a question on that subject was brought up, so i answered it.

The point was that even though the 5870 is the worst Mhash/W ratio of the 3 choices mentionned, it's the best Mhash/$, partly cause it can overclock so well when compared to dual gpu cards. This is relevant to the choice of cards imo.

Now, let's admit that four 5870's hash like two 6990, it would cost $700~800 to get the 5870s off of ebay, and $1400 for the cheapest 6990's out there. At worst this is a $600 difference. Assuming the 5870's run at 200W/h and the 6990 at 250W/h (im taking large figures here on purpose) you'd be at a 300W deficit per hour with the 5870's. At an expensive $0.20/kW(exagerating figures again), you'd be paying an extra $1.44 electricity per day compared to the 6990's. At this rate, the 6990's will close the gap in 416 days, or a little short of a year and 2 months. I'd take the 5870's, not to mention that you can build up to it slowly with the profit generated by cumulative card purchase.

5870's can squeeze 360mhash each with an average o/c on stock voltage.

name the blinds and the time, let's see what happens

Let's make a distinction here. There are brainwashed central banking and debt based economy lovers who come over this forum to "enlighten" us with whatever rationalization of this wretched system they came up with to make it all fit in their head. Those people don't intend to use Bitcoins nor do they understand it. Those you can bash.

Then there are newbies, who have a genuine interest in Bitcoin and are trying to understand it. Those you should be nice to.

care linking your source? I've got different numbers:

http://benchmarkreviews.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=706&Itemid=72&limit=1&limitstart=16

5970 on load = 299W
6990 on load = 350W

This indeed doesn't take in account the power saved through ram underclocking, and i think it is quite possible to get the 6990 to run in the lower 3xx, but I doubt it'll fetch below 300. I don't know how faster the 6990 is compared to the 5970, but I wonder if it justifies the $700 price tag considering you can get 5970s on ebay for less than $450 shipped. At any rate, you can get three 5970 for the price of two 6990. Better $/MHash for sure.

As for four 5870, they'll definitely draw more power than two 6990. Although single gpu cards o/c much better, so I wonder if a 6990 combo could beat four 5870.

lmao at the Tor part

US Treasury bonds that the congress "sells" to the Fed don't hold a debt, since even though there is interest on it, the Fed returns that interest back to the Treasury. If the congress wants to reduce the outstanding amount of bonds in the economy, it buys a few back from the Fed, but interests aren't involved. There is an ongoing scam on the selling and buying of US Treasury bonds to individuals though, on which the government has to pay interest. The Fed can't just print money on its own accord, but they get to control the interest rate of the (fake) money they loan out to the financial institutions.

"Monetary sovereignty" holds no power. The government has 3 ways of raising funds: tax money, outright printing money through the fed, or borrowing on the market, by selling Treasury bonds to whoever wishes to buy them and paying interests on it to the holder.

This "monetary sovereignty" delusion is just a scam when you understand those points: Any interests collected by the Fed is returned to the treasury, and taxes are an interest free supply of money, which means the only source of outstanding Federal debt is from loans taken on the market. Why would a country with the power to print as much money as it wants borrow so much money on the market that the interest on it will exceed its GDP? Certainly if they can print money, they don't need to borrow this much, do they?

Hell, why would the government even need taxes if it can just make all the dollars it needs out of thin air? Simply because if the government printed every dollar it needed, the inflation would destroy the economy. To prevent that, they borrow already existing money. The problem is, when the interest becomes too big, they start inflating the monetary mass to ease up the payments.

That so called monetary sovereignty is not only powerless at keeping the economy healthy, it gives power to the government to largely exceed its outstanding funds by taking a huge dump on the economy.

You don't understand what fractional banking is... Nor do you understand why it's a problem.

It's common sense to take a collateral for a loan. This may require the transaction to be done in the open. From my stand point, a Bitcoin CU would operate the exact same as a regular CU, only that it lends Bitcoin. Certain financial practices require for the parties involved to be known. The anonymous aspect of Bitcoin is a plus, but not a necessity in itself. And frankly, the anonymous part is really icing on the cake. As long as your funds can't be ceased or frozen, you're exposing yourself to much less risks by dealing in the open.

http://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=4446.0

this post might interest you

slush didn't just walk in there saying "hey ima assault your pool". He defended his score system, that FairUser and Geebus presented as unfair. He exposed how it was mathematically yielding the same result as a share based pool, and how it protected against Raulo's attack. Now you don't see slush saying how he'll attack Tycho's pool to prove share based distribution vulnerable, simply because you don't see Tycho pretending score based systems are unfair.

Now, it is up to one's opinion to disregard mathematical evidence. If you manage to build a successful pool while remaining exposed to an exploit, the more power to you. It is a different matter if such opinion is the basis of one's criticism of the mathematical evidence. In a public discussion, your opinion doesn't weight the same as a mathematical theory.


For information I tried the pool with the moded miner. I related that part of the discussion because it led to the locking of the thread. To the question "what are the downsides of BitcoinPool.com", i answered "the pool hopping", which is also relevant to the discussion prior to the lock down. And however frustrating it might have been FU and G, you might consider the fact that they're the ones who accused slush of cheating his pool. You should be prepared for a flame war when you go around flaming others. I mean, this is the internet.


Maybe yes, maybe no. I don't speak for slush but i can come up with a few arguments as to why he has little interest in performing that test under all these conditions. I'll elaborate if you so desire. Note also that slush offered to perform the attack under his name before Geebus gave in.

The main source of drama and the primary draw back on BitcoinPool.com is around miners hopping out of the long blocks. FairUser and Geebus presented their pool as superior in 4 aspects:

1) Their miner, a modified version of poclbm, which main change is an askrate defined by your hash/s as opposed to the 1-10sec offered by the original poclbm. Their argument is that giving enough time to the miners (based on their respective hash rate) to complete the hashes they request will increase the efficiency of the pool and eventually decrease the blocks completion time at equivalent speed when compared to the other pools. The concept is certainly interesting, and the operators invited miners to come and compare their speed with stock poclbm vs the moded miner on their pool. This invitation is at the origin of MOST of the hoping on that pool imo.

2) They distributes rewards through a share based system. They point that alternative as the fairest way to pay out their miners. This was a direct criticism of slush's pool.

3) They display full stats, live, for everyone to see, as a proof of "fairness". This time they're going after Tycho's delayed stat.

4) They don't charge any fee, that they label as "forced donations".

Putting aside the fee issue, that I consider is a fair reward for the job done by the operators, the community confronted FairUser and Geebus with their declarations: As xenon481 said, the longer askrate implies more stale shares; on the long term score based systems payed the same reward per shares contributed as a shared based system; score system and stats delaying were counter measures against pool hoppers. Even though FairUser and Geebus' idea regarding askrate had its merits, exposing its weakness resulted in much drama.

Eventually the issue focused on BitcoinPool's vulnerability to Raulo's attack. FU and G indeed made a point of accusing slush of being dishonest and exploiting his pool and disadvantaging the slower miners with his score based system. Slush confronted them, explaining that the score base system was to protect against pool hopping. FU and G refused to aknowledge the validity of such attack, so slush offered to perform the attack (under his credentials) with his 3GH/s on BitcoinPool's 10~15 GH/s. FU and G turned down the offer, now accusing slush to try to attack their pool (implicitely admitting the attack is now possible and very real).

Geebus eventually admitted to personally despise slush, Tycho and slush were then accused of trolling BitcoinPool's thread and pool, and FairUser locked the thread after posting an already defeated argument as of why he'll stick to share based rewarding while exposing full live stats at the same time.

I'd do something like this:

Don't you think he's helping by offering to expose a weakness in your system, that if exploited, could slow the block solving? You're supposed to thank someone that proves you wrong, not unleash on him.

Moi j'ai devouvert sur 4chan.

Actually im French =O

This is most likely a driver side issue. From what I gather, bridging the cards into crossfire (or having a dual gpu card) will prevent cpu load, even though you are running several instances of your miner.

You might be confusing the P2P network, that propagates the Bitcoin data, to the miners, people that willingly provide computing power (seperate from the one spent within the P2P user pool) to solve new blocks. As things are, there could be only 1 person connected to the P2P nodes while there are hundred's of miners deciphering blocks at the same time. The fee goes to the miner who resolved the block holding your transaction data, making the transaction "effective". Then the P2P network will handle the confirmations.

As for miners going "offline", the concept is that the difficulty for solving blocks is adjusted to the computing power used to solve blocks, in order to maintain an average speed of 6 blocks resolved an hour. So admiting lots of people stop mining, the difficulty would eventually be readjusted so that the few people left mining would keep up the 6 blocks/hour quota.

You make a transaction, add a fee. Naturally, the transaction will be added to a block that will eventually be processed by a miner (pool, solo, doesn't matter). The fee bumps the priority of your transaction data, pushing your transaction at the top of the queue (admitting there are only fee-less transaction waiting in the queue). Whichever miner that revolves the block holding your transaction in will receive the fee.

The issue isn't that Bitcoin is illegal, actually it isn't (yet). The issue is that you have to prove you are an American citizen to donate to an American political party. The true issue actually is that such a party has to prove it received its donation from American citizens only. This is obviously a law to prevent the involvement of non American interests in national politics, but then again, given the USA involvement in the world, maybe foreigners should have their word in American politics.