If both you and the person you are talking to are not online at the same time, your message will not be delivered to that user. If they're offline, your message to them will be "pending". If you then go offline, then they come online, they still won't see the message,
Maxwell Demon, this is why there is little point replying to the guy, you can see through the numerous posts his reading comprehension is poor regardless.
Mind you, I have no idea why you would want one. Unless your electricy (and time spent in maintenance, etc.) comes free - they're certainly not financially profitable, and even the geek factor (over mining with your GPU, say) is pretty low.
I assumed by "You can buy USB sticks which can mine Bitcoin relatively efficiently." meant that it would:
1) Pay for it self 2) Pay for the electricity it uses.
So, I wanted to find out more about this miracle Bitcoin product, because so far I haven't seen anything that does what it said on the tin.
My general problem with Bitcoin miners being sold is: Why would someone find it more profitable to sell Bitcoin miners instead of mining themselves if it does what it said on the tin?
What the fuck is wrong with "if you like Wild West and understand what that means, use our Bitcoin system. If you want nice and regulated, use standard currency"?
It's not a good explanation.
In other words, why this one-size-must-fit-all mentality?
Every other electronic payment system offers certain protections, guarantees, protects against laundering, fraud etc. People are likely to assume they get that on Bitcoin without realizing they don't. Believe it or not, a lot of people don't read terms of service when they sign up on a site, so it wouldn't be surprising if there are people using Bitcoin that don't understand it because they don't read the large jibberjabber on it.
No one is going to force you to use Bitcoin if you don't like (or understand) the terms under which it operates. This isn't broken. The effort to fix it will therefore fail and is likely to create additional problems.
If a vendor only accepts one payment method such as Bitcoin, this can be seen as being 'forced' to use Bitcoin. So, what you're telling me is that there are zero vendors that don't accept other methods of payment too - I am sceptical.
That stupid, lazy, impetuous people who make bad decisions might hurt themselves is not a bug, it's a feature.
I am not one of these people, I am not going to make a bad decision on relying on a system that thus far has had a very poor track record with it's currency exchange systems and avoid the stigma of funding druggies as well as using a system that offers no enforced due diligence, nor protections.
It is not an injustice when adults who make poor decisions suffer the consequences.
Well executed fraud and scams is indistinguishable from making a good decision.
The effort to prevent this is well-intentioned and tragically misguided, but happily and diabolically exploited by politicians in the business of protecting you from yourself because to them it means opportunity to grab power that will never be given back.
Taking note of your point of view: Many Bitcoin users wanted to see this accepted as a currency and treated as such, now they got their wish. There is no victim in this picture, since it involved adults who make poor decisions, they got what they asked for.
We were talking about electronic transfers, not physical cash - I even clarified this multiple times with my use of "electronic transfers"
Why don't you go code a bitcoin knockoff (feathercoin and litecoin come to mind) that embodies what you feel is important?
I am currently much more interested in contributing my free time to other things. I am not really that motivated by Bitcoin or it's alternatives for a variety of reasons.
Otherwise all you do is harm bitcoin with this type of sentiment.
I think it's a valid criticism that needs to be raised. After all, people would get burned if they aren't aware of this. If Bitcoin gets burned by this, then maybe someone will fork the project and improve upon it based on what was learned.
Bitcoin's intrinsic anonymity forces the buyer to do DUE DILIGENCE.
Sorry, you're wrong. it doesn't force the buyer to do due diligence. This is not like Paypal where you are required to submit certain types of information to use the payment system, which forces a certain amount of due diligence to be performed.
If you cannot or do not perform this, you don't have to leg to stand on when you get ripped off.
And yet there are some protections in most systems against this sort of thing. Face the facts, Bitcoin does not offer this security and it doesn't enforce any sort of due diligence in it's system.
I again reiterate that I can't think of any other 'normal' currency system that does electronic transfers 'anonymously' without any controls for reversing transactions when fraud, scams etc. were discovered. I will also add now to the point that there is no due diligence enforced like on other electronic transfer systems for currency.
Bitcoin appears to be making it easier for electronic scams to work with little risk. I can't think of 'normal' currency system that does electronic transfers 'anonymously' without any controls for reversing transactions when fraud, scams etc. were discovered.
processes are going to use more resources than threads in this scenario every time.
I definitely agree it uses more resources typically - It doesn't however mean that the response time is worse.
Prefork is the worse MPM you can use when you need performance.
System resource wise, not necessarily performance.
The benefit of NGinx is that you get a highly optimized web server right out of the box. You don't have to mess with the configs and you're almost there.
Flipping a few configuration settings in Apache's httpd.conf and Linux's sysctl.conf is trivial for me, it's only a minute or two.
Remove code processing modules from the webserver application space, i.e. get rid of mod_php for php_fpm, etc. All this can be configured now and you'll get that speed and stability, but it's just not done out of the box.
mod_php, php_fpm aren't part of the default Apache configuration? And if you want to remove module support all together, you could just compile Apache with:
./configure --disable-so
Not that I have ever seen any notable speed differences through disabling Dynamic Shared Object (DSO) Support.
With NGinx it is. The only way to do things is the 'fast' or optimized way.
Load testing performed through SOASTA Cloud Test sadly didn't live up to those numbers on my environments. There was no notable improvement over Apache and at the cost of sacrificing useful functionality provided in Apache for what appeared to be no gain. Perhaps it was my environments, but I doubt it.
BGP publishes your *network* routing tables to other routers so eventually the core routers can learn how to get traffic to you.
You can also use it on 'internal' (they're sort of semi-public in how they route traffic through routers technically) networks without pushing the routes themselves to external networks. It is done via a combination of weights and port hashes to direct traffic to do load balancing on routers. Using BIRD, the announcements can be performed by the servers themselves to route traffic on an internal network, providing their own weights declaring their load etc. Server downtime handled gracefully through BGP, since they stop announcing when that happens.
That is part of load distribution, the target IP is the same only the route changes depending on the source, and the router doesn't have to do anything much less hashing source and destination IPs.
Under the system I described above, you need to apply the port hashing because you're not using BGP to simply direct traffic, you're trying to ensure that a TCP connection is consistently gets routed to a specific server. This would be a non-issue for sessionless protocols like UDP.
Unfortunately, I have no graphs I can share with you due to confidentiality reasons. You can get Apache to outperform Nginx by configuring Apache to use prefork, then increasing Linux's file descriptors to a much larger setting than default to coincide with the forked processes and the connection limits you wish to handle.
This is something that is done in large cloud setups used in major websites that use Apache with load balancers, or in more sophisticated networks, using BGP to perform "true load balancing" (requires a router to hash source and destination IP to maintain a connection to the same server and weight calculations).
I have not managed to get Nginx to perform as well as Apache in this configuration (prefork + increased file descriptors), or any other configuration when Apache is in this configuration. IIS in my experience doesn't do too badly with static content, however, I have never seen it outperform Apache in the 'proper' environment and configuration when it came to static content (this also included disabling modules not in use), however the differences were very minor.
I will say though, if you're using IIS for serving static content, you might not be using your money wisely. It's not really as cost effective to pay for windows licenses and machines verses just the machines (I expect GoDaddy got freebies from Microsoft). Before the argument on support - You will often find that hardware vendors like HP and IBM provide their own support for various operating system configurations and certain uses on server hardware is included with your hardware contracts, should you be a sufficiently large buyer.
It really only makes sense to run IIS if you have specific IIS/windows applications to run on the webserver like.NET applications. Costs could be reduced in such a scenario to keep IIS for static pages if it required a new breed of administrators to join a team to maintain some 'free' server option. However, if the administrators are multi-platform (like where I work), this is unlikely the case.
The problem is that creating SPF records is effectively voluntary, so operators of mail servers are only able to use existence of the records as a way to increase trust, and not using the absence of the records as a way to decrease trust.
Hotmail for the longest time rejected mail from domains that did not have SPF records - I do not know if that is still the case.
Funny, and if I said this about the 4th amendment where people try to apply it to something that it doesn't appear to be written or even intended for, they would mark me troll.
Slashdot Mirror
Vimeo
Are you saying the USA legal system would look drugged up?
If they login via outlook.com, they will.
Maxwell Demon, this is why there is little point replying to the guy, you can see through the numerous posts his reading comprehension is poor regardless.
I have pointed this out numerous times to APK myself. Sadly, he doesn't get that either.
What if you're willing to stand behind what you say anonymously?
I don't believe in the fabricated concept of 'evil'.
Can you explain to me how this is in no way possible to commit treason or violate something like the secrets act?
I assumed by "You can buy USB sticks which can mine Bitcoin relatively efficiently." meant that it would:
1) Pay for it self
2) Pay for the electricity it uses.
So, I wanted to find out more about this miracle Bitcoin product, because so far I haven't seen anything that does what it said on the tin.
My general problem with Bitcoin miners being sold is: Why would someone find it more profitable to sell Bitcoin miners instead of mining themselves if it does what it said on the tin?
Where do I buy USB sticks that do Bitcoin mining?
Didn't my last sentence say that?
What is the huge commercial advantage?
It's not a good explanation.
Every other electronic payment system offers certain protections, guarantees, protects against laundering, fraud etc. People are likely to assume they get that on Bitcoin without realizing they don't. Believe it or not, a lot of people don't read terms of service when they sign up on a site, so it wouldn't be surprising if there are people using Bitcoin that don't understand it because they don't read the large jibberjabber on it.
If a vendor only accepts one payment method such as Bitcoin, this can be seen as being 'forced' to use Bitcoin. So, what you're telling me is that there are zero vendors that don't accept other methods of payment too - I am sceptical.
I am not one of these people, I am not going to make a bad decision on relying on a system that thus far has had a very poor track record with it's currency exchange systems and avoid the stigma of funding druggies as well as using a system that offers no enforced due diligence, nor protections.
Well executed fraud and scams is indistinguishable from making a good decision.
Taking note of your point of view: Many Bitcoin users wanted to see this accepted as a currency and treated as such, now they got their wish. There is no victim in this picture, since it involved adults who make poor decisions, they got what they asked for.
Cash is not an electronic transfer.
I've used it to avoid Slashdot's lameness filter, which has recently been fairly hard on me.
I know what it means, we were discussing it being 'enforced', it's not.
There is if you use the credit/debit card transfer instead of cash (as seen on http://www.westernunion.co.uk/sites/gb/send-money/send-money.page - also, wow, no HTTPS!).
We were talking about electronic transfers, not physical cash - I even clarified this multiple times with my use of "electronic transfers"
I am currently much more interested in contributing my free time to other things. I am not really that motivated by Bitcoin or it's alternatives for a variety of reasons.
I think it's a valid criticism that needs to be raised. After all, people would get burned if they aren't aware of this. If Bitcoin gets burned by this, then maybe someone will fork the project and improve upon it based on what was learned.
Sorry, you're wrong. it doesn't force the buyer to do due diligence. This is not like Paypal where you are required to submit certain types of information to use the payment system, which forces a certain amount of due diligence to be performed.
And yet there are some protections in most systems against this sort of thing. Face the facts, Bitcoin does not offer this security and it doesn't enforce any sort of due diligence in it's system.
I again reiterate that I can't think of any other 'normal' currency system that does electronic transfers 'anonymously' without any controls for reversing transactions when fraud, scams etc. were discovered. I will also add now to the point that there is no due diligence enforced like on other electronic transfer systems for currency.
Bitcoin appears to be making it easier for electronic scams to work with little risk. I can't think of 'normal' currency system that does electronic transfers 'anonymously' without any controls for reversing transactions when fraud, scams etc. were discovered.
I definitely agree it uses more resources typically - It doesn't however mean that the response time is worse.
System resource wise, not necessarily performance.
Flipping a few configuration settings in Apache's httpd.conf and Linux's sysctl.conf is trivial for me, it's only a minute or two.
mod_php, php_fpm aren't part of the default Apache configuration? And if you want to remove module support all together, you could just compile Apache with:
Not that I have ever seen any notable speed differences through disabling Dynamic Shared Object (DSO) Support.
Load testing performed through SOASTA Cloud Test sadly didn't live up to those numbers on my environments. There was no notable improvement over Apache and at the cost of sacrificing useful functionality provided in Apache for what appeared to be no gain. Perhaps it was my environments, but I doubt it.
You can also use it on 'internal' (they're sort of semi-public in how they route traffic through routers technically) networks without pushing the routes themselves to external networks. It is done via a combination of weights and port hashes to direct traffic to do load balancing on routers. Using BIRD, the announcements can be performed by the servers themselves to route traffic on an internal network, providing their own weights declaring their load etc. Server downtime handled gracefully through BGP, since they stop announcing when that happens.
Under the system I described above, you need to apply the port hashing because you're not using BGP to simply direct traffic, you're trying to ensure that a TCP connection is consistently gets routed to a specific server. This would be a non-issue for sessionless protocols like UDP.
I like StarCraft 2 and enjoy it immensely, even now. I don't find it boring.
What I took from this is that you're "stupid enough" not to know how to preview short URLs.
Unfortunately, I have no graphs I can share with you due to confidentiality reasons. You can get Apache to outperform Nginx by configuring Apache to use prefork, then increasing Linux's file descriptors to a much larger setting than default to coincide with the forked processes and the connection limits you wish to handle.
This is something that is done in large cloud setups used in major websites that use Apache with load balancers, or in more sophisticated networks, using BGP to perform "true load balancing" (requires a router to hash source and destination IP to maintain a connection to the same server and weight calculations).
I have not managed to get Nginx to perform as well as Apache in this configuration (prefork + increased file descriptors), or any other configuration when Apache is in this configuration. IIS in my experience doesn't do too badly with static content, however, I have never seen it outperform Apache in the 'proper' environment and configuration when it came to static content (this also included disabling modules not in use), however the differences were very minor.
I will say though, if you're using IIS for serving static content, you might not be using your money wisely. It's not really as cost effective to pay for windows licenses and machines verses just the machines (I expect GoDaddy got freebies from Microsoft). Before the argument on support - You will often find that hardware vendors like HP and IBM provide their own support for various operating system configurations and certain uses on server hardware is included with your hardware contracts, should you be a sufficiently large buyer.
It really only makes sense to run IIS if you have specific IIS/windows applications to run on the webserver like .NET applications. Costs could be reduced in such a scenario to keep IIS for static pages if it required a new breed of administrators to join a team to maintain some 'free' server option. However, if the administrators are multi-platform (like where I work), this is unlikely the case.
Hotmail for the longest time rejected mail from domains that did not have SPF records - I do not know if that is still the case.
Funny, and if I said this about the 4th amendment where people try to apply it to something that it doesn't appear to be written or even intended for, they would mark me troll.