doubt it, what's the point of only partially repaying off your credit card at all. they'll just make minimum payments and wait it out. only mgio here sounds like he wants to sell at a neverending loss  So you are betting on BTC increasing fast enough to outweigh the 20%+ interest being charged for not paying off the balance? |
|
|
|
feel free to ask me rather than speculate i coded the damn miner and made the screen shot guy
Ok. a) Why is one miner generating more than 10 times as many shares, at the same hashrate? b) Why do these shares not seem to be leading to any found blocks? |
|
|
|
hashrate on pools is based on the speed of submitted shares. an optimised miner is an advantage the same way an ASIC is an advantage. people without the advantage will say its unfair
The two clients in the screenshot are reporting the same hashrate, but submitting greatly different numbers of shares. So the client has not been optimised to perform more hashes per second, or that would be reflected in the local hashrate. Either: a) The hashrate display is wrong b) Less hashes are being performed per share submitted c) Shares are being submitted that would not have passed the other client's checks, or d) One miner just got really really lucky Blocks found, over a long enough period, should be roughly in proportion to shares submitted and accepted. To be generating that much hashrate, and that many shares, but seemingly not finding any blocks, suggests that the shares being submitted are invalid in some way. |
|
|
|
|
Well something is iffy, as the reported hashrate by both miners in those screenshots is the same, despite the large disparity in shares submitted, and it doesn't seem like the 'improved' miner is actually finding any blocks.
|
|
|
|
great work, good job, thank you  This pool was great sadly users 2many280s and spoetnik ruined it by coming in huge hashrate (5 Mh/s and more) without ever finding any block! They just keep most of the profits for themselves without real contribution while the honest miner are finding block but earning only a very low amount of SRC (about 1/10 of the normal gain when those people were not on the pool). Clearly there is a problem and I hope it comes from the pool and not from the coin. There really is a security flaw somewhere about accepting hashs that are not producive to block finding in the appropriate statistical amount... Meanwhile I had to change pool until this problem is solved. your a lying sack of shit ! security flaw ? what called Github where buddy posted his fucking code ? every occur to you i'm hashing more because i have faster hardware ? 2many280's OWNS SERVERS he has SERVER HARDWARE and he has given me hash for testing occasionally.. this is not an exploit idiot its called mining. and go look at that pool dumb ass.. the one you quoted and tell me who found the last block.. that would be me by myself with a fucking core 2 duo 7500 your an idiot and i don't appreciate the accusations. The last two confirmed blocks on that pool were found by user cawa_leb. None of the last 15 confirmed blocks were found by you or 2many280s. |
|
|
|
Well, how much do you rate USD at your bank account? If it is face value, that means you believe that your bank can NEVER EVER fail, go down or be bankrupt. If it is less, how do you convince your bank to give you 1 USD balance on every 99 cents deposited (for example)?
In most countries, retail deposits below a certain threshold are guaranteed by the central bank. So the lack of trust would lead to people with total cash above that limit to spread the money around between different banks to always stay below the limit at each one. Given the availability of these guaranteed accounts, people would only use less safe ones if they offered large incentives, such as much higher interest rates. That is the way they offer you more than 1 USD balance for 99c depositied. |
|
|
|
OK I think this is enough. For 3 days, I've been waiting for this super hard block to be solved, and it was not solved, and I don't know how long it will take. The blockchain is jammed. The coin is about to be dead. Thanks to all the attackers to put IFC in this situation. Mining a coin isn't an attack, it is what it is there for. IFC is in this situation due to a poorly coded difficulty adjustment algorithm. |
|
|
|
As many of the forum users are already aware...Google Ventures investments have a strong possibility of becoming wholly owned subsidiaries. What proportion of previous Google Ventures investments have become wholly owned subsidiaies? |
|
|
|
FRB won't affect the money's value. The money's value is decided by the value that backed it when the money is issued. So in principle the money's value is still stable even after QE, since all the new money issued by FED are based on the value of assets they hold, and those assets were all valued at a stable price
Someday when those assets get consumed or discarded, then the corresponding issued money will lose their value, that is inflation. Since money almost never get consumed but the underlying assets do, the inflation is a constant pressure, it means the goods for trade must be continuously produced to counter this effect The dollar is not asset backed. Even if it were asset backed, the assets would have stayed the same, and more dollars would exist, so each dollar would be worth less. That is what inflation is. QE == increasing total money supply == reducing value of each unit of money == inflation |
|
|
|
It is not the intensity of trusting that increases or decreases, but rather the object of that trust: it is the value most people trust that increases or decreases. No matter how intensely people trust that gold is worth $1,400.00, this does not increase its value in a cent. However, if most people trust gold is worth $1,500.00 rather than $1,400.00, then it value increases in $100.00. It is not the trust itself, but rather the trusted value: before people can trust any value, there must be a value to trust. With many securities, and money, the ideal value is fixed. A $10 dollar note is worth a fixed amount of $10 dollars, if it is redeemed. What changes is peoples' trust that the security will be redeemed for that fixed value. As the risk of default increases, the value people are prepared to pay decreases, and that is because they have less trust in the issuer than they did before. You can see this with company bonds and government debts, they each trade a different discount to face value, because of the different level of trust people have that they will be redeemed, and not defaulted on. Trust (risk of default) determines the price that a fixed-value asset trades at. |
|
|
|
|
If Bitcoin has an intrinsic value, it should be unaffected by such pumping and dumping.
They buy a million dollars of Bitcoin, that pumps the price up, they sell a million dollars worth fir thing, that dumps the price down.
At the end, nothing has changed, except they have 'donated' a million dollars to Bitcoin owners.
|
|
|
|
Money has not always been dollars, pounds, euros, or yen, and even in those forms it is not just an IOU: it is rather both practically and conceptually mistaken by an IOU. Please (re)read the post opening this thread.
I disagree with your opening post. Money is a generalised unit of barter, backed by a central authority. Remove the trust in the unit of barter, money loses value. your "trust" argument ( https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=298681.msg3203857#msg3203857): [...] Likewise, although we must trust each other to buy from and sell to each other, the exchange value of our commodities and money does not come from our trusting each other (otherwise, the more we trusted each other, the more valuable our commodities and money would become).
I didn't say anything about trusting each other. It is about both trusting the money itself, which means trusting the IOU issuer. And yes, when that trust increases or decreases, the value of money (relative to other currencies) does change. |
|
|
|
He's talking about how money devaluation over time affects chains of transactions: even if the money received for selling something were then worth it, what matters is how much it will be worth when it buys something else. During that time, the money supply will expand, transferring the resulting devaluation amount to whoever controls its emission. Which over the time period of a standard retail transaction is irrelevant. At the time of purchase, we both agree that X amount of money is fair value for the goods. We both have the same information available, so those effects should be priced in on both sides. |
|
|
|
Money has not always been dollars, pounds, euros, or yen, and even in those forms it is not just an IOU: it is rather both practically and conceptually mistaken by an IOU. Please (re)read the post opening this thread.
I disagree with your opening post. Money is a generalised unit of barter, backed by a central authority. Remove the trust in the unit of barter, money loses value. |
|
|
|
If you do not understand the difference between monetary exchange and barter, then it will be very hard for you to understand that between money and an IOU. I don't think there is any difference between money (dollars, pounds, euros, yen) and an IOU. It is just an IOU issued by a very trusted institution. As such it functions as a general unit of value transfer, because it is worth the same to both sides of the transaction. That is what we all think and how we all act, but there unit used (dollars, pounds, euros, yen) to transfer value change over time so it isn't the same to both sides of the transaction. The value of the unit is manipulated by FRB and the Central Bank. Unless you are buying or selling goods to the central bank, they aren't on either side of the transction, so your comment is unconnected to what I said. |
|
|
|
|
I've found the process to be extremely unreliable, sometimes taking several hours to actually send the codes.
|
|
|
|
If you do not understand the difference between monetary exchange and barter, then it will be very hard for you to understand that between money and an IOU. I don't think there is any difference between money (dollars, pounds, euros, yen) and an IOU. It is just an IOU issued by a very trusted institution. As such it functions as a general unit of value transfer, because it is worth the same to both sides of the transaction. |
|
|
|
It works, for the most part, just fine.
It does for the banks, not for the rest of us - and soon it will not even do for the banks. The purpose of money is as a general purpose IOU or instrument of barter, which is trusted enough that people accept it. It works fine for that. People get paid, they pay rent, they buy gas and groceries. That is what money is for, in everyday use. |
|
|
|
Only the central bank can 'create' money.
Normal retail banks cannot just print more money.
Commercial banks create money just as the central bank does. No, only the central bank can 'create' money, that is increase the total amount of X currency in existence. |
|
|
|
Chip and Pin doesn't work like that.
The card reader is supplied by the credit card company, and communicates directly to them, not through the retailer.
The retailer enters the amount to be charged, and hands the device to you. You see on the screen how much money will be sent, and choose to enter your Pin or not. You are pushing an amount of money you choose to the retailer, not trusting them to pull the right amount.
Not quite. The card reader is provided by a merchant acquirer. I accept the correction here. In this model, it simply isn't possible for what you said to be true. The communication is from the merchant, to the merchant acquirer, to the switch and then to the issuer. But not here. The device communicates to the 'merchant acquirer', the merchant is not part of the chain. Sure, you may well authorise the request and provide a credential (your PIN) that allows the merchant to attest to the fact that you were present and authorised the request. But it's still a *request*. And you're trusting all the parties in that chain to present the request to the issuer such that what you authorised matches what is taken. I'm not trusting the merchant (beyond trust that they have not supplied a hacked device), because their role ended when they entered the purchase amount into the device. I get to see that before entering my PIN to authorise the transaction, and I keep the device until the transaction has completed. And I would argue that it's unambiguously a "pull" from the merchant, not a "push" from the purchaser. I think that is ultimately semantics. The important point is that I am choosing the amount to be transferred, I am not relying on the merchant for that. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
