|
just for a change one of these shitty multipools could do the community a favour and mine the next 20 blocks. really.
won't happen, yeah, I know.
|
|
|
|
another p2pool node is waiting for your hash... pawn.coinpools.de:7061... and it really could use some more power  |
|
|
|
whoever is mining at my p2pool node exe.coinpools.de:9173with payout address Eb9p3Wi6C2p2b672tKM76cYqKxEc1BG4RT: Please re-configure your miner. 70% dead shares are a waste of hashpower and just ruin my node statistics  |
|
|
|
another p2pool node up & runningpdr.coinpools.de:6834Payment is shown 100x less atm, but you get paid correctly in your wallet. We're still investigating
|
|
|
|
Another h2o p2pool node - GermanyPoint your miners to http://h2o.coinpools.de:6832/static/ Big thanks @paniczklos for the quick work! |
|
|
|
alert.cpp:258:1: fatal error: opening dependency file obj/alert.d: No such file or directory
compilation terminated.
You probably need to create the obj target dir. That simple |
|
|
|
make -f makefile.unix
/bin/sh: 1: ./build_detect_platform: Permission denied
chmode a+x src/leveldb/build_detect_platform
... seems devs are on windows |
|
|
|
net.cpp:18:22: fatal error: miniwget.h: No such file or directory
#include <miniwget.h>
installing miniupnpc didn't help ;/ just set in your makefile.unix. It compiles for me, then... |
|
|
|
I would disagree and my argument would be that this is a matter of terminology and definitions. It might look like a coin, it might work as a coin, but unless it can be used as a coin, I would not call it a coin. For example, we can guarantee, that people can not get any coins from this fast blockchain to their wallets. We can set miner revenue to 0, fees to 0 (but not zero the actual BTC fees). Then really if everyone has no coins, can you call it a coin? Maybe by "no coin, still coin", but from a practical point of view, I would not call it coin, just a technical tool to achieve something.
What comes to mind is something like the share chain which p2pool uses to generate shares for internal payment distribution and blocks for the bitcoin blockchain at the same time. Probably some mechanism like that could be used. |
|
|
|
|
I just stumbled over this post while waiting for about 40 minutes now to get my $50 bitcoin transfer confirmed (just three confirmations needed, blockchain, go on, please, please...)
And this is not the first time I'm waiting. For me this clearly tells, that bitcoin isn't "ready for primetime" yet. It works well as a proof of concept, and beyond that. But imagine normal people doing normal daily payments with bitcoin. It's too slow, and besides that the whole blockchain mechanism certainly couldn't handle the amount of transactions if John Doe starts using bitcoin.
So the idea of having a merged second, considerably faster blockchain for small transactions seems quite useful to me. Perhaps you could even do multiple second chains somehow, to be able to handle enough transactions when usage keeps increasing.
And contrary to the proposed "just use another (Lite|Vert|Doge|Fast|whatever) coin" solution this mechanism should be included in the bitcoin wallet and be fully transparent to users. No mainstreet merchant will implement payment for 10 different coins or so. It should be just a on-click-bitcoin-payment and thats it.
Honestly, if you really tell people to use another coin, they will do exactly that in the long run. And there is no reason, why people should use bitcoin then at all. The "storage of wealth" argument is plainly wrong, as almost all other coins can be used for that, too. So people will store their assets in exactly the same coin they will use for daily payment. If on some day in the future this isn't bitcoin, it will get its place in history books as a nice proof of concept and will have no value any more.
Like the OP, I really think that bitcoin has a problem here. But as far as I can tell the big bitcoin buddys aren't interested in a solution (nor even in acknowleding the problem), though. We'll see, how this influences bitcoins future.
Just my 2 cent.
|
|
|
|
hey guys, got 1 rig acting up. "mine start" on my bamt-n rig does not get mining going, no sessions to join when using screen -r. What should i look at, only SSH access to this rig.
start your miner program manually with option -T, e.g. /opt/miners/vertminer/vertminer -c /etc/bamt/vertminer.conf -T that should give you console output, probably some errormessages. |
|
|
|
|
*woot* *woot* The five-minute-online-window-of-the-day just appeared.
I managed to withdraw all my coins. So as far as I'm concerned I wouldn't mind this site going to hell now. I don't think I will ever do business with them again, just too unreliable. Even if they don't have any bad faith probably.
edit: big thanks @Snotty for pointing out it's coming alive
|
|
|
|
Damn 2 weeks.. they fooled us for 2 weeks. Poloniex fix problem and return to work in 1 day, yes we lost 12% btc but it working in 1! day after being hacked. So 2 weeks is just a joke...
Yes, probably time to do something. Domain Name : coinmarket.io
Domain Status : Live
First Registered : 2014-01-09
Domain Owner
User ID : NIC-293132
Contact Name : Anette Enger
Organization Name : Coinmarket
Street : PO Box 1159 Sentrum
City : Oslo
State :
Postal Code : 0152
Country: NO Anybody here living in Norway and able to verify if this person/address data is valid at all? |
|
|
|
|
could you *** please stop listing VTC as scrypt. Its scrypt-N which
a) is half hashrate
b) needs a special miner
Thanks.
|
|
|
|
|
It would be very easy for Gox to prove that they are solvent. Just put a reasonable amount of coins in some addresses and sign a message with the corresponding keys.
The fact alone that they aren't doing so at this stage of the drama tells everything.
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
