Search content
Sort by

Showing 20 of 56 results by Neereus
Post
Topic
Board Pools
Re: [~50 Gh/s] Mining pool with both payment methods. No stales, no failed blocks !
by
Neereus
on 14/03/2011, 15:54:54 UTC
Currently using the GUI version of poclbm with long polling. (The new one)
I have actually gotten 4 stale shares since using it, when before long polling I never got one.
Just wondering how normal that is?

Edit: Just checked the console, seems there were some "long poll exceptions". I suppose it could have been because of these?
Post
Topic
Board Pools
Re: [~50 Gh/s] Mining pool with both payment methods. No stales, no failed blocks !
by
Neereus
on 13/03/2011, 21:37:35 UTC
Font size increase was mostly good. Only the payments section seems to be adversely affected with the date causing it to "double line" the table. But not a big deal so overall the change was good.
Post
Topic
Board Bitcoin Discussion
Re: If Bitcoins catch on, will people get used to having so few?
by
Neereus
on 08/03/2011, 07:05:15 UTC
Just use the wonderful metric system and stop worrying about this subject.

I don't think most people will have a probably with mBTC, uBTC, etc.

Metric sucks, and would fail without explicit government advocacy and support.  Case in point, most Americans grew up learning American Standard (very close to Imperial, but not quite) because all the adults used it, and also learned Metric in school, because the government wanted people to use it.  Most everyone, if they have a choice, prefer American Standard in regards to the kinds of useful metrics lay people use; i.e. miles for traveling distances, feet/yards for sight distances, and inches and fractions of inches for fine distances.  The fact that an adult can convert traveling distances (km) into sight distances (meters) in their head is generally a useless feature, because people rarely have any reason to do so.  

American here, confirming Metric does not suck, and is in fact superior to that of the American Standard.


Neerus sucks, too.

Quote
And I would like to see where you got your information on "Most everyone, if they have a choice, prefer American Standard".


Look around you.  Unless you are an engineer or some kind of scientist, the majority of people who are around you at this very moment have been educated in both systems, and continue to choose American Standard for daily functions.  They can do so because they are free to do so.  Their local, state and federal governments have to deal in whatever metric that the pubic insists on using.

Quote

Also, the fact that every other country in the world has adopted the Metric System seems to contradict that statement.

Edit: Ok, most counties have. Myanmar and Liberia appear to be exceptions.


I hope you realize this is not an argument in favor of the free choice of the Metric Standard, since in most (if not every) cases, the public must deal in Metric because either their governments refuse to deal in any other system, Metric is the only system of measurements taught to children, or more likely both.  I can understand how Metric was better in Europe than the differing standards that were similar to Imperial, but different than the nation-state next door.  But that is not the case in the US, as we have been using the same standard across a land and culture vastly more intertwined than anything Europe could replicate before the European Union, but the Metric Standard was a great leap forward for interoperability and clear communications.  Not because it was a base 10 standard, but simply because it was a cross-border standard.  As far as consistency, American Standard is broken.  But it's never really been about consistency, but utility.  And for Americans, being the only significant population taught two different standards of measurements, the utility remains decidedly on the side of the American Standard.  Brokenness aside, American Standard is mostly a base 2 (or base 4) standard based on fractions, which is easier for lay people (and particularly those who are math illiterate) to understand intuitively.  For example; Gallon (1/1), Half-Gallon (1/2). Quart (1/4), Pint (1/8), Cup (1/16), Gill (half-cup, 1/32).  Beyond either end of the range of that example, things get broken, but this range alone covers most of the useful range (utility) for everyday measurements of liquid volume.  We do the same thing to all other units less explicitly, but we do it.  Half-mile, Quarter-mile, half-inch, quarter-inch, half-pound, ounce (1/16th), dram (1/256th lb), etc.  The greatest advantage Metric had that led to it's adoption in Europe, and most of the former colonies of Europe, was it's cross border interoperability.  Metric did not have an advantage over American Standard in this regard, so it has never gain common usage outside of professional fields.  The fact that Metric doesn't dominate in a large society free to choose it is evidence that it was not superior enough for a free public to choose it over what they already used.

The fact you have to use a personal attack shows you obviously can't back up what you say. You have nothing but opinions and logical fallacies.
Show me proof of what you claim instead of just assuming you know what every one in the world thinks and feels.
Post
Topic
Board Bitcoin Discussion
Re: If Bitcoins catch on, will people get used to having so few?
by
Neereus
on 08/03/2011, 05:55:49 UTC
Just use the wonderful metric system and stop worrying about this subject.

I don't think most people will have a probably with mBTC, uBTC, etc.

Metric sucks, and would fail without explicit government advocacy and support.  Case in point, most Americans grew up learning American Standard (very close to Imperial, but not quite) because all the adults used it, and also learned Metric in school, because the government wanted people to use it.  Most everyone, if they have a choice, prefer American Standard in regards to the kinds of useful metrics lay people use; i.e. miles for traveling distances, feet/yards for sight distances, and inches and fractions of inches for fine distances.  The fact that an adult can convert traveling distances (km) into sight distances (meters) in their head is generally a useless feature, because people rarely have any reason to do so.  

American here, confirming Metric does not suck, and is in fact superior to that of the American Standard.

And I would like to see where you got your information on "Most everyone, if they have a choice, prefer American Standard".

Also, the fact that every other country in the world has adopted the Metric System seems to contradict that statement.

Edit: Ok, most counties have. Myanmar and Liberia appear to be exceptions.
Post
Topic
Board Pools
Re: BTCMine - new shared minig pool
by
Neereus
on 07/03/2011, 20:14:34 UTC
There also 50 share bonus for lucky miner why solved block.
i don't get that,
50 what? if it's bitcoins, where do those come from?
it might be % though, but % of what, of your 3-10% cut?

Sounds to me like you get 50 more shares added to cut if you are the one to find the block.
Post
Topic
Board Bitcoin Discussion
Re: If Bitcoins catch on, will people get used to having so few?
by
Neereus
on 07/03/2011, 19:42:04 UTC
I'm so use to Engineering Notation, when I first started and got my .05 BTC from the faucet, I thought, "Woohoo, 50 mBits!"
Post
Topic
Board Pools
Re: New pool with proportional and pay-per-share reward distribution, ~50 Gh/s
by
Neereus
on 07/03/2011, 03:49:58 UTC
well, in the long run you'll get <7% more from proportional, that's what you can expect.
no need to take your hashrate or any imaginary numbers into account.
I would say not true for those with lower hashrates, but could be wrong.
Should be true for anyone.
Then I stand corrected.
Was thinking the chance to miss blocks with lower hash rates might make a difference.
If you miss each one of two rounds, then you need ~twice more hashrate. Then you will have, possibly, one share in each round, which gives you twice the reward, just proportional to your speed.

Makes sense, thanks.
Post
Topic
Board Pools
Re: New pool with proportional and pay-per-share reward distribution, ~50 Gh/s
by
Neereus
on 07/03/2011, 03:43:26 UTC
Would it be possible to get the payouts listed in descending order? (Newest on top)
It's possible, but what is your reason for that ?

Well, it's not a problem right now. But once there is quite a few transfers, it would be nice to just see the latest one sent without having to scroll to the bottom.
Post
Topic
Board Pools
Re: New pool with proportional and pay-per-share reward distribution, ~50 Gh/s
by
Neereus
on 07/03/2011, 03:41:37 UTC
It is (in theory) possible to take an average hashrate (and from extension, average amount of shares of some time) and figure out how much you can expect to make in the long run using the different payouts.
well, in the long run you'll get <7% more from proportional, that's what you can expect.
no need to take your hashrate or any imaginary numbers into account.
I would say not true for those with lower hashrates, but could be wrong.
Should be true for anyone.


Then I stand corrected.
Was thinking the chance to miss blocks with lower hash rates might make a difference.
Post
Topic
Board Pools
Re: New pool with proportional and pay-per-share reward distribution, ~50 Gh/s
by
Neereus
on 07/03/2011, 03:13:26 UTC
It is (in theory) possible to take an average hashrate (and from extension, average amount of shares of some time) and figure out how much you can expect to make in the long run using the different payouts.
well, in the long run you'll get <7% more from proportional, that's what you can expect.
no need to take your hashrate or any imaginary numbers into account.


I would say not true for those with lower hashrates, but could be wrong.

Quote
any imaginary numbers into account.

No need to be snide.
Post
Topic
Board Pools
Re: New pool with proportional and pay-per-share reward distribution, ~50 Gh/s
by
Neereus
on 07/03/2011, 03:03:43 UTC
Would it be possible to get the payouts listed in descending order? (Newest on top)
Post
Topic
Board Pools
Re: New pool with proportional and pay-per-share reward distribution, ~50 Gh/s
by
Neereus
on 07/03/2011, 02:53:18 UTC
Looks like people are still confused with two existing reward distributhing modes, so now i'm working on third one.
Hope you'll like it.

I kind of wish it would automatically select the option with the greatest payout based on your hash speed, although I suppose that would be less than ideal for the pool.

My guess is that while if you are on the extremes of the speed it is easy enough to figure that out, but for those around the middle, it can be difficult to say which is better.
there is no way, no matter what hashrate you have, to automagically switch to option with the greatest payout,
except maybe if you own a time-machine, but i guess then you would have better stuff todo with it anyway.


It is (in theory) possible to take an average hashrate (and from extension, average amount of shares of some time) and figure out how much you can expect to make in the long run using the different payouts.
Post
Topic
Board Pools
Re: New pool with proportional and pay-per-share reward distribution, ~50 Gh/s
by
Neereus
on 07/03/2011, 01:46:43 UTC
Looks like people are still confused with two existing reward distributhing modes, so now i'm working on third one.
Hope you'll like it.

I kind of wish it would automatically select the option with the greatest payout based on your hash speed, although I suppose that would be less than ideal for the pool.

My guess is that while if you are on the extremes of the speed it is easy enough to figure that out, but for those around the middle, it can be difficult to say which is better.
Post
Topic
Board Pools
Re: New pool with proportional and pay-per-share reward distribution, ~50 Gh/s
by
Neereus
on 07/03/2011, 01:24:40 UTC
Suppose more options are better. Interested in what this one will be. lol
Post
Topic
Board Development & Technical Discussion
Re: How do I know who paid me?
by
Neereus
on 06/03/2011, 21:35:44 UTC
Is there a solution to this problem?  Do I have to create a new address for every new order?

Answered your own question.
Post
Topic
Board Development & Technical Discussion
Re: Dealing with SHA-256 Collisions
by
Neereus
on 06/03/2011, 03:50:10 UTC
When the SHA-3 winner is announced, and after some time in real use, would it be a good idea to switch to that?
Post
Topic
Board Bitcoin Technical Support
Re: What is Socks4 proxy?
by
Neereus
on 06/03/2011, 03:10:58 UTC
Some people are behind a firewall (like at work) that blocks port 8333.
If you have access to a proxy using socks4, then you can use that option to bypass the firewall.
This allows the use of the bitcoin client even behind a firewall.
Post
Topic
Board Development & Technical Discussion
Re: Send bitcoins to an unknown recipient
by
Neereus
on 06/03/2011, 02:54:05 UTC
What if someone else (Eve) were to intercept the public/private keys. Email isn't the most secure method of communication. What if Bob decides not to accept, is there a way to get you bitcoins back? Redeeming your own key pair?
Post
Topic
Board Bitcoin Discussion
Re: Targeted advertisement - Who would BitCoins appeal the most to?
by
Neereus
on 06/03/2011, 02:22:42 UTC
Personally I would say both sides should be advertised equally.

Without people using bitcoins, mining becomes pointless.
Without mining, spending bitcoins becomes impossible.
Post
Topic
Board Pools
Re: New pool with proportional and pay-per-share reward distribution, ~40 Gh/s
by
Neereus
on 05/03/2011, 13:54:21 UTC
Just a simple question from a noob.

Is needed to run bitcoin with Generating Coins activated?? or running mining in a cmd is ok??

Thanks

If you are generating coins with a miner and connected to deepbit, then no, you do no have to have the regular client up at all.

If you are using a cpu miner, having generate coins on in the regular client would be a counter productive thing to do as well.