The chain is about 2.4gb.. Uh is there a way to make it smaller? I would need to get a larger drive for my miner.
Maybe try p2pmining.com. He runs a p2pool node built for small miners. |
|
|
|
cgminer not start  phoenix & phoenix2 start OK root@miner1:/etc/bamt# aticonfig --list-adapters returns * 0. 05:00.0 ATI Radeon HD 5800 Series 1. 06:00.0 ATI Radeon HD 5800 Series 2. 0b:00.0 ATI Radeon HD 5900 Series 3. 0a:00.0 ATI Radeon HD 5900 Series top - 17:11:56 up 1 day, 40 min, 8 users, load average: 1.24, 1.50, 1.37 Tasks: 146 total, 1 running, 145 sleeping, 0 stopped, 0 zombie Cpu(s): 0.0%us, 50.2%sy, 0.0%ni, 49.8%id, 0.0%wa, 0.0%hi, 0.0%si, 0.0%st Mem: 2074168k total, 762680k used, 1311488k free, 90012k buffers Swap: 0k total, 0k used, 0k free, 316928k cached PID USER PR NI VIRT RES SHR S %CPU %MEM TIME+ COMMAND 16268 root 20 0 146m 46m 17m S 100 2.3 15:30.52 cgminer after "mine stop" cgminer is zombe process, helps only reboot in other rig with 3х5850 all OK BAMT .5 any ideas? I was having similar problems with cgminer. I gave up and use phoenix for now. |
|
|
|
This is a bug in P2Pool. I had been assuming that this was someone mining to that script just for fun, since previous versions of the P2Pool protocol gave you the freedom to choose your payout script. Since then, the rules have tightened, and this should have been impossible. P2Pool computes payouts using a PPLNS scheme, which entails counting the last share only partially, which requires a special case. The special case was broken - The fault was using Python's dict(script=...) syntax instead of {script: ...}. See http://pastebin.com/0RfRWZ21Fixing this will break compatibility with current versions of P2Pool, so it will take some time. Thanks for pointing this out. So who were those coins supposed to go to? |
|
|
|
I restarted cgminer as well. It seems cgminer won't even connect to p2pool. cgminer is using my backup pool instead. The p2pool log only contains these errors it seems: http://pastebin.com/uCEdHzvuGo back a few pages. This is a known problem with bitcoind 0.6.0rc1. You need to either upgrade to rc2, or add a -paytoscripthashtime option to your config file or command line. "WARNING: Displayed transactions may not be correct! You may need to upgrade, or other nodes may need to upgrade." Do what the error says... Upgrade. |
|
|
|
It's a complete myth you can't easily get weapons in Canada. Right now the Canadian gun market is flooded with brand new Russian and Chinese SKS rifles w/bayonets (which apparently you can't buy anymore in the US, oddly enough) and you can buy them in lots of 10 for only $100 each, or $200-300 for a single one. Simply cut the pin in the magazine that restricts it to 5 rounds (i think it's 5 rounds) or mail order a banana clip and there's your militia rifle.
You mean you don't remember all of those bank robberies committed with bayonets?! |
|
|
|
...for a total of 960 gigabits, just below a terabit. IBM is unveiling the prototype chip today at the Optical Fiber Communication Conference in Los Angeles, calling it "the first parallel optical transceiver to transfer one trillion bits of information per second." wrong! that's like saying usain bolt was the first to run 100m in 9 seconds. Is this one of those base 10 vs base 2 problems? |
|
|
|
Well, I hate to do it, but I just pulled my 2GH/s from P2Pool. Something is very seriously wrong. I have been keeping it up to date, so don't tell me it's me version of p2pool or bitcoin, it's not. Over the last 4 days I have watched my payout per block drop from around 0.4 to 0.15 on the last one, and p2pool.info is showing 950MH/s. I will come back, but after what ever the hell is broken is fixed.
The hashrate on p2pool.info is not from the last 10 minutes. It's based on shares submitted in the last 24 hours. If you've been tinkering and moving things, then it will obviously be lower. Note: Hashrates are very rough estimates based on the number of shares submitted in the past day. They may be off by 10-20% or more due to variance.
How large and bold should we make the word "variance" before people will read it? Maybe try p2pmining https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=66202.0My rig has been running for 14 days without any changes. Not 10 minutes. In that 14 days, both cgminer and my local p2pool constantly report between 1.8 and 2.2 GH/s. In the last 4 days, my hashrate on p2pool.info and payouts have dropped steadily from 2.0GH/s and 0.4BTC/block to what they are now 943 MH/s and 0.16BTC/block. That is not variance, that is something wrong. It doesn't matter if I use 0.5.2 or 0.6.0r2. The ONLY thing that has changed is the version of p2pool being run, now using p2pool_win32_1f87c32. Maybe you somehow got split from the rest of the network? How many peers is p2pool showing? Are you 100% sure you upgraded to RC2? There have been multiple people that were sure, but the installer apparently doesn't always work properly and they were actually running RC1. |
|
|
|
|
Are you sure the winner isn't going to be announced in 4-6 weeks?
|
|
|
|
Well, I hate to do it, but I just pulled my 2GH/s from P2Pool. Something is very seriously wrong. I have been keeping it up to date, so don't tell me it's me version of p2pool or bitcoin, it's not. Over the last 4 days I have watched my payout per block drop from around 0.4 to 0.15 on the last one, and p2pool.info is showing 950MH/s. I will come back, but after what ever the hell is broken is fixed.
The hashrate on p2pool.info is not from the last 10 minutes. It's based on shares submitted in the last 24 hours. If you've been tinkering and moving things, then it will obviously be lower. Note: Hashrates are very rough estimates based on the number of shares submitted in the past day. They may be off by 10-20% or more due to variance.
How large and bold should we make the word "variance" before people will read it? Maybe try p2pmining https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=66202.0 |
|
|
|
any plans to support the x6500 fpgas?
Send me one and I'll do it  (Edit: after the issues with ZTEX not working the same as the others and lacking any documentation on the mining, I'll not guess I can do it without the device ever again) kudos for trying. |
|
|
|
We will bring legitimate, licensed Bitcoin gambling to the US when we know we can do that legally. I have every intention of doing it. Part of the discussion here is how to do that while ensuring the safety of all those involved.
Good luck! |
|
|
|
All of this technical stuff is way over my head, but I'd like to share my ignorant thoughts anyways.
It seems to me that 8 days is not enough time for people to really do their research on the matter. If I were a miner, or the operator of a mining pool, I would want to know EXACTLY what I'm doing before I made any serious changes.
Secondly, even if 8 days is enough time there is something unsettling about this. What you essentially have is a few highly skilled coders in the know. If they can dupe the mining community into something, anything, nefarious it could destroy Bitcoin. Obviously, I'm not saying that they will, but posit this:
Imagine highly skilled feds, or any other criminal organization, infiltrated the upper echelon of Bitcoin coders. They spent long hours making it better and building a reputation for themselves, slowly but surely dominating the entire field of coders. Then, one day, it's time to destroy Bitcoin and they issue some sort of scenario similar to the one we're dealing with now, for the mining community to go to a new blockchain or something, and the mining community takes their word for it, and BAM, Bitcoin is hashed forever.
I understand this is conspiracy theory stuff, but can anyone unsettle my fears about this scenario?
Simple. As long as the process is completely transparent and open there's really nothing anyone could "sneak" past everyone else in order to cause damage. And if you checked the OP, it pretty much doesn't get any more transparent then how they're going about with this fix. I mean you can even read the mailing list how the devs formulated the fix.. Two more questions then: Is 8 days really enough time to vet a potentially nefarious plan? What if a few people DO see something nefarious in it, will they be listened to, or ignored? Also (all?) of the coders are known by real name. If they f*ckup bitcoin, they will be known by everyone as the person who screwed things up. That would be the same as destroying many peoples money, and time invested and many companies and that is not like something you would like to do, ofcourse there is allways the possibility that they are threatened by jail or whatever unless they do this. But in this case its far from very likely. No one is going to jail for destroying someone else's bitcoins until a government considers bitcoin a currency. |
|
|
|
The only 100% secure wallet is a wallet that on a flash drive in a vault.
I think on paper in a vault is better. |
|
|
|
|
At first I wasn't sure why you didn't just work on Namecoin, but now that you have more on your wiki, I am understanding more.
Um. Are you sure having the difficulty being higher than Bitcoins difficulty is a good idea? Not everyone merge mines namecoin with bitcoin. They have different difficulties and there isn't a problem that I'm aware of. DIANNA Blocks are going to be WAY slower than bitcoin blocks. Even if half (which is probably a high guess) of the bitcoin network merge mines DIANNA, won't block time be worse than 20 minutes? Is this what you want? Maybe I'm just missing something.
|
|
|
|
Hard is good.
some say also size matters of course size matters, but you could have the biggest pile of cash on the block, if its not hard, its not as useful. I lold |
|
|
|
Wish I could play, but I'm in the US  |
|
|
|
This is cool, but it isn't a CPU. It's for high speed data transfer
It is a CPU... that's the high speed interconnect... think PCI-E on crack. The article says... the first parallel optical transceiver to transfer one trillion bits of information per second."
not the first cpu to transfer one trillion bits of information per second."
|
|
|
|
You know, you can rate someone even without any rating yourself. You just need to auth.
I did auth. Gribble told me I couldn't rate them because I didn't have a rating gribble: Error: You have to have received some ratings in order to rate other users.
|
|
|
|
|
This is cool, but it isn't a CPU. It's for high speed data transfer
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
