I know you from the XPY thread and I'm not impressed! Still, if something can be done to wake Blasko up to what's missing (a mineable coin), then that's good. The pro PR is great, but the coin is stuck! Outside of lies and wishful thinking, how do we move forward?
Yes, I lost 70% on my XPY "gamble" cause I was convinced a guy (Garza) with his real ID out there and millions of dollars would not be so stupid to allow his coin to fail and risk going to prison. What can I say, I was wrong once. I'm not wrong about UNB, I'm just trying to get some kind of reaction out of Blasko to help speed things along. I'll be surprised if you do. He's made a big noise about UNB code never changing or being forked and yet it's over 90 days since the last difficulty adjustment and it's barely a quarter of the way to the next one, compared to the target of 7 days between difficulty adjustments, the only practical fix is a code change and he's caught between the two. I'm guessing at where the chain is at since both explorers are down. His earlier remarks indicate Blasko is wholey against code changes (several of us have recommended such) and so expectation is UNB is pretty much stuck for months into the future! The PR is great, but the coin is dead in the water! |
|
|
|
So what exactly separates you from "muggles"? For that matter, how do you define a "muggle" (would JK Rowlings recognize your definition)? Exactly what are you repeatedly saying?
PS. Has Jonah Dorman (ex-GAW?) pretty much taken over this thread (miaviator)? It's appearing that way! Would surely explain why he recently had himself deleted from Paycoin-Talk, he now has an alternative avenue for expression! Gotta despise those "muggles"! Fits right in with your abundant thread trash talk!
PPS. I'm still roughly 100 pages behind in catching up, if I've missed something, I accept my error!
You do realize that "muggles" in this context originated from Garza's vocabulary, right?http://paycoin.atangledweb.info/claims/josh-garza-refers-customers-poor-people-mugglesWanna ninja-edit your rant perhaps? I got that impression directly from Jonah, though it's clear Jonah himself absolutely subscribes to it! My response is why is this community adopting HJG's philosophy of viewpoint/expression? For that matter, how is it that Jonah is the appropriate point man in this? What I'm seeing is a man with a serious axe-to-grind (and/or perhaps a fear-of-prosecution?) and a thread happy to provide a venue! Is that what this thread is about? PS. My personal understanding is the thread is ultimately about HJG -- hopefully, I'm at least close! PPS. There's no such thing as "muggles" outside of literature, otherwise, that's exactly what each and every one of us is -- none excluded! I remember you now. You've been here on this subject before. Still not grasping irony/sarcasm/other humorous and fictional contexts. If you want to police a thread you might want to consider finding a different one, this is unlikely to work here. See, miaviator might be a colossal troll but I'll take his trolling over your stick-up-the-ass-is-hurting-the-brain attitude any day. There's no irony/humor in this, it's pure malice/aberrance. Yes, he shows all signs of being the consummate troll, is that what this thread ultimately stands for? Or is there an intent for something better? What is the difference between you and him? |
|
|
|
Jim Blasko,
I promised a good friend [who is surely gonna ask me to smack myself] that I would lay off UNB, but I gotta say this.
How can a legit coin like UNB with one of the most legit devs have a blockchain which has been frozen for weeks now!? Very high difficulty - which is great yet a blockchain that hasn't moved in weeks. How is that even possible? I checked and it's not Cryptsy - the UNB wallet is NOT under maintenance which means it's you guys.
How can anyone move their UNB coins around and how is this even plausible given the dev team and backing of UNB?
This massive selloff and consolidation will never end if issues like this aren't fixed promptly.
Finally, are you guys making a good-faith effort to get listed on Shapeshift.io? I know people (lol), I'm special, Voorhees loves me so much so I hope you guys are trying to get added to his new Shapeshift app, that alone will take the UNB price up 10 fold and add huge liquidity.
Thanks for being an active and honest, straightforward dev.
I know you from the XPY thread and I'm not impressed! Still, if something can be done to wake Blasko up to what's missing (a mineable coin), then that's good. The pro PR is great, but the coin is stuck! Outside of lies and wishful thinking, how do we move forward? |
|
|
|
difficulty with difficulty, i guess someone parked it out pretty high and no coins can be sent since the block chain is not moving,
if coin warz is accurate at 100 terra hash a block will be solved in just over 12 days
if 500 terra hash block in about 60 hours
obviously my figures are subject to luck but 500 ths should probably fix it up pretty fast
Jeez! When did you see 100TH? I've been following CoinWarz awhile and that's news to me! I'd be happy to mine UNB (did earlier for awhile), but not at the current difficulty (electricity isn't cheap)! You sound starry-eyed, but we're looking at months of no relief, good luck dude! |
|
|
|
So what exactly separates you from "muggles"? For that matter, how do you define a "muggle" (would JK Rowlings recognize your definition)? Exactly what are you repeatedly saying?
PS. Has Jonah Dorman (ex-GAW?) pretty much taken over this thread (miaviator)? It's appearing that way! Would surely explain why he recently had himself deleted from Paycoin-Talk, he now has an alternative avenue for expression! Gotta despise those "muggles"! Fits right in with your abundant thread trash talk!
PPS. I'm still roughly 100 pages behind in catching up, if I've missed something, I accept my error!
You do realize that "muggles" in this context originated from Garza's vocabulary, right?http://paycoin.atangledweb.info/claims/josh-garza-refers-customers-poor-people-mugglesWanna ninja-edit your rant perhaps? I got that impression directly from Jonah, though it's clear Jonah himself absolutely subscribes to it! My response is why is this community adopting HJG's philosophy of viewpoint/expression? For that matter, how is it that Jonah is the appropriate point man in this? What I'm seeing is a man with a serious axe-to-grind (and/or perhaps a fear-of-prosecution?) and a thread happy to provide a venue! Is that what this thread is about? PS. My personal understanding is the thread is ultimately about HJG -- hopefully, I'm at least close! PPS. There's no such thing as "muggles" outside of literature, otherwise, that's exactly what each and every one of us is -- none excluded! |
|
|
|
Josh Garza says BTC.com will "not involve" Paycoin.
Muggles in tears because not even GAWCEO supports their worthless shitcoin anymore. that's great. muggles won't follow him and bitcoiners are smart enough to not touch anything remotely related to Garza with a ten foot pole. So what exactly separates you from "muggles"? For that matter, how do you define a "muggle" (would JK Rowling recognize your definition)? Exactly what are you repeatedly saying? PS. Has Jonah Dorman (ex-GAW?) pretty much taken over this thread (miaviator)? It's appearing that way! Would surely explain why he recently had himself deleted from Paycoin-Talk, he has an alternative avenue for expression! Gotta despise those "muggles"! Fits right in with your abundant thread trash talk! PPS. I'm still roughly 100 pages behind, if I've missed something worthwhile, I accept my error! Catching up continues! |
|
|
|
|
@Bitmain
Is there any information as to what adhesive heat sinks would be appropriate to install on the S5 outer blades to help reduce temperature? It's getting to Summer and if you can share an effective modification, that would be great. I yesterday further under-clocked my six already under-clocked S5s from 312MHz to 300MHz so as to stay under 65C.
Thanks -- Trevor
|
|
|
|
Thanks for the follow up! Took near an hour to download the file, but then made a new backup directory (now at "9 weeks behind"), deleted the blockchain associated files, dropped in the bootstrap, and fired off the QT again. Appears to be importing the weeks at a two to three minute clip, a huge improvement. Will update when it's done.
I'm glad to hear it. Wallet is up and running and reports a total of .000109 of dust thanks to faucets -- a start anyway!  I see a lot of people complain that "bootstrap.dat doesn't make any difference". I think they must all be doing it wrong somehow, but they rarely stick around long enough for me to help them.
FWIW -- I first tried dropping in the bootstrap w/o deleting the existing blockchain files (was pretty sure I needed to having used a bootstrap once before, but deletion wasn't apparent in the instructions), but it didn't import, just continued normally. So I stopped, deleted the files, restarted, and then it announced it was importing blocks. That may have been what happened with others. What originally confused me was on page one where the addnodes are listed, I didn't see mention of them being for the .conf file, though seemed to me they had to be and first guessed "clamcoin.conf" (later discovered it should be "clam.conf"), however, just above that was a bootstrap reference, but it struck me as a source for the addnode list (one appearing subsidiary to the other in the page format with no explicit ID), and so I guessed the Clamcoin bootstrap format was the same as the .conf -- and went with the .conf file I'd just made and misnamed. I think a little more clarity in the instructions would help a lot with this. |
|
|
|
|
Thanks for the follow up! Took near an hour to download the file, but then made a new backup directory (now at "9 weeks behind"), deleted the blockchain associated files, dropped in the bootstrap, and fired off the QT again. Appears to be importing the weeks at a two to three minute clip, a huge improvement. Will update when it's done.
|
|
|
|
Trevor,
Downloading the bootstrap.dat file and putting that in your clam directory (shutdown clams or clam-qt first). Then restart and it will help speed up the initial sync...
After it is synced it will be renamed to bootstrap.dat.old and you can delete it...
Thanks, yeah, I ended up renaming my "clam.conf" to "bootstrap.dat", moving it to my backed-up "13 weeks behind" set of Clam files (under ../roaming/), and starting the QT again. It's now taking forever at 10 weeks behind, guess those last fifteen weeks or so must be real killers  ! I see references to a Clams Multipool and it supposedly supports mining with at least Scrypt and X11 (per August 2014). Can't find this or any other Clam mining pool. Where are they?
If you trust your normal pool and do bulk payouts, you could quite easily use shapeshift.io to quickly convert your mining proceeds to CLAM and get an initial stake. Alternatively, you are stuck dong the deposit, purchase, withdraw dance. The CLAM multipool was discontinued due to little interest. There has been talk of re-starting it - but, there didn't seem to be a lot of interest. Unfortunately, to run a proper multipool, it requires a great deal of resources as every network mined must have a client running and sync'd. Hope that helps OK, thanks for the confirmation! I like the convenience of a SHA-256 accepting multipool rather than having to go through an exchange, currently using a couple for LTC and DASH. Will have to look at shapeshift.io, unfamiliar with it. Thanks again! |
|
|
|
Hi! Just learning about Clams and my Win wallet is still synching. I see that if you had a BTC/LTC/DOGE wallet May 12 2014, you should be able to obtain free coins. I just started with crypto-coins July 2014 (BTC), so that doesn't apply to me. I've a couple questions: 1) Can I still get a free startup stake of coins somehow? 2) Is there a multipool I can apply SHA-256 to and be paid out in Clams? Thanks! BTW -- My wallet reports having 36 active connections, and yet sync has been sitting at 13 weeks behind for several hours now, is that normal? (Just restarted using the list of nodes on page one as a "clam.conf" file, hope I don't get hung at 13 weeks behind again.) PS. Just registered with the faucet! =============================LATER================================ Happily, Wallet sync is now advancing again, however, it's clear the original giveaway doesn't apply to me, far too late -- no free Clams. I see references to a Clams Multipool and it supposedly support mining with at least Scrypt and X11 (per August 2014). Can't find this or any other Clam mining pool. Where are they? |
|
|
|
Has anyone used NiceHashe's custom firmware for the S5s? I know it runs a newer version of cgminer that the latest Bitmain one. Wonder if there are any advantages/GUI updates with the nicehash one.
Also what they typical HW error rate or these? Im getting .1% on one and .003% on the other. Even though they are both really low one still produces almost a 1000x extra hardware errors.
I run the Nicehash FW with Westhash for both my S3 and S5 and the result is clearly superior -- I presume it's due to extranonce support! Whats your reject rate? Im constantly getting around 5% for both my S5s, and im running the Bitmain 4.8 CGminer version that has extranonce support. (just at NiceHash BTW rejects on other pools is < 1%). There seems to be a general assumption that extranonce is supported by the latest CGminer. Is it so difficult to understand that there's no support for that assumption? The CGminer version is either designed to accept that spec or it isn't! If you plan on targeting your miners at either Nice or WestHash, then I suggest you install a version of CGminer that supports their specified (no secret) communication protocol. Surely, that shouldn't be rocket science! Wake up people, smell the roses! |
|
|
|
|
Got a modest position in OScoin, but is there justification? I see no dev, how about support? Should I just say good-bye? Opinions? FFC still seems somewhat alive, can the same be said for OScoin? Or are they both dead?
|
|
|
|
Has anyone used NiceHashe's custom firmware for the S5s? I know it runs a newer version of cgminer that the latest Bitmain one. Wonder if there are any advantages/GUI updates with the nicehash one.
Also what they typical HW error rate or these? Im getting .1% on one and .003% on the other. Even though they are both really low one still produces almost a 1000x extra hardware errors.
I run the Nicehash FW with Westhash for both my S3 and S5 and the result is clearly superior -- I presume it's due to extranonce support! |
|
|
|
None of the pools identify, so they are all tagged " unknown." How does one enable the pool to get identified? mmpool is probably 30% to 40% of Uno's hash right now, if not more.
It varies quite a bit due to rental hash rate on the pool, but currently there are 20 immature blocks out of 100 (when they change to generated). This would put the hash rate at 20% or so for mmpool. I really like MMpool (thanks for the suggestion @FallingKnife). If I were able to connect more than four Antminer S5, I would. As it is, S3 work fine, but as always, electricity cost and heat are a real damper (Summer)  ! |
|
|
|
@MMpoolTime for an update:
D=500 worked very well for 2 and 3 S5.
D=750 worked very well for 2 and 3 S5.
D=1000 worked very well for 2, 3, and 4 S5.
Tried D=1250 and D=1500 for 5 S5, but it was back to reject problems.
This is a huge improvement over what I saw before. Think we can get to 5 or even 6 S5?
Thanks for the update! The medium term goal for mmpool is to move to automatic calculation of difficulty rather than having it manually set. This would make things a lot easier for miners that rent hash or regularly adjust the equipment that they mine with, Hi, I've been further testing with 5 S5 and difficulties of 2000, 2500, 3000, 3500, and 4000. All result in excess rejects. This is much like my earlier tries when I could only get one S5 to work properly regardless of the difficulty setting I chose. My very first try was with four S5 at "d=1024" and the results were dismal -- now, that very same configuration works perfectly. Looks to me like you changed something which is why what previously didn't work now does. I've now hit the wall again -- the new barrier being more than four S5, whereas before it was more than one. I'm not seeing any sign of this being a difficulty issue, something else is going on. If varidiff would fix this, why didn't 1500 or 2000 or 2500 or 3000 or 3500 or 4000? PS. Couldn't get difficulties from 2000 through 4000 to work with just four S5 either! I really think something else is going on with this! Why would the server have tolerance problems with Antminer S5s?
|
|
|
|
@MMpoolTime for an update: D=500 worked very well for 2 and 3 S5. D=750 worked very well for 2 and 3 S5. D=1000 worked very well for 2, 3, and 4 S5. Tried D=1250 and D=1500 for 5 S5, but it was back to reject problems. This is a huge improvement over what I saw before. Think we can get to 5 or even 6 S5? @MMpool
Is there any prospect for my being able to connect more than one Antminer S5 to your pool? I've had to shut down four of the six S3 (getting too warm in here) and would really like to redirect another three S5. What is necessary in order to accomplish this? If you need to observe server behavior with them, then let's arrange for that!
Thanks -- Trevor
PS. After over two days of uninterrupted mining on MMpool, the single S5 reports an A/R ratio of 612, so it's not an inherent miner problem. Why do the A/R ratios collapse with more than one S5 connected to your pool? Would really like to solve this problem! How about you?
I don't know why this problem is happening for you and yes, I would like to work out what the issue is. Here's some things to look at or try: 1) Are you using ipv4 or ipv6? 2) what is the exact command line you are using for the miner? 3) Are all the miners mining under the same account? 4) if (3) is true, are the set to the difficulty level for the combined value of all the miners, or just for each individual miner output. 5) if they are set to the difficulty level of the individual miners, try setting the difficulty level for all the miners such that it is right for the combined hash total of all the miners. ie. if the total hash rate for all miners is 10 Th/s then set the difficulty for all the miners to "d=2500". Hi, sorry I missed your post, would love to work with you on this. 1) I'm using ipv4 for everything still. 2) The S3 and S5 miners include CGminer internal to them (have their own controllers), so all I do is enter configuration parameters into the provided fields via a PC browser. The current configuration parameters are identical for both types of miner except for the difficulty parameter: S3: url: stratum+tcp://mmpool.org:3333 usr:<pool user ID> psw: d=256 S5: url: stratum+tcp://mmpool.org:3333 usr: <pool user ID> psw: d=512 3) All miners (S3 and S5) are under the same account. 4) Difficulty value is set for the individual miner. (2,4,6 S3; 1-4 S5) S3s don't exhibit this problem, only the S5s. 5) OK, so if I shut down the last two S3, then two S5 should be ~2TH which I gather would be "d=500". I can tell you that my previous tries with two S5 and "d=512" didn't work, but I'll try 500. EDIT: Test is underway with two S5 and "d=500". Thanks again!
|
|
|
|
@MMpool@MMpool
Is there any prospect for my being able to connect more than one Antminer S5 to your pool? I've had to shut down four of the six S3 (getting too warm in here) and would really like to redirect another three S5. What is necessary in order to accomplish this? If you need to observe server behavior with them, then let's arrange for that!
Thanks -- Trevor
PS. After over two days of uninterrupted mining on MMpool, the single S5 reports an A/R ratio of 612, so it's not an inherent miner problem. Why do the A/R ratios collapse with more than one S5 connected to your pool? Would really like to solve this problem! How about you?
I don't know why this problem is happening for you and yes, I would like to work out what the issue is. Here's some things to look at or try: 1) Are you using ipv4 or ipv6? 2) what is the exact command line you are using for the miner? 3) Are all the miners mining under the same account? 4) if (3) is true, are the set to the difficulty level for the combined value of all the miners, or just for each individual miner output. 5) if they are set to the difficulty level of the individual miners, try setting the difficulty level for all the miners such that it is right for the combined hash total of all the miners. ie. if the total hash rate for all miners is 10 Th/s then set the difficulty for all the miners to "d=2500". Hi, sorry I missed your post, would love to work with you on this. 1) I'm using ipv4 for everything still. 2) The S3 and S5 miners include CGminer internal to them (have their own controllers), so all I do is enter configuration parameters into the provided fields via a PC browser. The current configuration parameters are identical for both types of miner except for the difficulty parameter: S3: url: stratum+tcp://mmpool.org:3333 usr:<pool user ID> psw: d=256 S5: url: stratum+tcp://mmpool.org:3333 usr: <pool user ID> psw: d=512 3) All miners (S3 and S5) are under the same account. 4) Difficulty value is set for the individual miner. (2,4,6 S3; 1-4 S5) S3s don't exhibit this problem, only the S5s. 5) OK, so if I shut down the last two S3, then two S5 should be ~2TH which I gather would be "d=500". I can tell you that my previous tries with two S5 and "d=512" didn't work, but I'll try 500. EDIT: Test is underway with two S5 and "d=500". Thanks again! Have tested with two S5 with "d=500" and am continuing on. Three S5 appear a real possibility -- did you change something? Although four fell on its face, a lesser number seems to be working! Am currently running three S5 with "d=750". Expect to look again tomorrow! Thanks for your assistance! Way better than just one S5! |
|
|
|
@MMpool@MMpool
Is there any prospect for my being able to connect more than one Antminer S5 to your pool? I've had to shut down four of the six S3 (getting too warm in here) and would really like to redirect another three S5. What is necessary in order to accomplish this? If you need to observe server behavior with them, then let's arrange for that!
Thanks -- Trevor
PS. After over two days of uninterrupted mining on MMpool, the single S5 reports an A/R ratio of 612, so it's not an inherent miner problem. Why do the A/R ratios collapse with more than one S5 connected to your pool? Would really like to solve this problem! How about you?
I don't know why this problem is happening for you and yes, I would like to work out what the issue is. Here's some things to look at or try: 1) Are you using ipv4 or ipv6? 2) what is the exact command line you are using for the miner? 3) Are all the miners mining under the same account? 4) if (3) is true, are the set to the difficulty level for the combined value of all the miners, or just for each individual miner output. 5) if they are set to the difficulty level of the individual miners, try setting the difficulty level for all the miners such that it is right for the combined hash total of all the miners. ie. if the total hash rate for all miners is 10 Th/s then set the difficulty for all the miners to "d=2500". Hi, sorry I missed your post, would love to work with you on this. 1) I'm using ipv4 for everything still. 2) The S3 and S5 miners include CGminer internal to them (have their own controllers), so all I do is enter configuration parameters into the provided fields via a PC browser. The current configuration parameters are identical for both types of miner except for the difficulty parameter: S3: url: stratum+tcp://mmpool.org:3333 usr:<pool user ID> psw: d=256 S5: url: stratum+tcp://mmpool.org:3333 usr: <pool user ID> psw: d=512 3) All miners (S3 and S5) are under the same account. 4) Difficulty value is set for the individual miner. (2,4,6 S3; 1-4 S5) S3s don't exhibit this problem, only the S5s. 5) OK, so if I shut down the last two S3, then two S5 should be ~2TH which I gather would be "d=500". I can tell you that my previous tries with two S5 and "d=512" didn't work, but I'll try 500. EDIT: Test is underway with two S5 and "d=500". Thanks again!
|
|
|
|
@MMpoolIs there any prospect for my being able to connect more than one Antminer S5 to your pool? I've had to shut down four of the six S3 (getting too warm in here) and would really like to redirect another three S5. What is necessary in order to accomplish this? If you need to observe server behavior with them, then let's arrange for that! Thanks -- Trevor @MMpoolThought I'd try increasing the Antminer S5 count again, using this configuration: stratum+tcp://mmpool.org:3333 <pool user ID> d=512 Just one was running fine, so added a second. Rejects increased some over a half hour period. Added a third and within ten minutes the A/R ratio on the new arrival was 1.8 which is very poor (at about 30min it was 1.4). Can anything be done to fix this? PS. Am now dropping back to just two S5 again, restarted both at the same time. After ~15 minutes their respective A/R ratios are 11.1 and 1.8, I obviously have to drop back to one S5 again. PPS. I've noticed the rejects don't show up singly, but in bursts. Looks like a timing problem to me. PPPS. Thought I'd list the A/R ratios for the six Antminer S3: 519, 535, 586, 626, 421, 266 (am rebooting this last one) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Been over an hour now since returning the second two S5 to Eligius. Vari-diff has set 512 for both and their A/R ratios are: 551 and 1389 -- it's not a miner hardware problem. I was testing with a cube last night (Just solo mining) and got lots of invalids until I upgraded mining proxy. I will give it a whirl on mmpool to see if I notice network issues if you are stil having problems. My S3 have no reject issues w/ MMpool, it's just the S5s. More than one S5 result in high rejects as per my posting. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
