|
No, they are both implemntations of the bitcoinj lightweight client on android. Pretty much work the same, different UI. I have them both, now. They both seem to work fine on my Samsung Intercept, but they both take some time to download the blockchain.
Beware, however, there is now a third such client knockoff on the market, and it could be a scam
|
|
|
|
would i die if i made that
Only if you were hanging around when it was running. The polywell, and it's derivatives, are not that hard to make, really; and have been used as a neutron source for medical experiments for decades. The hard part is getting the deutritium, and getting over-parity out of one. Neither goal is trivial. |
|
|
|
You can't stock-pile a service.
Anecdote: A bus operator from a city 50 miles away tried to move into our town a few years back, the local monopoly just reduced their prices until the other operator ran out of money. A few months later the local operator sold out to a national firm for undisclosed millions, prices went up threefold and it's now cheaper to get a taxi into town if you're with two other people. Good example. They can't seem to comprehend the concept of barrier of entry. Sure we can. But natural barriers in a free market, such as initial capital costs, are not affected by regulation. By it's nature, regulations add barriers to market entry. Which is why established players tend to favor some regulation of their own industry. Subsidies lower market barriers, but at the cost to many taxpayers who may not benefit, or if they do, do not benefit to the degree that they contribute. |
|
|
|
Hmm after more than 3 hours still can't see the coins i've mined in bitcoin
New coins take 100 blocks to 'mature', if you are mining solo. The client won't let you use them until then. |
|
|
|
|
I have a 'savings' wallet.dat I developed, put onto a thumb drive, and keep that in a safety deposit box. It exists nowhere near the Internet, and never has. I had to hand write the first receiving address, so that I could add that to my addressbook on mybitcoin.com, but once entered, I can 'deposit' to that address as many times as I would like. What can't be done is spend coins from that address without getting the usb drive out of the bank and loading that wallet.dat back into a client.
|
|
|
|
This is pretty much what I was going to say. Satoshi is in all of us. He is inside me. He is inside you.
As soon as you first saw bitcoin, you had a little piece of satoshi thrust inside you. "There's no use disbelieving. There's no use struggling. This is a good thing.", satoshi whispers in your ear.
Sounds like a benevolent prison rapist. |
|
|
|
Well, I think they're a bit annoying. Four content-free posts in the Newbie section aren't that difficult.
Why don't you allow enabling an account with a Bitcoin transfer? I'd consider 1 Bitcent to be reasonable for purposes of spam blocking.
Because it's a fair assumption that newbies come here to learn about bitcoin, and are unlikely to have any already. |
|
|
|
Below, copied and pasted from a previous post of mine: I believe it would be relatively simple for any one here to figure out who Satoshi Nakamoto if they took a little time to do this: http://www.lexifab.com/2010/07/stylometry/Woah. I was actually on that link the other day, and was already on top of this with some other theories I had. Turns out, and I am 88% certain, that theymos has a second user name on this board. I don't want to give up whose name it is though, but it rhymes with Batman. If you change Batman's name to Batlas that is. Theymos is not Atlas. |
|
|
|
You can't stock-pile a service.
Anecdote: A bus operator from a city 50 miles away tried to move into our town a few years back, the local monopoly just reduced their prices until the other operator ran out of money. A few months later the local operator sold out to a national firm for undisclosed millions, prices went up threefold and it's now cheaper to get a taxi into town if you're with two other people.
I personally don't give a shit because I can afford to get taxis everywhere, but the residents of my town are worse off overall. Proper regulation would have prevented this.
Maybe regulation would have prevented it, maybe not. The key here is that the newcomer wasn't efficient enough to keep it up. The local bus service probably had sunk costs paid for that the newcomer did not. It's still not an example of a free market. If www.flinc.mobi's service is not outlawed, the bus service monopoly will have to compete with everyone with a car, and if their prices don't come back down then they will go out of business also. Avego is also developing such a service, and it won't be long before they are both ready for public consumption. I have a beta invite to flinc, anyone want one? EDIT: The bus service in my town is partially taxpayer supported, but is already aware of Flinc & Avego and other similar dynamic ridesharing services that are coming. They have already started to develop their own dynamic routing system. They have installed Internet connected GPS devices in every bus. In addition to the regular bus routes, there will be the smaller buses (which they already have, as they are required for paratransit, a condition of taxpayer subsidies) that can be 'called' away from a general route by anyone with a smartphone and their own app. The fees would be higher than the scheduled buses, but lower than a taxi cab. The cab companies are just ticked, but they will be able to keep their 'monopoly' of sorts on the pick up of travelers at the airport. |
|
|
|
Since you are counting $400 for 4 chips and $150 for the rest (for a total of $650) would it be posible to include a chipset that allowed a ethernet connection and a very simple webserver (like the chipset in a home router) instead of the usb chipset. This way you could have an independent device just connected to the ethernet network and configured by a simple web interface. Im not very informed about the prices but I dont think it would push the cost too much and it would avoid the need for a computer (saving energy and money). The question I guess is if that simple chipset could handle the mining software load.
It could be done. The chipset would just need to be able to talk to a mining controller, which could be the bitcoin client for solo mining. The work that needs to be done beyond the hashing is minimal. The equivalent of a $40 wireless router would do it. Stack a bunch of these into a baseboard heater fan case, and allow me to control it with an external thermostat, and I would buy it today. |
|
|
|
|
Digital timestamping of external documents could be achieved using the (not yet implemented) transaction scripting mechanism. Using zero value inputs or outputs is not necessary, simply send money from yourself to another address that you control, less the transaction fee required for the script (which will never be free, it costs miner's cpu time that regular transactions do not). If you want to see scripting happen, join the development team. It will be able to do much more than digital timestamping.
|
|
|
|
|
Considering that you already have all the gear, yes GPU mining would be worthwhile for you, so long as you can exclude increased AC costs. If you can wait until your heating season starts, you literally couldn't lose as long as you have a script that can turn off and on GPU mining with the available power so that you don't go over your generated amount by very much.
|
|
|
|
While I agree in part, the internet will never give you the one thing you most need to know: what goes on beyond closed doors.
The greatest irony of that statement, is that most of what the Internet does is show other people what goes on behind closed doors. No, it doesn't. This is why we had the financial crisis, because no one knew the kind of shit that was going on behind closed doors until it started affecting people that weren't behind those doors. There will always be an information disparity, because no matter how widespread internet usage becomes, you still someone on the inside leaking that information to the outside. It is those people (wikileaks informants come to find) we depend on for real information, not the internet. First off, not everyone was unaware of the issues that led to the financial crisis of 2007-2008. I, for one, was not surprised by the crisis at all, only the details. Second, you suffer from a terminal lack of imagination. What do you think that a 'live web cam' is, if it does not let you see what is happening behind closed doors? Do Internet strippers work on the streetcorner? |
|
|
|
Whatever you say, buddy. I think that I'm going to continue to listen to my tax lawyer, not some guy on an internet forum for my tax advice. The root facts are, every year I have to include my previous years tax refund from Kentucky onto the current year's income, and the state auditors don't consider that double taxation. Double taxation is actually illegal after all, so it would have to be considered something else by the legal system! Added to that, I can't change my state tax withholding ratio in order to reduce that refund. I would have to reduce my federal witholding in order to reduce my state withholding, and doing so would get me sideways with the federal IRS.
This a nation of laws, not men, and I showed you clearly where in the instructions it details how to properly report your state income tax refund so that you don't get "double-taxed". That's why I asked you that if you believed I was incorrect, that you show me where in the instructions it explains why, despite the earlier indication, you *do* have to pay taxes on your refund twice. Go read them, they're long but they're not as complicated as your tax lawyer wants you to think. If you want to be angry for being "forced" to do something by no one, I can't stop you, but I can't take you seriously either. Me, if I were you, I'd hire a new tax lawyer. P.S.: It behooves you to see the light: you can file amended tax returns for previous years to correct your mistakes, and you'll get refunded for whatever extra tax you paid. Those were references to federal tax law, were they not? What possible reason would I have to read them? Would they override state tax laws? If they did, wouldn't someone have pointed that out to the Kentucky Department of Revenue by now? I'm not going to look up the KRS references to give you, but I've done it before, because I thought it was bs when I got hit with it two decades ago. Sadly, it is bs, but it's bs they can get away with. They send me a (state equivalent) of a W4 every year, with only my prior year's (state) tax return amount upon it, and instructions that it must be included as income in line such n such on the state tax form. |
|
|
|
The root facts are, every year I have to include my previous years tax refund from Kentucky onto the current year's income, and the state auditors don't consider that double taxation.
That's not really what you said. You said that your tax refund (presumably your federal) No, not my federal. My state refund is taxed again by my state.
is double taxed by Kentucky. Now you're saying that your state refund is added into your (federal?) return.
You statists really do have reading comprehension issues, don't you?
If the latter, this is normal, as we have been saying, if you itemized your deductions, and thus did not pay tax on the amount withheld by Kentucky.
Whatever the case, you're switching your story now.
No, I'm not. |
|
|
|
Those events were, as far as I know, unguided and leaderless murderers. There are no specific instances that the mormon church ever advocated the taking of lives, or property in that conflict. That is not their belief system. Never has, never will be.
I consider your example that of a bunch or rogue crazies. Now, not having been there I can't say who started what when, or how much of this "war" or fight was in self defense.
I know of no religious order that would openly support the 'crazies' after the fact, but it's an unavoidable historical reality that crazies do gain positions of authority in any major religious structure. When that happens, crazy crap happens. You will not find any Catholics that support the events related to the Inquisition either. Notwithstanding, it has never been the position of the LDS church to advocate violence against non-members which appears to be your premise.
That's not my premise. My premise is that religious organizations have a history of attracting zealots. I know of no exception to this rule.
If you can provide evidence that the leaders of the church at that time (meadows massacre) specifically handed down orders to murder and plunder then I'd like to see it.
There is some evidence that such orders were actually given, but not conclusive evidence. Even so, the people who gave those orders were still people, and would be disowned by the LDS today anway. Like I said, you will not find a Catholic in favor of the Inquisition either. Additionally, I'm certain that had it been avoidable, the church leaders would have made it so. Everything I've ever read about them indicates to me that they advocate openness, freedom, peace, tranquility and free will.
For the most part, so does the Koran. And even the Hindu have a habit of killing each other over religious differences.
Prove otherwise.
I don't need to prove otherwise. I have not claimed that the LDS, as a religion, is violent. All that I have claimed is that it has a history of violent conflict, which it does just like every other religion on Earth that is older than two generations. The Utah War is only one example of this, as they moved to Utah because they lost a war in Missouri ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1838_Mormon_War) and then in Illinois ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illinois_Mormon_War#The_.22Mormon_War_in_Illinois.22_and_the_Mormon_Exodus). You can make the argument that the Mormons were fighting for self-defense, but not that they didn't fight. Religious beliefs don't kill people, people kill people over religious beliefs. The last thing that one should ever do is present evidence contrary to the belief system of a zealot with a firearm, the coganative dissonance can be murder.
Don't pick scurrilous unrelated events that are disconnected from the basic belief system they teach.
Why not? They are historical facts. I didn't misrepresent them in any way. If you made an assumption about the meaning, it's your own doing. |
|
|
|
But hey, what do I know... If it makes feel smug that you've "won", just keep paying those taxes you think you owe. I'm sure every one of your fellow state residents thanks you very much.
Whatever you say, buddy. I think that I'm going to continue to listen to my tax lawyer, not some guy on an internet forum for my tax advice. The root facts are, every year I have to include my previous years tax refund from Kentucky onto the current year's income, and the state auditors don't consider that double taxation. Double taxation is actually illegal after all, so it would have to be considered something else by the legal system! Added to that, I can't change my state tax withholding ratio in order to reduce that refund. I would have to reduce my federal witholding in order to reduce my state withholding, and doing so would get me sideways with the federal IRS. |
|
|
|
I think compressing hydrogen into stars would be a good idea, then you also get rare metals as well like gold and platinum for use as catalysts. All elements beyond iron consume energy in their production, and can only occur within certain types of stars at certain stages. Even if we were to crack the fusion issue, the most that we could expect from it would be helium. |
|
|
|
It's like trying to argue religious doctrine on a forum frequented by both Catholics and Mormons. Arguing is fine and dandy but what if Catholics started pointing guns and arresting Mormons? I think that's the real issue here. I couldn't care less if these statists agreed with me. I just want them to stop trying to rob me at gunpoint. I chose those two denominations intentionally, because they both have a history of using force against non-believers. I'd be interested to see some references to back that claim of yours. And just as a side note, I'd like to be sure it wasn't some rogue religious nut who wasn't out of his mind or gone "off the reservation". What I mean exactly is this, has either the church/religious organization, as a general case, believed that it was within their rights to use force against non-believers. Say like the leaders, their writings, and other similar supporting documentation. Last I checked they were fairly benign pacifiers. Are these their basic belief system? Do they specifically advocate violence against nonmembers, etc.? Despite this, the confrontation was not bloodless. At the height of the tensions, on September 11, 1857, more than 120 California-bound settlers from Arkansas, Missouri and other states, including unarmed men, women and children, were killed in remote southwestern Utah by a group of local Mormon militiamen. They first claimed that the migrants were killed by Native Americans. This event was later called the Mountain Meadows massacre and the motives behind the incident remain a mystery. The "Aiken Massacre" took place the following month. In October 1857, Mormons arrested six Californians traveling through Utah and charged them with being spies for the US Army. They were released, but later murdered and robbed of their stock and $25,000. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/InquisitionGranted, a bit lopsided as far as the examples go, but if the Mormons had the history, population and worldwide influences that the RCC did, they likely would have done the same crap. |
|
|
|
I didn't see the above posts. Darn! I was hoping to be the first to point out his overly smug assertion.
LOL! You both made an assumption that I didn't assert, and then based your own smug assertion on the one that I didn't make! |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
