 Show Posts
|
|
Pages: [1] 2
|
|
The scam itself may be clever but it still relies on 2 people doing trades with untrusted members or failing to use ;;ident properly, so it's easily avoided.
If people fall for this the scammer could have achieved the same result by just buying bitcoins with paypal and doing the chargeback himself.
|
|
|
|
|
Your client needs to download the blockchain before you'll see anything (currently 128589 blocks).
If the number of blocks is not increasing try forwarding port 8333, 5 connections sounds like you haven't.
|
|
|
|
|
I personally lost interest because of the ridiculously long timer and 1+ month rounds at the start, so I stopped checking the site for a while only to see somehow 2 rounds happened within a week.
The timer is still just as long though, so I can only conclude interest in the game is decreasing.
|
|
|
|
I discovered that I had ~155 stale shares after 3700 submitted (4.1%). Seeing this as well, looks like long polling is not working properly again. I'm seeing invalid shares being submitted for up to 2 minutes in a row every time the work changes. Switching to a different pool for now. |
|
|
|
Someone just won the jackpot  (and it wasn't me  ) New round started! I hope this one won't last a month :/ |
|
|
|
The guy basically copied that template and changed a few things. The best part is the 8th post in the thread you linked  |
|
|
|
I'm sure more people will be willing to play if you do, even if they haven't asked you  |
|
|
|
|
Do you ever plan to implement proof that your games are fair?
|
|
|
|
|
So you used half a bitcoin to conduct your "number study"? Yeah, that sounds like a statistically significant amount.
|
|
|
|
coefficients are made in such way that sum of losses is always greater than sum of wins. That's why site doesn't lose money.
The rest of the explanations were moot, this was the point. Suspicions confirmed. Oh damn, and here I was thinking this was a charity site! Thanks for making me aware of that! You're not very smart, are you? You can easily calculate the expected returns yourself using 80% chance to succeed for any move. Of course it is always negative. It's a gambling site! Nothing of that has anything to do with your claim, which is clearly wrong: the free version is always easier than when you put money down Sounds like you are just angry you lost some money on this ^_^ |
|
|
|
I agree that it sounds mathematically correct, but I did an actual number study and when in free mode you can pick the square beneath the previous mine and on a significant average always earn more before you hit a mine in the series compared to the same method when betting. Is this correlation an evidence of causation or perhaps my study wasn't long enough, but it was significantly convincing to me.
Unless vitsum somehow cracked md5 and is able to generate colliding strings within a second (that magically also are only 42 characters long AND differ only by 32 characters AND use a very restrictive character set), your "number study" is useless :p Hint: such collisions probably don't even exist. The mines locations are determined at the start of the game, this is proven. The only way the game could "cheat" is by attempting to learn your strategy and adjusting the generating algorithm before you start a new game. If you truly believe this is happening, simply play by picking a random square for every more. There's no way to predict that |
|
|
|
I think even if the timer was only 5 minutes, it'd still take quite a while before this round finishes as the minimum spend is still quite low. I agree, minimum spend is way too low and it just attracts trolls paying in the last 5 seconds like we've seen many times in the last few days. Raising the min. spend would be far more effective than reducing the timer. |
|
|
|
|
Are you sure you don't have anything running in the background that could be using the card's hardware video decoder? It could lock the core to 400 MHz and cause it to ignore overdrive settings.
What's the current clock speed displayed on the bottom of the CCC overdrive tab (not what the slider is set to)?
I used to pull up to 210 on my 5770.
|
|
|
|
if he' just lack of extra 6-pin PCI-e out from powerful enough PSU[which is unlikely, cuz all reasonably-rated had two at least] its okay. Well, it's common knowledge that the 6 pin connectors that are specced for 75W can safely deliver 150W+. People use 6->8 pin adapters all the time and as you already said, the 6+2 pin connectors only add 2 more ground wires. However, if you're connecting a power hungry card like a 5970 to a single line, you're going to be drawing up to 225W from that (more if overclocked). I'm not sure if that's still within safe limits (the wires probably won't overheat, but the connector could get damaged at the point where you're splitting it). If you still want to risk it, you should also check if your PSU can deliver that much on a single rail. |
|
|
|
So WHY do I have to purchase a 6 pin to 6+2 pin dual pcie power cable splitter only to recombine the power inside of the GPU???
Wait, are you trying to power a graphics card that requires 2 connectors by splitting a single one? While it's true that PCIE connectors can deliver far more than what they're specced for, I don't think going 100% over the spec is a good idea. There's a reason the card needs 2 connectors. |
|
|
|
|
Also try different worksizes, I found the optimal setting can vary depending on memory clock speed.
|
|
|
|
|
You're either editing the wrong file (it should have the same name as the preset you created) or you didn't have overdrive enabled when creating it.
|
|
|
|
Yes, sorry, it was called profile in older versions of CCC |
|
|
|
You need to save a new CCC profile. Then you navigate to C:\Users\YourUserName\AppData\Local\ATI\ACE\Profiles\ and edit the file ProfileName.xml You will see something like this: <Feature name="MemoryClockTarget_0">
<Property name="Want_0" value="xxx" />
<Property name="Want_1" value="xxx" />
<Property name="Want_2" value="xxx" />
</Feature> Change each value to desired MHz*100 (30000 for 300 MHz). The 3 values are different clock targets depending on load, so changing just the 3rd one should work too, but I'm not sure if it can be lower than the other 2, so I change all of them to be sure Then just save the file and apply your profile in CCC. The minimum clock should now be 300 and you can move the slider down. Note: If you're not on windows 7/vista, the profile will be in a different location. |
|
|
|
|
