|
Wow, Gage is in maximum offense troll mode.
|
|
|
|
...you title your last thread Fuck You Guys!
"last"? |
|
|
|
http://www.foundshit.com/pictures/funny/military-down-time.jpgYou know what's funny about this image? One of them thought up the idea. Then the other six (cameraman, unless tripod was used) all agreed. Then they did it. Then they proudly posted it. Here's the kicker--they were all trained to protect their country. They forgot to dot the "i" |
|
|
|
In other words, scare tactics to get you to add a patch for anti-pirating?
Dunno about the pirating, but all it does it make some certificates untrusted because they used a hackable algorithm. You can apply it manually without installing anything by revoking the thumbprints above. |
|
|
|
Update; I found a bit of info here: http://blogs.technet.com/b/msrc/archive/2012/06/03/microsoft-releases-security-advisory-2718704.aspxApparently it is related to the Flame worm/virus. Probably does not affect systems outside of MS products, because the roots are only for licensing. We have discovered through our analysis that some components of the malware have been signed by certificates that allow software to appear as if it was produced by Microsoft. We identified that an older cryptography algorithm could be exploited and then be used to sign code as if it originated from Microsoft. Specifically, our Terminal Server Licensing Service, which allowed customers to authorize Remote Desktop services in their enterprise, used that older algorithm and provided certificates with the ability to sign code, thus permitting code to be signed as if it came from Microsoft. |
|
|
|
An out-of-band update was pushed to my windows boxes today to patch the Certificate Revocation Lists. Microsoft doesn't seem to have released a whole lot of info about this, but the security advisory is here: http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/security/advisory/2718704 EDIT: Download links on this page: http://support.microsoft.com/kb/2718704Apparently the following certificates need to be revoked: Certificate Issued by Thumbprint
Microsoft Enforced Licensing Intermediate PCA Microsoft Root Authority 2a 83 e9 02 05 91 a5 5f c6 dd ad 3f b1 02 79 4c 52 b2 4e 70
Microsoft Enforced Licensing Intermediate PCA Microsoft Root Authority 3a 85 00 44 d8 a1 95 cd 40 1a 68 0c 01 2c b0 a3 b5 f8 dc 08
Microsoft Enforced Licensing Registration Authority CA (SHA1) Microsoft Root Certificate Authority fa 66 60 a9 4a b4 5f 6a 88 c0 d7 87 4d 89 a8 63 d7 4d ee 97 This kind of update is only done for major emergencies, so if you have any systems that are not getting automatic updates, or if you have non-microsoft systems that trust these roots, you will need to either apply the patch manually or add these to your CRLs. Here are 2 additional quotes from the page: What is the scope of the advisory?
The purpose of this advisory is to notify customers that Microsoft has confirmed two unauthorized certificates have been issued by Microsoft and are being used in active attacks. During our investigation, a third Certificate Authority has been found to have issued certificates with weak ciphers.
Microsoft has issued an update for all supported releases of Microsoft Windows that addresses the issue. For affected devices, no update is available at this time. and What caused the issue?
Microsoft is aware of active attacks using unauthorized digital certificates derived from a Microsoft Certificate Authority. A unauthorized certificate could be used to spoof content, perform phishing attacks, or perform man-in-the-middle attacks. This issue affects all supported releases of Microsoft Windows. Stay safe out there. |
|
|
|
|
TL;DR, as always, NEVER INVEST MORE THAN YOU CAN AFFORD TO LOSE.
Why do I have to keep repeating that every so often.
|
|
|
|
This should be funny, but sadly thats the speeding limit on every backroad in Ireland. So you mean just this Speedlimit is what you keeps from driving faster on this road? ^^ No, just common sense. |
|
|
|
I think consolidating everything under one domain is dangerous and against the decentralized nature of the Bitcoin project.
On that note, does each of these sites have a .bit domain set up, or at least other alternate failover domains? |
|
|
|
|
As far as I can tell from the little bit of info that I can piece together from what they have said, that website might have been on the same compromised mail server that led to Bitcoinica's downfall. Either that, or it was the "semi-public" VPS that allowed the cracker access to the mail server in the first place. In any case, My understanding is that the website was unfinished, and possibly unindexed, and I guess they decided to scrap it for the time being.
|
|
|
|
Of course, be wary of what pools you use as backup pools.
The idea of a backup pool is a reliable fall back when your main pools fails.
However, if the backup pool blocks your access while it is just a backup ... well ...
That's why one backup isn't enough. I have 3... |
|
|
|
Ummm.. not sure where you got the impression that I was spamming. I was only making a thinly veiled reference to the fact that nVidia hardware is approximately one fifth as efficient as AMD hardware when it comes to bitcoin mining, and that no hardcore bitcoin miner would even consider using such inefficient cards unless they had free electricity and lots of money to blow. Therefore, I assumed that this guide was targeted towards new gamer users that weren't worried about the efficiency of their hardware. Sorry if it sounds like spam to you. |
|
|
|
Gamers with free electricity, unite! All other bitcoin miners go back to your maximum efficiency caves and keep the lights off.  |
|
|
|
Yeah there needs to be some actual evidence. psy's stuff isn't evidence. And I'm sure rg can confirm that, since he's met him in person. I also have IRC logs that are pretty convincing. |
|
|
|
wattage=ampere*voltage
So if you have 10 ampere with 110volt you have 1100 watt. With 240 volt you have 2400watt.
So how do you explain that the 850W power supply with 88%+ efficiency at full load says 5.5A on the box with 240V? Here is the PSU: http://www.coolermaster.com/product.php?product_id=6806Normally, I would explain it away as 100% load being less than the stated efficiency, since efficiency is always pegged at 50% load, and drops off at 100%. However, I went and looked at the curves in your link, and although it does drop off, it only goes down one point to 87% at full load, which doesn't explain it. Therefore, all I can assume is that the rating is a "worst case scenario" rating, and not indicative of what it will draw even under 100% load. EDIT: Calculations: 850 watts divided by 0.87 for the efficiency rating gives me 977 watts, and that divided by your voltage gives amps. It could be that the PSU is rated for 850 watts continuous, and 950 watts burst, and if that were the case the numbers at 950 watts would be very close to what is shown for the amperage on the label. |
|
|
|
|
Some reputations could have been salvaged, maybe, a long time back with some proper communication and some action. At this point, all is pretty much lost.
This includes the reputation of any investor(s) that may have selfishly delayed the entire process just to be sure it could have been completed all in one big lump.
Taking a month to prepare to start paying out in one batch is a huge failure. Better would have been to start the payouts as soon as possible, even if it took a month to work through them, as long as some were going out each day.
And as ssaCEO said, how did all the USD go missing? This is absolutely inconceivable. Same goes for the cold wallets. What in the world is actually going on?
|
|
|
|
|
Well I don't know what to think at this point. MyBrainIsFullOfFuck.jpg. "Liberty Payout" showed up within days of "newdude" suddenly resurfacing, and sounded a bit the same, using many similar language constructs and generally being a bit shady. However, he posts far less often than newdude and is only slightly less inflammatory.
So for the moment, I'll retract statements and hints that they are the same, but I'm still not ruling it out entirely.
Thanks for watching and also popcorn.gif
|
|
|
|
|
If you can handle the variance, and don't need to use the profits to pay bills....then maybe. I used to recommend 60 or more, but these days I might say closer to 100, especially if you are a bit averse to variance. Take a look at several small pools and find the longest time between blocks - then assume that each block could take that long unless you get lucky.
|
|
|
|
|
psy, I don't think ageis is the guy you are looking for. Just sayin'.
|
|
|
|
STOP MINING AT DEEPBIT MAN!
Why would you go there? Why? Seriously?
Come on, there's one main good reason to mine also at deepbit. And you know it.  Do tell? I know of exactly 2 good reasons - uptime and hoppability. For full-time PPS mining, BTC Guild is a reliable pool with a fee half that of deepbit's. P2pool is about as reliable as your internet connection, and ozcoin and EMC both have reasonable uptime and a fair payout method (Double Geometric). |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
