All good now as far as I can see.  |
|
|
|
If you are an anarchist that does not believe that any man-made systems can benefit society as a whole, then that is your ultimate view and there really is no point debating the details. OTOH if you want to go ahead and read up on LETS/CC systems, I would appreciate your informed opinion. I'm getting pretty fed up with people telling what I am and am not and what I believe and what I don't. I'll keep my informed opinion to myself for now, thanks. PS: anything the UN has touched has been a disaster, "you shall know them by their fruits", comes to mind. |
|
|
|
Central issuing authority. Central tracking ... what's the point? We already have facist money and we know it doesn't work.
Fungibility is an essential quality of money. If you make tokens traceable then you lose fungibility since some tokens become 'more equal' than others.
What you are proposing is a poor man's money for the oppressed. (Removing politics from the technology of monetary systems is not an option.) Fine hobby you got there, but if that's what drives you .... who are we?
I am talking about a LETS or Complementary Currency system, which is not government issued or backed. The main benefit of these systems over bitcoin or government issued fiat is that you can create liquidity for no cost. There has never been an example of a country with a state-run LETS/Complementary Currency. This is most certainly *not* fascist money - these ideas are nearly exclusively promoted by left wing groups. Perhaps you misunderstand the workings of these systems? Perhaps, but I don't think so. Left wing groups love centralising things ... the only problem is that when you have a big pot of centralised power/money the facists show up soon after and co-opt the whole thing to stifle liberty. How are you going to stop that from happening? For salient examples, think Federal Reserve, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, Social Security, Govt. pension funds, state insurance, the list is nearly endless. The main benefit of these systems over bitcoin or government issued fiat is that you can create liquidity for no cost Colour me skeptical, money costs, no free lunch. |
|
|
|
You seemed to be implying that people everywhere need to stop creating anything and devote all the world's resources to operating Bitcoin. You inferred ... I neither said, implied, nor meant any such thing. You have twisted the discussion away from the original assertion that specifically reference the bitcoin network by flipping between networks generally and the bitcoin net. specifically ... I protested that bitcoin should stick to its knitting, and now you agree with me and suggest I'm the curmudgeon ... huh? Enough of this already I think ... either we are at cross-purposes here or you are being a slippery bastard. |
|
|
|
Btw, why is it that people going into mining and buying expensive premium hardware doesn't have a clue how things work and how to troubleshoot various issues? -.- Itsa gold rush like no other ... gonna be some trashed high-end AMD graphics cards coming on the market that's for sure. |
|
|
|
What good is money, if no value is created to be exchanged for it? I read this more than 3 times, it is nonsensical, sorry. I'd be looking suspiciously at any mining pool operator that wants to push out extra work unrelated to Bitcoin mining. It's apparently not straightforward just keeping the pools secure and up as it is ... the pools are not a necessity for the Bitcoin network, just another layer, a soluble one. |
|
|
|
|
Central issuing authority. Central tracking ... what's the point? We already have facist money and we know it doesn't work.
Fungibility is an essential quality of money. If you make tokens traceable then you lose fungibility since some tokens become 'more equal' than others.
What you are proposing is a poor man's money for the oppressed. (Removing politics from the technology of monetary systems is not an option.) Fine hobby you got there, but if that's what drives you .... who are we?
|
|
|
|
|
I agree it could be disruptive but I'm not sure that the liberal use of the word "dangerous" is warranted, being as it is subjective in that context.
A liberating force for good maybe dangerous to entrenched status quo interests. But breaking their oppressive stranglehold on the economic freedom of humanity is not dangerous for humanity, it's positively liberating.
|
|
|
|
just make sure all your grounds are common that's what I said .... read slower maybe? |
|
|
|
|
Great, someone is trying to pimp the bitcoin network out like a cheap whore.
You got a gold-plated secure system for transferring monetary information signals all around the planet and you want to do what with it exactly?
I cannot think of a more needed application for a computer network than objectively distributing pricing signals, ideally suited also .... shall we stay focussed until we get this one in the bag?
It is not some kind of botnet that can go to the highest bidder .... although each miner is free to choose what to run on their personal clusters. Any global change to the network computation goals/behaviour as an entity would be objectionable, imo.
|
|
|
|
|
No-one said they were illegal ... although I think you've just taken the opportunity to put up a scaremongering headline in the main discussion for noobs to run smack slam into with their first bitcoin encouter ... fail.
|
|
|
|
|
while we are juxtaposing any manner of syllables ...
.... how about "bitcred" or "credbit" ??
|
|
|
|
|
Yes and then there is the question of who the corporates would get to mine for them and secure their payments network.
If they had 200 million users (huge wealth store) but only a few thousand miners the thing would be ripe for the pluckings of some of the more nefarious types. They need proportional adoption at mining back-end as well to have a proportionately secure system relative to the size of the payments network.
(As an aside, I think Bitcoin is currently gold-plated security wise given the size, spread and competency of the mining back-end relative to the size of the current bitcoin transaction volume and wealth stored)
|
|
|
|
Ground is going through the PCIe bus. Pins A2+A3;B1+B2+B3 are the 12v pins rewired to the Molex. Regarding GPU detection using these cables on a 5970 or 6990 would detect without further wiring modifications. Trentbz/Inaba, http://blog.zorinaq.com/?e=44 Per the reference posted in this blog and confirmed test current drops from a combined 14A to < 1A. Preventing cable wear from extended use. Let me know if any questions. Thanks for the link, but I don't see where it's saying he was using two power supplies with independent ground potential. From the way the blog reads, he's connecting the +12v to the same PSU that is supplying power to the motherboard, making the ground the same regardless of the +12v source. If my +12v source is coming from a different PSU than is grounding the motherboard, the potential will be different and that's where the bad things can start. I completely agree that there would be no problem supplying +12v from a molex on the same PSU that's grounding the motherboard. Yes, best if used off the same PSU. Also if using multiple PSUs just make sure all your grounds are common. What crazy set-up would have two PSU's right next too each other, supplying the same equipment with 'floating' grounds? You are asking for trouble if that is your case anyway. Whole server farms make sure that the ground is common throughout the building. If you want to have floating grounds that is your own problem I'd say. The basic idea is to bypass power around mobo to PCIe GPU card, ATX PSU connectors have reported burnouts with more than 3 5970's on same mobo. |
|
|
|
I recommend Tycho accelerate the installation of an SSL certificate. They can be had for a low as $50 (perhaps cheaper if you shop around) at RapidSSL. Of course, if his server was hacked, this would not have helped. In fact, if his server were hacked, the email confirmation won't help either because they could access the database directly. Let's hope that was not the case.
Kudos to Tycho for reacting in an honorable manner with regard to his customer's loss.
It's not clear that it was hacked. It could have been a some packet sniffing quite easily if people use the web account password the same as there miner(s) password (do not do this) since that is getting sent in plain-text by the miner all the time they getwork (i.e. lots). Someone was talking about wrapping up the miners-to-pools comms inside https, ssl or similar, where did that project get to? (It could be useful for other reasons down the line if miners get targeted.) |
|
|
|
the only way i could see bitcoin fall in to such hands.. is if they decided to throw processing power at it, enough to crush the processing power of the mass of miners.. even if they got 2 blocks for every 1.. that would put alot of power in to their hands.
Yes. But if they are going to do that they better get moving quick (won't happen, too big, not nimble enough, too risk averse). At the current rate of network growth they are going to have to start running pretty soon or they'll just be bit players. |
|
|
|
|
Well that was a real soap-box thumper .... thanx for that.
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
