I'm just posting to raise awareness of the likelihood that this is a scam, and is rather common for freelance writers to encounter.  The competition held asks for contestants to contribute stories, which will be evaluated for a winner or winners, but all the contributed works are "owned" by the competition organizers.  Since there is such little information on the rules for this competition, I would be very leery about submitting any creative works.  Let's not forget the proclaimed bounty isn't even available: rather, it's purported to be accrued through the first "batch" of investor solicitation.

It's a technique to generate free content.

Don't forget the four golden words: F*ck you, pay me. (vimeo).  It's a video on the importance of contracts, pretty decent talk.

Kudos on the new pool!  The web design is excellent, best I've seen of the pools so far (though I haven't seen every pool, only: slush's, deepbit, bitcoinpool, luke-jr's, and only the front page of BTCMine).

Features are absolutely how to separate yourself from the pool-pack, keep up the great work.  I wholly approve of offering "premium" services.

If you haven't already, you might want to consider open sourcing your pool/site code so your community can help you maintain, fix, and add features.
+1 for irc.freenode.net
It's also home to the official bitcoin channels: #bitcoin, #bitcoin-dev, #bitcoin-otc, et cetera, etc.

Hope to join you in #bitcoin-pool-name-here soon!

Scratch that.  I read the bill in haste before posting, and didn't realize there are actually four distinct charges based on kWh usage, each with a unique rate per kWh.

Supply @7.3838c/kWh, Delivery @9.2075c/kWh, SBC/RPS @0.4108c/kWh, Temporary  Surcharge @0.4668c/kWh, which more closely resembles the amount from the table.

Incidentally, I finally found last month's bill, and the rate is only $0.092075 per kWh: quite different than what's listed for my state. So check your bills! See below.

Average (U.S.) Retail Price of Electricity to Ultimate Customers by End-Use Sector, by State, Year-to-Date through December 2010 and 2009 (U.S. Energy Information Administration)

Thanks to compro01 on #bitcoin-discussion for the link.

Cost per kWh (in USD) = 18.56/100
GPU Wh^1,2,3 = 69
Electricity cost per day = (cost per kWh * GPU Wh * 24)/1000
BTC per Day⁴ = 0.314614404004
USD per BTC⁵ = 0.70
USD per Day = BpD * UpB

Actual USD per Day = UpD - ECpD

Therefore, I lose (roughly) $0.09 per day mining.  Yay excuse to buy a new GPU!

For those of you interested in solar: How [some guy] built an electricity producing (60W) Solar Panel.  I am not affiliated in any way; arm your ad-blockers, btw.  Additionally, there's an entire category dedicated to the subject at instructables.

---

• Mining Hardware Comparison
• nVidia GeForce GT 240
• The computer would be on 24/7, whether or not I were mining.
• Via gribble's bc,gen "at 21576 Khps, given current difficulty of 68978.89245792...."
• btcexUSD via bitcoincharts.

That should have been written "hoping" rather than "guessing".  My entire post was poorly authored, and is a prime example of why one shouldn't post whilst sleep deprived. I certainly knew better, I've never seen PC temperature sensors represented in anything other than C.  I just didn't like the idea of something in one of my machines running so hot.

Are you from opposite land? "Opposite land: crooks chase cops, cats have puppies... Hot snow falls up."¹

An increase in temperature (58 to 72) certainly does not imply refrigeration.  The temperature in my room is currently 70 F (21.11 C), but that's probably 'cause it's only 36 F outside (2.22 C).... So, had those values actually represented F, it would have gone from below room temperature to above it.


Thanks for mentioning the specified wattage, I was procrastinating looking it up on nVidia's site, and your data prompted me to confirm it.  This set my mind at ease, I was worried that running my GPU at a steady 74 C might damage it, but the specification lists a max temperature of 105 C.

The card is running at nVidia's reference clocks (per the linked spec), data obtained using the linux command nvidia-settings:

The 1340 is the processor clock and 550 is the graphics clock, but I'm not sure what the 1800 represents.  The "attribute" GPUDefault3DClockFreqs has the same 550,1800 value(s).

It should also be noted that I have the 512MB model.

In time I'll be setting up PowerTop to confirm the specified wattage, but it is low priority.

I noticed a GPUMemoryInterface "attribute", which has a value of 128.  Do you think it would be advisable to try setting the worksize flag to match this?

Sorry, that was the prime example of poor writing.  When I ran the miner (poclbm-mod as well as poclbm) without the vectors option I saw values between 21567 to 21579.  I did not let the test run long enough to determine if I would still see multiple accepts for a single getwork.  Currently, using the vectors option, the most accepts I have ever seen on a single getwork has been 5.

Could you elaborate?  Do you mean that using -f 0 will see no improvements over -f 1?  I've been using -f 0 for quite a while, but didn't pay close enough attention when switching from -f 1 to notice.

---

Thanks to whomever updated the wiki with the information I provided; I'm guessing it was urizane.

I'm using a GT 240.

Using python poclbm-mod.py -d 0 -f 0 -a 10 -v -l, I regularly see between 21230 and 21255 khash/s.  I've also noticed that -v (vectors) costs about 300 khash/s (21567 to 21579), but I think there was an increase of invalid/stale shares --- this may have been due to other factors, however.  I also think there was a reduction in discovering multiple shares per getwork without vectors, but that may have been due to the same 'other factors'.

I don't know what the wattage draw is, but I have noticed the temperature of the card jump from 58 (idle) to 72 (mining).  I'm guessing these values are in fahrenheit.

Something is awry, indeed!  I'm in NY.

I wasn't being impatient, just trying to figure out what's wrong.  As per my original post, everything seemed to suggest it's something on my end.  Since you tested through NY, I would be certain it is an issue on my end (router, PC, w/e) if it weren't for all the other people having issues.

Thanks for confirming the IP will suffice.

Seems like the ideal task for Gavin Andersen's ClearCoin.  If ClearCoin collects a percentage of the escrow for acting as a mediary (don't see it mentioned anywhere either way), perhaps it could waive the collection since the escrow is going to develop the official bitcoin project.

After taking a quick glance at the site so far, I strongly suggest that it be tied directly to the official bitcoin new features and bugs github page.  Users submit feature requests and bugs through the official channels, improving visibility for the developers, and the project-support list more closely follows the active, regular, development.  If it is not tied to the official list, then unnecessary effort is imposed on developers since they have to monitor multiple lists.  Having the bounty list based on the official "issues" page also improves rewards going to the right people.

I suspect this was your goal all along, and the existing site is more a proof of concept.

Interesting.
~ $ dig -t ns bitcoinpool.com +short
~ $ echo $?
0
~ $ dig www.bitcoinpool.com. @ns64.domaincontrol.com.

; <<>> DiG 9.7.3 <<>> www.bitcoinpool.com. @ns64.domaincontrol.com.
;; global options: +cmd
;; connection timed out; no servers could be reached
~ $

I still have my name servers pointed to variations of 4.2.2.1, but I doubt that would make a difference in your examples.

I'm not familiar with Aero, but a flickering screen certainly wouldn't have anything to do with network oddities: power issues, on the other hand.... Around what time was this?  I awoke to a locked system (alas, it was the one mining), and since it is a new build I haven't been able to adequately troubleshoot the issues.  Power has been my primary suspect.

According to my system logs, the last entry before the reboot was 18:02 (of March 26th), which I've taken to mean that's when the system locked.  The last entry in my poclbm-mod log file is 11:20:10 of March 26th, but I'm not sure what zone that is.

This is frustrating.  I too am on the East Coast (of the USA), and I can not access bitcoinpool.com at all.  I can, however, access it using its IP directly.  The frustration comes from changing my DNS to 4.2.2.1 (at the router, and /etc/resolv.conf), seeing the same behavior, and all the while sites like isitup.org, and kloth's nslookup service, report it as expected.

Yet nslookup locally reports failure:

Not so for google.com:

How dynamic is bitcoinpool's IP, if at all?  Is it safe to rely on the number retrieved through the aforementioned sites?  I would very much like to continue my assessment of bitcoinpool before testing the others (thanks for upping the account inactivation time, btw), but this situation has forced my hand --- well, my miner.

Hello to all, by the way.  Brand new to bitcoin, and this forum.  I finished reading this thread in its entirety on the 25th (maybe early 26th), and I'll be writing a reply in the not-too-distant future: questions, comments, suggestions, requests, et cetera, etc.