The CP server being down and signing wrong blocks did mess up Crypsty most of all... Trades that occurred before the roll back screwed their accounting. I'm sure everything will be fine on their end once they audit the transactions. As far as for flound, he should be made aware of the consequences of the signing blocks when not in sync! Good job on everything Tranz, and for quickly messaging flound about this! Live and learn  It looks like this was either a deliberate attack or a misbehaving peer that caused the checkpoint server to become lagged. If it was deliberate then the attacker got very lucky because the CP server is not configured to accept incoming connections. So it happened to connect out to that peer and then got inundated with getblocks request which caused the daemon to become lagged. So lagged in fact that only 2 peers were still connected by the time I logged into the server this morning. I've seen this happen with other currencies and I'm pretty sure it's some kind of attack. Just a very bad time for it to occur. I was working all day yesterday on Multipool issues with our east provider so I didn't really have time to check on it. I'm going to give Tranz control of the checkpoints so that he can monitor things more closely. For now the server is turned off. |
|
|
|
So it's returning an error, but the coins are actually sending? That's even worse. |
|
|
|
This wallet has never been used in any other locations. Why should redownloading the blockchain work vs. a rescan? |
|
|
|
|
ThreadRPCServer method=sendmany
CommitTransaction:
CTransaction(hash=2849cfe9e4, nTime=1404421839, ver=1, vin.size=1, vout.size=2, nLockTime=0)
CTxIn(COutPoint(0865db4c00, 1), scriptSig=30450221009cfc4782d54335)
CTxOut(nValue=7.00990989, scriptPubKey=OP_DUP OP_HASH160 4e292c160539d71e227ff8534aa682355276bc79 OP_EQUALVERIFY OP_CHECKSIG)
CTxOut(nValue=0.00111893, scriptPubKey=OP_DUP OP_HASH160 5f037bdb1902a348c6c8dd2b1904edda75eb9662 OP_EQUALVERIFY OP_CHECKSIG)
AddToWallet 2849cfe9e4 new
WalletUpdateSpent found spent coin 8.00112882nvc 0865db4c00a4ca4cbafefd37ee43d2acaa78e923dab02d24c781be0e274b8113
CommitTransaction() : Error: Transaction not validFlushing wallet.dat
Can someone please tell me why this transaction isn't sending?
{
"account" : "",
"address" : "4NNDF9pcZZhp8vaNW7DCQgKAGKz6aNfqWM",
"category" : "conflicted",
"amount" : -0.11189300,
"fee" : -0.01000000,
"confirmations" : -1,
"txid" : "2849cfe9e487fb45f88fc36a61c1d42d2be1bb8d58a99df59f39dbead78e47b7",
"metahash" : "df8bcd6a293368af200c20408997153dff28913f2095081b73819d436f62188b",
"walletconflicts" : [
],
"time" : 1404421840,
"timereceived" : 1404421840
},
|
|
|
|
Fractalcoin is now available for mining on Multipool.us port 3379 (1.5% fee). Features: - Over 1 year in operation
- Proportional reward system
- Redundant EU and US Servers
- User-selectable share difficulty from 16 to 2048 on scrypt/scrypt-n/x11 and 1 to 2048 on SHA-256 coins.
- Load Balancing - High capacity and redundant
- Transparent, detailed block payout stats
- Fee-free daily payouts and low threshold auto payouts
- Android and iPhone app available! http://multistat.yovu.co/
|
|
|
|
Yes I believe I updated at least a week ago but I will double check. |
|
|
|
Nothing really happened to it, that's largely the problem. One big plus FTC had was the active community/forums but that seems to have dwindled to next to nothing very fast. Maybe it'll have it's day again but I'm very sceptical.
They left here and started their own forum, that was the beginning of the end, no new blood on there. That said FTC is still profitable to mine for about 5-10% of any given day. |
|
|
|
So on the mining pool I use there is an option to mine in the regular pool or the low difficulty pool. How do these differ? It would seem the low difficulty would be the one to go with, but I have no idea.
You get a lower starting share diff on the low difficulty port. It has nothing to do with the Bitcoin difficulty. |
|
|
|
|
Multipool has been updated. Some advance notice next time would be great.
|
|
|
|
|
What actual block does POW end, or how can someone determine this info?
|
|
|
|
Bitcoin gives us the freedom to chose where we want to mine our rigs at. I don't have a bank or some authority saying I can't do this or can't do that. When someone tells me not to do something I'm more inclined to actually do it.
Weak minded, trembling hands Hope you lose your bitcoins soon You attack Bitcoin and you do not deserve any You realize you're just bumping their thread right? |
|
|
|
Bitcoin gives us the freedom to chose where we want to mine our rigs at. I don't have a bank or some authority saying I can't do this or can't do that. When someone tells me not to do something I'm more inclined to actually do it.
don't not mine at ghash. |
|
|
|
No Flound thank you. I love your pool and I believe ipominer is yours as well. Your customer service is great. I don't believe I have ever seen the pool go down for any reason. So thank you for the great pool I make more money with my old block erupter cubes here than anywhere else. Ok butt kissing off lol.
Thanks
Steve
No problem thanks Steve  |
|
|
|
Can maybe someone change the header of this discussion? It says 2.0 update in stead of 2.1.
Also the link to the wallet on page 1 is to the 2.0 version instead of 2.1.
It may solve some potential trouble someone new to CAPS could encounter
The link in the oOP says 2.0, but the zip actually contains 2.1. If Flounder wants to update it, the best link to put is not the zip but my release page. https://github.com/Tranz5/bottlecaps/releasesThis goes for anyone linking the wallets. This will always have the most updated wallets. Did that, but the latest release listed there is still 2.0? |
|
|
|
|
There appears to be an issue with the wallet using sendmany that returns this error:
{'error': {u'message': u'Transaction commit failed', u'code': -4}}
However, the coins are sent anyway.
My pool has just lost about 20k SUPER due to duplicate transactions created by this big. Please advise.
|
|
|
|
Any interest in adding TeKcoin to the sha 256 multipool it seems to be a very interesting coin. Its coming alive in the last few weeks. Hopefully it or another sha 256 coin will become a viable alternative to bitcoins. Competition among coins is always good.
Steve
I am looking at it, thanks. |
|
|
|
Other pools just need to step up their game and offer merged mining of atleast NMC for 0% fee.
As of today, gh.io is one of the best pools and therefore have the most miners.
p2pool is always nice too nad it supports the basic bitcoin idea, by further decentralizing the network.
It's not reasonable to expect a pool operator to take a 0% fee. Pools are not charities. There are real expenses and work involved in running one. Ghash's pool is a loss leader ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loss_leader). It works out well for them because it brings in miners to smooth their variance, and brings more coin into their system which people might use to trade or purchase ghash. Not everyone can use this business model. Eligius is 0% but survives on donations, and the NMC, I believe, that some users do not care about. This is also why they are able to pay out 105% on NMC. Every other major pool charges a fee. |
|
|
|
The fact remains that it would have been easier for you to stay on the pool and let the math prove you right.
You put in extra effort to avoid that. That is not reassuring.
You can give us any justification you want and it doesn't change those facts. The statement that you'll be back under a different name is not reassuring, and I'm not even one of the people who are going nuts about the situation.
Believe what you want, I'm out. |
|
|
|
My past day has certainly not been well with the multipool.
I decided to try leasing some big SHA256 rigs for a day to try out leasing. Everything was going well and I thought I was actually going to make a little money since bitminter found a a block when I was at ~0.11 BTC as my estimated payout.
But that payout didn't come anywhere near soon enough. I eventually received 0.03 BTC but that was so little that instead of making profit I lost around 0.08 BTC. I wanted to reach out to someone on IRC about this but I couldn't get a hold of anyone.
I moved my remaining SHA256 miners to ghash because of this but I would like to keep them with the multipool as I have been with the pool since late last year.
Sorry you had a bad experience. Bitminter has had terrible luck over the past few days. We are off Bitminter for now and I have plans to diversify the hashrate amongst several of the larger pools and move to some kind of PPLNS-based scoring for Bitcoin. Didn't you earn any altcoins as well? We were on altcoins for almost 1/3 of the day. I was mining straight BTC as the disconnects were not too kind towards my rental rigs. My own setup however doesn't have any issues really, just can't control how the rentals act unfortunately. Makes sense.. I hope if you mine here again you have better results. Unfortunately the past couple days have not been good for BTC mining at Multipool. |
|
|
|
|
It's not worth it for me to try to convince unreasonable people of anything. Especially when I can just move my hash elsewhere and not deal with this BS at all. Philip ma is still writing 100 line posts about how we should be on a solo fork to 'test our hardware' when we've already found 4 blocks (NMC difficulty is 80% of BTC difficulty and equal to BTC diff from May). People are still saying '2 weeks' when it's only been 12 days (even now). I've made attempts to correct these mis-assertions but they have gone unacknowledged by the people attacking me.
So there are a couple possible scenarios that could unfold in the next few weeks if we remain on Bitminter. The scenario where I'm quickly vindicated is much more unlikely than us having another week of bad luck or even luck (which would still keep us at 'bad luck' overall).
Either way I don't feel that my miners owe the pool anything. If DrH wants to look at the source code for the proxy I'm using to verify the functionality, I will gladly oblige him. However I'm pretty confident that he knows how stratum works since he's been doing this for a while and that he knows that there is zero programmatic difference between this:
{"params": ["multipool_1", "1ac0", "18030000", "53a49522", "0095d948"], "id": 6981, "method": "mining.submit"} <- normal share
and this:
{"params": ["multipool_1", "1ac0", "18030000", "53a49522", "62a8f301"], "id": 6982, "method": "mining.submit"} <- share that solves a block (for the sake of argument)
I wanted to feel like I was doing something good for the community by moving off ghash and onto a smaller pool, but your community quickly harshed that buzz.
I may have some hash back on Bitminter at some point, but it won't be under the username multipool.
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
