Well, this explains a lot. Was wondering why I couldn't post.
GUIMiner's share count is not matching what BTC Guild is reporting.
For one of my workers I have 169 shares, and 2 stales. Reported as 169 (2). GUIMiner is reporting 173 (6), so that's at least 4 shares short. More so, I've done some mining before using GUIMiner and so I should have more than 173 shares submitted.
The same for another worker. I have 393 shares accepted, 7 stale (invalid) but BTC Guild reports 376 (9).
So is GUIMiner counting incorrectly? Or am I being jacked by the pool owner?
GUIMiner's share count is not matching what BTC Guild is reporting.
For one of my workers I have 169 shares, and 2 stales. Reported as 169 (2). GUIMiner is reporting 173 (6), so that's at least 4 shares short. More so, I've done some mining before using GUIMiner and so I should have more than 173 shares submitted.
The same for another worker. I have 393 shares accepted, 7 stale (invalid) but BTC Guild reports 376 (9).
So is GUIMiner counting incorrectly? Or am I being jacked by the pool owner?
Well, this explains a lot. Was wondering why I couldn't post.
GUIMiner's share count is not matching what BTC Guild is reporting.
For one of my workers I have 169 shares, and 2 stales. Reported as 169 (2). GUIMiner is reporting 173 (6), so that's at least 4 shares short. More so, I've done some mining before using GUIMiner and so I should have more than 173 shares submitted.
The same for another worker. I have 393 shares accepted, 7 stale (invalid) but BTC Guild reports 376 (9).
So is GUIMiner counting incorrectly? Or am I being jacked by the pool owner?
GUIMiner's share count is not matching what BTC Guild is reporting.
For one of my workers I have 169 shares, and 2 stales. Reported as 169 (2). GUIMiner is reporting 173 (6), so that's at least 4 shares short. More so, I've done some mining before using GUIMiner and so I should have more than 173 shares submitted.
The same for another worker. I have 393 shares accepted, 7 stale (invalid) but BTC Guild reports 376 (9).
So is GUIMiner counting incorrectly? Or am I being jacked by the pool owner?
I was talking about bitcoin on some forum and at some point I was explaining that all transactions are public. I gave bitcoinexplorer.com as an example of a website where people could have details about any transaction.
At this point there was a misunderstanding, for one of the guys I was talking to thought bitcoinexplorer.com was part of the system, that during a transaction, both parties had to refer to this website in order to perform the transaction. Of course, I had to explain that this is not the way bitcoin works, that bitcoin doesn't need any website to function properly.
However, this made me think of something.
Right now there are a few websites that are very useful to the bitcoin project. bitcoin.org and its forum of course, Bitcoinexplorer.com, bitcoinwatch.com and others.
Would the use of bitcoin be really the same without those websites ? Isn't bitcoinwatch.com quite reassuring for instance, since it allows a user to check that "everything is right" by comparing his block number to bitcoinwatch's block number ?
So, if governments decided to shut down all bitcoin related websites and forums, then bitcoin would need to work in "silent mode". People would have to trust their client only. They would communicate via encrypted email about their chain length, making sure it is more or less the same. It would be the same system, but I guess it would surely "feel" different.
I'm pretty sure it would work fine, but we should be mentally prepared to use bitcoin in such a "silent mode".
At this point there was a misunderstanding, for one of the guys I was talking to thought bitcoinexplorer.com was part of the system, that during a transaction, both parties had to refer to this website in order to perform the transaction. Of course, I had to explain that this is not the way bitcoin works, that bitcoin doesn't need any website to function properly.
However, this made me think of something.
Right now there are a few websites that are very useful to the bitcoin project. bitcoin.org and its forum of course, Bitcoinexplorer.com, bitcoinwatch.com and others.
Would the use of bitcoin be really the same without those websites ? Isn't bitcoinwatch.com quite reassuring for instance, since it allows a user to check that "everything is right" by comparing his block number to bitcoinwatch's block number ?
So, if governments decided to shut down all bitcoin related websites and forums, then bitcoin would need to work in "silent mode". People would have to trust their client only. They would communicate via encrypted email about their chain length, making sure it is more or less the same. It would be the same system, but I guess it would surely "feel" different.
I'm pretty sure it would work fine, but we should be mentally prepared to use bitcoin in such a "silent mode".
I was talking about bitcoin on some forum and at some point I was explaining that all transactions are public. I gave bitcoinexplorer.com as an example of a website where people could have details about any transaction.
At this point there was a misunderstanding, for one of the guys I was talking to thought bitcoinexplorer.com was part of the system, that during a transaction, both parties had to refer to this website in order to perform the transaction. Of course, I had to explain that this is not the way bitcoin works, that bitcoin doesn't need any website to function properly.
However, this made me think of something.
Right now there are a few websites that are very useful to the bitcoin project. bitcoin.org and its forum of course, Bitcoinexplorer.com, bitcoinwatch.com and others.
Would the use of bitcoin be really the same without those websites ? Isn't bitcoinwatch.com quite reassuring for instance, since it allows a user to check that "everything is right" by comparing his block number to bitcoinwatch's block number ?
So, if governments decided to shut down all bitcoin related websites and forums, then bitcoin would need to work in "silent mode". People would have to trust their client only. They would communicate via encrypted email about their chain length, making sure it is more or less the same. It would be the same system, but I guess it would surely "feel" different.
I'm pretty sure it would work fine, but we should be mentally prepared to use bitcoin in such a "silent mode".
At this point there was a misunderstanding, for one of the guys I was talking to thought bitcoinexplorer.com was part of the system, that during a transaction, both parties had to refer to this website in order to perform the transaction. Of course, I had to explain that this is not the way bitcoin works, that bitcoin doesn't need any website to function properly.
However, this made me think of something.
Right now there are a few websites that are very useful to the bitcoin project. bitcoin.org and its forum of course, Bitcoinexplorer.com, bitcoinwatch.com and others.
Would the use of bitcoin be really the same without those websites ? Isn't bitcoinwatch.com quite reassuring for instance, since it allows a user to check that "everything is right" by comparing his block number to bitcoinwatch's block number ?
So, if governments decided to shut down all bitcoin related websites and forums, then bitcoin would need to work in "silent mode". People would have to trust their client only. They would communicate via encrypted email about their chain length, making sure it is more or less the same. It would be the same system, but I guess it would surely "feel" different.
I'm pretty sure it would work fine, but we should be mentally prepared to use bitcoin in such a "silent mode".
Hi there,
There is a novella by my personal favorite author, Vernor Vinge, called The Ungoverned and I think the libertarians here would enjoy reading it. Later on, The Peace War expands on such ideas. Has anyone read those? I would be interested to hear any comments on how viable the system, presented in the books is, according to you. One of my major beefs with Vinge's libertarian society is that he automatically assumes that it would breed innovation in technology which would surpass that of the nation states with their top-down organized labs and factories.
There is a novella by my personal favorite author, Vernor Vinge, called The Ungoverned and I think the libertarians here would enjoy reading it. Later on, The Peace War expands on such ideas. Has anyone read those? I would be interested to hear any comments on how viable the system, presented in the books is, according to you. One of my major beefs with Vinge's libertarian society is that he automatically assumes that it would breed innovation in technology which would surpass that of the nation states with their top-down organized labs and factories.
Hi there,
There is a novella by my personal favorite author, Vernor Vinge, called The Ungoverned and I think the libertarians here would enjoy reading it. Later on, The Peace War expands on such ideas. Has anyone read those? I would be interested to hear any comments on how viable the system, presented in the books is, according to you. One of my major beefs with Vinge's libertarian society is that he automatically assumes that it would breed innovation in technology which would surpass that of the nation states with their top-down organized labs and factories.
Greets,
M
There is a novella by my personal favorite author, Vernor Vinge, called The Ungoverned and I think the libertarians here would enjoy reading it. Later on, The Peace War expands on such ideas. Has anyone read those? I would be interested to hear any comments on how viable the system, presented in the books is, according to you. One of my major beefs with Vinge's libertarian society is that he automatically assumes that it would breed innovation in technology which would surpass that of the nation states with their top-down organized labs and factories.
Greets,
M
Bye.
