wow 15p of which 140th is mine so I have a 1/100 shot against the whale with my tiny little harpoon  heh... that lucky hash is randomly random so it only takes 1 shot with the lucky tiny harpoon. let's me try my luck with a a few lucky harpoons during this perfect 15ph tide. There have been numerous times before when there were PHs on solo and it was a single device miner that found a block  I wish you all luck! |
|
|
|
That explains why my miner presented this to me a few minutes ago. :-) [2016-12-23 22:12:01.677] Stratum connection to pool 0 interrupted
[2016-12-23 22:12:01.847] Pool 0 stratum+tcp://stratum.ckpool.org:13333 not responding!
[2016-12-23 22:12:11.728] Waiting for work to be available from pools.
[2016-12-23 22:12:31.969] Pool 0 difficulty changed to 4000
[2016-12-23 22:12:32.030] Pool 0 message: Authorised, welcome to solo.ckpool.org 1KZK...
[2016-12-23 22:12:32.030] Work available from pools, resuming.
Precisely Now if you look at the size of the pool you'll understand... |
|
|
|
I've restarted the pool and combined the testpool stats into the master pool, please use the regular addresses to check your hashrates. The old values will not have carried over. You can still mine to port 13333. The big hitter is dumping hash onto the test pool now so we should be able to move forward soon, once a block is found The only change to miners is that now the starting diff is 4000 in keeping with current gen. hardware. |
|
|
|
ALso i have a huge concern that the orphan block you got along with the problem of block submittin ck had . The timing of the two sure seem suspicious. What i think happen is you messed with code to support segwit and its not compatible with something your software is doing. Odd that both happen at same time look at the dates of ck post and the date of your orphan The fuck up in my segwit code was purely on my part with the solo code which is different to the publicly released ckpool code. Additionally the solo code fuck up didn't even generate blocks so there's no way they can even become orphans which are otherwise valid blocks. Kano doesn't have access to the solo ckpool code and the kano.is pool has not changed its ckpool code in many months; it currently does not have any support for segwit, and as most people on this thread are well aware, Kano himself is against segwit so would only adopt newer code if segwit actually activated. Your fears are unfounded. |
|
|
|
|
Excellent, thanks everyone. It looks like I may get a bit of temporary help from a hard hitter too to get this first testpool block out sooner. As soon as a testpool block is found I'll seamlessly merge everything into one server signalling segwit (with notification here of course.)
|
|
|
|
my rentals missed last night. but I am renting again if it hits I will toss some coin to you
Thanks man. It seems people have rallied and it's over 700TH now, thanks everyone! Hope someone hits soon! |
|
|
|
And we're off.. slept on it and the transfer cleared. 24 hours @ 100TH
Awesome, and good luck to you too. |
|
|
|
Ck. I will rent 100th and point to test pool
Please show me pool address to use.
test address correct?
stratum+tcp://solo.ckpool.org:13333
That's correct, thanks, and good luck! |
|
|
|
Well I'm bored waiting for the next block... and the test pool is tiny again  I'm 15% of the hashrate myself with only one mining device  |
|
|
|
Looking at the next argument of changing the address that found the block, I'd like to get some clarity. What are you talking about? What do you mean by "the address that found the block"? There is no record in the blockchain of the miner who found that block. Sure, a pool might put their name in the coinbase transaction message (in fact, most do), but nowhere in the block itself does it say, "this block was solved by jonnybravo0311".
For the sake of the discussion, I'll assume you mean you're going to change an address in the coinbase transaction. If this is the case, then your statement about the same hash not solving the block is completely accurate. When mining on solo.ckpool.org each miner gets a unique coinbase with their address so yes that is the case. |
|
|
|
|
Not sure why this ended up in mining, this is an idea to redesign the bitcoin protocol with a massive hard fork. It's not really about mining at all. There's a lot misunderstood about the impact of such a change that can only be negative as others have mentioned already.
|
|
|
|
|
10,000 computers can ONLY be a botnet. Newsflash, you need 100,000,000 computers to make bitcoin mining viable with CPU, and even then will earn hardly anything except for a jail sentence. No one here will help you with your venture.
|
|
|
|
given the amount of asics currently mining,
would it be possible to change the algo without those miners refusing to allow it?
That would just create an insignificant small fork with the new algo while the main blockchain remained on the standard algorithm. Realistically it would be impossible to get a consensus that would make the existing miners abandon their algorithm. |
|
|
|
|
That's just inertia. Pools are going to be slow to get on board with whatever they choose, being conservative...
|
|
|
|
|
What would be the point of it? What would be discussed there that is too privileged for everyone else to see and participate in? I see it as just a "I want some kind of acknowledgement that I'm contributing in some way" idea but won't actually serve any useful purpose. After the initial acknowledgement it would be a dead board.
|
|
|
|
200Mhs is nothing. Or do you mean Ghs or do you mean MHz. You mixed units there as well... |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
