The author is referring to a 51% attack and sounds like a ppc shill.
Litecoin code is very similar to bitcoin, multiplied by 4 and with scrypt.
LOL why is he a ppc shill not btc shill? I guess he means that once bitcoin's transition to ASIC is complete, litecoin would still be vulnerable to an institutional 51% attack (those who have the resources to custom build ASIC). No I haven't read any such article yet so excuse me.  |
|
|
|
|
The author is referring to a 51% attack and sounds like a ppc shill.
Litecoin code is very similar to bitcoin, multiplied by 4 and with scrypt.
|
|
|
|
|
I should have a GUIminer out for GPUs next week, with any luck.
|
|
|
|
|
That sounds pretty reasonable.
|
|
|
|
|
... I guess it was really cheap.
|
|
|
|
Still waiting on that credit report from you... otherwise satisfied with service.  |
|
|
|
I see repeated often the mantra of "difficulty follows price, not the other way around." I've wondered if up to this point that it's become a self-fulfilling prophecy among investors. Recently with litecoin, we saw the network hash rate and difficulty begin going up days before price ever did:  What about with bitcoin? Has the the price ever followed the difficulty? Yes, all throughout 2010, as you can see below in my horrible patchwork chart constructed from a couple of sources (bitcoincharts, which only goes back to Aug 2010, and a blog that had historical rates).  If someone could make neater BTC charts I'd be happy. Obviously the scale is fucked up between them, but I think you get the picture. |
|
|
|
1300 bucks a day ? Am I figuring that up right ? I believe he has 5 now. That's sickening if so.
Not for long. |
|
|
|
|
Profitability is based on the price of LTC in USD and the difficulty of litecoin and bitcoin. Higher profitability means that it's more profitable to mine right now than bitcoin.
Share price is based on the current difficulty and the share difficulty. It's how much you get paid for every solution you have that is higher than the share difficulty.
Payout per Share = ( (48.5 LTC per block) / (65536 × Current Difficulty) ) * share difficulty
Current difficult is given by the network, right now it's 17.60344
We get 48.5 LTC per block because there is a 3.0% fee at notroll.in
The share difficulty for notroll.in is always 32
|
|
|
|
|
Pps? Pay per share?
Share price varies by pool (different donation %) and by the difficulty per share
|
|
|
|
|
CPU mining is about 10x less efficient as compared to GPU mining, for instance my 2700k clocked at 4.5 GHz only nets me about 60 kh/s but uses about 225W.
|
|
|
|
|
They're using core speeds up to 1100 mhz and reaper with aggression 18, 19, or 20. They're also running the memory up to 1800 mhz+ by overvolting it in afterburner (eg 1.7v instead of 1.6v stock).
And obviously set power limiter to +20%.
The only other thing they do differently is set share threads = 5 and don't set the vectors value to anything, so try that too I guess.
|
|
|
|
|
Bought 3x 7950s and a 6970 about 6 months ago. All paid off plus $750 or so. Only been mining litecoin.
Haters gonna hate, miners gonna make 200% return on investment.
|
|
|
|
What? LTC is your dirty little secret to success in the age of Bitcoin ASICs? LTC is old news, and isn't really going anywhere. It hasn't been going anywhere for a long time, now. The only reason it's even still around is because it was the most popular of the alt-coins, which isn't really saying much.
I know, it's this terrible alternative currency that has made more more money than bitcoin mining has over the past 6 months. Orly? Did you forget about the massive LTC roller-coaster after the BTC reward half? People jumped onboard cuz it was more profitable, and then jumped off when the network adjusted and everyone (literally, everyone) was mining at a loss. Up down up down. You're really looking forward to that again when BTC difficulties hit 10M+ and GPUs aren't even profitable with BTC anymore? Sounds like someone's jimmies are rustled |
|
|
|
|
Already posted settings... see sig thread
|
|
|
|
|
I just bought two for $160, they're hard to find less than that
|
|
|
|
|
As I recall
2a) BCX didn't really have anything to do with it, rather it was lolcust (who is possibly also artforz) who implemented scrypt for Tenebrix. Tenebrix failed, but coblee's LiteCoin succeeded.
2b) Reaper was originally made to do the SC2 kernel and SC2 mining; mtrlt was pressed by the SC2 community to make a scrypt miner because of artforz claim that it didn't work. He claimed to have it working about a month before it was released; I pressed him to release the open source code for which there was a bounty, and eventually he did so. RealSolid/CoinHunter had nothing to do with this aside from community pressure AFAIK, though.
3) Not necessarily true; people lost confidence in LTC after the GPU miner was released. There were other major events as well, namely:
- Chain bloating exploit first for LTC implemented by the SC2 guys, then SC2 chain bloating implemented by the LTC guys
- A SC2 exploit which let anyone sign the trust node blocks, which allowed someone to run off with a lot of SC2 that was intended originally as an indirect tax on the users
3b) Artforz' pride was strongly hit by the entire LTC experience and his own naivety and overconfidence in his code. Before the GPU miner came out, artforz spent a lot of time and posts defending his implementation. There are technical threads where he later admits he was wrong well before mtrlt's miner came out. I only understood them in retrospect, but the algorithm mtrlt uses derives from the information in these threads.
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
