New GA106-302 RTX 3060 Revision coming with Hardware Based Mining Limiter coming in May, Possibly coming to the rest of RTX 30 series

[tikker]

21 minutes ago, Brooksie359 said:

If tether is always 1 usd then what is the point? Just put your money in usd and be done with it. There is no reason for the cryptocurrency if it's simply usd. Same with gold. You might as well buy gold stock at that point instead of that cryptocurrency

The point of Tether and other fiat-tracking stablecoins is to have a "USD crypto" and simply to have a USD equivalent on an exchange without having those on that specific exchange. You can't always buy in USD or other fiat, so stablecoins exist that track that fiat. You have 24/7 availabilty and instant access to it. If you want to park your crypto for a bit to buy back later, for example, you can convert it to Tether. Tether specifically has a bit of a shady history, as it seems to not have been backed by actual dollars for a long time, but now seems to be fully backed from latest reports. Others like USDC are alledgedly better in that regard, but cover much less cryptos.

[Bombastinator]

2 minutes ago, Blademaster91 said:

As long as Nvidia doesn't have any competition in RTX or DLSS they're going to abuse the consumer as much as possible. Thats something i really dislike with most large companies nowadays, they find every possible way to make you lose as the consumer down to telling you what you can you with the thing you paid for, if Nvidia is going the "Apple way" with GPU's then IMO we might as well rent them lol.

I'd really like to see Intel have a competitive GPU, but I don't have much confidence in that because their Xe iGPU that was so hyped up still doesn't compare to a dedicated GPU, and Intel being Intel I wouldn't be surprised if they only allowed the use of an Intel GPU in a system with an Intel CPU.

The M1 mac mini does well for having a low power CPU with a high power limit so I would guess a larger mac desktop would be decent for gaming, but gaming support is something macs have been lacking in for a while.

Nvidia will never have any competition in rtx or DLSS.  They’re brand names. Rtx is an implementation of ray tracing, and DLSS is an implementation of upscaling.  That they don’t currently have effective competition in either ray tracing or upscaling is a thing though.  Ray tracing is something they aren’t as far ahead on as upscaling.  Without their upscaling advantage their ray tracing advantage isn’t all that useful.  They do have it currently though. DLSS is expensive to implement.  AMD seems to be going for a more difficult to obtain goal in their upscaling drive.  I hope they don’t run into the same “you can’t get there from here” problems that intel ram into.  If they can make their system go they can win though. AMD has the console space entirely. If they can make an even somewhat competitive system they can leverage that to force whatever system they come up with into a winning position.  They’ve actually got to come up with something though.

[Brooksie359]

19 minutes ago, FakeKGB said:

The difference between USD and Tether is that it's a lot harder to fake a cryptocurrency. You don't have to fool a few people, you have to fool everyone. Plus there's anonymity.

Which is to be decentralized, anonymous, currencies?
Yeah, they haven't failed in that regard.

Yes they have failed. None have satisfied all three requirements. I would say none currently are currencies seeing as none are widely accepted. For the ones that are tied to a fait currency like tether its not decentralized as its entirely attached to the usd and the usd is definitely not decentralized. As for anonymous I would even say that is debatable as most cryptocurrencies keep logs of transactions so people have been caught with there pants down due to the assumption that it is anonymous when it is until it isn't. 

[Bombastinator]

1 minute ago, Brooksie359 said:

Yes they have failed. None have satisfied all three requirements. I would say none currently are currencies seeing as none are widely accepted. For the ones that are tied to a fait currency like tether its not decentralized as its entirely attached to the usd and the usd is definitely not decentralized. As for anonymous I would even say that is debatable as most cryptocurrencies keep logs of transactions so people have been caught with there pants down due to the assumption that it is anonymous when it is until it isn't. 

Your argument is crypto currencies are harder to forge?  A small percentage of problems.  One that has grown though.  So add crypto systems to real currency.  Best of both worlds.

[mwagen]

On 4/17/2021 at 9:22 AM, AluminiumTech said:

people don't want to be told what they can't do on their graphics card that they paid for.

On 4/17/2021 at 9:29 AM, jagdtigger said:

They paid for a graphics card not a hash accelerator card, case closed.

 

On 4/17/2021 at 9:29 AM, jagdtigger said:

all i say is that ppl should stop bitching about a graphics card getting a nerf in an aspect it sint advertised in.

On 4/17/2021 at 10:14 AM, FakeKGB said:

And what about people who want to mine or run F@H in their spare time, like me?

On 4/17/2021 at 10:15 AM, jagdtigger said:

SOL.... 

This cracks me up because it succinctly sums up the truth of the matter. 

 

Does nvidia advertise the mining capabilities of their gpus anywhere? I don't believe so, therefore nobody has a position to complain to nvidia about hashrate performance, it's that simple. Nvidia's mining nerf isn't coercive, the choice of how one spends their money and their time has not been taken from the consumer in any way. 

[WhitetailAni]

5 minutes ago, mwagen said:

Does nvidia advertise the mining capabilities of their gpus anywhere?

Indirectly, yes. Some mining algorithms use CUDA, which is an advertised feature of the GPUs.

 

[tikker]

46 minutes ago, Brooksie359 said:

Nope video games serve something irreplaceable. They creat new world to explore and provide engaging experiences to countless people. Sure there are other forms of entertainment but video games are definitely not something you could simply replace with something else.

An engaging exerience? Books do the same. Movies as well. Dungeons and dragons creates entire worlds and storylines from our minds. Why do we need videogames to offer something we already have? If you knew nothing about videogames, hadn't seen one in your life, and I showed you pong proclaiming this is the epitome of entertainment and will be huge... there's a good chance you'd call me an idiot for thinking "videogames" will ever be something more than "eh it's fun, but meh". Crypto offers a different view on transactions. At its infancy you would not have regarded videogames as something "irreplaceable".

46 minutes ago, Brooksie359 said:

Also again AMD stock price does well when AMD does well aka not based on thoughts a feelings but performance of the company. The same could not be said for cryptocurrency. If what you said about the value of the concept of the cryptocurrency dictating the value of the coin then you would have constant value for cryptocurrency not the shit fest that is cryptocurrency. It swings wildly in price because it doesn't have any backing and it could go down or up at any moment for no real reason.

You keep saying they only have value because people "feel like they have value", but your AMD stock is only worth money, because people feel like it has value based on the company's performance. You would not have bought AMD stock if you didn't expect any gain from it. You bought it, because based on what AMD told you they were planning to do you and others felt like they would increase in value. They delivered, people liked that and hence they became more valuable as people now want to both sell and buy at a higher price. Had they failed, which you would have no means for to predict, investors would've dumped it like a hot stone and your investment would've been gone.

 

Any market swings based on how people feel. That is true for both stocks and crypto. Crypto swings wildly compared to the stock market, because it is a completely new type of asset that hasn't found solid ground yet. There is large potential for gains and equal potential for loss, that scares people. Adoption is very limited and only now is growing slowly, people don't really know what they are yet nor where they can use them and there are people like you condemning it without giving it a chance. In the past PC components would move so fast each generation offered a significant performance boost or change and we'd be complaining we couldn't upgrade fast enough to keep up with the latest and greatest. Now we're complaining that nobody is innovating anymore.

33 minutes ago, Brooksie359 said:

Yes they have failed. None have satisfied all three requirements. I would say none currently are currencies seeing as none are widely accepted. For the ones that are tied to a fait currency like tether its not decentralized as its entirely attached to the usd and the usd is definitely not decentralized. As for anonymous I would even say that is debatable as most cryptocurrencies keep logs of transactions so people have been caught with there pants down due to the assumption that it is anonymous when it is until it isn't. 

Tether doesn't need to be decentralised. It's only there to facilitate fiat-like trading, nothing more. Regarding anonimity you are correct. Crypto doesn't aim to be anonymous unless they are privacy coins, of which there aren't many. If you can tie a name to a wallet address (ignoring tumblers, washers etc.) their transactions can be read like a literal open book as that is indeed one point of most blockchains.

[jhawk2k18]

11 minutes ago, mwagen said:

This cracks me up because it succinctly sums up the truth of the matter. 

 

Does nvidia advertise the mining capabilities of their gpus anywhere? I don't believe so, therefore nobody has a position to complain to nvidia about hashrate performance, it's that simple. Nvidia's mining nerf isn't coercive, the choice of how one spends their money and their time has not been taken from the consumer in any way. 

It's not the fact about the money spent, I have been mining ETH for 4 years, but I bought my 12 cards one at a time, about a month or 2 apart and configured the bios myslef on each card, but I also build PC's for a living, so when somebody wants a nice GPU, i tell them its just not a good time for that (unless you happen to want a used RX 4gb card that I have 6 of laying around useless).. but its crazy how expensive the GPUs are and on a shortage at that.. If I paid 1500$ for a 3070 (and I did) I expect it to be able to blow the socks off my 1080ti's as well as be able to mine sparely, and 60mh at 140w is ok, the picture is ok, the power cant touch the 1080ti FTW3 liquid cooled, and so it gets ridiculous when scalpers and greedy miners get involved.. Otherwise I say do as you please, but I see from both sides where this is messing up for everyone!!

[Brooksie359]

3 hours ago, Bombastinator said:

Your argument is crypto currencies are harder to forge?  A small percentage of problems.  One that has grown though.  So add crypto systems to real currency.  Best of both worlds.

My point is that it is a failure because it hasn't done what it set out to do so we shouldn't be wasting energy on it.

[Brooksie359]

2 hours ago, tikker said:

An engaging exerience? Books do the same. Movies as well. Dungeons and dragons creates entire worlds and storylines from our minds. Why do we need videogames to offer something we already have? If you knew nothing about videogames, hadn't seen one in your life, and I showed you pong proclaiming this is the epitome of entertainment and will be huge... there's a good chance you'd call me an idiot for thinking "videogames" will ever be something more than "eh it's fun, but meh". Crypto offers a different view on transactions. At its infancy you would not have regarded videogames as something "irreplaceable".

You keep saying they only have value because people "feel like they have value", but your AMD stock is only worth money, because people feel like it has value based on the company's performance. You would not have bought AMD stock if you didn't expect any gain from it. You bought it, because based on what AMD told you they were planning to do you and others felt like they would increase in value. They delivered, people liked that and hence they became more valuable as people now want to both sell and buy at a higher price. Had they failed, which you would have no means for to predict, investors would've dumped it like a hot stone and your investment would've been gone.

 

Any market swings based on how people feel. That is true for both stocks and crypto. Crypto swings wildly compared to the stock market, because it is a completely new type of asset that hasn't found solid ground yet. There is large potential for gains and equal potential for loss, that scares people. Adoption is very limited and only now is growing slowly, people don't really know what they are yet nor where they can use them and there are people like you condemning it without giving it a chance. In the past PC components would move so fast each generation offered a significant performance boost or change and we'd be complaining we couldn't upgrade fast enough to keep up with the latest and greatest. Now we're complaining that nobody is innovating anymore.

Tether doesn't need to be decentralised. It's only there to facilitate fiat-like trading, nothing more. Regarding anonimity you are correct. Crypto doesn't aim to be anonymous unless they are privacy coins, of which there aren't many. If you can tie a name to a wallet address (ignoring tumblers, washers etc.) their transactions can be read like a literal open book as that is indeed one point of most blockchains.

Almost all of what you brought up doesn't do what video games do. Sure they accomplishe some of it but you can't really have a super engaging interactive experience by yourself like you can with video games. Also no means to predict? Again this is based on performance and you can definitely use facts to make predictions future performance of a company. For instance knowing that Jim keller is in charge of the new architecture is a fairly good indicator that the new cpu will be successful seeing as he is a very good engineer know for creating multiple very successful cpus. Is it 100% guaranteed? No but at least you can base it off of something. Also a stock is own a portion of a company so there is a clear reason why the value of the stock is correlated to company performance. 

[Bitter]

5 hours ago, Brooksie359 said:

Did you even read the article yourself? Some insurance companies cover simple stuff like that under normal insurance so no you are simply wrong. 

Did you read the article?

Quote

Yes, you need special car insurance for delivery driving unless you are driving a company vehicle. If you drive your own car for a delivery company like Uber Eats, Grubhub or DoorDash, the company will not provide enough car insurance to protect you, so you’ll need to buy a rideshare or business add-on for your personal car insurance policy.

Without the proper add-on, most personal car insurance policies specifically exclude coverage when you are driving for business purposes. Your personal insurance company can deny your claim or drop you as a customer if you lie about using your car to make deliveries. You might even be charged with insurance fraud.

In addition, delivery companies treat drivers as independent contractors, so they do not have to provide extensive insurance coverage, either. Consequently, delivery drivers often face significant gaps in coverage.

The only insurance company they stated to cover delivery drivers under a normal personal policy is State Farm, all others do not cover it or require additional insurance to be purchased to cover it.

Additionally TNC insurances provided by Uber, etc, are simply liability policies and may not cover you for your own costs such as your own vehicle repairs, your own injuries, or your own other property losses due to an accident. Uber, etc, have insurance that covers the other party in an accident, like your passenger or another vehicle you strike, and you would claim your own damages and injuries against your own policy with commercial coverage inclusions, but if you don't have that correct kind of coverage you may be left flappin in the breeze to cover your losses be it your vehicle being totaled or your person being injured.

 

Anyway, gig work isn't for everyone. As I've stated, with a regular 9-5 job and a family you may not have the spare hours to pick up a second job. Also, say you pick up a second job to just make some spare cash that you don't need but just want. Aren't you possibly taking away money from someone who actually needs it? Jobs are a finite resource, currency mining is not. I'm not taking anything from anyone, I'm generating income by spending a little money with assets I already own that were sitting idle and can generate income without need for physical labor. Are people who earn investment income also bad people for not working for their money?

[Bombastinator]

8 minutes ago, Bitter said:

Did you read the article?

The only insurance company they stated to cover delivery drivers under a normal personal policy is State Farm, all others do not cover it or require additional insurance to be purchased to cover it.

Additionally TNC insurances provided by Uber, etc, are simply liability policies and may not cover you for your own costs such as your own vehicle repairs, your own injuries, or your own other property losses due to an accident. Uber, etc, have insurance that covers the other party in an accident, like your passenger or another vehicle you strike, and you would claim your own damages and injuries against your own policy with commercial coverage inclusions, but if you don't have that correct kind of coverage you may be left flappin in the breeze to cover your losses be it your vehicle being totaled or your person being injured.

 

Anyway, gig work isn't for everyone. As I've stated, with a regular 9-5 job and a family you may not have the spare hours to pick up a second job. Also, say you pick up a second job to just make some spare cash that you don't need but just want. Aren't you possibly taking away money from someone who actually needs it? Jobs are a finite resource, currency mining is not. I'm not taking anything from anyone, I'm generating income by spending a little money with assets I already own that were sitting idle and can generate income without need for physical labor. Are people who earn investment income also bad people for not working for their money?

?! My understanding is cryptomining is absolutely finite in a number of ways. One is that it uses up finite resources in the form of large amounts of electricity, but the other is that all cryptocoins have an end to them.  Bitcoin is approaching that point or reached it some time ago depending on how one quantifies it, and etherium is heading down that path. They’re arguably even more finite. 

Edited April 21, 2021 by Bombastinator

[Brooksie359]

10 minutes ago, Bitter said:

Did you read the article?

The only insurance company they stated to cover delivery drivers under a normal personal policy is State Farm, all others do not cover it or require additional insurance to be purchased to cover it.

Additionally TNC insurances provided by Uber, etc, are simply liability policies and may not cover you for your own costs such as your own vehicle repairs, your own injuries, or your own other property losses due to an accident. Uber, etc, have insurance that covers the other party in an accident, like your passenger or another vehicle you strike, and you would claim your own damages and injuries against your own policy with commercial coverage inclusions, but if you don't have that correct kind of coverage you may be left flappin in the breeze to cover your losses be it your vehicle being totaled or your person being injured.

 

Anyway, gig work isn't for everyone. As I've stated, with a regular 9-5 job and a family you may not have the spare hours to pick up a second job. Also, say you pick up a second job to just make some spare cash that you don't need but just want. Aren't you possibly taking away money from someone who actually needs it? Jobs are a finite resource, currency mining is not. I'm not taking anything from anyone, I'm generating income by spending a little money with assets I already own that were sitting idle and can generate income without need for physical labor. Are people who earn investment income also bad people for not working for their money?

That is completely the wrong way to think about it. Uber as a service preforms better when there is more drivers meaning more people are likely to use the service again if they have a good experience with it. So no you really aren't taking away jobs you are simply making the service better as a whole. Very rarely is there a shortage of people who need rides at least before the pandemic. And its not like cryptocurrency hasn't caused significant problems with power draw and stressing power grids all because it can make money just by wasting electricity. 

[Bombastinator]

2 minutes ago, Brooksie359 said:

That is completely the wrong way to think about it. Uber as a service preforms better when there is more drivers meaning more people are likely to use the service again if they have a good experience with it. So no you really aren't taking away jobs you are simply making the service better as a whole. Very rarely is there a shortage of people who need rides at least before the pandemic. And its not like cryptocurrency hasn't caused significant problems with power draw and stressing power grids all because it can make money just by wasting electricity. 

A market is a market is a market.  Both systems do this. There are a finite number of people looking for rides/food, though this varies situationally a bit. Likewise cryptocoins have supply and demand issues.  The supply of Bitcoin is low compared to demand, whereas the supply of various junk coins is very high compared to demand. Cryptocoins do to some extent change demand, but the same applies to the other stuff too.

[IkeaGnome]

21 minutes ago, Brooksie359 said:

Uber as a service preforms better

We're going back into subjective opinions here though. Taxis, Uber, Lyft, all don't preform better for me than my truck. They won't go clear out to my house. 

[Brooksie359]

8 hours ago, IkeaGnome said:

We're going back into subjective opinions here though. Taxis, Uber, Lyft, all don't preform better for me than my truck. They won't go clear out to my house. 

What are you even talking about? This isn't subjective as I am comparing Uber with few drivers to Uber with alot of drivers. Its a direct comparison that can be made. If you had to use Uber would you rather wait 10min for a ride or 30 mins? I would say 99% of people would say 10 mins. Obviously I am not saying Uber is the best service in the world or something like that I am simply saying that having more people driving for Uber simply makes the service better so the concept of only people who really need the money should drive Uber doesn't make sense. 

[LogicalDrm]

*** Thread locked ***

 

Seems like all on-topic lines of discussion have been exhausted. There's off-topic tangent going on about ride-services and car insurance, as well as recycled points on energy wasting.