Sooooo... It's not even possible to boot the wallet easily anymore? I didn't think Potcoin would die so sadly. With a PoW change and a mildly failed fork... Sorry POT I'm all out for now.
If the seed nodes are down new wallets without any prior nodes in the peer DB will not sync. They will need to modify their potcoin.conf file with the nodes list from cryptoid. I think most people know how to do that but total newbies will be stuck. For people who have been using potcoin for a while they should have a sufficient number of nodes in their peers DB for this not to be a problem. Likely why you don't see many people complaining. |
|
|
|
Sounds like potcoin either does not have seed nodes or they are offline. If the seed nodes are offline that would explain the sync issues people are having.
Also, I don't know if potcoin still relies on IRC instead of seednodes but if it does make sure your firewall/AV allows potcoin to communicate over IRC.
In any case once you get a few good connections your peers database should start to fill up and it should become a non-issue for you going forward.
Edit:
I just tested....potcoin does not use IRC. Someone might want to look at the source to see what seednodes it uses and find out if they are offline.
Did some quick digging in the source...looks like the seed nodes are down...hence the syncing problems with new wallets or ones that don't have a sufficiently large enough peers DB. https://github.com/potcoin/Potcoin/blob/5c2b9dac24344c96c18a049d8a7b116946de7edd/src/net.cpp#L1195List of seeds: dnsseedz.potcoin.info Host not found dns1.potcoin.info Host found (37.139.26.213). No response to ping. I suppose the second one could be up...didn't try...but maybe someone can check? Until the seeds come back (don't hold your breath) my best recommendation is to go to https://chainz.cryptoid.info/pot/#!network and copy the nodes list...then hope some are open.  |
|
|
|
First of all...so sorry about asking in this thread but thought it would be the best place where people would know. I noticed an interesting distinction between the A2 and A2 Mega in regard to the power connectors the blades use and wanted to confirm with others. The regular A2 (the one Emdje's old image works with) appears to have an Eight-Pin +12 V CPU Power Connectors on the blades. This means that +12v is on the top or clip side. Example:  I realized this from the picture earlier in this thread:  Can someone confirm? I think it is fairly obvious but wanted to make sure. If this is the case then a standard PCI-E connector will not work as that has the +12 V on the bottom or opposite the clip side:  This is different than the A2 Mega. The A2 Mega comes with standard PCI-E connectors on the blades. I found it strange that the power supply provided with my A2 Mega had exactly six Eight-Pin +12 V CPU Power Connectors with cable lengths perfectly spaced for the location of the blades but were FORCE in to fit the PCI-E connector....now it makes sense. The power supply was build for the original A2 and they forced it to work with the A2 Mega. Here is a picture of an A2 Mega with PCI-E connectors and the Eight-Pin +12 V CPU Power cables forced into them:  I guess it is important to know that +12 V on the original A2 (blue PCB) is on the top of the connector but +12 V on the A2 Mega (green PCB) is on the bottom? What would happen if they were reversed (if someone plugged in a PCI-E cable into the A2)? You can't physically plug in an 8-pin PCI-E cable into an Eight-Pin +12 V CPU Power Connector but a 6-pin PCI-E cable would fit. I realized all this while working on replacing the PS in my A2....decided to delay until I get my voltmeter from work to verify. |
|
|
|
After 2-3 days, the GLC will be added to the exchange yobit.
And how you see it? network has hashrate in ~ 10 mh/s. The small growth rates price and coming the Chinese guys with scrypt Asic and they organize the fork for globalcoin. This history is repeated many times with other POW coins. As a result, they have moved to the POW + POS or only POS. If not then they simply disappeared from the market. Perhaps I shouldn't comment since I don't know more detail...but I remember reading somewhere of some serious problems with POS. Don't remember what it was but did make a mental note to avoid POS from what I read. If securing the network is important I would look more at AuxPOW over POS....that or research POS in more detail to ensure it does not have some fundamental flaw. Edit: For me personally POS would be the most financially beneficial...but we need to look beyond personal gain and do what is best for the coin.  |
|
|
|
|
Sounds like potcoin either does not have seed nodes or they are offline. If the seed nodes are offline that would explain the sync issues people are having.
Also, I don't know if potcoin still relies on IRC instead of seednodes but if it does make sure your firewall/AV allows potcoin to communicate over IRC.
In any case once you get a few good connections your peers database should start to fill up and it should become a non-issue for you going forward.
Edit:
I just tested....potcoin does not use IRC. Someone might want to look at the source to see what seednodes it uses and find out if they are offline.
|
|
|
|
I will be following this for sure. I have the A2 Term and have been very happy with it. I havnt trusted other manufacturers enough to cough up the money for them. This might be worth it though. Can you explain how the A2 replacement program will work and how much I will have to pay in order to get the A4?
Thanks for your trust and support! A2 replacement program means that we will give a discount to previous A2 user that we have record of. Detailed information will be provided after official product release, but there will be a promotion program for A2 user specifically at that point. A4 price is not determined yet and will be discussed internally among the partnership round, it may be roughly similar price as current A2. As an extremely satisfied customer I am very happy to hear about this new miner and discount for supporters of your products. Looking forward to purchasing an A4 as soon as it becomes available! |
|
|
|
Just a quick update on the dead fan.... As it turns out the fan was not dead! The connection to the board was loose inside the connector. The actual connector was "hot glued" to the board so it would not come loose but the wire inside did. I pushed it back in and it started right up. Edit: Difference in temps with the middle fan off. Ambient temps are around 20 degrees Celsius.   |
|
|
|
Looks like it halved again, only 1.5625 reward per block now, that is too low for anyone to waste their electricity mining this thing, and with no exchange to even trade on I am sorry to say my absolute favorite coin that I have mined since day one appears to be finished. What a shame. The lower tier Altcoin business has really taken a hit with the Cryptsy failure. Many of the coins that had healthy markets on Cryptsy have seen much of their value evaporate even if they were on other exchanges.
It's all because the developers do not want to use the POS for this coin. If POW award becomes low, and the price for the coin junk, then no one would waste electricity on the mining. So it's a dead end. Not necessarily. As long as someone, anyone, mines the coin is still alive. The difficulty will adjust to maintain the coin specs based on the hashrate. It's only when absolutely no one mines that the blockchain stops until someone starts again. So far that has not been a problem. The blockchain has been going fine for the most part as far as I can tell. Now I haven't really looked into it much but there is at least one pool with constant hashrate on this coin so it will not die as long as that is the case. |
|
|
|
|
Wow, thanks guys!
I am in the US so will just pick up a replacement from Amazon or ebay.
|
|
|
|
One of the fans (middle of the front three) died.  Anyone know what type of fan it is? The miner is not local so it would save me a trip if anyone knows what kind of fan it is or a suitable replacement. Miner is in a cold environment so the dead fan does not seem to be having much of an effect on heat but would like to replace it anyhow. Found this post that says they are Delta 12V/1.4A fans? Size? https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1141802.msg12258156#msg12258156Thanks for any help! |
|
|
|
Sell side is filling up again but not much until 0.002. For the guy at 0.0025 with 147,090 CSC...not sure I would trust that much being held up on an exchange.  |
|
|
|
|
Looks like someone bought up to 0.00036 on alcurex! Not much left until 0.0025.
|
|
|
|
Wait up can someone please tell me again,
`` bitcoinaddresshere/1 `` is that always submit shares at the target and higher.
`` bitcoinaddresshere/2 `` is that always submit shares double the target and higher.
Not sure where you got this but it is wrong. Anything after the '/' lower than the current min diff of 1570000 will give you the minimum share diff. Anything higher up to the current max of 47100000 will give you shares less often but of higher value. I think you people should target about 1 share every 6-12 hours to allow smaller miners a chance. modulate share difficulty to prevent any node from producing more than 5% of shares I'm curious now, what actually happens to large miners with enough hashrate to trigger that?. This is now 1.3%. It is on a per node basis and is supposed to increase the share diff for everyone on a node that has more than 1.3% of the p2pool hashrate. It can be overrode by using 'address/number'. |
|
|
|
So ... if p2pool was 10% of the network, the pool would be ... 86PH ... yeah consider that in your calculations ... ... and reducing share time means more lost shares. Of course there's the other problem that happened recently when someone easily 51% p2pool ... and no one seemed to care or even notice Well, yea...ultimately p2pool it is flawed in that it is not scalable among other things. ...and I am suggesting to increase share times (for larger miners) not decrease. |
|
|
|
The number of nodes isn't a problem, and really never has been. Plenty of people put up and run publicly accessible p2pool nodes. Heck, I was one of them for 2 years. Ideally, if you're interested in p2pool, you'd run your own node. That's the ultimate design of it - to be completely decentralized. It's a fantastic concept. As I pointed out, not everybody does so. So, if there are plenty of nodes from which people can choose, why aren't more people here? Well, that leads back to the part of my post you didn't quote. The variance here is twofold. First, is getting shares onto the chain. Share difficulty is currently 1360000. So what does that mean for expectations? - Antminer S1 would expect to land a share every 9 hours or so
- Antminer S3 would expect to land a share every 3.5 hours or so
- Antminer S5 would expect to land a share every 1.4 hours or so
- Antminer S7 would expect to land a share every half an hour or so
So, the price of entry is pretty steep. And, it only gets worse as more hashing power is added to the pool because the share difficulty rises in conjunction with the added hash. That's the ultimate problem to be solved: how do you keep miners from suffering more and more variance even as the pool gains hash and solves more blocks? I keep coming back to the idea of increasing the maximum p2pool share difficulty from the current 30 time the minimum. I believe this would help decrease the minimum p2pool share difficulty and provide more shares for smaller miner in turn lowering variance. Currently the maximum share diff is 40800000 based on the min being 1360000. I believe p2pool automatically increases the share difficulty on each node based on how much hash rate it has in comparison to the rest of the pool. [note to self: post code where this is done] For an S7 if the miner set's his share diff to be the current max he would get a share every ~15 hours (based on the example in the quote). I don't have an S7 to see if it is automatically increasing it's difficulty and by how much. If nodes are not increasing difficulty then we need to figure out why...but I think they are. Found an old post from roy7 that goes into more detail: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=18313.msg5950880;topicseen#msg5950880[note to self: post code where the 30 times the minimum share difficulty is done] For example...this miner with 22 TH/s is currently using the minimum share diff of 1430391. ETA to share is about 5 minutes. They should be running with the max share diff not min. By running with the min they are taking away shares that smaller miners could use to get in the share chain and also increasing the min share diff for everyone. If they set themselves to use the current max share diff it would give them a share every 2.5 hours instead of 5 minutes which is more than reasonable. They will make the same amount and help out smaller miners and the entire pool as a whole... including themselves. http://minefast.coincadence.com/miner.php?id=1Nhx4RU5bbUiHEXJLFEdQaewwHYnpSNAvDThis example shows that p2pool may not be automatically increasing the share diff at the node level...or, more likely, the miner explicitly set his diff to be low. It's been a while since I looked at the code but I think it was last set to if a node has more then 5% of the hashrate increase. The node where this miner is at is about 45 TH out of 600 TH so a little over 5%. Edit: it's actually 1.3% now so that node should definitely be increasing their miners share diff. The miner most likely is overriding it though. bitcoin_data.average_attempts_to_target(local_hash_rate * self.node.net.SHARE_PERIOD / 0.0167)) # limit to 1.67% of pool shares by modulating share difficulty Was lowered from 5% on 11-04-2013 in this commit: https://github.com/p2pool/p2pool/commit/69d7300919e0f9b23ec81c1d01c0bf12cdb1ebc5Maybe time to lower even more? |
|
|
|
The number of nodes isn't a problem, and really never has been. Plenty of people put up and run publicly accessible p2pool nodes. Heck, I was one of them for 2 years. Ideally, if you're interested in p2pool, you'd run your own node. That's the ultimate design of it - to be completely decentralized. It's a fantastic concept. As I pointed out, not everybody does so. So, if there are plenty of nodes from which people can choose, why aren't more people here? Well, that leads back to the part of my post you didn't quote. The variance here is twofold. First, is getting shares onto the chain. Share difficulty is currently 1360000. So what does that mean for expectations? - Antminer S1 would expect to land a share every 9 hours or so
- Antminer S3 would expect to land a share every 3.5 hours or so
- Antminer S5 would expect to land a share every 1.4 hours or so
- Antminer S7 would expect to land a share every half an hour or so
So, the price of entry is pretty steep. And, it only gets worse as more hashing power is added to the pool because the share difficulty rises in conjunction with the added hash. That's the ultimate problem to be solved: how do you keep miners from suffering more and more variance even as the pool gains hash and solves more blocks? I keep coming back to the idea of increasing the maximum p2pool share difficulty from the current 30 time the minimum. I believe this would help decrease the minimum p2pool share difficulty and provide more shares for smaller miner in turn lowering variance. Currently the maximum share diff is 40800000 based on the min being 1360000. I believe p2pool automatically increases the share difficulty on each node based on how much hash rate it has in comparison to the rest of the pool. [note to self: post code where this is done] For an S7 if the miner set's his share diff to be the current max he would get a share every ~15 hours (based on the example in the quote). I don't have an S7 to see if it is automatically increasing it's difficulty and by how much. If nodes are not increasing difficulty then we need to figure out why...but I think they are. Found an old post from roy7 that goes into more detail: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=18313.msg5950880;topicseen#msg5950880[note to self: post code where the 30 times the minimum share difficulty is done] |
|
|
|
Has anyone actually been able to withdraw funds from Cryptsy for one of the wallets that has been "re-opened" for withdrawals?
Yes, I was able to WD craftcoin. |
|
|
|
We are very sorry for removing glc , wallet is not synching and crashing all the time , causing problems to all other markets  psomas2, If you need help let me know. Did you compile from the source here: https://github.com/CryptoParts/GlobalCoinAdd this node to sync: 216.177.81.88 I compiled from that source and used a big list of nodes i found in this thread. Wallet syncs normal in about 4-5 hours but it crashes while running. Hmm, I use 1.5.3 on my Ubuntu daemon. Perhaps try to compile from the source up to Mar 22, 2015? I think after that date the changes for 1.5.4.1 started. I have seen 1.5.4.1 hang up here and there syncing the blockchain on the QT side using Windows. Have never tried running the QT client on Ubuntu as I don't use the GUI version of Ubuntu. Edit: I can provide you with the compiled version of 1.5.3 I use on Ubuntu...but of course realize that is not a desirable situation for an exchange. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
