That was fast lol. If I had the money I'd have bought one for the resale value. A brands new 6990 could easily bring 100-150 profit.
 my currently in use 6990s are free... i buy and flip them. at first you could get $300 profit per card, now it's about what you said. still good. offsets my total mining outlays nicely. |
|
|
|
There is no bubble in gold.
It might slid off a big these coming weeks, but that is due to the massive 16% increase this month.
Gold is definitely headed over $2000 long term.
Well there has been in history. If you look at it from a more realistic perspective (e.g. elements and their physical nature) sure fiat money is worthless paper but since when should an oz of shiny metal be enough to buy a house and its land? please educate yourself on gold, silver and other forms of non-destructible stores of value. gold is not in a bubble. I truly feel sorry for you, but I hope you make an effort to educate yourself about it and not listen to talking heads on TV. Gold is finite. it can never be in a bubble like fiat money, houses, stocks, tulip bulbs and everything else that has been in a bubble. it's very easy to confuse volatility and price fluctuation with a bubble. for something to be in a bubble, eveybody and his mother has to rush into it (just one of the symptoms of a bubble, there are several others). the sad fact is that 99% of people (at least in USA) do not own a single ounce of gold. Furthermore, if every person on Earth decided to buy 1 ounce of gold, just one ounce, there isn't enough gold. re-read that please... there's not enough gold for everyone to have just 1 ounce. now, you can print or build as much as you want of everything else... physical gold you can't. I cry for you... please don't get slaughtered... I beg you to truly educate yourself on gold/silver. |
|
|
|
,Good idea, but 17 btc is outrageous, usually when people do raffles like this its for charity, and then it makes sense to bring twice the money in...more power to ya if people buy into this though ^^
There's a reason this is in the gambling forum  Unless all the tickets get picked up in the next couple of days, my chances are pretty good too, and poor Canary will end up selling his card for half what it's worth anyway  gambling |
|
|
|
,Good idea, but 17 btc is outrageous, usually when people do raffles like this its for charity, and then it makes sense to bring twice the money in...more power to ya if people buy into this though ^^
17btc? I'm not sure what you mean... 1 raffle ticket is 1 BTC. Raffle occurs when either 20 tickets sold or 7 days after the time of first post. whichever comes first. |
|
|
|
The point here is that for all you who sometimes think that bitcoin mining is somehow "showing up" on the radar of Radeon manufacturers or that bitcoin mining is making the video card sales go though the roof: sorry, they have no clue... we don't exist. first of all, manufacturers don't make the video cards to tailor it to miners. second, there's no association of mining and memory underclocking. yes, a lot of people on this forum know that you're suppose to underclock the memory to save power and lower temps, but it's not automatic knowledge that you're suppose to do that, and people that barely heard of mining wouldn't even think about doing something like this. and third, you're not suppose to change any of the stock specs that shipped with the video card. this is something that's considered voiding your warranty. at least if you're going to do that, don't let manufacturers know. of course, they do know that a lot of people overclock their cards, but just don't openly admit to it. not sure what your tangent is... my comment is related to many posts that discuss economics of bitcoin mining and how they effect video card sales. some posters say that mining is creating a noticeable increase in video card sales. it's been discussed and shown that's not he case. me posting the question from the manufacturer pokes fun at those discussions to show that yes, the manufacturers do not notice bitcoin mining. |
|
|
|
After leaving an appropriate review on newegg.com for this product (you can see it, review by Canary), the manufacturer responded and offered to help. Hugo had 2 questions for me. 1st is whether the card crashes. obviously no. second (regarding lowering memory speed): PowerColor: "Why would you want to do that?" So, I emailed Mr. Hugo my previous correspondence with PowerColor and answered his questions. Let's see if he can help. But that's not the point. The point here is that for all you who sometimes think that bitcoin mining is somehow "showing up" on the radar of Radeon manufacturers or that bitcoin mining is making the video card sales go though the roof: sorry, they have no clue... we don't exist. |
|
|
|
CanaryInTheMine. I would think that from legal point of view there are 3 possibilities:
2. Pool does not have any terms and conditions.
This seems to be a very common approach at the moment. In this case by act of submitting shares to the pool any miner is agreeing to some implied contract terms of which are not exactly clear, but could be guessed based on pool's website content, ads and "common industry practice" (whatever that is).
Surely there is a contract, there is always a contact for everything that involves transfer of goods, services or money. If miners want to claim that there is no contract than perhaps they should not expect to get any BTC, because why should they, if there is no contract.
It would be impossible to argue that such an implied contract exists if there are no terms of service at all. you can argue forever about what should be in there or not. the burden is not on the miner to figure out the intent. This is clearly a pool operator's issue. The interesting point here is that in cases when a pool which is vulnerable to hopping does not take effective measures to prevent pool hopping could be in breach of fiduciary duty it has to some subset of miners participating in the pool. If such pool takes some extra money from hoppers for the privilege to hop there, than it potentially could even be classed as fraud. I suppose 24/7 miners could have a valid claim again operator of such a pool. Considering that there are money on the line, that pools that hold on customer's money could be considered as depositary institutions (i.e. banks), some courts would be very non sympathetic to the defendant in such cases.
In other words the likely legal problem in today's 'bitcoin proportional pool industry' is not whether pool hoppers acting lawfully, but how much money pool operators who are in bed with hoppers are going to have to pay in damages to 24/7 miners eventually or maybe whether this can/will be enforced by law at some point.
Of course, there are different jurisdictions and different laws and IANAL.
now that's a much more appropriate and fascinating point/question!!! bravo! +43% LOL |
|
|
|
|
The raffle will occur regardless of how many tickets are sold (if less than 15, so be it).
There are 3 entries right now.
|
|
|
|
|
see the update on the first post.
|
|
|
|
|
The problem here is that a bunch of people claim that there are certain legal principles that are governing joining a pool or sending work to one.
This is completely wrong. If the pool has to stated terms of service that prohibit hopping, there's no contract.
The only way you can apply legal principles in contract law is when you are bound by some contract. if there's no contract, you CAN NOT sit on your high horse and continue to spew legal principles. this is blatantly wrong and misleading.
You can not pull out and enforce a contract that someone did not agree to.
You can not claim implied contract when you don't like technically permitted behavior. The remedy is not with the user but with the pool.
Additionally, you are not entering a contract by simply "working" on the same thing, like sending work to a pool. this is another fallacy.
you enter a contract by explicitly agreeing to one. you can not enforce a contract that was never agreed to.
be honest and admit that those who are against hopping, simply don't like it. that's where this argument should stop.
I don't like it, I don't do it, but as long as a pool does not prohibit hoping in it's terms of service, those who don't like hoping are SOL.
Force the pools to clearly state what the policy on hopping is.
However, as you all know, lots of pools simply don't care, in fact ultimately they want higher hash rates. they don't care how they get them and for how long.
Which, begs the question? who is the enabler of hopping? the algorithm, the pool or the miner?
P.S. it's clear that this is pointless to continue. we have people who mis-use legal principles, twist them to meet their ends, mis-apply them in order to be able to put a bunch of big, legal sounding words to appear like they know what they are talking about.
we have people here that bring up esoteric, wild, provocative examples that are not even in the same ball-park as this argument.
all a bunch of useless nonsense.
|
|
|
|
This is another improper, misleading attempt.
"Say coal miners have a cooperative where they share in the profits."
such coal miner, joining/participating a co-operative will be a party to said cooperative's agreement. also known as a shareholder agreement of sorts.
-a legal document. spelling things out. what's expected of the miner and what the breaches are and their penalties.
it's a signed contract. This again shows the anti-social nature and absurdity of the arguments used by those who defend pool hoppers. They insist that their only obligations, legal or moral, are to comply with signed contracts. I wouldn't want to live in such a society, and thankfully, I don't. It's not absurd because it's true and it's a fact. the co-op has a contract. you can not be a part of co-op without being a party to co-op's contract. try to join one without a contract and laws. tell us how it goes. tell us what non-anti-social society recognizes such a co-op. i think maybe you want some communal or utopian examples instead? oh wait, those don't work... what's absurd is how your dislike of a technical weakness has been contorted by you into an attempt to try to use everything that has it's roots in law and contracts to argue applicability when there's a lack of law or contract. no it is not an anti-social nature (btw, lookup the definition since you like them so much), they (we) comply with ALL the laws of a (our) society as well. when we don't, consequences are spelled out and are applied. that is the society you live in. Where are bitcoin mining laws? where's that mining contract? |
|
|
|
Notice that the employer here has to take an action from which long term employment is implied during the course of dealing. So given that you have not disclosed what further action has to take place. It seems reasonable that you are simply asserting that the action of joining a pool is as unambiguous in usage of trade to mean "no pool hopping" as say "Hamburger" is to what one gets when they order one in North America. I already addressed this in several places, with the example of the person who joins a coal mining cooperative right as they uncover a vein with the intention of leaving as soon as they have to search for the next vein. If true this means at least two things:
i) You are begging the question - in other words you have no real argument for your position. So I'd take it as a personal favor if you'd stop pretending like you do.
ii) Not clearly true and possibly false - since there is a number of people who do not believe this. Feel free to address the argument if you like, but please stop denying it exists. I'll repeat it one more time: Say coal miners have a cooperative where they share in the profits. A miner joins the cooperative just as they uncover a rich vein. He stays in during the easy mining, getting a share of the profits from that vein. Just as the vein is exhausted and the other miners are settling in for the hard work of exposing a new vein, he leaves them to join another cooperative that has just unearthed a rich vein. This was his plan from the beginning, and he gets a disproportionate share of the benefits relative to the amount of mining he does at the expense of the other miners. 1) Is this unethical? 2) Does it breach the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing between the miners in the cooperative? 3) If you answered "yes" to 1 or 2, how is pool hopping different? This is another improper, misleading attempt. "Say coal miners have a cooperative where they share in the profits." such coal miner, joining/participating in a co-operative will be a party to said cooperative's agreement. also known as a shareholder agreement of sorts. -a legal document. spelling things out. what's expected of the miner and what the breaches are and their penalties. it's a signed contract. This is also under minerals laws, EPA, labor laws, contract laws and a boat load of other federal, state and local laws. I ask you again, show me our mining laws and the mining contract. Where are they? |
|
|
|
I see there's still plenty of pontification here...
all these arguments against hoping are totally useless. they are your "hurt" feeling. that's all they are.
If you want to start having a real and useful debate, let's see some Terms Of Service or agreements from pools.
If a pool ain't got one, then you all just wasting your breath.
words like believe, belief, faith, common, implied, un-implied etc... etc.. don't mean squat without set rules that miners agree to.
no agreement = no rules.
Wait a minute, why is it that pools don't have them? Hmmm.....
This is typical. The people who defend pool hopping deny that there's such a thing as an implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing and argue that only written rules apply to them. They claim people have no obligation to deal fairly with others and that they can make agreements in bad faith and if other people don't like it, well that's just their hurt feelings. Well, that's not the way society works, and that's not the law. Please actually read this until you understand it: http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/implied+covenant+of+good+faith+and+fair+dealingIt has to be this way. Otherwise, lawyers would get phenomenally rich as every agreement in life would require a written contract and a single shifty sentence snuck in by one party could completely deprive the other party of the intended benefit. Agreements simply don't work that way. This not wishful thinking or hurt feelings, it's how the real world actually works. It's "if I didn't sign it, I don't have to comply with it" that's absurd wishful thinking and in complete disagreement with how the real world, and real society, actually works. The anti-social nature of these arguments reflects the anti-social nature of pool hopping. Wow, are you kidding me?!!! did you read it yourself? well, obviously you did, but you are completely wrong with its application/understanding. "n. a general assumption of the law of contracts, that people will act in good faith and deal fairly without breaking their word, using shifty means to avoid obligations, or denying what the other party obviously understood. A lawsuit (or one of the causes of action in a lawsuit) based on the breach of this covenant is often brought when the other party has been claiming technical excuses for breaching the contract or using the specific words of the contract to refuse to perform when the surrounding circumstances or apparent understanding of the parties were to the contrary. Example: an employer fires a long-time employee without cause and says it can fire at whim because the employment contract states the employment is "at will." However, the employee was encouraged to join the company on the basis of retirement plans and other conduct which led him/her to believe the job was permanent barring misconduct or financial downturn. Thus, there could be a breach of the implied covenant, since the surrounding circumstances implied that there would be career-long employment." You are misleading people by stating: "The people who defend pool hopping deny that there's such a thing as an implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing and argue that only written rules apply to them" you are trying to say that we deny the existance of and therefore are wrong: -implied covenant of good faith -fair dealing this is absurd and false. we are not denying these concepts, BUT they don't apply here. these legal principles are in contract law. where's the bitcoin mining law? where's the contract? it is applicable to contracts. yes, signed, executed, legal contracts that have 2 parties. where's my mining contract? the one I have to agree to... not some implied, assumed, verbal blah blah blah... contract, where is it??? what word have I given? what obligation have I agreed to, show it to me since i don't recall seeing it... show me the contract I'm breaching. (and not the one made up in someones head) every contract i draft, sign or execute has a good faith article in it. that's where this covenant is from and that's its domain. it doesn't exist without an executed contract. that's how the real world works. your example of the candy bar is weak and doesn't apply. you have a problem with it, contact the store or the manufacturer. you will get relief. you are also confusing how society operates. there are laws that govern society that spell things out. there's nothing wishy washy about this. it is not an anti-social argument. it has nothing to do with society. it has everything to do with understanding the bitcoin algorithm and using this knowledge. and that's precisely what you don't like if you really get honest with yourself. you don't like the technical weaknes. it's that simple. |
|
|
|
Have you got a multimeter? Just a simple one will do, they're cheap and worthwhile to have if you're messing about with hardware hacking - *especially* if you've got open frame rigs, PSUs with butchered and spliced cables and paper-clip jumpers  I'm not quite that brave when it comes to working on HW. I think my limit is installing a CPU or memory stick want a shot at a spare 5830? https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=38000.0 |
|
|
|
i bet you would have sold more without the 20 coin limit.. people will wait until you get like 15 sold to buy..
if you set the raffle for like 3 weeks and people see only a few have been bought then they would jump on it to not miss out.
but the deadline isnt time it is btc.. so people can afford to wait and see what happens.
well. I said a week so I'll keep that promise. wouldn't be fair to those who bought a ticket already with the time specified. I thought 20 was a reasonable number. you are right, certainly more can be sold. but 5% chance is pretty good. here the risk is so damn small and reward is very nice. not your typical gambling payout... the funny thing i don't get is ppl certainly can afford to spend 1 BTC... but hang on to it like it's the last one. I mean, given some recent "good" luck on several pools, I bet alot of miners have made an extra BTC in the last few days to a week. |
|
|
|
|
another ticket sold.
there are still tickets available, get yours!!
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
