Perhaps most importantly, by responding here in writing, others that have the same question as you will find the answers in the future when the search, which means more people will benefit from the effort the "expert" is making.
Though almost no one ever searches and every new person asks the same questions billions of times over. |
|
|
|
This is almost scary enough to make me consider going into FIAT until 148 is buyable.
148 will be 141 which will be 91 which will be bit 4 which will be bit 1 which is NYA. In other words, there will be no 148 as a separate coin. |
|
|
|
Does SegWit2x either continue to allow or disallow AsicBoost? I've been trying to figure this out. Seems like an important piece to this political puzzle...
Segwit2x will end up activating segwit via BIP141 (the original implementation) so it will disable asicboost functionality. |
|
|
|
|
Segwit blocks look and work just like regular blocks and are no different with or without the node knowing about the witness data. There is no way to use the use them as some kind of different block.
|
|
|
|
Miners have zero input into what transactions the pool chooses. They don't even know what transactions are being included as they only get enough data to reconstruct the merkle hash. Thus a MitM can't do anything to what transactions the pool is including. Any modification to the merkle hash will make the data invalid and the pool will no longer accept it. Sorry. My English is too bad... I also can not understand my writings  I do not talk not about asic owners. Point. I do think about pushing the segwit blocks (without witness data of course) to pre-segwit part of network first and withholding the segwit block for some delay. To make this attack the pool admin have to answer the question: do other pools wait for segwit block or do they use SPV? Sorry I've tried to understand your question but I have no idea what you're talking about now. |
|
|
|
I want to discuss possible attack vector after segwit activation. Do not know
how to call it. Something like "witness-data-withholding attack". Pushing the mined block
without witness data to pre-segwit network and listening the actions on it from other pools
gives some interesting advantages to dishonest pool admin.
Miners have zero input into what transactions the pool chooses. They don't even know what transactions are being included as they only get enough data to reconstruct the merkle hash. Thus a MitM can't do anything to what transactions the pool is including. Any modification to the merkle hash will make the data invalid and the pool will no longer accept it. |
|
|
|
Please can you kindly resend the link to download the Excel spreadsheet as the link you provided is no longer working. Thanks You have resurrected a topic that has been dead for 6 years and the link has been dead for all that time. When the forum warns you about posting in a long inactive thread there's usually a reason. I'm locking this thread to prevent further posts on a long dead topic. |
|
|
|
|
Another useless post. Do some reading before you open a ridiculously open ended question.
/locked
|
|
|
|
Eh? I was talking about the 2MB hard fork component. EDIT: Oh I see you're saying they won't. Well that's obviously their position for now; I was speaking only hypothetically. |
|
|
|
Can someone confirm this? How much support is needed for locking the SegWit? Is it 80% or 95%? I heard that support levels of more than 80% for three days will be enough to lock the SegWit. Also, are they planning to run it from July 7?
80% support with segwit2x for 2 days will mean those miners will then orphan any blocks that are not signalling segwit. That means the chain is then guaranteed to reach 100% within the next 2 weeks (since the chain will only have segwit signalling blocks) which makes it above the 95% threshold to activate regular segwit. Anyone mining on core nodes signalling segwit, or users running core nodes will select the longest compatible chain which is the one with 100% segwit signalled blocks as well. They're planning to run it on July 14 though they have until July 21 to deploy it. 6 months after the 80% activation threshold is the 2MB hard fork. At that stage anyone running core nodes that are incompatible will end up forked on a separate smaller chain (from that fork point onwards) unless core creates something compatible or the mining consortium no longer agrees to participate in the rest of the segwit2x agreement... |
|
|
|
"derp": 1.69e-6,
You know what 10 to the power of -6 means? |
|
|
|
So the derp number is my reward in BTC??? I don't see how that's possible I've been mining for 30 minutes and it's at 1.21
Are you looking at your own BTC address? Everything appears to be in order as far as I can see. Only one address is around that reward and it's "1B5nA9AyLxtRmA16S4YCXR5D1r9Z9j1wBg": 1.26586349 |
|
|
|
@-ck I have an s7 running; Linux 3.8.13 #22 SMP Tue Dec 2 15:26:11 CST 2014
File System Version Thu Dec 3 16:07:54 CST 2015
Cgminer Version 4.8.0
is this possible to crack a block or do I need to update? Thank you much...
It is still possible. Extremely unlikely but still possible. Updating won't increase your chances of finding a block unless you get more powerful hardware. |
|
|
|
I'm beginner with solo mining and using blackarrow prospere x1 for this.. How i should config my device for "All you need to confirm you are mining to your own address is to examine the coinbase and template sent to you over stratum."  You can't do it with your hardware, you need software that can do it for you. If you build the latest cgminer from git you can use the --decode option (which needs bitcoind running as well as the first pool). Otherwise you have to extract the coinbase from stratum through some other means and feed it into bitcoind to decode the hex. |
|
|
|
Came home saw this on the miners screen FoundBlocks 1 - Got very excited!
Can't seem to see any payout though?
Also this is a old S3 which was even more of a surprise!
Bitmain's cgminer fork is quite broken with respect to block finding detection. |
|
|
|
How many times have I reiterated that what remains a complete mystery is what happens after segwit gets activated when we're staring down the barrel of the 2MB base blocksize (an 8MB overall block weight hence why I add the word base in there)
If that's what you really think, why do you keep feeding the publicity drive for this 2x proposal? You've been doing nothing but talk up it's relevance since it appeared, and yet you're conceding here that there are withheld details that will be imposed (or at least expected) once Segwit 4MB (i.e. BIP141) is activated. You should make your position clearer: do you think mystery clauses in contractual agreements a good idea or not? No, I think this agreement is the most fucked up thing in the history of bitcoin. I'm just glad we're getting segwit, but not remotely pleased about how it's happening, nor what they've planned for the future. Clearer? And if it's not clear, the whole point of this thread is to try and figure out what it means for all of us, I don't want to hype this fucking PoS. I've been trying to be relatively neutral with my reporting and shoot down the occasional trolls who've derailed the discussion. The fact is it's here and it's a tidal wave and we need to learn how to best ride the tidal wave rather than pretend it's not happening and be wiped out in the process ignoring it or trying to swim in another direction. |
|
|
|
Why? I think the guy has a point... For instance, if- when- and after SegWit gets locked in (and thus would make BU incompatible with it), there is no guarantee that the whole thing, to some degree, is 'settled'... We have seen many ideas addressing the scaling issue, yet we have also seen neither sides playing it nice. SegWit, Segwit2x, BU, UASF or whatever other proposal which can be labeled as a (temporary) 'answer', is addressing scaling; yet what they all lack, is addressing the emotions that have came along with them... Logic, basic or not, isn't applicable in that case, as logic simply cannot reason with emotions, the same as emotions cannot reason with logic, as in a way they're complete opposites of each other...
You've misunderstood what I'm flabbergasted by. I never said the whole thing was settled; not even remotely. How many times have I reiterated that what remains a complete mystery is what happens after segwit gets activated when we're staring down the barrel of the 2MB base blocksize (an 8MB overall block weight hence why I add the word base in there). The guy I just put on ignore seems to think this coinbase intention to signal of 85%+ is no guarantee that segwit will get activated and that the BU coinbase signatures used by Jihan and his minions are relevant to that. |
|
|
|
You are trying to mine with ancient software that only mines on CPU or GPU and a computer without mining hardware attached. The ancient software does not speak the current mining protocol and non ASIC hardware cannot meaningfully mine bitcoin. Please read bitcoin mining 101: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1944976.0/locked |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
