|
Allright, thanks for clearing that up!
|
|
|
|
Its a start.. I guess, but honestly thats the part everyone should write themselves, as its kinda the personal message (good template though, even if IMO it focuses a bit too much on the value of the gift, and not enough on the concept, but thats for everyone to decide). Anyway, I was more looking for something "official", explaining things like how to redeem the coin, how to check if its been tampered with, and also what a bitcoin really is. Yeah I know, its not going to be a short note then, but thats okay IMO. Even a booklet would be fine, and it would also be nice if it was printed in a way that doesnt look like I printed it myself on my inkjet printer. This is something Id gladly pay extra for, particularly when combined with a wooden or whatever box that holds the coin and everything else. Like a "starter kit", something you can give and whoever receives it can at least read the "manual" without me having to say "just google it". Again, that would be a start. Now add a box and make it look pretty and valuable. After all, we might be gifting the future equivalent of a car or a house  . |
|
|
|
Question about efficiency/stales. Have a look at this screenshot: http://s9.postimage.org/8lnn9wer3/Untitled.pngThe top window is my dedicated mining rig, its using linux and with a 5870+5850. It achieves 94% efficiency, where efficiency is calculated by cgminer apparently by dividing queued shares (Q) by accepted shares (A). Then check the bottom window, its my everyday PC, running windows atm, with a 5850. Its only getting 79% efficiency. Since the number of rejected shares (R) is low on both, there are no hardware errors (HW), Im confused. Whats happening with the other shares? Why is this machine so much less "efficient"? |
|
|
|
|
Ive seen this a long time ago, but kinda wondered.. why bother? I dont have enough faith in the "tamper proofness" of the seals and dont like the faith required in the issuer , so I didnt see this could ever become mainstream. (dont get me wrong, Im quite willing to believe the OP, particularly for just a few bitcoins, I just dont expect the world would, especially not for larger amounts).
But then it hit me: so what?
This is such a great idea as gift!
Not only is it an extremely original gift, it also spreads the word in circles where you otherwise might not even talk about it. And who knows, if bitcoin would ever achieve mainstream status, these coins might become a collectors item. So I just ordered a few. I might even give one to people I know are too PC illiterate to ever use them as bitcoins. Just like you'd give special occasion silver euro coins (and Im sure dollars have equivalents) that are not intended to be spent.
But Id like to make a suggestion: offer some coins in a fancy gift box or wrapping, along with a "user manual" for someone who's never heard of bitcoin, maybe along with a certificate or something, so that its even easier to give to people and it doesnt just look like a casino chip. Ill cook up something myself, but I would have gladly purchased a nice looking "gift box"
|
|
|
|
One block to go. Does anyone have updated banners which don't mention 150 free BTC (possibly adding "merged mining").
Ah good point. I wasnt sure when Haribo would be done with the dynamic banners, but let me post an interim static one without the promotion and Ill add merged mining. Must also update my own hash rate :p. Consider it done when I get home in a few hours. Edit: forgot I had uploaded the templates to ubuntu one cloud, so here you are: edit: hang on, typo in there |
|
|
|
60th block is almost upon us though. Not that I have intentions of switching after the promotion runs out, the pool works great, fees are low and I like mining for a smaller pool; its good for bitcoin and it makes things just a tad more exciting |
|
|
|
It's still better than <2KH/s per thread on my i7 2600K 4.7GHz... Well, I should probably blame Windows for that. No should blame the miner, cause that cant be right. Im getting a just shy of 3KH/s per thread on a venerable Q6600, and thats on windows too. |
|
|
|
Not necessarily, if you're just going to go off and trade them, just set it to where you're trading Wouldnt hurry though. NMCs are trading for .. not very much. Barely covers the transaction fees to send them anywhere Suggestion for DrHaribo; provide an option to donate the NMCs. Or just post your NMC address. |
|
|
|
|
While the pool seems up, the website seems down FYI.
|
|
|
|
|
Minor bug report; as DrHaribo already explained in a PM I believe, Id like to confirm the issue is real.
When using failover, cgminer 2.0.7 is sending withheld shares to the wrong pool, obviously resulting in stales.
I saw this first hand when bitminter pool was having trouble this morning. I didnt log it, but by memory, cgminer first displayed that bitminter was slow to respond, and was witholding results. A few seconds later, it decided that bitminter pool was unreachable, and switched to slush's pool. Then it resubmitted the withheld shares, which were obviously rejected. Ive seen it happen a few times. IIRC it also happened in the other direction, when bitminter went live again, it sent shares which should have been sent to slush.
Is it necessary or useful to enable logging and try to force the issue by blocking bitminter on my firewall?
update: I just tried on my windows machine, with just one gpu, and cgminer's failover seems to work fine. Possibly this is only an issue on linux or with 2+ gpus? Ill test some more and report back.
|
|
|
|
|
If someone hacks my openid, their access to my bitminter account is among the least of my concerns. The worst they could do is pay themselves out my share until I find out, assuming there are even pending payments, thats not gonna change my life. Why dont you create an openid that you use for similar "doesnt really matter" sites?
|
|
|
|
Back to normal. Sorry for the instability. It stopped after a few minutes by itself, before I could really figure out what it was. If it was a botnet visiting, sorry, we can't handle that kind of load yet.  Its not over.. still hickups |
|
|
|
And now for something else. I got my 5870 last week, but boy; was it hot: 85+C with stock cooler and at stock speed; 90-100C on the VRMs, that is just too hot for me. I hate hot; so I took care of it, big time:   Isnt that just cool? You bet it is; The 5870 at 900 MHz with Sptifire runs now at a stunning 45C tops! with an old crap fan at 7v. The VRMs are around 60C The 5850 at 775 MHz with the battlexe cooler tops at 54C; no VRM sensor, so I dont know BTW, nothing beats the spitfire, but that battle-axe cooler is amazing value. You can find them online for like 20 dollar and I bought them for 6 euro each, expecting them to be pretty crapy and thinking I could at least use the fans; but they are not crap, they are superb. Significantly better than the Accelero twin turbo or the Twin Frozr II coolers. They do take 3 slots, but they are cheap as chips and give incredible performance for the money. |
|
|
|
|
They are heatspreaders. It kinda make sense not to pay for lasering text on them if you are ordering a test batch.
|
|
|
|
I challenge you to remove every medical advancement that your own nation pays for, but that was created by a for-profit corporation in the United States, and then try to judge how high the quality of your care is then. You are more dependent upon the US than you care to acknowledge. Thats a nonsensical argument. You seem to imply that by overpaying for a completely unnecessary cleptocracy of for profit health insurance, you are somehow advancing medical science; I can only laugh at that. Insurance companies arent the ones driving medical innovation, they just pocket the money, essentially leaching on the system and making killer profits at the expense of people's health. Pharmaceutical companies do innovate, but having a national health insurance changes nothing about that. We buy the same drugs you know, the same scanners and medical equipment, those companies still have the same incentive to develop new equipments, drugs and treatments. Our hospitals are no different than yours, they have to control their costs while striving to provide the best healthcare they can, we do have competition between hospitals. All we do is essentially cut out a middle man who's business incentive is selling insurance to healthy people that are less likely to need it and not paying to people who actually do need it; spending gazillion on advertisements, legal costs and lobbying benefiting no one but their shareholders and politicians. Anyway, Im going to have to agree with rainingbitcoins, clearly you dont want to face the facts about your broken healthcare system because you think it clashes with your ideology. The reality is that when it comes to health insurance a free market ideology clashes with morality, as there is no economic incentive to insure (or even treat) people with poor health, particularly if they are unproductive people. Trying to fix that basic contradiction with complex rules simply doesnt work. Accepting health is not a tradable economic asset and access to affordable healthcare a human right, works better. As it turns out, its cheaper too. |
|
|
|
No contest there, the question then is why is it so inefficient? I may be too close to see the big picture, but from where I stand it's because of government regulations into the medical industries, not despite them.
Im sure thats what the insurance and pharmaceutical companies want you to believe. Yet somehow European and other nations have government controlled health insurance yet are 3x as efficient. So, follow the money. Who pockets all that money? Maybe your doctors make a better income than ours, but thats not going to explain it. So who wins? If not you the taxpayer, if not the government, if most likely not or not in a meaningful way the medical professionals. AFAICS, that leaves insurance and pharma companies. Let check that theory and google on it: http://www.wsws.org/articles/2010/feb2010/prof-f19.shtml$12.2 billion in profits for the 5 biggest US insurers. Not bad. That buys you a few senators no doubt. And if you give everyone the same insurance, whats the point of these companies, what value do they add? None, they just make your life hard trying their damnest not to have to pay or get sick customers. Then the other suspect; big pharma: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pharmaceutical_industryTop 20 companies, $110 billion net profits. Granted, globally, but there you have it nonetheless. Mind you, big pharma is an actual industry that does provide very obvious added value, its not like Im oppososed to them being commercial and making profits, but those kinds of number tell you you are paying WAY too much. And they are paying way too much to your politicians. The "worse quality" meme is provablely false. The vast majority of medical advancements over the past 50 years or so came from American doctors and scientists working for companies with a profit motive, whether the doctors themselves were motivated by money or not. There is literally nothing that you can get medically that I don't have access to, even if you can get it cheaper. Your high quality care is a direct result of our highly inefficient system.
What a nonsensical argument. Are you measuring the quality of your health care by "invented in the US" advertisements of pharma industry on tv or what? Gimme a break. We do way better than Cuba, too; on average. Actually, you dont on a lot of important metrics, like child mortality: http://www.ageofautism.com/2010/05/us-lagging-behind-much-of-europe-cuba-chile-and-united-arab-emirates-in-child-mortality.htmlDespite comparing the worlds richest country to one of the poorest third wold countries thats under half a century embargo.
Have you bothered to follow this thread? I addressed this already. The methods of record keeping is different. For example, if an infant is born dead, but there was no evidence that the fetus was dead before labor began, that baby is counted as a infant in the US, but not in many other nations until it survives for several minutes outside the womb. Many other stats are skewed in similar ways, because the standard methods of record keeping is different between countries. In the US, if a pregant mother is murdered, it's recorded as a double homicide.
As if that would explain the stats, common get real. From the above link:
The U.S., which is projected to have 6.7 deaths per 1,000 children this year, saw a 42% decline in child mortality, a pace that is on par with Kazakhstan, Sierra Leone and Angola.
"There are an awful lot of people who think we have the best medical system in the world," said Dr. Christopher Murray, who directs the institute and is an author of the study. "The data is so contrary to that."
Even many countries that already had low child mortality rates, such as Sweden and France, were able to cut their rates more rapidly than the U.S. over the last two decades.
[..]
Although the U.S. spends nearly twice as much per capita on healthcare as most other industrialized countries, researchers are finding substantially higher levels of preventable deaths from diseases such as diabetes and pneumonia.
[..]
Another recent study by the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation found that the rate of deaths among women giving birth has actually increased in the U.S. over the last two decadesYou're happy with it because you're ignorant of what the costs are, and I'm not talking about monetary costs. Pray you never have to find out. http://www.ncpa.org/pub/ba596Always useful to check the source. From the about page: The National Center for Policy Analysis (NCPA) is a nonprofit, nonpartisan public policy research organization, established in 1983. Our goal is to develop and promote private, free-market alternatives to government regulation and control, solving problems by relying on the strength of the competitive, entrepreneurial
private sector. That sounds like an objective source.Lets see what medical scientists have to say on that: http://www.otohns.net/default.asp?id=8832Looks like you dont live any longer than europeans (in fact, your life expectancy is substantially shorter) you just know sooner you will die. I guess thats something. |
|
|
|
It is really an interesting statistic depending on how you spin it. That means 50 million people tend to get healthcare without paying anything. Sometimes it comes from government run health facilities. Often times they get care and just decide not to pay the bills. We have no debtor's prisons for such things. (Nor am I suggesting that we should)
Someone pays. Thats the funny thing, you pay 2 or 3x more per capita than other countries while only covering part of your population. The cost per insured person is therefore closer to 4x what other industrial nations pay, yet you get worse healthcare for that. You have to be some ideologue with blinders on to defend the US system when all the numbers show so clearly its not just bad, its horribly inefficient. So if you are suggesting that more people in the use should be responsible for paying for their healthcare costs, I couldn't agree more. It would bring the overhead down substantially for those now paying the bills. However, nothing proposed so far aims to make this imbalance better. That is the really sad thing. No matter how you slice it, or how you spread the cost, the US system is ridiculously expensive while offering worse quality. Out of 191 countries on the planet. "The United States ranked last when compared to six other countries -- Britain, Canada, Germany, Netherlands, Australia and New Zealand, the Commonwealth Fund report found." Okay, so you probably do better than Zimbabwe. Is that your benchmark? Try Cuba. Come on New Zealand had 4 million people. The Netherlands has 16 million. California and the US are pushing those respective numbers in illegal immigrants alone.
So what, the bigger the scale, the more efficient you could make it. Its harder to get costs down on small scale, a country like the Netherlands has no leverage over pharmaceutical companies compared to the US. If you can do it on a scale as small as that, surely you could do it on a state level in the US? But the study is clear about one thing, we are fat and nobody likes to go to the doctor. We are fat because we are very efficient and productive in feeding ourselves. Even our poor are fat. Our food tends to be good, cheep, and restaurant service is fast. Even Europeans get fat when they come here. Should we take better care of ourselves? Yes we should.
Yeah those cliches again. While they may have some truth, they dont explain the results. Read the article. US smokes a whole lot less than europeans, and you are younger. I also dont think your babies are born fat, so how do you explain child mortality? Anyway, its your health and your tax dollars. If you are happy spending 3x more for worse quality just so you dont have to call something "socialist", then thats your choice. Im sure happy with my healthcare system and I dont care what you call it. |
|
|
|
Where did you find that bs? We have roughly 3 million adult citizens that are uninsured, half of which still have access to subsidized health insurance. That's about 1% of the population.
Approximately 42 percent of adults aged 19 to 64 years old -- 75 million people -- were either underinsured or didn't have health insurance in 2007http://health.usnews.com/health-news/family-health/articles/2008/06/10/25-million-americans-are-underinsuredAfter all, I wouldn't have a right to your taxpayer funded health care simply by traveling there, would I?
Traveling, no. Living here, yes. |
|
|
|
Well, I never said no one in the US got good healthcare or free/subsidized/insured healthcare. I guess much depends what state you live in, but the fact remains you have over 50 million people with no insurance and over 25 million with inadequate insurance. Thats 42% of your population under 65. Forty two %! The other facts are just as glaring. Child mortality is among the highest of industrialized countries, life expectancy among the lowest. Cost is at least twice that of other countries. Or to quote this study: http://www.reuters.com/article/2010/06/23/us-usa-healthcare-last-idUSTRE65M0SU20100623"U.S. scores dead last again in healthcare study". Look, Im all for free markets and market competition, but for some things it just doesnt work, and it shouldnt surprise health insurance is one those things. Keeping people alive just isnt economical and the incentives are perverse and constantly conflict with morality. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
