по разному, все зависит от ситуации.

конечно в молодости нужно взять по максимуму

да, не люблю жаловаться на жизнь, мы сами ее строим.

кроме спреев ничего нет лучше

только в детстве, сейчас не до этого.

кино, кафе, но лучше всего это прогулка на свежем воздухе.

Okay so this is kind of a rough intro but I've been reading a while to figure this out so bear with me and help me figure out what I may be missing! 

I've read about instituting a proof of work over on mining pools and was wondering if a shorter, block sized (avg diff 10m) proof of work were determined to be integral to your signing the proof of work  then for that ten minutes.  Doing so generates a report on your collective working capabilities for network expectations and also creating a medium for a reliable forward means of estimation of difficulty response to network preformance (if desired).  The proof of work can then be sent back to the network for checking and the cost of checking computational power can be afforded the checker after the proof of work's key begins work.  At the network level this can be based on a checker's power against participation odds. 

Then, single largest processing participant of the network is considered responsible for verifying new participants unless other users opt to ask for a share within their processing capabilities.  Offering miners a smaller stream of reliable income an compensation for participation regardless of odds of block generation success against larger pools.  Because you can't come to the table demanding a large share of computational power required to be verified unless you actually have that computational power.  Note that the network could demand a proof of work multiple times the network expectancy based on requests to join the network and the network power itself to continue hashing while checking.  Making it insular to infiltration but difficult also creates a distraction if an attacker tries to generate a steady stream of pow's instead of actually preforming work scalability of difficulty can make it next to impossible to join and adding a veteran's hash that can earn a standard difficulty pow issue from the network under such stresses (or scalable relative to a rank to work done).  So that resilience can be selective.

Proofs of work also mean that miners can be anonymized by non computing network participants opting in to network stabilization and buffering routing assistance.  Origin of work sent ot the network can be irrelevant.

With short proofs of work required to gain entry into hashing, participation of greater than %50 can be blocked for one block.  In exchange for preforming a majority (?) of pow verifications a participant can be allowed to participate up to two blocks generated if network demand for it is high (though this can be denied if an attack condition is triggered).

Preventing finny attack by making it progressively impossible to hold a majority of repeated generations while compensating them for the responsibility of network integrity under stress regardless of actual size.  The extra work of verification creates an 'over %50' power buffer value that can buy a majority miner some forgiveness by reason of subverted work toward blocks generated. 

Anyway, that's my 2BTC.  Any feedback is appreciated, thanks in advance.

I picked apolitical because anarcho-capitolism sounds a lot like fascism, which is exactly what anarchy (classic) is.  Philisophyical anarchy (as I've comed to call it.  Or, the idea that normal people can look after each other and mind the normal necessities of living with respect to one another.  But it involved an evolution of humanity or integration of technological upgrading of human intelligence to interface with global truths and accurate information to a democratic society to be realized (becuase that's really what it is, location based democracy)

I'm confused, if shares aren't signed how do you collect?

And here I thought the inflation was due to real demand generated by articles like this:
http://current.com/news/93262592_the-underground-website-where-you-can-buy-any-drug-imaginable.htm

You probably don't even need to click the link if you're already here.

Also this: http://forum.bitcoin.org/index.php?topic=12682.20

Noting that 58xx GPUs are out of stock everywhere.

Okay maybe this is too simple but why not just make a the largest mining pool ineligable for generating the next block with an exception for holding say <%20 or something of the network.  It'd come down to shares & odds against mining profitability to figure a viable cap to avoid the skip but it'd also prevent the finny weakness to by never allowing a single miner or pool to gain majority and keep it.

It would also force more and smaller pools.  The figure could even vary based on mining population (in terms of power, not individual participants) to allow larger nodes to be formed when populations go higher.

Am I missing something or could the finny attackers just pool hop between their own pools?  Seems to me there might be something here but I admittedly don't know enough about what I'm really talking about yet.  Maybe someone who does could turn it into something better.

eh, no I've seen that ad in the MI area

I have a related question to mobo choosing.  Wouldn't it be important to run these cards in x16 or x8 lanes?  If so, there's only one quad-card mobo with that support (ASUS Crosshair Extreme IV - $300).  Grabbing two mobos might be a hair cheaper with the ASRock 870 which is the cheapest board that supports x8/x8.  ASRock is kind of a new mobo printer but I think they're the shit owning one myself.  Next best value is ASUS @ $95 and Gigabytes crawling in @ $120+

So on one hand it'll be easier to stack them all up in their own box andbuying heat efficient boxes for 2 card systems will be a lot cheaper than a 4 card OC'er hotbox but then you can always build your own box like dude (LOVE THAT) and even build your own housing for it to counter the 'safety' issues.

Still, two x8/x8 rigs will only ring in $80-90 cheaper than the CrosshairIV (including an extra sempron) and also add power costs (not by much I'd imagine).

Anyway, basically i'm just wondering if the number of PCIE lanes available ot a given card will hinder performance.