How do we know that many people under ISIS rule aren't using BTC?  If it was so prevalent that we were aware of it, than ISIS would be aware of it as well and would raid / torture people looking for private keys.

Have you noticed that in most establishments, you no longer have to sign a credit card receipt for small purchases?

That's because someone finally figured out that it's not worth slowing down the purchases for 999 people, in order to have physical evidence for that 1 person that cheated them out of a $10 purchase.

Same with BitCoin. No one is going to force you to stand there and wait for 1 confirmation, much less 6, on a $5 latte.  The minuscule risk is built into their business model. As soon as the transaction shows up pending on a large node or two (which takes what, 1-2 seconds?), there is no reason to not accept the transaction.  Between the lower transaction fees and no charge backs, their risk is far less than that of a credit card.

Sure, if you are buying a Ferrari, you'll be waiting around for all 6 confirmations. But when's the last time you put a Ferrari on a credit card? (Hint: They won't accept anything but a small deposit on a credit card because of the 2-3% transaction fee).

Not advocating one way or the other, but out of curiosity I mined .01BTC there yesterday and withdrew it successfully (although it took ~8 hours from the time I did the manual withdraw to the time it showed up)

https://blockchain.info/address/12vPmKxjU2PK56TANqeZrz6Noe16Z4yabS

And for that chargeback ability, everything we purchase is ~3% more expensive than it should be.

I'd rather be able to make the decision for myself.  Low fees for low risk transactions, escrow for risky transactions

If you believe there is a reasonable chance for general worldwide adoption, then in my opinion anyone getting into BitCoin today is right on time to the party.  You may not have been early to the party, but you weren't late either.  Even many of those that did arrive early, gave them away on pizzas.  I suspect the number of people who hoarded massive quantities from the early days is actually pretty small.

There will only be 21 million BTC.  The world's population is 7.1 billion (7100 million).  Evenly divided, every person could only have .003BTC

Over $100 million was stolen the other day and it wasn't front page news on general media sites.  Clearly the general public hasn't caught on yet. Its our responsibility, and in our interest, to see that they do by removing roadblocks (technical complexity, fear, difficulties in acquiring them, etc). This community has made amazing strides to that end over the past year and I have confidence that we will continue to do so.

$1100 is dirt cheap.  I am mining and purchasing every BTC I possibly can.

Not so much a bug, but the Transaction Fee tooltip says:

..."for less than $0.01 USD and helps the network"

You might consider rewording this without specifying a USD amount, since with the current USD exchange rate, a .00005 fee is more than $0.01.  Even a relay fee of .00001 is more than $0.01 

I installed Armory on a Windows 7 work PC with the intention of importing watch-only wallets.

I couldn't get Armory to go into online mode.  Eventually I figured out what was happening.  I log into my PC as a domain user, and my home directory is c:\users\<domain user>.<domain name\ - My USERPROFILE environment variable is set correctly, and bitcoin-qt and bitcoind read from the correct c:\users\<domain user>.<domain name> directory, and my permissions on that directory only give my domain user account access.

I finally discovered, that anytime I launched Armory, the permissions on bitcoin.conf would get changed.  My domain user's permissions would be removed, and replaced by permissions for my local user. As a result, when Armory tried to launch bitcoind in the background, it was unable to read the file and failed to launch.

This only happens when I launch Armory. I does not happen when I run bitcoin-qt or bitcoind independently.

If I tell Armory to not run bitcoin in the background, and I run it myself, then everything worked fine.

However, I did discover a solution. I modified the permissions for bitcoin.conf, by adding my domain user back in with full permissions, and removing permission for the local user to delete the file or modify its permissions.  Armory is now able to go online just fine.

Payout queue seems down?

Edit: It's back up.

Thanks 

Hi wizkid,

I was thinking about changing my deposit address. But since my "Share Rewarded" is about 91% right now, I wanted to check if changing addresses and abandoning my old account makes it less likely that those stored shares might be paid someday. Based on my understanding of the reward system I didn't think it would matter, but I wanted to run it by you first. Thanks!

Hi wizkid,

Question for you.  When I am looking at my "Balance Graph", with the "Toggle graphing of maximum reward" turned on, I see no activity for 11/19/2013 06:22:30 - 11/19/2013 11:59:59, even though I have been hashing non stop for days (confirmed by the "Hashrate Graph").  I understand that that could happen to my current unpaid if luck is bad, but wouldn't my "maximum reward" be increasing all the time I am hashing?  Or am I misunderstanding "maximum reward"?

My account is 1L86EDpwUSm5GiJPZvXeCSXA2ebbEbBGBh

Thanks!

Hi wizkid,

I am new to this pool and like the reward system. If I'm understanding correctly, it attempts to pay 100% PPS as luck allows, and when luck doesn't allow, it caches up shares so that they might be paid someday.  I've been mining for a week or so and love the stats etc.

What I don't understand is how you get paid / cover your costs.  Unless the pool was lucky for a long period, there doesn't seem to be anything in it for you.  Even if the pool was lucky for a long period, how would you know that you could take profit vs storing it for the inevitable bad luck in the future.

Finally, is there anyway of me seeing how many shares I have in the backlog?  Right now I am comparing the "maximum reward" to the "unpaid+everpaid+est" shown in the Balance Graph, but I wanted to see if that's the best way.

Thanks!

That does seem to be the most reasonable conclusion. It's hard to imagine that the latency between the GPU and CGMiner is measurable compared to internet latency, but I'm no hardware expert.

[Edit] If that's true, then you'd think everyone running a 5830 would get similar results. Anyone else with an older card experiencing the same thing compared to a newer card?

Strange, it's hard to imagine that any minor difference between the cards design would affect its ability to get the share from the card to the pool that significantly.

Out of curiosity, is the 5830 also serving your monitor?

This.

This.

This.

Variance is what I've been mentioning in the original thread for days.  High diff will not affect pool's profit, but it will affect small miner's reasonable variance.

h2o has previously stated that we are using a proportional system.  I agree that changing the payout algorithm to something like PPLNS would also help smooth out the variance.

Right now we have the worst possible setup for small miners - high diff with a payout calculation that does nothing to smooth out variance.

Over a long enough period of time (although I have no idea if that's weeks, months, etc) it shouldn't matter. But isn't the whole point of a pool to minimize variance?

I had assumed that you wouldn't be willing to do that, I'm just curious if you have any stats showing original anticipated BTC value vs the actual sale value over time?

Because I can't resist the prospect of getting flamed, here is my analogy.

A guy writes down a number from 1-100 on the back of a postcard.  You guess what that number is, and if you choose the correct number, you win.  You keep guessing as fast as you can.

Every 30 seconds, the guy tears up the postcard and creates another one with a new number.

Can we agree that your previous guesses have no bearing on your chances of choosing the correct number now?  Same when a block changes.

Expanding the analogy to include difficulty makes no difference. You now need to choose a number from 1-500, so it's going to take you longer to find a correct answer. But when the guy tears up the postcard and writes down a new number, your previous guesses does not effect your new guesses.

BTW: I am all for lowering difficulty to reduce *variance*, and I'm sure there is some flaw in that analogy, so flame away

Fair enough. Another thing I've wondered is how much we are gaining / losing (most likely losing) from the time that elapses since a coin was the most profitable, to the time that it takes to mature and get sent to Cryptsy and gets sold (when it may no longer be the most profitable, or anywhere near if it was just a temporary pump spike)

It would take an investment on the pool op's part, but I've wondered what would happen if he maintained a "float" of all of the coins that we mine, so he could sell them as soon as we mined them (or at least as soon as they mature), and then the float would be replenished when the coins finally made it to Cryptsy.

You may be correct because of variance given the 512 difficulty, but if you were only on the pool for a few days, another possibility is that you haven't given it enough time. Our coins have to wait as they go through several stages (maturity, sending to cryptsy and waiting for confirmations, sending BTC back and waiting for confirmations).  NovaCoin blocks in particular take a looong time to mature.

If you already included the "Immature Unexchanged Balance" and "Unexchanged Balance" columns in your profit calculations, then nevermind

Correct. I'm not speaking of probability of the expected outcome of a series of events that have not happened yet.  I'm directing that link to anyone that thinks that they calculated part of a share and lost something when we move to a new block.