one a corrupt bios. it asked for usb or floppy with the bios, I tried feeding it that with the correct bios, and now I only get a black screen; cmos resetting etc does nothing, seems dead.

The other one, I dont know. It still works, but I noticed a resistor burnt out and there is black stuff like it exploded all the way to a nearby chip (I think raid controller, but not sure). Funny thing, havent noticed anything not working yet (didnt test raid), but Im reluctant to put expensive cards in it.

Even with bitcoin, transaction fees might as well be zero atm. YACC (yet another crypto currency) will take forever to just reach current bitcoin status, becoming that much more popular than bitcoin today, so that miners could live off transaction fees seems utopian.


At least Bitcoin will be secure for several years to come, as secure as its value rather than its growth, and have a chance to grow as an economy, while being secure. If transactions dont pick up over the next 4 or 5 years to keep enough miners in business, well, it probably doesnt matter anyway. But unlike bitcoin,  I dont think your scheme would overcome the first few years while being even remotely secure, and that insecurity will have an impact on adoption. Catch 22.

You have some good idea's, but I dont think it would work

I like the new difficulty though. Just a shame I lost 2 motherboards in 2 days (!). Will take a bit before I can finally get to fire up all my GPU's.

Sounds like a plan. Now make it happen
FWIW, I was in fact already looking for a way to remote manage cgminer without needing SSH. I wanted to make a simple android  app to monitor and control my rigs. Web based might be good enough tho.

But your proposed system would amplify the problem many fold. If you'd have a long period of sustained devaluation, your algorithm would or should approach zero coins per blocks, essentially making all mining unprofitable. Thats very different as with bitcoin. With bitcoin the hashrate follows the exchange rate, it will never approach zero unless the price of the entire chain approaches zero. In your system the hashrate would follow the derivative (in the mathematical sense) of the exchange rate, and approach zero with just the smallest constant devaluation. Sounds very risky to me.

Moreover, although this is only a secondary effect, but with bitcoin you still get to mine for those 50BTC per 10 minute, and regardless of their value and profitability, Im sure some miners will speculate on future valuation gains. So you will see  people mining bitcoins even if its not profitable, as a form of speculation,  but if you cant even mine any decent amount of coins as in your proposed system, then pretty much no one would.


I like that idea better. Although you would need an incentive for those  miners. One that doesnt create reevalution .


Hmmm..  not much of a solution IMHO. You're saying if you dont like the monetary policy, then fork, and hope the rest will follow. You've clearly given this some thought, you found nothing better ?

So therefore the profits of the miners, and therefore the hashrate, which could leave the network vulnerable.


Woha. Out of the box thinking there . Not sure this is a good idea though. Miners would have no incentive to set honest exchange rates, they want to maximize their ROI. They will collude to manipulate it and the result could be far worse than what we have now.

Have you flipped the overclock switch? Im not entirely sure, but if you havent, I think the card will throttle to stay within 375W, potentially rendering your overclock pointless.

You could use a simple cron script to kill the process and restart it every hour.

Drastically reducing the block rate could leave the network vulnerable though.. I also dont quite see how you would put this in code, I mean, who will determine the exchange rate? But its an interesting idea nonetheless.

Interesting idea. But how would you cope with deflation?

No one has, socialism in the original sense of the word has never been really tried (aside perhaps for some very short lived experiment in Spain in the 30s). Oh, sure lots of countries have called themselves socialist and still do, and we have (deliberately) called lots of countries socialist that were anything but; they were the exact opposite of what I call socialist (and what would now arguably be called libertarian socialism); they were and are oppressive dictactorships with government owned production rather than stateless direct democracies with worker owned production The word socialism has pretty much lost its meaning now.

They have done the exact opposite, they jacked up prices and turned commodity markets in to casino's to the point where sellers and end users of those commodities no longer use those markets to hedge against price swings. More on that, and some startling figures here:

http://triplecrisis.com/food-price-volatility/


Correct,  except IMO prices wouldnt stabilize even if trade picked up considerably. All it would achieve is higher exchange rate followed by more bubbles and bursts as new speculators gamblers enter this booming market.

Not entirely sure whats going on, but hey, if you owe me something, dont bother. Just fix the pool!

Yes, but the 1200W DC rating is the addition of loads on the 12v, 5v and 3.3v rails. You will basically only be drawing power from the 12v rails.  To be sure, check the maximum specced load on the 12v rails (in watt or ampere, its always written on the side).

Then again, for an el cheapo 350W PSU, this might make a big difference as up to half of that  "350W" might only be delivered on the 5v and 3.3v, but a decent 1200W is probably all about 12v anyway, Id be shocked if it was specced for less than 90 amp (1080W DC)


As mentioned above, yes. It even works fine on my lowly antec 500W

IM not sure it would be so hard. The exchange has your identity (if you trade any non trivial amounts), and bitcoins are perfectly traceable. The issue with regulating bitcoins is usually identity, but trading on a (regulated) exchange eliminates that problem. I suspect it would actually be easier to administer than most other commodities.

Of course there would be pitfalls; trade could move quickly to unregulated markets, although Im unsure how much of an effect that would have on the regulated markets.

Anyway, I didnt mean to say regulating would solve the issue in reality, but its one of the few theoretical possibilities at least. A more widespread adoption of bitcoin IMO will not solve the problem, and might even make it worse in the short or medium term if its going through a phase of rapid growth.

Indeed. I dont know why people are so hostile to alternative chains (closed source implementations aside, thats obvious something you should avoid).

I like litecoin. Particularly the fast confirmations is actually a huge benefit.  No one should be under any illusions of it overtaking bitcoin, but alternative chains are great testing grounds, and hey, if bitcoin can make it to the mainstream one day, then Im sure some alternatives can too. Its trivial to exchange one currency for the other.  If its true there can only be one currency, then it will be fiat currency. I dont think its true, but time will tell

Are you drawing 1220w at the wall? Keep in mind the ratings are for power delivered to the PC at 12v (and some at 5 and 3.3v). Power supplies are not 100% efficient, assuming 85% efficiency if you deliver the rated 1200W to the PC, it will by pulling  1411W at the wall without exceeding its specs.

Those voltage swings are something else though. If any appliance can handle input voltage swings, its probably a PSU, but its still not good I think.

Im seeing something similar, I think. Ive gone back to using cgminer because its easier to manage remotely without gui (set speeds, fans etc over ssh); I have slush configured as failback pool and I keep getting tiny amounts of BTC from slush. Im not logging, so Im not entirely sure whats happening, can someone make sense of this:

This is nothing new really; regulation on commodity exchange has pretty much always existed; well, up until it was deregulated (mostly under clinton). and now baby steps are being taken to again impose some limits:
http://www.cftc.gov/IndustryOversight/MarketSurveillance/SpeculativeLimits/index.htm
(thought the exemptions that lobbyists managed to get in will likely make it very ineffective).

If it can be done for oil and food, I dont see why theoretically it couldnt be done for bitcoins.

Regulation could limit speculation by imposing position limits.