Ja, genau, von einem Pool bei dem es keinerlei Steurn gibt. Du sagst es wird dir "schlecht" wenn jemand von "keine Besteuerung" schreibt, obwohl es 100% korrekt ist. Es gibt keine Besteuerung.
Das die Kapazität von Eligius nur für Transaktionen mit einem minimalen fee-Satz verfügbar ist hat rein garnichts mit dem Minen zu tun. Es MUSS dienste geben die einen mehrwert, höhere Transkationsgewschindigkeit, gegen minimale Bezahlung anbieten. Es schränkt weder die Verfügbarkeit freier Transaktionen ein noch kostet es die Miner irgendwas. Es stellt lediglich BESSERE Transaktionsdienste ins Netz.

Es geht hier um Pooled Mining. Was du schreibst hat damit nichts zu tun.

Andris i suggested something along your line here http://forum.bitcoin.org/index.php?topic=9299.0 but i think its safe to assume it doesnt catch on. My impression is that there is too little concern for end user psychology in the still very technocratic thinking btc development community.

Ich würde zu Eligius raten, da wird noch selbst der BTC "generiert" und nicht einfach irgendwas überwiesen von einem pool.
Es gibt keine Besteuerung (deepbit 3-10%, slush 2% etc), ihr bekommt genau was ihr ermined, zu 99.99999% (100% geht wohl nicht wg nachkommastellen )
Es gibt keine Nutzererstellung oder ähnliches, ihr müsst nur eine Bitcoinadresse eintragen.
Bei verwendung von GUIMINER:
Pool: OTHER
URL: eu.mining.eligius.st
Port: 8337
User: BITCOINADRESSE
Passwort: x

Statistik findet ihr hier:
http://eligius.st/~artefact2/
bzw für euren benutzer dann
http://eligius.st/~artefact2/eu/BITCOINADRESSE.htm

Anbei mal ausgerechnet wieviel von den jeweils generierten 50BTC ausgezahlt werden:

EU pool is working fine, it almost feels a bit like solo mining though

Given the way you structured your sentence and your hardware logic, i can only say its not the best idea in the universe, really. Triple slot am3 with 5850s are your best bet if you want to expand massively. your single slot shitpcs have no resale value and will really put a hurting on your administrative overhead with that amount of cards.

The only issue there is that if you have multiple machines in multiple locations with multiple gpu's, all oc'ed to a stable max, i really like to get an email if something happens, i.e. some connction issue or if i need to nudge the clock down a bit on a card since a driver crashed. email gives me that with workers set up for each gpu.
I really like your system and generated coin transactions but i need that backup warning system. Such complexity is totally against the logic of your pool hence i use btcmine as backup "email warning" pool. Dont get me wrong, its all good the way its simple and how u now have that nice statspage, its just that beyond a number of gpu some sort of monitoring is required.
If i ran 3 gpu i would also do the eu main us failover setup

you should run 1 main instance and one to a "backup pool", preferably not the same pool.

i use my main mining now at eu eligius and the failover are btcmine. if this goes down btcmine takes over, if btcmine is down i get an email :p

well, back on your service and bumping it a bit #1 already

Well, please reread the RFC, it is about avoiding naming endless fractions but instead change the commonly used name for unit x in the unchanged numerical system.

Today, technology review posted a very good article on Bitcoins titled "What Bitcoin Is, and Why It Matters" yet they again we see the 21m issue:

No matter how much coders and technocrats argue that the bitcoin is divisible, which was never questioned, the issue will not go away. "Average Joe" users dont like and dont want something that is divisible 1m times. they want 100 or max 1k, like tehy are used to.

Link to the article: http://www.technologyreview.com/computing/37619/?a=f

well scratch that, eu pool down 

throwing in 2,6gh/s, lets see how this works out

Yup, its why i have been pointing out that its 95% chance its a scam and 5% its a really bad investment. Such stuff is bad for the community.
I think if Tawsix ever posts anything again it will be along the lines of "i am tired of people accusing me of scamming, hence i am annoyed so fux you, i am out of this and blame the ppl who were asking questions" type of excuse.

you actually think someone with 3*16=48 pcs with say 3x 5850 each will cause a huge diff increase? dont be so naive, thats only about 46gh.

i would say if that is the depth of knowledge you have on the issue, dont invest in an installation of that size. the heat of each card is precisely defined and possible to even calculate quite accurately, going with the tdp seems to be a good rule of tumb and leave some buffer.
not knowing about tdp and thinking that heat output in watt is in any way related to the environmental temperature does suggest you should do some more reading rather than building your private datacenter.
you should not confuse heat output per card with the cards ability to stay within its thermal envelope inside your projected building, these are two different issues.

Yes, i know what you mean. Its not about any technical issue but bitcoin having aspects that make it unecessarily complex for "users". Hence the suggestion, without changing anything except what clients write next to the actual balance, to make it more user friendly.
I assume that regarding the major public, you can safely assume two things:
a) they want a currency that scales up like every other currency, virtual or not, out there. people rather have a HUGEPILEOFSOMETHING than a 0.002 of something, even if it is the same number under the hood of the software and in valueation
b) never underestimate the psychology of money and markets. by saying 21 million bitcoins are the max, which is true with the current logic, people implicitly percieve bitcoin as a very short lived system. people have to do research and actually take time to grasp the concept of fractions of btc to actually get rid of that "first reaction". if you make people think that there are 21 trillion or quatrillion or wherever u set the btc unit in the system, the immediate first reaction is "aint no limit i will ever get to in that system, sounds good", which is infinitely better than assuming "shit, only 21 million, who came up with that, bill gates can buy all of that lol roflcopter".

Yes, my suggestion caters to the coding unsawvy and mathematically not so talented. which is 95%+ of the internet. If bitcoin wants to be widespread it has to change the "parts interfereing with endusers" to a system that makes them feel fuzzy, at home and rich. Giving that CPU miner 0,03 BTC sounds so awful to him, giving him 0,03 MEGA of something makes him feel "well its mega, so 0,03 is a nice piece of the pie".

Please dont mix this discussion about protocol etc with the initial topic at hand as its not related to it and can very easily create confusion since at first glance it sounds related to my proposal.

Do you read techblogs like techcrunch who have millions of readers? I quote from http://techcrunch.com/2011/05/21/the-bitcoin-experiment/


While not stating directly bitcoins are atomic, it heavily implies it to the reader.

I am sorry if that wasnt clear, i think you are misinterpreting my posting as a suggestion to change anything in the code or protocol. It is not, it is a suggestion to change the naming pattern to one that is NOT a problem in real life. I consider the current naming system unacceptable for widespread use, hence the suggestion.

It's a key aspect of anything "universally accepted" to be percieved easy to grasp and simple. The concept of bitcoin in many aspects is difficult to grasp for even more engaged consumers, do you want to overburden them with those "TL;DR" charts?
Giving people a simple terminology that uses terms they have come to learn in the past decade through personal computers seems to be the most consumer friendly approach.

If there has ever been an argument for changing a naming system from the current situation to a system that is simplified, it would be your two charts. You can win coders hearts with these, the average consumer opens these charts and will just close it out of utter confusion and "fear of complexity".