Ah, too bad BenRayfield hasn't show up here for 4 months now.

WARNING Transactions and Addresses will soon be used as high volume data storage

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=60386.0

If we could get the "high volume data" kook close to the "crypto compression" kook we could observe a kook-singularity. Or maybe they would just kook-annihilate each other? Anyway, the science of psychoceramics would certainly advance to the next level.

90125 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ItZqTueAaqU

Yes, you are mixing character encodings: UTF-8 and ISO-8859-1. This forum is using ISO-8859-1. I manually forced it to UTF-8 and your listreceivedbyaccount example displayed correctly in my browser. You need to configure your OS and your terminal program and your HTTP library for the correct character encodings.

I agree with both of you that the default treatment for a newbie shouldn't be "bashing". But you can't allow yourselves to bunch all newbies into a single group, because there is a whole spectrum of newbie-tude.

I read a few of Biomech's earliest posts and I rate him "neutral", because he didn't start with trying to sell or organize something.

Now lets take a look at the extreme-positive rating: helveticoin, a wannabe vendor who is a well-prepared newbie.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=82676;sa=showPosts

Now lets focus on "sie": extremely negative newbie/wannabe-vendor in Bitcoin, but clearly claiming not to be a newbie in electronic design, fabrication, assembly, etc.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=148463;sa=showPosts

Again, you can't just put all newbies into a single "protected" group that by default gets a "kid gloves" treatment.

You started with a tendentious quotation of my post, then followed with "capitalism is ..." and described some mixture of syndicalism and a cooperative. Writing like this would get you flunked out of pretty much any policical economy class. What are you trying to achieve?
 
Yes, that is true. But you seem to be making an assumption than the "psychopathic behavior" is exclusively on the part of the "ripper-s". What about the "psychopathic behavior" of the "victim-s/rippee-s". This second case is probably the most common one here on this forum: in the role of the "ripper" we have "mathematics", "laws of physics", "random carelessness and inattention" and other ethically neutral mechanisms.

I think you are very naive and idealistic.

Those who "hurl abuse" are mostly the good guys. In the past they probably also polite, but lost the patience with those who refuse to read any of the openly available information.

The "bad guys" will be first very polite and solictious and then simply rip them off when they acurately measure their weaknesses.

This is how capitalism works.

The way you propose is how some religions/sects operate.

For all who may have missed it: below is an example of how far from the reality are some of the readers/posters/wannabes on this forum.

No matter what single policy you may try to apply, there is always someone who will be offended. Or you may end up with a policy where the only allowed posts will be the variants of "fluffy bunnies are nice".

The 1st post was in the Newbie subforum:
Subject: making an asic miner

The 2nd post was in the main Bitcoin Discussion forum, but was moved to Custom Hardware by the moderator:
Subject: Creating a Hashing chip?

Finally I see some a hint of some real introspection from you. Maybe this picture will help you to reflect some more.


Unlike the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chilkoot_Pass mining of Bitcoin isn't going to actually kill anyone. The effect on their personal finances will be similar, but they are very likely to survive the adventure and maybe even get motivated to learn & understand the things like "international trade finance" and "P&L analysis".

Why only "look like kooks & hotheads"? We are kooks & hotheads, this is what makes the Bitcoin millieu such an interesting subject for psychology, sociology, antropology and other humanities.

Who gave you a certificate that you are neither a kook nor a hothead? What was the testing protocol?

Learn the basics of finance and the import/export business, e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Letter_of_credit

The above personally pertains to people like you, zefir and the other "group buy leaders". It was your (plural your) ineptnes that practically created this problem.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decoupling_capacitor

In case of Avalon it helps prevent noise from one module affecting the other modules. I believe the main load on each module has a inductance component that is used for energy storage with switching. So they could push back voltage spikes into the main power supply. The hashing modules are identical, so in the worst case they could go into synchronized oscillations in their buck voltage regulators. Better be safe then sorry. Together with the contact resistance of the connectors they are actually forming nice RC low-pass filters.

Oh no! This can't pass! Giving credit for the poetry written in 1969 by Joni Mitchell to some plagiarist hacks? LRN2history! LRN2literature!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cRjQCvfcXn0  (1970, lyrics in comments)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NXQmt6O9y5s (1998, lyrics in subtitles)

Seriously, you do have a 3rd choice: get off your high horse. I'm positive that the college classroom can deal with some coprolalia in the source materials. This completely isn't a problem and in fact helps explaining the psychological background in the Bitcoin millieu. If you personally somehow can't deal with it then seek advice from the colleagues amongst the faculty (e.g. gender studies).

This thread is none of my business, but no matter which option you are going to choose, please do one more thing.

+. educate yourselves on how business was and is really being done: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Letter_of_credit . It will not help you much with your current problem, but you'll avoid repeating your mistakes in the future.

but nearly completely content-free.

All the math in the opening sequence has nothing to do with Bitcoin, its some partial differential equations like used in financial derivatives. At one point there is a close-up of cubicle with wall calendar open on August 2013 and close up of a desktop screen with some Verilog code and some digital simulator. If they are still working at the Verilog level this month then they are either very early in the design or going to completely offload the design to Open Silicon.

Also hiring a cryptographer is completely technically pointless for miner. They should be working on the analog/thermal/physical design phases to deliver anything meaningfull for long-term Bitcoin mining.

My guess is that the reason to use external sensors is that the internal ones are too noisy and very inaccurate. The cost is indirect: they can't afford to design the de-noising hardware/software and can't afford to properly characterize and calibrate the internal sensors.

It is actually quite common problem: many SoC chips have on-die temperature sensors but use external ones because otherwise they wouldn't meet the time-to-market goals. This includes even very-well capitalized entities which already have the methodology and the tools available.

Thanks for your reply. The way the paper is written this is a very unclear point. Check out the "Looking ahead" section (page 11 in my copy):


It isn't clear whether they look into that as a major research area or as a implementation detail drudgery. The answers could be:

X) sorry, editing error, no file I/O for you.
Y) we are describing that in the textbook form of our paper that has 544 pages.

Perhaps my using of Turing-equivalency wasn't the best choice of words. But it stayed within the spirit of the paper that somewhat freely mixes asymptotical complexity (big-O notation: O(something)) and measurable complexity (const*F(|something|), where || denotes some form of measure). Yes, I was looking for a way of writing the TinyRAM program that doesn't start with slurping the entire deterministic input tape.

I fully agree with you that TinyRAM is Turing-complete and will not help in moving any problem between say P and NP. But this paper is focused on "succint", "efficient" implementations and then various results from the areas of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multitape_Turing_machine and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turing_machine_equivalents are really helpfull when establishing the most accurate bounds of complexity for particular problems.

Thanks again for any insight you may already have or could obtain from the authors.

Thank you very much. I've spent some time reading and comprehending this paper. I have following questions about the associated area of research:

1) TinyRAM has a requirement that the memory is W bits wide and has exactly 2^W cells. Is this a convenience for the sake of simplyfying the presentation or is this a necessary condition for the validity of the proof?

2) TinyRAM has exactly one deterministic input tape that can only be read once and in the forward direction only. I would love to hear from somebody about some research that would make TinyRAM Turing-equivalent in some way: a writable and rewindable tape, a standard-Turing rewritable tape, a stack (one-ended tape that is writable forward and readable backward), etc. Again my question is: was that done for the purpose of compactness of the derivation or do writable tapes break the derivation in some way?

Without knowing answers to the above questions my thinking is: CoinWitness C program will have to contain the code of the form:
While the above code can be made constant the verification proofs for them will have to be published for multiple values of W. In other words either:

A) coins can be made to disappear when the blockchain becomes long enough;
B) proofs will need to be periodically recompiled and recomputed for a wider W.

Therefore I think this breaks the assumptions about the computational complexity of using SCIP for Bitcoin.

Is there anyone here that lives close to Haifa,Massachussets or Tel Aviv and could pose those questions to the authors and receive answers different than "I'll get back to you on that."

Thanks in advance.

Possible? Yes. Practical? No.

Intel/AMD have much higher R&D budgets but don't bother voltage-locking their CPUs, they only do clock-multiplier-locking.

Apple Computer could do it for their iMiner using the similar technology that they use to lock their iPads to their proprietary chargers.

Scratch "Apple Computer" and "iMiner". Since this is a thread about a product designed in Scandinavia I should've talked about "Bang & Olufsen" and "BeoMiner". Denmark is closer to Sweden than to California.