|
Someone should perhaps make note of a security regression in 0.9.0:
IP addresses of your peers are now logged, making your debug.log file valuable to crackers and/or governments.
Edit: Correction: By default, IPs are only logged when a node connects. This is still a potential concern, but was introduced in 0.7.0, not 0.9.0.
|
|
|
|
All I know is my Android wallet software is reporting BTC has been deposited TO my wallet FROM "wizstats donations."
The blockchain reports the sources as having been:
1ChANGeATMH8dFnj39wGTjfjudUtLspzXr
1QGq9aXqpH6hEJnnbf7fnFbHJCEtBZCx83
1StatsQytc7UEZ9sHJ9BGX2csmkj8XZr2 (wizstats donations )
If you aren't concerned, then I'm not.
Transactions don't have sources. The Android wallet software and blockchain.info (which is NOT the blockchain) are buggily fabricating this "information". I'd advise ignoring it. |
|
|
|
and now for something completely different...
Anyone else get a BTC deposit from "wizstats donations?"
I have no clue what that is from.
Bitcoins aren't sent *from* anywhere. |
|
|
|
You should find someone to spearhead this who isn't biased against other reputable people...
Says the guy who got free hardware from both BFL and Hashfast You need to check your dictionary for the definition of "free". Are you saying you wouldn't have incorporated the new ASIC hardware on your own, for nothing? That's irrelevant. You're also assuming I didn't pay for it... |
|
|
|
You should find someone to spearhead this who isn't biased against other reputable people...
Says the guy who got free hardware from both BFL and Hashfast You need to check your dictionary for the definition of "free". |
|
|
|
So I'm just wondering, is gmaxwell going to start calling out all of the overpromising/underdelivering, cough BFL cough, hardware companies or just the one's he has money invested in and ignore the one's who have invested money in advertising here. Because there are/have been a lot of them out there and I haven't seen this kind of response until now.
Regardless, this isn't all that surprising after my initial meetings with their team before they went public. Something was just off and then I found out they claimed that someone who is actually financially backing another company financed their operations. The dog and pony show was awesome, but when it came down to it, Lil Sebastian was/is late to the party still.
+1 Here here. We need association or guild of reputable miner fabricators and developers. Here was my post for a guild. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=282030.0You should find someone to spearhead this who isn't biased against other reputable people... |
|
|
|
There have also been a few small delays in payouts. I read one post here recently that suggested the delay was months? Maybe I misread it.
Uh.....no. The delay has been - AT MOST - a few days time.
According to the current payout queue, the top 5 are 1+ month old. Because they hadn't met their configured minimum payouts sooner. |
|
|
|
Controversy in the bitcoin world repeatedly follows luke wherever he goes and if he remains the main contributor and maintainer, it really doesn't matter what you name the software, the controversy will follow you.
Your problem is the association with luke-jr, not the bfgminer name.
Well said, and exactly the reason I avoid bfgminer. Your forum handle fits well. |
|
|
|
I haven't discussed this with wizkid057 yet, but I just wanted to get an idea of the community's thoughts on it: What if Eligius had a mandatory 0.5% fee per every % of the network we get over 25%? So 27% of the bitcoin network would make a 1% fee. The fee would include existing donation %s (possibly disabled entirely for outside-the-automatic-system donors), so you could still direct where you wanted your portion used. Opinions?  Is the purpose of the fee to help fund the maintenance of the pool, or to restrict the pool from growing too large? Both. One idea might be to direct some amount of the funds toward completing GBT support so the pool can safely grow beyond 30% without hurting the network. |
|
|
|
I haven't discussed this with wizkid057 yet, but I just wanted to get an idea of the community's thoughts on it: What if Eligius had a mandatory 0.5% fee per every % of the network we get over 25%? So 27% of the bitcoin network would make a 1% fee. The fee would include existing donation %s (possibly disabled entirely for outside-the-automatic-system donors), so you could still direct where you wanted your portion used. Opinions? |
|
|
|
Wizkid eligius is a 1-man show? Why not hire an assistant?
Are you donating a salary to hire an assistant with? |
|
|
|
|
Anyone have a HunterCoin scrypt pool I can use for testing BFGMiner/scrypt?
I don't want merged mining...
Thanks,
Luke
|
|
|
|
How often are NMC payments made? I'm not sure I've ever gotten one. Edit: I passed on the situation via support ticket and IRC. I figure that's more useful than just complaining here.  I suggest checking if the exchange wallet you are using supports mined coins, apparently there are some that don't. I was referring only to NMC. NMC coins aren't mined directly to the payment addresses I believe. I would advise against assuming this, even though it is currently correct... |
|
|
|
|
FWIW, I took a look at the core pool server and didn't find anything to suggest it has been compromised, at least.
So Bitcoin should be fine.
|
|
|
|
on the Gridseed support, is the Scrypt only support turning off the Sha side of the chip.
Are you saying that when scrypt only mode is enabled the sha side is still on? I would assume it has to be... SHA2 is part of scrypt, after all.. |
|
|
|
I am away from home until March 15th (it is very rare I am away this long).
Does this mean we can expect manual payouts to happen somewhere next weekend or after. As long as wizkid057 doesn't have plans to be away, there should be a big manual payout on the 16th. |
|
|
|
|
The delays are caused by bugs or potential bugs.
In some cases, buggy miners (eg, cgminer on KnCMiner hardware) cannot handle generating payouts directly to miners.
This can really only be fixed by miners switching to other software.
In other cases (such as the current situation), a not-well-tested code path needs to run to continue generation, and required a human to carefully make sure it was doing so correctly.
This needs to be fixed on the pool side after careful code review to ensure it always works safely and never overpays.
Unfortunately, that itself takes human time, so hasn't happened yet.
The delay itself, after either of these occur, is due to security precautions to keep the offline wallet safe: it isn't easy to access, and requires wizkid057 and myself both at home.
This process is intentionally difficult to ensure the funds cannot be stolen.
I am away from home until March 15th (it is very rare I am away this long).
To try to improve this situation in the future (and address the "bus factor"), the plan is to make it so publicly-unknown third-parties can substitute for either wizkid057 or myself.
This too, however, takes development/human time, especially to ensure bitcoins don't get lost or compromised in the process.
|
|
|
|
Hi guys I'm trying to setup a simple http request to stratum mining pool in c#. I'm getting this error: "Underlaying connection was closed." string json = "{\"method\": \"getblocktemplate\", \"params\": [], \"id\": \"0\"}";
WebClient w = new WebClient();
w.Credentials = new NetworkCredential("user", "pass");
w.Headers.Add("Content-type", "application/stratum");
j = wc.UploadString("http://blabla.com:3333", json);
Please help This thread is for the stratum mining protocol, but you seem to be trying to use GBT (with the wrong Content-type, and apparently connecting to a stratum host...) GBT and stratum are not compatible. |
|
|
|
I am having an issue with the API, in particular I am having problems with switchpool (though changing MHS5s to MHS20s in the device output caught me a bit unaware).
That change caught me by surprise too. The good news is you can pass in --log XY and then you can always count on the key for current hashrate being constant. While I understand why --log changes the way current hashrate is measured, I'm not sure why that should change its key an an API. It's one of those things kept for cgminer compatibility (yes, it changes with --log there, too). Perhaps we should mirror it to another constant-named key? |
|
|
|
|
If anyone has an urgent need for a manual payout, I have something like 7 BTC in my hot wallet I can send from (and reconcile in the pool accounting).
But please only do this if it's urgent... otherwise it's probably best to just wait for wizkid057 to do it since he's more familiar with the current pool interfaces.
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
