Presumably he paid someone to create a github account for the project and place in it the code of the project?

-MarkM-

I would question that if the repo were part of someone's own github account, such as if I had done the work and done it by creating a repo in my own github account; but  a whole new github account seemingly having been created as part of, and presumably for, the paid work project seems to lend credence to your hypothesis (of it possibly being actionable). Of course I am not licensed to practice law on this planet so what do I know.

-MarkM-

If you don't know how to do that then having control of the repo would do you no good anyway since you don't know how to use it.

You would have to hire someone to use it on your behalf, and that someone doesn't need control of the current repo, they would control their own aka your own copy (clone or fork) of it on your behalf. The current one is thus entirely un-needed and in fact maybe, if it is still listed in the original post, it might even be misleading people because people reading the original post will presumably tend to think you want them to use the one you list in your original post.

meanwhile the calculated network hash-per-second has changed a lot:


Anyone found any lucky blocks yet?

Oh and Vlad, if github is not your preferred method of maintaining a version archive of your code, which version archive system do you prefer to work with?

-MarkM-

Has anyone found any lucky blocks yet?

Is the percent chance of finding one actually correctly calibrated to result in one every two hours on the average?

As far as I can tell all the nodes have been running the corrected code that includes the pre-mine and the correct logic for having the lucky blocks happen starting after block 250, but I do not know whether they have actually been happening, if not maybe most of that hashing power is not afterall using the corrected code.

Oh and Vlad, git is all about cloning and forking. Everyone has full access to the entire repo, they just cannot change someone else's copy of it, because the way to do changes is to make a clone or fok and do the changes on your own clone or fork. The blackmailer has the clone or fork that you had posted in the original post, all you need do is put the URL of some other clone or fork into the original post instead so people will use the one your post is pointing to not the one the blackmailer controls.

Who cares what changes the blackmailer puts into the copy they control? Each miner gets to put whatever changes they choose into their own copy.

-MarkM-

On the bright side though weak hands are still parting with primecoin at low prices so buying coins directly from them (or from them via an exchange) instead of indirectly from your electricity provider might still be viable, depending on how long you are willing to wait to find a higher price to sell that than you bought at.

(What is the chance of happening upon a higher exchange rate, it might be higher than the chance of happening upon a block...)

-MarkM-

Presumably by putting a definition or template or whatever into the correct place for the context, as it seems to be saying you are trying to use a routine you had not yet told it about or that you told it about outside the context maybe since maybe part of the purpose of contexts is to let it forget about stuff outside the context even if you had, outside the context, told it about them?

I don't actually know C++ beyond what can be deduced by looking at the code and what the compiler says in response to it (and of course what actually happens if it does compile and you run it), do you? If not maybe studying up on C++ contexts might provide clues.

-MarkM-

The delay in obtaining ASICs has been delaying one possible workaround for the lack of merged mining pool software that divides up the merged coins based on how much hashing was contributed.

The workaround I am thinking of is to divvy up the merged coins based on share of ownership of a mining operation that merged mines.

The overheads on such an operation are such that until ASICs are actually in hand and hashing the shares would not look particularly appealing to potential buyers of shares. For example so far i have two dedicated servers out on the net and have ordered a third, because running all the chains to be merged plus the p2pool instance to merge them all while still having all the chains responsive enough to keep the p2pool supplied with work from all the chains promptly takes quite a bit of resources especially with I0Coin and GeistGeld in the merge.

The puny amount of hashing I am currently able to direct at that p2pool instance results in the overhead costs eating a whole lot of the income, so shares of the whole operation at this time would not look very appealing, being largely a share of the overhead costs.

Once all the ASICs arrive (if any of them actually do arrive) the operation overall will look a lot more attractive, albeit by then maybe having absorbed all the overhead costs all these months and gone through all the overhead work of arranging space and power and cooling enough to accomodate them I won't find the idea of divvying the operation up appealing. But I will have the experience of what it takes to be able to seriously consider launching an entire new similar operation that is a divvied up by shares from its inception...

Also, divvying up the actual merged coins need not be how such a thing would operate. it could include trading too, selling all the coins for devcoins.

Then either pay dividends in devcoins or, which i actually prefer to using dividends, be a growth operation that just keeps on buying back shares people want to sell and buying more hashing gear to expand its mining operation.

I prefer a retained earnings operation that buys back shares (and sells them for more than it buys them back at, of course) because it makes people who want to cash out actually have to cash out instead of being able to sit on shares forever while still getting cash out; and also because dividends cause fluctuations in the market price of shares, usually some kind of sawtoothed wave effect.

It seems more reasonable to me that if someone wants cash out the act of cashing out should be an opportunity for someone else to put cash in, thus that cashing out should be by means of selling shares rather than by means of being issued dividends. Also of course all the overhead work and administration of doing dividends is thus avoided making the operation presumably to some extent more efficient than if it did have the whole dividends thing to deal with regularly.

-MarkM-

You still know once a block is found whether the next block will be a low paying or high paying block.

The general profitability averaging the randomness of the blocks will presumably be generally known.

Also what seems actually more profitable than following the "most profitable coin to mine" sites/systems is to mine a coin when few people are, because it is easier to mine. if it were at that moment listed as highest profitability all over the web lots of people would be mining it so that regardless of its difficulty making it seem profitable the actual amount of hashing competing for the supposedly profitable block would tend to be out of synch with the actual network hash total (which cannot be recomputed until another block is found as it is based on the speed with which blocks are being found).

So the most profitable approach seems to be when the coin is profitable due to price dump coins you already stockpiled, maybe even enough to bring price back down to a point where the coin no longer is shown as most profitable on those sites all over the web; meanwhile mining easy to mine coins to stockpile them so that you will have coins already on hand to dump when they become "profitable".

That way by the time miners mine new coins thinking they are mining the most profitable one they will no longer be profitable because miners who already stockpiled that coin will be ahead of them in line to sell at the profitable price. Plus that profitable price will be more profitable for them because they mined when it was actually easy (fewer miners to divide the pie among) not when it was merely reported on the web as easy (which causes many more miners to hop there making it actually probably more miners to divvy the pie among at that particular time.).

Whatever the price of a coin, getting the more coins per block blocks rather than the less coins per block blocks should be more profitable than just taking your chances as to which kind of block you get or being stuck with only the lower paying blocks due to bonus-blocks-hopping competitors who make the highest paying blocks the ones that have the most miners to divvy up the chance of actually winning it among.

People who mined BBQcoin with a CPU core all year last year made more profit from that CPU core for the year than had they directed that CPU core at "the most profitable coin"...

-MarkM-

There are so many chains that have some blocks that pay out way more than other blocks.

Usually when one block is solved you know whether the next one is going to be a high-paying one.

It kind of makes sense the websites that claim to report profitability don't reflect these extra-pay blocks on the instant (though hopefully they do at least average them in) because of the limited time available in which to switch/hop. But do enough of those kinds of chains have slow enough time between blocks that a pool could hop them effectively?

At any given moment, what is the chance that one of the chains with bonus blocks is on one?

(If it is still low, not to worry, as people keep spewing out such chains that chance should keep climbing, yes?)

-MarkM-

I read one brand of 7950 recommended (to run one card) 450 watts, whereas AMD/ATI recommended 500.

I had a 430 on one box and a 450 in another, and some recommendations only wanted 200 watts more to add a second 7950 so I figured I should have 230 watts on one machine and 250 on the other available to run everything other than the card. (If a second card needs 200 more doesn't the first card, presumably, being identical, only need 200?)

I put the brand new card in the 430 watt machine. Tried to start finding the settings for scrypt mining for it.

There was a flash and the machine shut down, and it won't start up anymore even without the card.

So I put it in the 450 watt machine. All looked fine until I started trying to find the right settings for scrypt mining. Each time it started to mine the machine shut down, but would start up again.

So I went out and got a 550 watt power supply. Tried replacing the 430, but that machine wouldn't start even with the 550 watt and without the card.

Replaced the 450, and been scrypt mining ever since. (And using the two core CPU with nice to primecoin-mine upon occassion.)

Moral of the story is maybe be glad your power supply was powerful enough to merely shut down gracefully, unlike my 430 watt one which seems to have left the machine itself traumatised in some way.

-MarkM-

Is there even any point in accounting anymore now that people can write with ink on papyrus instead of carving marks into stone or making little clay pouches with miniatures in them?

-MarkM-

It is not theft by majority vote. It would be at worst theft due to voters not bothering to vote, were it not that there was one vote and it was against, which was not even an option in the first place. There was nothing in even the demand about people voting for the theft, only an option to vote against it rather than stand idly by failing to intervene-by-voting-against-it.

-MarkM-

It is your accusation of me that is delusional. I merely inquired as to whether the demands were even possible to meet. As in, is what the blackmailer demands even possible or is it a demand that is deliberately calculated to not be within your means.

-MarkM-

You are so delusional. The vote is to not steal your property. There was no voting to steal it until someone just voted that.

it is no different than asking whether you actually would be able to scrape together the wherewithall to pay, which is pretty much always asked on all those educational 'police procedural' shows that teach everyone proper procedure.

-MarkM-

Bullshit, the blackmail letter claimed that if majority (not sure if that meant a majority or the majority, I figured heck maybe any majority might suffice) to give you back control of the repo he or she would give it back. in essence a ransom of votes was demanded. So i enquired as to whether the community of people on the thread actually had that many votes in your favour available to it, since if so maybe the votes could be paid and you'd get your repo back. If not the alternative ransom demanded is/was a sum of bitcoins. Evidently paying in votes would not be cheaper/easier.

On cop shows the FBI often ask the victim whether the demanded ransom is within the victim's means, its almost standard to ask, isn't it? For one thing it provides insight into how familiar the blackmailer is with the victim's ability to meet the demand(s).

-MarkM-

So likely two maximum retargets multiplied by the actual starting difficulty then, which comes out to what difficulty? 0.00000016 if it started at 0.00000001 but what did it actually start at and what is the maximum increase of difficulty when retargeting, and why the need to obfuscate about it?

-MarkM-

Do a majority of the people on this thread want the repo returned to Vlad's control/ownership?

-MarkM-

No but they can point to some other repo containing whatever version they prefer be used.

-MarkM-

Well has anyone actually mined a lucky block?

If so, has it been orphaned?

if it wasn't orphaned, have they continued finding lucky blocks still?

-MarkM-

Again that is only in the repo.

Each miner gets to choose whether to run that code or a version they prefer.

Does the blackmailer have enough hashing power to catch up to the currently running blockchain? Even if so, is he or she going to spend that much hashing power on doing so?

-MarkM-