Search content
Sort by
Showing 19 of 19 results by HasherHub
Re: Bitcoin confirmations times are taking over 4 EFFING HOURS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
A little something for OP: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1038896.0
Most mature post I've ever seen.
This place has descended into a bunch of gullible naive retards, I have little respect for the BTC community at this point. All of you can go fuck yourselves. There is little help around, a lot of bitching, and very little intellectual conversation. I feel like talking to a tree would lead to more intellectual conversation.
Re: Bitcoin confirmations times are taking over 4 EFFING HOURS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I just looked at my transaction on blockchain.info and I'm see this:
Estimated Confirmation: Time Within 6 Blocks (Medium Priority) (The transaction fee is less than recommended).
Yet I put the typical 0.0001 fee.
Estimated Confirmation: Time Within 6 Blocks (Medium Priority) (The transaction fee is less than recommended).
Yet I put the typical 0.0001 fee.
Looking to know where I would place a PPCoin.conf file for solo mining? I'm using PeerUnity as my wallet. Using windows right now. Can I just drop a conf file somewhere?
Found this sample conf, but no idea where to put it:
https://www.peercointalk.org/index.php?topic=3.0
Found this sample conf, but no idea where to put it:
https://www.peercointalk.org/index.php?topic=3.0
Re: [PPC] Peercoin Official Thread: About 2.5 days Left for Teehe Peershares IPO
Looking for some direction on Solo Mining. Where do I place a PPCoin.conf file? Using windows right now. Do I have to build from source (some how), or can I just drop a conf file somewhere?
Found this sample conf, but no idea where to put it:
https://www.peercointalk.org/index.php?topic=3.0
Found this sample conf, but no idea where to put it:
https://www.peercointalk.org/index.php?topic=3.0
Also, I'm not sure if this is implemented already, but certainly in the future, all bitcoin node ip's will be monitored,
According to who? And by who?
This is a load of crap... When I went to college in NYC I lost about 20 pounds just from having to walk around everywhere. When I went I was 205 lbs when I came back I was 185. I ate completely horribly the entire time I was there; burger king, mcdonalds, cafeteria food, pizza, fries, an excessive amount of soda. In fact I eat worse than I did at home and still lost weight. The key walk a minimum of 1 mile a day.
If I'm not mistaken the max block size is 1MB and there are an expected 144 blocks a day. Meaning you shouldn't see more than 144 MB per day. Unless I completely misunderstand nodes it should just be receiving and sending that per day. Your total output I'm not sure what it be. The total output should be no more than 144MB x total connections to your node - 1 (your incoming data had to come from at least one of your connections, so they already have it).
Hy dear Bitmain and dogie,
unfortunately the "new" S4+ has no significant improvement in power to hash ratio and on my personal opinion a decrease in attraction for home miners in Middle europe, US and other countries above $0,15/kWH.
If i may post a wish for a S6 or S7, this would be 0,25W/GH and a noise level below 30db. Technically this should not be an issue for a legit company as bitmain is
Kind regards,
elrippo
unfortunately the "new" S4+ has no significant improvement in power to hash ratio and on my personal opinion a decrease in attraction for home miners in Middle europe, US and other countries above $0,15/kWH.
If i may post a wish for a S6 or S7, this would be 0,25W/GH and a noise level below 30db. Technically this should not be an issue for a legit company as bitmain is
Kind regards,
elrippo
I'm convinced the S4+ is just an attempt to make the S5 look like a better value, so they'll sell more of them. This is a marketing tricking to make the lower priced product seem like a better value.
I don't know if I would say that. If you had a warehouse or huge operation this would be a nice product as far as the amount of hash it brings.
With not being 110 its not a product for all, but there are some out there that are it's "ideal" customers.
Ideal customers, anyone that cares about power efficiency and has plumbed 205V+ in already? I paid all of $150 to have an electrician drop in two 240V 20A circuits and they've been paying for themselves with EVGA, LEPA, Antminer, other PSUs running an average of almost 10% more efficient.
Hy dear Bitmain and dogie,
unfortunately the "new" S4+ has no significant improvement in power to hash ratio and on my personal opinion a decrease in attraction for home miners in Middle europe, US and other countries above $0,15/kWH.
If i may post a wish for a S6 or S7, this would be 0,25W/GH and a noise level below 30db. Technically this should not be an issue for a legit company as bitmain is
Kind regards,
elrippo
unfortunately the "new" S4+ has no significant improvement in power to hash ratio and on my personal opinion a decrease in attraction for home miners in Middle europe, US and other countries above $0,15/kWH.
If i may post a wish for a S6 or S7, this would be 0,25W/GH and a noise level below 30db. Technically this should not be an issue for a legit company as bitmain is
Kind regards,
elrippo
I'm convinced the S4+ is just an attempt to make the S5 look like a better value, so they'll sell more of them. This is a marketing trick to make the lower priced product seem like a better value.
Political candidate speech and Sunday School class, usually these two are 100% bullshit. 
You can add public school classroom too.
Re: BBC News - Bitcoin Island: cleaning up the crypto currency
A certain level of regulation is indeed needed for massive mainstream adoption, but nonetheless they can never stop people meeting in real life and exchanging BTC for cash anonymously, unless they start putting coverup feds in LocalBitcoin selling BTC to scare people away.
I think relevant and legitimate services/apps are needed for mainstream adoption. Bitcoin can completely operate outside of gov't control. In fact, it can PROVIDE gov't control.
+1. And it's ridiculous to say that banks' hostility towards bitcoins is based on an aversion to high-risk financial activities. Who has engaged in more high-risk activity than the banks? Sub-prime morgtage fraud, laundering hundreds of billions for drug cartels, Forex trading scams, and tax-evasion services for the wealthy are a few examples of high risk stuff the banks have been involved in. Banks love high-risk investments as long as they get all the profits and tax-payers foot the bill if the risks don't pan out.
The Banks only "fear" that if they don't follow government regulation then they'll be heavily fined. They haven't adopted BTC in anyway because they fear any kind of investment they put in may randomly be wiped out by new regulation or an out right outlawing of BTC adoption by the government. So currently, the push back at banks is solely based on the fact the government-bank relationship hasn't formally declared operational restrictions, aka regulation, on the crypto-currency world. If banks were involved they would be acting a state of constant unknown.
It's not that BTC needs to be regulated for wide-spread adoption... it's simply that banks are already acting in a regulated environment and need to know how any new regulations would effect them before they get involved. You won't see widespread adoption until the average user can have a BTC balance sitting right next to their fiat balance on a bank account.
What about POS (Proof of Stake: https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Proof_of_Stake) requirements.
The CPU/GPU power will count for the stake process or just the amount of Bitcoin a miner holds?
The CPU/GPU power will count for the stake process or just the amount of Bitcoin a miner holds?
As of right now there is no Proof of Stake system in bitcoin.
Scientific proof that god doesn't exist:
An essentially conjoined esophagus and trachea. How in the world is it INTELLIGENT or LOGICAL to combine to pipes that are vital to survival essentially into one input? The very thing we need to do to survive (eat) can cause us not to be able to do the essentially only other thing we need to do to survive (breathe).
Seems like a major design flaw if we were intelligently created. Which then infer that our creator maybe isn't so perfect. Nature and evolution on the other hand would take the simplest path it can to form our systems; which would result in reusing what it can.
An essentially conjoined esophagus and trachea. How in the world is it INTELLIGENT or LOGICAL to combine to pipes that are vital to survival essentially into one input? The very thing we need to do to survive (eat) can cause us not to be able to do the essentially only other thing we need to do to survive (breathe).
Seems like a major design flaw if we were intelligently created. Which then infer that our creator maybe isn't so perfect. Nature and evolution on the other hand would take the simplest path it can to form our systems; which would result in reusing what it can.
That doesn't disprove god. God could of started evolution and then stood back and watched what happened.
Well it would completely dispel the creation story as known in nearly all religions.
Believing in god and believing in religion are completely different things.
I think they're wholly linked. Religion is based on the worship of a god. In the Christian religion for example, if we can delink the creation story from any direct intelligent creation, would that not essentially deflate the entire structure of the religion? At least the parts that maintain any divine intervention. What did god do other than create man and the world? Essentially nothing.
Merriam-Webster expressly defines religion as believing in and worshiping a god.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/religion
Buddhist and the like are technically atheist; nor is it a religion. Misguided individual may think it is, but by definition it is not.
Scientific proof that god doesn't exist:
An essentially conjoined esophagus and trachea. How in the world is it INTELLIGENT or LOGICAL to combine to pipes that are vital to survival essentially into one input? The very thing we need to do to survive (eat) can cause us not to be able to do the essentially only other thing we need to do to survive (breathe).
Seems like a major design flaw if we were intelligently created. Which then infer that our creator maybe isn't so perfect. Nature and evolution on the other hand would take the simplest path it can to form our systems; which would result in reusing what it can.
An essentially conjoined esophagus and trachea. How in the world is it INTELLIGENT or LOGICAL to combine to pipes that are vital to survival essentially into one input? The very thing we need to do to survive (eat) can cause us not to be able to do the essentially only other thing we need to do to survive (breathe).
Seems like a major design flaw if we were intelligently created. Which then infer that our creator maybe isn't so perfect. Nature and evolution on the other hand would take the simplest path it can to form our systems; which would result in reusing what it can.
That doesn't disprove god. God could of started evolution and then stood back and watched what happened.
Well it would completely dispel the creation story as known in nearly all religions.
Scientific proof that god doesn't exist:
An essentially conjoined esophagus and trachea. How in the world is it INTELLIGENT or LOGICAL to combine to pipes that are vital to survival essentially into one input? The very thing we need to do to survive (eat) can cause us not to be able to do the essentially only other thing we need to do to survive (breathe).
Seems like a major design flaw if we were intelligently created. Which then infer that our creator maybe isn't so perfect. Nature and evolution on the other hand would take the simplest path it can to form our systems; which would result in reusing what it can.
An essentially conjoined esophagus and trachea. How in the world is it INTELLIGENT or LOGICAL to combine to pipes that are vital to survival essentially into one input? The very thing we need to do to survive (eat) can cause us not to be able to do the essentially only other thing we need to do to survive (breathe).
Seems like a major design flaw if we were intelligently created. Which then infer that our creator maybe isn't so perfect. Nature and evolution on the other hand would take the simplest path it can to form our systems; which would result in reusing what it can.
Isn't the fact that they only return the nonce a matter of the software not the hardware? The hardware itself would be specific in the fact that it is chip tuned to perform Double SHA256 hashing extremely effectively. The chip itself can't return anything out of it other than a completed full hash.
If you could recode the software/firmware to spit out a full hash from the software side, you would have a valid SHA256 hash, so long as your input is specifically 80 Bytes. I mean is it not the firmware/software that has the logic coded in it to determine what is and is not below the target?
No that's not how ASIC hardware works. It does indeed only return nonces since it doesn't even fully complete the double sha256.If you could recode the software/firmware to spit out a full hash from the software side, you would have a valid SHA256 hash, so long as your input is specifically 80 Bytes. I mean is it not the firmware/software that has the logic coded in it to determine what is and is not below the target?
So then what the hell is it doing, if it's not completing a double SHA256? You've completely lost me on this. Again I have to ask... if it's not completing a double SHA how does it know that it's got any valid hash below the target?
Isn't the fact that they only return the nonce a matter of the software not the hardware? The hardware itself would be specific in the fact that it is chip tuned to perform Double SHA256 hashing extremely effectively. The chip itself can't return anything out of it other than a completed full hash.
If you could recode the software/firmware to spit out a full hash from the software side, you would have a valid SHA256 hash, so long as your input is specifically 80 Bytes. I mean is it not the firmware/software that has the logic coded in it to determine what is and is not below the target?
If you could recode the software/firmware to spit out a full hash from the software side, you would have a valid SHA256 hash, so long as your input is specifically 80 Bytes. I mean is it not the firmware/software that has the logic coded in it to determine what is and is not below the target?