Yes I'm aware of it, and I do understand why people stick with XP, but in all honesty I'm still surprised that no one would run a 12 year old PC but they're using a 12 year old unsupported by MS operating system. As I said, I do understand the whole if-it-ain't-broke concept, but it still surprises me... I run PC's allot older than 12 years old, not to mention Operating Systems, hence my profile pic. Many of the customers I deal with are still using WinXP & Server 2K3 so I have several machines with those OS's on hand. That's often the way of Vertical Market software. Besides there's about a year of M$ support left on XP. The thing that surprised me is that Server 2K8 gave the same error as XP when I ran the Zadig I got from your site. Sam |
|
|
|
Windoze users
You have to stop calling Windows that. It's not funny, it hasn't been in 2 decades. Grow up. Now that I know it really irritates you, you know it'll never stop  |
|
|
|
Yep, I use WinXP for my testing (VM and kids computer are WinXP)
It may be helpful to folks to put that in the download directory as well. Thanks, Sam Edit: the Zadig version in the downloads didn't work with Server 2008 32 bit either. I haven't tried the XP version with it yet to see if that works or not. |
|
|
|
Kano and ckolivas, Did you guys know that there is a WinXP only version of Zadig? I setup my XP Pro laptop to be backup to my Win7 mining rig and found that the Zadig in your download directory is incompatible with WinXP and it doesn't do a check to tell you that. So I found the XP only version and that got me off the races with my backup PC. I'm wondering if that is part of the trouble some Windoze users are having with the Zadig utility? The XP Only version can be had from this link http://sourceforge.net/projects/libwdi/files/zadig/zadig_xp_v2.0.1.160.7z/downloadThanks, Sam |
|
|
|
|
So, is this the thread to watch when new coupons/promo price for earlier Group buys become available? Or will there be another thread?
Sam
|
|
|
|
Well that may make sense if it were a scrypt miner. But it is not it's a Bitcoin mining program which has graciously added scrypt support.
So this is not a bug.
Maybe clarification in the Scrypt Readme, if its not already there, would be in order.
Sam
I call bullshit on pretty much everything in this post. But a fix may not be the highest priority so at least a note as to the behavior would be useful. OK, fine, I'm just expressing my opinion a bit and attempting to apply common sense. It would just seem to make sense to me to tell the the mining software what type of mining I want it to do before telling it how I want it to mine that specific coin. The previous posters remark about regression is very valid too, it seems to me. Later, Sam |
|
|
|
I agree, but also, I think this is a live, active, major scam. Here is a bit more.
Yep, I have no problem with your reporting and investigation. Very helpful I think . I'm just stating the obvious in simple terms in case anyone else has the urge to google any program for the purpose of downloading and installing. Always exercise common sense. Sam |
|
|
|
I noticed this bug as well. It brought 3 of my rigs down one I updated to 3.3.2 They all had -I before --scrypt.
This is a bug and should be fixed. Parameter order should not affect validation.
Well that may make sense if it were a scrypt miner. But it is not it's a Bitcoin mining program which has graciously added scrypt support. So this is not a bug. Maybe clarification in the Scrypt Readme, if its not already there, would be in order. Sam |
|
|
|
|
Always download mining software directly from the Authors provided site.
That principal should be followed for ANY software you download from the internet these days.
Sad state of affairs indeed.
Sam
|
|
|
|
|
CGMiner 3.3.2 has direct USB support so you don't need any serial port drivers at all.
|
|
|
|
|
I have had great results with CGMiner 3.3.1 using direct USB. CGMiner 3.3.2 was just released and that seems to work well to, so far and resolves the problems that some were having.
Of course I have only 15 of them.
|
|
|
|
I did forget to include the rejected shares and didn't take a screen shot. Oh well.
The rejects are negligible. .1% for BTCGuild and Deepbit. |
|
|
|
Has anybody else had trouble with stratum.ozco.in in the past few hours? I have 4 miners and all of them are idle b/c they report it as dead.
Yep, last couple days. |
|
|
|
Sorry if this is a noob question, I wanted to play with the 3.3.1 on windows, Problem is, Avast stops me saying it is a trojan.
As I have had this problem before, I just turn off avast to download and all works well.
I am assuming the code is detected as a virus as it does not recognize it?
You can't be that new this situation. Read the Q&A in the readme. Search this thread and you'll see allot of these questions and answers. |
|
|
|
I said "multi-insurance PPS". The pool's risk in this arrangement is low.
No one is forced to do anything, I'm just saying this is the best solution for everyone.
That term did not go unnoticed by me. That implies involvement of third parties, which means involvement of more people which means more error and more distrust, possibly. It would be interesting to hear/see an explanation, in laymen's terms. PPS is definitely easy to understand and verify. But can be risk free? Pools are businesses and always have been. Pool ops need to approach it as a business as apposed to a hobby. Even pools that started as an educational exercise for the pool ops should probably draw to a close and take a much more serious business like approach. With the existing hash rate and really good bitcoin price there is really too much to risk for the Pools and Miners. Sam |
|
|
|
1. It is not trivial to implement correctly.
2. While its principles are simple, the results that follow from these principles are fairly complicated.
That's one reason I prefer Proportional payout. It is fairly easy to verify and the Pool does not need to risk loss due to bad luck. And with easily verifiable payout system you get enhanced trust. Wait, what? Proportional is the most broken, hoppable method that exists. There is nothing broken about Proportional Payout. It is straight forward and it works. Complicated payout schemes are confusing and make people wonder/distrust pools that use them. As we have just seen. I completely trust Eleuthria and therefore his PPLNS payout and the same goes for Graet and his DGM. But how difficult would it be for an unscrupulous pool/person to take advantage of that complexity for their own advantage? I'm sure Organofcorti would catch it, but how long would that take? Anyway as far as hoppable, so what. People should be free to hop if they want or not. And users can decide if they want to mine on pools that are more hoppable or not. If a person chooses not to be informed how is that everyone else problem? |
|
|
|
... and I guess you don't realise that Hardware Errors has nothing to do with the pool?
That makes sense, but why then do the HW errors double on getwork over stratum? It's very consistent. |
|
|
|
Too many other good pools have fallen by the wayside because they dropped common sense business practices and tried to bend to the consumers whims. That doesn't work when most of those consumers of a service couldn't care less about anything but themselves.
My two Satoshi's worth,
Sam
Thanks Sam. What kinds of things specifically do you believe the pools have done to suit the consumer that has effected them negatively? *edit The person who pointed out Stratum was you, just realized after I dug up the link to edit my prior post =) No fee or too low of a fee PPS. Interesting, because I actually feel as if I get more shares on Deepbit PPS than BTC Guild running block erupter - which is how I tried rationalizing the 10% fee. I am going to run on each one for 24 hours to compare, although I know difficulty is always going up -- I think I'll give deepbit the advantage and run them first. 2 Hour Test (336MH/s ASIC) Deepbit: 555 shares Hardware Errors: 14 BTC Guild: 560 shares Hardware Errors: 4 That's 2.5 % for Deepbit and .7% on BTC Guild. I get about 2% HW Errors on Deepbit and about 1% on BTC Guild. So I would say your in line with what you should be getting. Over a large period of time the lost shares due to the old getwork protocol will add up. |
|
|
|
1. It is not trivial to implement correctly.
2. While its principles are simple, the results that follow from these principles are fairly complicated.
That's one reason I prefer Proportional payout. It is fairly easy to verify and the Pool does not need to risk loss due to bad luck. And with easily verifiable payout system you get enhanced trust. I believe the future of pooled mining is PPS, specifically multi-insurance PPS (still need to write a post explaining what that is).
I hope your wrong. If pools are forced into a PPS they will have no guarantee of a sustainable business model since the risk will be too high and will just stop providing the service. Then only dishonest people will be able afford to run pools by screwing over their user base, selling their users information or using the hashes for something nefarious. Just my two Satoshi's worth, Sam |
|
|
|
Where is Ozcoin getting the BTC for the POT payout ? The page you reference show's exactly where PoT payout comes from. I just don't understand what your basing your complaint on. Nothing objective. I think, that is subjective on my part, that you have trust issues and expect everyone to screw over everyone else. Well believe it or not, not all of us are out to screw over everyone. I'm sure you'll chose the not. Sam |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
