|
inkwell posted:yeah, like i said, buttmining would be more just a means to an end (possibly helping pay for the rest of a computer upgrade) but i guess it looks like i shouldn't count on getting enough of a return to say, replace my old rear end cpu/mobo. welp *sigh* gonna go back to wistfully making partspicker lists to dream about :P You'll be better off financially waiting for the current batch of 1060s and 1070s to become non-profitable for mining and snatch one up used when they all get dumped. Actually you would probably be best off upgrading your CPU before the GPU. I was running an AMD FX-4100 with my 1060 and it was horrifically CPU bottlenecked. Hopefully Coffee Lake will cause prices to drop on current generation Intel CPUs.
|
#
¿
Jun 29, 2017 15:15
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 27, 2024 08:54 |
|
|
I have an i7-7700 now. It was quite the jump.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 30, 2017 00:42
|
|
|
Methylethylaldehyde posted:Then you are now investing your original stake, plus the brute force time, effort and cost, and risking your stake by breaking the rules. You still are willing to bet that those costs are less than the reward youd get, which was the entire point of the econ argument. It doesnt know or care about how POW or POS work, all it knows is that people will spend cash, electricity, gold, buttcoins, and effort cheating the system equal to the expected reward. Except we know that is vastly oversimplified bullshit when applied to human behavior. People regularly pay more than the value of something just to avoid "losing out", especially in zero-sum situations with sunk costs. Bitcoiners seem particularly prone to the "it will be worth bajillions in the future!" excuse. I look forward to proof of stake because it will provide a new and exciting source of laughs. There is no way that a bunch of operations don't pop up promising to pool a bunch of smaller stakes together to boost the chance of hitting the payout, with operators deciding on the regular to skip the wait and just steal everyone's coins instead.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 5, 2017 13:35
|
|
|
Remember to require signature on delivery. Over $200 paypal merchant protection doesn't apply if you don't.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 9, 2017 17:29
|
|
|
Things like those $9.5k mining setups have been on Craigslist for a while now. It is just people who are perfectly happy to hand their shovel to any fool willing to pay that much. 1060 cards seem to be going for $310 on my local Craigslist and 1070s for $430-500.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 11, 2017 19:48
|
|
|
I would buy a new fancy monitor but the fuckers stopped making 16:10 panels and the extra vertical space is really helpful for work.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 12, 2017 01:05
|
|
|
Lockback posted:I have the cheapest 1070 listed in the Twin Cities @ $400 but no buyers. My plan is to sell at $400 and then scoop up a 1080 on the crash but I am starting to lose patience anyway. I have had offers at $380, which is still a nice price, but not really worth it for me. I've found that you pretty much never want to have the cheapest Craigslist listing because people assume there is something wrong with it. Also everyone is going to try and knock a few bucks off the price. Use it to your advantage and price higher so they can negotiate you down and feel like they are getting a deal.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 18, 2017 14:35
|
|
|
univbee posted:To be clear, they shut down the most popular site, and silently took over the 2nd most popular site for a while while they straight-up pocketed the site's transactions. They also silently broke the automatic pgp encryption feature built into the messaging system of the second market, so they have plaintext of all the messages sent since some time after the 20th of June. Including addresses.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 20, 2017 21:41
|
|
|
Craptacular! posted:I wish I understood the tax rules etc surrounding this poo poo. It seems like "burritos" has become a meme because it doesn't produce enough income to live independently without a job, I get that. But it does seem to produce enough money that if you are without any other income being supported by people that you'll likely have to report it. Yep, if you mine it you pay taxes on it as if it were normal income, valued the day you got the mining payout. If you buy it and it it goes up in value and you sell it you pay capital gains.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 21, 2017 03:27
|
|
|
lol that reminds me I guess I need to remember to claim $32 in capital gains for converting some utterly worthless when mined doge meme coins into a video game on steam.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 21, 2017 03:53
|
|
|
Even better there were a number of people offering "insurance" to people worried that the Pirateat40 ponzi was actually a ponzi and would collapse. When the ponzi actually did collapse it turned out hat those offering insurance were so sure that it wasn't a scam that they had "invested" the insurance payments into the Pirateat40 ponzi and all the money was gone.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 4, 2017 03:42
|
|
|
I bought an Asus 1060 for $320 shipped a year and a half ago as now the exact same card is sparking >$400 bidding wars on eBay. I knew it was bad but drat that's not how the computer hardware market is supposed to work.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 1, 2018 02:41
|
|
|
PC LOAD LETTER posted:I thought the whole Lightning thing was supposed to be mostly BS too? Someone did a post about on here a while back IIRC. Reading the article it makes it sound workable but I don't really know anything about it. The payment routing system it proposes completely falls apart when the complexity goes past two people who know each other but usually shop at two different businesses. It basically plays Six Degrees of Kevin Bacon for all payments. If I want to send payment to someone I don't directly have a funded lightning connection with the network will look at the connections of the people I do have a connection with, and if they don't have a connection to that person it looks at the connections of people they have connections with, etc etc. That has its own problems (what if the shortest connection isn't the cheapest?) but the real fundamental problem is that each lightning connection is prefunded and when the network finds a route it shifts the funds of everyone along that route. So if a random person's payment happens to go through a lightning connection between you and your friend you could suddenly find yourself with no funds to send to your friend to pay for lunch because they already have all of them. Sure you haven't "lost" money because the same thing happened in your favor in another lightning connection but moving that over to the connection with your friend requires four bitcoin transactions - closing the two connections then reopening them with proper funding levels. That could put you out $100 or so. As a result people are going to charge out the rear end for permission to use their connections for larger transactions. Bitcoiners will say that's fine and people should use the main blockchain for large transactions but if that's the case you end up with a chicken and the egg situation - to reliably send funds to anyone you need the average funding level of connections to be high so that a random bunch of small transactions going in one direction don't eat up all of a connection's funds, but if you can't use the connections to send large amounts why would anyone prefund them with large amounts of bitcoin?
|
|
#
¿
Feb 5, 2018 14:28
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 27, 2024 08:54 |
|
|
Iirc the nodes don't actually do much beyond eating a bit of bandwidth to fetch the latest block/transactions and distribute them to other nodes. Verifying a block is valid is trivially easy so they don't use much compute time. I wouldn't run one because there is no reason to do so if you aren't a true bitcoin believer, and as a result running a node on a residential IP probably put the digital equivalent of a giant "I probably have bitcoins, try to hack me!" sign on your router. Shifty Pony fucked around with this message at 18:41 on May 12, 2018 |
|
#
¿
May 12, 2018 18:37
|
|