A technical question - why the patch does not simply discard the block with the duplicate hash, regardless of its contents?
That is basically what happens: a block with a duplicate transaction will become invalid, and thus will be ignored. EDIT: obviously, this does not happen to blocks with existing duplicate transactions, as that would require invalidating the entire chain since then. I understand the "IF NEWER THAN SOMEDATE" in code, this is to prevent invalidating the entire chain since when first duplicate transaction appeared. But, with this date switch implemented, why to check for spent/unspent transactions, instead of simply comparing the hash against all previous (just for blocks after the switch)? |
|
|
|
|
A technical question - why the patch does not simply discard the block with the duplicate hash, regardless of its contents?
|
|
|
|
|
Wow! I just hope you will pack a Xmas songs CD with the year subscription to magazine! ;-)
(Well, with all the preparation and delays, it may happen to be packed right into Issue 1?)
|
|
|
|
|
Remember that when GPU needs to redraw anything for you, it must take a part of the processing power from the mining. So, when you move windows, redraw their contents, there is (very little) slow down of mining process.
For example, I minimize the console windows when not watching the mining.
|
|
|
|
I think it's more likely that Linode has a staffer into bitcoins that used the command line tools from the host VM manager to halt the systems, modify the shadow file and bring them up and steal the coins than it is that the Linode user's management tool was compromised.
Linode, if we can believe what they've said, didn't see any management UI activity in the logs at the time the reboots occurred. This is more consistent with someone using a tool outside of the normal logged events, such as the native VM tools, rather than the UI being broken into.
If, and I believe in it, it was a staffer, I just fully hope that Linode has logged all such attemps and will identify the attacker and will try hard to force him to return the stolen funds. If he somehow managed to bypass the logs, or hacked the Linode, then Linode should end immediately as whole, this is unacceptable. |
|
|
|
|
Can cgminer set GPU/MEM frequencies out of BIOS ranges? For example, something like MSI Afterburner in Windows can do?
|
|
|
|
Hundreds!  |
|
|
|
|
I would not give up on 250 BTC. May buy you a house in future. Ask professional to help you.
|
|
|
|
|
User Casascius has some experience with finding the wallet through disk sectors. I would recommend to stop using that filesystem ASAP and contact him to help you.
|
|
|
|
|
There must be a lot of info on the web, as candle charts are de facto standards for market data.
In very short: the candle is red, if the price in that time unit (e.g. 5 minutes) went down and is green, if it went up. The thin line, if visible, shows the whole price span during that time unit. For red candle, the final price is the lower end, for green candle, its the upper end.
I would recommend to watch MtGoxLive charts together with BitcoinCharts and play with them.
|
|
|
|
Can I "empty" several of my addresses to single, already existing, MY OWN address?
I am getting "Error: Transaction creation failed".
Can it be "not enough money on all specified addresses to take a required fee from it" problem?
yes, most likely the tx needs the 0.0005 fee, so transfer the total amount minus that fee and it should be fine How about to show the "Fee needed" dialog in such a case instead of failing with an error? |
|
|
|
Juts issued an interim bitcoin technical analysis update in the subscriber section.
As the content of this S3052's analysis is private only to subscribed members, I would vote to make the notifications about private too. I know that some PR is always needed, but this reveals hints to the market. Instead, do some week-ago or so POST MORTEM analysis, where you will publish the previous analysis and discuss the outcome. |
|
|
|
|
Can I "empty" several of my addresses to single, already existing, MY OWN address?
I am getting "Error: Transaction creation failed".
Can it be "not enough money on all specified addresses to take a required fee from it" problem?
|
|
|
|
First i know this is about that 1000BTC Bar, but i'd hope it would apply to it too. Casascius, is there anyway to give you a private key / public key to use to make a coin, 1BTC. I'd like to use a Vanity address  Casascius could offer that as a service - he could generate a special vanity address according your mask for you for a premium. |
|
|
|
|
Let each model ask for their opinion on BIP16/BIP17, so we can make erudite decision.
|
|
|
|
To get more trust for pools, I wished the miners would get a copy of what they actually try to sign. Today it would be possible that pool A mines for pool B for the shares never actually mining a block for them essentially only costing B's money. If A would also send a copy of the block to be signed to the miner, the miner could broadcast the block himself to stop such attacks. He could also refuse to mine blocks without transactions etc ...
Why do miners sign stuff they are not allowed to read? You only see what you signed once it shows up in the block chain but if you happened to mine for some alt chain, you will not even be aware you publicly signed something.
I've heard somewhere on this forum about a new method of submitting shares to pool. The idea was that the pool would account your share as valid if the reward generation address will match that of the pool. So, you will choose which transactions you plan to include in it, you will choose what nonstandard features you will support and as long as you credit the share to pool, it will be accounted to your score. Thus, the pool will just become a large accounting server who takes care about share and reward distribution, but cannot influence the mined blocks. I really love this idea. Does it have any drawbacks? Why aren't there new pools offering it? |
|
|
|
But if we could somehow decrease that enormous risk, the required buffer could also be a lot smaller. That’s why we now do what most miners do. They consider solo mining too risky, and aggregate their mining power with the mining power of others by joining a pool. Or in our case, joining several pools.
What pools, specifically? I hope all miners here understand that it is very important to know what blocks they are contributing to solve to. Nowadays, pools are necessary evil, but "pool proxy" is rather dangerous thing. |
|
|
|
|
Note that PSAR is nothing magical. Most of time, it flips AFTER the change in sell/buy mood happens. At that time, it is obvious that rally/sellof started. But it looks nice when layed on historical data, though. ;-)
|
|
|
|
|
Just interested how do you keep track of private/public key pair? Does the paper circles have public key on one side, private on another?
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
