 Show Posts
|
|
Pages: [1] 2 »
|
I had plans to have 1mw+ of power online in November, hosting for a friend who made a large hardware purchase, so this should not have been a problem. Said purchase was delayed into May 2014 and the datacenter refused to set up temporary hosting so we had to scramble to find a place for them. Now they reside in Icedrill.
With regard to Goat: He and I did not reach any such settlement and he, yet again, is lying in order to stir things up. I simply do not have the funds to buy shares back; Even after I am compensated for the hosting when I paid for it out of pocket (as specified in the motion), I'm coming out of this with very little money at all.
You paid $9,000 to some data center out of COG funds before you were allowed to do so, and now you're saying you paid it out of pocket? |
|
|
|
I understand your valuation but I cannot justify the risk/recoup time.
Are you willing to come down if I order two?
Seriously? 20 LTC each for these is a great price. Run them for 3 months and you'll have that back, plus breaking even on electricity at $0.15/kwh. If I had circuit capacity for another 10 cards, I'd buy them all in a heartbeat. Good luck OP. |
|
|
|
Still waiting for my shares - I signed up for Havelock on Friday.
I am also missing my shares on Havelock and I signed up Friday as well. |
|
|
|
A lot of you were totally sick of the diff conversation (totally understandable) and it continues safely away from your annoyance in the other thread.
There is one thing I was hoping to clear up though, based on the current conversation, and I want to ask here while we wait for H20 to confirm, because someone might know.
Does anyone know for sure exactly what reward system the pool uses?
Such as pay-per-share, proportional-per-block, PPLNS, etc?
Don't answer with a guess. Answer if you know.
Proportional. |
|
|
|
What solution is there for a backup/failover pool for a multi-coin pool such as this? Cgminer explicitly states that mixing blockchains is a no-no, so setting a LTC pool (or similar) as backup won't work.
My intuition is that mixing blockchains is only a problem if you're using the --load-balance option. But I don't really know. If anyone has success with a backup pool, and knows for sure that it doesn't cause extra "detected new block" for the primary pool, let us know. I've been using an LTC pool as a backup pool, and have had no issues (hashrate/payout are near what is expected), and it has switched back and forth several times. |
|
|
|
Can you explain to me how you can use litecoins to speed up the arbitrage trade I discussed bearing in mind that all the historical evidence suggests LTC/BTC rates will be almost the same across all exchanges.
My thought is that having LTC listed on Mt. Gox will drive down the gap in USD prices, since historically the gap in prices between exchanges where both BTC and an alt are listed has been smaller than the gap between Mt. Gox and said exchanges. (This could be because of volume, or any one of another ten million reasons, though; obviously it's just a guess.) Do you retarded litecoin supporters think adding feathercoin to mtgox would help eliminate arb opportunities too? How about ixcoin? Adding litecoin would only help arbitrage if the litecoin market cap was LARGER THAN BITCOIN. Adding a tiny market to an exchange does nothing to smooth rates out because so little money can be funneled through the link before it creates another differential and arbitrage opportunity there. Adding USD as an option, however, MASSIVELY helps smooth out arbitrage opportunites because USD market cap is way bigger than bitcoin so nothing happens to the USD market when you send 100k USD from japan to bitstamp for an arb. The arb opportunities only exist because of the fees and wait time associated with sending USD wires.
This is an interesting point, but it's only valid if the volume on Mt. Gox is larger than LTC's market cap, which it is not (it's < 20%). Since most people involved in LTC right now are presumably speculators, it stands to reason that LTC has enough room to absorb the arbitrage, which will be significantly less than even Mt. Gox' daily volume. |
|
|
|
^ He never argued that arbitrage is unhealthy. I think you misunderstood his post. He's saying that having multiple BTC-based blockchains doesn't better enable one to take advantage of fiat-BTC arbitrage opportunities.
Ah, his use of the word "combated" leads me to believe otherwise. Seems you're right about the fiat-BTC arbitrage, though. In any case, the BTC/USD rates of e.g. btc-e and vicurex are typically a lot closer than btc-e and mt. gox, presumably because there is alt-chain enabled arbitrage, so hopefully it's a non issue. |
|
|
|
The addition of Litecoin or any other number of altcoins to the exchanges won't make any difference to combating arbitrage. That's because the arbitrage arises from friction caused by moving fiat around and not bitcoins.
For instance you can buy a bitcoin on Bitstamp for $101 and sell it on Gox $110 at the moment. A perfect arbitrage opportunity you might think but withdrawing USD from Gox is difficult and that's the reason behind the price gap. Adding altcoins into the mix won't change that.
+1 OP is just trying to raise litecoin visibility in the main forum. Move this thread to the garbage section where it belongs. -1. The post you responded to completely missed the point regarding arbitrage, which is that now instead of waiting a really long time to transfer USD from Gox to Bitstamp, one can simply transfer LTC to bitstamp. So we can affect not only the LTC/BTC but the USD/BTC since other exchanges have LTC/USD and LTC/BTC. Both you and meanig need to go learn what "arbitrage" means  But, I lol'd that you overlooked that and +1'd it anyways  Ok, let me try to understand what you're proposing. instead of waiting a really long time to transfer USD from Gox to Bitstamp
So lets say I have $100 on Gox and I want to transfer that to Bitstamp because bitcoins are cheaper there. I'll then send those bitcoins back to Gox and sell them at the higher Gox price giving me more than $100 at the end. one can simply transfer LTC to bitstamp.
I sell the $100 on Gox for litecoins and then send the litecoins to Bitstamp. Then exchange the litecoins for  Please explain how to finish the arbitrage trade keeping in mind that the LTC/BTC rate will be almost identical between Gox and Bitstamp (much like it is between BTC-e and Vircurex which already do LTC/BTC trading) This post and your original post show a fundamental misunderstanding of the way economies and arbitrage work. Arbitrage is not a bad thing and is not something that should be combated; arbitrage is healthy in a functioning economy. LTC on Mt. Gox enables easier arbitrage because extracting LTC from Mt. Gox will be considerably faster than extracting USD, and subject to much smaller fees. There are lots of explanations about how arbitrage works. You should find such an explanation and read it. Once you really understand it, it will be obvious why LTC on Mt. Gox will make arbitrage easier (assuming it is quicker and cheaper to move LTC around than USD, which is a fairly safe assumption), and thus the cryptocurrency economy healthier. As for whether or not LTC or some other alt fills this role, I have no opinion (well, I have one, but it's not really important to the idea of arbitrage). |
|
|
|
|
This has happened with a number of altcoins recently. Basically the only solution was for them to patch the client and hard fork.
|
|
|
|
|
You can't even secure your BTC but you have a working ASIC prototype? Seems legit.
|
|
|
|
|
Some pools pay for stale shares (PPS pools, most commonly), so you'd want to submit them. I can see also not submitting them to keep your stats pristine, if you're OCD about that sort of thing.
|
|
|
|
Hello,
I think there are problem with hot-wallet, because I tried withdraw LTC from notroll.in for 3 days and it was unsuccessfull - standard "Incorrect address?" message, and Today I have successfully withdraw and received my coins:
Amount Time Address TXID
4.40894376 2013-05-09 08:15 UTC LeHDgTzQDNqF7htZuwxD5yEf2VHw5QYDVu 60475776c574b02d132a20e9eb9eb984d99f96f6bea079a6522f54329feb2ead
Same issue today for me. Wait... YOU MEAN PPL STILL MINE AT NOTROLL.IN ??lol. lol? I take all recomandation regarding how chose the right pool. Step 1: Choose a pool without "scam alert" in the pool's topic. |
|
|
|
Sure, the instantaneous difficulty estimate is high, but the hashing power was still lower for about 1/4 of the blocks mined this round, so it's only going to be 450 or so: http://allchains.info/ |
|
|
|
|
You should never have any hardware errors if things are set up correctly.
Try fiddling with: intensity, thread concurrency, # of threads, and clock speed in that order.
|
|
|
|
|
Hey, I have an IP address and a timestamp. The IP is for a US ISP (Charter Communications). Is this the sort of thing you can track down?
|
|
|
|
|
Uh. How would you prevent exchanging it for fiat?
|
|
|
|
PPS rate is (time of writing) 0.00000250 on the 25th of last month 0.00001057.
The way things are going, it will be 0.00000001.
I'm I missing something?
Litecoin difficulty is going up as bitcoiners switch over because of ASICs. |
|
|
|
For the "bad" performing card(s), have you tried using smaller thread concurrencies and two threads? That is, --thread-concurrency=8192, -g2, -I13?
I have two Gigabyte 7970 GV-R797OC-3GD cards and can't get the high-concurrency, single-thread, settings to work. With every version of cgminer that I've used in the 2.11.x releases, the above settings give ~750 khps.
I know this is not exactly what you were looking for, but from what I've seen, not many people are trying similar settings. I'm curious if it works for anyone else.
I've got the same card and had the same experience. 700kh/s not overclocking at all with your listed settings, I can push it higher, but maybe only to 725 or so. I'm just leaving it at stock clocks now, since it draws considerably more power for essentially the same hash rate otherwise. Not sure why, but if you use anything other than -I 13, the hashrate takes a nose dive. |
|
|
|
|
I have some individual serials if you change your mind. Bioshock has been selling like hotcakes locally...
|
|
|
|
Got an idea after all problems that MtGox often have because of DDOS and huge amounts of order.
Why do we rely on a Server-Client Exchange (MtGox) when the strength of Bitcoin is in decentralization???
We should outsource the exchange to a P2P blockchain and let MtGox only handle the fiat and the client-contact.
If we create an open source exchange platform that is decentralized and inspired by bitcoin it would benefit both brokers and clients.
Benefits of a P2P-exchange
-One orderbook: regardless of what broker you use you orders would end up in the same order book. That creates higher liquidity and better execution of orders when all orders in the markets re in the same exchange.
-Harder to attack: If the orderbook is decentralized like the bitcoin blockchain it is almost impossible to attack it with DDOS or manipulate the orderbook. The attackers might shut down the brokers' sites but they cant shut down the exchange itself, all orders in the order book will be processed even if no broker site is working.
-More stable. Decentralized exchange means huge computer power combined and fast execution and it can handle huge quantities of clients without problem.
Instead of rewarding the miners with new coins, the rewards can be based on a percent fee (0,001%) of the bitcoin value handled for each transaction.
It might be possible to build the exchange functionality side-by-side with the existing bitcoin software so all miners automatically also can handle the exchange.
But the blockchain should be separated.
Any ideas and suggestions?
I N C E P T I O N EDIT: Also, yo dawg i heard you like bitcoins so i put some bitcoins in your bitcoins so you could trade bitcoins while you trade bitcoins. |
|
|
|
|
