A substantially different variant is to pay for every share at most once. If, when going backwards in the list of shares, we encounter some that were already paid, we skip them and move on to older shares. X needs to be less than 1 to make sure that eventually we will have enough unpaid shares to draw on. I'm not sure what's the correct way to handle difficulty changes with this variant. Is this in effect what CPPSRB does? It pays all shares only once, starting with the most recent and going back as far as needed to pay out the full block (or until every share is paid). Your % of the block reward is the sum of all of your d/D since last block, where the total shares we're paying is = block difficulty of the block we just found. The difference I see, is that if CPPSRB pays off all shares, it saves the excess for the next block. |
|
|
|
Does BFGMiner allow heterogenous mining cards to operate? i.e. using different mining hardware as a cluster. Currently, OpenCL is limited to one platform per instance. Beyond that, it's whatever that OpenCL platform supports. FPGA/ASIC support can handle any mix of devices. |
|
|
|
We also must play ball and give campaign contributions on a corporate scale so things are seen our way. This is how the system works. Exactly. That's how BitTorrent grew into what it is today. Oh wait... It should probably be pointed out that BitTorrent has survived mainly because the public faces only used it legally and never promoted illegal use... |
|
|
|
The Bitcoin Foundation is trying to become a Government lobbying group. That will never happen, you do realize they have been in existence for a while and have yet to do anything. If you think they are going to be come a Government lobby group you misunderstood of what the foundation is suppose to be and they can't even do that right. I have to disagree strongly with this. While Gavin and I don't always get along, I can see a lot of good work done by him to improve Bitcoin. The Foundation's main reason for creation (at least in my view) was to get Gavin a salary so he can work on Bitcoin full-time. The fruits of that are very much behind-the-scenes, but they definitely exist. |
|
|
|
|
Guys, I didn't start this thread for another trolling war to break out.
If it's going to go that way, I'll just lock it...
There are plenty of trolling threads already.
|
|
|
|
So, the guy whose BFL unit you "shipped" 3 weeks ago hasn't been running it since then? That was kind of him, leaving all those coins for the rest of us....
FTFY. Hardly, it still doesn't make any sense. I received this unit 3 weeks ago, but I've never shipped any. And it took longer than average, but not absurdly long to find the block... The estimated time to find a block at 5GHs is about 12 weeks according to: https://bitclockers.com/calcMy unit is 28 Gh/s (Little Single). |
|
|
|
can you tell us when BFL ship there units ?
I'm sure BFL will announce it when they do... |
|
|
|
So, the guy whose BFL unit you "shipped" 3 weeks ago hasn't been running it since then? That was kind of him, leaving all those coins for the rest of us....
FTFY. Hardly, it still doesn't make any sense. I received this unit 3 weeks ago, but I've never shipped any. And it took longer than average, but not absurdly long to find the block... |
|
|
|
The USA could kill Bitcoin rather easily today. Then the dressed-up gang of thugs calling itself "the United States Government" needs to die in a fire, most expeditiously. If this is the only reason you want the USA to die, I'm surprised. I can think of numerous more important reasons I'd like the USA to fall apart. BUT, that does not change the fact that in reality, they exist and could kill Bitcoin easily. Let's not give them a reason to do so on a silver platter... |
|
|
|
What do you suggest we do? If the United States wanted to kill the bitcoin, then it would be dead in three months. We cannot create a common perception amongst the world that the bitcoin is at best a libertarian playtoy and at worst the newest high tech way to move drug money around.
This is so false, sounds like someone needs to read the wiki... Don't spread FUD No, charleshoskinson is correct. The USA could kill Bitcoin rather easily today. |
|
|
|
If it ever came to pass that the Bitcoin community was forced to choose between excluding Roger Ver, Jon Matonis, and Erik Voorhees or excluding Jeff Garzik, Luke Dashjr, and Gregory Maxwell, I'd be willing to contribute bitcoins for attracting new programmers to replace the latter three. Rather not go down that road, though. I'm willing to refrain from campaigning to oust them as developers if they are willing to refrain from campaigning to oust Ver and Matonis as public faces of Bitcoin. So you prioritise two people (excluding Roger Ver here) who are clearly harmful to Bitcoin's viability, one of whom (Erik Voorhees) goes so far as to operate a technological attack on the Bitcoin network.. over three competent developers who actually contribute toward making Bitcoin better and hopefully successful. Great logic there... |
|
|
|
If you really think that, then you have no need to promote anarchy along with Bitcoin - you'll get the same result faster just by keeping your expected end result secret.
(I do disagree, however, with your assessment) Do the police and military work for free? Does the government get its weapons for free? Are the courts filled with volunteers. People have to be paid and the government pays them. It controls the underlying asset and thus can compel people with it. They cannot control the Bitcoin and will have to live within the means of the people it taxes instead of just printing more money. It's been done before, and I'm sure it can be done again. Anyhow, this has deviated from the thread topic now... |
|
|
|
Money is the tool upon which governments control things. If they lose control of it, then they lose their power If you really think that, then you have no need to promote anarchy along with Bitcoin - you'll get the same result faster just by keeping your expected end result secret. (I do disagree, however, with your assessment) |
|
|
|
The problem is that they project their political ideas on Bitcoin, with things such as representing Bitcoin as being a tool used to bring about anarchy. Matonis, at least, seems to be encouraging people to break the law almost every time he talks about Bitcoin. Political correctness is also political ideas. It's not that the ideas of Matonis is political that bothers you, it's that they don't fit your idea of the ideal ideology. By only allowing mainstream / political correct individuals to represent bitcoin, you have already made a political choice. The point is to have individuals who recognize Bitcoin as being independent of politics, regardless of their own political views. I hate political correctness as much as everyone else. If that's the point, why do you only let those who follow mainstream political views be listed in the press section? You're basically saying that being pro "status quo" is to be non-political. That's utterly false. Coincidence I guess. Roger Ver would, I suppose, be a good example of an anarchist who may be able to be non-political (in public at least), but he's got the whole (unrelated) criminal history problem. Feel free to suggest other candidates... I can't speak for others, but at least I won't oppose them for merely being anarchists. |
|
|
|
But Bitcoin is not a political revolution. Projecting such things onto Bitcoin is precisely why Matonis should not be included in the press center.
Bitcoin is a technological revolution, like asymmetric cryptography or global networking. You might want to think a little more deeply about what the bitcoin implies. Currently money is well regulated and controlled by a cabal of secret bankers who are accountable to no one. All monies are inflationary and fiat. The Bitcoin is nearly the polar opposite of the world's money system. If it succeeds, then it will have an enormous impact on the creditability and faith in central banks. Great, I'm no fan of central banks either, and I doubt anyone has a problem with pointing out bitcoin's potential in this area. The politics is extending this to try to destabilize the government. Gunpowder was an incredible scientific accomplishment, but its real impact was forever changing war. The Bitcoin will forever change money if it succeeds. But neither gunpowder nor bitcoin necessarily imply change in government. War innovation changes war. Money innovation changes money. For an inherent change in government, you need political innovation - that's not Bitcoin. |
|
|
|
The problem is that they project their political ideas on Bitcoin So do you. On the contrary. While it is true that my interest in Bitcoin is for the purpose of furthering the Tonal system, I don't pretend that Bitcoin's reason for existence is to promote Tonal. Matonis, at least, seems to be encouraging people to break the law almost every time he talks about Bitcoin. Every revolution is illegal. By definition. For whatever reason, you're finding yourself on the wrong side of this one. But Bitcoin is not a political revolution. Projecting such things onto Bitcoin is precisely why Matonis should not be included in the press center. Bitcoin is a technological revolution, like asymmetric cryptography or global networking. The problem is that they project their political ideas on Bitcoin, with things such as representing Bitcoin as being a tool used to bring about anarchy. Matonis, at least, seems to be encouraging people to break the law almost every time he talks about Bitcoin. Political correctness is also political ideas. It's not that the ideas of Matonis is political that bothers you, it's that they don't fit your idea of the ideal ideology. By only allowing mainstream / political correct individuals to represent bitcoin, you have already made a political choice. The point is to have individuals who recognize Bitcoin as being independent of politics, regardless of their own political views. I hate political correctness as much as everyone else. |
|
|
|
Jeff Garzik, gmaxwell and Lukejr turned this into an issue by moving to strike Jon Matonis and Roger Ver, two established Bitcoin community members who present themselves competently and articulately, based solely on their political ideas. Now, instead of discussing the topic of strategy and purpose for the Press Center, jgarzik wants to silence any debate. I think that determining the press strategy is very important. No, the problem (in this case) is not their political ideas. The problem is that they project their political ideas on Bitcoin, with things such as representing Bitcoin as being a tool used to bring about anarchy. Matonis, at least, seems to be encouraging people to break the law almost every time he talks about Bitcoin. While I did include Roger Ver in my original objection, it was pointed out that he has (at least lately) kept his politics separate in public - so I've limited my objection in this reason to just Matonis. The general objection against Roger Ver is that he has a criminal history. And not just some debatable crime (eg, drug-related or statutory), but selling explosives. For all I know, maybe he was just selling fireworks - or even wrongly accused and railroaded. However, the media doesn't care about the truth: this is a tool they can simply say "Bitcoin spokesman Roger Ver, who holds a conviction for selling explosives to terrorists, blah blah blah". Maybe they can say it regardless of who we put up as a press contact, but having him listed will serve to re-affirm such detraction when it happens. |
|
|
|
I also think that the following people should also be added to the press page:
Erik Voorhees Yeah, let's add the person responsible for the most violent damage against Bitcoin done to date... |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
