|
UPDATE: CryptogenicBullion wallet updated to latest (1.1.5.3).
|
|
|
|
UPDATE: Freecoin and Starcoin wallets built and added to OP. Enjoy!  |
|
|
|
great stuff, i was beginning to think i was stuck with online wallets.
Great, glad these wallets are helping! |
|
|
|
The namecoin gui wallet unzips as a doc?
You mean the one compiled by twobits? It unzips to a Darwin app that you can run from Terminal. |
|
|
|
is it possible to make an infinite coin wallet for mac?
Sure. Just updated the OP with an IFC wallet. |
|
|
|
|
UPDATE: Updated Worldcoin to 0.6.4.1 (with slightly funky naming because the version number in "About" still says 0.6.4.0).
|
|
|
|
This is Linux only right? I thought I saw windows version but it turned out to be something else... I compiled from source on Linux. I think you could compile it under Windows with MinGW, but unfortunately I don't know of any binaries. |
|
|
|
|
UPDATE: Updated Bottlecaps to latest version (1.4).
|
|
|
|
anybody know how to change the -dbcache in the newest Litecoin update? Basically it is going slow as balls and read you need to change the -dbcache to 500-1000 when trying to reindex blockchain? Any help on OSX lion is greatly appreciated!
I haven't tried this in Litecoin specifically, but generally you can run these clients from Terminal by running the executables contained in the .app bundles directly and pass in command-line parameters. E.g. cd /Applications/Litecoin-Qt/Contents/MacOS
./Litecoin-Qt -dbcache 500
You could also create/modify ~/Library/Application\ Support/Litecoin/litecoin.conf to include that parameter. Apologies if the directory names for Litecoin are a bit off--I'm writing this on a computer that has no wallets installed.  |
|
|
|
Okay I have a laptop with a usb3.0 port and it's all running fine. That's good but now I have doubts that a pi will work...  Unfortunately, the Raspberry Pi is known not to work well with USB 3.0 hubs. I believe it's a hardware limitation of the Pi, not an issue with any particular software or drivers. My RPi works fine with a USB3.0 hub with 3 AMUs Maybe some USB3.0 hubs have problems? However, Rasbian has a bad version of libusb in it - if you have that - yes it will screw up. If you use RPi Arch http://www.kano-kun.net/?p=87 the libusb problem is gone. Minepeon also uses Arch: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=137934.0Edit: and of course as I've posted in here many times over the last week - libusb verisons are screwed for AMU/ICA Here's something like how to rebuild for windows and linux (though it's not the final version of the doc) https://dpaste.de/a5TvN/Oh, maybe that's been the problem. I remember there being a lot of angst about RPis and USB 3.0 early on, but maybe nobody had tried Arch at that point. |
|
|
|
Okay I have a laptop with a usb3.0 port and it's all running fine. That's good but now I have doubts that a pi will work... Unfortunately, the Raspberry Pi is known not to work well with USB 3.0 hubs. I believe it's a hardware limitation of the Pi, not an issue with any particular software or drivers. |
|
|
|
But what if we see a scenario where smaller miners start to point their ASICs at altcoins?
Not many SHA-256 alt coins to choose from and the most profitable compared to Bitcoin are scrypt, so it makes no sense to point ASIC to SHA-256 alt coins. But you can merge mine, and there's a poll on the KnC homepage currently if you wish them to consider that. It was added yesterday. True, but many of the SHA256 coins can't currently be merge-mined. I also wonder what the perceived value is of merge-mined coins that aren't backed by some specific market. It doesn't seem consistent--Namecoins (backed by a domain registration system) have remained fairly high, but Devcoins (backed by a profit model for open source software/writing/art) haven't. And Ixcoins retain a small amount of value based only on the fact that they're still listed on a couple of exchanges, as far as I can tell. |
|
|
|
But what if we see a scenario where smaller miners start to point their ASICs at altcoins?
Not many SHA-256 alt coins to choose from and the most profitable compared to Bitcoin are scrypt, so it makes no sense to point ASIC to SHA-256 alt coins. I hear you, and I'm just speculating, but I wonder if that will change once a lot of people find themselves with ASIC hardware that mines almost nothing. I wonder what the effect would be of a major hashrate boost to one of the non-merge-mined coins--for example, if lots of people who bought USB Block Erupters early on started mining some particular coin. I'm no economist and altcoin markets are hard to predict, but if that caused exchange rates against BTC to go up, that could end up providing a little more return for these early ASICs. You may be right, though, that it's too late for SHA256 coins. I do think that if/when we start seeing low-wattage scrypt miners (e.g. FPGAs), that will shake things up a lot and the SHA256 altcoins will lose most of their worth. |
|
|
|
The average difficulty raise since block 237888 (May 25th, 2013) per every every 2016 blocks (each difficulty adjustment period) has been 20%, which makes for about roughly 62% monthly (considering the average period for each difficulty adjustment has been 11.63 days).
Assuming this scenario maintains for the next 8 months and KnCMiner delivers in time and unit starts mining in September 30, at difficulty ~95 million, I expect one Jupiter unit will mine about 137 BTC in 6 months of operation and after that period it wont be profitable to keep paying hosting, as it will be earning around 1BTC per month and falling.
Unless by some unbelievable coincidence, the public start to embrace Bitcoin through easier access to exchange, useful or know sites adopting it as a payment method, or some corrupt central bank shenanigans pushing BTC price upto a point where it once becomes profitable. There's also the fact energy companies could drop prices, but haha that's NEVER gonna happen, not in the UK at least, where they caused outrage last winter with privatised energy companies profiteering and forcing pensioners to either starve or freeze. Ironically it may well be worth donating your old units to them so at least they get free heating! I wonder whether markets could become more stable for some of the SHA256 altcoins when BTC difficulty gets prohibitively high. There are already periods of time (according to coinchoose.com, at least) where PPCoin and TerraCoin are more profitable to mine than Bitcoin--but because there's so much variance in difficulty and exchange rates, it's hard to predict right now. But what if we see a scenario where smaller miners start to point their ASICs at altcoins? Maybe that would improve stability of those markets and extend the lifetime of the early hardware a bit. I'd be curious to know whether miners with small-to-midsize GPU or FPGA farms are already starting to do this. |
|
|
|
|
UPDATE: Updated CryptogenicBullion to latest (1.1.5.2).
|
|
|
|
Why not just point your miners at BitMinter, which has merged mining?
Yup, that is definitely an option. Any other suggestions for which pool to use? Others with merge mining. Slush's pool @ http://mining.bitcoin.cz/ BTC Guild @ https://www.btcguild.com/BitParking @ http://mmpool.bitparking.com/pool merge mines Namecoin, Devcoin and Ixcoin (with rumors of I0coin coming soon). Those extra coins aren't a huge amount of extra return in comparison to Namecoin, but they're not nothing... |
|
|
|
I hadn't heard about the GLD fork, but I'll see if I can get a new GLD wallet built today. Looks like the fork may already have happened?
UPDATE: GLDcoin wallet updated to latest version, 0.6.9.3. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
