35 out of 46 posts in this thread are from the same person: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=930934.40

If it's the word "scammers" in my post that you're caught up on, you could substitute spammers.

Back in the GPU mining days, I used to use a dish drying rack from Walmart that cost $5.  Worked like a charm. 

I don't believe that is true.  I believe the owner of minersource.net received a scammer tag on these forums before he ever got a new forum username and started minersource.net.

I was unaware that the forum charged a fee for this.  Pretty cool way to fight this problem.  Any chance something could be implemented for obvious scammers as well.  For example, this guy has been attempting to run his poor attempt at a scam for weeks now and nobody is really doing anything about it.  Anyone that leaves him negative trust gets bombarded with negative trust from multiple sock puppet accounts.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=408814

When troublemakers like this won't take a hint, can't they be flagged as scammers and have to pay to access their account again instead of just being banned for a short period of time?

Was hoping to snipe it in the 6's myself. 

I have one that doesn't have the hologram.  PM me if you're interested.

The hashrate you're referencing is the NastyMining hashrate.  That is the hashrate of our mining operation.  The NastyPool hashrate is also on the OP, only it is listed in the NastyPool section.  NastyPool currently has somewhere around 25TH.  However, since NastyPool mines on P2Pool, we benefit from sharing found blocks with the P2Pool network, which is currently about 2PH/s.  If you throw 2-4TH/s at NastyPool, you would have about 10% of NastyPool's hashrate, but a very minor portion of the P2Pool hashrate.

Unless I'm mistaken, it is an 8kb transaction with a 0.0008 BTC transaction fee.  That is the recommended fee, right?  It does appear to me that a combination of young inputs and small outputs are causing the delay.  It will be interesting to see if it gets processed before having to be double spent on Friday.

Port 3334 was switched to default p2pool so there is no need to do anything now, but you should probably use port 9332 as a failover just as a good mining practice.

The charts show addresses more than once because the ckpool and p2pool hashes are counted separately.  That means as miners switched ports, their username would then be duplicated.  If you checked while it was happening, you could see that one of the usernames had a "ckp" in front of it, showing that it was mining on the ckpool frontend.  I suspect the reason for your shortpay, without being able to look at the logs (nonnakip would have to help with that) is that ckpool was crashing frequently.  A lot of the miners that were on port 3334 without setting a failover of port 9332 were negatively effected by that.  As I said, I don't have access to see exactly how much downtime you saw as a result of the instability, but it was a major factor last week.  I would definitely recommend that a failover pool always be set for any miner, but it is especially important now while NastyPool works to overcome scalability and stabilization issues.  

I'm not trying to say bad things about ckpool either.  I think it works as a great frontend and am really happy with it while it's operating.



Maybe.  We're part of a crazy bunch that think people should be able to spend dust, or else it shouldn't exist.  I think the core developers haven't paid enough attention to that issue yet.  In any event, it will get resolved.  I just wanted people to know there is no loss and nothing went wrong with the sending of the payment.

I would like to hear BurtW's side of the story.  He hasn't logged in for a month so I can only assume that he has not been bailed out.  Has anyone found out if bail has been set, and if so what the amount is?

The payouts went out, but aren't being confirmed by the network for some reason.  This isn't related to the frontend, but some other mystery.  Here's the transaction that is waiting to confirm: https://www.blocktrail.com/BTC/tx/c46bd16596240f6b41a10ceb968389c3921214cbff27d6cbe6d987f51bab9c99

The conversion to the new frontend went fine as well.  The issue is that ckpool is currently extremely buggy.  I'm beginning to question if ckpool is ready for primetime yet though.  Using the 9332 port will eliminate any issues relating to ckpool until a stable version can be released (even port 3334 is now standard p2pool until ckpool can stabilize), and if last week's distribution isn't confirmed by this week, the coins will be double spent to ensure they are added to this week's distribution.

Not necessary.  Your bid is no longer valid. This auction is closed, item has been paid for.  Thanks everyone for looking.

A new bid to save the day. Sending PM.

I'm happy to negotiate via PM. The biggest hurdle is you not receiving payment until the goods are received.

I did as well.  He didn't seem to want to sell to me.

You can try and work a deal out with him if you want. Let me know if you are not going to honor your bid.

I'll purchase if I can pay after the pizza is received.

I've been in talks with the mint and have provided them the artwork for this project.  I'm expecting to have a final cost from them this coming week.  I will then want to move forward with the minting process.  If you have made a deposit, please make the necessary arrangements and contact me to complete your order.

Here's the explanation from nonnakip:

Nope.