Search content
Sort by
Showing 20 of 32 results by DonMon
Re: [~3500 Gh/s Mining Pool] HTTPS,API, instant payouts,LP,+1% for NO INVALID BL
Currently all payments are working as far as I see.
I hit instant payment 5 hours ago and it is still hanging at zero confirmations...the block chain is up to date in the client (ie showing the correct current block number)
Address I sent to is 18Mbf6GkwhXyCa5uehxAWqVkBcCXDwo5hg...what's the problem here?
UPDATE: Payment finally went through...not sure what caused the long hold-up though.
Started mining on the pool yesterday. Having a deposit issue with your related exchange service. I sent 0.77BTC (as a test) to a BTC recieving address generated by the exchange...the transaction showed up...but has been stuck on 'pending' for over 20 blocks now.
Update 4/25/11: I switched over to the Phoenix miner 1.1, and now run at 421-423 mHash/sec on all of my 5870s. Clock settings are 975/300, using 0.950 voltage. They're running cooler, sucking less power, and running significantly faster with Phoenix!
Yeah..phoenix is definitely the way to go with the 5870's...I get 415Mh/s with settings of 940/305 temps around 65degC...they could probably do more..but I think it would be marginal for the extra juice/time tweaking/reduced lifespan required to achieve it..
My opinion is if you can get over 400-410 with your 5870's lock her in and ride it...it's not worth getting more (with present known methods).
Yeah...out of laziness I put off looking into it until yesterday night...shoot. Well I made a whole shiny 1 BTC more than I would have (before the Namecoin difficulty increase wiped out the NMC/BTC exchange profitability)...looks like I'm back to the BTC grind...
In fact, as of right now, your losing money if your mining namecoins (albeit only a fractional amount)..
Once again, i'm late to the party!
In fact, as of right now, your losing money if your mining namecoins (albeit only a fractional amount)..
Once again, i'm late to the party!
But if you're trying to stash a few hundred bucks for a rainy day, trusting some stranger on the internet isn't that far fetched. Heck, unless you read and understood every line of code in Bitcoin client AND Linux AND your PC's firmware AND the C++ compiler AND the libraries, you are trusting someone!
Yes..I tried to correct myself before a comment like this...agreed.
(is that better?)
Yes, better. Again, nothing personal. I don't know you...in fact, that's kinda the point.Thanks for the guide. So, the wallet.dat file doesn't have to be "connected" to the internet, ever, to deposit money into it?
No, it doesn't. A user can create a new wallet.dat file on an unconnecte machine (by installing and starting the client, then shutting the client back down safely) copy the receiving address that the client produces onto any medium, copying the wallet.dat file onto a cheap thumbdrive, put the thumbdrive into a safe, and send coins from his mybitcoin.com account to the receiving address into the indefinate future. This is pretty much what I do for my long term savings, as I have just such a setup. I have a special address in my mybitcoin.com addressbook called "savings" that I send my overage to, and I don't have to take my thumbdrive out of the safe to do it.
Quote
What about withdrawals?
This requires the wallet.dat file.
Are you not concerned about bitrot? You have only 1 single copy of your wallet on a single thumbdrive? That is really dangerous for long-term storage. If I had any sizeable amount of BTC (as I presume you do) I would not feel very warm and fuzzy abou this.
I'll do this service for anyone, for 2.5 BTC (while 1 BTC is in the $20 range), including shipping. If you receive the package un-tampered, you should be safe. Contact me if you are interested.
I am not questioning your integrity personally, but if someone were to take you up on your offer, it automatically makes what you are selling completely worthless (ie. complete wallet security.) That person could never be secure and with certain knowledge that another copy of his wallet is not out there in the ether somewhere..."trust" should never be a lynch-pin of ANY security system (at least it need not be.)
I like the method though.
Before someone starts trolling...trust is the lynch-pin of every security system essentially....i meant specifically the social trust suggested by jerfelix.
I'll do this service for anyone, for 2.5 BTC (while 1 BTC is in the $20 range), including shipping. If you receive the package un-tampered, you should be safe. Contact me if you are interested.
I am not questioning your integrity personally, but if someone were to take you up on your offer, it automatically makes what you are selling completely worthless (ie. complete wallet security.) That person could never be secure and with certain knowledge that another copy of his wallet is not out there in the ether somewhere..."trust" should never be a lynch-pin of ANY security system (at least it need not be.)
I like the method though.
Have you ever actually typed out a bitcoin address? I'm just curious, I never have. I always just copy and paste.
I prefer to go by memory.
Me too! Huked on Mnemonics workt for me!
OP... What is the smallest Certificate of Deposit available? Do people still use them? You bet they do.
Not getting your point. Can you use a few more words?
The point is, even if there is a large amount of granularity to the value of Bitcoin it would not be fair to consider it useless. At that point it may not be as convenient for daily transactions (like carrying singles and twenties in your pocket), but would be useful for larger transactions and saving (as CD's are but with a much better rate of return).
And as far as 'attrition' goes. Lost Bitcoin is economically identical to saved Bitcoin.
I understand your point now thanks...and agree...would still be useful.
But I can't agree with a saved Bitcoin being identical (to the economic system) as a saved Bitcoin...in so far as the saved Bitcoin always carries with it the possibility of becoming not saved...and in certain situations (like the recent run-up in price of a BTC) it might compel some of those BTC to become 'unsaved'...whereas the lost are simply gone....put another way, the saved bitcoin carries with it the ability to modulate the markets by coming back into circulation....which presumably is what is happening right now with the price coming down a bit.
OP... What is the smallest Certificate of Deposit available? Do people still use them? You bet they do.
Not getting your point. Can you use a few more words?
Each change to the system will be adopted or rejected according to whether it is beneficial or not. Adding digits will (at some day in the future) be worth more than it costs, and when that day comes, it will happen. Other changes, like adding inflation by rigging the generation rules, will never be useful, and so we can consider that rule to be written in stone.
Alright, fair enough...so let's get back to the nuts and bolts of how that will happen exactly...so someone codes a change to the block header as you suggest to allow additional decimal places and ups the revision to '2' from '1'....how does that initially get injected into the block chain...won't the existing network throw it out as invalid? Wouldn't you need over 50% of clients on board immediately in order to make that change?
If you really want to know, the block header includes a block version number, currently 1. All we have to do is define a new block using longer words for values, and call it block version 2. Then wait 10 or 20 years until the vast majority of clients have been upgraded.
And yes I really did want to know!! I wouldn't have asked otherwise
thanks for answering.It would be pretty easy to double the precision. And we literally have many decades to plan the change.
If you really want to know, the block header includes a block version number, currently 1. All we have to do is define a new block using longer words for values, and call it block version 2. Then wait 10 or 20 years until the vast majority of clients have been upgraded.
Essentially every one of these threads is started by someone that doesn't understand how deep we can really go with the 8 digits we already have. A single bitcoin will be worth something like a million dollars before the final digit is worth as much as a penny.
If you really want to know, the block header includes a block version number, currently 1. All we have to do is define a new block using longer words for values, and call it block version 2. Then wait 10 or 20 years until the vast majority of clients have been upgraded.
Essentially every one of these threads is started by someone that doesn't understand how deep we can really go with the 8 digits we already have. A single bitcoin will be worth something like a million dollars before the final digit is worth as much as a penny.
No I was fully aware of decimal place technology
I'm not new to the maths. I was just under the wrong impression that the protocol was very resistant to change. So the answer to my initial post is NO no-one cares, because YES there is a solution: Bitcoin Changes. And apprently does so by new client adoption? [Secretely a little terrified by that: I mean over 50% of people in the US did voted for W...twice! (okay, at least once though)
]It's not a problem at all: first, bitcoins can be subdivided infinitely, 8 decimal places is just an artifact of the current protocol...if everyone was dealing with ever smaller fractions of bitcoins, it wouldn't be a hard sell to get everyone to agree to upgrade the protocol and shift the decimal point...it would just need to be organized, well tested and planned out far in advance. A lot bitcoin means that you lose one bitcoin of wealth and that wealth transfers to all other holders of bitcoins (in the form of making their bitcoins ever so slightly more valuable due to a now smaller supply). This is a beautiful thing compared with a fiat currency where a lost bill transfers wealth from you to the central bank (and from there to the initial recipients of newly issued fiat currency).
I agree it would be an easy sell but some Q's:
-Who's 'selling' it exactly?
-How does this 'change' process work?
-Has a significant protocol change occurred in the system already? If so, what was it and how did that go? If not, why do we think a protocol change would be smooth?
-Are we all beholden to the code changes made by Gavin?
-What happens when 49% use a new client with a new protocol and 51% of users don't? They cannot exchange with eachother?
I'm still not clear on HOW this type of change would get instituted into the system...if a hallmark of bitcoin is that it is set in stone...then HOW could a change to additional decimal places even be allowed (however trivial of a change it is.)
Nothing is set in stone. If a majority of miners decide to adopt a change, it will happen. Something like adding resolution to the currency would be an easy sell.
Alright good...what are the nuts and bolts of that change...who initiates it? Gavin? Is it a matter of individuals voting by their decision of what client to use?
I know we can't change the rules now (can we?) but wouldn't it be a good idea to have say a 5 or 10 year limit on inactivity of any given Bitcoins (ie from the last known transaction time in the block chain.
I'd be pissed if I "went away" for 10.5 years and came back to find my buried Bitcoins worthless.
If you knew that they had to be refreshed though...you wouldn't just leave them for 10 years would you?
Admittedly though, it IS kind of f'd to change the rules midstream like that...earlier adopters who accumulated and (may) have moved on might not catch wind of the change...and yeah..that'd be pretty unfair.
I guess it was more of a comment to shed light on the fact that however great and revolutionary this project is...it is ultimately flawed...I was looking for some insight into the flexibility of bitcoin to overcome these flaws...
And more generally...the whole flexible/inflexible dichotomy here....bitcoins inflexibility is a real source of its strength...but ultimately it could also have pre-written it's demise.
....and we can no longer split the sub-atomic particles of the remaining few BTC?
that will always be possible, there are programming libraries to handle zillions of digits 
Yes..I was not under the impression that no one thought of a ninth (or higher) decimal.
I'm still not clear on HOW this type of change would get instituted into the system...if a hallmark of bitcoin is that it is set in stone...then HOW could a change to additional decimal places even be allowed (however trivial of a change it is.)
Okay...thank you for your auto-fire response (do you have a bot for the word deflation or something?
)But i'm not concerned with the broader inflation/deflation discussion so much as how is bitcoin not doomed to become unusable once too many bitcoins are lost, bit-rotted etc....and we can no longer split the sub-atomic particles of the remaining few BTC?
It might be covered in that thread of course...I did only read the first couple of posts...can you give me the coles notes version if that is the case?