|
FWIW, multipool is on the same chain as kick-ass
|
|
|
|
Once again, the chips were never tested or put into different batches. That was to save us week(s) of production time, not to mention costs and development costs of the testing scripts. Are you an official spokesman for KNC? |
|
|
|
|
Another suggestion:
Currently, any time any change is made on the Coin settings page, all miners are stopped are restarted, which is quite inefficient.
a) It doesn't make any sense to do this is strategies are turned off, unless pool information for an active coin has been changed.
b) It doesn't make sense to do this if strategies are turned on, unless pool info for an active coin has changed, or profitability changes mean that a new coin should be selected.
|
|
|
|
I guess either of those would work in theory. You can also turn off the feature in whole if you don't use it. Or if you have some suggestion for a way this could work better for you let me know. I think the feature is useful to suggest coins you might not have thought about, but once you've investigated the coin, you either add it, or decide not to, and probably don't want to hear about it again. Perhaps a new option on the popup recommendation in the app, for do-not-suggest again. So each coin you don't want to know about would only be recommended once. Perhaps a new tab on the coins setting dialog could list those coins that are currently ignored in this way, and you could add/remove coins from that in the same way as from the current list. Edit: Another suggestion. The recommendations use only the coin nickname, but the add coin list shows only the full name, and for some coins it isn't always an obvious mapping. Perhaps the coin add list could show "Full Name (Abbr)"? |
|
|
|
|
Is the a recommended way to disable recommendations for particular coins?
For example, I only want to mine coins listed on cryptsy, so don't want to see recommendations for other coins.
What I have been doing so far is adding the coins, not setting any pool details, and setting the profitability adjustment to 0%/multiplication.
Is there a reasonable approach, or will it cause other issues?
Should I just untick the 'coin configuration enabled' instead, will that stop recommendations?
|
|
|
|
Just to make sure I'm not missing something. If you are using MobileMiner to control MultiMiner remotely, there is no way to change what coin is being mined? That seems like a really useful feature, say if you find a coin has forked and want to steer clear of it, no matter what difficulty is being reported. I was expecting to be able to click on one of my devices and choose from a list of configured coins, or to turn on/off the strategy. It keeps sending me messages saying I should switch coins, but doesn't let me do it  |
|
|
|
From the original post: AUCTION FOR ALL USERS WILL END Friday 1 November at 24:00 (Refers to this board Time, 00.01 is out of time)
Next day is payments day while i prepare the PERSONAL COPY of C.A.T. |
|
|
|
As to a): it's exactly the same risk as passing your traffic through an ISP, a proxy, a VPS or basically normal internet traffic. Namely: passive observers can record your encrypted data. MITM is as big (or small) a risk here as it is with a normal internet connection: do you trust the certificate being presented as from bankofamerica? Well no, it isn't exactly the same risk, is it? A standard secured connection is a very well known and understood setup, which large companies do all the time. You are talking about a brand new, untested, bespoke, security setup. The risk of security failure in the latter is much higher than the former. Issuing to an escrow, in a dispute case, ONE ssl key that will expose ONE html page (a relationship which you can verify on your local host) is EXACTLY the same issue as whether you want to give your bank statement to that person on paper. If your security setup was perfect, then in practice it might be as secure in practice. It isn't exactly the same from the bank's point of view, because showing someone the statement doesn't involve any possiblity of compromising the security of your account, because it is a static bit of data. Accessing your account through someone else's system, where the bank cannot be confident that that system is secured, is not the same thing. Showing them your bank statement would be the equivalent of emailing someone a screenshot of your online banking. (Again, I responded to (b) in the last post of page 7 - or maybe that depends how your config is on this forum, it was 5 posts back). It would depend on the working of your particular bank's TOS. I wouldn't be confident that there isn't some clause they could find that would cover this situation. |
|
|
|
a) Is it against your bank's TOS to print out a webpage showing a proof-of-payment and handing it over to another party? If not, then why should this be different? You are not sharing your login-credentials.
b) Is it stupid to print out a proof-of-payment from your bank and use it as a proof-of-payment? It is different, because you are deliberately sharing your online banking session with someone else. You are potentially opening yourself up to fraud. Maybe you don't understand that you can audit the software running on Amazon AWS? Do you think your bank will do that? Or that they will care. a) Have you shared your session with someone else: Yes b) Is that against our TOS: Yes c) Will we refuse to compensate you if you lose money due to fraud: Yes It doesn't matter here whether technically there is or isn't risk of your credentials being stolen. Your bank has not agreed that you can extend their security umbrella to some Amazon AWS instance they've never even heard of. There are two distinct issues: a) Is this actually a security risk, can you 100% guarantee the security of the setup, and that there can't be a rogue operator or man in the middle? b) Is it against your banks TOS anyway? The answer to b) doesn't depend on the answer to a). |
|
|
|
I just say, that it cannot be against the law. If you connect to your banking website, then your connection is routed via many different software components. And in the end the Amazon AWS instance will also just be another software which is routing your traffic to the bank. So how should they prohibit this?
I would not even share my login-credentials with any other person, because it is just a software.
Do you think it is against the law to enter your bank-account password into Internet Explorer, because this will effectively share your login information with Microsoft? Because there you even cannot be sure, because it is closed source. With the Amazon AWS instance it would be open source and therefore you can be sure that you don't share your password.
I've never said that sharing your credentials is against the law. I have said that: a) It is against your bank's TOS, and b) It is stupid And there is a difference between using software and, unknown to you, there being an exploit which leaks your information, and you voluntarily sharing your information. |
|
|
|
I haven't personally paid thousands of dollars to use KNCMiner, either. I was smart enough to purchase BTC directly and only invest what I EXPECTED to lose in a mining operation for the enjoyment of participation. This thread should be renamed "Angry about your choice of investment? Blame others here!"
And if people are angry because they've got their miners, they are hashing away, but won't make positive ROI because of increased difficulty, that is perfectly fair. If KNC have simply failed to deliver what they promised to, it isn't. |
|
|
|
But this Oh and forget that "we're all busy" crap...they have a hell of a lot of money to hire a few temps for a week like any other very busy business does.
could be (and has been) said about this very forum we all use to support the BTC community. And how many thousands of dollars have you paid to use this forum? |
|
|
|
I know that many people drive drunk. This may be against the law (and really f*cking stupid), but they do it anyway. People do stupid things all the time, and most parents teach their children that just because other people are doing stupid things, that doesn't mean they should do them too. |
|
|
|
Now, the system described here would not even share your login-credentials. I don't think that banks could deny someone to use a proxy server. In the end every internet traffic is routed via some other servers. So how should they have some TOS to prevent that? You aren't just 'using a proxy', you are deliberately another person access to your supposedly secure bank connection. This is a bad idea.If you bank finds out that you have done it, they may well cancel your account, and would certainly refuse to compensate you for any fraud that happened on your account. |
|
|
|
There's nothing contradictory, you guys are just muddying the clear water. Why copy/pasting instead of properly quoting something? Because that way it can't be seen the quote you are giving is posted before, not after the one I've quoted. The sentence:
Are you sure? The post you quoted was #1277, posted at 03:59 AM (in my timezone) https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=262052.msg3328435#msg3328435 Re: HashFast announces specs for new ASIC: 400GH/s
Today at 03:59:55 AM
Reply with quote #1277
IMPORTANT UPDATE
HashFast customers opting for the Miner Protection Program will receive their additional ASICs already assembled onto mini-boards. The retraction was post #1282, posted at 06:08 AM (in my timezone) https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=262052.msg3328732#msg3328732
Re: HashFast announces specs for new ASIC: 400GH/s
Today at 06:08:24 AM
Reply with quote #1282
Hey Guys,
This statement needs to be clarified and was released prematurely. We are currently in the final stages of an internal discussion about how to further protect miners moving forward for customers that opt into purchasing it.
We have preliminarily decided to further protect our miners that opt in for the miner protection at a higher price point, and provide full modules for orders placed in Batch 2 and 3. Unless there is another post you have seen, but not quoted here, the timeframe is pretty clear: i) First, the blanket provision was given ii) Then it was retracted, and a new provision for only batches 2 and 3 was given. |
|
|
|
This is not true. After the last difficulty update a week ago CEX.IO price for GHs hardly blinked, it stabilized very quickly at around the same level as before the difficulty update. Why? Because you keep forgetting you are not renting GHs the owner can opt you out on his will, you are buying GHs which you can sell at your will and regain the majority off the profit from that sale, not only from mining. But if it is overpriced for the amount of Bitcoin it can generate, why would you be able to resell it for that overpriced figure? |
|
|
|
It can't be more clear than this in today's update: It can't be less clear than the contradictory posts made. It seems that the right hand doesn't know what the left hand is doing. |
|
|
|
Lastly (the important bit, that usually will not happen), if there's a dispute from the seller after the appropriate waiting time, the escrow asks the buyer to log in to oracle machine with previously agreed credentials and run internet banking using the firefox plugin which enables (a) the internet banking to be proxied through the oracle machine and (b)some ssl stuff, in particular a button to press to clear the ssl cache so that the buyer controls which html pages will get exposed.
Finally, the buyer will send the specific ssl session key that allows the escrow to read that specific html page showing proof of his wire transfer (in particular, of course, the bank account number sent to and the amount). This will enable the escrow to resolve the dispute. And any sensible buyer would say: "Hell, no, I'm not going to do that." This has to be against the TOS of any online banking service, and would leave the buyer open to fraud with no protection from their bank, if it is found out that they have shared their session like this. |
|
|
|
|
Yes. There is gain once the order is completed.
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
