|
flound, what is the multipool up to?
Mining LKY for hours now, the difficulty is already at 6.48636611!
If the pool keeps going at this rate we will hit 20 in an hour.
I don't think this is a fair behavior of the multipool for all parties involved.
Titan
|
|
|
|
I've noticed that on P2Pool.org that I'm the only miner and the pool rate is between 18 and 27 percent global speed with just 2 8400GT cards on a Ubuntu 12.04 system doing CUDA script. For those that feel that LuckyCoins is in death throws, feel free to send yours to LHe9g5ixMyfdtqAEHU5vErG1eQrDshBFRW  In the meantime, i'm going to try and get more old rigs on that pool and mine the ( words removed ) out of it!!! ** Edit to add this to answer the obvious questions ** yep, not connected, each card getting between 8 and 27khash due to how short some are before getting and reporting shares. ( averaging 10k per card ) I don't think that these numbers are accurate. The Luckycoin network is around 10MHs during the slow times. Titan |
|
|
|
354 (ish ) on I still have to manualy change where the libs are by removing the drive letter and changing the path to where Ubuntu 12.04 stores them. INCLUDEPATH += $$BOOST_INCLUDE_PATH $$BDB_INCLUDE_PATH $$OPENSSL_INCLUDE_PATH $$QRENCODE_INCLUDE_PATH
LIBS += $$join(BOOST_LIB_PATH,,-L,) $$join(BDB_LIB_PATH,,-L,) $$join(OPENSSL_LIB_PATH,,-L,) $$join(QRENCODE_LIB_PATH,,-L,)
LIBS += -lssl -lcrypto -ldb_cxx$$BDB_LIB_SUFFIX -loleaut32
# -lgdi32 has to happen after -lcrypto (see #681)
LIBS += E:\MinGW\lib\libws2_32.a // change to correct location no drive letter /usr/i686-w64-mingw32/lib ( 32 bit Ubuntu )
LIBS += E:\MinGW\lib\liboleaut32.a // change to correct other slash for Ubuntu / Linux drive slashes
LIBS += -lboost_system$$BOOST_LIB_SUFFIX -lboost_filesystem$$BOOST_LIB_SUFFIX -lboost_program_options$$BOOST_LIB_SUFFIX -lboost_thread$$BOOST_THREAD_LIB_SUFFIX
I highly recomend on the building system you add a path to that drive so it can ' just find ' \MinGW\lib\ ' with out the drive letter, it makes it more portable code, but what would an old guy like me know? Got a whole 5 Luckycoins from mining on P2Pool.org and looks like i'm the last in the pool and the global is still keeping me under 40% of the hashing Edited to add info on where /usr/i686-w64-mingw32/lib is and to change the slashes as Linux uses the ' wrong ' slash for directory trees. Thanks for looking into these building issues! I will have a closer look on all your comments when I am back from traveling end of next week. I have stopped mining on p2pools after seeing strange things happen some weeks ago. You can easily go solo on the Luckycoin network. The multipool is also highly efficient. Titan |
|
|
|
|
Please also consider the Luckycoin LKY for your cryptocoin payment processing system.
Titan
|
|
|
|
Is there an explorer anymore?
Unfortunately, the LKY block explorer at p2pool.nl is still down. I've contacted the operator of http://www.cryptocoinexplorer.com to get the Luckycoin added on his site. Titan |
|
|
|
|
Have you checked your ~/.bash_history file?
Everything you type to the console will be recorded there, including your plaintext wallet passwords, if you are not explicitly excluding them.
So it would be easy for an attacker who has access to the machine to steal the wallet and the bash_history file.
Are you aware of this security hole?
|
|
|
|
Can't sync my wallet! It just hangs @ 342466 block remaining.. Any help?
This happens when a Litecoin node connects to the network. Usually after some time the node gets kicked from the network and things are back to normal. I have added some fixes to reduce the exposure to the Litecoin and other networks in the security updates. If the client really gets stuck, you can delete the peers.dat file and restart the client. Titan |
|
|
|
I'm guessing this has been said before but the Windows Luckycoin wallet is out of date, it keeps telling you it's out of date and it's been like this for ages. I think you'll get more support if folks have confidence in stuff like this. I for one don't feel like burning my few miners on a given Alt-coin when I can't even be sure if the few coins I make will be viable.
Let us know when the Windows wallet is fixed. Or is it just me! (I have just tried re-downloading it and I get the same thing about it needing updating).
Please download the latest Windows QT client from GitHub. https://github.com/LuckyCoinFoundation/LuckycoinQTFor more information read the thread: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=236714.0Titan |
|
|
|
Hey please fix that blockchain sync problem.
Nibble Coin fixed it with a new conf file.
otherwise the LKY will be dead very fast.
I have already implemented some measures to prevent Litecoin nodes form entering the network. I'll have a look at the Nibble solution, thanks. Titan |
|
|
|
Unfortunately the time has come to close the doors on my LKY pool @ http://lky.scryptmining.comWhile its one of only 3 pools (and the only non-p2pool) still alive since launch, the pool has seen little hashrate for quite some time, and no miners or blocks for more than 48hrs now. I wish LKY success, and will gladly re-open my doors in support of the coin should the need arise, but at this point there is little reason to leave an empty pool running. The website will remain up for at least 7 days for anyone to withdraw coins that needs to, though mining will be shut off as of now. Any payments triggered from the site get sent out in 15 minute intervals after this point. Good luck to the coin, and thanks to the miners who supported the pool! Thanks for supporting the LKY network over the last months! Titan |
|
|
|
Titan, if you want to PM me we can have a discussion about LKY's future on Multipool, however please understand that my position is that once a coin is public, and on exchanges, anyone should be free to mine it, including those who only want to mine when it is profitable to do so.
Even though I don't like the concept of multipools, I have to admit that is correct. If you go public, you go public. Only reasonnable thing to do is to adjust difficulty algorithms and code so that this practice is no longer profitable. One thing we did to help Noirbits (which I develop) is to place a max. time before next retarget. Basically, if difficulty gets too high for the actual hashrate, and next retarget takes too long to kick in, it is automatically dropped (for Noirbits, 4 hours max., while retargets are supposed to occur every hour). The next step we are taking is too force a difficulty increase when blocks go too fast, so that we have symmetrical difficulty adjustements. Just my two coins, but it might give you some ideas to improve your difficulty retarget rules... Thanks for pointing this out. I have already studied your modifications some days ago, they look interesting. Is your retargeting mechanism susceptible to the following attack scenario, that is currently carried out against TRC? https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=167493.0http://cryptocoinexplorer.com:3750/address/111exFkjLXP5mXmEfVqGd2r7bXQhVhux3Titan |
|
|
|
|
Thank you all for your input!
I find it interesting to see this strong vote for an open network and the 'let it fight for survival' attitude.
But I think hardly any project would succeed if there is no oversight and guidance or the results would be well below the potential.
Titan
|
|
|
|
|
Community Poll
Dear Luckycoin Community,
One way to cure the current difficulty fluctuations on the Luckycoin network is to go to the root cause and ask for a suspension or removal of LKY from multipool.in.
My investigations have shown that essentially all the 400MH/s we see after a retarget come from the multipool site.
This measure would give back the real supporters of the Luckycoin network the opportunity to mine their fair share of coins.
Please post your opinion regarding this measure.
Titan
|
|
|
|
Titan, how is the difficulty fix coming?
I have analyzed the Mincoin algorithm. It went form a 4x/4x to a 2x/8x configuration. So the difficulty cannot rise as fast as before (2x) and it drops more quickly (8x). This makes sense in some situations and we can also go into that direction. I am still researching the other parameters. We certainly want to avoid a situation like Craftcoin. Titan You could add some clause like testnet, such as "if no block at all is found in X minutes, difficulty immediately drops to Y". Has this already been tested in a living coin? This causes a synchronization issue. Think about a block that is found exactly at the cutoff time. The chain would fork and the question is who has the right chain now. |
|
|
|
Titan, how is the difficulty fix coming?
I have analyzed the Mincoin algorithm. It went form a 4x/4x to a 2x/8x configuration. So the difficulty cannot rise as fast as before (2x) and it drops more quickly (8x). This makes sense in some situations and we can also go into that direction. I am still researching the other parameters. We certainly want to avoid a situation like Craftcoin. Titan |
|
|
|
sacarlson, I have not read this whole thread yet, but I've read enough that I think I may have expressed similar or the same ideas in the following post, so I'd like to give you the opportunity to read them. My apologies if it's too wordy: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=245528.msg2602961#msg2602961I'd be happy if you found any of those ideas useful and incorporated them. As I say, I haven't read this whole thread yet (and can't at the moment--I'll come back ot this), so I'll personally be curious to read this whole thread. Re BeerToken, I actually had the same idea, except I thought it might be pegged to the value of one pint of whatever may be argued to be the most beloved/widely used Irish beer (Guinness?), at whatever value it's at in the most popular pub in Ireland. I also thought about pegging it to the value of a kg of wheat, but . . . come on. What is wheat for?  Hi, I think your idea is better implemented at a higher level and not in a coin itself. There are many technical obstacles to put this in a coin. Some pools already move in your discribed direction: multipool.in and middlecoin.com. Although the switching criterion of the most profitable coin is maybe not the best choice. I still think that the Luckycoin mining parameters are fundamentally sound. I have researched some options for the retarget algorithm, but I fear non of them will not solve the multipool issue. Titan |
|
|
|
Come and try my Luckycoin pool: http://lky.nordicminers.eu, Stratum/PPLNS/1% Fee/No delays in payouts. stratum+tcp://lky.nordicminers.eu:9441 Great! Thank you! Titan |
|
|
|
Sadly it's only getting worse. We are beyond a 24 hour retarget at this point. Even 24 hours is bad, because in reality all that means is that only 480 blocks are mined for each retarget period (~2 days right now). That's quite a bit shy of the target 1440 blocks that are supposed to be created each day.
Yes, some action is required here. I am researching the best retarget times now. So not to introduce other undesired side effects. I am thinking now of 5 - 10 min retarget intervals. So we will do a hard fork in the near future to break this feedback cycle. Titan See if you can re-target based on time rather than block count, it should be pretty easy to do as each block has a timestamp so an "if greater than timestamp = x then adjust". Most devs take the easy way out and just change the block count parameter because it's easier to calculate when the last change occured, but just look at all the coins that have been high diff locked by the flash mining crowd to see that's pretty hopeless. I think an elapsed time diff adjustment, like 10min, 30min, 1hr or more should be good, just depends on how long you are prepared to leave the block rate out of range. If you adjust frequently, say every 10min, then you could set a limit like no more than +/- 10% change every 10min. So the ups and downs are a bit more graceful. If you went time based adjustments ask people to nominate the interval and the percentage to see whats prefered. You could even run a poll with some choices to see what miners want. eg. Interval Max diff adjustment 10min 10% 30min 50% 60min unlimited ... I see your point now. This is an interesting idea. There might be a problem if consecutive block numbers do not have consecutive time stamps. I have to think a bit about it. Certainly I am open to new ideas from the community to make the network more robust and secure and give a fair share to all miners. Titan |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
