Usually a smaller number ends up being slightly better. Also if you want to use the computer for something else or keep heat buildup down (especially on a laptop) you should use a smaller number. You have to experiment with your setup to find the best.

I agree with you. No one is in a privileged position here. Yes there are developers but we are all community members who are working on it because we see the potential for the technology and find it personally interesting. It is certainly not a path to riches. So far the people who have made the most money on this coin are most certainly not the developers, but other ambitious community members who have done things like start successful pools, large scale mining, etc.

Tried it. Hash rate was decent for the pool while I was testing it (roughly 2% of the entire network, i.e. >1 block per hour expected) and got no blocks for many hours. 10% of nothing is nothing. You need to do better to jumpstart it somehow, or fix whatever is wrong with it. For now can't recommend.

That's usually an out of date wallet

The wallet adds a fee of 0.01 by default.

Those are all defaults so it wouldn't change anything.

I don't see it, can you be more specific about where it is.

The wallet reports difficulty not hash rate. It needs to be converted using a formula.

What conf file? I have ducknote installed and I don't see any conf file.

Go to the first post on this thread, and find the list of pools. Pick one or two pools, visit their web sites, and follow their directions for setting up a miner.

That is largely true and part of the reason is that bitcoin developers tend to self-select out of working on most altcoins, for a number of reasons. The reasons are interesting and in some ways self-fulfillling. They are certainly welcome and even more certainly not intentionally excluded, but they often decline to participate. Bitcoin developers not participating doesn't make the development not happen though.

This is certainly off topic though for FCN though. I would encourage taking it elsewhere. It would be interesting if there were a place to discuss the practice and politics of bitcoin and altcoins, since there are now a bunch of altcoins that actually have real value, which wasn't always the case. rpietila altcoin thread is actually fairly intelligent for now, BTW.

DOGE has extreme concentration of mining. If you only have one miner (by which I mean actual miners i.e. pools, not just people contributing hashes), you will have zero orphans, regardless of block time. If you want to actually have a p2p network where people can come and go and still mine solo effectively (even if it is a gamble -- though in some cases I argue that could be an appeal), then you need a better design.

EDIT: Yes I know DOGE doesn't have one pool. That was an extreme example for discussion purposes.

Only a little, and last I checked that code was not particularly portable or well documented. I also tested it on a few platforms and saw little improvement (over the current daemon hash code -- clearly it is much better than what was there before). I'm sure it does help in some cases, but the code in the daemon needs to be a bit different than what you get trying to squeeze a few cycles out of a miner. Although ultimately the optimization should go in.


60 seconds is a decent amount of time. The problem is that you don't have 60 seconds. To get below 5% (not really a good target) you need processing latency and dissemination within 5% of 60 seconds, which is only 3 seconds. That's actually very hard to do, and likely impossible with current technology for a self-organizating ad-hoc p2p network.

The reason Satoshi picked 10 minutes wasn't that it would take 10 minutes to disseminate blocks, it was so that collisions would happen infrequently. 1-2% assumes a 6-12 second dissemination time.

It it somewhat hard to tell but it seems like duck has a very low orphan rate, at most a few percent, maybe less. There may be other factors, but the 4 minute block time definitely helps.  (Sampling error is significant here since there just aren't that many blocks total.)

I agree with what you said about the pool software, and other software sources of latency. But at the same time, it is easy to say "just fix the code" but actually deploying new or modified code requires careful design, implementation, and testing. It may be that simply increasing the block time is a more expedient low-risk if partial fix, despite the need for a hard fork. Of course the two are not mutually exclusive either.


They are still a big problem system-wide, they just aren't a big problem for individual miners.

I agree with you for the most part except that I'd consider LTC to be one of the biggest scam coins of them all. Just because it got big does not mean it wasn't a scam.

But since it isn't on your list (or mine), I guess it doesn't much matter any more.

The bigger point is that MRO can do everything LTC does, and more.

The best reason I've seen for LTC to have any value is that people want alternatives, someplace else to go if BTC runs aground. MRO does that better  because LTC shares too much in common with BTC, a big monoculture problem that MRO does not share.

This ignores the added appeal of enhanced privacy. Even without those MRO has the potential to easily surpass LTC.

That word liquidity, does not mean what you think it means.

Yes I agree, but exchanges are always going to make different tradeoffs, take different risks. That's why MRO is on polo now (and is usually their highest volume coin). In fact I would guess that Polo has gained quite a few new user accounts from people who specifically want to trade MRO

LTC adds no value at all.

SOLD.

New offer


0.220 / 2M / 0.44 / smooth (expires end of day 6/1 UTC; you send first)

Because they don't want to do the work to integrate a coin that isn't bitcoin clone.