After being contacted by FmTqaJhi5fG6t6LNsDau1NksZGdJHN3DyV - i have reinstated the shares and payouts. And am confident (as I was initially) that while the hashrate was reported wrong, the shares and values were accurate
Apologies to FmTqaJhi5fG6t6LNsDau1NksZGdJHN3DyV for the inconvenience caused.
Shares were not accurate. When someone send more than 900k shares in a few minutes while someone with 50MHs send only 800, there is clearly a problem. Now, the pool hashrate is more..normal (~2GHs instead of..80GHs) I'm glad that you correct your pool (i'm pretty sure that your stratum was not before) but i'm sad that this guy will be paid for his cheating. (and will surely dump no matter the price) |
|
|
|
Dead ?
Would be a shame, nice premise. Don't give up, look at saffroncoin, where it is today... Yes, but saffron dev was guiving news all the time, and add new feature frequently..and even with that, saffroncoin is not in his best. |
|
|
|
again, on hashharder :
CHEATER
Address Shares Shares % Hash Rate (30 min avg) Last Share
FmTqaJhi5fG6t6LNsDau1NksZGdJHN3DyV 806,585 57.189% 51.1959 Gh/s 2014-07-09 22:12:39
51GH/s ...
To the pool owner : ban his IP, not simply blocking his address. It's pretty simple to generate a new address, not an IP
This guy will get between 150 to 350 fresh out of 500 for each blocks, for the last 2 hours, please block him before he get paid!
holy crap..... did you send something to the pool Operator? yes, a mail + private message here. there is also another guy with 2.5GH/s, maybe legit but.. FWihoHUBsebi5GZZ6QjgzNsJezv3vUZvcv |
|
|
|
|
again, on hashharder :
CHEATER
Address Shares Shares % Hash Rate (30 min avg) Last Share
FmTqaJhi5fG6t6LNsDau1NksZGdJHN3DyV 806,585 57.189% 51.1959 Gh/s 2014-07-09 22:12:39
51GH/s ...
To the pool owner : ban his IP, not simply blocking his address. It's pretty simple to generate a new address, not an IP
This guy will get between 150 to 350 fresh out of 500 for each blocks, for the last 2 hours, please block him before he get paid!
|
|
|
|
Someone else to have problems getting lower diff shares from suprnova? My 5xxx and 6xxx Radeons can't seem to get lower than diff 16 shares... and this is the only pool that gets blocks in last 10 hours  setting diff multiplier leads to "rejected share above target" .... literally lost 10h of mining for nothing at pool.mn or mining with no accepted shares at suprnova hardcoreminer pool and hashharder pool are getting blocks flawlessly (a block every 10mn or so) |
|
|
|
|
There is plenty of gpu farm with hundred of R9 280x / 7970 (hashing @ 4.6MHs each). but thousands, i don't think
And many rented rigs to add some power
|
|
|
|
Fluctuating hashrates is normal behavior... On average it should be fine though (if you don't have rejected shares)
as much as 50% of the hashrate? 13.5 to 9.5 ? Noob query - What is a fake hasher? You are talking about GHs.. There is something wrong with your miners config. What are you using ? Be sure that if you do not correct this quickly, you will not be paid, confirmation time if (very) long enough to let the pool owner to block your payments. fake hasher : your miner send share with a lower difficulty than asked by the pool or invalid shares that are counted. I don't know how as i assume hash harder pool is corrected. |
|
|
|
fake hasher on hasharder fresh pool again, those who mining on that pool share will be stolen
Can anybody confirm this? seems strange : Address Shares Shares % Hash Rate (30 min avg) FcKrFRsGt1EU5GFsiiVkoUaoM1RE6kwDNZ 196,480 31.155% 13.5805 Gh/s I can understand if someone has 1, maybe 2GH/s (if big farm and/or rentals), but 13GH/s (and growing) ? no. I am the owner of the said address and I can assure you I am mining as fairly as everyone else here. There seems to be something wrong with the code implementation. the hashrate estimation is all over the place previously it was 14, now 13.1 sometimes 12.7 which I find strange. IF there is a bigger pool I can mine with, I can move to that one. Edit: now down to 9.5...what is happening? There is obviously something wrong. If you use nvidia, don't forget to put -f 256 to your commandline try suprnova, it's the biggest pool right now |
|
|
|
fake hasher on hasharder fresh pool again, those who mining on that pool share will be stolen
Can anybody confirm this? seems strange : Address Shares Shares % Hash Rate (30 min avg) FcKrFRsGt1EU5GFsiiVkoUaoM1RE6kwDNZ 196,480 31.155% 13.5805 Gh/s I can understand if someone has 1, maybe 2GH/s (if big farm and/or rentals), but 13GH/s (and growing) ? no. |
|
|
|
|
AGX exist for some time now.
I do not think AGX do some manipulation. They have no interest in killing coin prices, as they live on fees.
The coins price was ~3000 satoshi before this huge dump.
Rich list only show sended coins to an address. I'm not even on this list (and i have ~50k)
So, for me, two possibilities : scam from the dev or 51% attack/double spend.
|
|
|
|
|
one bloc per minute.
So, there is (60*24*100) 144000 new coin each day.
current block : 13809
so i think there is 1380900 coin mined so far right ?
Looking at the history of coin sold yesterday on AGX :
7/7/2014 05:34:05 bid 0.00000005 780000.00000000 0.03900000
7/7/2014 05:34:05 bid 0.00000005 330000.00000000 0.01650000
7/7/2014 05:34:05 bid 0.00000005 520000.00000000 0.02600000
7/7/2014 05:34:05 bid 0.00000005 460000.00000000 0.02300000
7/7/2014 05:34:05 bid 0.00000005 350000.00000000 0.01750000
7/7/2014 05:34:05 bid 0.00000005 135564.16541435 0.00677821
7/7/2014 05:34:05 bid 0.00000005 470000.00000000 0.02350000
7/7/2014 05:34:05 bid 0.00000005 120000.00000000 0.00600000
7/7/2014 05:34:05 bid 0.00000005 580000.00000000 0.02900000
7/7/2014 05:34:05 bid 0.00000005 350000.00000000 0.01750000
7/7/2014 05:34:05 bid 0.00000005 120000.00000000 0.00600000
6/7/2014 23:51:14 bid 0.00000002 540000.00000000 0.01080000
6/7/2014 23:51:14 bid 0.00000002 1920000.00000000 0.03840000
6/7/2014 23:51:14 bid 0.00000002 760596.94955558 0.01521194
6/7/2014 23:17:05 bid 0.00000002 2170000.00000000 0.04340000
6/7/2014 23:17:05 bid 0.00000002 2720000.00000000 0.05440000
6/7/2014 23:17:05 bid 0.00000002 1930000.00000000 0.03860000
6/7/2014 23:17:05 bid 0.00000002 1321424.71834672 0.02642849
more than 15 million coin were sold (dumped).
Total coin the first year should be 17M. Mined so far should be 1.3Million. You sold for 15M yesterday.
Dev, nice SCAM.
Guys, stop mining this shit.
|
|
|
|
i tested with nfactor 12 (hashrate like 40KH on 280x...) and it didn't work (block rejected)
tested with a fork of shp-sgminer, param is "--algorithm adaptive-n-scrypt --nfactor 12"
I was having some rejects on x11 and x13 algo at the very beginning. So I went to scrypt N and I had 0 orphans so far. It's not a orphan problem, the block are rejected. (Orphan blocks are accepted blocks but already found elswhere.) |
|
|
|
|
i tested with nfactor 12 (hashrate like 40KH on 280x...) and it didn't work (block rejected)
tested with a fork of shp-sgminer, param is "--algorithm adaptive-n-scrypt --nfactor 12"
|
|
|
|
I understand those who want to use a proxy : They want (at best) to see a open source miner, or (most common) are greedy and don't want to give 5% of their hashrate in payment for the development of the software. More, some don't want to pay a fee because the dev made money (actually, made XRM and also other cryptonote (don't forget BCN/XDN/QCN etc..) - don't forget too that many user use minergate, you don't know how much Claymore did there..and i think it's huge) but.. Getting paid for his work is normal. None of you work for free right ? But the amount is disturbing. As said before, 5% is a lot. I think at first Claymore put 5% without knowing the amount he will make, and after, no way to lower it, especially because after some time, some pools pay only a part to his address (and, sorry, but it's stealing, even if you give the amount back to miners) and also proxy. Btw, proxy won't work with minergate (not a wallet address as login/pass) If you are a dev, and if you spend time to make a program and support it, it's normal to get paid for it. Nobody complain about fees on pool, and the amount gained that way is huge too. Ok, they have hardware renting, support to do etc.. some huge work ok..just like developping and making support for a software...because pools "only take 1 to 2% of fees (and there is no way to bypass it..) But cryptoworld is for the whole majority of people a matter of fair and open source. Making "too much" money with it is like giving control of bitcoin and other crypto to banks. Another problem is that in miners' mind, too much amount of any money give you too much control on this money and people will claim that you greedly dumped it and it's you're fault if all cryptonote coin are too low  If i were you, i'll set up a pool and make a new version of the miner (with lower fee) that take the fee mining on this pool. If the connexion to the pool is blocked (by proxy/host moddification etc), you stop the miner. You keep control of your fees and miners are pleased to have lower fee. win/win |
|
|
|
Looks like the daemon now checks the correct algo (10), but the daemon rejects the block because the difficulty of the block is not high enough.
Which miner are you using?
vertminer (GPU vertcoin miner) I used it too to try solo mining, and all blocks are rejected! tested with 0.5.2 and 0.5.4 Dev say the N is different ... now i try to check both source codes ( coin + miner) and discover if the N is somewhere in code locked (as Vercoin start from 10 till 30 ) i am really lost for now with it.. I tried with N=10 , 11 and 12. Same results, blocks are rejected. |
|
|
|
Looks like the daemon now checks the correct algo (10), but the daemon rejects the block because the difficulty of the block is not high enough.
Which miner are you using?
vertminer (GPU vertcoin miner) I used it too to try solo mining, and all blocks are rejected! tested with 0.5.2 and 0.5.4 |
|
|
|
it is what i believe first but i do have:
algo=quark (for quark pool )
and
algo=scryptn (for scryptn pool)
Both on dedicated servers
It looks like your pool is submitting the wrong block version number. From core.h // primary version
BLOCK_VERSION_DEFAULT = 2,
// modifiers
BLOCK_VERSION_AUXPOW = (1 << 8),
// algo
BLOCK_VERSION_ALGO = (15 << 9),
BLOCK_VERSION_SCRYPT = (1 << 9),
BLOCK_VERSION_GROESTL = (2 << 9),
BLOCK_VERSION_SKEIN = (3 << 9),
BLOCK_VERSION_QUBIT = (4 << 9),
BLOCK_VERSION_X11 = (5 << 9),
BLOCK_VERSION_QUARK = (6 << 9),
BLOCK_VERSION_GROESTL2 = (7 << 9),
BLOCK_VERSION_BLAKE256 = (8 << 9),
BLOCK_VERSION_X13 = (9 << 9),
BLOCK_VERSION_SCRYPTN = (10 << 9),
BLOCK_VERSION_KECCAK = (11 << 9),
So for a Quark block, your pool should be using block version 2 || (6 << 9) = 2 || 3072 = 3074 maybe you can explain us what are the diference from Quark to Spectrumcoin .... also what are from Vertcoin to Spectrumcoin .... in this case will be more easy for us to create the best setup for pools. The hashing algorithms for Quark and ScyptN was taken from Quarkcoin and Vertcoin. So there is no difference in hashing (except for how the N parameter changes for ScryptN as previously mentioned). The other changes are not related to the hashing algorithm. They are similar to Myriadcoin to support multi-algorithm hashing. But using vertcoin miner (vertminer) with wallet/solo mining : only rejected blocks (not orphans, rejected in the miner directly) |
|
|
|
Scrypt-N works flawlessly here.
Wich miner do you use ? Thanks dev for the answers Scrypt-N does not work for me with vertminer, exeminer, nor sgminer |
|
|
|
Scrypt-N works flawlessly here.
Wich miner do you use ? Thanks dev for the answers Scrypt-N does not work for me with vertminer, exeminer, nor sgminer |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
