@organofcorti No problem. We're a P2Pool proxy by default but with the bonus for miners to sell hashes to any pool as a proxy pool! A little from column A and a little from column B  I placed you at the top, in "P2Pool proxy mining pools". Check the listing, tell me if you need anything changed. Good luck! |
|
|
|
|
@BITMAIN
Now you're using cloudflare I can't scrape your block data anymore, and your API is opaque and unnecessarily complicated (ie I can't get it to work) for your block data API. Can't you open up either your pool stats page or make the API more user friendly? I dont think a signature and nonce should be required to view the pool stats API.
|
|
|
|
Open to the public! Pool: Cloudminer.comWebsite: https://cloudminer.comProxy: YesPayout method: CPPSRBFee: 3%Pay Tx Reward: YesVardiff: 18 SPMLocal Work: StratumPay Orphans: YesMin Withdrawal: Auto 0.05; Manual 0.001Merge Mining: NoEnjoy. If this is a proxy pool, why not pay PPS - I think other proxies have? Also -- just out of interest -- where are you sending your hashes? @organofcorti We're paying PPS value for accepted shares but with the pool just starting out, miners will see some variance and therefore paying out from the share log over time is a safer for us and the miner. When your not clustering with other miners under a rental order your workers collectively mine with the P2Pool network and accepted shares are saved into our private share log until then automatically paid out by CPPSRB method. We use a scheduled round lasting 24 hours where the pool only pays as much as possible after unlucky rounds but later pays the difference after lucky rounds. Sorry, I didn't realise it was a p2pool proxy, I thought you meant a "proxy pool" - one that mines in other pools. Being a p2pool proxy I absolutely understand why you are not paying PPS. |
|
|
|
Open to the public! Pool: Cloudminer.comWebsite: https://cloudminer.comProxy: YesPayout method: CPPSRBFee: 3%Pay Tx Reward: YesVardiff: 18 SPMLocal Work: StratumPay Orphans: YesMin Withdrawal: Auto 0.05; Manual 0.001Merge Mining: NoEnjoy. If this is a proxy pool, why not pay PPS - I think other proxies have? Also -- just out of interest -- where are you sending your hashes? |
|
|
|
You forgot to read the little line that I said, pointing at the definition of the word religion. Read number 6 in the definition of religion quoted above. It says, "something one believes in and follows devotedly; a point or matter of ethics or conscience: to make a religion of fighting prejudice." Don't take my word for it. Go to the link and look up the definition for yourself. The fact that you are constantly explaining and defending what you believe - it doesn't matter what it is - shows that you have religion. If you happen to include some of the other definition points in your religious beliefs, your religion is even stronger.  I don't believe in anything or follow it devotedly (maybe bitcoin, but I don't believe anyone would believe bitcoin is a religion). I'm explaining my own views because you keep ascribing me views that I don't have. Is it religion to prove you are innocent of some action or thought? Does every lawyer believe that the law is a god? Yet they "constantly explain and defend" what they mean. You seem to believe that any action one takes suggests religion? Are there any actions one can take that *do not* suggest religion? Or suggest *no religion*? |
|
|
|
......
Next, right above my quote containing some links to sites that explain what atheism is, and how it is aligned with what a religion is, you wrote, "No. Really really no. That's not atheism at all." And following my link quote you wrote, "None of these links describe atheism." Yet atheism was, like, the entire point of the info in those links... describing atheism. The point here is, you have your opinion. That's okay. I can't apologize for you having an opinion; it isn't my fault you have opinions; so that wasn't what I was apologizing for.
All your links are religious sites attempting to explain atheism. Atheism explained by religious people is one minority trying to explain another minority that they've never met before. It doesn't work. Therefore none of those links describe atheism, they describe what religious people think atheism actually is. So, what was I apologizing for? I was apologizing that I was taking unfair mental advantage of some near-retarded joker who thinks that anybody would think that search engines might possibly be authorities on atheism; or one who wants to bolster his ideals with limited, not-necessarily-factual information; and one who by his expressing of his "belief" goes entirely against the beliefs of many others, without allowing that some of those others might be right. I was also apologizing for "roughly" dealing with a weak mentality that doesn't even recognize that the way he is handling his describing of atheism is in a totally religious way. Honest and fair people don't deal roughly with children. At least not the first time. And I still don't want to deal even the slightest in a rough way with your mentality. But you are pushing the issue. EDIT: Now, I know you will have trouble understanding what I have written above. But that's okay. Other people will understand. From context, your post doesn't actually mention being sorry for any of the ad-hominem attack you write above. I think you just made it up solely for this post. As I've mentioned before nothing about my beliefs are religious. I have no opinion about magical sky fathers, rock spirits, snake men or any of the multitude of religious beliefs. And if some god appears and claims to be the one true god and that god has no other explanation, I'll change my mind. Anyway, each time you write about what you think I believe, I'll be here to correct you. I won't even take you to task for your irrational ad-hominem attacks. Now, look at the points you made above. Most of them are points about your religion. They are your doctrines. The more you emphasize them, the stronger your religion becomes. Notice in the definitions, #6, below. From Dictionary.com at http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/religion?s=t: religion
[ri-lij-uh n]
noun
1. a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.
2. a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects:
the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion.
3. the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices:
a world council of religions.
4. the life or state of a monk, nun, etc.:
to enter religion.
5. the practice of religious beliefs; ritual observance of faith.
6. something one believes in and follows devotedly; a point or matter of ethics or conscience:
to make a religion of fighting prejudice.
7. religions, Archaic. religious rites:
painted priests performing religions deep into the night.
8. Archaic. strict faithfulness; devotion:
a religion to one's vow.
EDIT: Besides, saying the truth isn't ad hominem. What are the points I made that are religious in nature? All I wrote is that I have no opinion about the existence of gods, and that I find the whole idea pointless and boring. I don't think about the topic at all, unless I'm faced with someone trying to tell me what I should believe. How is that a religion? It does not fit any of your dictionary's eight points. |
|
|
|
......
Next, right above my quote containing some links to sites that explain what atheism is, and how it is aligned with what a religion is, you wrote, "No. Really really no. That's not atheism at all." And following my link quote you wrote, "None of these links describe atheism." Yet atheism was, like, the entire point of the info in those links... describing atheism. The point here is, you have your opinion. That's okay. I can't apologize for you having an opinion; it isn't my fault you have opinions; so that wasn't what I was apologizing for.
All your links are religious sites attempting to explain atheism. Atheism explained by religious people is one minority trying to explain another minority that they've never met before. It doesn't work. Therefore none of those links describe atheism, they describe what religious people think atheism actually is. So, what was I apologizing for? I was apologizing that I was taking unfair mental advantage of some near-retarded joker who thinks that anybody would think that search engines might possibly be authorities on atheism; or one who wants to bolster his ideals with limited, not-necessarily-factual information; and one who by his expressing of his "belief" goes entirely against the beliefs of many others, without allowing that some of those others might be right. I was also apologizing for "roughly" dealing with a weak mentality that doesn't even recognize that the way he is handling his describing of atheism is in a totally religious way. Honest and fair people don't deal roughly with children. At least not the first time. And I still don't want to deal even the slightest in a rough way with your mentality. But you are pushing the issue. EDIT: Now, I know you will have trouble understanding what I have written above. But that's okay. Other people will understand. From context, your post doesn't actually mention being sorry for any of the ad-hominem attack you write above. I think you just made it up solely for this post. As I've mentioned before nothing about my beliefs are religious. I have no opinion about magical sky fathers, rock spirits, snake men or any of the multitude of religious beliefs. And if some god appears and claims to be the one true god and that god has no other explanation, I'll change my mind. Anyway, each time you write about what you think I believe, I'll be here to correct you. I won't even take you to task for your irrational ad-hominem attacks. |
|
|
|
Because they are disrespectful? That's why they are atheists.
Because religious people are so very respectful of other religions, aren't they? |
|
|
|
That's not what I apologized for. Most of what I post here is the logic of many others. Often, however, I put it together in ways others don't. I think it is exactly what you apologised for. Here's the quote, again: None of these links describe atheism.
So would you be happy to let atheists define religion? I think not. The links you supply are all religious in nature. How about you find an atheist site that describes atheism as a religion?
None of us disbelieve in god, we just don't care. Gods are irrelevant to the way we live.
I'm sorry. I apologize. I didn't really realize. If you didn't apologise for not knowing that atheists are irreligious rather than antireligious, what were you apologising for? |
|
|
|
Because atheists are people without religion... They don't necessarily hate it, they just don't care about it.
Atheism is a religion itself No. You are wrong, and unless you're an atheist perhaps you should not be so bigoted as to attempt to define what they believe. https://atheists.org/activism/resources/what-is-atheismWHAT IS ATHEISM?
No one asks this question enough.
The reason no one asks this question a lot is because most people have preconceived ideas and notions about what an Atheist is and is not. Where these preconceived ideas come from varies, but they tend to evolve from theistic influences or other sources.
Atheism is usually defined incorrectly as a belief system. Atheism is not a disbelief in gods or a denial of gods; it is a lack of belief in gods. Older dictionaries define atheism as "a belief that there is no God." Some dictionaries even go so far as to define Atheism as "wickedness," "sinfulness," and other derogatory adjectives. Clearly, theistic influence taints dictionaries. People cannot trust these dictionaries to define atheism. The fact that dictionaries define Atheism as "there is no God" betrays the (mono)theistic influence. Without the (mono)theistic influence, the definition would at least read "there are no gods."
Why should atheists allow theists to define who atheists are? Do other minorities allow the majority to define their character, views, and opinions? No, they do not. So why does everyone expect atheists to lie down and accept the definition placed upon them by the world’s theists? Atheists will define themselves.
Atheism is not a belief system nor is it a religion. While there are some religions that are atheistic (certain sects of Buddhism, for example), that does not mean that atheism is a religion. Two commonly used retorts to the nonsense that atheism is a religion are: 1) If atheism is a religion then bald is a hair color, and 2) If atheism is a religion then health is a disease. A new one introduced in 2012 by Bill Maher is, "If atheism is a religion, then abstinence is a sexual position."
The only common thread that ties all atheists together is a lack of belief in gods and supernatural beings. Some of the best debates we have ever had have been with fellow atheists. This is because atheists do not have a common belief system, sacred scripture or atheist Pope. This means atheists often disagree on many issues and ideas. Atheists come in a variety of shapes, colors, beliefs, convictions, and backgrounds. We are as unique as our fingerprints. |
|
|
|
It is as I explained. Two + 2 never equals 4 because there are no two that are exactly like any other two. However, for simple, life-living, practical purposes, 2 + 2 = 4 works well, even though it is flawed in its perfection. The further we get into precise math regarding the operations of the fundamentals of the universe, the further we get away from correct understanding about things. Being dependent on math for the complex things of the univers will ultimately present a false picture of what the universe is all about. Jesus is God. He knows each "1" for the individual value that it is. Sadly BADecker, here you are also wrong. If I want to know how many birds there are in a cage I don't need to know what kind they are, just that they are birds. It doesn't matter that they are not all the same bird, or even the same kind of bird. Or if I have two stones and you give me two stones. I want to know "how many stones do I have", but you seem to want to know"How many stones do I have that are identical to the first stone?". In the first case the answer is "four", and in the second case the answer is "none". The answers, of course, depend on which categories you want to count, and so your statement that "2 + 2 != 4" is incorrect and the rest of your argument can safely be ignored. Should I even do this? Even do what? Birds in a cage are symbols to you, even if you see them. The word bird is a symbol. In your mind, the idea of two birds, that is, 1 bird and another bird are never the same. They aren't even the same in your mind. There is always 1 bird and 1 bird. The lie is a mild one, but it is a lie just the same.
No matter how many stones are suggested to be identical, they never are. We apply the word "stone" to each one, or we apply the words 4 stones to the group, but even in our mind we recognize that the stones are each individual, and therefore there are not four, but one of each.
How can you refer to a class then? Are you unable to classify things? Do you have a brain injury that prevents you from being able to group things by similarity? However, it is handy to live our life in our modern countries using the small lie of mathematics. In the long run, however, lies are a part of what allow us to live only a hundred years or so rather than 200 or more. Uh ... Mathematics either works or it does not. Maths can either do, or do not. There is no try. Maths can't lie and tell the truth at the same time. Can you make any statement that does not rely on your imagination? |
|
|
|
You apologised for calling atheism a religion already - the relevant post is quoted below. Did you already forget that, or are you making things up? Most of what you post here is just your opinion back up with nonsense. Perhaps you could start bringing logic to your arguments? I would certainly take you seriously if you did. I suppose we could argue. But that would be unprofitable.
Argument is usually profitable, if both sides are willing to listen. When you Google or DuckDuckGo search on "atheism religion," you get many sites. Some suggest that atheism is a religion and some suggest that it is not.
Neither Google nor DuckDuckGo are authorities on the subject of atheism. Try an atheist site instead. The point is, if atheism is NOT a religion, it is so extremely close to being a religion,
No. Really really no. That's not atheism at all. None of these links describe atheism. So would you be happy to let atheists define religion? I think not. The links you supply are all religious in nature. How about you find an atheist site that describes atheism as a religion? None of us disbelieve in god, we just don't care. Gods are irrelevant to the way we live. I'm sorry. I apologize. I didn't really realize. |
|
|
|
It is as I explained. Two + 2 never equals 4 because there are no two that are exactly like any other two. However, for simple, life-living, practical purposes, 2 + 2 = 4 works well, even though it is flawed in its perfection. The further we get into precise math regarding the operations of the fundamentals of the universe, the further we get away from correct understanding about things. Being dependent on math for the complex things of the univers will ultimately present a false picture of what the universe is all about. Jesus is God. He knows each "1" for the individual value that it is. Sadly BADecker, here you are also wrong. If I want to know how many birds there are in a cage I don't need to know what kind they are, just that they are birds. It doesn't matter that they are not all the same bird, or even the same kind of bird. Or if I have two stones and you give me two stones. I want to know "how many stones do I have", but you seem to want to know"How many stones do I have that are identical to the first stone?". In the first case the answer is "four", and in the second case the answer is "none". The answers, of course, depend on which categories you want to count, and so your statement that "2 + 2 != 4" is incorrect and the rest of your argument can safely be ignored. |
|
|
|
I don't think that atheists hate religion. I think the fact is they just don't believe in religions. I guess they don't like worshipping a god, or maybe they don't like all the rules you need to follow in a religion.
There are theists all over who do not like all the rules of religion. So, they don't partake of any formal religion. Yet they believe in God... or so they say. The more a person expresses his beliefs, and especially if he fights for them, the more he is making his beliefs into a religion. I'll fight for my right to not believe in anything. Imagine if tried to force you to believe in an invisible rainbow clown that controls your thoughts. By your logic you would be making disbelief in the invisible rainbow clown into a religion - and wouldn't you then have two religions? There are many things for which I will fight - do *I* have multiple religions? It seems like you're making the word 'religion' mean whatever you want it to. |
|
|
|
I suppose we could argue. But that would be unprofitable.
Argument is usually profitable, if both sides are willing to listen. When you Google or DuckDuckGo search on "atheism religion," you get many sites. Some suggest that atheism is a religion and some suggest that it is not.
Neither Google nor DuckDuckGo are authorities on the subject of atheism. Try an atheist site instead. The point is, if atheism is NOT a religion, it is so extremely close to being a religion,
No. Really really no. That's not atheism at all. None of these links describe atheism. So would you be happy to let atheists define religion? I think not. The links you supply are all religious in nature. How about you find an atheist site that describes atheism as a religion? None of us disbelieve in god, we just don't care. Gods are irrelevant to the way we live. |
|
|
|
The bush family history of selling arms and ammo to germany goes back to ww1 selling both to U.S and germany and went into ww2 also selling arms and ammo to U.S and germany at the same time. If there is money to be made in wartimes there probably a bush family member there even in current time So if they're selling weapons rather than taking them away from Americans, that's good, right? |
|
|
|
Atheists dont have to like religions but they have to respect religions , hate mean is look like enemy so it is not good.
Atheists really need to wake up and see that atheism is a religion. Again, no - you're still wrong, just like last time you posted the same comment. https://atheists.org/activism/resources/what-is-atheismWHAT IS ATHEISM?
No one asks this question enough.
The reason no one asks this question a lot is because most people have preconceived ideas and notions about what an Atheist is and is not. Where these preconceived ideas come from varies, but they tend to evolve from theistic influences or other sources.
Atheism is usually defined incorrectly as a belief system. Atheism is not a disbelief in gods or a denial of gods; it is a lack of belief in gods. Older dictionaries define atheism as "a belief that there is no God." Some dictionaries even go so far as to define Atheism as "wickedness," "sinfulness," and other derogatory adjectives. Clearly, theistic influence taints dictionaries. People cannot trust these dictionaries to define atheism. The fact that dictionaries define Atheism as "there is no God" betrays the (mono)theistic influence. Without the (mono)theistic influence, the definition would at least read "there are no gods."
Why should atheists allow theists to define who atheists are? Do other minorities allow the majority to define their character, views, and opinions? No, they do not. So why does everyone expect atheists to lie down and accept the definition placed upon them by the world’s theists? Atheists will define themselves.
Atheism is not a belief system nor is it a religion. While there are some religions that are atheistic (certain sects of Buddhism, for example), that does not mean that atheism is a religion. Two commonly used retorts to the nonsense that atheism is a religion are: 1) If atheism is a religion then bald is a hair color, and 2) If atheism is a religion then health is a disease. A new one introduced in 2012 by Bill Maher is, "If atheism is a religion, then abstinence is a sexual position."
The only common thread that ties all atheists together is a lack of belief in gods and supernatural beings. Some of the best debates we have ever had have been with fellow atheists. This is because atheists do not have a common belief system, sacred scripture or atheist Pope. This means atheists often disagree on many issues and ideas. Atheists come in a variety of shapes, colors, beliefs, convictions, and backgrounds. We are as unique as our fingerprints. |
|
|
|
Old is anything older than you, so I am never old.  In all seriousness, I am probably on the lower side of the old line. Depends on what the definition of old is. Old is when you use a 56.6k modem handshake for your phone notification tone, and you'd way prefer it to be from a 9.6k modem because it would sound 'right'. |
|
|
|
Congrats on the added hashes! Whose miners defected to join you? |
|
|
|
Pool: Polish pool Website: http://pool.e-waluty.net.plProxy: No Generation address: 1DLxqNuisHzMH7K5zGDSjbMfDLSxhGD46w Coinbase signature: e-waluty.net.pl Payout method: PROP Fee: 2% Pay Tx Reward: Yes Vardiff: Options available - ports Local Work: stratum Pay Orphans: No Min Withdrawal: 0.0001 AUTO Merge Mining: No No registration OK done. Please check details. Also, could you respond to Luke-jr's comment? Ok, can confirm the Bitcoin ports are actually mining Bitcoin.
However, note that as of writing this, it was 3 blocks behind for over a full minute, so mining stale blocks or a forked blockchain. :/
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
