This would be a more helpful and trustworthy thread if it was just instructions and no binary, i.e.:

How to make a portable bitcoin:
1. Copy bitcoin.exe to USB drive \bitcoin
2. copy bitcoin user directory contents to USB drive \bitcoin\data
3. run bitcoin.exe -datadir=.\data, or save this command as a bat file
4. don't lose USB drive

A real "creator of the portable bitcoin client" would just release a diff against the source code that changes the default directory. A binary would only be trustworthy if several people compile and get MD5 identical code, and the binary is hosted at a versioning URL unchangeable by the author.

Of course, there are already instructions, which should make you question the binary more: http://forum.bitcoin.org/?topic=809.0

Mini-bump. This would be a good option to implement, especially for simple obfuscation of the wallet.dat location from trojan wallet stealers. If only I know that my wallet is --walletfile=C:\Users\deepceleron\AppData\Roaming\SecuROM\UserData\voeF5h3x.bin, it's a bit harder for a virus to find, grab, and ftp it. Bitcoin client should also have a prompt "wallet file not found, create a new one?" on new installation or upon specifying a wallet file that does not exist, to go along with this.

In the beginnings of eBay this is pretty much how it was, you would send a money order to someone and hope they sent you stuff, and 99% of the time they did. There was a lot less international evil on the Internet in 1997 though. Nowadays slimeballs are attracted to Bitcoin like Nigerian princes are attracted to naivegrandma448@aol.com.

I have one that will hash at 1100MHz with added voltage, which cranked out over 350mhash/s with memory, OS, and software tweaking, but I decided I'd better put it back to it's Furmark-approved 1075MHz @ stock volts after I woke up to discover a crashed computer and several missed pool rounds. I have another one that can barely make it past 950.

It's interesting that they mine so well, since Crysis 2 will destroy these 5870-rejects.

PS. 5830's get the best hash rates at 350-360MHz memory with worksize 256.

Looks like an ad. The only thing there now is PayPal checkout, plus you can just buy from yourself if you have the backend all going and want to see if it works.

I'm going to bump this because I used search and knew I couldn't be the first to think of this.

Bitcoin does need aggressive torrent-like out-of-order block downloading, especially on new client install or a restart after not being used for a while. If instead of requesting block 1, then block 2, etc, I request a simultaneous 500 blocks from 500 nodes I am going to get them much quicker. Think of this as a torrent-like look ahead. My client can start verifying it's way up the block chain as it starts assembling them and adding them to the block database, and if it doesn't get a few blocks after an expected time or finds invalid blocks, it can request them again from several clients.

Alternately, it could get bitcoin_blockchain_120000.zip or similar from a trusted source upon new installation.

Bittorrent can get me data as fast as my connection, why should it take half a day to get 200MB on Bitcoin?

So the banner ad of somebadger says 'my team of 45 is doing 5232 Mh', and ad of linkme says 'my team of 3 is doing 2469', and the total pool stats are: Current Workers: 12, Current Hashrate: 8.9 GH/s, no blocks found. Not looking so good after nine days.

"You have to start somewhere", but maybe get rid of the teams, the rankings, the banner signatures with referral links, the gambling name, and the 2% fee for withdraws when there is something to withdraw. Then you still have to entice people to join, when their contribution in solving the first block will be diluted by the 700,000 shares in the first round already added by miners who have come and gone. Another recently started pool was knocking out four blocks a day at ten days in, by not looking shady.

The only pool I think is missing from the marketplace is a low-fee PPS pool.  I think people would respond quickly to a pool with no concept of solving a block, stats, teams, bonuses, referrals, lotteries, 'triple your earnings', etc. To the user, they sign up, start submitting shares, every share earns them 0.0000319 BTC, the balance starts going up immediately, and they can press the withdraw button any time and receive it all for a .001 BTC fee. The web site can be white with black text, too. Just don't try starting this unless you have 500 BTC bankroll to insure against the worst-case variability.

It's just like that, except the cat is 99.9999999999% dead.

You might try this, it allows you to change the minimum and maximum that ati overdrive can set the card to:

http://www.techimo.com/forum/graphics-cards-displays/256789-enable-higher-overclocks-ccc-reg-entry.html

With a bit of dedication, mining software could get the current block difficulty and check submitted shares against it also. If the submitted share solves a block, it could alert the miner very prominently that they submitted a block solve, with a full log file dump of the submitted block, and to verify the pool it was submitted to received and honors it. A pool miner could publish the block solve with proof of work. This feature would remind pool owners that miners know.

I don't think pools can directly measure your hashrate, they can only see how many shares you have contributed. Shares: you submit difficulty 1 hashes as proof-of-work to a pool, and then the pool checks to see if the hash is also full difficulty, solving a block. Since like full difficulty blocks, shares are a random problem and have variance, in one hour of sampling you may submit more or less shares than your hashrate predicts, plus rejected shares often aren't associated with your worker account and can't be added to the hashrate estimation. The absolute proof of your submitted work is number of shares, which you can verify by logging with your miner.

Here is how the round database looked before the transactions were re-sorted.

271    136037    1 552 696    1 590 059  13 Jul 01:00:33    3h 10m     (actually 2h 50m)
270    136008    0 000 000    0 000 000  12 Jul 21:49:57    -1y 12mo  (actually 2h 33m)
269    136012    1 422 937    1 449 703  12 Jul 22:10:23    2h 53m    (actually 20m)
Round start time    12 Jul 19:16:29

Here's my analysis of what happened here:

19:16:29 - Round 269 Starts
21:49:57 - A Block is found, but not correctly added to the database
22:10:23 - Another block is found and recognized, ending Round 269, and user distribution of 50BTC are based on shares since 19:16:29
22:10:23 - The missed block is inserted into the database, causing weird calculations and 0 payments
22:10:23 - Round 271 starts
01:00:33 - Round 271 ends. The length of the round is shown wrong because it looks back at the inserted block. Payments are correct.

So the basic problem is that the shares (user share ratio/total share ratio) for both round 269 and 270 (as listed above) were combined into just round 269.

Since the 1 422 937 shares contributed during both rounds 269 and 270 were only applied to round 269 and cannot be separated now, the fair thing to do is copy round 269's user shares and total shares on block 270 also, giving it the same payout ratio per user. Users can think of this as a longer 100BTC round. The solution is essentially to just double-pay block 269.

I still don't know what a "5 slider image" is, here's another try at the right dimensions:

I think the OP means "Are pool admins trustworthy? I suspect there may be some pool owners who are not reporting all the block solves of their pool, and are keeping the unreported profit for themselves."

Sounds more like trading in pork bellies futures contracts, you can make or loose money trading them, but if you keep them, you get pork bellies.

One can examine pool luck, the expected rate of return over the long term, and see that earnings are what are expected. Fabricating extra shares or extra ghash by a pool owner or not reporting some solves would be possible only in the 1% range, or those who keep track of their submissions would see they aren't getting back what their hashrate would dictate.

The 11.7 driver that is being used causes a CPU core to go to 100% usage per miner instance. That is what changed in the previous poster's setup. Reverting to 11.6/SDK 2.4 will likely solve the problem.

If we suppose "sufficient CPU power" to be arbitrary and overwhelming power greater than the Bitcoin network's existing hash rate, and a greater number of malevolent actor clients on the network than legitimate, can you educate me why this, or even pushing out a new genesis block, cannot be done? The clients can verify the entire blockchain of hashed blocks from the first to the last and know that mine needs to be hashed against the previous, but what is it in the raw block that still requires private keys if I want to craft a block of my evil design and have the network resources to say that the block is legitimate?

And a currency based on a letter "S" can't be recognizable? What about $?

The dollar symbol can be written as an S with a complete strike through, or a partial strike-through (with just ticks on the top and the bottom). Likewise it can have a single or a double strike. All are representative of dollars. This shows that a currency does not need one absolute glyph. The strikethrough of the ASCII $ even changes between these four representations by just changing the font face.

The same dollar sign is used for currencies of many countries, not just the US. Besides dollars issued by other countries, pesos also use the $ glyph. Bitcoins and Baht sharing the same ฿ symbol is fine, as we see by example that varied world currencies already share the same symbol.

A double-strikethrough is very common in currency symbols, making the glyph easily recognizable as representative of money (₳  ₡  €  ₱  ₩ ¥ etc). Therefore it would be ideal to migrate to a B of Bitcoin having double-ticks on the top and bottom to make the symbol more universally identifiable as currency but without being illegible from two complete strikethroughs. Barring this symbol being added to Unicode though, the ฿ shall do when represented in typography instead of logo form, and it can be handwritten with one slash instead of four.