it happened to me once, haven't slept during a crash.. went from one mistake to other after nice initial gain.
The worst is when you sit up all night as long as you can waiting for something that doesn't come ... I hate it when that happens ! Feel like crap the next day, and the action normally happens then lol I really hate trading sometimes ... in fact a lot of the time. Win or lose, it's pretty soulless and a big distraction from 'real life' I've never lost any BTC holdin like a mofo. You guys should try it, way lower stress. That sounds extremely stressful. No thanks. I'll buy and hold when we start running up a new bubble. facepalm..... buy when we start a new bubble..... That's when you should start to think about selling a few every X%. |
|
|
|
Please stop spreading this lie. The issue with p2pool is people who might try it are actively discouraged by uninformed people like you. ASICMINER hw works, BFL hw works, and soon Avalon hw will work. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=153232.0: Hardware latenciesASICMINER Block Erupter blades: they seem to work correctly according to this postAvalon: I've ordered one in batch 2 but don't have any experience with it yet... There have been various informations floating around but no definite conclusion. Here is what is reported to influence how Avalon and P2Pool behave, you may want to try different combinations of these suggestions: - Test different versions of the Avalon firmware, beginning with the latest one.
- Avalons apparently have a limitation with stratum that a new branch of p2pool tries to circumvent: you may want to try this branch
- try to use cgminer's "--fix-protocol" to avoid Stratum
- contact the p2pool devs on the #p2pool IRC channel to report feedback (and maybe get some tips)
- force a high difficulty for the shares submitted by Avalon by adding +n at the end of the username used to connect to P2Pool (try n=16, 32, 64, ...)
Please report your experience (hashrate, DOA and orphan percentages and efficiency) if you can. Current reports are incomplete and seem to indicate that Avalons don't reach 100% of their mining efficiency on P2Pool. BFL: if you have a BFL Single, an early FPGA MiniRig (cgminer has a parameter for later ones to fix them, check its documentation) don't waste their hashrate on P2Pool, they have huge latencies and can't perform well on P2Pool. Put them on a traditional pool. If you have a BFL SC (ASIC), ckolivas and kano reported the same problem, see ckolivas post. At least two users reported around 100% efficiency: here and here. You might want to test it for yourself for at least 24h and report your results here (please include the details from cgminer's API if possible). Additionally, with the upcoming hardfork (code released, waiting on 95% of hashpower to upgrade), p2pool should work reasonably well for all ASICs (including Avalon), and optimally for most. Even without the hardfork, I'm mining away with 61 AM USBs with 111% efficiency. |
|
|
|
They could only suppress the price until the fund ran out of BTC to sell on the spot market. The fund would settle for fiat a the bottom and then BTC would revaluate higher.
Or the opposite of this. The fund Trustee has some discretion, it is not required to sell anything on the spot market, or it might sell for other reasons than sale of shares.... But regardless, this funds ability to cause the actual bitcoin spot price to fall is limited by the bitcoins it has to sell. |
|
|
|
I don't quite understand how this is any different from the "paper games" being played with gold and silver in order to suppress them. So could this ETF be the instrument the enemies of bitcoin could use to suppress its price or not? I still can't answer this question even with this detailed info you guys here are distilling from the document.
TL;DR? Yes It isn't much different to the gold and silver paper games except in respect to time-frame. Gold and silver ETFs in large part did become the primary mechanism for price discovery. In part that is an artifact of how gold pricing was previously set (using a very old and non-transparent method of five bankers in London deciding what it was). That was easily replaced by the real-time pricing of ETFs. Bitcoin already has that real-time pricing though, so it may likely not follow the same path... But to put out an answer... If Bitcoin has enemies, and if they wanted to suppress the price, (or introduce volatility) and if these enemies have enough fiat, and if such an ETF becomes the primary mechanism for price discovery then... yes. These same games could supposedly be played out on current BTC exchanges? So what is the difference? With an ETF, some brokers would allow clients to short sell with USD collateral. Currently, you can only do this if someone is willing to lend you BTC. If the problem is that people will be able to do what they can with any other currency, then that is not a problem. I never said there was a problem. You asked what the difference was and I explained it. |
|
|
|
it happened to me once, haven't slept during a crash.. went from one mistake to other after nice initial gain.
The worst is when you sit up all night as long as you can waiting for something that doesn't come ... I hate it when that happens ! Feel like crap the next day, and the action normally happens then lol I really hate trading sometimes ... in fact a lot of the time. Win or lose, it's pretty soulless and a big distraction from 'real life' I've never lost any BTC holdin like a mofo. You guys should try it, way lower stress. +21,000,000 |
|
|
|
I don't quite understand how this is any different from the "paper games" being played with gold and silver in order to suppress them. So could this ETF be the instrument the enemies of bitcoin could use to suppress its price or not? I still can't answer this question even with this detailed info you guys here are distilling from the document.
TL;DR? Yes It isn't much different to the gold and silver paper games except in respect to time-frame. Gold and silver ETFs in large part did become the primary mechanism for price discovery. In part that is an artifact of how gold pricing was previously set (using a very old and non-transparent method of five bankers in London deciding what it was). That was easily replaced by the real-time pricing of ETFs. Bitcoin already has that real-time pricing though, so it may likely not follow the same path... But to put out an answer... If Bitcoin has enemies, and if they wanted to suppress the price, (or introduce volatility) and if these enemies have enough fiat, and if such an ETF becomes the primary mechanism for price discovery then... yes. These same games could supposedly be played out on current BTC exchanges? So what is the difference? With an ETF, some brokers would allow clients to short sell with USD collateral. Currently, you can only do this if someone is willing to lend you BTC. |
|
|
|
Well, the other day I had replaced caps in a supply for an old Dell Inspiron 5150. Power hungry laptop but fast. I just gave the hub and B.E a try on that and no connections difficulties and correctly identified. I'll have to fight with it to install mining software tho. --nope, just looked back and now there's connect-debounce port error messages. Perhaps after the B.E. warmed up?
Tried it again. First I put the B.E. at the output of my air conditioning for a minute until it was well cooled. Then reinserted into the hub. All was well for just about 60 seconds then the 'device descriptor read/64, read -32' messages appeared, then the 'unable to enumerate device' messages started. Next to find out if it's the hub or the B.E. that changes. With an air conditioner that looks like a Dr. Who darlek and the B.E. on a USB cable, the B.E. inserted into the AC output, the hub some distance, there are no error messages after 5 minutes. Will now remove the B.E. from the AC and insert the hub. Sixty-four seconds later the error messages started. So, the problem starts after the B.E. heats. The CP2101 gets hotest, in the neighborhood of 250°F according to my IR meter. Don't want to give up until after I test it on a USB3.0 hub however and its tracking number isn't registering on the USPO tracking yet. USPS tracking sucks... half the time the package shows up before the tracking acknowledges they've even received it. That is pretty hot though. I wonder if maybe it's not fully seated so the heat isn't being wicked away. Even with no airflow, I can put my finger on that chip for 2 or 3 seconds before it gets uncomfortable, so mine isn't anywhere near that hot. One of these days I'm going to learn why I need an IR meter instead of using my fingers  . |
|
|
|
I don't quite understand how this is any different from the "paper games" being played with gold and silver in order to suppress them. So could this ETF be the instrument the enemies of bitcoin could use to suppress its price or not? I still can't answer this question even with this detailed info you guys here are distilling from the document.
TL;DR? Yes It isn't much different to the gold and silver paper games except in respect to time-frame. Gold and silver ETFs in large part did become the primary mechanism for price discovery. In part that is an artifact of how gold pricing was previously set (using a very old and non-transparent method of five bankers in London deciding what it was). That was easily replaced by the real-time pricing of ETFs. Bitcoin already has that real-time pricing though, so it may likely not follow the same path... But to put out an answer... If Bitcoin has enemies, and if they wanted to suppress the price, (or introduce volatility) and if these enemies have enough fiat, and if such an ETF becomes the primary mechanism for price discovery then... yes. They could only suppress the price until the fund ran out of BTC to sell on the spot market. The fund would settle for fiat a the bottom and then BTC would revaluate higher. |
|
|
|
|
Hmm.... let's see if kncminer has said anything lately.... nope, just people with too much time on their hands arguing about off topic shit.
|
|
|
|
This is actually pretty important. Does anybody know of a list of bitcoin friendly banks? i.e. Ones with a large amount of branches?
In my experience it is the smaller institutions that will give you less trouble. I couldn't care less that my credit union doesn't have any branches outside of my state. They refund all ATM fees anyway. |
|
|
|
|
You should make it so people can choose multiple options.
|
|
|
|
@yock: I hope so!
@Explod: I see what you're saying. If you are holding the currency of any certain system, you are a "bearer" of wealth. What I meant was that I didn't want a single bitcoin to become worth the price of gold or something. I just feel like if that were the case, all BTC would be stores of wealth. The issue that I have with that is it would be such a waste-bitcoins were designed to be a form of currency, and had special utility. It would just be such a waste if they became hoarded like gold-their unique utility would be helpful in most every-day transactions; I think Satoshi wanted to develop a new currency/monetary system, not units of "1" costing hundreds or thousands of dollars.
Then you'd think he would have made more than 21 million of them! Fortunately, this can be fixed client-side without changing the protocol: just go into your Bitcoin-Qt settings and tell it to display mBTC. The number of zeros displayed is completely arbitrary and up to you. I realize it's cumbersome to say "millibitcoins" for now, but so is "New Peso" - because of inflation and deflation, the common vernacular has to adapt periodically or else get stuck with too many zeros in one direction or the other. There's no way around it, even for gold-backed and fiat currencies. You seem to be implying that in order for bitcoin to be a store of value it has to be held in round numbers. I don't get it. |
|
|
|
Have you seen how fast gold has increased the last few years? Everyone says its just going to go up. Its also a very safe investment. If you hold on to your gold for a while, your not going to lose money.
It depends when you buy. for example: http://www.xe.com/currencycharts/?from=XAU&to=USD&view=1Y there were and will be many timeframes which are bad times to buy or hold gold, hence part of your statement is false. Anyhow, I have some gold, I call it the armageddon fund  If the time comes when I need to use precious metals to get something or survive then the value expressed in USD will be rather irrelevant  If someone trades frequently then paper gold is OK. if you want to hold it long or indefinitely then it's quite irresponsible to have in my opinion. I also don't like the fact that the quantity of the actual physical gold is less than what is speculated on. But correct me if I'm wrong. Yes, if you want gold for fear the world will collapse, physical is the way to go. For most anyone else, the paper version has all the same merits and is convertible to cash without even leaving your computer. I wonder what you mean about amount of physical gold vs what's speculated? No need for the world to collapse. If your broker, or the paper gold issuer goes bust, you will be SOL. |
|
|
|
That chart conveys my feelings perfectly. |
|
|
|
You're really going to argue using a 8 inch model of an X wing? For anything with motion, K'nex wins. For anything structural, K'nex wins. I'll give the detailed modeling to Lego, but it is only because they make custom parts for each model. Besides, if you want to show Lego is bigger and better you need something like this:  Edit: Oh shit, those are people. I withdraw my first sentence, but once again custom parts for each model . |
|
|
|
BTC lending rate on bitfinex is 80% (annual basis). Never seen it above 5% before. Interesting. Did people just discover they can short on bitfinex?  I don't know, but based on total USD borrowed/total BTC borrowed, leveraged traders need the market to fall to $81 to even out their positions. Continued upwards movement will cause a short squeeze. |
|
|
|
I advice you to try CGMiner 3.1.1 first, and configure them using -S /dev/ttyUSBx, without direct libusb access.
Check also that the BE receives enough power.
My two bitcoincents.
It wouldn't hurt to test your power brick if you have a multimeter, but the dmesg errors are not caused by an incorrect version of cgminer. |
|
|
|
I need a 3D printer yesterday. |
|
|
|
If you want to transfer bitcoins from one place to another, such as buying something time critical if you include a transaction fee people generating blocks will, most likely, include your transaction quicker if you offer a transaction fee. At some point in the future transaction fees will surpass the block generation reward.
So pools that share transactions will add that to the 25 BTC block reward.
Sam
So OZcoin pays the transaction fee to get BTC transferred quicker? Quicker is nice but that doesnt seem to be a good reason to pay 1% vs 0%. I also noticed maxbtc does not support ASIC. Am i wrong to assume eclipse is the best pool? No, OZcoin pays you the transaction fees for transactions included in the block. Many pools only pay out the subsidy (25 BTC) and keep the transaction fees for themselves. |
|
|
|
One pool sounds easiest. Easy is nice. But im wondering what pays more. Should i one pool or multi pool? Im guessing opinions will vary but im sure there are facts behind the opinions.
In my experience, p2pool will have the best payouts if you have a better than average setup (no fees, transaction fees included in payouts). Multiple pools will not increase your payout (with the exception of pool hopping on the few pools that are still vulnerable to it, but that's a different conversation), it will only lower your variance. With multiple pools, you will effectively spend 1/X of your time with X different pools so it evens out the luck. Even if you intend to only mine on one pool, you should set a failover pool in case your chosen pool goes down for any reason. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
