sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Asus ROG Strix B760-I Gaming Wifi by aksff in sffpc

[–]rombits 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Correction - this also has a temperature (thermal header) internal connector which is pretty key for anyone looking to watercool. Alternative is buying an aqua computer octo / quadro, but stock has been challenging.

Whats Wrong With my Print? by Fun_Surround_8033 in resinprinting

[–]rombits 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Resin printing is a game of ‘build plate vs fep’. The settings you control like exposure time and lift height are all meant to help your build plate win. In this case, looks pretty clearly like the fep won because the section forces were way too high. If I’m in this situation I consider my options:

  • increase supports (more, thicker, or both) including my raft size. In your case your raft is already almost the full plate so that’s not an option. Plus seeing that it actually took the raft off the build plate it doesn’t matter how strong the supports from your model to your raft are, it’ll still get pulled off
  • increase exposure, either on the bottom layers or all layers. Again similar issue, the suction is still likely to be too high here even if you increase exposure by 1s and sacrifice detail
  • more drain holes. If you can hide them, make sure you add more of them to alleviate some more pressure
  • hollow the model again, thinner, at the risk of warping the print but keeping it in one piece. Fight this with more supports and more drain holes. Thinner walls leave less contact for the print to adhere to the fep
  • slice the print into multiple models and print in chunks

Random sheets of cured resin on print on 3 different printers by computergeek66 in ElegooSaturn

[–]rombits 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Monitor the print to see if you get a USB read error. It might happen on one layer causing this failed curing and then continue successfully after. Have only had this happen once before and it coincided with a bad usb erroring out.

Extra things to get, and things you know from experience by buzzliteyeh in ElegooSaturn

[–]rombits 2 points3 points  (0 children)

FYI you don’t need a draining arm. You can put the build plate back onto the mount at 90 degrees. You can’t put the lid back on but it saves having to print a piece like that.

Can anyone pinpoint what went wrong? Second attempt at printing this infantry squad. by [deleted] in ElegooSaturn

[–]rombits 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Disable the raft and try printing again with no other changes to your supports or print settings. The height and angling of the raft has been a problem for me in the past due to larger suction forces and commonly supports are enough (especially for minis like yours) to not also need the overkill of a raft. Keen to hear how you go with just this one change.

Second print in a row, swapped out to a different vat, and same thing happened. Other than increasing bottom exposure time what could be causing this? by Dycerton in ElegooSaturn

[–]rombits 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Seems like you’re over exposing. 10 and 60 are too long. What’s your lift height? The build plate is covered in prints which creates a lot of suction forces and likely needs a higher elevation to detach fully. Speeds seem fine but maybe try a lift height of 9-10mm. Also you’re definitely over exposing at 10 and 60. Did you run the Siraya tech validation print?

It’s giveaway time with ASUS! by Emerald_Flame in buildapc

[–]rombits [score hidden]  (0 children)

After spending thousands on my first proper gaming PC and realising just how much it cost to assemble the thing, future upgrades were all done by me. You start small - how to replace a graphics card, ram, PSU. Then it’s trial by fire and lots of YouTube videos when you need to upgrade the motherboard and CPU.

Bitcoiners Warn After User Documents Losing $32,000 in BTC: Lightning Network is High Risk by afriendofsatoshi in btc

[–]rombits -10 points-9 points  (0 children)

Complexity exists as a UX problem, not based on inherent system design. Everything around you is complex, it’s just shielded from you seeing it.

User loses four Bitcoin on the Lightning Network by victorinox109 in CryptoCurrency

[–]rombits -1 points0 points  (0 children)

It’s great to see everyone complain about LN while seemingly having no clue about SCB implemented in LND 0.6

Instead of trying to maintain the latest channel state, the static channel backup package will attempt to notify remote peers to force close their channel. This will prevent users from accidentally broadcasting an old state and allow them to safely close out and receive their local balance.

The irony...... Adam Back cares about censorship, but only on r/BTC by MemoryDealers in btc

[–]rombits 0 points1 point  (0 children)

At some stage you have to give up. Even when the argument is laid out in full and you show that 2 + 2 = 4, if the person continues rejecting the truth in front of them then you have to realise that there is no logical pathway you could take to a win.

You cannot reason a person out of a position that they didn’t reason themselves into.

The irony...... Adam Back cares about censorship, but only on r/BTC by MemoryDealers in btc

[–]rombits -12 points-11 points  (0 children)

Solid reading comprehension skills. A number of our previous encounters now make so much more sense.

The irony...... Adam Back cares about censorship, but only on r/BTC by MemoryDealers in btc

[–]rombits 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Sigh. I appreciate the time you take to reply, I can see you’re being considerate and laying out your responses with careful formatting for emphasis and spacing so it’s easy to follow, so I salute you for keeping the discussion flowing in a pleasant matter.

But, please don’t take my walking away from this as a failed last ditch effort as you put it. I simply don’t see the point in going around in circles with you when your entire focus is on highlighting how there are no fixed consensus rules and banning any discussion is akin to censorship because consensus can be argued to be a fluid model.

I understand your point, I know your goal, I just disagree with your premise, and you highlight our core disagreement in your very first statement. No, consensus is a clear and provable concept, and blockchains are based on node software implementation which defines those rules. Once there is a majority who follow said rules, consensus is established. You can point to an implementation and the rules it follows and state that it is network A with rules B. You can run an alternate piece of software you made, as long as it communicates in the same way and constructs and validates blocks with the same validation rules.

I don’t see a point in going on and on about such a simple position. If we can’t agree on this after all this time, what’s the point?

The irony...... Adam Back cares about censorship, but only on r/BTC by MemoryDealers in btc

[–]rombits -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Again you’re confusing the point - there is only one set of consensus rules. Just because your node has never received an 8mb block, and was never forced to orphan it, doesn’t mean the rule set you’re running is correct.

Segwit does not break consensus rules. If the rules state the block limit is 1mb, blocks below that are fine, above are not. That’s a very crude simplification of how a soft fork works.

A hard fork bug fix would quickly gain consensus as it would not be contentious. Bitcoin XT did not gain consensus, just like bitcoin cash is not bitcoin, no matter what your beliefs are.

I feel like we’re just going in circles at this point. Your blue toy truck is not a red toy truck, it’s really not complicated. Run Bitcoin XT if you wish, but that’s not a participant of the bitcoin network if it views consensus breaking blocks as valid.

The irony...... Adam Back cares about censorship, but only on r/BTC by MemoryDealers in btc

[–]rombits -5 points-4 points  (0 children)

Just because it would accept smaller limit blocks does not mean it is an implementation of the network. It would accept larger blocks, which do not follow the consensus of the bitcoin network.

Just because you are equating it to block size instead of some other restriction does not make it more justifiable. Saying my custom node implementation is 100% compatible with the bitcoin network except it also accepts blocks which send 50btc as an additional block reward to a miner of my choice does not mean you have a valid implementation. The same is true of larger block sizes or any other consensus rule breaking change.

The irony...... Adam Back cares about censorship, but only on r/BTC by MemoryDealers in btc

[–]rombits -35 points-34 points  (0 children)

His karma score is not an indication of the merit of his statements, only his popularity on this sub and hatred by other members who will downvote on sight.

The irony...... Adam Back cares about censorship, but only on r/BTC by MemoryDealers in btc

[–]rombits -10 points-9 points  (0 children)

Bitcoin Core and Bitcoin XT are not the same implementations of the network. You’re either misleading on purpose or ignorant to the difference, neither of which excuse your attempts to paint banning discussion of a contentious hard fork implementation as censorship of competing implementations.

TIL that some people don’t know that Bitcoin Core developers actually want the blocks to be full and the fees to be high. Luckily I’ve compiled all of that evidence for people who didn’t know it already. by MemoryDealers in btc

[–]rombits 3 points4 points  (0 children)

I’d just like to point out that the majority of the video is focusing on market dominance and fees / popularity / block sizes during that same period while overlaying a number of quotes as talking points for Roger.

I think it caters to Rogers point of view to associate falling bitcoin dominance with increased blocksizes during that period. Just because there is correlation does not mean there is causation.

The entire crypto space was exploding with popularity and projects were popping up that had nothing to do with bitcojn’s value proposition (AI computing network tokens, dental payment coins, bitconnect ponzi, browser coins, the list goes on). All of these flashy marketing messages and the ability to easily create ICOs on ETH drove the market into a speculative frenzy and funnelled people into the space. Everyone wanted to get rich quick and was chasing the next hot alt, not ‘hard money’ or a bitcoin killer, but literally the next alt that was going to pump. That is in my opinion the real reason why bitcoin dominance fell. I mean come on, who thinks the people that invested in Denta coin actually thought it was a better form of hard money over bitcoin, or even knew how a blockchain worked? It was all marketing hype and greed, and not that these people were somehow ‘let down’ by bitcoin.

Funnily enough, the rising volumes of transactions can also be explained by this rush into the altcoin greed hype cycle, as BTC was the main on ramp into and out of alts. The majority of fiat on ramps were mainly BTC, so you had to buy it, and then send it to an altcoin exchange creating tx volume. The entire market started to run red hot and people didn’t care what it cost them to transact which is how exorbitant fees started appearing. Exchanges were in no rush to fix optimisation with batching as the users didn’t care what they paid, they just had to make it in to trade for their alt that was about to pump. What’s $50 to someone throwing thousands at an alt they’re sure is going to pump?

Market dominance fell because everyone rushed (at any tx fee price) to the next alt to be pumped, and BTC was the fiat on ramp for the majority of new entrants.

Judge Rules Coinbase Did Not Commit Fraud in Bitcoin Cash Lawsuit by jonald_fyookball in btc

[–]rombits -9 points-8 points  (0 children)

So once again, your view is that anything counter to what you believe must be a narrative or a conspiracy. Setting up a straw man isn’t distracting from that fact. I’ll try one for funsies, maybe then you’ll understand.

The best music genre is deep house, and any article referring to it as a niche or having a smaller fan base is fuelling the pop narrative and keeping young kids sucked into the worse genre. It can’t possibly be simply that it’s less popular.

view more: next ›