Thanks for that Guy. I wasn't convinced they were using it anyway but that adds much useful data. They are not. They didn't even know about the covert method Gmaxwell found out until he published. They did careful analysis afterwards of what needed, and got to the conclusion that they will need to tapeout custom 130nm and add it to the miner board to support this method. Which makes their violent reaction to a BIP proposal that makes asicboost not work somewhat baffling. I guess they were more objecting to the intent in the move's aggression rather than the actual BIP, but it made most of the community convinced they were using it covertly. |
|
|
|
|
Sounds suspiciously like hardware failing to me, specifically hard drive.
|
|
|
|
Thanks for that Guy. I wasn't convinced they were using it anyway but that adds much useful data. |
|
|
|
|
F2pool's been advertising a bit 3 soft fork flag which isn't recognised by any BIP, and have had EXTBLK in their coinbase after their initial april fool's coinbase joke. Presumably this post of his: "Despite community divide, R&D effort in past yrs on scaling mustn't be ignored. Now we've more knowledge how to do it effectively&securely." is referring to extension blocks.
|
|
|
|
But lets be honest on a technical level it would be no more complex than assembling a simple frame and dropping it in a fishtank of mineral oil. (A kind of gross simplification).
You know the mineral oil just absorbs the heat anyway and mining hardware generates a lot of heat so you need some kind of cooling for the mineral oil itself equivalent to dissipating the same amount of heat the air cooling on the hardware does. The overall set up would be very expensive; that's the main reason it's not done. |
|
|
|
Why are you CPU mining? Unless you have bleeding edge hardware you are just going to lose money.
Read between the lines - he wants to run a botnet which is either illegal or against IT policy of wherever he is stealing CPU power from. Either way he won't be mining bitcoin so I'll move this thread to a suitable area. |
|
|
|
hehe. i just thought it was very little chance.... anyway, thank you very much for all your response now i have to think about it if i would go solo mining when i get 4 more s9 XD
If you do, don't forget the best solo mining service available: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=763510.0 |
|
|
|
oh ok, because i thought it was really impossible for anyone having less than 20 TH/s to find a block.
If it were impossible then there's no way a pool would pay you to mine with them  |
|
|
|
Pardon the intrusion but how can one mine altcoins with bitcoin miners and not knowing it? aren't pools sharing the reward pps/ ppLns? OP should get the reward according to his hash rate, total pool's hash power and the 24 hours block found then shared the reward factoring luck or just pay per share minus the pool fees. There are pools that merge mine and when you solve a block it doesn't tell you whether you soled a merged coin or a real one. Additionally services like nicehash which appears to be a pool is actually a rental service and you could be mining any old shit even if you're paid it bitcoin. so what are you saying? are you saying that i was only able to find that block because of the help of others in the pool?
No, you were plain lucky. are you being sarcastic or what? because by this, i am now thinking about solo mining..... Absolutely no sarcasm whatsoever. I have no idea how you come to the second conclusion based on my comment. You were extremely lucky; why on earth do you expect you'll be lucky enough to solve a block again? |
|
|
|
so what are you saying? are you saying that i was only able to find that block because of the help of others in the pool?
No, you were plain lucky. |
|
|
|
He even put tonal into the gentoo Bitcoin package, along with Satoshi Dice tx relay blocking. But it is gentoo, all software on that has insane defaults, people expect it to be crazy.
Actually I know the person who blocked gentoo from defaulting to luke's fork and insisted it be a user choice to enable his religion driven censoring fork instead of core bitcoin. Most users were not aware it was even doing that, assuming it was just some high performance version of the bitcoin daemon. |
|
|
|
If you mine in a pool and you find a block, the block reward is shared among all the pool miners.
You don't get to keep it yourself.
How do you think miners in the pool would get paid otherwise?
yes, i understand that bro. again, i just wanna know if I did really get lucky to have found a block. so, it is possible to find a block even when solo mining. that's what i was trying to find out Yes it's possible to find a block no matter how small your hashrate is; that's the whole point of pooled mining - you get paid for the likelihood of you finding a block for the pool. Even one hash is enough to find a block, but your chance of that one hash being a block is 1 in 20 billion (diff * 2^32). |
|
|
|
Or you could do what the one BU dev proposed and go full out hardfork segwit and block native keys and switch everyone over to segwit keys and increase the base block as much as you want, but blocking native keys is a real dirty solution.
LOL blocking native keys worth 16 million bitcoin in a 20 billion dollar industry is a great way to make bitcoin worth... zero. |
|
|
|
|
No. If you are mining for a pool, and I suspect there's a 99.999999% chance you are, then you found a block FOR THE POOL, not for yourself. So no, you will get nothing more than 1 tiny share's worth of reward from your pool for your block find. Additionally a lot of hardware (from bitmain) doesn't even report found block correctly, and you may have also been mining some altcoin for your pool and not even found a real bitcoin block but some other bullshit coin.
|
|
|
|
|
The quadratic hashing problem is the elephant in the room. The solutions proposed by BU are not solutions at all. Parallel block validation is nice enough but doesn't change the massive CPU and memory workload that happens when a massive sigop block hits that the node still needs to do. It's bad enough for fast hardware, but on slower lesser hardware, it can even trigger an out of memory issue. Limiting the size of transactions as a "solution" is a very restrictive approach, and as you said doesn't change the fact that multiple 1MB transactions would still be extremely expensive. Additionally, citing Moore's law as a requirement for it to not be a problem is absurd given we fell off the curve of Moore's law almost a decade ago and are now proceeding at about 1/4 the rate Moore predicted - it's also likely to get even slower than that.
Hand waving by BU shills without actual solutions to this particular problem has gotten beyond a joke. The fact that they see segwit as a real fix for it speaks volumes for what segwit actually fixes and goes a long way towards dispelling the nonsense that segwit is the enemy and the reason BU exists. Turning the argument around and saying that segwit as a hard fork is fine while as a soft fork is not is truly absurd. The level of moronic arguments here is off the scale... Even Moore didn't predict that the Moron level would grow at such a rate.
|
|
|
|
If Core really believe their solution is best, then they should invest in some mining pools in order to get them over the activation threshold. If they arn't prepared to put their money on the line like that, chances are, segwit is not the best solution.
Surely you must be kidding. The bitcoin mining network is worth hundreds of millions of dollars. How exactly does a team of predominantly volunteers, with a small group of paid coders only, fund taking control of enough hardware to direct power with such a network? 27% of the mining network has voluntarily signalled segwit so far, the funds to control something like 800PH of hashrate to bring the value to 95% would be astronomical. You're not understanding how the system works... |
|
|
|
|
Personally I find this feature very useful across node restarts where the downtime is virtually zero. If I upgrade my configuration in such a way that it requires a restart, or upgrade my node to newer code and then restart it, the mempool is otherwise empty which is no good for a mining pool node. This feature is pretty much useful only for virtually immediate restarts.
|
|
|
|
Is it not possible to mine any crypto offline?
It is not. |
|
|
|
btw ck, what's solo.ckpool.org position or how the miners can vote?
Solo is advertising segwit without giving miners a choice since I believe that is by far the best way moving forward for bitcoin and I've made it clear to the users that mining there means supporting and signalling segwit activation flags. I'm not associated with kano or his pool any more. |
|
|
|
What about miners that want to actively abstain from choosing a side in this scaling war?
Those miners can choose this pool as a way to signal their discontent from the scaling war and both sides.
Then as I said in my first post... even if that position is 'we don't want change.' If that's what you really want then at least make it clear.
That is still you taking a stance, instead of pretending you're dissociated from it. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
