There wasn't an issue of semantics. The argument was that the blocksize from 2009 inspired more processing power in computer in equipment for Bitcoin in contrast to the white paper, which the whitepaper was arguing for decentralization (more than likely with a shared system, like P2Pool). This Satoshi Nakamoto event has had an effect on P2Pool ever since: And I want to see if anyone will admit or deny that and why. Not an issue of semantics. Where were the semantics? I have no problem with you discussing what you want to discuss it's just not relevant to this p2pool support thread. Hence I've moved it to its own thread. The posts are all still there intact and others are free to respond if they feel inclined but any more posts to this thread along that nature will be removed. Please don't play the free speech card, this is a private forum and you have to obey the rules of the forum primarily. I'm not even censoring your posts, I'm just moving them to their own topic. But if you keep posting unwanted posts in this thread you will be silenced. |
|
|
|
[2017-06-06 02:51:43.305] Possible block solve diff 689050807948.046875 ! [2017-06-06 02:51:43.538] BLOCK ACCEPTED!
[2017-06-06 02:51:43.852] Solved and confirmed block 470010 by 1APgxnjWNDzm1RFVMnmBD6dkc55LrWHaeV
[2017-06-06 02:51:43.852] User 1APgxnjWNDzm1RFVMnmBD6dkc55LrWHaeV:{"hashrate1m": "935G", "hashrate5m": "1.08T", "hashrate1hr": "1.09T", "hashrate1d": "1.1T", "hashrate7d": "1.19T"}
[2017-06-06 02:51:43.852] Worker 1APgxnjWNDzm1RFVMnmBD6dkc55LrWHaeV:{"hashrate1m": "935G", "hashrate5m": "1.08T", "hashrate1hr": "1.09T", "hashrate1d": "1.1T", "hashrate7d": "1.19T"}
[2017-06-06 02:51:43.854] Block solved after 1133906615964 shares at 167.1% diff
Very lucky small miner with a big fat ~17BTC reward! |
|
|
|
|
ckpool.org does as well (it's the shared pool version of solo.ckpool.org)
|
|
|
|
Aaaand diff rises again and we're back at ~80% diff on this block.  At least the base hashrate is looking more respectable. |
|
|
|
To build a new block, you only need the 80 byte block header, but basically no validation will be done.
And in addition, if you build off a non-validated header, you are unable to add any transactions to the block you are working on leading to an 'empty block' that you see all the Chinese pools do. |
|
|
|
What is the get apt command for Linux (ubuntu) for installation?
I used the following command: apt-get install cgminer and it downloaded version 4.9.2 I see a version 4.10.0 on the Git site however.
That is the correct apt command but it's up to the linux distribution to be up to date or not. |
|
|
|
|
btcguild gave MONTHS of warning when they were closing down, and then still responded to support for months after their official support closure. You can't expect a company to respond 2 years after it has shut down.
|
|
|
|
We're not that alone, it's just that we're surrounded by hundreds of... ants or something. |
|
|
|
|
You most definitely should stop.
|
|
|
|
As that has been cleared up, he could at least stop spamming the forum with needles redirect threads. I take it that moderators often move things without actually leaving redirect threads, as there are cases in which this is really not necessary. Back in the ol' days, my *don't leave - to - leave ratio* was probably ">1:10". One possible explanation is that he thinks spamming redirect threads will make it seem like he is *doing the most stuff* around here.  That's a worthwhile discussion. I redirect thousands of threads and don't leave redirection notices. My default approach is to NOT leave redirection notices on new threads when there has only been an opening post. If anybody has posted a response only then will I use a redirection notice since someone besides the opening poster is already interested in that thread and will come back looking for it. I'd ping @rickbig41 to this thread but this forum's software is so arcane and shit I can't even do that. |
|
|
|
Con, congrats on launching this pool. Your reward system looks quite interesting. Best of luck!
Thanks Jonny! I'm sure you know well how hard it is to get support for a small pool and attract miners and ride the long wait between blocks when the hashrate is this low. |
|
|
|
Another question would be how long would a minority chain "survive" if it gets around 15% - 20% of hashing power, and if it is possible for BIP 148 to gain such support? Let us put our speculation hats on for the sake of discussion.
It survives indefinitely unless the miners eventually abandon it; you would now have two completely incompatible chains. It only gets interesting if a compaible segwit gets activated on the other chain down the track. |
|
|
|
I just assigned my Antminer S7 to the pool. Put the 'POOL 1' url as pool.ckpool.org:3333. Now it's been ages since I last tinkered with the miner so my memory isn't as reliable, so let me just verify.
URL: pool.ckpool.org:3333
Worker: My BTC Address (Is that the same as a wallet receiving address?)
Password (Just type something in?)
My miner status shows that stratum+tcp://pool.ckpool.org:3333 is 'Alive' with 36 "GetWorks" and 312 "Accepted".
Did I get it right or am I missing something?
Sounds perfectly fine. If you have more than one miner you may want to give each worker unique workername extensions after the btc address but if you only have the one miner then just your btc address is fine. It looks like it's mining based on you getting accepted shares anyway. Welcome aboard  |
|
|
|
"Now that core is seriously discussing it as a solution and various ways to implement it and appease the mining consortium in the process"
Where can I see this? How can we believe it's not simply more stalling?
https://github.com/btc1/bitcoin/pull/6 |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
