I know it's hard to think for yourself. Believe me. It's a daily struggle. But that doesn't mean that you have to let a book and some people turn you into a mindless drone. Be religious. It's your right. We don't have to. It's our right.
To be fair it's not just the book. Most of them get brainwashed by priests and all the stuff around religion. You know the huge American messes and things like that... Come on. Christians can think a whole lot better than atheists.  Despite all evidence to the contrary. (I know you don't have any proof, I'm not even going to bother asking) |
|
|
|
I call people who believe in a god "religionists". It's a fair enough term, although I could have just used the term "theist" instead, I suppose.
I would say the term "religionists" perpetuates a narrow view in regards to belief. It would mean that every god is tied to a religion and that religion cannot exist without god, and god cannot exist without religion. This of course is not the case. It's not? You follow BADecker's view that religions can exist without belief in the supernatural? |
|
|
|
well atheists donot believe in religion...wic is why they hate religion!
Non sequitur. Not believing in something doesn't mean you hate it. Well, for rational people, anyway. I don't believe in UFOs. I don't hate them. I don't believe in the Easter bunny. I don't hate it. I don't believe in Destiny. I don't hate it. You get the idea - you can think up other examples yourself. |
|
|
|
Hate is an emotion and atheists hate because they are unable to control their emotions
I only hate stupidity and ignorant assertions of fact... like this for example However, this does not mean I hate you as a person... I feel sad for you I see more examples of "religionists hate because they are unable to control their emotions" than of atheists doing the same. You call Moloch a "religionists"? Best regards. I call people who believe in a god "religionists". It's a fair enough term, although I could have just used the term "theist" instead, I suppose. |
|
|
|
Hate is an emotion and atheists hate because they are unable to control their emotions
I only hate stupidity and ignorant assertions of fact... like this for example However, this does not mean I hate you as a person... I feel sad for you I see more examples of "religionists hate because they are unable to control their emotions" than of atheists doing the same. |
|
|
|
By ignoring the quality of something, you are easily ignoring whether or not it is valid. That is not true: a thing can be valid in a system and not in another. The quality of a thing doesn't screw up the validity of the same thing. Validity is absolute in a system, quality is relative in that system. Although we are humans. Best regards. Someone has hijacked BitNow's account. |
|
|
|
Since nobody has been able to show the flaws in the so-called crap I say, my so-called crap is less crap than things that are opposite of it. This is another example of wooly thinking. The validity of a statement is not contingent on its opposite. For example, two statements can both be invalid and opposing. Validity or invalidity, the point was the difference in quality. Perhaps you didn't really mean this? By denying the importance of validity you deny the importance of truth. By ignoring the quality of something, you are easily ignoring whether or not it is valid. Not really. "Quality" can mean anything. Means whatever you want it to really. It's just your subjective opinion. I would hope your concept of truth was more objective than that. When you say that theory necessarily shows fact, you are essentially saying that "validity" can mean anything as well. If you don't accept the meaning of the word "validity", I'll restate: "The truth of a statement is not contingent on its opposite" |
|
|
|
Since nobody has been able to show the flaws in the so-called crap I say, my so-called crap is less crap than things that are opposite of it. This is another example of wooly thinking. The validity of a statement is not contingent on its opposite. For example, two statements can both be invalid and opposing. Validity or invalidity, the point was the difference in quality. Perhaps you didn't really mean this? By denying the importance of validity you deny the importance of truth. By ignoring the quality of something, you are easily ignoring whether or not it is valid. Not really. "Quality" can mean anything. Means whatever you want it to really. It's just your subjective opinion. I would hope your concept of truth was more objective than that. |
|
|
|
Since nobody has been able to show the flaws in the so-called crap I say, my so-called crap is less crap than things that are opposite of it. This is another example of wooly thinking. The validity of a statement is not contingent on its opposite. For example, two statements can both be invalid and opposing. Validity or invalidity, the point was the difference in quality. Perhaps you didn't really mean this? By denying the importance of validity you deny the importance of truth. |
|
|
|
Since nobody has been able to show the flaws in the so-called crap I say, my so-called crap is less crap than things that are opposite of it. This is another example of wooly thinking. The validity of a statement is not contingent on its opposite. For example, two statements can both be invalid and opposing. |
|
|
|
I just realised that it shows I don't pay tx fee but we do. Could you fix that for me.
Done. |
|
|
|
You take away all the fun *grumble*. Post deleted. |
|
|
|
|
I hope I'm not coming across as weird here, but I always sleep with a pillow on my head. I'll fall asleep on top of the pillow, but sometime during the night I end up putting it on my head.
|
|
|
|
Well - yes that's assuming unintentional is only 32-bit related. Of course there could be other reasons, but yep thanks for this OOC - it seems blatantly obvious once you point it out but yeah never thought of it before. Fortunately I have full share history of my pool since it started  Time to do 20TB of share searching (sdiff is part of the share log) ... and of course make it permanently record them ... sdiff is the pool difficulty (minimum accepted work difficulty) or the work difficulty? You'll need both of them. Let me know what you find? That much data is going to be a very good test of the methodology. |
|
|
|
Heh he picked the same number I said on the slush thread - 10 blocks. Yes the pool already has information about that ... Not picking on you - it's something I've read lots of times. But ... ok ... I do need to add something else also for the 32-bit miner failure ... ok that hits the top of the todo list ... ... once I finish this I'm working on.
I envisioned this as an automated screening test that would be applied to all user accounts, and wouldn't have to be tied to just the known modes of failure. Let me know if anything in the post is unclear and I'll lend a hand. To my knowledge no one has automated a similar test yet but it's pretty simple. Keeping track of the difficulty, user account and pool difficulty of every submitted share might be a PITA though. |
|
|
|
Heh he picked the same number I said on the slush thread - 10 blocks. Yes the pool already has information about that ... That is some interesting stuff. Why would someone do that here? Would it be to benefit from faster block change notifications? Harm the reputation of the pool? I'm pretty sure I saw the word "unintentional" in there somewhere. That's to do with possible detection of a specific "unintentional" problem. However, if someone has $100k (or more) worth of "unintentional" miners, do you expect people would just throw them away if there was no real fix for them ... ... ... In the post, "Intentional block withholding" just means the max sized share changes to match difficulty, which can only be done on purpose. Any other problems that causes valid blocks to not be returned to the pool -- even a network problem -- is "unintentional". I meant "intentional" as an intentional attack against a pool (which could be extremely hard to detect) rather than someone with known faulty equipment that they can't repair wanting to mine and not caring who they affected. So yes, Kano is right -- people can be intentionally acting like dicks and still be "unintentionally" block withholding. As soon as someone comes up with better terminology to describe the differences, I'll be the first to use it. |
|
|
|
EDIT even funnier yet.. "By allowing the public to examine block hashes, Slushes pool will allow you to check for block withholding too. If they also include an anonymised user account identifier, the pool difficulty for that block hash and the number of block hashes returned by that user at that pool difficulty, you'll also be able to check for unintentional block withholding. I hope other pools follow suit."
Slush gets pool fees yet he expects us to babysit it for him. If it wasnt for a group of us letting him know this wouldnt have even been an issue. Slush said it was luck! FFS. what a joke.. slush needs to take some damn accountability here.. UFF WTF
You misunderstand. "Babysitting" wasn't the point, rather that instead of just assuming a problem exists you can actually check to see if it exists. Regardless of how you think this recent problem at Slush's pool has been handled, the idea that blockhashes will be published to improve pool transparency seems to me to be a big step forward for pooled mining. |
|
|
|
Are you planning some analysis for block version/Core version?
The block withholding check is applicable to any bitcoin version, or any altcoin too. |
|
|
|
New post! Early detection of unintentional block withholding5. Summary
By examining the numerical values of each block hash returned by a miner, a mining pool operator can detect unintentional block withholding a lower tailed probability of exp(-10) or 0.000045, after only (max difficulty work returned) / (network difficulty) shares have been accepted by the pool.
Early detection of unintentional block withholding can represent a significant saving. At the current network difficulty, a pool that uses early detection to find a miner with equipment unable to return work greater than 2^32 will lose 0.3 of a block reward instead of ten block rewards.
 |
|
|
|
Notice the words "new theories." Theories are fun, intriguing things that might be great ideas, but are not known to be facts. People can invent theories all day long.
You mean like theory of gravity. LOL... The existence of a force that we call gravity is not a theory. The theory part has to do with what exactly gravity is. If you try to "prove gravity" all you can do is show that, locally to you, things tend to move from up to down. This doesn't "prove" gravity, since your experiences in the past can't be considered predictive unless you have a theory to explain why we might expect gravity to act the same way in the future, and this is why there are no "science facts". Since the force of gravity is universal in everything that we have experience with, and since the only way to overcome it takes effort and force, gravity is a law. The "Law of Gravity" is a theory, not a fact. If we find information that this is in some way wrong, we'll change it to make it correct. Again, the force that we call gravity is a law. Why? Because there is no place where we do not see its force acting. The theory exists regarding how gravity works, and what it is made from, etc. Newton's law of gravitational force can be seen here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton%27s_law_of_universal_gravitation. When this article says that Newton's law of gravity was suspended by Einstein's theory of general relativity, this means that the law of gravity was suspended in the minds of a whole bunch of people (scientists) who would rather look at non-fact than fact. Theory, until proven factual, is fiction. Law is factual. The problem with many areas of science is that the scientists are accepting non-fact over fact. Thus, science itself is following a form of devolution, just like all of human-kind. No. Once again, the "Law of Gravity" is a theory. If some aspect of it is incorrect, that can be changed. I think rather than the law of gravity, you're thinking of the concept of gravity, the idea that, in our experience things tend to fall? |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
