|
The last card has been sold!
If the buyer wishes, he can publicly disclose the transaction details here.
|
|
|
|
|
I can't speak to Gigabyte R9 290x's, but I originally had an MSI R9 290x and I couldn't get the thing stable above intensity 13. It kept crashing my drivers, hard hanging, and BSODing my computer to death. The only way I managed to get it hashing at higher intensities was to increase the intensity slowly and incrementally. This was happening even with completely stock settings, a proper driver installation, and a very clean computer, and it was frustrating the hell out of me.
I ended up swapping the MSI brand card for a Sapphire, and the Sapphire runs so nice that I bought several more the next day. Maybe you'd have better luck with a Sapphire, but who knows?
However, I should also mention that one of my R9 290x rigs seems to prefer GUIminer Scrypt while another prefers CGminer. The nice thing about the latest version of GUIminer Scrypt is that it has an r9 290x high-intensity preset that works very well for me. I use it for a 3 x R9 290x rig along with --auto-fan and --gpu-memclock=1500 commands running in three separate instances, one for each card. I'm averaging a solid 900-905 khash/s average between the cards with fans running at about 85% and the cards sitting at 81C, 85C, and 74C respectively.
|
|
|
|
Bump. Looking to sell @ ~$325 + shipping. Get your hands on a good card from a trusted seller  |
|
|
|
This card is far from optimal, but I have 1 empty PCIe slot.. I'll give you 200USD + shipping to Canada.
Far from optimal, yes. But selling at $0.33 per kh is far from optimal for me. Offer denied, but thanks |
|
|
|
Bump. Still have 1 XFX 7970 left. Make an offer |
|
|
|
you paid $35/Ghash??  Lol. Because I know something you don't know. Some sort of return policy trick?  Let's just say that I wouldn't have purchased it if I wasn't absolutely sure it would turn a profit (pending killer asteroids or something similar). |
|
|
|
|
Hey, OP. You're not a secret agent. I'm also betting that you're not a genius since you apparently haven't considered how absolutely ridiculous your proposal sounds from a 3rd-party perspective.
Give us a solid business model or we can only assume you're just a common thief.
I fully discourage anyone from investing with you, and your proposal has solidified the fact that you and I will never have a business relationship of any kind.
|
|
|
|
you paid $35/Ghash?? Lol. Because I know something you don't know. |
|
|
|
Title says it all. $350 for 10 ghash, but of course I got the lovely square-trade warranty in case something goes wrong in the next 3 years.
Who is still waiting months for theirs? Are your pitchforks ready?
I cant find it on the site, says coming soon. I bought it in person at the store. |
|
|
|
|
Title says it all. $350 for 10 ghash, but of course I got the lovely square-trade warranty in case something goes wrong in the next 3 years.
Who is still waiting months for theirs? Are your pitchforks ready?
|
|
|
|
Price? I am looking for sub-$300 range.
-D
We're not incredibly far apart. I'd do 1.5 BTC ($1200 @ $800 usd/btc) shipped to the USA and they'd be out the door and on their way tomorrow. |
|
|
|
|
Oops, they're actually XFX brand, not MSI. I changed the OP to reflect this.
And I'm switching these out for a series of r9 290x cards.
|
|
|
|
Hello, I have three (3) MSI one (1) XFX brand 7970 for sale. I'm selling them because I'm freeing up space in my existing rigs to make way for some newer cards. All three cards run without issue. Two of the cards are approximately 3-4 months old, and one card is only 3 weeks old. The cards are so new because they are replacements under a square-trade warranty I had with Tiger Direct. I am accepting offers made in BTC preferably, but I will entertain offers made in other currencies. Make me an offer I can't refuse! Terms: Account for shipping when making an offer. Buyer pays first, no questions asked. I'd prefer not to deal with escrow. I have rep upon request, and you can find me at depth=2 on the default trust list. Pictures to come when I'm not at work. Edit: Two of the three original cards sold today for $420 apiece. I have one left. Make me an offer |
|
|
|
|
I'm in.
1HHrdYxRSN1vmDHr4wfW9v5vQgshfEqqND
|
|
|
|
1GwAJmLQxkDq7Zw1Ar17rHe5S5ehbkGnmh Gracias  |
|
|
|
9aD6VhXS3CoTdZondzFW3uvSMbwUxJ2e9i Thank you |
|
|
|
|
CKxvHSnh4xen2yrqCPy83cCobHueHKiM7Y
Thanks!
|
|
|
|
Difficulty is more than just a number, it's a part of the very mechanism that allows bitcoins any value at all. How can you suggest difficulty may not affect price when the existence of price or value at all is dependent upon the mining process which is governed, in part, by the difficulty algorithm?
I can give you a direct example of how difficulty does not cause price. People mine with GPUs and price of Bitcoin is $30. Suddenly a magical being switches everyone GPU that was used for mining into an ASIC card, that has the same power usage, just 100 times more hashing power. This magical being also switches the difficulty to be 100 times bigger on the exact last block where difficulty usually adjusts, so no 2016 block adjustment period is observed. Miners who were not paying attention for the next couple of months would not see any difference, their costs are still the same, their share, and thus the number of Bitcoins is still the same. Nothing changed for them. Exchanges would not see any difference, still the same number of coins is being produced each two weeks, so supply from miners would be the same. People who trade Bitcoins and did not pay attention (and did not look at the difficulty numbers) would also see nothing has changed. So, we would see the difficulty increase 100 times, yet no 100 tomes increase or decrease in price. Tell me again why should difficulty changes cause changes in the price? OK, some people may think, like you, that increase in difficulty should increase the price, and if enough people think that, the price will indeed rise with the difficulty. But this is all in the perceptions, and hard to model. The price will rise, even if enough people think that it will rise, no need to involve difficulty at all. As for it being a part of Bitcoin that gives it value: every part of Bitcoin works together, you can't take out anything and still have it work. Difficulty is definitely not *the key* part that gives it value, I would say the key part is how it all works without central authority, all all parts together enable that property. I have a feeling that you are actually thinking of hashing when you say that it is the key part. But, again, even hashing is just a way to get unchangeable history, and sure this is a key part of Bitcoin, but, again, all other parts work together, you can't just name one part and say that it is the part that gives bitcoin value. All it takes is one person who says "I altered my investment strategy due to changes in difficulty," whether that means the person bought in, withdrew, bought/sold a miner, etc., and you can establish that difficulty effects causal changes on price. I am one of those people, therefore difficulty affects price. |
|
|
|
Literally two posts before you, I gave an explanation that isn't among the two you listed. Here's a knockdown, simple argument for difficulty affects price -- get rid of the difficulty adjustment algorithm altogether and watch what happens to the price. If price isn't affected by difficulty, then it should be able to sustain itself in the total absence of difficulty adjustments. Difficulty is more than just a number, it's a part of the very mechanism that allows bitcoins any value at all. How can you suggest difficulty may not affect price when the existence of price or value at all is dependent upon the mining process which is governed, in part, by the difficulty algorithm? This isn't Ripple. Also, price isn't just determined by buyers and sellers; it's also determined by non-buyers and non-sellers, or non-players. How many people do you think are out there that, if placed in a scenario with a profitable set of circumstances, would rather mine digital currency for profit rather than playing the markets? I bet there are tons...millions. How many of these people do you think are on the fringe of digital currencies, both tempted and hesitant to become users? Probably a small fraction out of those millions, but that fraction is likely to grow over time. But what if the difference that determines whether these would-be, could-be miners become market players at all is the difficulty as a psychological barrier to entry? Just look, for example, at some of the comments from new users on this forum who state that they feel the price of a bitcoin is too high to invest, even though they could purchase fractions of BTC if they wanted to -- this is an example of a psychological barrier to entry, one that leaves an impression that bitcoins are less attainable than they once were, and so could be less attainable still in the future. Difficulty can have similar impressions (e.g. I can't compete with the big miners; a high and increasing difficulty suggests more miners are entering the market, thus leaving a smaller remainder of potential miners, etc.). So, difficulty affects --> users perceptions affect --> price. And of course, price affects --> users perceptions affect --> difficulty. Users are the dynamic middle-men in the relationship, and users causally affect both price and difficulty. Edit: Because users are in the middle, price can also affect price, and difficulty can affect difficulty. None of what you wrote made any attempt to explain how difficulty affects price. Honestly, none of it made any sense, either. You don't think that enabling price is affecting it? That was the first half of the argument. The second half is basically saying you either have to assert price affects difficulty and vice-versa, or that neither affects the other because users directly cause both. Difficulty and price aren't people that can go off and act on their own; users make that happen. Users are influenced by both difficulty and price and effect changes in each. |
|
|
|
I think it is safe to say difficulty determines price and price determines difficulty. I think the argument is whether or when are they leading indicators or lagging indicators. What do I know though?
It is not safe to say that. The only mechanisms that I have seen thus far that attempt to explain how difficulty affects price are these: 1. If the difficulty rises, then miners will continue to mine at a loss, but hold their coins until they can sell at a profit, thus causing the price to rise due to lower supply. I agree that this effect is possible, but even if 100% of the miners follow this rule (which I doubt is the case), newly mined coins are only a small part of the market and this will have only a small effect on the market at most. 2. If the difficulty rises and miners can't mine at a profit, then they will buy instead and and the increased demand will cause the price to rise. I agree that this can also happen, but in this case, the cause is not the rise in difficulty. The increase in demand is due to more people wanting bitcoins, whether they mine them or not. The rising difficulty is due to more demand for bitcoins and not vice-versa. Literally two posts before you, I gave an explanation that isn't among the two you listed. Here's a knockdown, simple argument for difficulty affects price -- get rid of the difficulty adjustment algorithm altogether and watch what happens to the price. If price isn't affected by difficulty, then it should be able to sustain itself in the total absence of difficulty adjustments. Difficulty is more than just a number, it's a part of the very mechanism that allows bitcoins any value at all. How can you suggest difficulty may not affect price when the existence of price or value at all is dependent upon the mining process which is governed, in part, by the difficulty algorithm? This isn't Ripple. Also, price isn't just determined by buyers and sellers; it's also determined by non-buyers and non-sellers, or non-players. How many people do you think are out there that, if placed in a scenario with a profitable set of circumstances, would rather mine digital currency for profit rather than playing the markets? I bet there are tons...millions. How many of these people do you think are on the fringe of digital currencies, both tempted and hesitant to become users? Probably a small fraction out of those millions, but that fraction is likely to grow over time. But what if the difference that determines whether these would-be, could-be miners become market players at all is the difficulty as a psychological barrier to entry? Just look, for example, at some of the comments from new users on this forum who state that they feel the price of a bitcoin is too high to invest, even though they could purchase fractions of BTC if they wanted to -- this is an example of a psychological barrier to entry, one that leaves an impression that bitcoins are less attainable than they once were, and so could be less attainable still in the future. Difficulty can have similar impressions (e.g. I can't compete with the big miners; a high and increasing difficulty suggests more miners are entering the market, thus leaving a smaller remainder of potential miners, etc.). So, difficulty affects --> users perceptions affect --> price. And of course, price affects --> users perceptions affect --> difficulty. Users are the dynamic middle-men in the relationship, and users causally affect both price and difficulty. Edit: Because users are in the middle, price can also affect price, and difficulty can affect difficulty. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
