Apparently a couple have shipped to developers.

https://forums.butterflylabs.com/blogs/bfl_jody/131-asics-trickle-out.html

Oh, thank you. Had no idea. I was running 2.11.3. I'll go upgrade.

The README needs updated on the display:


Since there is a DW now as well, which isn't listed. It's for Discarded Work per the pool info screen. What does that actually mean though? I have 3 rejected shares, 11 stale submissions discarded due to new blocks, and 5049 discarded work due to new block. But I don't know what discard work actually is. Shares not submitted similar to stales? Or something else?

With 4716 share submissions (3 rejected) at difficulty 2 (so 9426 accepted / 6 rejected at difficulty 1) is 5049 discarded work due to new blocks high? It seems like a big number.

Thanks.

I fit that boat. I paid $270 for a ~600MH/s 7950 video card. Similar priced BFL device is about 8x faster than that. I'd certainly love to buy 2-3 little 5Gh/s ASIC miners than 2-3 more video cards.

Yes basically. CPPSRB for long rounds, proportional in short rounds. I'll re-think that though. DGM is great mathematically, but I'm not sure about my ability to reasonably implement it and I'd also set the parameter to zero that accounts for operator variance, as I'm working on a pool for fun and not to pay miners out of my pocket like inevitably bankrupt PPS pools.

I do intend to pay all transaction fees to miners, but shares are only credited d/D of the base new block reward (without transaction fees). So the transaction fees are "extra" (fractional) coins to pay towards the backlog, or extra pay in short rounds. I wonder if the average transaction fees are enough to eliminate long-term expected negative buffers, though. I was a math minor in college ~18 years ago, but I don't retain anything useful compared to Meni.

Well, a long round now will be paid off by a short round later. By not saving some short round in the past to pay a future long round, it does mean the next long round will take longer to pay. But for people who mine long term it should even out, since whenever the pool is caught up you get paid more in the short rounds.

Avalon > BFL perhaps, but BFL is in my budget and Avalon isn't even close.

Didn't the "we aren't mining on public pools" statement stem more from people accusing BFL of having the equipment ready to ship but they were using it for their personal mining instead? Of course they should do some testing/demos on actual public pools, those are the pools customers will be connecting to.

Yeah I'd certainly prefer to see "demo" videos that are on a live public server.

It'd be great if dustcoin would provide a little api.

Yay.

According to his post above, you told him to send them to 1LNV3QHD4E34kSpcHXyoYSBUsAqLXzW7W1, which is not the same address in your signature?

Coinlab sounds great.

I don't get why --help says version 0.1.2. That's annoying.

What would solve all of this is a legitimate pre-existing trading firm, likely one of the forex brokers, to start trading BTC.

The ram required for scrypt is what makes it asic-resistant. Time will tell if someone ever eventually builds one. But it isn't as easy as for sha256 coins.

Not much can be done about that, except more people mine so the impact of any one person entering/leaving is lowered. But still you just have to figure, if you mine for 24 hours, is the expected reward better or worse than mining BTC. The calculators out there right now aren't the best for rapidly changing difficulty levels, but great for things where difficulty only rarely changes (ie: bitcoin). I'd like to see graphs on historical profitability levels to make a decision about TRC farming, other than just random point in times when I happen to pull up web page.

Well, two different issues, with plenty of blame to go around.

If you were solo mining with the wrong client, that's on you for mining into a forked chain.
If you were pool mining into a forked chain, that's on the pool.

If you transfer forked coins into an exchange that is on the right chain, they would simply never show up. Good job exchange.

If you transfer forked coins into a forked exchange, then you sell them for USD/BTC and things will get ugly when the exchange eventually upgrades to correct chain. Bad job exchange, but you or the pool are also partially to blame for mining forked coins in the first place.

If you transfer valid coins into an exchange that is on the forked chain, they would simply never show up. This is what happened to me. So no harm done to me unless the exchange never updated to correct chain so they saw they owed me coins. (Well, there's also opportunity cost for price I could have sold at went down.) Once they finally updated and joined correct chain, my coins appeared.

The highest priority is for exchanges to be on correct chain. Way too much fallout for many users and potentially whole market as trades/prices are based on invalid coins.
Next is for pools to be on correct chain, so you don't hurt your (few, many) miners.
Lately is for solo miner to be on correct chain, they are only hurting themselves.

Are you setting powertune to +20? That's needed to turn "off" the power saving feature that will drop your clock speed now and then.

I expressed my concerns to BTC-E about coins not appearing on the web site even after 150+ confirms but support just told me TRC was having issues and to give it more time. I finally wrote back, spelled out the fork situation and the .33 mandatory update, and asked them to reply and confirm what version of terracoind they were running. I told them I was worried what was happening to people buying and selling TRC for BTC if the exchange was on a forked chain.

They never replied to that one, but within like 30 minutes my coins appeared so they must have went and upgraded. I thought I'd read the dev did contact all exchange site owners about the update. So it might be BTC-E's issue for not bothering to upgrade their daemon. Plus you'd assume the exchanges would be on all of the announce mailing lists, since staying up to date is critical for them.