Yeah? I thought you could set up a stratum proxy and point it at bitcoin-qt?
Nope. Bitcoin-Qt uses Getwork or GBT protocols, not Stratum. |
|
|
|
win 7 x86 if it works stable?
I often have problems: (
Is that a question or a statement? If your asking if CGMiner works with 32 bit Windoze 7? The answer is yes. |
|
|
|
I read you can't solo mine with the antminer s1 which is why I looked into this solo pool stuff
I think solo pools are a great tool. 1. They use the Stratum Protocol. 2. They propagate blocks to the network faster than ones Bitcoin client would. 3. They deal with virus signatures in the block chain so that you don't need to futz with your AV settings and risk opening your system to vulnerabilities. 4. You don't need to download the block chain on your own system. Which is real important if your using one of those Pi thingies. But that being said, why can't you solo mine with an Antminer? |
|
|
|
Ok I have solved my problem. I can now connect with my Qt wallet and start mining. Though I get the error
"No suitable long-poll found for URL __" I read that this just means I won't be informed by my wallet(server) very fast if a new block is found, but its ok I will only ever do this for a few seconds?
Add some pools to your fail over list. They will notify you of block changes. |
|
|
|
is it just me - or is this concept sort of dumb  If you want to solo-mine = run a copy of bitcoind with SETGENERATE=true and have your hashrate mine away. Newbies have no idea how to use setgenerate=true. "SETGENERATE=true" is for CPU mining with the Bitcoin client. It no longer does anything as the client no longer CPU mines. |
|
|
|
|
Where else am I going to point my block erupter?
|
|
|
|
What we need is an fixed minimum price for the Bitcoins.
This type of regulation is one of the things Bitcoin in supposed to free us from. Bitcoin needs to succeed or fail on its own merits, this type of socialistic meddling is bad for everyone. Isn't this BTC Guilds thread? |
|
|
|
How about reading the linked proposal that meni spent a lot of time developing and writing up?
I was kind of trying to avoid that. Without a hard fork you are right there is no way to separate it, that is why a hard fork would be needed to support a method that prevents a miner from knowing if the hash solves a block. It would change the blockheader such that a valid block is based on two different hash values and the miner only knows one. The miner can compute the share difficulty, the pool can compute if it meets the difficulty for solving a block. The pool withholds the second value from the miner which prevents the miner from knowing what the pool knows.
But I read the section you recommended, dyslexically, and with your above explanation I think I comprehend it now. How would that impact solo mining? I guess the bitcoind/qt would have to be reworked as well anyway. Enough of my uninformed rambling. Thanks, Sam |
|
|
|
well then the game is over for public pool mining with no innovation here.. if there was already a solution there wouldn't be a problem
There is a very good solution but it will require a hard fork. It seems to me that the solution you recommended earlier in this thread would allow a pool to withhold vital information about the hash's that a miner submits. The miner wouldn't know if he really found a block or not or even know what difficulty of the share was. So a miner would have no way to verify if a pool was above board or not or even know how much he was getting paid for his hash's. That is not correct. The miner would know the exact difficulty of the share just not if the share solves a block or not. Checking a share difficulty IS checking if it meets or exceeds current difficulty. I don't see how you could separate one from the other. It would have to be same operation. |
|
|
|
well then the game is over for public pool mining with no innovation here.. if there was already a solution there wouldn't be a problem
There is a very good solution but it will require a hard fork. It seems to me that the solution you recommended earlier in this thread would allow a pool to withhold vital information about the hash's that a miner submits. The miner wouldn't know if he really found a block or not or even know what difficulty of the share was. So a miner would have no way to verify if a pool was above board or not or even know how much he was getting paid for his hash's. The miner would know enough to know how many shares they submitted. They would not know enough to know if they solved a block though. Sooo... if you don't know if you've solved a block then you wouldn't know what the difficulty of the share you submitted is so you wouldn't know if you were getting paid correctly. If you could tell what your share diff is without the pool telling you then you would know if its a block solver or not |
|
|
|
well then the game is over for public pool mining with no innovation here.. if there was already a solution there wouldn't be a problem
There is a very good solution but it will require a hard fork. It seems to me that the solution you recommended earlier in this thread would allow a pool to withhold vital information about the hash's that a miner submits. The miner wouldn't know if he really found a block or not or even know what difficulty of the share was. So a miner would have no way to verify if a pool was above board or not or even know how much he was getting paid for his hash's. |
|
|
|
Top posting There are some power sipping beasts on the horizon. I just interviewed a company about one a little while ago. I should have that ready for Amsterdam. But you are right we are at a tipping point. I think we need an extreme change with the bitcoins. We are absolutely near the point where electricity is more expensive then the worth of an mined bitcoin. What we need is an sicgnificant increase of the bitcoin price. It has to go up for more then 100%, if not we all have to switch off all our miners.
is very confusing |
|
|
|
I think we need an extreme change with the bitcoins...snip... What we need is an sicgnificant increase of the bitcoin price.
And what "extreme change" would you propose. |
|
|
|
Has anyone tried it? I know a few persons using them. Has anyone found a block yet? Guess not...  I'm using solopool.net with a really low hash rate, so I haven't found a block yet. But it seems to be working reliably. It's really nice to be able to point my BE's at something and forget about it. |
|
|
|
Unscrupulous commercial miners will destroy the public pools to eliminate competition from small players.
That would be counter productive as it would devalue bitcoin and destroy confidence in it. |
|
|
|
It reminds me of how Deepbit disappeared from the pools list.
It's no wonder [Tycho], and others, have disappeared from these forums. Let's accuse everyone else, with NO evidence, of malfeasance as well so that we have no responsible people left in the community. Great idea. |
|
|
|
|
However long it takes for said pool to find a block.
|
|
|
|
Just use balance or load balance in CGMiner.
Could you please tell me how to set up my miner on cgminer, since at the moment I'm running the miner by itself, just have it hooked up to my modem CGMiner is Bitcoin mining software. I have no idea what you mean by "running the miner by itself". Check the CGMiner thread and read the readme that comes with the software. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=28402.0 |
|
|
|
|
Just use balance or load balance in CGMiner.
|
|
|
|
I think switching from Proportional to PPS only takes effect after Deepbit finds a block.
Yes if you switched from Proportional to PPS than that is most likely the case. So in that case you should create a new worker which is PPS from the get go. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
