Thanks for the info. Do you have any suggested pools or pool types for between the 50-100GH/s setup? I'm planning on building a largish rig soon  ...By which you mean "I have a pre-order in on some ASIC miners", right? I mean, you couldn't possibly think it was a good idea to build a large GPU farm... right? Any of the pools that support GBT will do fine. Take a look at this list here: https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Comparison_of_mining_pools |
|
|
|
|
Nothing is guaranteed, solo mining or mining in a pool. I've seen a pool that should average 3-4 hours per block take more than 24. Solo mining gives you this same risk, only multiplied. If the calculator says you'll find a block roughly every month.. well guess what, during the course of a month the network difficulty will go up twice. So not only do you risk missing your target, but the network keeps moving the goalposts. If you're pushing 65,000 MH/s, at current network difficulty you should find a block about every 7 days. I wouldn't bother solo mining much lower than that, as there's a big chance you'l be "unlucky" and the difficulty will increase before you even find a block.
|
|
|
|
Why on earth do people insist on spending > $1k on GPU's for mining? Has no one been paying attention? Do people like to lose money? This model will be a bit simplistic, but follow along... Let's say you overclock and get the high-end production out of each GPU.. 600 MH/s. So you get 1800 MH/s total. (reference here: https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Mining_hardware_comparison) Each card uses 200W of power. That's 600W just for the cards. Figure 80% efficiency PSU (if you even have an 80% PSU) means you're burning a minimum of 750W, not counting CPU, RAM, HD, motherboard circuitry... Conservatively you're going to spend at least $1100 on hardware. Now head over to here and plugin those numbers: http://www.bitcoinx.com/profit/Wow, it looks like you're going to "profit" $9.43 USD per day! Wait.. but over on the "net profit" side, it says you've *lost* $304.30 USD over the first 3 months. Now look at how quickly the difficulty is going up: http://bitcoindifficulty.com/And think about just how long you're going to be "profiting" anything near $9.43 per day with the difficulty going up like that. Every two weeks, you will make less. The prediction of only being in the hole $300 after the first 3 months is a vast understatement. The maximum value of a share dropped 14% at the last adjustment. Let's see how that makes the numbers work: Starting at an "Income" of $12.13 USD/day and power cost of $2.70 USD/day. For simplicity I'll just put $37.80 each 2 weeks for power, since this doesn't change. After 2 weeks: ($12.13 * 14) - ($37.80) = $132.02 After 4 weeks: ($10.43 * 14 - ($37.80) = $108.22 After 6 weeks: ($8.97 * 14) - ($37.80) = $87.78 After 8 weeks: ($7.71 * 14) - ($37.80) = $70.14 After 10 weeks: ($6.63 * 14) - ($37.80) = $55.02 After 12 weeks: ($5.70 * 14) - ($37.80) = $42.00 After 14 weeks: ($4.90 * 14) - ($37.80) = $30.80 Grand total "profit" after 14 weeks: $525.98 Minus Cost of system: $525.98 - $1100 = -$574.02 EVEN IF you don't pay for electricity, you're still in the hole $309.42 after 14 weeks. And that's assuming BTC is still at $120 USD in three months... The calculator estimates you'll make 0.1009 BTC per day at current network difficulty. This will of course drop every 2 weeks also. 0.1009 * 14 = 1.4126 0.086774 * 14 = 1.214836 0.07462564 * 14 = 1.04475896 0.06417805 * 14 = 0.8984927 0.05519312 * 14 = 0.77270368 0.04746608 * 14 = 0.66452512 0.04082083 * 14 = 0.57149162 Total BTC after 14 weeks: 6.57940808 Total BTC if you just spent $1100 on BTC (at current rate of $121 USD): 9.090909 If you've got $1100 burning a hole in your pocket, invest in an ASIC miner, an ASIC mining contract, or straight up buy some BTC. Buying GPUs to make BTC is the worst possible investment. |
|
|
|
I don't have any special or new hardware (so, no TPM or Ivy Bridge or later CPU). I don't want to reveal exactly my whole software setup. Not that I have _that_ many bitcoins, but revealing exactly which version of what software I'm running seems to be a very poor security practice.
If your security relies on people not knowing which distro of Linux you're running, I think you need to rethink your security strategy  Based on Bitcoin v.0.8.1, and OpenSSL 1.0.1, Bitcoin calls EC_KEY_generate_key, which is found in ec_key.c (OpenSSL). From there on, it depends on how OpenSSL was compiled as to what will happen next. Presumably FIPS_mode is not enabled... and one way or another it will end up in bn_rand_range (bn_rand.c.), on down through bnrand, and ultimately end up in either RAND_bytes or RAND_pseudo_bytes in rand_lib.c. Then we get to this little nugget in rand_lib.c: const RAND_METHOD *RAND_get_rand_method(void)
{
if (!default_RAND_meth)
{
#ifndef OPENSSL_NO_ENGINE
ENGINE *e = ENGINE_get_default_RAND();
if(e)
{
default_RAND_meth = ENGINE_get_RAND(e);
if(!default_RAND_meth)
{
ENGINE_finish(e);
e = NULL;
}
}
if(e)
funct_ref = e;
else
#endif
default_RAND_meth = RAND_SSLeay();
}
return default_RAND_meth;
} Is there a default engine set? No idea. Was OpenSSL compiled with OPENSSL_NO_ENGINE? No idea. If OpenSSL heads off into ENGINE_get_RAND on your system, what engines will it find? No idea. If it makes it to RAND_SSLeay, this is OpenSSL's internal PRNG. OpenSSL claims it is a cryptographically strong PRNG suitable for generating keys. It also claims that on *nix systems this is seeded by /dev/urandom automagically. The Bitcoin source seems to take for granted that OpenSSL will use /dev/urandom, but it also seeds the PRNG with the CPU performance counter. You'll see the note about urandom at the bottom of this excerpt (util.cpp): void RandAddSeed()
{
// Seed with CPU performance counter
int64 nCounter = GetPerformanceCounter();
RAND_add(&nCounter, sizeof(nCounter), 1.5);
memset(&nCounter, 0, sizeof(nCounter));
}
void RandAddSeedPerfmon()
{
RandAddSeed();
// This can take up to 2 seconds, so only do it every 10 minutes
static int64 nLastPerfmon;
if (GetTime() < nLastPerfmon + 10 * 60)
return;
nLastPerfmon = GetTime();
#ifdef WIN32
// Don't need this on Linux, OpenSSL automatically uses /dev/urandom
// Seed with the entire set of perfmon data
Really, I don't think you can go wrong. You implicitly trust the Linux kernel developers and the OpenSSL developers when you use their software... You're going to get one or the other's implementation of a cryptographically strong PRNG. EDIT: I should add... I saw no evidence that OpenSSL checks entropy_avail when reading /dev/urandom. I wouldn't expect it to anyway -- /dev/urandom is for non-blocking access, and checking entropy_avail just to block and wait for more entropy rather defeats the purpose |
|
|
|
I think US will be the most possible place that bitcoin will receive mainstream acceptance, because "In liberty we trust"...
I laughed. You should submit this stuff to Leno. Liberty... "In liberty we trust..." ?? Wake up, Neo... you're living in a dream world. |
|
|
|
|
If you accept zero-conf transactions, you're accepting the risk of being screwed. Zero-conf is the equivalent of "The check is in the mail!". It's worthless. You accept the risk, you accept the consequences.
|
|
|
|
What makes difficulty go up so much??
People with ASCI miners, and increased awareness of Bitcoin resulting in more people mining. The more hashrate you throw at the network, the more the difficulty increases to compensate. |
|
|
|
Can you list which distros this applies to? How about Mint? (derived from Ubuntu I think.) What kind of processors does this work on? Intel Core i5 ? Or any chip that TrueCrypt will work with hardware AES acceleration I guess?
I have no idea what other distros run rngd by default. I'm sure it's available in all major distros, so it can always be installed. I believe the package is rng-tools. If TrueCrypt reports that AES Acceleration is available, then the AES-NI requirement is fulfilled. As to whether your processor supports RDRAND, I believe all Ivy Bridge CPUs do. Quickest way to check your specific hardware would be to boot a recent Linux distro and type: cat /proc/cpuinfo | grep -i rand That was from memory, so there could be a mistake.... but if you receive output, you have RDDRAND, and if you don't... then sorry. |
|
|
|
Guidelines for Press boardThe Press board replaces the Bitcoin press hits, notable sources thread. The original motivation of the thread was to collect links that fit Wikipedia's definition of Notability. Once bitcoin was deemed sufficiently notable (a milestone!), the thread became an ongoing log of links. Discussion was discouraged. The Press board is a great improvement. These general guidelines should help keep the board usable: - Create a new thread for each new link
- Begin each thread with article date, YYYY-MM-DD format.
- Thread title should usefully summarize the link. julz has suggested DATE-SITE-HEADLINE format, but use your best judgement.
- Duplicate links, off-topic, and meta discussions may be moderated (locked or whatever the mods prefer)
- Post a link to the NEW articles thread.
As always, comments and suggestions welcome! The main goal is to keep the noise down. (emphasis added). It's stickied at the top of this board FFS. Why is this a discussion? |
|
|
|
I would like to reverse the question: Does fiat need to be backed by Bitcoin instead of "full faith and credit of the State"? I would say, wholeheartedly YES. I doubt this would happen... but if we could get governments to be open again about how much money they have in circulation, and this was tied to the balance a specific Bitcoin address, this would solve the single problem I have with Bitcoin (how difficult it is to trade, especially with no power), and ALL the problems of government-issued currencies. Or am I completely wrong?
Backing fiat money with bitcoin (or gold or anything else) would convert the fiat money into an honest money substitute (and no longer fiat) again. Fiat money is "money by decree". It is in a very real sense fake. The only things which gives it value are the cultural memory of "dollar-ness" coupled with the legal tender laws which make it illegal to issue private competing currency. Bitcoin has most of the properties necessary to make it money. If and when it is widely considered to be money, then it could conceivably be "kept" in a safe place (e.g. the distributed network in which it currently exists) as backing for some unspecified, more transportable surrogate. In the heyday of private and state banking, the checks cross-written against groups of banks were cleared every day at a clearing house. The differences at the end of the clearing calculations were then settled between the banks by physical gold transfers. This was done continually all over the world in a local, regional, national layered fashion with the final clearing done in London. Only the interbank differences were settled in gold. The days of the gold standard did not mean that everybody carried gold around in their pockets. It only meant that their "paper money" was fully backed by gold. And "at the end of the day", all accounts were settled. It worked beautifully. This may be a good model to think about with respect to Bitcoins. We don't all have to deal directly with Bitcoins, as long as the accounts are settled in Bitcoin periodically. This leaves us free to invent an honest bitcoin substitute that may be more convenient to use, but is backed by Bitcoin (like gold used to back bank drafts). Right, that's exactly what I was getting at, and why I thought it would solve all the issues of "fiat money", and also my single issue with Bitcoin. The advantage of turning fiat money into representative money backed by Bitcoin (over, say... gold or oil) being that if I own a large store BTC, I can (presumably) convert it instantly to the local Bitcoin-backed currency no matter where I've traveled without carrying it with me. |
|
|
|
Your answer will depend on which "Linux live distro" you're using, and on which hardware. Recent versions of Ubuntu and Fedora will have OpenSSL 1.0.1+. As of Fedora 18, rngd is started by default. If it finds a TPM or if the RDRAND and AES-NI* instructions are available on your Ivy Bridge or later CPU, it will use these as entropy sources to feed to the kernel, keeping the entropy pool topped off. So... if you're using Fedora 18 on a system with a TPM or Ivy Bridge processor, you probably don't have to worry about it. Otherwise... seek ye the source code If you want more help than that... we need to know which distro you're using so we can look over the specific source without worrying about "that might have changed in a later version, or was changed in a patch by X distro". *Note, I mention the requirement of AES-NI with RDRAND because there are several documented cases where manufacturers have disabled AES-NI in BIOS, which causes rngd to fail at startup if there is no TPM or other hardware RNG. |
|
|
|
Pressure cooker with a pistol grip  OMG!!! ASSAULT PRESSURE COOKER!!   And that appears to be a high-capacity clip* magazine!! Pressure cookers must from this point forward be limited to 1L. *I hate that word, "clip". Dear MSM... Learn the difference between a "clip" and a "magazine". Regards, Me. |
|
|
|
|
The best card is the one you already own. Spending money on a GPU at this point is a losing proposition for *most*.
EDIT:
Expanding upon that... If you have $400 to spend, spend it on actual BTC. Then you will have ~4 BTC now. A $400 GPU will get you 4 BTC... when??? Diminishing returns every 2 weeks, plus electricity cost. Alternately, you could spend it on an ASIC mining contract, or actual ASIC hardware. Just not GPUs, if you're expecting to make a profit.
|
|
|
|
The rest of my "ramblings" were with regard to the subject of this discussion: Do Bitcoins need something REAL to back them? not to do with the "ramblings" of yours. Fair enough. I just assume people are talking to me when they start by quoting me. Sorry for the misunderstanding I would like to reverse the question: Does fiat need to be backed by Bitcoin instead of "full faith and credit of the State"? I would say, wholeheartedly YES. I doubt this would happen... but if we could get governments to be open again about how much money they have in circulation, and this was tied to the balance a specific Bitcoin address, this would solve the single problem I have with Bitcoin (how difficult it is to trade, especially with no power), and ALL the problems of government-issued currencies. Or am I completely wrong? |
|
|
|
Gold/fiat do have one advantage over bitcoin... you can still trade with them when the lights go out. Don't get me wrong, I think Bitcoin is superior in many ways... but imagine a world that trades exclusively in Bitcoin, and then imagine an EMP strike anywhere. We are close to this being an issue already with fiat being exchanged almost exclusively electronically, of course. I believe the smart course of action is "diversify".
There is also nothing that "backs" gold, it can be easily counterfeited (plated tungsten) and it too, even like oil, began it's path to becoming a symbol of wealth as a "pyramid scheme". The Bilderberg Gold Pharaohs of Liechtenstein still wield their monopoly over it as their fiat authority to own and enslave us all and our nations though the mechanisms of their exclusive proprietary ownerships of our national mediums of labour exchange currencies today. When the "lights go out" fuels, ammunition, weapons and food will all have far more value than gold. A Bitcoin is simply a derivative that only represents the LOOT or SERVICES that the guy that you got it off, got out of you for it, and made off with. It is a fiat "futures derivative contract" that arguably has some but really has no certain inherent added-value, other than as a virtual digital sort of an encrypted GM ignition key, that you can move, swap and store electronically. Like a "gold contract' or "mortgage backed security' (I love that last word) derivative it is a "BTC -securitized Future Derivative Contract" that merely allows you to keep, transfer it around or transfer it somewhere else to resell it there for whatever it may seem to be worth to the next guy, a minimum of an hour from now. The suicidal crisis with Fiat Bitcoins is that there is no convention nor systematic mechanism of well-regulation to stabilize nor assure users the stable Fiat "value" of them, relative to anything else practical. These means that they are doomed to being a totally unsuitable, unreliable, non dependable and useless Medium of Labour Exchange Currency. I said nothing about gold being "backed" or that it couldn't be counterfeited. I said it had one advantage over Bitcoin (no more, no less)... It can be traded when there is no power. No power doesn't have to equate to anarchy or some post-apocalyptic world you saw in a movie. It can be simply "the power went out, and will be out for the next X days". Even in your post-apocalyptic world, people will still want to trade in a currency -- the relative value of that currency to other commodities is irrelevant. So what if gold is less valuable than food? If I have food to trade, and you have fuel that I don't need, then we're going to have a tough time trading. I can carry more "value" of gold than I can gallons of fuel... unless fuel *becomes* the new "gold" (it's value "density" being quite high). That's the problem that currency solves. That is not a problem that Bitcoin can currently solve unless one has both electricity and working connection to the network. The rest of your ramblings are irrelevant. |
|
|
|
So that affects banking as well. Also if a blackout happened you just wait until the power turned back on. I was actually at a restaurant during that. They had to write people's credit card numbers down, and hope that the credits card weren't decline. What would be different then giving them a bitcoin address to pay later with, most people would pay it later when they can.
Sorry, I was adding to my post as you posted this... I added: With fiat, there exists the possibility that you could drive to another city with power, and extract some paper money from a bank. Bitcoin needs an easier way to transact physically, in person, even when the network if offline or inaccessible. Pretty big challenge.. given that the strength of Bitcoin *is* the network. That being said, I don't disagree with you... mostly. Like I said in my original post: We are close to this being an issue already with fiat being exchanged almost exclusively electronically, of course. I believe the smart course of action is "diversify". There are other slight differences between writing down credit card numbers and writing down Bitcoin addresses.... I can make up Bitcoin address on the spot, out of random numbers and letters. I cannot fabricate a plastic card (not very easily, anyway, and not with the power out). That gives *some* assurance that the card could valid, as it is *issued* by largely trusted entity. And, writing down the bitcoin address isn't enough -- I have to prove that I own the private key to that address by signing the transaction. How does one cryptographically sign a transaction on a piece of paper? |
|
|
|
Gold/fiat do have one advantage over bitcoin... you can still trade with them when the lights go out. Don't get me wrong, I think Bitcoin is superior in many ways... but imagine a world that trades exclusively in Bitcoin, and then imagine an EMP strike anywhere. We are close to this being an issue already with fiat being exchanged almost exclusively electronically, of course. I believe the smart course of action is "diversify".
Beyond excellent point. If an EMP strike went off, we have more issues then how to get our bitcoin back, but people have worked on this problem. I see one solution, a mesh network that will develop. Just as valid would be a major blackout, such as the Northeast blackout of 2003 (and also 1965) in the US, or the 2012 India Blackout, or 2003 Italy Blackout... or any of the others on this list: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_major_power_outages#LargestWith fiat, there exists the possibility that you could drive to another city with power, and extract some paper money from a bank. Bitcoin needs an easier way to transact physically, in person, even when the network if offline or inaccessible. Pretty big challenge.. given that the strength of Bitcoin *is* the network. |
|
|
|
|
Increasing your efficiency doesn't increase your number of shares. It is just a measure of how much you're producing vs. how much overhead you're creating. But if you want to increase your efficiency... use a miner that supports GBT, (like BFGminer, and some others), and point it at whichever port the pool has setup for GBT.
To increase the difficulty of your shares, BFGminer has a flag (I think it is --request-diff) that you can set to request higher difficulty work. Be aware, that this can increase your variance, as you will no longer submit difficulty 1 shares... You will only submit difficulty "X" shares, but they will count as X number of difficulty 1 shares... I hope that makes sense.
|
|
|
|
|
Gold/fiat do have one advantage over bitcoin... you can still trade with them when the lights go out. Don't get me wrong, I think Bitcoin is superior in many ways... but imagine a world that trades exclusively in Bitcoin, and then imagine an EMP strike anywhere. We are close to this being an issue already with fiat being exchanged almost exclusively electronically, of course. I believe the smart course of action is "diversify".
|
|
|
|
|
Because there is a "newish" protocol called "GetBlockTemplate" that allows miners to create new work without having to request it from the pool server constantly. They are likely using GBT, and likely have very fast hardware (like ASIC).
Also, perhaps the pool allows requesting higher difficulty work... in which case each difficulty X share returned would be the equivalent of submitting X number of difficulty 1 shares. By default, miners request difficulty 1 shares, so every share returned = 1 share.
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
