useful because it allows monetary stability and that was the reason it was choosed by the market. But the market can choose more things that gold, like bitcoins. Also, gold and Bitcoin are complementary. I would not put all my savings in gold or bitcoins, but a mix of the two. Bitcoin is way more useful for internet transactions and its cheaper to store, but gold is probably more secure and it has a lot more tradition. They are both completementary. I am ashamed of some of the stupid reactions by a few austrian economists to Bitcoin. Hopefully they will come around, becuase austrian economics explains the dinamics of bitcoins like no other economic theory can.
|
|
|
|
You have two periods during the USA XIX century. One, after Andrew Jackson closed the Second Bank of the USA (the central bank of the USA back then) until the civil war, and then after the depression that the civil war brought until the beggining of the XX century, although during this last period there was the National Banks Act that centralized the credit in the New York banks and allowed for some expansion of credit and some bubbles. But it was very tame compared to what a central bank could do, so there was still price deflation.
I love the part where you leave out that defending the gold standard and it's deflationary nature brought the full wrath of the Great Depression, the single most important economic event that shaped modern macro. Far from being relinquished to the outskirts of the economic science as they are today, "sound money" advocates like yourself were the top dogs in 1929, and the full scale of their incompetence has yet to be equaled. First of all, I dont defend a government imposed gold standard. I defend competing currencies, be it gold, silver, bitcoins a combination or whatever peole like to use. Monetary freedom. Second, why dont you answer to my post instead of ignoring the corrections I made? You just changed the subject to the Great Depression without answering anything I said. Its a lame tactic to avoid debate when you dont have an answer because your theories dont hold. Third and most important, talking about "the gold standard" is terribly vague. The monetary systems that people label under "gold standard" are extremely different and only someone very ignorant about economics would join them together and treat them all the same. There are times where people used gold as money without any government intervention. Then governments usually start the shenerigans by imposing some type of specific gold coin, to later on create a central bank with paper (suposedly) backed by gold. But each monetary system is completely different (even when they all are using gold in some way) and its stupid to treat them all the same. Specifically for the period of time you are mentioning: When the Federal Reserve was created in 1913 it wasnt that bad actually. It could only create dollars if they were backed by so called "real goods" and 40% of gold. Obviously this was only temporary and not 5 years were gone when they started changing the law so the Fed could expand. The first big expansion was for IWW where the Fed doubled prices in the USA in 5 years (if I recall corectly). To pay for the war the government gave the Fed the power to buy government bonds. Housing bubbles appeared all over the USA, specially in Florida. Finally the bubble popped and there was the crisis of 1921-22. This is a crisis keynesians dont like to talk about and ignore it because the government lowered taxes and reduced spending: the crisis was over in a year and a half, even when it started worse than the Great Depression. Then the Fed finally got definitive powers to expand and it created the roaring 20's with a big stock market bubble that popped in 1929. How is this the fault of gold? And how is this related to other type of monetary systems like the ones I have explained earlier? Its stupid to group all the monetary systems that use gold in some way together because they can be very different. For the record, during the 20's Fisher congratulated the Fed for its great job at managing the economy and during 1929 said that the collapse would not happen, that it was only a plateau. In 1927 Keynes said that they had now the hability to control the economy and that crisis were a thing of the past. Hayek and Mises said there was a bubble and that a crisis was coming. Mises even rejected a job at a big bank and remained in his professor job (earning a lot less money) because he said the bank would fail and he did not wanted his name associated with all that. His wife was not happy, but the bank end up failing 2 years later. There is unwritten law in economics: When a keynesian says they have now control of the economy and crisis are things of the past, a big crisis is coming. |
|
|
|
Why do you think "experts" know what they are doing and/or they wont be corrupted?
Experts work with data instead of popularity. People can validate data, people can't really validate popularity. Tainted experts will have no reputation and nobody will take them into account. Politicians have reputation from specific supporters regardless of their actions and ideas. An expert will provide factual arguments to sustain an idea, a politician will just popularize public consensus or hidden agendas. There is a difference between what people need and what people want. There is a difference between a better future and a better hope. Just saying... So you think "experts" are never wrong? And you think people can judge the arguments of the "experts"? So if I explain to you a problem regarding some electronic engineer regulation you are going to be able to know if I am cheating you or not? You think Joe Sixpack has the knowledge to decide between the arguments of two experts? |
|
|
|
|
Let the central bank buy all the bitcoin at ridiculous high prices and then we can stop usin bitcoins, start a new chain making all thebitcoin the cenral bank bought worthless. I wish they were so stupid.
|
|
|
|
Yeah I thought so too, im a bit of a quote whore lol!
I need the price to go up as I need to pay off my $7500 server thats coming this week lol If you are not willing to loose money dont invest it. After the absolutely abnormal rise of bitcoins this last two weeks its more than normal that the price is not going up for a while. Im actually very surprised that it has not gone down to $15 or so. It would be a normal correction. Im not very good at short time trading, but if it stays around $18-$19 and does not correct more it will be a very bullish sign. |
|
|
|
If you vote for a really stupid policy that is going to ruin other people's lives needlessly, you are not liable to compensate them.
What if there are no stupid policies? As in, no law gets passed until all experts agree on the compromise and the deciding bodies can be veto-ed by the President of a country in case of conflict of interest with the people at large? Do you still have that problem? Would experts in the field that the law applies to, fix the problem you describe with stupid people voting for money-grabbing laws pushed by large economic agents bribing politicians?Why do you think "experts" know what they are doing and/or they wont be corrupted? |
|
|
|
There are plenty of examples of how price deflationary economies grow and thrive.
I am an armchair economist (at best) and would be honestly interested in reading more about non-inflationary economies thriving in history. Would you mind listing some of these examples or at least giving me some Google search terms to set me in the right direction? It would be much appreciated! You have two periods during the USA XIX century. One, after Andrew Jackson closed the Second Bank of the USA (the central bank of the USA back then) until the civil war, and then after the depression that the civil war brought until the beggining of the XX century, although during this last period there was the National Banks Act that centralized the credit in the New York banks and allowed for some expansion of credit and some bubbles. But it was very tame compared to what a central bank could do, so there was still price deflation. Its very important that you keep in mind that a lot of the statistics during this period are just bullshit. Because the data of this period was not precise lot of economists applied models to extrapolate the data and they pushed their own view with the model. Even keynesians like Cristina Rommer (worked for the Obama admin) admits that the data was grossly exagerated for the worse. If you want to get a good picutre you need to look at big intervals like 10 or 20 years. Canada during big periods of the XIX century had a price deflationary economy. Scotland during the XVIII and XIX centuries. Etc... |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
