Looking to buy a TIDAL HIFI account. If anyone of you is selling a cheap account, please PM me.

Just saw this great article over at IEEE which described how the future of web looks a lot like bitcoin . However even that focuses on how the protocol behind it is what matters.

http://spectrum.ieee.org/computing/networks/the-future-of-the-web-looks-a-lot-like-bitcoin

In the gambling section I see the page numbers being displayed in the wrong order for the topic https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1102087.0

In the pages next to the topic title it shows Page 2, before Page 1.



I tried a different browser and it showed it in a similar way .

Just wanted the admins and moderators to know.

I don't do drugs, but just want to try something that will make me think better(even if its for a short time) .
Anything which does not have an ill side effects are better.

Suggestions ?

Decided to not sell it. So will keep if for now , as I am going to be active again soon.

Using the following resources:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AmcTCtjBoRWUdHVRMHpqWUJValI1RlZiaEtCT1RrQmc#gid=0
(linked from https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Difficulty)

Its obvious that using static difficulty to predict out future diff is also not accurate. We've seen posts from this time last year predicting rises of 14 pct with a diff of 40 mil by now.

Its also pretty obvious the days per difficulty adjustment are becoming fewer as new equipment is rolling out. The 65nm rollouts seem to be coming off the lines faster than before, and 28nm is around the corner in Q1 or possibly Q2 2014. Where it used to be 13-14 days between diff increases at end of year 2012, its now 10-11 days now.

I took the average of the last 10 rounds of Days (delta), and it comes out to -.208 days trend.

Now for the actual difficulty value... it would be silly to try to extrapolate today's 29-30 pct average difficulty change forward, just as it was silly to extrapolate 14 percent a while back. Its rising, steadily. I ended up looking at what the average difference between percentage increases was for the last 10 changes (2.09 percent increase), and adding that plus .1 percent each week to show some growth (just as it wasn't a steady flat percentage at any time in the last year, and as new inventory is being added to the network all the time.) I threw in a minus 20 percent about once every 8 weeks and recover almost the lost amount the next week, as that's what the trend seems to show also (a point in time when people pull back for a bit and cut miners, like a bear market week when price plumments far below profitable... then a bear market rally back to status quo pricing the next week.)

(I personally think even these numbers in both cases are quite low and quite conservative... I think the days will increase even faster as time goes on, rather than a steady change... to the point where by Feb or March we'll probably have 3 rounds of 5 days each, and by end of 2014 have diff changing every day or every other day. I also don't quite subscribe to the steady change in difference, as the past few months showed us close to a double in difference percent, as did the few before that. However, calculating something like that out put us at 60 pct difference increase per round in January, and over 100 percent difference increase... aka doubling difference... by about April. I honestly still think that could quite possibly become a possibility.)

Time will show how true THESE predictions are, compared to the ones of a year ago. The criticisms most likely to come up below will be "will price hold, or will people shut off even smaller items Jalapeno miners before X point", and "this won't happen, 65nm will level out in late Q4 2013 and 28nm is a pipe dream until late Q2 2013, so diff will level out." Another criticism will point to how rapidly the transition from 1B to 10B to 100B takes place. I'll just ask you look at historical numbers, try to continue trends out, and judge for yourself. They are right there on that Google doc I linked above, and that's not made by me.

One more thing: I really hate to say this, but these numbers make even GenesisBlock look tame with its current projection of _monthly_ increases of 80-120 percent. With this... we're looking at those monthly numbers climbing to 200, 250, 300 percent. Then again, if GenesisBlock had been a big name back in Sept 2012, it would have been forecasting monthly increases of 25 percent for every month up to current.

----
My numbers, along with a snippet of current info.

Code:

Date of Diff change Days Delta Days Delta diff Difficulty Increase % delta increase %
7/11/2013 11.42 -1.28 26162876 22.63% 12.31%
7/22/2013 11.73 0.31 31256961 19.47% -3.16%
8/3/2013 11.7 -0.03 37392766 19.63% 0.16%
8/13/2013 10.31 -1.39 50810339 35.88% 16.25%
8/24/2013 10.83 0.52 65750060 29.40% -6.48%
9/4/2013 10.59 -0.24 86933018 32.22% 2.82%
9/14/2013 10.81 0.22 112628549 29.56% -2.66%
9/24/2013 10.602 -0.208 148275485 31.65000% 2.09%
10/4/2013 10.394 -0.208 165549579 11.65000% -20.00%
10/15/2013 10.186 -0.208 217532146 31.40000% 19.75%
10/25/2013 9.978 -0.208 290601194 33.59000% 2.1900%
11/3/2013 9.77 -0.208 394868903 35.88000% 2.2900%
11/13/2013 9.562 -0.208 545985232 38.27000% 2.3900%
11/22/2013 9.354 -0.208 768528813 40.76000% 2.4900%
12/1/2013 9.146 -0.208 1101686053 43.35000% 2.5900%
12/10/2013 8.938 -0.208 1608902312 46.04000% 2.6900%
12/19/2013 8.73 -0.208 2027860474 26.04000% -20.00%
12/28/2013 8.522 -0.208 2956417785 45.79000% 19.75%
1/5/2014 8.314 -0.208 4392645545 48.58000% 2.7900%
1/13/2014 8.106 -0.208 6653540208 51.47000% 2.8900%
1/21/2014 7.898 -0.208 10277058205 54.46000% 2.9900%
1/29/2014 7.69 -0.208 16191505202 57.55000% 3.0900%
2/5/2014 7.482 -0.208 26026225461 60.74000% 3.1900%
2/12/2014 7.274 -0.208 42690817624 64.03000% 3.2900%
2/20/2014 7.066 -0.208 61487584624 44.03000% -20.00%
2/26/2014 6.858 -0.208 100704366097 63.78000% 19.75%
3/5/2014 6.65 -0.208 168347488804 67.17000% 3.3900%
3/11/2014 6.442 -0.208 287301824392 70.66000% 3.4900%
3/18/2014 6.234 -0.208 500623429004 74.25000% 3.5900%
3/24/2014 6.026 -0.208 890809329569 77.94000% 3.6900%
3/30/2014 5.818 -0.208 1618867794626 81.73000% 3.7900%
4/4/2014 5.61 -0.208 3004942400385 85.62000% 3.8900%
4/10/2014 5.402 -0.208 5697671285370 89.61000% 3.9900%

I have an older system I use to mine, with 1x PCIe16x, and 2x PCIe 1x. The system has a 5 month old 720W PSU, Core2 Quad processor, and 8 GB RAM (I can go up to 16GB DDR2, but DDR2 right now is a little costly.)

I was mining fine (12.8 drivers) with two 7950s (one in the 16x, and one on a powered 1-16 extender), and decided, since I had the spare PSU capacity and spare PCIe port, to use a 1-1 extender I had on hand and also get a 16-16 extender, and another 7950. My thinking was three PCIe slots was good enough, and since each card only uses 200W, I still had enough for the system to run.

Ever since I installed the third card this evening, when I run CGminer, the graphics driver craps out and recovers, GPU0 goes permanently offline and doesn't recover, and GPUs 1 and 2 mine anywhere between 50-80 percent their capability.

Am I running into a RAM issue (since each card is a Gigabyte 7950 3GB, do I need to have 10+ GB RAM)? Or is it like someone else said, an overclocking issue?


{
"pools" : [
   {
      "url" : "http://pxc.allpoolz.com:8080",
      "user" : "user",
      "pass" : "x"
   },
   {
      "url" : "http://phoen01.phenixpool.com:9500",
      "user" : "user",
      "pass" : "x"
   },
{
      "url" : "http://btb.ltcoin.net:2222",
      "user" : "user",
      "pass" : "x"
   }


]
,
"intensity" : "20,20,20",
"vectors" : "1,1,1",
"worksize" : "256,256.256",
"kernel" : "scrypt,scrypt,scrypt",
"lookup-gap" : "0,0,0",
"thread-concurrency" : "21712,21712,21712",
"shaders" : "0,0,0",
"gpu-engine" : "0-1190,0-1190,0-1190",
"gpu-fan" : "0-85,0-85,0-85",
"gpu-memclock" : "1450,1450,1450",
"gpu-memdiff" : "0,0,0",
"gpu-powertune" : "0,0,0",
"gpu-vddc" : "1.206,1.206,1.206",
"temp-cutoff" : "95,95,95",
"temp-overheat" : "85,85,85",
"temp-target" : "75,75,75",
"api-port" : "4028",
"expiry" : "120",
"gpu-dyninterval" : "7",
"gpu-platform" : "0",
"gpu-threads" : "1",
"hotplug" : "5",
"log" : "1",
"no-pool-disable" : true,
"queue" : "1",
"scan-time" : "60",
"scrypt" : true,
"temp-hysteresis" : "3",
"shares" : "0",
"auto-fan" : true,
"auto-gpu" : true,
"kernel-path" : "/usr/local/bin"
}

Not sure best forum to put this... more of an information request, more of a software-ish question...

I have a machine at home I use as an vmWare vSphere (ESXi) 5.1 server. Core i7 3770, 32GB RAM... all running on desktop (gaming) grade hardware. I run a full Windows domain on this, have about 10 different VMs running on it for various functions (ranging from domain controllers to torrent clients to Exchange server to NZB indexer and others.) I _REALLY_ want to maximize my density per machine if at all possible/

-As to video, I know I can't pass through a 7950 virtualized to a VM and then try to mine with that. Trust me, I've tried... and its a shame, as I'm sacrificing some very nice looking PCIe 16x and 1x ports for that. (Only way would be to run OpenZen, and then run ESXi under that, as well as a mining VM under OpenZen... not really good option performance wise.)
-So, my current model of thinking is "virtualized USB". I know this works... done it with printers on a VMware workstation, and pretty sure you can pass through USB-attached devices under ESX. My question is, how well is this as an option for mining devices (FPGA/ASIC)? I have a couple BFL devices on order, due to ship sometime in the year 2525. If I grabbed a couple ASICminer block eruptors (which theoretically you could get in a couple weeks), could I pass them through to a VM running CGminer/BFGminer? How about FPGA's?

Its a thought... I've got plenty of capacity available on my other machines, just wanted to see if this was a possible option in the future as well. Nothing in hand, and won't have anything in hand for a while, so this is more of a thought exercise than anything.

So, I ordered a couple 1x-16x riser cables from Cablesaurus for connecting my 7950's an an old motherboard... it has a 16x which I plug the card into fine, and has two PCIe 1x which are the ones I'd need for the 7950s. He sent along a 1x-16x powered, and was out of anymore and sent a 1x-1x unpowered instead. I'm using the 1x-16x just fine.

Can I use the 1x-1x riser (which does have the open end, so I don't need to dremel it open), even through the card is a 16x card? Or am I going to see some issues? BTCe trollbox seems to have different opinions on this, with
-some people telling me it will work
-Some telling me I need to solder a cable between a pin on the far end of the card and a pin inside the riser (I'm not doing that)
-Some telling me I need to dremel cut off the extra pins (sheer lunacy)
-some telling me that its just not possible.

Want to find out from someone the correct answer, before I go frying a 300 buck 7950.

(and please, no "here's a quarter, go buy a clue" answers... tired of that cop out toward people who honestly don't know.)

We have four major types of mining hardware (which, with the exception of ASICs, have multiple generations of hardware providing different results.)

-CPU
-GPU
-FPGA
-ASIC

I know FPGA devices were written for the express purpose of mining SHA256, namely designed just for Bitcoin. I also know they were repurposed for solving on other SHA256 coins as well (namely, all other coins except Litecoin and Novacoin.... we're talking about items like Namecoin, PPcoin, Terracoin, Bytecoin, Feathercoin, etc.) ASIC is just an expansion of this.

The easy answer to tell new users is "FPGA and ASIC can't mine anything else. End of Line." The slightly advanced answer is "FPGA and ASIC can't mine Scrypt, or anything else that's non-SHA256 that will ever be made, because it doesn't have high memory to access."

So, I'm slightly curious. What are the actual higher level reasons? With an FPGA that exists today, what are the actual results if you were able to port or point a client (such as CGminer) at it, type in --scrypt, and watch it try to hash away?

Is the structure in the chip LITERALLY unable to complete the calculation, or is it just because the chip is optomized to handle only SHA256 and all other calculations are going to be less efficient?

If the chip is equally able to solve an SHA256 as anything else, and its just a matter of pointing a calculation at it and needing memory... Are we talking about needing rapid access to a high amount on-die L1/L2 cache? If this is the case, could it be the possibility of perhaps co-locating a L2 cache chip onboard (as was done for processors up till just prior to Pentium 2, where prior to that L2 was a separate cache chip, but with P2 was moved on-die and an L3 was introduced as the separate cache chip)? Or are we talking about the need to (relatively) rapidly access an amount of DRAM?

Where I'm trying to think is this... there's an existing deployment of FPGA hardware in the field, and a small amount still being sold. With the rising deployment of ASICs by EOY 2013, this hardware will be about as profitable as GPUs are in Spring 2013, unless the market price of SHA coins rises in correlation to the difficulty. What are the technical reasons which would hold back a current FPGA from switching to another type of blockchain (Scrypt, or whatever rises to become the next widely supported blockchain format)?

I realize that if we're talking about something like adding an onboard cache, that is going to be fundamentally unsupportable because we're talking about the need to etch memory traces and have the cache chip be physically nearby for rapid access. If we're talking, however, about the need for rapid memory from something like a DRAM, perhaps there might be some other way around this than just junking FPGA's. (And then the question would then extend to ASIC as well.)

If we're just talking that the chips were purpose created in their core logic to only be capable of solving SHA256 and never capable of solving any other calculation, then this whole question is answered there, and we'll just change the focus (as has been suggested in other forums) to specifically creating chips for solving those other calculations.

I found an old guide from early 2012 about setting up a P2pool server with merged mining for about 5 or 6 different types of coins together.

Say I setup a P2pool server focused just for a specific coin... and a P2pool server with this merged mining of multiple different coins. Am I going to get much in the way of a profitability change with one over the other? Is there a happy medium?

I also want to think I read something in BTC-e chat where someone said that merged mining wasn't worth it because it gets interrupted with a new work request while trying to work on one of the other coins. Taking that with a couple grains of salt, it being from BTC-e's chatbox and all.

Silly question: Are dummy plugs required anymore for mining rigs? 

Have a 7950 on a Windows box, want to install a second 7950 once my 1x-16x cables come in from Cablesaurus. Have been reading conflicting reports as to if Dummy Plugs are needed or not. I don't want to have to worry about doing a monitor shuffle down in my basement when starting mining back up.

Thanks.

So, started mining again a week or 2 ago (Last mined a couple years ago). Mining LTC, pointed at notroll, was doing fine until I saw a combo of things... pool-x has a lower pool fee... a post earlier this week that notroll is going to attack the network with a 51 pct attack and destroy the network. Switched to Pool-x, but due to something (DOS, or maybe bad Internet routes), I lose connection at times. So, setup a LTC P2pool (SupaDupa guide) on one of my servers in a VM I have here at home, and have cgminer mining pool-x with failover to my p2pool... and a couple cpu miners also mining to p2pool (the machines are already up all day consuming the electricity.) This way I am not hurting the network by using notroll, mitigating the downtime when pool-x is down by swapping over to in-house, and getting some consistent ongoing income in my wallet from the CPUminers. I cashed a couple LTC out of notroll, and have yet to meet the Pool-x cashout. Meanwhile, generated a couple LTC in P2pool already.

When I cashed the coins out of notroll to my wallet, and deposited up to BTC-e, I don't remember a huge fee. However now, during the past week or so most of my coin accumulation in my wallet has been coming in pieces and parts from my LTC P2pool node (0.02 here, 0.03 there). I have a couple coins, went to transfer to BTC-e, and got prompted about a 0.9 LTC transaction fee.

Want to diversify my coins... so want to transfer some of my earnings over into a few different coins to start with.

So, my question here... why am I getting hit with a 0.9 LTC fee for a 1.8 LTC transfer? Should I just be waiting till I mine up about 10LTC (about once a month) and cash over to the exchange, rather than doing a couple coins at a time?

Or is this something that is tied to the use of P2pool and its many microtransactions of 0.02-0.04 coins? If that's the case, anything I can modify about the config of P2pool to mitigate this? Or is this just something you have to swallow as a cost of getting a constant income rather than cashing out once in a while from a pool? Want to think I read something about that I'm having to pay the transaction fee later, and the only thing that's really correlating in my mind is something similar to the difference between an IRA that you pay taxes ahead of time, vs one you pay the taxes on at time of withdrawl.

I had a 6870 in my normal desktop, been mining LTC with CGminer for a few weeks now. Just got a couple 7950's to use in an old motherboard which I just replaced (Core2 Quad, 8GB DDR2 Ram). Found out my old motherboard only has 1 PCIE 16, but it has two more PCIE 1x on it. I have some powered x1 to x16 adaptors coming in, but they'll be at least half a week.

My normal desktop has enough PCIE x16 to run three cards, but due to fan location in the case, power supply restrictions, etc, I can only fit one of the 7950 cards (longer form) and the 6870. I'll run the other 7950 in the mining rig until I can get the cable.

All cards are Gigabyte.

Question is:
-The first question, which pretty much overrides anything else... Can you mine realistically with two different model ATI cards? A 6870 and a 7950?
-In CGMiner, how do you tell which card is GPU0, and which is GPU1?
-Also, in CGminer, it seems that no matter which way I set the conf file, the cards seem to match to the lowest common hash rate. The 7950 SHOULD be mining well above the 6870 (which would clearly answer question 1), but instead, they're both equalizing to within 20 or so hash rate of each other. Is this normal? Is it a limitation of the PCIe bus, where cards only talk at the slowest speed on the bus? Or is it something where I should choose a different mining software, or maybe does CGminer require opening two sessions, one saying use GPU0, the other saying use GPU1?

All these become a moot point when I get the powered 1x-16x cables later this week, but sometime down the road I will want to upgrade the card in my desktop (for gaming) and re-use it's 300-ish kh (or 300 MH) old 6870 in a miner... which just might make that miner a mixed model machine again.

Thanks,
Steve