Thanks.


GLBSE has stated they would be sending out asset lists and I am doing everything in my power to get the list. My attorneys are documenting every step taken to try and recover the asset list.


As I have said before, this is part of what the attorneys are researching. If GLBSE does not follow through with the asset list, my counsel will determine the next course of action.


I'm sorry you feel this way. As I said above, I am doing everything possible to recover this information.


I have a plan. Step 1 is to try and recover the asset holder list. Step 2 depends on what happens with Step 1.

I am trying to do the best I can with the hand I've been dealt.

I was not aware of this until just now. I have no control over mpex's "etf" of Gigamining.

I moved over 77Gh/s to port 9000. Hope this helps test things out.

Is there any way to keep using X-Mining-Hashrate after the initial go? This would allow larger miners to have 1 worker but not suffer from higher share variance for the entire farm.

Yay. Hopefully I can help test this in a couple days.


Can you please explain how you decide what diff to server with X-Mining-Hashrate?


Is this per worker or per user?

Done.

Thanks abeaulieu. That was almost completely above my pay grade.

* gigavps watches the plane fly over his head... 

To all:

Speculation around what is going to happen in the future is futile until I have received the list of asset holders from GLBSE.

If we could, I would like to request that we try to keep speculation to a minimum until my counsel has had time to research all of the legal issues and I have the list of asset holders in hand.

Thanks,
gigavps

Maybe my language was a little too strong. From my personal observation over the last 14 months of mining, I've seen correlation in that the price of bitcoin effects what happens with the difficulty. There is also significant lag between price movement and the difficulty following.

I suspect that if the price falls any further, mining will become unprofitable for some and difficulty will decrease. This may be offset a bit with miners starting to realize that we are in the final month of 50 btc blocks.

There most certainly is correlation in that price effects difficulty. Difficulty however, does not effect price.

http://bitcoinx.com/charts/chart_large_lin.png

Please stop "experimenting" with the live pool.


Thanks.


I'm not sure why you guarantee aka pay for work if it is stale. I would rather you didn't and lowered your fee.

As for why some miners are working on really old work: This is most likely a problem with your long poll implementation.

Specifically I would look to see if your server is closing connections without sending any kind of response, aka timing out connections. cgminer is coded to keep a long poll connection open for 1 hour.

Hi SysRun,

I have not received any information from GLBSE regarding Gigamining. When anything happens, you'll be updated here.

Best,
gigavps

I lend a helping hand every now and then.... 

Also looks like the link to the image is not working at the moment.

You may want to re-read the OP. Just sayin.

I'm just wondering if you would be able to focus more development efforts on the HPC stuff if you used a proven OSS pool like eloipool (eclipsemc.com and eligus.st use this software) or ecoinpool (used by ozco.in).

http://gitorious.org/bitcoin/eloipool/trees/master

https://github.com/p2k/ecoinpool


I see no reason why you would need to send a long poll every minute if you are keeping long poll connections open and properly sending responses on those connections when a block change is recognized. It seems to me that if miners are continuing to roll old work, it's because of the server's long poll implementation.

EDIT:
By sending out a long poll every minute, you are also asking miners to abort the perfectly good work that they are working on. This means more wasted computing cycles compared to other pools which, in turn, means less shares submitted.

Hi CoinLab,

Are you rolling your own pool software? Why is the pool having issues where it would push miners away?

Thanks,
gigavps

Looks like they've taken a big slide backwards in the last couple of days. Lady luck is not on their side right now.

I'm not sure if anyone else has noticed, but SD seems to have lowered their maximum bets for almost all of the games. For example, the "less then 16000" game used to have a max of 219.xxx coins. The other day, it was down to 191.xxx and now it's sitting at 123.4062.

I'm wondering though, by doing this, do they also limit their earning ability for whales who come in and lose on large bets? Is this move to lower maximum bets a recognition that their "house edge" is not wide enough to handle large bets?

Mining is about return on investment and profitability for the majority of miners. If you are printing money at a loss, you'll stop doing it. It doesn't get much simpler.

There will be those miners who mine to secure the network or because they don't care about the price because they'll never sell their coins, but for the vast majority of miners, it's about profitability.

Even if you own 20% of the network, if you cannot sell your coins for what it costs you to mine them, you're going to be faced with a big decision. Anyone who came into mining after Nov. 2011 has not faced this yet. I mined through the drop from $20 to $2. It's a stomach churning experience to know that you are loosing money to watch other miners drop out of the game.

It's nice that the graph is right at least...

Coinlab, could you move the rollNTime header to expire=120 instead of expire=60. Most other pools I've been on use 120 seconds without issue.