|
What is the most efficient way to automate startup of the miner across multiple droplets?
|
|
|
|
Can someone explain in a few clear, concise sentences why each mastercoin should be worth a decent amount? I'll even let you assume it is successful, with many people using it for smart assets, startup IPOs, and whatnot. Gimme some ballpark numbers. Do people need to hold mastercoin for a length of time for these use cases? If it was your goal to (fairly/legally) minimize mastercoin's success in these main sectors, how would you do so?
I too find the hype around mastercoin to be distracting and off-putting.
+1 It would be nice to see an sound answer, grounded in economic reasoning, to this question. The supply of mastercoin is fixed. So help me understand, where does the eventual demand come from (assuming success of the project as assumed in 100x's question above)? Is there a minimum number of mastercoins that are "tied up" or "taken out of circulation" when I launch a smart asset or a startup IPO, or I can use an arbitrarily small fraction of a mastercoin to do so long as it is divisible down to the requisite number of digits? If the former, would not supply eventually run out or the mastercoin protocol only be available for use by the wealthy? If the latter, how can mastercoins have much intrinsic value? |
|
|
|
so bcnext is gone? :/
No, he just stopped to use BCNext BitcoinTalk account. Why? |
|
|
|
this is the key. he let everyone keep depositing, just lining his pockets with BTC that he is now "partially refunding." coinlenders is still up --- TF are you fucking STILL taking people's coins on coinlenders? i can't believe you let us go so long just lying to us that everything was okay. it is truly disgusting and i hope you are ostracized from the btc community. makes me so sick thinking about what you've done. if you really got hacked? fucking own up to it when it happens. don't let your loyal customers walk into a trap you set so you can steal from them for weeks while you figure your fucking mess out.
Agreed! What exactly does the bolded statement below from TradeFortress mean? I have many problems with this. - "We" refers to one person, am I correct?
- Why were deposits and withdrawal not disabled?
- If the hack occurred in October, how is it possible API keys were compromised in November and money was stolen?
- Why was the "hot pocket" not immediately emptied after the hack?
1. No. Inputs.io isn't just me, although I do the majority of the work. 2. They were in limited capacity. A withdrawal amount limit didn't work as people simply broke up.3. The hacker dumped API keys and PIN from the DB. API keys (re)generated after the hack haven't being stolen. 4. The attacker didn't take all of the BTCs, perhaps wanting to remain undetected and steal more. Is that an admission that he imposed new withdrawal limits after the "hack" to try to hide inputs.io's insolvency? Or were new deposits somehow restricted as well? |
|
|
|
It's one thing to have a security breach occur, draining BTC4,000 from the site. To continually allow the site to run normally for over 14 days with users unaware of the gravity of the situation is not just irresponsible, but borderlines criminal negligence. You were aware of the situation, yet you allowed deposits to continue.
Yep. TF has some serious legal exposure if he lives in a western nation (did I read somewhere that he resides in Australia?) and his identity can be ascertained. Completely separate from the question of whether this was a hack or a scam, TF's actions after the "hack" -- deceptively allowing his customers to put further deposits into an insolvent "bank" when he knew he could not repay them in full -- are likely a violation of the criminal laws wherever he resides and almost certainly exposes him to civil liability. |
|
|
|
|
It seems ill-advised for anyone installing an offline/online Armory setup to do so by downloading an installer created by a third party, as it introduces an additional attack vector for malicious, bitcoin-specific code to reach the offline and/or online machines. This is true regardless of whether the creator of the third-party installer has bad intentions.
|
|
|
|
|
PndK2zmYRr92mnpogUDgesWPaVnSCZ5HZd
Thanks for the guide!
|
|
|
|
I would prefer that the addresses or the amount in bitcoin in an Armory wallet should not be visible until the password is entered. I believe from a previous post I read that password protecting the addresses and balance will be an option in the new wallet upcoming.
I concur that this would be a great option to have. Any such plans, particularly with watch-only wallets? It would obviously need to be a different password that the underlying password that encrypts the full wallet. |
|
|
|
P.S -- Has no one played with the new backup center? Come on! It's so badass!
Great to see a M of N paper backup implemented so smoothly. I've really been looking forward to that as a GUI feature. Been poking around 0.89.99.3 in a Ubuntu 12.04 VM. No issues so far. |
|
|
|
Using the same e-mail account you have registered on BTCT.co, send an email to tat.investments@gmail.com with the following information enclosed: My currently registered email at BTCT.co is a disposable forwarding email address provided by 33mail.com. I cannot send an email directly from that address and so cannot comply precisely with these instructions. How should I proceed? Should I change the e-mail account that I have registered on BTCT.co to a different email address that I can send emails from directly? Or something else? |
|
|
|
|
Source code already posted on their website, earlier than posts in this thread had suggested the release would take place. Up to block ~ 42, difficulty is at 1.24.
|
|
|
|
sudden launch = instamined
+ source code link not working... + OP recommends using the client's built-in CPU miner despite describing it as a SHA256 coin. |
|
|
|
|
I liked this coin too.
From what I could tell at the time this coin was at the height of its popularity, the exchange operators mainly balked because the coin's code extended precision from 8 out to 14 or 16 digits (I can't remember) which would have required them to do additional work to integrate the coin into their existing platforms.
I'm still vaguely hoping it makes a return someday.
|
|
|
|
|
Stuck syncing at block 1508, which is right before the checkpoint you added. Has the blockchain already split into two?
|
|
|
|
Also, people might want to check the market when they're on someone else's machine. Now they'll have to login on that machine to do so.
Burnside, I fear this change has some real downsides for your users, as you are in effect forcing them to choose between going without basic market information, or risk logging onto the website using insecure machines just to obtain that information whenever they away from the machine(s) that they protect enough to use for bitcoin financial transactions. Putting them in that predicament is bad policy. Please reconsider. |
|
|
|
Any feedback on the guide is helpful.  Great guide i will test this when i can get to my main pc, but with the cpu miner can it user minerd?? i thought kingcoin needed its own special cpu miner from the OP? or does the one in the guide work? I think the guide is incorrect on this. I don't think the jgarzik cpuminer will work with kingcoin. If you want to use an external miner you're stuck with the custom Windows miner for which source code hasn't been released, last I checked. |
|
|
|
|
Pity it never went anywhere. At least this altcoin taught me a little something about metric prefixes.
|
|
|
|
|
Out of curiosity, does the mining client go through the list of addresses sequentially? In other words, if I did choose to use a common wallet with 100 reserve addresses, would I be "safe" until one of my rigs found its 101st block?
|
|
|
|
Can someone explain the 4600 chips left to me? Are there 4600 chips that have already been ordered and waiting to arrive that can be purchased? Or are there 4600 left until another batch will be ordered from avalon(Could take a while)? Thanks
Afaik 4600 left until the batch reaches 50% pre-sold, at which point the batch is ordered and paid for by steamboat. You may be right, but I wouldn't say it is clear from steamboat's top post. This remains a point of confusion for me. Reading steamboat's top post in isolation, I would have assumed that there were still 4600 chips available from the already ordered batch 6, rather than 4600 chips that still need to be ordered to trigger a batch 7 purchase, but I really can't tell. |
|
|
|
The miner for ypool can never match the efficiency of a solo miner, and it certainly can't compete with mikaelh's most recent builds. This is because in pooled mining (at least ypool's implementation of it) the miners are paid to produce blocks of a lower-than-network difficulty, as in Bitcoin. This is not a problem in Bitcoin since you can't look for low difficulty shares without looking for high difficulty shares at the same time.
However, in Primecoin it is very possible to tune ones search for shorter chains. For example if, after the sieve, you find a collection of 7 numbers that are in the form of a chain (e.g. H-1, 2H-1, 4H-1, 8H-1...) but the number on either side of the chain was proven to be composite then you should not waste time with an expensive primality test on any of the numbers--it will never be a valid share when the network difficulty is 8 or higher. However, if miners are paid to produce shares of difficulty 7 then they should check this chain.
There are a few resolutions to this dilemma. One possibility is that everyone checks all chains that aren't long enough to be network shares but could still be pool shares. This is fair for everyone--nobody has an advantage over anyone else--but it means that fewer blocks are generated overall (everyone is wasting time that doesn't benefit the network). Another possibility is that some people ignore the shorter chains, while others check all chains. This gives an unfair advantage to the people checking the shorter chains--they will produce fewer valid blocks for the pool this way while producing more shares and taking a larger cut of the profits. The final option is if everyone only checks the longer chains while ignoring the shorter ones. This is the solution that gives the highest average payout and is the one that ypool is trying for, but it has the problem that if anyone wants to increase their payout they just have to change a couple lines of code and suddenly they can start taking a higher payout. This is a classic case of the Tragedy of the Commons.
I have explained this attack in detail to (who I think were) the operators of ypool and they have continued to operate. The only case where mining with them is a wise decision is if you are so averse to variance that you are willing to take an enormous cut to your profits (e.g. 50% or more) in exchange for a more regular payout.
Fascinating. So do you think primecoin is going to end up fundamentally incompatible with pooled mining simply because of the nature of the computational work being done for the coin, or are the problems that you have outlined likely only specific to ypool's implementation and solvable by a different and creative approach to parceling out work to pool participants? If primecoin ultimately became a coin that was considered optimal to GPU mine, but significantly suboptimal to pool mine, that would make it quite the unusual coin, and would leave small miners with no escape from high variance. I'd say from that explanation the only way one could effectively pool mine without this exploit would be to literally setup their own private pools to operate however many rigs they are mining primecoin with. Thank you for the insight Koooooj, interesting. I don't have a deep understanding at all here. But this is particularly interesting because so far we've all, as far as I know, only been using modified internal miners (like mikaelh's). No one has really even solved the problem of parceling out work to two separate CPU's using external miners. But at a basic level, I would think that if there someday exists code allowing 2+ CPUs (or 2+ GPUs) graphics cards in the same system to interface with the same primecoind and mine via external miner, there would have be a way to insert as an intermediary some pool management code to consolidate work and distribute rewards fairly. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
