one more suggestion....

hire toddbethell as your advisor on this matter.

I'll put it this way.

Immediately after bitcoin algo is changed significantly with regard to inflation/deflation properties, the blockhain will be split. I will use the partition which uses current algo, lots of other people will do so too.

Inflationista funboys are free to stay in their inflationary reservation currency. On a positive note, they might get their own forum than.

You know what is the principal difference between inflationary and deflationary currencies? Inflationary currencies facilitate transfer of wealth from children to parents, while deflationary ones facilitate transfer of wealth from parents to children. I, personally, prefer to empower my children instead of robbing them.

wow! that's quite a revelation...

turned out more supply than demand makes prices to go down  

ostracism of any >40% pool operator is the best regulating mechanism IMO

Also not being a stupid fool naive and thinking that just by mining with the biggest pool you somehow increasing your long term mining income, helps too.

Also support smaller pools, I do.

no

/thread

And than host gets his fuses blown. 

this would probably win award of the most inefficient miner of 2011

you need a time machine, to go back one year, than yes this would be cool for a month or so.

We have recently found our first block which is the first milestone. More to come...

My thanks to everyone who supported us while we are still young and small ( just slightly above 62 Ghps so far ).

nice!

+ 1

This should be good enough. Guinness probably has fairly competent researchers or/and access to experts to verify the claim.

At this stage, with bitcoin "market cap" at around 100M$ investing 200-300 M$ into ASIC fabrication does not sound as such a good idea.

They must mean single precision GFLOPS there than.

yep, you are right on both my 2x mistake and usage of double precision

If we take current hashing power as 11857 Ghps
and make an assumption that it is all generated by the most efficient card 5970 which is rated at 4.4 TFLOPS (out of top of my head) this card could also do 0.75 Ghps.

Therefore, we need 11857 / 0.75 = 15809 cards which at best could be together rated at 4.4 * 7905 = 70 PFLOPS .  

These calculations are already extremely optimistic IMO.

Where bitcoinwatch takes that 150 PFLOPS I am not sure. A 5970 must do 10 TFLOPS for their number to be correct.

EDIT: messed up hash rate of 5970 initially, fixed now, sorry. Actually bitcoinwatch is not that far from my number and assuming that some cards a less efficient than 5970, their number could be actually quite accurate.

do not use bitcoinwatch numbers for this

the best way would be to contact user Raulo who is kind of resident expert on this and ask for his advise

easy, get your wallet.dat from your encrypted backup.

just do free filing, there is no rush

Guiness (beer) does not travel. You cannot pass a judgement until you tried it in Dublin.


As for the record claim, it is an awesome idea and it must be done. Free good publicity is even better than free bad publicity.

While I have no personal experience with btcex, I've read relevant threads in both Russian and English; what people say complaining about btcex appears to be plausible, while whatever btcex operator posts does appear to be borderline insane.

"Avoid like a plague" is my opinion on this.

I'd say that removing them from Bitcoinwatch, would be a prudent step.

great stuff,  common sense wins!

now imagine that all this could have been done with a few private emails...