|
No, bitcoin, and especially not ripple, can correct greed. They're like a hammer -- you can use bitcoin to make or break things depending on your intentions.
Anyway, a decentralized exchange is a fun idea, but the issue is always how to get USD or other paper currencies from one place to another once traded. What would be more valuable to bitcoin would be something that makes bitcoins able to easily turn into actual government-backed currencies and vice versa. The first major advancement was bitinstant, but that's still a little less than ideal. Once liquidity increases for bitcoin, we can expect greater adoption.
|
|
|
|
I will offer 500 LTC to the person who does this -- should only take a couple hours if that. Guiminer repository is here: https://github.com/Kiv/poclbmGuides for wx library: http://zetcode.com/wxpython/Guide for compiling with py2exe: http://www.blog.pythonlibrary.org/2010/07/31/a-py2exe-tutorial-build-a-binary-series/Fork needs to have the following: 1) cgminer-scrypt tab with boxes to enter thread-concurrency, vectors, worksize, intensity, and GPU threads aside from the normal stuff. KH/s reported to stdout should show up in the bottom on the tab and in the summary tab of GUIminer. 2) reaper tab with boxes to enter worksize, aggression, sharethreads, threads_per_gpu, and gpu_thread_concurrency (lookup_gap should be set to 2 and is unchangeable). When starting a reaper worker, a temporary reaper folder will be created that includes properly configured reaper.conf and litecoin.conf files. Reaper.exe from this folder is then executed. See the thread in my sig for more info. KH/s reported to stdout should show up in the bottom on the tab and in the summary tab of GUIminer. For both cgminer and reaper, there should be a dropdown menu that allows you to select your AMD card default setting from a list. For both programs, defaults for these values will always be the same: worksize 256 vectors 1 gputhreads 1 lookupgap 2 sharethreads (reaper only) 32 aggression/intensity 19 (except for 7970, which should be 13 in cgminer) Default settings for thread concurrency, cgminer: (card) (thread-concurrency) 5750 3200 5770 3200 5850 6144 5870 6144 5970 6144 6770 3200 6850 6144 6870 6720 6930 8000 6950 8000 6970 8000 6990 8000 7750 7168 7770 8000 7850 12800 7870 16000 7950 21712 7970 24000 (reaper) or 8192 (cgminer) When you are done link to the GIT repository of your fork and provide a working 32-bit Windows implementation. For more information on scrypt mining see the thread I wrote in my sig. |
|
|
|
Hi, I have 4x bottles of 120 x 150 mg ursolic acid. Dose is 2-10 capsules per day. Selling bottles for 0.65 BTC each shipped or less if you buy more than one. Shipping within USA and Canada. It's a fairly new supplement, however in mice on high fat diets it shows fairly strong effects at a dosage of 0.14% ursolic acid in foodstuff.  HFD = high fat diet, HFD + UA = high fat diet and ursolic acid PLoS One. 2012;7(6):e39332. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0039332. Epub 2012 Jun 20. Ursolic acid increases skeletal muscle and brown fat and decreases diet-induced obesity, glucose intolerance and fatty liver disease.Kunkel SD, Elmore CJ, Bongers KS, Ebert SM, Fox DK, Dyle MC, Bullard SA, Adams CM. It also increases muscle density and strength in the mice while decreasing white (bad) fat. |
|
|
|
|
Still have AMD CPU & Ram combos?
|
|
|
|
|
BSD = the difficulty of the "best" share you have submitted since the last found block. But I don't think it's ever worked since it's been added, mine is always 0.
|
|
|
|
I largely agree. It comes down to the practical question of which scheme will be more robust in the face of a motivated attacker. I don't think any of us really know that yet. I can agree with that. I'm still not sure that I've internalized the implications of your model in ripple, though I now think my initial understanding of the basic technicalities of were at least not totally incorrect. I find it interesting that it's easy to describe topologies where you are insecure even though _all_ of your peers are honest and most of the network is honest: /---- Honest0
/--- Attacker
/------moron1 ----- Attacker
/ / | \---- Attacker
/ | | /---- Attacker
you----|--moron2------ Attacker
\ | | \---- Honest1
\ \ | /---- Honest2
\------notmoron --- Honest3
In this graph there are 7 honest validators (honest*,moron*, and notmoron), and 5 attacker controlled identities. All of your direct peers are honest. And yet you're exploited— Every validator you trustlist sees an attacker controlled majority even though only 41% of the total validators are dishonest. So the Bitcoin security assumption (most hash power is honest) is not strong enough to make ripple secure if translated to comparable terms ('most trusted nodes in the system are honest'). How do your cryptographic signatures that show if someone misbehaved distinguish between them misbehaving vs trusting someone who misbehaved? Couldn't I protect my reputation by attacking by simply arranging to trust dishonest sockpuppet nodes? If I can't then isn't there considerable pressure to only trust the same nodes everyone else trusts? This is the major problem with ripple. Someone with a botnet can form thousands or tens of thousands of validated nodes and operate them as normal for months on end, then suddenly command them to reject certain transactions as invalid. It doesn't even have to be a lot of transactions, just small ones that majorly benefit the botnet operator, and this could be performed very easily with no one catching on to it for some time. You've created a "one IP one vote" system, something that is warned against in the original bitcoin protocol specifications. If the chain lives long enough we'll all see why. Sybil attacks are cheap and the threat of them is real. |
|
|
|
|
Not sure where this belief comes from, but sometimes difficulty follows price and sometimes price follows difficulty. Previously with BTC price was the driver in the majority of the cases, but it's not always true. LTC has been different because of the rapid adjustment algorithm too.
BTC price skyrocketed four months after GPU mining was introduced and the hash rate/diff was already way up, I wouldn't be surprised if similar happened for LTC (first OCL mining software was released on October 1st 2010, hash rate shot up like crazy, followed by price in 2011). Throughout 2010 it's clear that higher network hash rate/difficulty preceeded higher prices.
|
|
|
|
Ripples seem to be bootstrapped in that you have to have them to pay a transaction fee for a ripple transaction. That's it. All it's used for. Current transaction fee for a Ripple transaction is 1/10,000 of a ripple.
So, you need 300 ripples to start an account (why so many?) and 1 ripple for all the transactions you will be doing. Until there is sufficient transaction load to cause a higher transaction fee.
Am I missing something? I don't understand paying BTC for them at this point.
Ripple may be the coin for you if you: - Want to rely on trust nodes- Want a centralized currency that is given to people at random; imagine your bank down the street throwing money at whoever walked by on the sidewalk! - Want a network vulnerable to sybil attacks from bot nets that also expose validation nodes to DDoS attacks - Want a blockchain that contains transaction fees that go to the network creator rather than the userbase that supports its security and are based on the whim of the distributor? Ripple is more or less Solidcoin2 if Solidcoin2 were only mining by trust nodes instead of trust nodes and users and RealSolid was throwing money at everyone on the forum |
|
|
|
|
r9z5eznUWPKgbFKHAYyDXWRswSkJWu4T5y
|
|
|
|
23.02.13 23:03:02 jasinlee: The altera fpgas were surprisingly disappointing for performance. So we are going to have to hunt for a better base production unit.
23.02.13 23:03:50 jasinlee: whichever device we use needs to be able to handle scrypt in parrallel and the altera fpgas (none of them) were able to do it. https://btc-e.com/chat/history/13091jasinlee: eh, we shall see, everyone assumes the 300 is a hard figure
jasinlee: when in reality we were just asking for opinions
jasinlee: For all I know, the only way to pull it off with a good amount of hashpower vs roi would be to sell them for 3000 and have them run at 3MH/s Looks like scrypt is proving elusive to FPGA as expected |
|
|
|
|
Do you have experience with the preparation of samples for ESI mass spectrometry?
|
|
|
|
|
I can't tell the future -- I mine litecoin and hoard, been doing the same thing since release over a year ago. BTC difficulty is going up quite a bit because of ASICs; at some point GPU miners will either move to LTC or move on with their lives. If a lot of GPU miners move to LTC, then LTC price will probably skyrocket. If not, it won't. It's up to you, cryptocurrency prices are terribly erratic.
|
|
|
|
yes. buy all the btc.  |
|
|
|
|
went to dump my 500 nvc and it looks like btc-e is being ddosed again SIGH
|
|
|
|
|
The pool gives the average for the past hour or so if I remember right. Also make sure your LTC settings are correct and you aren't throwing huge amounts of HW errors (see thread in my sig).
|
|
|
|
|
I can confirm he found person I was looking for and a lot more information.
|
|
|
|
Okay i still think that not talking about how the algorithm works isn't going to make the boogey man go away.
Can you explain publicly the new POS algorithm?
this |
|
|
|
|
I need somebody found, sent a PM.
|
|
|
|
|
Jasinlee and LaSeek have announced their intentions to market an FPGA that does scrypt hashes. Their claim is 400 KH/s at a wattage in the low double digits, for a standalone wifi-connected unit at $300 USD. LaSeek claims to have worked on hardware optimizations for the scrypt algorithm for FPGA that allow for lower memory utilization while enhancing the number of logic unit cycles required.
This is all yet to be verified, but proof of concept will be presented soon according to them.
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
