I'm either facing the losing side of the statistics, or doing it wrong.
It's been four days since I've seen fresh coin, and I'm running 7200 khash/sec (aggregate).

That puts me over 95% percentile.
I'll stay away from Vegas this weekend.

Runs about the same speed as the VC++ version here (Xeon, Win7 64-bit).

I'm not getting the point.  Why would I add coins to your "investment" wallet?

I didn't see anything there about what you intend to do with the windfall in the future.   That seems important.

Otherwise, I'd just invest the coins in my own wallet, right?

So --- Bitquux, that was Olipro's binary that found the coin?

Very interesting.

What khash/sec rates do you get on Beagleboard?

Using the OMAP's DSP might be an interesting SHA256 approach.

Here's a weird question.. has anyone actually generated a block with this faster version?

I have a few machines that used to regularly generate, and since switching to this version -- zip.  I know these things are subject to random variation, and it could be a dry spell, and the difficulty is going up, but... could it be a bug?

Win7 64-bit
Intel Xeon 5130 (2.0GHz dual-proc)

I'll send you the first 50.0 it finds.

Get visual C 2010 redist from Microsoft -- pointers here:

http://www.mydigitallife.info/2010/04/17/visual-c-2010-runtime-redistributable-package-x86-x64-ia64-free-download/

The new code is full of win.. hash rate (4 core) went from 1350 to 1880 khash/s.  Sweet!

I've got libglib2.0-0 installed.    I believe Debian's libstdc++.so is older than the one bitcoind was compiled with.  Same error here.

The problem is that much of the VPN/Crypto hardware is aimed at high bandwidth crypto, or high speed RSA calculations and the like.  "Heavy Lifting"

Our needs are much simpler.. we just want to run a lot of hashes.  Even IO bandwidth isn't all that important, since we know the entire set of input data to hash, and we're only interested in characteristics of the output, and not even the hash values need to be output at all.

You can run SHA-256 on a Xilinx Spartan 3A at about 7 Mbps per MHz, so 280MHz should crunch 2170 Gbps, and you should be able to run quite a few cores given our meager I/O requirements.

I've been trying to build this on a headless (no X, no GUI, no windows, no gtk) system, and wx is having none of it.

Even the baseconfig core functionality seems to require a bunch of gtk headers to be present, which then made me pull in 100+ packages just to compile wx base.  And Boost, of course.

It seems a much more lightweight bitcoind build system should be possible.

Bastard.  I had my own hunch, given how thin and incompetent his claims were.
(Myself, I'm not about to run anyone else's binary as root, but that's just me.)

Anyhow, it's now an interesting question. 
bitcoin2paysafe should post his paid address.

If I understand correctly (and I may not), anyone can now follow the progress of those "dirty" coins through the system.

If CodexTheSloth spends his coins on physical product, we can send out the tire-iron goons.  It's effectively marked bills, so any future vendor he deals with should see this thread.  Or something like that..

OpenCL bitcoin crashes with a Bus Error on a 27" iMac (ATI Radeon).

Anyone get it to work on a current-gen iMac?

Normally, I would include the cost of hardware, but in this case the hardware is already necessary and sunk.  It's just a software addition, so the only incremental cost is the electric power.

If I was building dedicated miner hardware, then I'd calculate that as well.

Mostly I was trying to decide whether to leave generation on, or off, even in the event I had a real need for BTC.
In this case, OFF was the obvious answer.  It's currently cheaper to buy BTC than generate them on this class of hardware.  I'm curious to see if the market values adjust with the difficulty, or even the arrival of the power bill.

I suspect many of the big-number BTC miners are using someone else's compute farm (work, school, etc) and externalizing the cost of the power.

It would be a useful learning exercise, especially when you figure out that you can't mint money like the real banks do.
Without leverage (the ability to lend out BTC you don't actually have), your upside is limited to just the deposits you hold (lent out) and the gap between interest paid and owed.

(Ignoring all the issues with anonymous lenders, of course.)

I run my computers off solar-generated electricity, so I keep pretty tight tabs on how much power they consume.

I have one headless Ubuntu server that is always-on, usually with the disk array spun down, as it has some central network management roles.  It's an Intel Core2Duo E6300 @ 1.86 GHz, and mines at about 950 khash/s.

I was curious to see the impact bitcoind generation would have on it.  Here is what it looks like:



The lowest level on the left is idle, and the noise after it is bitcoind inhaling the block history.  The step up is the bitminer threads.
In short, hashing raised the idle floor from about 120W to 160W, or +40W.

This draws 29 kilowatt-hours a month from my generation, which means I net some $3.80 less for power ($0.13/kwh marginal power rate)

If I generate an average of 13 blocks a month at the current difficulty, BTC 650, that puts my cost at about US$0.005/BTC.

In short, I'm better off buying BTC from the exchange than generating them on this particular machine.  Food for thought.

I'm not certain that accounts for the very slow startup.

I set up bitcoin on a new (relatively fast) computer, connected by gigabit ethernet to another running machine, and -connect= to send it directly to that node.

It still took a really long time to bring the blocks over.  It would pause for a long time at 501, 1001, etc.  Every 500 blocks would have a long pause before starting again.

I'm just questioning whether it's all disk and CPU bandwidth constraints, or if there's something in the system that injects pauses or timeouts.

I'm trying to wrap my head around the coin log idea, and wonder what information is available in it.

Could someone make a graph of all the coin values ever awarded, their path through the system, and their current holder?  Something like http://www.wheresgeorge.com/ but on the whole economy?

Is it possible to tally up the holdings of every known bitminer/Bitcoin Address and produce something like the "Top 10 Richest Bitcoin holders"?

What information is private?  I suppose aggregation of multiple Bitcoin Addresses (a person, for example) is inscrutable.  But could someone, conceivably, state with accuracy how much money has been donated to Bitfountain's posted address?

That's an important point:  You don't need to generate bitcoins any more than you need to go mine your own gold.

Turn off your computer, go do some "real work" that people value, and sell it for bitcoins.
Anyone is free to leave the energy-burning computational expense to those that want to do it.

I sleep just fine.  My computer and network are 100% solar-powered.

If I was building dedicated bitminer hardware, I'd start with something like this:
http://www.xilinx.com/products/ipcenter/Fast_SHA-1-SHA-256_MD5_Hashing_cores.htm