INT*

I know people on here would label me INTJ without second thought, but actually there are situations in which I switch to INTP.

People find that confusing, but I can't help it.

Those Ron Paul statistics look very extreme. But then again, it might be a defining property of an INTJ to go on online boards and argue for something not-so-mainstream. Or... for whatever beliefs. I shouldn't be the one to talk though.

Well, that took longer than expected.

Bitcoin isn't perfect, but did it a lot the right way from the start. SolidCoin does things like trusted nodes and inelastic price of mining -- and already has one iteration that failed due to an obvious type of DoS attack.

This just isn't it to gain peoples' trust. Most rather live with deflation than mining power that has a giant jump when price crosses cost of generation. This also reduces adoption, because few people want to speculate on something that has an upper limit on its value. Many people get a sort of gambling kick from the possibility of the $100 Bitcoin.

Oh! Bitcoinity is back!

I somehow missed out on the revival. Nice to see you up again!

Last year was crazy even for a bubble.

A classic bubble comes with a media hype and excited people who wouldn't normally speculate. Such speculation mania was a major factor in the case of Bitcoin. Everyone wanted BTC all of a sudden, without any idea what this type of speculation meant. Bitcoin exchanging degenerated into a "let's all get very rich very fast" scheme.

So, for the current movement... it might go up or down, but to call it a bubble we'd need some sort of additional reasoning besides a recent price rise. And it's true, the comparison is extreme. We're 40-50% up depending on what you compare with, in months. In last year's bubble, such stuff could happen in a single day.

imsaguy: Clipse?

Why come here and point that out to me? I only knew Clipse from IRC, I thought it was some spam identity on Pirate's side to throw insults at me. He's quite active in the BS&T chan from what I saw.



I begin to get the feeling "imsaguy" is just making fun of me by now. Why the heck did you point that out, just to watch me go "lolwut"? Well, that was a perfect success. I guess we figured out were just told how they got the throughput up.

Not as it is now.

I try to use whatever indicator sources I can find, with special interest in media and online discussion attention. Also, trade activity and usage using Bitcoin.

An example would be Google trends. If someone were to make statistics of Bitcoin trading activity from the merchants, not just the block chain, that might be interesting. E.g. somehow get rough sales volumes for Spendbitcoins, Casascius, ...? I don't know whether you can get people to pay for it, but it might get more attention than chart post-processing alone.

Yep. I also started calling myself "libertarian" instead of "liberal" ever since people have re-defined the latter as its own opposite.

Few rules, but stick to them. Don't try to force things onto others unless it's really necessary. For example, one can argue there's a point in breaking up a monopoly that otherwise dead-locks a whole market. But actions like subsidizing an arbitrary part of the economy with tax money because some people think "it deserves it more" is too much.

I doubt it works as pure anarchy. That said, people have to agree on some sort of rules, as in when a contract is valid and what a crime is, or else it's the Neanderthal re-enacted.

People who agree -- I think that's the root of the problem. Look at this, we're all a similar bunch of geeks using a crypto-currency 99% of the world ignores, and still we can hardly agree on anything.

Actually, I was just talking about Gpumax being a laundry. There has been a rather small ratio of "Ponzi" said in these last posts.

I have no way to know whether anything you say is true, but a lot of the posting style suggests it's not. It's just distracting, insulting, and distracting again. If it were really so boring, there would be no reason to post in the first place.



Repeating the questions at hand:

• How much hashpower might Gpumax have?
• Who is paying for the premium on Gpumax, and why?

Goat is a "Pirate pass-through" operator. Three consecutive posts on his own typing? I'll start reporting if this continues.

Re-stating the current points of discussion:

• How much hashpower might Gpumax have?
• Who is paying for the premium on Gpumax, and why?

Just like Macau is a gambling paradise between Hong Kong Dollars and Yuan?

No, seriously, have you ever felt it exciting to do that? Where are the gamblers, I only see miners everywhere.

rjk: Who in his right mind would buy mining shares that yield less than they cost? If bought shares do not get laundered, then I would assume Pirateat40 is reserving this privilege to himself?

But I agree on a more important question, which BurtW also asked:


This is actually the only viable argument here. Is the laundry too slow? We have about 7200 coins produced daily, what fraction might it get?

As an example, 6% of hashpower over 100 days yield 43200 BTC. That's becoming interesting. If it is able to use 20% of hashpower -- well, then there's little question, with 100k BTC in 70 days! So, can someone persuade me there's not enough hashpower there? The gpumax thread looks pretty long for a minor operation, if I may say.

Hm... not really. Maged said it, and Pirate had to confirm it: some output coins were shown to come from BS&T. That would be quite the strange mistake, to run it on coins that need no laundering.

BS&T coin output here just shouldn't be happening unless something is wrong.

Are you suggesting it's not a laundry? In that case, who would ever pay the premium?

If by straws you mean a substantial fraction of the coin output of Gpumax, yes.

I'm also logging which accounts keep flooding away my posts, just for later use. I wasn't expecting you to join.

I should've noticed that VIP badge earlier.

*sigh*

You can flood all you want, I'm getting confirmations and you just burned another kinky last year's account.

The fluctuations in workload will be hard to explain from the outside. But this is not important; even 30% of the workload of a system this size has considerable coin throughput.



We're now at "No, we're laundering something else!!!!1" as an excuse, and even that does not sound right. Maybe my estimates of the BS&T deposit curve are just wrong. I hear about lots of workload earlier this year, when BS&T was already growing neatly.

Wow, so my timing was off. So where did all the leasing earlier come from, then?

gigavps: So, it all boils down to the question of throughput of these leased shares. What fraction of gpumax mining happens on them?

I just got a private response that claimed 30% premium was typical, and it used to be better? Now, guys, something doesn't add up here. Who would pay a "typical" 30% while a majority just forwards with no premium?

It's probably better if we all wait for some feedback from the miner thread. Hell knows which account belongs to whom here.

Any answers by people that haven't been blacklisted for ages?

"heavily involved" includes you.

Let me just spell it out more clearly.

Is it possible that gpumax payments primarily stem from BS&T deposits? Or would you guys notice that and can you rule it out somehow?

Okay... does this mean you are getting fresh coins?

That's the main point actually. Is there a lot of hashpower used on work that is paid with coins that have history? How big is the fraction of clean or relatively new coins?

Edit: "I run all of my hashing power through gpumax" is the important part here -- so they control which coins you get, no?

There has been a little discussion about the properties of Gpumax, can someone please answer the following questions:

• Are there types of work offered here that pay substantially more than normal pooled mining would?
• Has this type of work been offered more frequently recently, especially since June?
• Are you frequently receiving coins with a long history?

For obvious reasons, I would prefer answers from accounts that have not been heavily involved in supporting BS&T in discussions.