|
I have found that windows (especially that ancient bug prone POS you call XP) doesn't like swapping cards around especially multiple GPUs. You may need to do a clean install of Windows.
I would recommend using a real miner like cgminer. GUIMiner should just die IMHO. It is a crutch not supported by many experienced miners hence hard to help new users when they run into problems. Starting cgminer with the "-n" option will show how many cores are seen by the SDK at the driver level.
If everything else fails try a clean install of Windows, install critical updates, w/ Catalyst 11.11 (IIRC that is a no CPU bug but doesn't have the POS SDK 2.6). Alternatively you can simply install whatever driver and SDK you can separately (although that tends to confuse people).
|
|
|
|
The thing is, difficulty lags behind the hash rate (correct me if I'm wrong). So at the very least it will introduce a jolt where new coins suddenly more expensive to produce, without a corresponding decrease in difficulty. That "while" might be a few days, or it might be several months. If one has a look at historical difficulty charts, to me it looks like the difficulty is still oscillating from last year's bubble.
I am not saying difficulty (hashing power) and price won't oscillate. They certainly will. I also think volatility (both in terms of hashing power and price) are likely to increase as we move through this "event". I am just saying even a change from 10TH/s to 5TH/s doesn't materially change the strength of Bitcoin. |
|
|
|
A higher than average fee (5% or higher) for the pleasure of PROP Mining as well as the 'End of Round' Bonus potential (Block finder gets TX fees) could very well help curb Pool Hopper's appetites  The advantage of hopping is >5% so unless the fee is 20% it isn't going to deter hoppers. TX fees are ~0.1%. It is immaterial to expected return for both continual miners and parasitic miners. Also, for a new Pool OP, this is the ONLY way to guarantee that he/she will not sink themselves into a financial hole and have to run away in a month or 2 like many others have been forced to do when implementing some of Manny's infamous payment methods. Nonsense. PPLNS exposes the operator to no variance risk or racks up no credits owed (like SMPPS). |
|
|
|
Arguing with you is not a good strategy. Good. Then you should stop. At the top of the page click "Logout". |
|
|
|
|
10TH/s isn't significantly harder to destroy than 5TH/s.
Yeah it is 2x but 2x isn't much of a multiple. For example lets say Chase Bank decided to destroy Bitcoin. Granted very implausible but lets say they decided. At ~$1M per TH/s to 51% the network at 10TH/s requires $10M and @ 5TH/s requires $5M. Now yes simplisticly $10M is larger than $5M but any entity willing AND able to devote $5M to the destruction of Bitcoin could just as easily devote $10M. If Chase bank could devote $5M to the destruction of Bitcoin they could just as easily devote $10M. If $5M is worth it then $10M is also likely worth it.
The reality is given the tiny economic value of the network even $1M probably isn't worth it.
Now $200M or $5B that is a different story. Those change the dynamics. $200M is harder to hide from shareholders and harder to justify as an expenditure. $5B puts Bitcoin out of the reach of most non-governmental entities.
In terms of "non-economic" (attacker isn't looking to directly profit from the double spends) 51% attack protection: 10TH/s ~= 5TH/s
Worst case scenario (for hashing power) is reward is cut in half and price doesn't rise at all. If hashrate falls by half the remaining miners will be just as profitable as now. That puts a floor at ~5TH/s which isn't materially different than 5TH/s. It would take a drop of something like 95% or a rise of something like 5000% to materially change the strength of the network.
|
|
|
|
|
No problem.
Yes any digital good is particularly vulnerable to "friendly fraud". All business suffers from friendly fraud but in physical delivery to billing address you at least have a fighting chance (and yes some customers thieves will still try to defraud you). Digital goods are tough on sellers because the sale is impossible to prove (banks don't know or want to know about the blockchain). Bitcoin is even tougher because the sale is irreversible (most digital goods aren't).
I don't have an answer but:
a) friendly fraud isn't friendly. It will be the primary attack vector against your enterprise.
b) limit tx size AND # of txs per device (not just per CC)
c) learn everything you can about friendly fraud on Adroid platform (check developer sites/forums/etc), find out what others are doing about it
c) start small. be willing to cap your number of sales each month (and wait to see the fraud rate)
|
|
|
|
went from 91-92% efficiency running p2pool locally (over 100 shares) to > 100 % (only 31 shares so far but just one dead) running it on a virtual server in a good datacenter Now that is interesting. Can you dig into the stats and see why? Most likely one of the three must have changed. a) lower orphans (maybe because hosted instance has lower latency links to peers)?* b) lower dead rate (maybe because the local instance was unable to keep up introducing delays)? c) higher effective hashrate (server 0 not providing work fast enough errors in cgminer?) * On lower orphans I wonder how much latency to peers matters. Currently IIRC nodes only pick peers based on stability (how long they have seen them) but I wonder if nodes should drop peers in favor or other peers if latency is too high and/or if peer is on an older version. In essence a more heuristic approach to picking peers. http://50.31.2.7:9332/static/http://50.31.2.7:9332/static/graphs.htmlhope this helps someone getting high dead and orphan numbers on a copy of p2pool ran locally [/quote] |
|
|
|
|
So I decided to finally switch my Win7 box from the precompiled version to the python script version so I can incorporate latest changes (and some custom ones).
Is there a guide anywhere for setting up the non exe version of p2pool with Windows 7?
Should all the historical data (charts, stats) be compatible in the switch?
Also latest python version is 3.2.3. Is p2pool not compatible w/ 3.x and that is why recommended version is 2.7.x?
|
|
|
|
Regarding the hacking opportunities you're wrong, pulling off a double spend isn't exactly as easy as tricking the faucet, the ATM will just wait ten seconds in order for the first payment to be properly propagated. I never said it is as easy just that thieves will attempt to attack an automated system for much smaller amounts than valid users will be willing to wait. It may be more beneficial to simply get users to accept the idea that the ATM is "phone ahead" rather than advertise the "instant benefits" only to have user find out that only $10 withdrawal is instant. I am not sure the value of that anyways because 100 $10 withdrawals is $1000.  If a thief can double spend a $1000 withdrawal (finney attack for example) they could do the same for 100 $10 withdrawals. Still I think a phone ahead ATM works fine. It serves a different purpose/market. |
|
|
|
That being said I have to think a 0-confirm ATM is likely a bankrupt ATM.
Double spend = free money (literally).
Maybe it could be programmed to allow to have only X coins pending confirmation, it would greatly limit the incentive to attempt double-spends.Or maybe you could send funds to the ATM while not being right in front of it, in advance, once the transaction is confirmed you get a receipt that is redeemable for cash at the ATM. The first one is a non-starter. If the limit is too low the ATM is useless to any legit customer and yes some crooks will still attempt to steal a token amount of coins (ask Gavin the amount of fraud the bitcoin faucet gets and that is 0.01 max payout). If the limit is too high all crooks will just steal that amount. The second is a little more interesting and something I thought of yesterday when walking by a Rebox machine. "Normal" ATM are mainly about impulse decisions ("oh crap I need $50") so having a call ahead normal ATM is kinda dubious. A Bitcoin ATM is to provide planned fast exchanging of currency. Nobody has a problem with reserving a movie online w/ RedBox. A BTC ATM could operate in a similar manner. You install an app on your smartphone (could also access it from any web browser). The app generates a one time deposit address and current exchange rate. You transfer the coins to that address via whatever client/wallet you like and the app provides you a "withdraw PIN" and block counter. To use the ATM you just punch in your one time withdraw code (or have your phone send it via NFC or QR code). Obviously other options are also available even optional magnetic cards/accounts for frequent users. Now if you decided not to "pay ahead" you could at the ATM could replicate the same process except you will need to wait 6 confirmations. Maybe have a 3rd party provide "double spend insurance" and allow the customer to cut that down to 2 confirmations for a higher convenience fee. Obviously cash-> BTC tx would always be instantaneous. Also as someone mentioned a smart ATM would adjust its exchange rates to reduce or eliminate the number of times it needs to be refilled by influencing customer behavior (maybe even allow users to sign up to learn when ATM has a good "deal"). The real problem w/ BTC ATM is density. Normal ATM work because within 10 miles there are thousands of users with compatible cards. I doubt there are many locations in the world where BTC account holder density is > 100 in 10 miles radius. |
|
|
|
As for the friendly fraud - are you refering to a situation when the platform provider refunds the user after you've sent the coins and makes you pay for it? In Android you never get a refund for in-app purchase from Google. Such refund must be handled by developer himself - it's up to the developer to decide wheter it's fradulent or not. Would that help? Lolz you don't really believe that do you. Customer disputes the charge and the bank TAKES the money. Your belief that you have complete control over which refunds occur is ... naive. I am not saying "don't do this" hell we need more options for buying BTC but you need to be ready to fight the fraud which inevitably will come. |
|
|
|
In any case, those bugs don't interfere with using cgminer for testing other software, yet.
CPU support for cgminer is deprecated. There should be no future bug fixes or enhancements. Eventually the entire code base should be removed. As far as needing a test platform wouldn't just using I don't know ... any GPU be a better test platform? It would be immune to any CPU code bugs and would potentially detect any GPU code bugs. Given the near universal nature of GPU and their low cost (especially used low end cards) seems silly to test using a code base that 99.9% of your users aren't using. Then again I guess if it works for you it works for you and that is all that matters. |
|
|
|
 Why is the smiley in the back look so mad you ask? Well he is 10:1 short on Bitcoinica. Don't be the smiley in the back. |
|
|
|
I would prefer that you NEVER go back to CPU mining being enabled. Any individual cannot make a profit on CPU mining alone unless they are not paying for electricity. Even then, the profit for any one person would be minimal. The only way it makes logical sense to use CPU mining is if you have access to hundreds or thousands of CPUs that you don't pay power for, and don't care if they burn up. This whole thing screams of someone asking for it back for the sole purpose of operating a botnet, or something similar.
This, this, and this. Keep cgminer on task. GPU & FPGA mining (plus auto-gpu, overclocking, undervolting, pool management, stale detection, etc) is complex enough. Legit CPU mining is dead and buried. Please never resurrect it. Hopefully in a year or so it is removed even from the source code. |
|
|
|
My I0coin deamon dies typically once a week, anyone else facing the same problem?
I'm having a similar problem on Windows 7. The I0coin daemon hasn't downloaded any new blocks for several weeks. I've reloaded it twice. I had a similar problem with bitcoin until the -qt client came out. Anyone know when a -qt version of the I0Coin client will be released? Approximately the eleventy of never. |
|
|
|
how does one count nodes if the default value in latest client update 0.6 is -irc=0 ?
Connect to every single node you can and count em. Obviously the node count is just an estimate. |
|
|
|
EROEI is the most fundamental metric. It is a foundation for almost everything. To an economist, perhaps. To non-psychopaths, it's a metric that is useful within a specific context. It only takes a single match to burn down a forest. The EROEI on that would be in the tens of millions. Sound like a good investment to you? Very good if the goal would be to burn down a forrest. "Energy return on investment (EROI), is the ratio of the amount of usable energy acquired from a particular energy resource to the amount of energy expended to obtain that energy resource" If you intend wasn't the destruction of a forest the energy released wouldn't be useful thus the EROI would be 0%. Somewhat iron given your (bad) example is that slash and burn WAS (and still is in some parts of the world) an effective way to convert forest to farmland. One of the reasons is that because as you point out it has a very high EROI. |
|
|
|
|
There are no issues of legality. Selling Bitcoins shouldn't be seen much different than selling game credits or Facebook tokens.
The two major issues are:
a) fraud. now with direct billing "black fraud" (stolen account) is likely going to be very low but "friendly fraud" (account owner buying product and then lying to reverse charges) is still going to be a massive problem.
b) markup. My understanding is that developer is paid 70% of purchase price. Right? That makes your prices less attractive to legit buyers and increases the % of scammers.
BTC:USD ~$5. You would need to sell it for $7.15 for cover the 30% vig. That isn't very attractive but might be interesting in small amounts. However that is 0% fraud, 0% profit. Lets say you want a 10% profit margin and think you can hold fraud at 5% (if it is more than that carriers are going to block you). You selling price is now ~$8.50.
Pretty high price to make only 10% and honestly <5% fraud is going to be tough to pull off.
|
|
|
|
Price Stability is a myth. it will never happen. as long as the Fed has its fingers on the printing press this is what we get = Volatility.
Why would printing lead to volatity. Isn't volatility the unexpected. If you know with absolute certainty the fed will keep printing you (and other traders, models, and bots) will anticipate that and build it into expectations. Now if the FED stopped printing .... well I will just stop right there that would be like saying if the earth stopped turning. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
