Q1: I wonder, are the majority of people trading bitcoins represented on this board?
Q2: Have you ever been influenced on a trading decision by posts on this forum?
I have, numerous times.
Q3: Do you trust your fellow speculators?
Q4: How much do you think is deception where people suggest a different action and take another?
A1: Beats me. Why would it matter? A2: Never. The very idea is ludicrous. A3: Trust should never enter into a trading decision. If you need it, you are too weak to play. A4: Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by ignorance. You're missing out then. |
|
|
|
I read allways that the BFL-Singles need ~80Watt. My PC with 1 mining GPU HD5770 and 15 BFL-Singles v3 suck ~920 Watt from the wall. My PC and GPU need 180 Watt; the 15 BFL's need 740Watt. This give only ~50Watt/Single ; this with the orginal China-Powersupply.  Or is something wrong with my measurement? It has been a long time since I have taken an electronics class, but I believe wattage would be lower if voltage was higher. If you were running on 220, then that might explain it. I believe you mentioned German Windows in another thread, so I thought you might be in Europe and figured I'd point this out. Yes..I'm from Switzerland. We have 230V. What I know is wattage is allways the same. The Ampere go down (P=UxI) If the Powersupply only suck 50Watt by 230V (0.21A), then it can not give more by 12Volt. Only the Ampere go up to 4.16A. (Not including the inefficienc of the China-Powerupply) Or I'm wrong? No, you are correct. Wattage remains the same regardless of what voltage you are running at. Higher voltage just means lower amperage needs to be drawn to equate to the same wattage. |
|
|
|
The suggested double spend alert would be hard to do as it would open doors for DOS attacks.
I see only green addresses or to a degree well connected clients to do instant payment for now.
In the end I wouldn't worry too much about brick and mortar fraud as here the client has a face to loose within 10s. It would just be too risky to actually see my double spend attempt being identified as such even within 10s.
Exactly. You may as well just run out of the establishment with the goods in hand. It'd be the same result either way. |
|
|
|
|
What are you using to measure?
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks Kluge - everything went smoothly!
|
|
|
|
http://zipconf.comThis will be the solution for 0 confirmation transactions. This service will only work with exchanges at the moment, but its only a matter of time before BitPay or coinDL use a similar system to protect them from double-spends. And there you go! An intermediary processor that takes the risk of double-spends in exchange for a fee. |
|
|
|
|
Any service that uses 0-conf is usually for cheap, low-dollar goods. Businesses take the same risk when they sell goods that might potentially be bought with counterfeit dollars, a stolen credit card, or a bad check. Bad funds received are just a part of doing business.
It's not likely that many people will go through the trouble of doing a 0-conf double spend, and those that do will need to cover their tracks well. It can be days before a business knows that they received a bad check - 10 seconds means the criminal needs to get out of a physical location quickly! For digital downloads and such, if enough people do it, then they'll simply wait a bit longer to give away the download link, or whatever it is they are waiting on.
|
|
|
|
|
Interesting idea...
Is it true that a horse that loses a few times is difficult to train to win?
|
|
|
|
|
Awesome - I'm all for it!
I think websites will initially need to clarify what the link is for, and how it needs to be utilized. On a computer without Armory installed, clicking on a bitcoin URL just opens a blank tab. This would confuse anyone who didn't realize what it was or was supposed to do.
|
|
|
|
In theory it should be faster than cgminer and the other miners, because of faster work dispatch. In practice the difference is negligible (less than 1 Mhps per BFL single). This may prove more useful with the rig boxes. Instead of checking whether the device is done with 10 ms pauses in between checks, it will first leave the device in peace until it gets close to done (cgminer does the same), then start 10 ms polling, and when it gets very close to done it starts 1 ms polling. This allows quick reaction pushing out new work once the device is idle. Right after it goes "ok, I'm all done, I think I'll just read the newspaper now" you have to detect that situation quickly and put it back to work. You can click the wrench and change the 10 ms and 1 ms values. You could even change the 1 ms to 0 ms. Running with 0 ms might be ok. It won't hog the CPU as much as the AMD drivers do/did.  I just thought it might be a bit brutal for a default setting. Cool, looking forward to giving it a try! |
|
|
|
|
Looking to do a rather large BTC transaction, and I want to use the most trustworthy escrow service. I see btcrow.com is still in business, but I've also seen thrucoin.com. Any others out there? Which would you label as the most trustworthy?
|
|
|
|
|
Very cool! Will definitely be giving this a shot when I receive mine...
How is the hashrate on the BFL's compared to cgminer?
|
|
|
|
Well you did...but they didn't get it. I think I forgot to remove the old entry.
Ok, yes, that is true. |
|
|
|
|
I did not order 10 on 2/24... that order should be removed. I DID order 10 on 3/13.
|
|
|
|
It'd be interesting to somehow compare the average hashrate to the pool payouts. See if there are any pools that are consistently paying out less than the others with regards to a payout/hashrate ratio.
I suppose it would require a miner to be pointed at each pool, and assume all else being equal.
Doesn't require mining, only a calculator, provided the pools post enough stats to make calculations. 1 share ≈ 2^32 hashes or 4294.967296 megahashes
60*60*24 seconds in a day = 86,400 seconds/day
1010MH/sec = 87,264,000 Megahashes/day
Shares/day = (MHash/day) / (Megahashes/share)
Shares/day = 87264000 / 4294.967296
Shares/day ≈ 20317.73
Payout/day = 20317.73 * 0.00003 Bitcoins/share
Payout/day = 0.60953199 Bitcoins Above, the Payout Per Share is .00003 Eclipse has a 12% better payout currently over Ozcoin, while Eligius doesn't publish, that I could find, average shares round. {Pools total mega hashes} * 86,400 / 4294.967296 * nPPS / {Pools total Gigahashes} = ⊅BTC per GH/s per day nPPS can be any reasonable arbitrary value, .00003 can be used. It won't represent actual payouts just differences between pools. But isn't the pool hashrate estimated based on the number of shares? Couldn't the pool misrepresent the number of shares? Or the payout per block? Or etc, etc, etc? I think there's a lot of wiggle room for pools to potentially skim or scrap coins off the top without anyone noticing. That's why I'd be interested in a direct comparison on the same hardware between 10 of the most popular pools. |
|
|
|
Because roadsigns are cool, and two roadsigns in a row are doubley-cool, and two of the exact same roadsigns in a row is a combo.  |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
