https://forum.litecoin.net/index.php/topic,3874.msg27188.html#msg27188Hi folks. Sorry to dampen enthusiasm. I read the zerocoin paper and heard from core Bitcoin devs on the topic. Their opinion is that it is incredibly inefficient in block storage use. If Bitcoin adopts it or something like it then we may import it as part of a standard code rebase in the future. Litecoin's own development in the next few months focuses on stability, security, user education, vendor integration and enhanced smart fees to allow lower fees with strong anti-spam protections. All of these goals are to improve Litecoin's usefulness as a medium of exchange in commerce, which in the long-run is the only way to enhance its inherent value. Please contact me privately if you donate 20 LTC or more. Include a crypto signature signed by the sending address to prove it is you. Post a reply in public if you want your name or business to be included in the Sponsor credits.
|
|
|
|
We collect donations to accelerate the development of Litecoin and supporting vendor integration tools. Businesses in particular may be interested in donating to get their name in the Sponsor List as being on record in support of the community. Original Text Below ... Updated: June 18th, 2013: We met the 5,000 LTC Challenge! Litecoin Dev Fundraiser: 5,000 LTC Matching Donation ChallengeA big sponsor who wishes to be anonymous is willing to support the Litecoin Development Team. They are offering a challenge grant where if we receive an additional 5,000 LTC in community donations by June 18th noon GMT, the anonymous sponsor will match with an additional 5,000 LTC. These combined funds will go a long way toward enabling long-term development of the Litecoin software and related vendor integration tools. The dev team donations prior to the challenge amount to 3,059.8868 LTC at LRNYxwQsHpm2A1VhawrJQti3nUkPN7vtq3. The challenge will be complete when gross donations reach 8,059.8868 LTC as tracked on this spreadsheet. Bitcoins donated to 1KD5tt1p3mdZH8DDXeEwdsJNpiwUZCfzkF converted and deposited to the LTC address count toward the challenge. https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/pub?key=0AnlrnfU-U6E-dFVuUnlfZUlqek9JbzlNYjVENWp3ZlE&gid=0A list of sponsors, donations, and expenses of the Litecoin development project are listed here. If you contact Warren with your txid and cryptographic signature proving ownership of the sending address, we may add your name or business name to the sponsor list, at our discretion. “The 5,000 LTC matching challenge funds is currently sequestered at LXhTDTv1cwGUb67DX88xtkQriYWmTFAVyr.” Cryptographic signature of the quoted string proving the matching challenge funds: G/JW/UyKeN/Uplj1EVa2gmOZBN9g4FXXvNRHCnHJAdv7rtVMDX1pmfrpyLW47LaVKj7uPAfT/hKQuoMVJwPn/b4= The identity of the anonymous sponsor will be revealed later. Sponsorship Credithttps://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/pub?key=0AnlrnfU-U6E-dFVuUnlfZUlqek9JbzlNYjVENWp3ZlE&gid=0All donations and expenses are to be tracked here. Please let me know if you want your name to be listed as a sponsor. Alternatively business owners might want their business name to be listed as a sponsor as a form of advertisement. Please reply identifying yourself in the thread, perhaps include a crypto signature of the sending address as proof. If you wish to remain anonymous that is fine too. Please follow the Litecoin Dev Team on Google+ for the latest news. Will post stuff there first. See the Litecoin Core Development Fundraising sister thread at the Litecoin Forum. |
|
|
|
|
Use bitcoin-0.8.2-rc1. The dust protection will reject transactions like those you linked.
|
|
|
|
2013-05-16 01:21:45.157251 Worker xxx submitted share with hash > target:
2013-05-16 01:21:45.157521 Hash: 29ce8ec59713ce17ce3eff6d5c1c7a739c899eb0d00d262954c94b999fc0c4c1
2013-05-16 01:21:45.157684 Target: 366ac93b2b0cc6000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
2013-05-16 01:21:45.351318 Worker xxx submitted share with hash > target:
2013-05-16 01:21:45.351516 Hash: 8b5a09376fa6abcc7264fd3a78824904931bef81283a7018e98d287f83c6a6b6
2013-05-16 01:21:45.351679 Target: 366ac93b2b0cc6000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
2013-05-16 01:21:45.586972 Worker xxx submitted share with hash > target:
2013-05-16 01:21:45.587226 Hash: 5d60d0ec5860697a415cb3fed8bbc89b8a0e0679df59ceae01361a25a78364d
2013-05-16 01:21:45.588938 Target: 366ac93b2b0cc6000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
I tried to connect Blade Erupter 13GH/s to p2pool directly by typing localhost:9332 in it's settings. That's what I am getting on p2pool log. How to fix it? The log itself is harmless and may mean that the Erupter doesn't support dynamic difficulty (surprising) or that it is overclocked too much and output errors (more likely given the very high values of the hash in your log). If it's an hardware problem, cool the blade more or slow it down. If it's variable difficulty support missing or buggy and the rate of share submission puts too much load on your p2pool node, you could try using slush's stratum proxy between the blade and the node to lower the load on it. I vaguely recall somewhere in the ASICMINER thread, their hardware apparently does getwork diff 1 directly. If you want to use any other mining protocol or difficulty you need a mining proxy. I would be curious to learn what kind of work switching latency it is capable of. |
|
|
|
A mean average of 0.1 went up to a mean average of over 0.3.....
Which measure is this, the "Bitcoind GetBlockTemplate Latency"? 11.4 here with a mean of 0.0606s over the past 24 hours. |
|
|
|
Yeah, saw that. I prefer having normal latency times than being able to see how much memory I'm wasting.......  What measure of latency do you claim becomes worse in 11.4? It seems fine here. |
|
|
|
I don't get why they can't "easily" disclose this. This information is critical to knowing what the mining capability of these boxes are.
Taking them at their word for a minute (which is probably highly optimistic on their part). Maybe we can reverse engineer how many unit orders they really have. If they think they're going to produce 400 units a day - that's 2000 a week. So if they are expecting to be able to ship today's orders by (the end of) July. Starting 2 weeks from now. That would be about 8 week to do all the orders. So 16,000 orders.
That's a lot but it's also not near as many as I had feared when my order number was close to 40000.
I'm not saying they're going to make this schedule. That's not my point. But if they were using math to come up with those dates (which people like that do) maybe we can come close to guessing what the numbers in the math were.
Was 400 units/day and 5 day workweeks mentioned by anyone from BFL? What did they mean by a "unit"? Jalapeno, Little Single, Single or MiniRig are all considered a "unit"? |
|
|
|
I am looking forward to those improvements. I guess the calculations for fees are really off. You can discourage spam without charging 10% fees on a 1 LTC transaction. The current fee structure makes the coin unfriendly to actual users.
I have changed pool settings to have less transactions per amount of LTC. I am sure this will help some.
I didn't design the fee structure. I am just stating how things are now. Generally, you pay more if you are impatient. You pay less (or even free) if you are more patient. This will be a little better in 0.8.x but the details haven't been worked out yet. |
|
|
|
Litecoin uses a modified fee formula to discourage spam. Spam is a significant problem in the Bitcoin network. - Fees get smaller with coin age. Usually that means "wait long enough" and it becomes free. Depending on the number of inputs it can become a free transfer if you wait a few days.
- If your inputs are numerous and small, you might be able to fit only a limited number of them in a free transaction. If all the inputs have sufficient coin age, you can make these free by splitting them into multiple transactions that are below 10KB in size. There might be delays in confirmation.
- If your output is too small (less than 0.01), the fee will always be high relative to amount you are sending. This is to prevent spam.
- Litecoin-0.8.x will have improvements to the fee calculation to allow "normal" transactions to have a lower fee while continuing to be hostile to spam.
|
|
|
|
|
The amount of LTC you have is too small. The mandatory fee would be higher than what you are trying to send, especially if you received it only recently. If there is any bug, the Android LTC wallet is not warning you about the minimum fee required to send this.
|
|
|
|
Sent 570k your way, only getting dif 0 and rejects
LTC: Lfd4uS7NoszM3Rzhh7J6nNxhFkPm8BDgSe
diff 0 means he's running an old version of p2pool. He needs to upgrade to git to have fully working scrypt stratum. |
|
|
|
I'm running a small GPU on p2pool (V 11.2) for mining LTC at around 145 kh/s with cgminer (V 2.11.4). Everything seems to be working but I noticed that instead of the usual 3 shares/minute on BTC mining, I'm getting about 120 shares/minute with LTC. Basically the shares are flying past.
Is there a way to increase the share difficulty my miner sees to slow this down?
You have 120 shares/min because p2pool-11.2 is broken for LTC stratum. Upgrade to p2pool git. |
|
|
|
Awesome program! I'm using it for mining Litecoin and it's working fantastically. I have a question though: How can I get loads of stales and a lower hashrate when using the binary from this thread for mining, yet when I download the repository and run it with python, my hashrate is much higher and stales much lower. I'm not complaining of course, but it's kinda weird. Keep up the good work!  The binary 11.2 release was prior to two important fixes for LTC mining. You currently need git to use p2pool LTC. |
|
|
|
I don't know since instawallet BTC got hacked, does this affect LTC as well?
InstaWallet is generally a bad idea especially when there are other web based wallets that allow you encrypt the private key locally. |
|
|
|
|
cgminer-2.11.3 scrypt
Radeon HD 7770: 204KH/s
Radeon HD 7790: 213KH/s
This card is capable of much more, but there seems to be something in the 7790 driver that auto-throttles it back. None of the usual tools are currently capable of manual voltage control on the 7790. Perhaps a future driver or tool will be capable of unlocking this card.
|
|
|
|
|
InstaWallet's have a right to exist. Users have the right to know the actual risk involved to make an informed decision if they want to use it or not.
|
|
|
|
<Simran> warren, ??@? <warren> Simran: You are endangering users and being very irresponsible with that app <warren> Simran: and no, I will not back down. <Simran> okay <Simran> I really give a shit lol <Simran> JUST KIDDING <warren> Simran: I'm willing to delete all the criticism if you add a big warning at startup telling users of the real risk <Simran> Your criticism doesn't mean shit to me <warren> OK, you're welcome to do reckless and irresponsible things, and I'm entitled to call you out on it. <warren> Simran: the alternative is to realize what you are doing is a bad idea and stop. <Simran> warren, that's fine, I'm not stressin' it <Simran> I reject your suggestion, sorry. <warren> ok. <warren> https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.simran.andltcwallet Hey folks, I recommend reading about the InstaWallet situation and making your own decision. <Simran> <Simran> In fact, I thank you for commenting on my thread <Simran> got me more downloads and donations <Simran> Really appreciate it, nigga. <warren> Simran: I'm glad how copying an open source app, barely understanding it and inducing people to put their real money into it shows people how smart you are. Readers can judge for themselves if it is a good idea to trust this person. |
|
|
|
You do not adequately warn your users of the risk of relying on a server to protect their funds. Even if you trust the server operator to not steal the funds, it is dangerous to assume that the server can remain secure forever. (Not sure when “upgrading” the app if the Vault Key is saved) Seriously? I'm amazed how little you actually bothered to understand and test this code that somebody else wrote. You would seriously put an app on the Google Play Store that handles people's actual money when you don't know if they will lose their vault key on upgrade? This is reckless and irresponsible. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
