I suspect their FAQ simply hasn't been updated recently. When trying to deposit via bank wire, this is the prompt you'll see (account info redacted):

I fail to see how this would be profitable. How would you move the funds back to the exchange? BTC-e does not accept wire transfers from US banks, and they're now charging 4% to deposit via OKPay.

I've been doing bitcoin arbitrage for a few months now and in my experience 4% is not enough of a spread to be profitable, even before BTC-e doubled their fee for OKPay deposits. 4% doesn't cover the costs of cycling funds back into the exchange.

It looks like I'm going to have another poor payout. For the current round I currently have 1451 shares and an estimated payout of 0.00000049 BTC.

Yes, Eligius has placed prayers in block headers in the past; to be fair, however, to my knowledge this has not been done for some time.

FYI, in Catholic dogma Eligius is the patron saint of goldsmiths.

Me too:

17925    2013-05-08 14:13:44    1:27:14    11634278    1231    0.00000028    235160    25.21733124    97 confirmations left

Use a milk crate, or something similar, and PCI-e risers. It's a much cheaper and cooler solution than any case.

That's not true. Both BitMinter and Bitparking offer merged mining over the stratum protocol.

Is there any chance that support for merged mining (e.g. NMC) over stratum will be added at any point in the future? It's a feature that the BitMinter pool has and I would like to see added to this one since getwork has been deprecated.

That happens when the exchange rate drops. People are more hesitant to sell on BTC-e because it's more difficult to withdraw USD from there than from MtGox.

Where are you getting that information? The payout graph that I see, on Bitminter's rewards page, only shows the last few weeks, although that is not clear as the scale of the horizontal axis is not labeled.


With access to the pool's DB, that sort of analysis would be easy to do and would quickly identify any power users who had submitted a large number of shares but not found any blocks. However, if this type of withholding attack were indeed occurring, such analysis would easily miss a distributed attack of the same sort.

For example, if a user with 500GH/s has been mining for months, has submitted hundreds of millions of shares, and has yet found no blocks, that might be suspicious. But if 500 users with 1GH/s each had been mining for the same period of time and collectively submitted the same number of shares, it is entirely likely, on a per-user basis, that each of them would not have found a block. Thus if there were a large number of users participating in such an attack, at lower hashing speeds it would be essentially impossible to distinguish the miners who were participating in it from those who were not.

That being said, since there is no profit motive in such an attack -- worse, it's actually detrimental for any pool user to withhold a block hash which meets the target difficulty -- I think that such an attack is rather unlikely. The motive would perhaps be personal or spiteful in nature, and it would likely not be sustained for long due to opposing financial motivations.

Perhaps because a 0.5 BTC bid increment is too high? IMO an increment of 0.05 BTC is more reasonable and may have generated more interest.

Is the graphics display more likely to lag while mining LTC? I mine BTC using a 7950 as my primary display with I=9 and I have no problems with display lag.

Bitfloor is not doing a very good job of communicating with their customers right now. There's no doubt about that. In these types of situations there need to be weekly updates, even if, like yesterday, it's just to say that they're still waiting on the bank.

Sorry, I had this thread sitting open in a tab for a while and didn't read the newest replies before posting. If the minimum bid increment is 0.5 BTC/GH/s, then you can ignore my bid. 2.424 BTC/GH/s is higher than I'm willing to go.

5 GH/s @ 2.0 BTC

Whatever gave you that idea? 

In my experience over the past few weeks, it can take several business days to move USD from MtGox to Okpay. Minutes or hours is too optimistic. 2-3 days is more realistic.

It's not that BTC funds have been frozen; it's that most weren't being held online (i.e. in a hot wallet). After a system breach and massive theft of all users' bitcoins last year, bitfloor took the correct security measure of storing most user BTC funds offline (i.e. in a cold wallet).

Obviously with bitfloor shutting down operations, there's been a run of users all trying to withdraw funds. After the hot wallet is exhausted, BTC withdrawals can no longer be completed automatically on bitfloor's servers. It requires manual action in order to process the transaction. Such is the inconvenience of using a cold wallet as security precaution, and so your withdrawal will remain in the "pending" state until you can get someone to manually enact it for you -- assuming, of course, that your funds are indeed available and being stored in bitfloor's cold wallet.

That's correct: Okpay charges $2.99 per transaction. If you're moving funds from Mtgox to BTC-e through Okpay, you'll lose about 3% + $5.98 in fees.

There's an asterisk there for a reason. Scroll down to the bottom of the page and you'll see that, while Okpay does not charge any fees for an incoming wire, their bank does, up to a maximum of $20.