id like to ask others if your reported hashrate is wrong or someone is being nice and mining on my address as a thank you for making the compiled cgminers i dont know, i normaly do about 2.0-2.4mhash i been up over 5mh for awhile today cant say how long. I havet been able to be on pc very long my back surgery i had on dec 16th haset helped me and im in more pain instead of less if someone is mining on my btc address id like to thank you can use all the btc i can get sence im looking at a 2nd surgery.
You have had between 3.2MH/s to 5.7MH/s which started at around 2pm PST and has still been going and starting to taper off as of my last data pull. (one of the new features Im working on for my BFP tool )  yea thts way more then my hardware can pull at best i get like 2.38MH guess someone is rewarding me for doing all the cgminer compiles only thing i can think of or a bug and reporting wrong hash. I suspect some users of bal3wolf's recompiled cgminer don't realize the address in the supplied config file is bal3wolf's address and needs to be changed.  well i didnt leave the cgminer.cfg in any of my cgminers so that cant happen lol. You sure about that?  {
"pools" : [
{
"name" : "us.middlecoin.com",
"url" : "stratum+tcp://middlecoin.com:3333",
"user" : "1LRWTJS3rf8ubG2oMjcm7CmGGDJQSomdRP",
"pass" : "x",
"pool-priority" : "1"
},
{
"name" : "eu.middlecoin.com",
"url" : "stratum+tcp://eu.middlecoin.com:3333",
"user" : "1LRWTJS3rf8ubG2oMjcm7CmGGDJQSomdRP",
"pass" : "x",
"pool-priority" : "0"
}
],
"api-allow" : "W:127.0.0.1/24",
"api-listen" : true,
"api-mcast-port" : "4028",
"api-port" : "4028",
"expiry" : "120",
"hotplug" : "5",
"kernel-path" : "/usr/local/bin",
"load-balance" : true,
"log" : "1",
"no-submit-stale" : true,
"queue" : "1",
"scan-time" : "40",
"scrypt" : true,
"shares" : "0",
"gpu-threads" : "2",
"gpu-dyninterval" : "7",
"gpu-platform" : "0",
"intensity" : "13,13",
"vectors" : "1,1",
"worksize" : "256,256",
"lookup-gap" : "0",
"thread-concurrency" : "14968,12920",
"no-pool-disable" : true
} |
|
|
|
|
I will be accepting Litecoin escrow transactions starting on Monday. (still familiarizing myself with the LTC client and studying LTC in general)
|
|
|
|
That's messed up for a couple reasons. It looks like you were overpaid last time, had a negative "payout" balance after payout, and something broke. |
|
|
|
I have one question: why is the EU server physically located in America?  It's located in Ireland, which is pretty far from America last I checked. My traceroute goes from Telia London to Telia Dublin to Amazon Data Services Ireland anyways. EDIT: If we're throwing custom cgminers out here then take a look at http://k-dev.net/cgminer/I've implemented a few R9 290(X) fixes, lowered pool switch back to one minute as well as the keepidle changes. See the change log for more. There are both windows binaries and single source code files for *nix. The geoIP database I use says it's in Seattle. Weird. What's up with all those cgminer clones? What's the point? Last time I heard, the original was pretty well optimized. There's a bug in the pool where the pool hangs when it switches coins. It's not particularly significant, but it can be an underlying cause of more significant complications, particularly with CGWatcher since it'll probably be configured to start issuing restarts of cgminer or the PC which can make the relatively quick hang time more significant (cgminer or CGwatcher may also be configured to switch to the less-profitable eu pool when the US pool is detected as non-working which may also make a mole hill into a mountain of a problem). The custom builds were originally being posted because they alter settings to minimize or eliminate the effects of this bug while h2o is working on the server-side fix. |
|
|
|
My terminology might be a bit off but I'm quite sure I'm don't want to run my own pool. Let me try to rephrase my goal: - Machine B,C & D are the workers
- I want machines B,C & D to communicate via machine A
- Therefore I assume that machine should have some server software
- Next I would like machine A to be the central point to connects to a pool on the internet.
- Machine A now fetches the necessary data and provides this to the worker machines B,C&D to do their thing. Afterwards it posts the results back to the pool
- To the pool it shall likely look like all machines are represented as 1 worker (because machine A aggregates all communication).
I hope this makes it a bit more clearer. What I kinda want is some "stratum+tcp" relay on machine A. So the cudaminers on machines B,C & D connect to the machine A and machine A gives them the wanted information. Yes. You can use the stratum proxy pool software for that. You configure it on A so it points to the pool you mine on (AFAIK, it has to be pointed at the server's getwork port, assuming it has one), then point your miners to the local IP address of the computer running the proxy pool. |
|
|
|
|
/currency_converter.php doesn't return value in BTC.
/registry.php doesn't appear to function. (returns blank page, does not register credentials)
|
|
|
|
Hmm not sure I fully understand. I currently have 1 machine running cudaminer which doesn't seem to have a -addnode option.
Could you elaborate a bit on which program has this option? I assume this might be a different client that connects to a local server by specifying -addnode <local server> in its config somewhere. I imagine the setup to look like
<client> connects to --> <local server> connects --> pool on internet
Correct?
Oh. I thought you wanted to share blockchain data for Bitcoin clients, not miners. Supporting miners this way would be a little tougher since you basically have to create your own pool. If the pool you're mining on supports getwork (usually on port 8332 if it's there, though a lot of them've dropped support since stratum's far superior), you can download, configure, and run the stratum proxy pool. cgminer, cudaminer and the like don't natively support acting as a server over a network (AFAIK). That's a goofy solution, though. There's probably an easier way. There's a list of pool software @ https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Software#Mining_Pool_Servers_.28backend.29 I'd guess you'll run into problems with the firewall, though. |
|
|
|
Kind of disappointed. Was expecting racism.
 Does that do it for ya? Yes. Thank you. For the wraparound slogan, I'd suggest something like "wadamelon fried chikkin finga likkin gud." This could, in fact, be the first altcoin with a song (the slogan's already stuck in my head) and mp3 player bundled into the client. There's your innovation check mark. For the transaction received audio alert, you'd obviously want something like Bill Cosby shouting "puddin' pop?!" |
|
|
|
|
Don't think you'd need any special programs since you can add peers manually. Simply add the local IP address of the Internet-connected client as a peer. -addnode 192.168.1.100 (for example)
|
|
|
|
|
Kind of disappointed. Was expecting racism.
|
|
|
|
30 computers x 10 MHs = 300 MHs.
Won't make you jack at this hashrate, maybe you'll have luck with altcoins though, but it'll really be cost ineffective.
Can you even get 10Mh/s for mining altcoins out of each PC? Not if it's Scrypt, which any altcoin worth mining is. You can get a (very) rough estimate of Scrypt hashrate by dividing SHA256 hashrate by 1000. 300MH/s->300KH/s. Very roughly, this'd earn OP ~.0025BTC/day, or ~$2. @OP: Fuck you. |
|
|
|
Isn't this implementation of proof-of-burn exceptionally dangerous? It can be infinitely inflated. You can't really invest in it and have to exchange it very quickly since value will be decreasing with adoption. Very interested in seeing how this plays out. Hard to wrap my head around all the different implications. Good job.
Burning (true burning, that is - not redistribution as in XCP implementation) itself is fascinating as it poses one of the greatest threats to the long-term survival of Bitcoin (with regards to it being the most-used). If people kept burning BTC, it could eventually be the case that a true-burning XCP simply takes over BTC as a more fungible and otherwise-useful alternative. As is, it has a symbiotic relationship with BTC, but this could easily be changed. Very, very interesting stuff you guys've done.
The burn period is limited to one month, so the inflation can only last that long. And it looks like we'll have to actually destroy coins to avoid the attack that bootch found above. Oh - completely misread what you wrote earlier. That makes more sense.  Thought there was a kind of 50% linearly-decreasing bonus to burned BTC and in a month, BTC is exchanged 1:1 for XCP. Will read readme before making more of an ass out of myself. |
|
|
|
|
There's a catcoin and kittehcoin but no catecoin? Oh, well. Crap naming's nothing new. Any reasonable person would've named Sexcoin Groincoin.
|
|
|
|
|
Isn't this implementation of proof-of-burn exceptionally dangerous? It can be infinitely inflated. You can't really invest in it and have to exchange it very quickly since value will be decreasing with adoption. Very interested in seeing how this plays out. Hard to wrap my head around all the different implications. Good job.
Burning (true burning, that is - not redistribution as in XCP implementation) itself is fascinating as it poses one of the greatest threats to the long-term survival of Bitcoin (with regards to it being the most-used). If people kept burning BTC, it could eventually be the case that a true-burning XCP simply takes over BTC as a more fungible and otherwise-useful alternative. As is, it has a symbiotic relationship with BTC, but this could easily be changed. Very, very interesting stuff you guys've done.
|
|
|
|
Yeah... I remember when Bitcoin was first mined, late 2012.  |
|
|
|
As stated above. If you don't like the methods involved here then the door is right here: 'X'
You can always do it yourself then there will be no one to blame.
And what if I do like all the methods involved here except this single issue with the delayed trades? Should I stay or should I go? Please advise. If you go there will be double. But if I stay there will be trouble. Let him know. Come on. |
|
|
|
|
I'm curious how this works, now. What are the first two numbers actually referencing? gmaxwell is +205 and still red to me.
|
|
|
|
|
More annoying is that there's no read permission for the trashcan. Sometimes I click a thread to learn it was moved to the trashcan while I was reading through the list of topics to choose from which just makes me more interested in whatever was canned.
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
