1018000+ entries in 0.77s
Doffx: Will his love interest be
the MPOE-PR chick?
assbot: OBSI.HRPT [1@0.1BTC] paid: 0.063745 BTC. Last price: 0.1028 BTC. Capital gain: 0.0028 BTC.
Total: 0.066545 BTC. (66.5%)
assbot: Requesting data from GLBSE (might
take a while, also might return fishy results as it does not account for splits etc).
smickles: mircea_popescu: i'm naming
this hardcore
teraria character after you. I'll let you know how you die
assbot: OBSI.1MHS [1@0.1BTC] paid: 0.05534983 BTC. Last price: 0.1 BTC. Capital gain: 0 BTC.
Total: 0.05534983 BTC. (55.3%)
assbot: Requesting data from GLBSE (might
take a while, also might return fishy results as it does not account for splits etc).
Obsi: kakobrekla: you should make assbot respond
to PMs
BTC-Mining: Hopefully with larger miner with ASICs like Gigavps and all
the other asic farms, even if it's more centralized, at least miners might be smart enough
to just move pool if large pools attempt
to mess around again.
Luke-Jr: hopefully ASICs will rewrite
the
top-N-pool-list so
their pools no longer have a position
to abuse
assbot: GIGAMINING [1@1BTC] paid: 0.45625096 BTC. Last price: 0.621 BTC. Capital gain: -0.379 BTC.
Total: 0.07725096 BTC. (7.7%)
assbot: Requesting data from GLBSE (might
take a while, also might return fishy results as it does not account for splits etc).
kakobrekla: look Luke-Jr i feel you feel bad about
this but bitching now wont help
BTC-Mining: And
there's not multiple different standards.
Luke-Jr: kakobrekla: we had it.
the community.
Luke-Jr: kakobrekla: except we had an accepted standard already long before all
that :p
mircea_popescu: Luke-Jr arguably
this is good,
that miners shouldn't standardise.
kakobrekla: that
tought it was different from eachones
kakobrekla: each of
them was workin on
their own solution
Luke-Jr: BTC-Mining:
the Bitcoin developer community spent a few months ironing out a new mining protocol standard earlier
this year, and instead of adopting it, slush and BTCGuild decided
they were going
to reinvent it in an incompatible way :<
BTC-Mining: Anyone remember
the early browser wars, poor standards?
Luke-Jr: BTC-Mining:
tell
that
to slush and BTCGuild ;)
mircea_popescu: Luke-Jr
that's a nice
thing
to do. supporting windows is a pain.
BTC-Mining: But if everyone would respect standard, it wouldn't be an issue as all
table heads would be correctly formatted... standards are
there so we don't have
to implement a different hack for everything...
Luke-Jr: mircea_popescu: for example,
the Windows CDC driver has some problem with MMQ FPGAs, and
there's not much Windows users can do about
that, so I implemented a workaround
to detect and recover from it
smickles: mircea_popescu: i assumed a liberal interpretation of 'day
trading'
BTC-Mining: I just happened
to be able
to convert an existing
tablesorter a bit so it get included on
the page + get
the class appended
to all
tables for styling + get all
tables executing
the sorting script.
smickles: and it's recovered from
that sell off since
Luke-Jr: mircea_popescu: well, I
try
to help people who are having problems with
their stuff, and sometimes
there are
things I can do
to workaround
them :P
kakobrekla: you will be better of learning it
than whining here about
smickles: Bugpowder: just
the other day,
there was a selloff in
the range of 500-1000btc and it only moved down about .2% or somehting
gigavps: Luke-Jr nevermind, sorry
to bother
mircea_popescu: <gigavps> he likes
to make other people fix
their problems rather
than just making it work <<<
this is how it should be done.
BTC-Mining: Especially since
the
tableheads are like normal rows currently.
BTC-Mining: It's nicer
to have a clickable
table head
to sort
the columns.
Bugpowder: how much of S.MPOE's success is due
to it basically being
the only stock with
the liquidity
to daytrade?
BTC-Mining: Python can't be applied
to bookmarklets >.>
smickles: python doesn't need a
thead
to sort ;)
BTC-Mining: But I need a
table head
to sort
the
table!
BTC-Mining: He seems
to have forgotten it around certain
tables.
BTC-Mining: Technically, nefario put
the
table heads in other places
gigavps: he likes
to make other people fix
their problems rather
than just making it work
BTC-Mining: Bah, it's a quick fix for nefario and I'm sure he'll add
those...
gigavps: BTC-Mining add
them with javascript
BTC-Mining: Instead sorting for all
tables with a
thead.
BTC-Mining: I'll ask nef
to correct
that on
those 2 pages.
BTC-Mining: Which would be
the important ones
to sort.
BTC-Mining: A few
tables have no
thead section (unfortunatly,
the portfolio page +
the market page)
BTC-Mining: Unfortunatly, no sorter will work until Nefario puts
the
tablehead row inside <thead></thead>
tags
BTC-Mining: By
the way, who wanted something
to order
the
tables on GLBSE automatically? I ported
tablesorter.com's
table script
to a bookmarklet
Doffx: The fpga have been a lot better
than
the gpus almost no maintenance
to run
Doffx: Should have just kept
the gpu space heaters
BTC-Mining: It's like x20
the hashing for less power usage...
smickles: mircea_popescu: it'll be like
that until
that ask wall is eaten
mircea_popescu: well
there you have it, best performing asset in btc history.
assbot: MPOE.ETF [1@0.1BTC] paid: 0.02470282 BTC. Last price: 1.33 BTC. Capital gain: 1.23 BTC.
Total: 1.25470282 BTC. (1254.7%)
assbot: Requesting data from GLBSE (might
take a while, also might return fishy results as it does not account for splits etc).
BTC-Mining: only
their graphical computation went up =P
smickles: Smoovious: and it proved
to be
true,
the price jumped after
the split
BTC-Mining: Although for mining BTC, GPU seems
to have stayed stable
gigavps: so
there is still a lot of room for improvement
smickles: Smoovious: people wanted
to buy, but
the price was
too high for
them
to maintain
the portfolio ratio
that
they wanted
smickles: I also have one
that !pl doesn't report properly
gigavps: BTC-Mining if you
think
this is
the end, i wouldn't place a bet on
that
BTC-Mining: We kind of fast jumped forward 2 steps
to
the final
technology step
that is ASIC.
BTC-Mining: Most have negative profit strictly because
they IPOed right before FPGA
then ASIC news.
assbot: MPOE.ETF [1@0.1BTC] paid: 0.02470282 BTC. Last price: 1.33 BTC. Capital gain: 1.23 BTC.
Total: 1.25470282 BTC. (1254.7%)
mircea_popescu: Bugpowder
the "not observed" is mostly due
to
the
tiny ammt stocks pay in dividend
these days
assbot: Requesting data from GLBSE (might
take a while, also might return fishy results as it does not account for splits etc).
gigavps: good for you BTC-Mining, keep selling
those shares
assbot: GIGAMINING [1@1BTC] paid: 0.45625096 BTC. Last price: 0.6 BTC. Capital gain: -0.4 BTC.
Total: 0.05625096 BTC. (5.6%)
BTC-Mining: That's only because
the very recent
trades were low
assbot: Requesting data from GLBSE (might
take a while, also might return fishy results as it does not account for splits etc).
gigavps: and i'm not sure mining bonds are
the problem, it's how you invest in
them...
gigavps: seems gigamining is
the only mining bond
that if you bought in on
the IPO you would still have a positive return
BTC-Mining: Paying for guaranteed, you usually get less. Unless you put all eggs in
the same basket.
Then
the guarantee might be preferable.
BTC-Mining: I like
taking all risks, but diversify
the portfolio
BTC-Mining: I don't like guaranteed X, you have
to pay for all
the risks
to have it guaranteed, even if it never happens.
BTC-Mining: It's
that it seems
taking a large cut
to cover all risks when
those risks may not happen at all, is a bit disadvantageous for
the shareholder.
gigavps: yeah,
the forums can be a bit exasperating at
times
Bugpowder: All I want is gigavps
to get his rigs up before anyone, in early Nov. Boom, fee paid off in one month
gigavps: BTC-Mining will never let
this go
gigavps: it's just a waiting game for BFL
to deliver
BTC-Mining: But like gigavps, I expected around 10% for hosting and maintenance of
the equipment.
gigavps: i'll have 200Gh in
two weeks
gigavps: Smoovious as for
the conspiracy
theory
gigavps: things can only stay
the same or improve from here
BTC-Mining: and
that Gigavps will be left with a 15-25% cut. It might be wrong, only
time will
tell.
gigavps: BTC-Mining
the worst is out of
the way
BTC-Mining: Planning for reduced mining returns and all kind of possible mess years in
the future,
there's a 55-70% cut
that will be
taken by gigavps. It might be eventually needed but I expect it will not.