Defying Mining Probabilities with Willpower

[the joint]

So, there have been scientific experiments that suggest that research participants were successfully able to modify "random" processes.  Specifically, participants were able to significantly affect the outcome of a computer coin-flip program beyond what could be expected due to chance alone.  So, if a participant wanted more "heads" to appear, more "heads" actually appeared in the outcome, and at a frequency beyond what could be expected due to chance.

Has anybody ever tried this with Bitcoin mining and noticed that they have been solving blocks at a faster-than-expected rate?  Preferably, this would apply to people with significantly higher hash rates (> 10 g/hash) over a period of at least 1 year, or maybe 6 months.  I doubt many people fall into this category.

[1714167229]

1714167229

[1714167229]

1714167229

[sveetsnelda]

Well...  I am up to 42Ghash and I regularly go into my mining rooms and read "The Little Engine That Could" to them.  Does this count?

[the joint]

Well...  I am up to 42Ghash and I regularly go into my mining rooms and read "The Little Engine That Could" to them.  Does this count?

 

[MysteryMiner]

If willpower also works from distance, some envious jerk in other side of world probably are causing you to find less blocks than expected.

[westkybitcoins]

Bitcoin Mining Enhancers, Inc.

We improve your performance! For a small fee (payable in bitcoins!) we'll assign a team of specialists to meditate and focus on improved performance for YOUR mining rig. All we'll need is a picture of your setup and the name you've given it, and we can get to work immediately.

Or are you instead very concerned about the power of large pools? For the same price, we'll assign our team toward lowering the performance of the major pool of your choice!

BME. Trust us, it works!

Results not guaranteed. No warranties included. All payments are non-refundable.

Hmmm....

Didn't Art Bell try something like this, only with a hurricane?

[rjk]

So, there have been scientific experiments that suggest that research participants were successfully able to modify "random" processes.  Specifically, participants were able to significantly affect the outcome of a computer coin-flip program beyond what could be expected due to chance alone.  So, if a participant wanted more "heads" to appear, more "heads" actually appeared in the outcome, and at a frequency beyond what could be expected due to chance.

Has anybody ever tried this with Bitcoin mining and noticed that they have been solving blocks at a faster-than-expected rate?  Preferably, this would apply to people with significantly higher hash rates (> 10 g/hash) over a period of at least 1 year, or maybe 6 months.  I doubt many people fall into this category.

Interesting. Link(s)? Do you mean by hopping, or some other method(s)?

[teflone]

I just play the market, and it goes the opposite direction.. EVERYTIME!!


I am..


 The Market Whisperer...

[the joint]

So, there have been scientific experiments that suggest that research participants were successfully able to modify "random" processes.  Specifically, participants were able to significantly affect the outcome of a computer coin-flip program beyond what could be expected due to chance alone.  So, if a participant wanted more "heads" to appear, more "heads" actually appeared in the outcome, and at a frequency beyond what could be expected due to chance.

Has anybody ever tried this with Bitcoin mining and noticed that they have been solving blocks at a faster-than-expected rate?  Preferably, this would apply to people with significantly higher hash rates (> 10 g/hash) over a period of at least 1 year, or maybe 6 months.  I doubt many people fall into this category.

Interesting. Link(s)? Do you mean by hopping, or some other method(s)?

Honestly, I remember the whole coin-flip research stuff from like 8 years ago when I was in high school science class.

Before I upgraded my hardware and was running a single 6970, I had actually placed a piece of tape on my case that said "50 BTC" and "00000000000000000000000000000000000000000" representing a low hash output.  I didn't really solo-mine with it though, and I only left it on for about 2 weeks.  Didn't solve any blocks with it -- not surprising.

But, I'm seriously considering giving this another go with about 1.8 g/hash.  I know it sounds a bit ridiculous, but I've been having some very weird coincidences happen to me lately that have been rather hard to ignore, and it's given me some psychological motivation to try this again.

[teflone]

So, there have been scientific experiments that suggest that research participants were successfully able to modify "random" processes.  Specifically, participants were able to significantly affect the outcome of a computer coin-flip program beyond what could be expected due to chance alone.  So, if a participant wanted more "heads" to appear, more "heads" actually appeared in the outcome, and at a frequency beyond what could be expected due to chance.

Has anybody ever tried this with Bitcoin mining and noticed that they have been solving blocks at a faster-than-expected rate?  Preferably, this would apply to people with significantly higher hash rates (> 10 g/hash) over a period of at least 1 year, or maybe 6 months.  I doubt many people fall into this category.

Interesting. Link(s)? Do you mean by hopping, or some other method(s)?

Honestly, I remember the whole coin-flip research stuff from like 8 years ago when I was in high school science class.

Before I upgraded my hardware and was running a single 6970, I had actually placed a piece of tape on my case that said "50 BTC" and "00000000000000000000000000000000000000000" representing a low hash output.  I didn't really solo-mine with it though, and I only left it on for about 2 weeks.  Didn't solve any blocks with it -- not surprising.

But, I'm seriously considering giving this another go with about 1.8 g/hash.  I know it sounds a bit ridiculous, but I've been having some very weird coincidences happen to me lately that have been rather hard to ignore, and it's given me some psychological motivation to try this again.

nope... bad time to use it, you have used up your karma...

fyi

[pla]

Even if the underlying concept has some merit, I don't think any of the major miners actually use a random process - They all just increment the nonce in a very deterministic manner.  And even if they did, computers don't do very well at truly "random" numbers without an external source of them.

You could probably modify a published CPU miner to pick random nonces;  You would need, at least, a kernel-level hardware-derived entropy driver, and preferably a radioisotope-based RNG (something like you can build as described at http://www.inventgeek.com/Projects/alpharad/OverView.aspx).  But overall the idea wouldn't fit well with GPU mining, so if you manage to get a factor of 100 improvement by power of will, you should contact James Randi to collect your reward and forget about gaming BitCoins.   

[check_status]

Never tried it with mining but I did use it to increase download bandwidth 50-60kbps. 

You'll never collect any money from Mr. Randi, there is no requirement for him to accept proof.
Disbelief in an outcome is just as powerful, but in opposition to, belief.

At S.R.I. (Stanford Research Institute) a study was performed with 2 researchers, one pre-concluded positive outcome results, the other pre-concluded negative outcome results, in the observance of particles. Both published outcome results proved each researchers pre-concluded position.

[bitlane]

You guys got it all wrong......

This has nothing to do with Willpower, Karma or anything else along those lines.

If you want results - ASK SATAN

Good old 666, Number of the Beast, Morning Star, Beelzebub and the rest of it....

[bbulker]

You guys got it all wrong......

This has nothing to do with Willpower, Karma or anything else along those lines.

If you want results - ASK SATAN

Good old 666, Number of the Beast, Morning Star, Beelzebub and the rest of it....

I don't think that has anything to do with it. When you read success books, they always KNEW they would succeed. With 100% determination and willpower you can do anything, but most people have trouble putting 0.001% willpower.

[the joint]

You guys got it all wrong......

This has nothing to do with Willpower, Karma or anything else along those lines.

If you want results - ASK SATAN

Good old 666, Number of the Beast, Morning Star, Beelzebub and the rest of it....

I don't think that has anything to do with it. When you read success books, they always KNEW they would succeed. With 100% determination and willpower you can do anything, but most people have trouble putting 0.001% willpower.

+1

Scientists took professional archers and did some brain scans while they were shooting at a target.

They found out that right before the archers released their arrows, their was a momentary calming of their brain waves.  The archers KNEW and FELT that they were going to hit the target -- there was no "if."  They put their faith in their skill and they let the arrow go.  Unprofessional archers didn't show this same calming of brain waves.  They had doubt, they lacked faith.

[grue]

So, there have been scientific experiments that suggest that research participants were successfully able to modify "random" processes.  Specifically, participants were able to significantly affect the outcome of a computer coin-flip program beyond what could be expected due to chance alone.  So, if a participant wanted more "heads" to appear, more "heads" actually appeared in the outcome, and at a frequency beyond what could be expected due to chance.

[citation needed]

[the joint]

So, there have been scientific experiments that suggest that research participants were successfully able to modify "random" processes.  Specifically, participants were able to significantly affect the outcome of a computer coin-flip program beyond what could be expected due to chance alone.  So, if a participant wanted more "heads" to appear, more "heads" actually appeared in the outcome, and at a frequency beyond what could be expected due to chance.

[citation needed]

If you need it go find it.  I don't need it.

[grue]

So, there have been scientific experiments that suggest that research participants were successfully able to modify "random" processes.  Specifically, participants were able to significantly affect the outcome of a computer coin-flip program beyond what could be expected due to chance alone.  So, if a participant wanted more "heads" to appear, more "heads" actually appeared in the outcome, and at a frequency beyond what could be expected due to chance.

[citation needed]

If you need it go find it.  I don't need it.

that's not how citations work. YOU made the claim, now YOU have to back it up. I hate how people go around and spread tin foil hat theories and ask others to disprove a claim that THEY made.

[the joint]

So, there have been scientific experiments that suggest that research participants were successfully able to modify "random" processes.  Specifically, participants were able to significantly affect the outcome of a computer coin-flip program beyond what could be expected due to chance alone.  So, if a participant wanted more "heads" to appear, more "heads" actually appeared in the outcome, and at a frequency beyond what could be expected due to chance.

[citation needed]

If you need it go find it.  I don't need it.

that's not how citations work. YOU made the claim, now YOU have to back it up. I hate how people go around and spread tin foil hat theories and ask others to disprove it.

I don't have to back up anything.  Take what I said or leave it.  I said earlier that I remember learning about it in high school science class.  I already know that when I think about moving my arm, I can move my arm, so it's already established that mental thoughts affect physical reality.  Not sure why this is so much harder to believe.  The peer review system is arguably the single largest obstacle to scientific progress, so I don't really give a shit about citations.

I've been known to make up entire bibliographies for my papers in college and grad school (Big Dog Publishing Company, anyone?).  Somehow I keep getting A's.

[bitdragon]

So, there have been scientific experiments that suggest that research participants were successfully able to modify "random" processes.  Specifically, participants were able to significantly affect the outcome of a computer coin-flip program beyond what could be expected due to chance alone.  So, if a participant wanted more "heads" to appear, more "heads" actually appeared in the outcome, and at a frequency beyond what could be expected due to chance.

[citation needed]

If you need it go find it.  I don't need it.

that's not how citations work. YOU made the claim, now YOU have to back it up. I hate how people go around and spread tin foil hat theories and ask others to disprove a claim that THEY made.

http://noosphere.princeton.edu/
http://noosphere.princeton.edu/measurement.html

I tried this 12 months ago when I had subsribed to Vladimirs mining contract. I intended for better than average and then he sent me an email I got lucky with my first blocks The whole thing got switched to zero variance after though.

Gregg Braden has some interesting points and science to share.

[grue]

I tried this 12 months ago when I had subsribed to Vladimirs mining contract. I intended for better than average and then he sent me an email I got lucky with my first blocks The whole thing got switched to zero variance after though.

That's only anecdotal evidence. The whole problem with anecdotal evidence is that you only want to recall miraculous events, like a lucky streak of finding blocks. Sure, you found many blocks with less time than expected, but you ignore all the times you found blocks at the expected time, or longer than the expected time.

I don't have to back up anything.  Take what I said or leave it.  I said earlier that I remember learning about it in high school science class.  I already know that when I think about moving my arm, I can move my arm, so it's already established that mental thoughts affect physical reality.  Not sure why this is so much harder to believe.  The peer review system is arguably the single largest obstacle to scientific progress, so I don't really give a shit about citations.

I've been known to make up entire bibliographies for my papers in college and grad school (Big Dog Publishing Company, anyone?).  Somehow I keep getting A's.

Yet it's standard world-wide. Something tells me that you just can't find evidence to back your statement up, and you don't want to look like a fool.

On a related note:

So, there have been scientific experiments that suggest that "the joint" is a retard.  Specifically, "the joint" is able to significantly make retarded posts beyond what could be expected of a normal forum member...