Please put me down for 2 20GH/s shares of miner #5

TX ID 54f49230bda38e65f9363390b4ec1d4ffebbead41f02fc6ad4a3fa284576eb7e
Payments to 1LWxJkxtazuyWWec34Yy74wqSNsbxVvy4h

In calculating the shares left after rb1205's bid, you subtracted too many (subtracting 48 BTC instead of 20 shares). JSMill was not outbid by luffy because there are still shares left @ 2.4

rG4UNubw39uJSjkQzHi89JoTgSKVXB7imp

Thanks. midstate was the key word to search for. I guess it was so obvious that it was (at least at one point) returned by the getwork function. 

Since the nonce is part of the second block of the first (inner) call to SHA-256, it seems like an obvious optimization to only re-calculate the whole hash if new blocks or transactions come in. Is this practice currently being employed in mining software?

Right, I think they operated pretty much like they said they would, but the way it was setup caused the thing to fizzle out really quick.

Another unrelated idea: setup a site based on a progressive betting scheme like martingale. First depositor puts in 1, second depositor puts in 2. 1.1 goes to the first depositor, 0.9 goes to a jackpot, and 0.1 goes to the house. At each round the required deposit doubles, while the probability of winning the jackpot increases. "Jackpot" is probably a bad term because you really don't want to win it. It probably doesn't pay you back fully. Rather, it ends the round, pays you something, and starts the next deposit at 1. Hope I'm making any sense with this. Probably needs a lot of tweaking. May be able to make something better based on labourchere. I guess the main thrust of the idea is that because ponzi schemes require increasing numbers or amounts of deposits, you simply enforce this as part of the game.

I like it. Something like that could easily work for a sustainable linear (non-pyramidal) redistribution scheme that was still entertaining.


This actually adds up. Checking my copy of received.txt, you were depositor number 65. There were 140 total deposits in the game so there were 75 beneath you. These 75 show up in blockexplorer. Furthermore, the amounts of those distributions are correct. I added two columns to received.txt to make this. Sum the last column to get your 0.5422.

bitpantry.com was probably doing the same thing to btcpantry.com as satoshidice.net was doing to satoshidice.com, so I think it could easily be the same person/people. In any case, both of the sites are down now.

My suggestion for those programmers among us is to keep the GPUs and try to learn how to do general purpose computing with them. It stands to become a pretty marketable skill in the years to come. If markets still exist in the years to come that is.

I ended up purchasing the SC Single. As others have said, if you're going to do this, sooner is better than later. Let's say for example that they ship 100 units in the first batch. If you're order number 101, you may have to wait quite awhile to get in on the action and by that time the difficulty will have already adjusted. If these things end up being real, the first people to use them will get a big benefit.

These are just math terms. k is a variable that represents a number, so that means if k is 3, then kth is 3rd. If k is 5, kth means 5th, etc. d_k represents the amount of the kth deposit. So if k is 5, then d_k is whatever the 5th depositor put in. The underscore is just used to indicate that k is a subscript on d, but that is hard to type in ASCII. These notations aren't really specific to this site, you can find them other places also.

I used to use bitmarket.eu to sell coins. It's an alternative to mtgox that I would recommend. I was selling to people for paypal though, something I would not recommend doing these days.

My purchase was confirmed for an SC on 7/27 and I'm order number 3936. This is really letting it ride. My argument was something like E[return] = 0.01*(crazy profits) + 0.99*(nothing) = still somewhat crazy profits -or- man all this BTC is really burning a whole in my pocket! Realize they may not come through even if they honestly want to.

notme, I believe the sendfrom and sendmany calls take accounts as input not addresses. One account can contain multiple addresses and coins can be shifted from account to account with the move command. However, I don't believe any of these 3 commands allow for specifying the individual addresses, nor do I think you can transfer an existing address to another account.

Question #1: Your wallet is showing that you spent .0005 bitcoins on a transaction. This was paid to the bitcoin miners. The .0003 never really left your wallet. It may have gotten shifted around to other addresses in your wallet internally but all the coins are still there. Your wallet is parsing that transaction you linked in the blockchain as Ins - Outs, that is (8.7634 + 0.0003) - 8.7642 = -.0005

As for the size limit, it was really that your transaction was too small that probably triggered your client to request a transaction fee. The other reason would be the actual physical size in KB or a transaction being large, but your transaction shouldn't have been large in that way because it wasn't very complex.

Question #2: No, you cannot specify which addresses to transfer out of. I'm not even sure there are any clients that allow you to do this, but certainly not in the default client.

Question #3: I believe this was already answered, but I would add that 10 minutes is the goal the system tries to do. The Difficulty is adjusted upwards or downwards every so often to try to make it take 10 minutes. This is to keep the creation of new BTC on pace as designed.