|
And gone. Didn't take long.
|
|
|
|
To all gigaminers, Coupon payments are out. You can see all the details at http://gigamining.com. Best, gigavps Thanks giga. |
|
|
|
|
Who am I to refuse freebies?
|
|
|
|
In case anyone was wondering, 50 BTC of the proceeds from this raffle went to ckolivas for his work in reengineering the networking portion of cgminer to make it work better with gpumax.
Thanks ckolivas!
That was kind of you, kudos. |
|
|
|
Updated. Kept the other 6950 due to it having locked shaders.
That would be expected! I should have posted with the same clocks to compare locked/unlocked more accurately. With the multitude of 6950 models, this list needs a 1GB version too. There was one posted by bitlane on the first page, but it had the same MH/s as his non-1GB model, so I didn't think it worth adding. Memory size is effectively irrelevant to hashing power, so unless it affects necessary settings, I don't think it would be necessary to differentiate, but I've never had personal experience, so enlighten me if there are any significant differences with regard to mining. |
|
|
|
If someone is a proven scammer, then they should get the scammer tag right away. They can pay back afterward and have the tag removed.
I wasn't willing to scammer-tag shakaru immediately because I felt that he was not a scammer. At the time I thought that his contracts were broken accidentally and he was going to start paying back the money ASAP. I guess you want the "potential scammer" tag to apply to people who have accidentally broken contracts but haven't paid back yet, since intentional contract-breakers and people who refuse to start paying back are given the scammer tag right away. This seems too harsh to me, and likely to cause drama when a high-reputation member is accidentally a few days late on a loan payment.
We must toe the tightrope above the lion's pit. I think existence of this tag is better than lack thereof, but I agree we must refrain from being overzealous. Perhaps a set grace period of a few days, along with the tag itself linking to a post in a "Potential Scammers" thread explaining why that user was labeled as such. Our goal here is to help users avoid scams, but we must leave the choice and judgement up to them. |
|
|
|
Do you have any evidence that one shouldn't? I'm not here to do your homework for you, but a few things that come to mind are proven positive correlation with lifetime earning ability and state measures of wealth and income, negative correlation with prison population percentages by state, and a recent history of improvement in the SAT tests themselves.
The latter is significant, during the 80s and 90s the SATs actually were made less difficult because top schools were not seeing the high scores they once did and did not want to lower their visible thresholds for admission so they successfully applied pressure to the Educational Testing Service to tweak the numbers upwards. In the last decade increasing complaints from all schools about the reduced screening effectiveness of the test led to a restructuring of the tests, for example, testing writing abilities.
Considering the period when the SATs were "dumbed down" so Harvard and others could look good, the 40 year decline in performance described in the articles above is actually worse than the score data would indicate. One might also wonder how much denialism about the validity of the tests impacted student performance, if Joe Know-Nothing's kids picked up the message that they didn't need to perform on no steenking SAT tests because the tests were not meaningful, pressure to perform in the areas the tests measure may have been removed.
You're on an incorrect thread of causality. Success on the SATs has virtually nothing to do with intelligence; it's about half information regurgitation and half test-taking skills. Scores have declined over the years because a fair portion of the public has realized that standardized tests are no measure of future success and has stopped treating them as such. The fact that people who do well on their SATs are more likely to succeed is irrelevant; simply doing well on the SAT has a significant effect on college admissions, scholarships, and the like - enough to skew percentages that the ETS will no doubt use to persuade people of the validity of its test. I'm not disagreeing with the claim that education in the States is getting worse - nor am I agreeing with it - but in any case SAT scores are no valid proof of anything except the willingness of the public to accept far too much at face value. |
|
|
|
A mean of what data set? The wiki?
Whatever you decide is a useful and valid data source. I would take just the submissions in this thread. That way you can ask questions to the submitters about the some settings that you cannot do via Wiki. Hmm. I'm not sure I have enough data here for anything meaningful. If I see a result off from the norm, though, I'll definitely query more closely. Updated. Kept the other 6950 due to it having locked shaders. |
|
|
|
|
Pretty ingenious, thanks for the laughs.
|
|
|
|
I've gotten banned from IRC...So I wont be on that for a while...lol
I'll find a way to get to it sometime soon, I have a Remote VPS, so i can use that.. =)
Start your own channel, not too hard. freenode banned him I didn't know Freenode did a lot of active moderation; I thought they only banned malicious bots and the like. |
|
|
|
Microtronix is pro, good company to work with
+1 to this. My experiences with them have been naught but excellent. |
|
|
|
BDK has purchased 750 future shares of ZipConf for 300BTC (.4BTC/share). More on that when it's launched Monday.
Hmm? No thread on the forums and their website is only partially functional. Sorry for the delay in the IPO release thread as well as the service announcement, they should both be posted soon  //DeaDTerra You've certainly piqued my curiosity. More info can be found at https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=74975.msg873084#msg873084 //DeaDTerra Ah, missed that, thank you. |
|
|
|
BDK has purchased 750 future shares of ZipConf for 300BTC (.4BTC/share). More on that when it's launched Monday.
Hmm? No thread on the forums and their website is only partially functional. Sorry for the delay in the IPO release thread as well as the service announcement, they should both be posted soon //DeaDTerra You've certainly piqued my curiosity. |
|
|
|
|
Smells a bit fishy to me... What exactly are you using these for?
|
|
|
|
I can't seem to find a register link, have you implemented that yet?
Just a guess but since the thread is titled starting may 1st I'll have to say that it is 99.999999999% likely its disabled...  The site itself is functional - virtual hashing doesn't start until the 1st. |
|
|
|
~4.5 Ghash/s for rent
Elaborate. Price? Time? |
|
|
|
He seems to have set up that IPO on the "sandbox" page of GLBSE that was recently wiped and is used to test new features before they hit the real GLBSE page.  On the other hand, GLBSE can be a bit confusing - still I think an hour or two of research should be possible for anyone interested in getting money from there. If there is still something unclear it is also possible to contact their support or ask on the forums here. He's either drunk, high, or trolling. Don't over analyze it. |
|
|
|
|
I can't seem to find a register link, have you implemented that yet?
|
|
|
|
BDK has purchased 750 future shares of ZipConf for 300BTC (.4BTC/share). More on that when it's launched Monday.
Hmm? No thread on the forums and their website is only partially functional. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
