Uuuhhh do you know that every hardware piece is an "asic"? Your cpu, your graphic card etcetcetc
No. Your CPU is not application specific. And do you know that if you make a ram intensive algo with cpu and gpu you can make an asic optimized for it without problems, exactly like now?
No. Making an ASIC that's significantly more efficient than commodity hardware at accessing large amounts of memory is qualitatively different from making an ASIC that's significantly more efficient at bit twiddling tasks that don't require unpredictable branching or large amounts of memory. These two tasks are not at all exactly alike. One can easily make ASICs that are thousands of times faster than commodity CPUs at SHA256. One cannot easily make ASICs that are even ten times faster than commodity hardware at accessing large amounts of memory. Agreed. And one could make a task that used required BOTH a GPU and an X86 processor with a certain amount of RAM. A well designed task could be made that required equal parts of both and could not be optimized for ASIC. A miner would need to have both a healthy CPU and GPU. Even if one offloaded tasks to an ASIC a miner would still need an x86 CPU core for each ASIC. There are many possibilities. A huge downside is with a task this complex, there could be an unforeseen shortcut or even a known shortcut (to few people) that gives someone an advantage. I am not for any of this. I think SHA256 is fine until there appear to be some cracks in it. er actually the CPU IS application specific. It takes a finite number of preprogrammed states and produces predictable outputs for those states. The fact that you can "re-arrange" those states EXTERNALLY to perform another task, does not make the CPU non 'application specific' The same way that an ASIC inside a software radio, does not work with only one type of spoken language. Infact Intel take it a step further, in that the CPU is an ASIC that can be re-arranged via a microcode insert. HC By your logic nearly all chips are ASICs. But ASIC is an industry term for a chip that is designed to a specific application. The part that is not explicitly said but CLEARLY IMPLIED is that an ASIC is for a narrow application, not a broad one. A 7404 TTL chip is application specific for inverting TTL, that does not make it an ASIC. |
|
|
|
someone(s) planted explosives in all three buildings.
Deniers, accept it already
Yea, because if you repeat a lie often enough it sounds more truthful. |
|
|
|
I think they'd both be strongly against it. Almost equally but for somewhat different reasons.
Agreed. |
|
|
|
Uuuhhh do you know that every hardware piece is an "asic"? Your cpu, your graphic card etcetcetc
No. Your CPU is not application specific. And do you know that if you make a ram intensive algo with cpu and gpu you can make an asic optimized for it without problems, exactly like now?
No. Making an ASIC that's significantly more efficient than commodity hardware at accessing large amounts of memory is qualitatively different from making an ASIC that's significantly more efficient at bit twiddling tasks that don't require unpredictable branching or large amounts of memory. These two tasks are not at all exactly alike. One can easily make ASICs that are thousands of times faster than commodity CPUs at SHA256. One cannot easily make ASICs that are even ten times faster than commodity hardware at accessing large amounts of memory. Agreed. And one could make a task that used required BOTH a GPU and an X86 processor with a certain amount of RAM. A well designed task could be made that required equal parts of both and could not be optimized for ASIC. A miner would need to have both a healthy CPU and GPU. Even if one offloaded tasks to an ASIC a miner would still need an x86 CPU core for each ASIC. There are many possibilities. A huge downside is with a task this complex, there could be an unforeseen shortcut or even a known shortcut (to few people) that gives someone an advantage. I am not for any of this. I think SHA256 is fine until there appear to be some cracks in it. |
|
|
|
I still like the idea of a ram intensive algo (eventually ram speed could play a role) maybe combined with something only multi cpu/gpu can solve effectively. ASIC always will be more effective at this! That's why they are called Application Specific Integrated Circuit. only multi cpu/gpu can solve effectively.
This way you ban botnets I did not know that computers in botnets have no CPU's or GPU's. The bots probably run on vacuum valves and punch card printers. While it is true that ASICs can be better at many given tasks, the changing the protocol and VOIDING the ASICs is the attack against them. They adapt (which takes months or even half a year) then you change it again killing them financially. I am NOT FOR THIS, just pointing it out. And why do that? To have no ASICs in distributed miners possession but to allow government to make the ASICs and attack Bitcoin with 51% attack? Think something like Bombe that cracked Enigma codes in WW2. I am not for it as said above. Just pointing out the strategy that some may be in favor of. I believe having ASICs made by two or more companies makes bitcoin stronger not weaker then having no ASICs. I also believe in keeping the protocol the same unless there is a problem with it. Having the winners and losers change via the free market is NOT A PROBLEM. |
|
|
|
I still like the idea of a ram intensive algo (eventually ram speed could play a role) maybe combined with something only multi cpu/gpu can solve effectively. ASIC always will be more effective at this! That's why they are called Application Specific Integrated Circuit. only multi cpu/gpu can solve effectively.
This way you ban botnets I did not know that computers in botnets have no CPU's or GPU's. The bots probably run on vacuum valves and punch card printers. While it is true that ASICs can be better at many given tasks, the changing the protocol and VOIDING the ASICs is the attack against them. They adapt (which takes months or even half a year) then you change it again killing them financially. I am NOT FOR THIS, just pointing it out. |
|
|
|
Concerning power consumption isn't it better to go ahead with rather rare ASICS than a lot of CPUs/GPUs?
The amount of resources put into mining will be about the same as the block reward. It may be more on the energy side, more on the raw material side or more on the profit for the producer side. From an ecological stand-point I prefer profit for the hardware producers and hope this area will yield enough profit so they don't lock competition out with patents and other dirty weapons. I agree with that. Unmentioned ASIC advantage: BOTNET miners are mostly out of the picture. As difficulty rises, the profit of even a huge botnet will drop and probably drop below other more profitable botnet uses. Assuming botnet herders dump all btc for fiat currency (which may not be true), asics may keep more money in the community. |
|
|
|
|
The companies online charge at least 5%. Anyone have any or can beat that rate or should I just buy it from travelex? I am a trusted buyer and unless you are someone I know I will not send BTC first.
|
|
|
|
Obama passed a law so insurance companies can't let customers use co-pays for prescriptions now. I was paying $200 a month for insurance and got my prescriptions for $15 bucks, now I pay $200 a month for my prescriptions and have no insurance. Obama is completely screwing health care, ask anyone who works in the field. He does whatever he want's whether it's legal or not, there will always be some ignorant fools to back him up.
Explain what happened.. Did your insurance bill go up and you decided not to pay? Sounds fishy because Obamacare has not changed things in relations to co-pays on prescriptions. Obamacare has made it so insurance companies cannot charge for preventative checkups (that save money long term) as well as birth control (which also saves money). No it wen't down $20 because they couldn't offer the same plans. It went from $15 copay to $1,800 a year deductible. Up until a couple months ago generic prescriptions could be covered with a copay. Now if a insurance company wants to offer a copay they need to included brand name drugs. Which is not a affordable option, so copay's have been removed. I've been told this by a few people that work at Lifewise. I have looked around for alternatives and the only plans I've seen with smaller deductibles, more then make up for in monthly charges. Well again Obamacare did not make the change you refer to. Insurance companies are allowed to charge co-pays for drugs. They are allowed to charge different co-pays for different classes of drugs or have no co-pay at all. Requiring a co-pay does not trigger a need for brand name drugs. You must be referring to a state law change. |
|
|
|
You do not understand much about healthcare. There is much to be gained by streamlining and diagnosing early. The worst part of all is RIGHT NOW we are ALL PAYING to care for those who do not have insurance. It is done in the ER and the cost is passed on to you in higher healthcare costs. UNLESS YOU TURN PEOPLE AWAY TOTALLY YOU WILL PAY THIS COST.
Please provide some data on that. From what I have seen almost all of the money goes towards chronic conditions for those over 55. ER bills are nothing compared to that. I heard (though I can't guarantee it's veracity) that the cost of screening everyone for everything they might have (but don't) far outweighs the potential savings. Of course, it'd be nice for the individuals to get early treatment and not die horribly but in terms of sheer economics, it's a policy that pushes the cost of healthcare up (and we have nowhere near enough healthcare providers for it anyway). Real world experience in most of the 1st world disagrees. Regular checkups (not screening everyone for everything) do save money. Or maybe the rest of the world values saved lives over the cost. |
|
|
|
Obama passed a law so insurance companies can't let customers use co-pays for prescriptions now. I was paying $200 a month for insurance and got my prescriptions for $15 bucks, now I pay $200 a month for my prescriptions and have no insurance. Obama is completely screwing health care, ask anyone who works in the field. He does whatever he want's whether it's legal or not, there will always be some ignorant fools to back him up.
Explain what happened.. Did your insurance bill go up and you decided not to pay? Sounds fishy because Obamacare has not changed things in relations to co-pays on prescriptions. Obamacare has made it so insurance companies cannot charge for preventative checkups (that save money long term) as well as birth control (which also saves money). |
|
|
|
You do not understand much about healthcare. There is much to be gained by streamlining and diagnosing early. The worst part of all is RIGHT NOW we are ALL PAYING to care for those who do not have insurance. It is done in the ER and the cost is passed on to you in higher healthcare costs. UNLESS YOU TURN PEOPLE AWAY TOTALLY YOU WILL PAY THIS COST.
Please provide some data on that. From what I have seen almost all of the money goes towards chronic conditions for those over 55. ER bills are nothing compared to that. The cost of caring for people in the ER is not represented in the ER only. The cost of many of the ER bills is NOT PAID. It is then distributed over all of the other bills because the hospital needs to stay in business. Over testing is a huge problem cost and Obamacare reduces this but does not eliminate it. Proper tort reform would help here. Finally malpractice insurance cost is passed on to all patients because of the lack of tort reform. |
|
|
|
Yes, and where do you think the money for a), b), and c) come from? From future taxes that will hinder our economy. You may enjoy the benefits today, but you and I and everyone else will be paying for it down the road in the form of higher taxes and devaluation of our money through increased inflation.
You do not understand much about healthcare. There is much to be gained by streamlining and diagnosing early. The worst part of all is RIGHT NOW we are ALL PAYING to care for those who do not have insurance. It is done in the ER and the cost is passed on to you in higher healthcare costs. UNLESS YOU TURN PEOPLE AWAY TOTALLY YOU WILL PAY THIS COST. I do not like Obama care, but the cost of the program is not nearly as great as partisans imply. A properly designed program (which Obamacare is NOT) could save a huge amount of money for this country. The working class generally votes republican, because they understand personal responsibility and sustainability. The welfare-recipients (of which I'll include you in, since you are reaping benefits at the expense of taxpayers as mentioned above) generally vote democrat, because they want "more free stuff". Or at the very least, they don't want their free stuff taken away.
That is just pure propaganda. Your smarter then that (I hope). We really need voters who look deeper into the issues. People who do not follow party over country. Right now you will not ever balance the budget without compromise. Both Obama and Romney have drawn lines in the sand that if they stick to them will bankrupt this country. |
|
|
|
Where is this concrete data on lost coins?
There will never be concrete data on lost coins. It is a guess. Even when someone says they lost coins we do not know that to be true. Every single bitcoin ever created could move again, it is just very unlikely. There are many people who created coins and forgot about them and in the end lost the wallets. There are others who lost coins due to mistakes such as wiping drives or cloud knowledge failures. |
|
|
|
Does it also discount "lost" coins? Of which if I remember, there are about 2 million.
From what I read they are counting lost coins as 'stashed' or 'horded' as well. Considering that the lost and 'stashed' coins add up to nearly half, that means that the other half is generally in use. Basically the report draws some pretty flawed conclusions from good data. |
|
|
|
If it's for the purchase of something, you'll have to give me access to your account. I'm not telling you my Paypal details!
Please explain. |
|
|
|
|
Tulkas,
Are you doing something to people/sites who used to use the old BTCJAM (the mining generator)?
|
|
|
|
I agree that complying with Pirate's terms as they stood at the time he took deposits is one of his obligations. But he absolutely does not have to go along with a unilateral change Pirate may try to impose on him in the terms. If there's a reasonable case that Pirate made a reasonable change in the terms and a PPT operator didn't go along and that harmed their customers, I might agree with you. But I know of no case where that happened.
"Unilateral?" All changes to PPT are/were unilateral, as pirate is the sole known principal of BS&T. Operators were never in a position to jointly make bilateral changes. Sure they negotiated some rate changes, but the decisions to change the rate and what rates to offer were exclusively pirate's. Otherwise, the feeder funds would have been called PPPTs (Pirate Partnership Pass Though). When payb.tc, faced with the choice of taking or leaving pirate's final change in terms, decided to not comply he ceased to be a PPT operator, thus becoming liable for repayments and culpable for any wrongdoing. I'm not exactly sure how to judge what you mean by "reasonable change in the terms." As there are arguments both for and against pirate's request for account info, it doesn't seem unreasonable to me. And given the unique nature of the post-default wind-down situation, that request seems reasonable enough. Payb.tc's decision to refuse further cooperation harmed BitcoinMax customers by giving pirate an easy way to avoid repayment, via the scapegoat of operator noncompliance. His/your interpretation is abusive because it absolves pirate of any obligation to BitcoinMax depositors, and absolves payb.tc of responsibility by blaming pirate. The buck has to stop somewhere; they can't just form an endless loop of blame by pointing fingers at each other! 10 Pirate? Sorry, not responsible because payb.tc didn't transfer the account info. 
20 Payb.tc? Sorry, not responsible because pirate defaulted.
30 GOTO 10 ^^^This double-bind is not an acceptable resolution for us depositors.  Since Pirate has not paid out, why does this even matter. Pirate has not paid out to people who have followed the instructions. |
|
|
|
Here's what I have been observing also:
1) CFLs are more expensive to manufacture than incandescents
2) CFLs are therefore considerable more expensive to buy than incandescents.
3) There is therefore a strong downward pressure on price for incandescents
4) Chinese knock out cheap, low quality incandescents
5) Cheap, low quality incandescents fail early, meaning that their claimed cost savings are not reached and their energy and resource TCO suck donkey parts compared to incandescents.
6) Statism does the fail thing once more.
7) Statism apologists scramble to make rationalizations. Cue:
This post makes no sense. perverse incentives created by the state result in sub optimal behavior of the market. Actually the reason for the low quality incandescent bulbs is lower demand, less research into them and everyone knowing there is not much future there. They are a niche market. There will be junk ones and good high end ones as well. So far incandescents have not been taxed and here the POWER COMPANY is subsidizing CFL's so they can avoid building an expensive power plant. I got 4 CFL's for $1.99 last week. |
|
|
|
Actually, over 40% of that debt is owed to American citizens and corporations (no, they are not the same). Love my T-Bills
You do know it's a negative equity investment, right? Tbills are less risk then gold (many people will disagree with that but my opinion), safer then cash and they do stop some of the loss of inflation. Tbills are a reasonable choice forsomeone with cash savings. I personally feel real estate is better right now due to it being undervalued but that is a risk just like gold. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
