i have based my investment decisions on the calculated value of Bitcoin after the inflation has plateaued. granted there are various ways to make that calculation depending on how bullish you are but surely one way is to take US money supply and divide by 21 million.  Let me dream  10 trillions/21 millions amounts to what?  |
|
|
|
|
You might consider even if a pool has merged mining i.e. it mines namecoins with no additional effort on your part. At current exchange rate it means a +1% bonus.
|
|
|
|
|
Maybe there is a way for smaller pools: just contribute the whole pool's hashrate to a bigger pool, or -even better- find a way to cooperate among small pools in a bigger pool of pools. A dozen of pools with the speed of Bitminter would make a top-tier pool. Opinions?
|
|
|
|
If the variance in two pools is the same, then switching between them or staying in the same one makes no difference luck-wise. They both offer the same chances for future payouts. The exception is when you can know something about future payouts, as is the case with proportional pools. Look, I'm sorry, since I use to stand with the underdogs and I like the pool, BUT I made about 9 BTC in november mining on Bitminter, while I am making 0.5 BTC/day on BTCGuild. I have an analogy about chances which may explain why smaller pools seem to underperform more often than not: If you bet on black or red playing roulette, you have a 50%/50% chance to win, but if you bet on a number, you have 1/72 chances, if I remember well, so you might gain more if you are lucky, but rarely *if ever*. Most likely, betting on numbers at roulette or mining in smaller pools you would end losing most of the times at any given time. Of course, in the loooooooooong term, smaller pools should perform like the biggest. |
|
|
|
I just mine and hoard, waiting to have the last laugh within a year or 2. Take care of your funny paper debt-based fractional-reserved fiat monies.  |
|
|
|
|
me too. I will be back when the pool speed will be >600 GHs
|
|
|
|
Hi, I just downloaded and installed the latest version 0.5 (*), but when I try to launch it, I just see a wallet logo for about a second and nothing else happens. It just not load (I checked the running processes). I tried to download it again and reinstall again and again, but it just not works. Any idea? I already tried to insert an exception in MS Security Essentials and to disable it to no avail. I have XP 32 always patched with automatic updates on My portable v. 0.3.23 (**) still works fine (*) downloaded yesterday from: http://sourceforge.net/projects/bitcoin/files/latest/download?source=files(**) I use to run portable version 0.3.23 by this .bat and properly moved files: @echo off echo Launching BitCoin... echo ---------------------------------------- echo Please make sure to exit before removal! echo ---------------------------------------- start %cd%\APP\bitcoin.exe -datadir="%cd%\DATA" |
|
|
|
Glad it helped. But I'm at a loss as to what is causing that last bit of a performance hit for you. I can't see what else changed since 1.0.1 that would affect performance. I'll look over things again, though.
No, maybe I had a wrong impression due to the fact that the speed counter is changing continuously. Now I think it is all right. |
|
|
|
|
Hi, I just downloaded and installed the latest version (after uninstalling v. 0.3.23, which worked flawlessly), but when I try to launch it, I just see a wallet logo and nothing else happens. It just not load (I checked the running processes). I tried to download it again and reinstall again and again, but it just not works. Any idea?
|
|
|
|
conspirosphere.tk, and anyone else getting better speed from regular (1.0.1) than beta version: I'd be very happy if you can try out this version and see if it helps.
This seems ok: I am getting about the same performance of 1.0.1 version on my 5870 (about 420 Mhs using the same intervals=15), both with Buffer type= default and =Device accessible CPU mem (AMD only). [edit]: still, I have the impression that newest beta is 2-5 Mhs slower than 1.0.1 |
|
|
|
|
With the 1.0 version I used to get about 420 Mhs with my 5870 at work intervals=15
With the new beta I am getting about 405 Mhs at work intervals=15
If I increase work intervals=20 I get about 412 Mhs with the new beta.
= I'm going back to 1.0 version
|
|
|
|
I guess we will soon see whether litecoin is just another failcoin copy of bitcoin, or if it actually has something to offer that bitcoin doesn't.
Although litecoin has a few actual advantages over BTC, the reason Im suggesting it is not that Im convinced it will take over the world. Its because bitminter's cpu mining speed is (no offense) useless, replacing it with litecoin mining would make it useful. Litecoin price/difficulty doesnt make it hugely profitable but at least for now, certainly more interesting than namecoins. The fact it can be done with cpus and doesnt need drivers or highend amd cards, would also be a strong asset for any syndication deal that would target your miner to regular folks, rather than us nerds. +1. I second the idea to dedicate the cpu section of the miner to some cpu-friendly coin. |
|
|
|
Found one working here:  |
|
|
|
|
Really very nice. I would ask for a last addiction: a measure of our average actual CDF.
Awesome pool.
|
|
|
|
|
Hi. I'm sorry to say that the ticker is stuck again at 2.95.
Anyone knows some alternative reliable BTC ticker?
|
|
|
|
Me, I am mining at a loss with 2 cards. Because: - My rig now substitute air conditioning (less efficient, but a/c does not produce BTCs). Of course I would not mine in the summer at this price and difficulty. - I expect a growth of its price (ideally slow and sustainable) after a bottom any time from now - I expect a spectacular FAIL of euro and USD in the next few months, which would probably boost BTC popularity and value. From the network speed chart it seems that most of miners are on this line of reasoning, since the network speed in november was not affected by the further 30% price drop since November 1:  |
|
|
|
He's not doing a very good job if he's letting us know in advance...
Plausible deniability. No. It's a double bluff. |
|
|
|
From ztek thread it is <8.5W. Roughly 22MH/W. Make my "efficient" 2.6MH/W GPU rig look like a coal guzzling monster.
Free money! After a boatload of money invested in task-specific hw that you could not resell if BTC fails. And at this price 0.21 USD/24h@100MHash/s http://bitcoinx.com/charts/ means that you produce about 0.33 USD each 24 hours with that, not counting electricity. That means about 100 USD/year, so maybe 4-5 years before recovering the investment. |
|
|
|
|
So if the trend persists how long before BTC goes sub-zero?
[sinking with the ship bought at 19$]
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
