Latest posts of: Grinder

Quote from: allinvain on May 13, 2011, 08:32:07 AM

Spoken like a true banker right there. While you are correct it would also be stupid if you did all this work and spend all this money on your mining rigs and nobody start to use the currency you've mined. So it is in your own economic interest to have more people mine coins and spend them and then to tell their friend about it..etc. In other words the viral effect would pay off for everyone - especially miners who will see the value of their coins go through the stratosphere.

If you already have a large amount of coins from when it was less popular then maybe, but then your income is coming from increase in value of the previous hoarding, not the mining. If you mine to sell the value of BTC doesn't matter, only the difficulty to price ratio. If I could convince anybody to buy bitcoins that would be in my economic interest, but because I consider that too risky myself I don't have the conscience to tell others to do it.

None. I have told a good friend that there's good money to be earned, but he's too dumb when it comes to see opportunities. Generally I consider stupid to convince other people to mine, because more miners will lower my own income.

No smoke without fire? Sounds like something got properly burned if it doesn't even POST. Unless you've flashed the bios it's not the card but Linux that remembers the overclocking, so it won't be overclocked before X starts.

Quote from: bitcoin2cash on May 11, 2011, 07:07:58 PM

That's a red herring. The fact that they don't stop smoking while pregnant can be considered starting smoking or smoking more compared to what the average woman would be doing without Medicaid.

That's just stupid.

Quote from: bitcoin2cash on May 11, 2011, 07:07:58 PM

If you want to claim that they are smoking more because they are poor rather than because they are on Medicaid. You need to back that up.There's clearly a correlation between Medicaid and smoking during pregnancy. Can you show the same correlation with poverty, with and without Medicaid?

This is just stupid too. Everybody knows (or at least should know) that there's a correlation between low income and smoking, and between low income and being on Medicaid. If you by any chance don't it's trivial to find tons of information about it with Google. You are the one making a totally new claim which you are obviously unable to document.

Did you want to show us where it says that people on welfare start smoking or smoke more if they're pregnant?

Quote from: bitcoin2cash on May 11, 2011, 04:01:08 PM

Your source is some guy's blog. I don't think that's very credible.

Actually, I used this for that number: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11125982

Quote from: bitcoin2cash on May 11, 2011, 02:51:53 PM

"Findings indicate that pregnant women with deliveries paid by Medicaid are more than twice as likely to smoke as privately insured women..."

That's because losers are more likely to smoke than those who are successful enough to afford insurance. The limit for getting benefits for low weight is 2 pounds, 10 ounces, which is less than half the lower end of normal children (6 to 9 pounds). Smoking during pregnancy only lowers the weight by 4 ounces on average.

Now that I've given you the proper facts I suppose you'll have no problem finding the sources with Google.

Quote from: doood on May 11, 2011, 07:22:42 AM

Not if he pushed the price up by buying publicly on somewhere like mt gox, then sold all his coins privately for $6 each.

You could just as well call that market manipulation by the buyer to keep the price from rising.

Quote from: nster on May 11, 2011, 02:46:57 AM

There's a big buyer trying to push the market upwards, I doubt he'll give up so easily

Why do people think it's this easy to manipulate a market? It would be stupid for one person to buy thousands of BTC just to push the price up, because as soon as he tries to sell such a large amount of coins again the market will crash and he will lose a fortune.

Quote from: mroth7684 on May 10, 2011, 03:35:25 PM

I read in the forum that PPS is better for slow hashrates and proportional is better for higher hashrates but no one gives examples of what is slow and what is fast.

It's because it is subjective opinion, and I'd say it's wrong. The only thing you need to consider is what Tycho says in the description. On average you will get more money if you choose proportional, no matter what your speed is.

The background image you use makes it really hard to read.

Quote from: BitterTea on May 10, 2011, 03:52:51 AM

The statements "gold is valuable" and "gold is money" are not equivalent. Diamonds are valuable, but they are not money.

But in the case of gold there is no clear distinction, because the value of the amount you have is measured by the weight. This makes it easy to use for trade, no matter what you call it. If you have to stamp it out in circular objects with a picture of some guy to call it money then sure, it took a while, but all you really need to use it for trade is a weight. The value of diamonds on the other hand varies drastically because of a fairly subjective quality measurement.

I doubt it's profitable, especially after the difficulty increase coming today. Even a single 5850 would be ten times as energy efficient as the 9800.

The electricity doesn't cost all that much compared to the mining hardware, so I think the increase in difficulty compared to BTC/USD will almost stop before it comes completely unprofitable most places. It will probably get close enough that you can't earn back the money for a new system before it's outdated, though.

It's easy for the user to see and compare how many stale shares they get on different pools, and it should always be included in the decision when you're choosing a pool. It doesn't really matter to the user why it is what it is, it reduces the income by the same amount.

Quote from: gmaxwell on May 09, 2011, 04:01:13 PM

The difficulty only steps every 2016 blocks, which is about ~2 weeks.
The hashrate looks pretty linear— on an exponential scale: http://bitcoin.sipa.be/speed-ever.png

I meant the hash rate, and for the last couple of weeks the increase has been fairly linear on a linear scale.
http://bitcoin.sipa.be/speed-lin-10k.png

The difficulty seems to have been increasing linearly for the last few weeks, so 200 000.

If you haven't been active for a week the remaining balance will be paid. Also, the number you're looking at is just an estimate for how much you will earn for that particular round. Every time a block is solved, that reward is added to your balance, and that number will not go down if you stop mining.

Quote from: Nythain on May 09, 2011, 09:41:32 AM

Meh, been decreasing consistently for the last couple hours now even submitting shares Sad

oh well, having a balance to decrease better than not having a balance at all i guess.

It's because the total hash rate of the pool is increasing, so your share from each block gets smaller. On the other hand more blocks will be solved in the same amount of time, so your average payout/day will be the same. I consider it a good thing.