The more i look at it, im thinking the shares set up skews towards high powered miners. Still to prove it with some maths and tests. Last exam is on Tuesday. After that I can have a proper look.

What are you mining with? My i5 laptop can get 10+MHash! For a while I had a cluster of dual-core desktops I have access to (I don't pay the leckie and the ToU didn't prohibit it. Stopped when I got a "Theres some strange activity on your account" email from the admin) getting me 100+MHash and there can only have been 25 of them running at most!

On 369 changing it to 10 would mean one hes still updating every second. So on the 35 second at most he would lost 10 shares.
On the value of a block that high surely its not a massive issue?
End of the day its his choice but i dont think 10 would really cost anything.

Id guess it'd be sensible to change it to 10. Make it one per second, then he's unlikely to lose out! And reduces the load considerably

If going off averages was safe then the time based reduction in value of shares isn't needed! Its there because people can take advantage of the system.

If you're looking for an idiot employee send me an application form!

So you are saying a miner working for an hour before a block is found is not actually doing anything towards finding the block?
You are contributing little work but getting a big share from the block. The block has the same value no matter how many miners are involved, so those who have been mining continually with slush have to lose out!

The function is there to stop people from hopping after mining at the start. I am suggesting the opposite.
For example, the 6:43 block this morning. If you noticed that at 6 hours you can be reasonably confident that its not going to be too much longer. It could be, but statistically it is unlikely.
So you were mining on either a PPS or even another pool that’s just started a block. Statistically you would expect our block to finish before the average block length on your current pool. You hop over to us and on average are better off.

Now, to do this manually would be tricky since you would have to monitor multiple pools etc. But to script it would hardly be tricky.

Without looking at the maths its impossible to work out whether the gains would be worth the effort
I mentioned before, I am in the middle of exams at the moment and have little time to work on this.
Or to look properly at the algorithms in place (although I did do last week so am working from those memories).

Next week I will take a proper look. I might be completely wrong! But from the limited information I have it was something I considered feasible. Nobody (As far as I can see) has provided a quick explanation as to why not. organofcorti presented some links to documents which may well do this, but I currently have not got the time to read them properly. Hence I can't comment on them.
If there is a quick explanation please give it? If not I will take a proper look next week. If I still feel this is possible I will probably attempt to prove it by having two identical clusters of machines, one just mining slush and the other attempting what I have suggested.

Then I can report back with some actual figures to back this up, or admit to myself It doesn’t work out on paper as it does in my head.
If anyone does have the time now feel free to take a look!


You can get an even payout using pay per share! But the overall average payout is less because there is risk for the operator.

*Anyone having stratum problems with a client, just use getwork and the proxy (set your mining address to localhost or 127.0.0.1*

Probably shouldn't comment since I haven't had a chance to read those yet, but I did mention above about how I thought the system was outdated.
Judging by the hash rates in the top of those they aren't very recent.
If im wrong, please dont hang me! I'll apologise for my ignorance once I have had time to look at things properly.

Read this to see the exact formula's used. I haven't time to eleborate more on that now considering I have an exam in under an hour, but I shall work out the calculations later.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1976.msg50002#msg50002
It seems to me the formula was set when the difficulty was lower, making the share time also lower.
So now the round times are longer I think it could possibly be flawed. Without any actual maths put into this all it is is speculation so I could be completely wrong.

But yes, I have no idea how things effect ASIC. Best  to read that and work it out for yourself.

Surely if the rounds been going on one pool for 45 minutes, Then no matter how long the round continues, thats 45 minutes where you are being paid on a PPS. You then earn a few shares from the pool with considerable value. If the round ends within a couple minutes, its not much but you're miners haven't lost much.
If its a few hours, then for the 45 minutes you have been making coins while everyone else here has shares which value is now void.

Now whether 45 minutes is the sweet spot I don't know, and without looking into the maths properly / how much you get per share at a PPS i can't be certain you would earn more, but It seems probable.

Will work it out later. Hopefully you are right and the numbers will prove me wrong!
I mine on a fairly low power system. 40Mhash. If my last share is 30s from the end of the round I seem to get twice as much as if its 2 minutes!

I know why the functions are there, but its effects do seem a little harsh. Maybe it could be reduced a little? Otherwise those with massive rigs could switch do the opposite of the normal problem, run them on a PPS pool, then they notice its been 45 minutes here switch.

The reason I would have claimed legally grey is that if he had a right to watch them anyway, but simply could not through a legal manor due to the IP restrictions.
If the files were downloaded directly to a USB the only part of that which could be mentioned would be distribute, and since I my offer was not to make profit (When you consider all my costs (postage, media, bandwidth etc..) I doubt very much a case would be made against me. Common sense and most courts would throw the case out.

However I was slightly wrong. The part of the Terms I would have mentioned is this
Which does change things a little.

Can't be bothered reading the whole thread, but

Anyone else thinking Matrix?

Surely MFC would be pretty against that since you would more or less be bypassing them?
Im also against tax avoidance. You should fight the waste in the system! But you want it to be there! Imagine if there was no policing at all? Or Road upkeep!

But those points aside I think its fair to say bitcoin users match MFC's customer base quite well!

If this isn't time sensitive then I can probably undercut other offers.
Im extremely busy atm and haven't used the technologies required in a while so couldn't work to a tight deadline.

I would also need the answers to the previous posters questions.

If it has to be Windows I can't help.
But if you were happy with a Linux rig I can probably undercut an alternative offer.

Agree completely ! But I have three exams next week! Makes for good procrastination.
I broke noob jail before this post even begun!
http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/duty_calls.png

I do not own personal licenses (if those even exist), but I have access to them.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/136372637/CIA-Leaked-by-AntiSec-K-p1T-N-Pastebin-com
http://www.ghostleak.net/dump/CIA%20Docs1.txt

I think you will find I abandoned the rich parents suggestion in the next few words, because if so, why would you be here?

Constant updating? You mean occasionally adding in another link and upping a file? I make that a scp, an ssh and 30s with vim.
It hardly looks like something you update on a daily basis anyway.
You don't even host the images on your server!

Just give up! Personality traits you are right, i know next to nothing about.
However there is a little company called SAS who make some incredibly powerful products. They look at what you say as well as who to. Personally, I agree, its all bullshit, but I had little time to take a look myself.

Just manually ran a search on who.is now. At no point did it ask me to fill in a captcha. It also doesn't even appear to give me the registrar name!
Do you not know what whois actually is? The site is named after a protocol.
Give this a read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whois
If I remember correctly the scripts use a few specialist search engines as well as a whois query and then merge the results into a few lines of information.

The first two "leaks" I looked at from your site (picked at random) were AntiSec releases. I have not time to go through them one at a time.

"Penetration" skills are not the same as web development but if you were a respected member of any of those communities it would be piss easy to get some help! You wouldn't be putting up a ridiculous offer here.
You know, had you spent half the time you have spewing off this bullshit looking me up you might have learnt to keep shut. I don't put much effort in here to hide my real identity. Once you had my name the first page of google results lists me as a finalist for a National level cyber-security award.

Please go away. Even if any of those links are yours, ooh! You know a little SQL injection! Maybe cracked a WEP network or two! Hey who knows, WPS!
Long stretch.. rich mummy and daddy... you might have a Blackhole server somewhere! I'm Terrified! But if you did you'd have the cash to stick an ad up on a freelancing site for a proper developer. My point stands.

*Edit* You mention things that are hard to maintain? An Apache server with ~10 HTML pages, a few text files and plenty of broken links is hard to maintain? I could write a basic GET server, clone you're site and have it up on a VPS within a few hours tops!