|
I've made some code changes and database optimizations that should speed things up and alleviate if not eliminate the "drop outs" some people were experiencing, which was not actual drop outs as far as hashrate goes, just the servers getting backed up.
It should also make the site more snappy going forward.
|
|
|
|
|
One thing you might consider doing with the large DB (aka server version?) is to allow the DB to be shared among several clients on a local network. Ideally, you could have one version of the server version running on a host machine and several clients on remote machines utilizing the DB on the remote, removing the large space requirement for the lightweight clients but still offering the full functionality.
I have a couple of environments where this would be really handy and I can imagine a few other uses for this type of distributed model, while not going full on cloud model.
|
|
|
|
|
How does everyone feel about sushi and chinese food? There is a place in Olathe called Sake Lounge that has pretty damned good sushi and the rest of the menu is pretty good as well. If you like Sake, they have like 23 different kinds. I can probably get us a reserved area over in the bar/lounge side or the presentation/business meeting side or just the regular restaurant as well. Ignore their website, it's some template piece o' crap, the actual place is much nicer than the website would lead you to believe.
Personally, I'd prefer Sake over Gordon Biersch, especially if it's going to be noisy and rowdy.
|
|
|
|
|
An 8 post person who signed up on August 2nd is bidding 5 @ 8? really?
|
|
|
|
|
Your account appears to be fine, I don't see any issues with it.
|
|
|
|
|
There was a bug that should be corrected now. It locked all of the payout lock accounts temporarily. If it's still locked and shouldn't be, let me know.
|
|
|
|
|
Minimum difficulty will be changing to 4 in the next couple of days.
af_newbie: It depends on which server you're talking about. Typically mostly defaults though.
|
|
|
|
HorseRider, you agreed to this clause when you purchased the shares: Should mining become unprofitable or other circumstances cause the operator to be unable or unwilling to perform his duties, sale of all hardware and equal distribution of funds will commence according to the number of shares held by each individual. Additionally, should a BFL Single be unavailable for immediate shipping, the operator reserves the right to refuse the 200 BFLS shares until such time as a unit becomes available. I'm invoking the clause, end of story. In addition to that, you purchased a portion of the hardware which you could have redeemed at any time, there was no securities involved, so I'm sure the SEC will not care what you have to say, but by all means, go ahead. This was a group effort to purchase hardware, which is what happened. You were not promised any dividends or returns of any sort, only what the hardware generates. I have, in effect, purchased the hardware back from you with the final payment and our "contract" is done. |
|
|
|
Pretty cool... wish I lived some place close to water!
Inaba, don't you live in the KC area? A lot of folks (especially in Lenexa and Olathe) tow to Clinton Lake (the lake I boat at) or Perry. Several people from those areas have slips at the various marinas at the two lakes. You should do it.  I think this boat would be wasted on most lakes, especially lakes around here, sadly. |
|
|
|
|
I have paid out the final payment for BFLS shares, everyone should have received .026 BTC per share.
BFLS and it's derivative are now closed permanently. Server, I'm sorry if this upsets you, but it really is the best thing for everyone going forward and nets a tidy profit for everyone who held shares. Each $600 units worth of shares has paid back $759.2 + whatever it's earned over it's lifetime, which is not an insignificant amount and is > 100% profit on the investment. I think that's pretty good for a little over a year, personally.
|
|
|
|
|
Well, the fact that I did not work for BFL at the time would seem to make that a difficult thing to do.
|
|
|
|
Ok, so if you don't want me to buy out your shares for more than face value and you don't want to continue mining the FPGA, what do you want that is within the realm of possible at the moment? I can't mine with what I don't have. I'm not real clear on what you want me to do, aside from invoke the clause: Should mining become unprofitable or other circumstances cause the operator to be unable or unwilling to perform his duties, sale of all hardware and equal distribution of funds will commence according to the number of shares held by each individual. Additionally, should a BFL Single be unavailable for immediate shipping, the operator reserves the right to refuse the 200 BFLS shares until such time as a unit becomes available. |
|
|
|
|
ASICs wern't even announced 1.5 years ago, so I'm not sure where you are getting that info from.
As for "leaving shareholders hanging without compensation" what do you mean? .026 BTC per share is more than the original price of the shares and share holders have been getting paid on those shares since the start, I'd say that's a tidy profit. No one has been waiting for ASICs for 12 months, no one.
As for refusing to address the problem, I am addressing it, I'm basically buying back all the shares at greater than face value and dissolving BFLS.
|
|
|
|
Well, the solution is to wait or I pay out of my pocket and make everyone whole. .026 BTC per share is more value in USD than the shares cost, plus whatever they have generated in the interim = profit for everyone, except me. |
|
|
|
|
Ok, I will make a final payout of .026 BTC per share and discontinue BFLS. I will try to get that done ASAP.
|
|
|
|
3. Bitcoin price - You paid ~$10 per bitcoin in August 2012. You were unable to predict the price (since if you were, you'd be a multi-billionaire right now), so you elected to purchase mining hardware as a hedge against bitcoin going up. This let you lock in your price of bitcoins, and if it went down you'd be making back many, many more bitcoins than you spent. If it went up, you'd make less bitcoins, but you'd make more fiat... that is the whole point of mining hardware. It locks you in at a bitcoin value and gives you the potential to derive more wealth from the unit than you had previous, be it in BTC or fiat, depending on market trends.
This aspect of buying mining gear is what so many just refuses to understand. The aspect of not buying the hardware is what Josh is ignoring. Let us compare the cases of buying mining hardware for immediate instant delivery vs not buying the hardware and keeping the BTC: Case 1) Buying hardware, spend 3000 BTC to get 1.5TH/s, we now have hardware in hand. Case 2) Not buying hardware, we still have 3000 BTC. Now, if the hardware returns less than 3000 BTC after mining is complete and all residual device value has been recovered, the investment was a bad one and Case 2 prevails. If the hardware generates more than 3000 BTC after mining is complete and all residual device value has been recovered, the investment was a good one and Case 1 prevails. There is no case in which receiving any given piece of mining hardware later is better than receiving it sooner (assuming the hardware has a long operational lifetime). So you cannot add a delay in shipping to Case 1 and hope to improve it's returns. Any delay will always make Case 1 return less value than if there was no delay. So, the idea that adding a delay to shipping has somehow enhanced the purchase of a unit of mining hardware is ludicrous. If you still doubt, just replace the word "Bitcoin" with "ounces of gold". Josh says giving 400 ounces of gold for 5 ounces of gold back is a good deal, because the price of gold rose. K9 once again demonstrates his inability to follow even slightly complex sentences and ideas, seeing as that has basically nothing whatsoever to do with what I wrote and is in direct contradiction to my post. Heh, what a tool. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
