I'm a miner but I only open the Bitcoin-QT once a day to download blocks and then I immediately close it. It's open for approximately 90 seconds of any given day.
|
|
|
Yes, but as a counter to that you have the Greek embargo of Iranian oil beginning soon unless a deal can be reached at the bargaining table. Greece is shooting itself in the foot. No other countries want to stop buying Iranian oil, including China, because they know that Iranian oil is among the most easily accessible. The USD might get another lift from this in the short-term.
|
|
|
I'd still like my digital copy, Matthew.
|
|
|
"Connecting what matters."
"Simplicity in a complex world"
"Changing the game"
"Where relationships are born"
"Expanding the horizon"
"Your one-way ticket to security"
"A perfect solution in an imperfect world"
"Your IP is V.I.P."
"Turn your IP into V.I.P"
"Everything else is just plain dumb"
"We work hard so you don't have to"
"The final word in hosting"
"Satisfaction. Guaranteed. Every time."
"When you're not happy, we go broke"
|
|
|
Not to piss on your parade thinking you both are getting clever shots in on me, but wouldn't being a cocksucker and being all talk be mutually exclusive? I look to the two of you, being vastly more experienced in both endeavors to illuminate the discussion.
And TJ, I'm hurt. I thought we had kissed and made up. Are you still holding a grudge?
No grudge. It's fun to see what you say. I actually started you off with two compliments before I got carried away with obfuscating my honesty. And dammit, I meant those. Edit: Noticed you have 666 posts currently. This is getting very deep.
|
|
|
LouPGaroux? Ah yes...
Witty and literate, he will put you down like any good American citizen. Taking pride in his ability to ream assholes as seamlessly as they come, he's a sock-sniffer, the kind of guy that comes home, kicks off his shoes and takes an odorous whiff of his day's moist productions. He accomplishes so much at that keyboard, eliciting guffaws from cryptonerds and raping those whose weighty, titanium-brimmed glasses have lowered their noses to an angle ripe for condemnation. He's a patriot, and make no mistake, he enjoys the finer things in life -- cigars, fine liquor, and last-place GLBSE race-horses. And he's brave -- like a losing investment, he will gladly take the rear and, eyeing the assholes that lay before him, position himself to follow the scent of his next target. Don't ask him why his knees are dirty; he knows as well as anyone that a good look from the bottom reveals the trodden, ointment-laden paths of those more successful a la The American Dream. Or he's just a cocksucker.
|
|
|
We serve you water, not whine.
Longevity since 2012.
We always get it up.
Host THIS!
Simplifying complexity.
Simplify your world.
Building roam one day at a time.
Edit: Yowza!
|
|
|
This is my idea for 1,000,000 users:
Create yet another attempt at a viral Bitcoin video. The premise is as follows:
People submit very short (3-7 seconds) videos of their Bitcoin purchases. For example, if I were to make a submission, I would likely show some of the gold and silver I have purchased with Bitcoins. Others may show computer hardware, t-shirts, gemstones, food, trading cards, collectibles, etc. Each person in each submission would say something like "I bought THIS with Bitcoin!"
So, you'd have a several-minute-long video of 50-100 people saying "I bought THIS with Bitcoin!" and then displaying their purchases.
|
|
|
This is what I've wondered too. If you know a given, known input x results in output y -- despite the fact that changing one bit in the input provides a different output -- couldn't this be useful if you know input x resulted in output y which solved a block?
I don't know much about cryptography, but let's say at current difficulty 1,000,000, input x results in output y that would solve a block at difficulty 1,500,000. Knowing this, why couldn't you simply input known x repeatedly to provide output y and solve blocks repeatedly until the difficulty adjusts?
The input isn't just "x" it is made up of 5 components Version Previous hash Merkle root Timestamp Difficulty Nonce When you solve a block at a minimum the previous hash changes hence no prior inputs will ever be valid again. https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Block_hashing_algorithmThanks!
|
|
|
I thinks there might be a way. Isn't that data useful in any way?
No, not useful at all. If you change one bit in the input, you get a completely different, unpredictable output. By definition, if the hashing function is good (an assumption on which the Bitcoin network relies), there is absolutely nothing useful about saving a hash unless you need to compute that exact same hash (same input) later. By definition, hashing value A, should give you absolutely no information about hashing A' which is even slightly different. Referencing the Bold highlight. This is what I've wondered too. If you know a given, known input x results in output y -- despite the fact that changing one bit in the input provides a different output -- couldn't this be useful if you know input x resulted in output y which solved a block? I don't know much about cryptography, but let's say at current difficulty 1,000,000, input x results in output y that would solve a block at difficulty 1,500,000. Knowing this, why couldn't you simply input known x repeatedly to provide output y and solve blocks repeatedly until the difficulty adjusts?
|
|
|
Sketchy posters in sketchy thread...
|
|
|
I was trying to help you. It was clear that you made an error in any case because the rationale that followed (i.e. FPGA mining being cheaper than GPU mining) would not have anything to do with prohibiting the price from doubling after the halving of the supply rate. It would, however, be relevant to a scenario in which the entire supply of BTC is halved.
Check...your...language. If you don't make sense out loud (or in type), then chances are that you are equally confused in your head.
You're the one touched in the head mate, if the FPGAs are more power efficient than GPUs, then it costs less for the miners to mine bitcoins, is that confusing for you? No, that doesn't confuse me at all. What does confuse me is how you reasoned that the efficiency of FPGA mining compared with GPU mining would prohibit BTC price doubling after the rate of supply is halved.
|
|
|
the block halving will have near zero impact on bitcoin prices, because this is already anticipated and priced in (it`s public knowledge)
You might be right, and it will be interesting to see, but common sense suggests that if demand remains stable, and supply halves, then the price will double. I doubt that will happen, simply because FPGAs make mining bitcoin cheaper than with GPUs, but that's the first argument that pops into my head. The supply will not halve when the block reward halves. All that will happen is that the rate of supply will halve. It does not mean we will suddenly only have 4-5 million BTC.Yeah, that's what I meant, when the block reward halves, ALL the bitcoins get cut down to half and everyone will only have 50% of what they have now, brilliant! ![Roll Eyes](https://bitcointalk.org/Smileys/default/rolleyes.gif) F&%king troll Don't get pissed at me because you made a serious linguistic error. You're the one taking the piss, supply vs rate of supply. Serious linguistic error? Get off. I was trying to help you. It was clear that you made an error in any case because the rationale that followed (i.e. FPGA mining being cheaper than GPU mining) would not have anything to do with prohibiting the price from doubling after the halving of the supply rate. It would, however, be relevant to a scenario in which the entire supply of BTC is halved. Check...your...language. If you don't make sense out loud (or in type), then chances are that you are equally confused in your head.
|
|
|
the block halving will have near zero impact on bitcoin prices, because this is already anticipated and priced in (it`s public knowledge)
You might be right, and it will be interesting to see, but common sense suggests that if demand remains stable, and supply halves, then the price will double. I doubt that will happen, simply because FPGAs make mining bitcoin cheaper than with GPUs, but that's the first argument that pops into my head. The supply will not halve when the block reward halves. All that will happen is that the rate of supply will halve. It does not mean we will suddenly only have 4-5 million BTC.Yeah, that's what I meant, when the block reward halves, ALL the bitcoins get cut down to half and everyone will only have 50% of what they have now, brilliant! ![Roll Eyes](https://bitcointalk.org/Smileys/default/rolleyes.gif) F&%king troll Don't get pissed at me because you made a serious linguistic error.
|
|
|
Temps here in IL were near 90 the past couple of days with a heat index in the mid-90's. I had to downclock my 3x6970 rig to 840 core to maintain sub 80C temps. At night, I can crank it back up to stock.
|
|
|
the block halving will have near zero impact on bitcoin prices, because this is already anticipated and priced in (it`s public knowledge)
You might be right, and it will be interesting to see, but common sense suggests that if demand remains stable, and supply halves, then the price will double. I doubt that will happen, simply because FPGAs make mining bitcoin cheaper than with GPUs, but that's the first argument that pops into my head. The supply will not halve when the block reward halves. All that will happen is that the rate of supply will halve. It does not mean we will suddenly only have 4-5 million BTC.
|
|
|
(Regarding a visual map of electoral college vote distribution by state):
"Is Romney facing a blue wall? Or, should it really be called a 'yellow wall,' -- and yellow, for those of you that don't know your color scheme, is a combination of red and blue."
Umm..... no. Obviously. Duh. As if.
|
|
|
(Regarding a visual map of electoral college vote distribution by state):
"Is Romney facing a blue wall? Or, should it really be called a 'yellow wall,' -- and yellow, for those of you that don't know your color scheme, is a combination of red and blue."
Umm..... no. Obviously.
|
|
|
(Regarding a visual map of electoral college vote distribution by state):
"Is Romney facing a blue wall? Or, should it really be called a 'yellow wall,' -- and yellow, for those of you that don't know your color scheme, is a combination of red and blue."
|
|
|
|