Yesterday I was thinking that small miners like myself would start shutting down and getting out of the game entirely over the next few months.
Why would you think that? |
|
|
|
You're definitely right, those things should be supported! Personally, I think everyone should just aim their payouts to 1LUpr2gJfk4yHNWFAYw9hcFFDsFcMZeULt
Is that your own address..? No that looks like mine. |
|
|
|
You can estimate it by looking at how many blocks are required to do a bit more than beat the PPS rate.
It looks to be a little bit more than 12.
seems last jump was a big dent in the payout percentagewise last week seems like the golden days compared to this diff Wait till week after next. |
|
|
|
Yay windows. At this rate I'll ... completely deprecate windows support  ... actually expected that ages ago ... Don't tempt me please it's hard enough to maintain motivation with windows support  Just sent you and Kano a little M$ Windoze support motivation. Thanks for your efforts, Sam |
|
|
|
Makes sense, I suppose that is what's happening. But that also affects my reward too.
In terms of reward only, we just had a huge jump in network difficulty. That will definitely decrease our reward. |
|
|
|
3.6.2 won't even run on Win7:
[2013-10-16 07:08:27] BAS 1 usb write err:(-5) LIBUSB_ERROR_NOT_FOUND
[2013-10-16 07:08:27] BAS1: RequestQueJob failed (err=-5 amt=0)
Pro tip: Don't use Windoze for mining.  What else is there? |
|
|
|
|
Thanks for the F-Bomb in the subject line. We really don't have enough of that now do we? Yes that is sarcasm.
But good luck in your solo mining endeavor. I will be following suit in another difficulty change, or two. Yes that is genuine support for the idea.
Sam
|
|
|
|
Not the best version of English?
Sigh...
A co-worker from the UK used to say we were separated by a common language. I still say he talks funny  . Sam |
|
|
|
I am re-compiling on Windows to get ready for some Bitfury's
The precompiled Windoze binaries don't work? The pre-compiled exe's work fine, but it is open source and I like to compile my own for a number of various reasons. OK, that's cool. I'm guessing you already looked in the windows-build file? I'll just shut up now. Good Luck, Sam |
|
|
|
I am re-compiling on Windows to get ready for some Bitfury's
The precompiled Windoze binaries don't work? |
|
|
|
the idea was to have 1 BFL miner and 5 block erupters working on 1 pool and 1 BFL on another pool...
In one CGMiner instance use "--usb ICA:5, BAS:1" This will use the 5 BE's and one BFL ASIC. Note the ICA:5 isn't really needed as CGMiner would use them with no command line options. In the other instance use "--usb ICA:0, BAS:1" This tells CGMiner to use NO BE's and 1 BFL ASIC. This is why I asked what devices you wanted to disable. The other post's suggestions would work great for GPU's, but not so well for ASIC's. These usb options are explained in the Readme under Advanced USB Options. Sam |
|
|
|
......What do you guys think? :  RELEASE THE BEAST!! Nah. Actually you sir are wasting worthful ressources. Um...Using a Mac with 1.5mh/s to mine for fun? I don't see how I'm wasting any resources here... They mean your consuming more power than you will earn in BTC. Also you may be introducing allot of wear and tear on your system. Keep close tabs on your temps while your having fun. It won't be fun if you burn up your machine. |
|
|
|
|
That must be a really old stat. Block Erupters consume around 7.5 Watts per Ghs.
|
|
|
|
simple but i couldn't figure it our  v3.4.2 by the way also is it possible to use Block erupters and BFL hardware in the same window? What devices do you want to ignore? Yes you can use Erupters and BFL's in the same instance. Just use no command line options besides your pool information and it will use all devices that are available. |
|
|
|
i'm running Windows Internet Explorer 8 on Windows XP.
You mean the virus runtime environment? Sorry, non productive comment. |
|
|
|
Solo mining against the Bitcoin-QT client results in allot of shares being leaked over to backup pools.
Ah, you're trying to getwork mine against bitcoin-qt? With an asic miner? Crazy. Getwork is depricated. We support getblocktemplate in bitcoind. This is how you should be solo mining against it. So I can just tell my miner to use the GBT protocol? |
|
|
|
When will there be variable or use defined difficulty and stratum support in the Bitcoin client? It seems it is needed very badly.
I can't actually figure out what you're asking about. Can you try again with some more context, especially please describe what you're trying to accomplish. I would be happy provide some context. Solo mining against the Bitcoin-QT client results in allot of shares being leaked over to backup pools. So it seems something needs to be done at some point so that folks with high hash rate ASIC's can solo mine without the need to setup there own pool software to do it. Currently I have about 20Ghs of ASIC's and when I solo mine I get this behavior. My thought was to implement the stratum protocol as an option for the mining software to communicate with the Bitcoin Client in server mode. Right now that is done with the old getwork protocol. My other thought was to implement variable difficulty, but after thinking about that I realized that was probably silly since, I think, the mining software is only going to submit shares that meet or exceed the current difficulty anyway. So does that explain what I'm thinking better? Thanks, Sam |
|
|
|
|
When will there be variable or use defined difficulty and stratum support in the Bitcoin client? It seems it is needed very badly.
|
|
|
|
To be quite frank the attack was a plus for the network. BTCguild had far too much of the network hashing power in my opinion
Good thing the attack has decreased BTC Guilds overall hashrate. Too bad your *opinion* doesn't quite square with reality. Sorry maybe you should read my opinion again. clearly you missed it I don't think so. You stated that DDoS'ing BTC Guild was a good thing because you are of the opinion it's hash rate was too high. The reality is BTC Guild hash rate increased dramatically during the DDoS. And the attack is now over. Hash rate is now down at btcguild in terms of its percentage on the network. Like I said...read it again. OK, lets read it again. BTCguild had far too much of the network hashing power in my opinion
So your saying now that BTC Guild's portion "of the network hashing power" is just peachy? At any rate BTC Guild hash rate is accountable to it's miners so therefore much safer for the network. These other hashing entities are unaccountable to anyone so they can do whatever they want and they are growing very fast. So if BTC Guild is now a smaller percentage of the network I'm not so sure that's a good thing overall as reputable pools are not taking up that slack. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
