Bitcoin Forum
December 07, 2022, 12:37:39 PM *
News: Bitcointalk Community Awards
 
  Home Help Search Login Register More  
  Show Posts
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 »
1  Bitcoin / Mining / Re: are people actually still buying new rigs? on: June 23, 2011, 04:15:37 PM
At the current difficulty level, even my home computer is able to pull in about $1,500/yr in profit. After the next increase, it's going to drop to an estimated $910/yr in profit.

Extrapolating profit from any difficulty level out to an entire year doesn't make any sense at all. Each difficulty period only lasts about ~10 days while difficulty is increasing.

1-2 months from now, you may very well be losing money by running your video card due to electricity costs and cooling costs if you're particularly unlucky.
2  Bitcoin / Mining / Re: are people actually still buying new rigs? on: June 23, 2011, 03:22:13 PM
There are a lot of people who probably already had their eyes on a shiny new video card, and view Bitcoin as a 'discount' off of the purchase price.

The math here is questionable as well, especially with summer heat and electricity costs factored in. Still, it's a psychological thing to convince yourself that you're going to get 10-30% 'off' your hardware purchase as long as you use it for bitcoin mining. Even worse is that you must buy now to get in on it.
3  Bitcoin / Pools / Re: [~350 GH/s] "Eligius" mining pool (still semi-experimental!) on: June 21, 2011, 07:43:21 PM
The last several pages are full of highly unprofessional banter. Can we please stick to the facts and lay of the ad-hom attacks?

I think the real problem here is that Luke-Jr has changed the rules of the game several times lately without warning. Some of these changes have resulted in the pool holding on to small, but not entirely insignificant, amounts of BTC owed to the miners. To make matters worse, these withheld earnings come with little explanation from Luke-Jr and little more than a vague promise to pay them out at some later date.

These events as of late are disappointing, to say the least, for a pool that prides itself on transparency.
4  Economy / Trading Discussion / Re: About Mt. Gox flaw from a security expert on: June 20, 2011, 04:24:53 PM


Bravo! Now that you're not in it for the money, I assume you'll be helping Bit_Happy patch whatever security vulnerability you found that exposed his apache config for free?

That's very noble of you. Thanks!

1) Maybe I dont want to help other exchange for free?

2) Maybe I like the bitcoin project, so maybe I would like to see as little bitcoin frauds as possible?


Tell me. If you were able to steal all the bitocoin from mtgox, what would you do? (I'm not saying I can)

1) So then you are in it for the money?


What does your question have to do with anything? If I found a serious security vulnerability, I would forward the information on to the appropriate parties so they can fix the holes ASAP. And I wouldn't even demand a small fee (5 figures) because maybe I like the bitcoin project, so maybe I would like to see as little bitcoin frauds as possible.  Wink
5  Economy / Trading Discussion / Re: About Mt. Gox flaw from a security expert on: June 20, 2011, 04:03:35 PM


Even worse when they're in it for the money (5 figures of it, a 'small fee' for his great services). This guy has every incentive to showboat and attempt to show that he's a security expert, and nothing to lose. muad_dib, would you care to give us some background or show some of your previous work?

Really I'm in for the money? I could make much more by moving the bitcoins in the accounts I spoofed.

Bravo! Now that you're not in it for the money, I assume you'll be helping Bit_Happy patch whatever security vulnerability you found that exposed his apache config for free?

That's very noble of you. Thanks!
6  Economy / Trading Discussion / Re: About Mt. Gox flaw from a security expert on: June 20, 2011, 03:25:44 PM
If you own an exchange and would like to be safer, for a small fee (in the 5 figures)...

for a small fee, and the promise of not being persecuted...

The problem with this community is it's full of people trying to make money.

And the problem with most 'security experts' is that they think they walk on water.  Wink

Even worse when they're in it for the money (5 figures of it, a 'small fee' for his great services). This guy has every incentive to showboat and attempt to show that he's a security expert, and nothing to lose. muad_dib, would you care to give us some background or show some of your previous work?
7  Bitcoin / Pools / Re: Please test: New Experimental Pool "Eligius" (~250 GH/s) on: June 14, 2011, 03:12:41 PM
If you're not happy with the one-sided PPS and your miners aren't happy with the system either, then why do we have it in place?
People weren't happy with proportional either. "One-sided PPS" is only a practical reality right now-- the actual policy is straight MaxPPS. The 40% implemented is the bare minimum needed to make the adjustment retroactive.

Only a 'practical' reality right now? What does that even mean? Bare minimum to make adjustment retroactive? Again, what does that mean?

Are you capping payments for the next 1-2 weeks (the 40%) so you've got enough of a bankroll buffer to over-pay on long blocks? If so, those who mine on your pool for the next few weeks are getting a raw deal, unless you plan to add a mechanism to pay them back for the time spent in this 40% period (which would then eliminate your buffer)

Can you give an ETA for when the full system will be implemented? Perhaps a promise that the withheld earnings will be paid back if the system isn't implemented by that date?
As the donations have been much less than even covering the costs of running the pool, let alone my expenses of time spent writing code, I cannot guarantee any ETA. I'm doing this basically free of charge, so for the most part it has to live in my "free time". If you want to change that, feel free to help the donation address grow to a reasonable size to cover my expenses, and then I can justify spending more "time I'm doing paid work" on it. My guess as to completion, is maybe 30 hours of work. If this is done in my spare time, it might be 1-2 weeks. In reality, USA will probably run out of disk space within a few days, so I need to hurry regardless.

Look, I know you're doing this entirely on a volunteer basis and we all greatly appreciate that, but if you're losing money and you don't like it, implement a fee. Deepbit charges 3% (!!) and gets away with it because it's more or less reliable, the payment system is transparent, and Tycho is responsive to and open with his miners.

Eligius is listed as an 'experimental pool', disappeared for a while when the hard drive filled up, and now has an upper limit on payments that hurts miners who use it. Now you're suggesting that the best way to get the MaxPPS system implemented in such a way that pays us fairly is to donate to you?

You might have a harder time getting donations when miners feel like they're already making a donation through these payment caps and black-box MaxPPS payout formulas.

As it stands, the MaxPPS system just puts an upper limit on miners' payouts. Sure, pool-hopping has been eliminated, but you've also reduced the award to legitimate miners. Kind of defeats the purpose.
With MaxPPS, the overall payout should be the same as proportional to legitimate miners.

In the future, right? What about this time period where miners are contributing but only being paid out under the capped system?

I had just started with Eligius and was happy with it so far, but for now I'm switching back to my second choice pool. Nothing personal, once you get the long blocks making up the difference I'll be happy to come back.
You're welcome to use the Europe pool (which remains proportional) in the meantime.
8  Bitcoin / Pools / Re: Please test: New Experimental Pool "Eligius" (~250 GH/s) on: June 14, 2011, 01:51:21 PM
If you don't trust the pool operator in the first place, why would you mine here ? The payouts have worked correctly for the last months, it's not like there were no plans at all to fix the current issues.
To be fair, one of the ideals I've tried to make Eligius meet from the start has been not needing to trust me (immediate payout in the block, third party auditing, etc), but there's a compromise that needs to be made for certain functionality (minimum payouts, anti-pool hopping, etc). I'm not too happy with the current one-sided MaxPPS myself, and I can understand why someone wouldn't want to use it until it's finished if they don't especially trust me. Hence why Europe remains as-is.

If you're not happy with the one-sided PPS and your miners aren't happy with the system either, then why do we have it in place?

Can you give an ETA for when the full system will be implemented? Perhaps a promise that the withheld earnings will be paid back if the system isn't implemented by that date?

As it stands, the MaxPPS system just puts an upper limit on miners' payouts. Sure, pool-hopping has been eliminated, but you've also reduced the award to legitimate miners. Kind of defeats the purpose.
9  Bitcoin / Pools / Re: Please test: New Experimental Pool "Eligius" (~250 GH/s) on: June 14, 2011, 01:46:56 PM
Today I had a dream where all my doubts and misunderstandings were vanished. Somebody in my mind has described Max PPS to me Shocked

It's in its essence, very simple : you don't get paid as much as you should when you contribute on "lucky" blocks. You have to contribute to the "unlucky" blocks too to get all your rewards. Thus eliminating the motive for pool hoppers (that try only to contribute to "lucky" blocks).

It's also, in my opinion, better for the mood to see the reward going up more than expected on otherwise long blocks.

Now, of course, the math behind is not simple, but the principle is really clever and easily understandable.

Artefact2, I think we all understand the problem of pool hopping. However, I don't think you understand the objections to this system.

The system requires the pool to withhold miners' earnings to buffer them out. However, this is done:
  • According to a secret formula, which I cannot find anywhere
  • Using a '40% complete' implementation, with a vague promise to implement the extra 60% that will make it completely fair at some unspecified later date
  • With no mechanism, as far as I can tell, for legitimate miners to ultimately cash out their 'buffered' earnings

Furthermore, this was done without warning and the explanations to date have been lacking or dismissive.
10  Bitcoin / Pools / Re: Please test: New Experimental Pool "Eligius" (~250 GH/s) on: June 14, 2011, 01:29:59 AM
...
I clearly see where I'm sincerely confused and humbly withdrawal myself from this thread.

'Humbly' is not among the top 10 words I would have used to describe your post.  Wink

Let's keep it civil, everyone. No need for arguments.
11  Bitcoin / Pools / Re: Please test: New Experimental Pool "Eligius" (~250 GH/s) on: June 14, 2011, 01:28:29 AM
Since the terminology used seems to be confusing people, perhaps I should rename them to "x" and "y" or something?

Actually, could you just post the algorithm and formulas somewhere?
12  Bitcoin / Pools / Re: Please test: New Experimental Pool "Eligius" (~250 GH/s) on: June 13, 2011, 11:50:13 PM
Perhaps my mistake was using English words for technical details...

I'd say the questions are valid.

Why not just post the technical details/formulas?

As it stands now, the pool just has some vague language about how only 40% of the features are implemented and a pledge to get the other 60% online later to square up with miners.

What's in the 40%?

Is there a way for miners to square up eventually without mining indefinitely or waiting for a long string of long rounds to drain their 'banked' balance?
13  Bitcoin / Pools / Re: Please test: New Experimental Pool "Eligius" (~250 GH/s) on: June 13, 2011, 08:59:28 PM
Perhaps I'm missing something here, because I'm not entirely thrilled with this system.

As I understand it, there is an upper limit on payouts to prevent miners from statistically profiting from pool hopping. However, the value you've earned beyond this upper limit is banked by the pool and used to pay out more on longer blocks.

Does this mean that the only way to fully drain 100% of your mining earnings from the pool is if the pool encounters a string of long blocks, forcing the pool to pay out your 'banked' earnings?

In other words, if the pool is lucky (lots of short blocks) then the pool limits payouts and holds the profits. If the pool is unlucky, then you can be paid out for your actual earnings. This limits the miners' upside and only gives you your total earnings if the pool is unlucky anyway.

I guess my concern stems from the fact that there is an upper limit to your payouts, but no lower limit. And the only way to completely drain your earnings from the pool is to wait for a string of long blocks to drain your 'banked' balance and then quit mining.

Are you going to pay out this 'banked' balance after a certain period of inactivity, or do you keep it for the pool/yourself?



Wouldn't it make more sense to only force this system on miners who aren't mining for 100% (or 95% to account for connection problems, etc.) of the duration of the last x number of blocks?
14  Economy / Trading Discussion / Re: Spreadsheet: Invest in BTC or mining hardware? on: June 12, 2011, 06:53:03 AM
Hi.

Can someone confirm my calculation, that building a new typical rig with 2x6950 (~1,000$), is already less profitable then investing these into BTC (15.5$ ex. rate, default 10% monthly gain - though it pure speculation, I know).

Thanks.

There's no sure thing in the world of Bitcoin, especially lately.

Honestly, any projections are probably about as good as flipping a coin at the moment. Or perhaps you could just take your money to Vegas?
15  Economy / Trading Discussion / Re: Spreadsheet: Invest in BTC or mining hardware? on: June 10, 2011, 10:07:32 PM
Assuming electricity is free, how much longer do you think mining would be more profitable then trading?  Undecided

Depends 100% on what you mean by 'trading'.

Buying/selling bitcoins is crazy volatile right now. I wouldn't touch it unless you really like gambling.
16  Bitcoin / Mining / Re: Custom made GPU miners on: June 02, 2011, 11:02:48 PM
1. Bitcoin is a drop in the bucket. There are many, many, many gamers out there. Just look at the CoD sales numbers.
2. Developing a GPU is a very long process. Definitely greater than 1 year.
3. Current ATI GPUs are already very good at this. Making them better would entail sacrificing elsewhere.
4. Bitcoin is unstable and new and has a questionable future. If the exchange rate falls, mining hardware interest will fall as well.
5. No company in their right mind would invest in hardware tailored to a small niche with an unstable future.
17  Bitcoin / Mining / Re: If you can explain this, I will send 1 BTC your way... on: June 01, 2011, 11:20:47 PM
=Why on earth would an extension cable stop only the desktop from booting when used in card slot number 1?

Not sure if this is your issue or not, but if by saying card slot #1 you actually mean the first card slot (number zero) then the bios might be misidentifying the card as a bootable network card, waiting for it to initialize.

Keeping the same slot and switching the one "cable from hell" changes my results, so I doubt this is the case.

High speed signals require great care.

Proper transmission requires traces with the proper impedance and a minimum of discontinuities in the signal path. Each discontinuity (connectors, pins, etc) will pass most of the signal, but a small portion will be reflected backward toward the source. The bigger the discontinuity, the larger the reflection.

Normally, your traces are relatively short on the motherboard and these reflections will reach the source before the next symbol (think 'bit' in this case) is transmitted. When you extend the trace length as far as you have, it is entirely possible that the reflections take so long to reach the source that they're overlapping on the next symbol (bit). This is called inter-symbol interference (ISI).

So why does it only happen in slot 1? My guess is that this slot has either the longest traces, or a slightly different impedance that causes a larger discontinuity when you connect your extender contraption.

The solution is to not double up your extenders. If you must extend something that far, use a single extender.

Edit: Note that when I say impedance, I'm not referring to just resistance. The complex impedance of a transmission line or lumped element refers to how it interacts with a time-varying signal. It's not the same quantity that you can measure with your multimeter.
18  Bitcoin / Mining / Re: Any other tips for increasing mining speed on: June 01, 2011, 06:59:48 PM
I have a 5870, finely tuned to 1ghz and 300 using pheonix on btcguild getting 440-460 hash. Ignoring things like flags are there any other tips for increasing speed. I use windows 7 and took off all appearance things, any other similar ideas that would get me an extra 10-20 hash

Why don't you share what you're using right now so we have a starting point?
19  Bitcoin / Mining / Re: radeon 5850 > 6870, why? on: May 31, 2011, 11:44:43 PM
The research I've done (just a bit) says the 6870 is better than the 5850 but it seems like the opposite is true for mining. Why is that?

Need [much] more info.

What's your research?

What was your testing?

Clocks? SDK? Program? Kernel?

What's 'better'? Pure speed or power efficiency?

Share your numbers.
20  Bitcoin / Mining / Re: 5870 Users! Clock Speed, Memory, Voltage, SDK and CCC Version, Flags, etc. on: May 31, 2011, 09:50:45 PM
very strange  Huh

Not really, that's just how hardware works. Each chip will be stable at a different speed/voltage as it comes off of the line. The stock clocks are set such that 100% of the chips that are actually used in production cards will be stable in almost all cases at those speeds. Some have more headroom than others.

The hardcore overclockers (the type who compete in this stuff) will buy numerous chips/cards and test each one individually to find the fastest unit. Variations can be huge.
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 »
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!