I still don't get why he didn't opt to open source his bitstream.
Well, I certainly get why you (and lots of other people on this forum) want something for nothing... If that's nothing for you: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=94317.0Can you give me nothing?  |
|
|
|
|
I still don't get why he didn't opt to open source his bitstream. Donations worth hundred of BTC instead of zero revenue from forced donations.
Yes, his next project will yield "much more than those few BTC" but what does this project has to do with that? FPGA mining will be dead in a few months.
In my opinion this already *was* irrational...
|
|
|
|
|
Did shares get lost or did this just result in a major inefficiency?
|
|
|
|
|
62-0666 ist verkauft, 62-0026 noch zu haben.
|
|
|
|
sure, nobody knows what will happen to the market when the reward halving happens, but what are the miners PLANNING?
Mine on. |
|
|
|
|
When are payments for week 2012-09-23 processed?
|
|
|
|
If if turns out this address really belongs to bit-pay, I would like to see them to do the same thing. But I'm not sure if it's bit-pay.
You could ask them. Just sayin'. I did. But got no answer. |
|
|
|
Yes, it helps, please ask him to post a good evidence that he owns the address. Before I put him into the trouble (I'm the one who made a mistake!) of signing a message with his address to prove the ownership I would like to know how this will make it possible to find the owner of that 1Nbjpo1tkeayJ28me2kNcZ3ZoqBQHJqoAx address. As you said, if this address would be yours, you would have sent those BTC back because you were "not entitled to receive 5 BTC from any source". If if turns out this address really belongs to bit-pay, I would like to see them to do the same thing. But I'm not sure if it's bit-pay. And I don't see how proofing ownership of the *source* address will help in this case. It's okay if those BTC get sent back to the source address. I will then ask the user to send those 5 BTC again, to address which I actually own. |
|
|
|
Your information turns the case even more difficult. You were supposed to receive the 5 BTC, but you confused the receiving address. That means the 5 BTC was owned by another user and not by you. In this case, how can you prove that? What evidence you have that the another owner should send the 5 BTC to you? If it helps anything, I could ask the other user to post here. This was part of a deal, with the 5 BTC being part of the payment. So the address 1JYC3GbbhHiYKkZkPV2PhsdYPPDAUjjomS is owned by you? Do you receive funds from Deepbit mining pool?
Yes it is and yes I did. Excuse me, but was has my original question (who owns this adr.?) to do with which pools I mine on? Is 1Nbjpo1tkeayJ28me2kNcZ3ZoqBQHJqoAx owned by you? |
|
|
|
Yes, you can tell them (EMS/GdSK) you handle customs yourself. But you don't want to mess with german customs. At least I don't want to DHL, FedEx, ... handle customs for you FREE of charge. |
|
|
|
|
PLEASE! DO NOT use EMS for international shipping.
At least in germany ordering with EMS means getting ripped off because EMS packages are delivered with GdSK in germany. They charge you ridiculous fees for getting your package through customs. Pleaser offer other options like DHL.
|
|
|
|
|
Does anybody know?
I had some BTC sent to this address by accident.
Edit: Could be bit-pay?!
|
|
|
|
|
@LazyOtto are you using an USB hub?
|
|
|
|
The number that can be used as good or bad can be debated. It is only an indicator and I doubt totally accurate. ztex boards don't have temperatur sensors, so the invalid rate is used as overheat protection (invalids rising too fast => board shut down). Furthermore, dynamic clocking is also attached too the invalid rate, i.e. the clock is rising unless as certain level of invalids is reached. Many ztex boards run at 220 Mhz or even faster and you don't hear any problems. So my guess would be that the invalid rate *is* a good indicator whether you are pushing the fpga too much, IOW 220 Mhz and low invalids => no problem. (?) |
|
|
|
|
yohan, unless invalid (i.e. difficulty < 1) shares are below a certain level (5%?) using high-performance bitstreams should not be an issue. Do you disagree on that?
|
|
|
|
|
I got more than enough offers. Thanks everyone.
|
|
|
|
Zum Verkauf steht eins der oben genannten Boards. 1) Seriennummer 62-0026 - läuft mit "shortfin_dcmwd4e_test_200_overclock.bit" Bitstream d.h. insgesamt 800 MH/s. Mehr ist eventuell möglich, aber nicht getestet. Preise ohne Versandkosten (9,40€ DHL / versichert bis 2500€) 1) 62-0026: 600 € 500 € Bezahlung natürlich auch in BTC (Mt.Gox Avg. EUR). Persönliche Übergabe im Raum Frankfurt/Main - Darmstadt möglich. Mehr Infos: http://www.enterpoint.co.uk/cairnsmore/cairnsmore1.htmlBoards laufen mit cgminer/bfgminer und MPBM. Restgarantie sind noch einige Monate vorhanden.  Bereits verkauft: 2) Seriennummer 62-0666 - läuft mit 3x "shortfin_dcmwd4e_ed_test_220_overclock.bit" und 1x der 210 Mhz Version, d.h. 870 MH/s. Ist das Maximum für dieses Board. 2) 62-0666: 650 € |
|
|
|
+1  |
|
|
|
|
With all the delays, don't you think making this project open source would have given you more "revenue"?
Look at the CM1 bitstream - a 300 BTC bounty was paid out and could have been yours.
Just wondering...
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
