I installed EasyMiner. It shows my units just fine, but only allows me to select the 3rd option on the menu (the diagnostics/testing/statistics option, forgot what it was called). The other two options are grayed out. So, I can see the units, but I can't mine with them using EasyMiner. Any suggestions? Passwords are security through obscurity. Just sayin. |
|
|
|
The registered agent in the state of Wyoming had been changed but their filings weren't transferred properly. The paperwork is currently being updated. One point for the trolls. Good work.
I think you lose the right to be snotty in your responses when your website lists a guaranteed delivery time frame which has yet to even come close to being fulfilled. Two simple options, either change the wording on your website or deliver on your guarantee. I'm a happy customer. If you don't want to be a customer, that is your choice. I see no need for them to change their guarantee. Their guarantee is for a full refund if they do not meet their guaranteed ship date. They didn't meet it on mine, but I ordered knowing that that would probably be the case. They are getting quite close to meeting their 4-6 week shipping window though... < 2 months now on some orders (mine, specifically). |
|
|
|
i think i have a solution to the cheating issue. i could switch the knight's position with the bishops position at the start of the game. any master chess program would be completely useless as official chess board setup's require the knight to be positioned next to the castle. with my variation, the bishop would be next to the castle. i could implement it right away, but i would have to but the site on hold. can i get some feedback on this please?
I don't think it would work. Lots of chess programs can let you set up "custom" board positions to experiment with moves and such. Someone could just set up a "custom" board position that includes a swap of the knight and bishop. Also, I don't think a custom solution for changing how a piece moves would work either. Lots of smart guys here... and the incentive to cheat, with wagers being placed on the games, is high. Someone would just program a bot to calculate the best move using the new custom rules you create. Or, some chess bots might already be modifiable in that aspect. |
|
|
|
|
Fascinating. Report confirmed then, for all the naysayers. :p
|
|
|
|
Now all that has to happen is one of those damn pirates demand Bitcoins as ransom and then we'll really be on the map.
You could always start a bounty for it... A Bitcoin bounty for a pirate to request ransom in Bitcoin. Ha! |
|
|
|
So, Wired got the leaked pdf... right...
Someone should sue those lousy reporters.
At least they didn't link to the one I typed! |
|
|
|
OH, a Kill A Watt (I also would have understood kill a watt, kill-a-watt, Kill-A-Watt, etc, killawatt just looked like a typo for kilowatt). Yeah, my bad. I did make it unclear without any spacing. Not worth it I guess, there must be too many hardware variations for it to be useful. P_Shep's unit with the 872 bitstream gets 849 mhash/s at 77 watts, but mine with the same bitstream gets 866 at 120 watts.
Wow, that is quite a difference! For reference, I'm getting 850 MH/s on both of the miners that arrived using the 864 bitstream. |
|
|
|
I'll do it if someone pays for a killawatt for me.  I don't have a single, so I don't really care, but are you suggesting that it's not worth the fraction of a BTC someone could send you to pay for a kilowatt to know what is most efficient for your own single? It'd be closer to 5 BTC, and no, it's not worth it for me to pay for that myself. http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16882715001 |
|
|
|
Question: Is there a way to mine on multiple pools at the same time with CGMiner? In other words, if I have 2 BFL miners, and want to point one to one pool, and another to another pool, how would I go about setting that up?
The --load-balance flag will basically do that for you. How accurately would it load balance between the pools? |
|
|
|
Just doing some math...
With 4 @ 832, I was drawing 300W at the wall including the router (12W), so (300-12)/4 = 72W per BFL.
Currently have 2 @ 872, and 2 @ 832, drawing 310W at the wall including the router (the other 2 won't run at 872).
So with 72W per 832 unit, the 872 units must be using ((310-12) - (2*72))/2 = 77W.
Comparing hash rates:
832: 813MH/s @72W = 11.26 MH/s/W
872: 849MH/s @77W = 11.02 MH/s/W
So SLIGHTLY less efficient.
You have a little miscalculation 813 / 72 = 11.29 MH/s/W 849 / 77 = 11.03 MH/s/W Also interesting : 849MH/s - 813MH/s @ 77W - 72W = 36MH/s @ 5W = 7.2 MH/s/W The 7.2 MH/s/W for the extra power is probably still profitable for you, if not, you better go back to 813 MH/s. P.S. I like math How about someone measuring the power draw with each bitstream and creating a table? Mine use between 117 and 120 watts on the 872 bitstream. I'll do it if someone pays for a killawatt for me. |
|
|
|
Just doing some math...
With 4 @ 832, I was drawing 300W at the wall including the router (12W), so (300-12)/4 = 72W per BFL.
Currently have 2 @ 872, and 2 @ 832, drawing 310W at the wall including the router (the other 2 won't run at 872).
So with 72W per 832 unit, the 872 units must be using ((310-12) - (2*72))/2 = 77W.
Comparing hash rates:
832: 813MH/s @72W = 11.26 MH/s/W
872: 849MH/s @77W = 11.02 MH/s/W
So SLIGHTLY less efficient.
Good to know... thanks for calculating that out. |
|
|
|
|
It is the 14th... anyone received their copy of the physical mag yet?
|
|
|
|
I like the background image on http://fantasypublishings.com/ but the board is clearly faked, if black moved his queen to b5 he just lost it to the bishop who will put black in check. They meant to put the queen on c5 which would pretty much be the d00m of white. I thought the same, but white could have advanced their king side bishop prior to the queen move by black. Then white counters the queen move by bringing the bishop back home. If it's now black's move, there's still a decent number of options open. |
|
|
|
|
Question: Is there a way to mine on multiple pools at the same time with CGMiner? In other words, if I have 2 BFL miners, and want to point one to one pool, and another to another pool, how would I go about setting that up?
|
|
|
|
|
I'll have 10 of them come Monday... with how much space each one takes up on the screen, a more condensed overview option would be nice!
|
|
|
|
I've been hashing on Bitminter with 2/10 of my BFL's for the past several hours... no issues at all! Getting about 850 MH/s on the 864 MH/s firmware. Quite honestly, this was the easiest to set up. I tried BFL's EasyMiner, and it wouldn't let me select the "mine" option on the home screen.  Tried ufasoft and cgminer, but didn't spend the time to figure out how to set it up properly, as I was trying to hurry. Downloaded BitMinter, and it worked perfectly right out of the box. Thanks! |
|
|
|
|
To clarify, mine shipped on 5/10, and I received 2 of them today. I guess the other two boxes got held up at the Portland post office? But they should arrive Monday, 5/14.
|
|
|
|
That is why I also have the full address listed on the check, If the merchant checks only the firstbits and does not validate the whole address that is their mistake, TBH. Don't get me wrong I had thought of that, but at the same time personal responsibility of your own payments is like Bitcoin 101.
What is the point of including the firstbits on the check then, if they aren't to be used to validate the check balance? |
|
|
|
How do you have firstbits printed on the bills before funding them? That isn't possible. You can't just guess what your firstbits will be. You have to get the address in the blockchain first.
When the address is used it will appear in the block chain, I currently use 6 characters to avoid any mismatches, if this proves to be a problem I will switch to 7. However if someone else funds an address with same prefix before your customer funds his then the check will have the wrong firstbit. But they will also have an unfunded check, also the reason for 6 characters. To be safe, I'd just send a satoshi to each of the check addresses to get them into the blockchain and have valid firstbits. I think it's a good idea to have the firstbits on the check, but better to be safe than sorry! You can use sendmany for each batch to minimize fees. It wouldn't cost more than a few cents total, definitely worth it IMO if you want to have a product that seems completely legitimate! Otherwise, you'll keep being asked the same question over and over about the firstbits.  Yeah. This would work and guarantee that you don't ever have an incorrect firstbits. I don't really want to send out funded checks and the firstbits are only ment as a reference number to check the transaction, not the sole means of funding. I'd hardly call a satoshi "funded". Just don't tell anyone it is there. Anyway, I gave my opinion, you don't have to take it. Best of luck, and I still want a free one!  |
|
|
|
Slick. I just bought "Bitcoin - What It Is and Why It Matters" by sending BTC to the address. I tried the Buy Now button but Chrome tried to pop open my Armory wallet which I don't use. Anyway to change the default?
Thx.
The default client doesn't have support for those types of Bitcoin URLs.... Yet. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
