I get an interesting message from BFGMiner 2.10.5 under ubuntu while doing solo mining:
[2013-02-16 10:31:46] Cannot append template-nonce to coinbase on pool 0 (-1) - you might be wasting hashing!
[2013-02-16 10:31:46] Cannot append coinbase signature at all on pool 0 (-1)
Using bitcoind for servers... Now, I have the same configuration running under window 7 against the same bitcoind's with no problems (i.e. Blocks are created and posted to the correct wallet). It only gives me this error under ubuntu. (btw, it's amd-64 client)
Tired of buying Window licenses, any clues?
Is this using the PPA package, or self-compiled? If the latter, from tar or git? If the latter, is it possible you forgot to run autogen.sh in a long time and might have an old version of libblkmaker? |
|
|
|
I have received a refund on Feb 13th of BTC 138. I initially invested BTC 372,2799.
So I guess Tom's still a scammer, but at least he has a lot more money now after all the refunds are done...
Prices were in USD, not BTC. How much did you send/receive in USD? Sounding to me like Tom isn't a scammer, at least in your case (and probably everyone else eventually). |
|
|
|
|
Without mining.authorize, it would be easy for someone to hijack a session just by guessing its session id.
I'd actually prefer requiring mining.authorize before a resume, since that would enable disconnecting a prior (dead?) connection.
Right now, mining.resume will fail if a connection is still using the session id...
|
|
|
|
friedcat, congrats on getting it up and going! any updates on the trading platform? ...facepalm |
|
|
|
|
BFGMiner 3.0 Status
Within probably the next week, the main git branch will shift toward 3.0 with new code to scale better for ASICs (and also some minor improvement for FPGAs).
I am wrapping up the finishing touches for BitForce SC support, and expect to have it ready before they ship. However, I will delay the 3.0 release until I have tested and confirmed the new code is functional myself (either remotely or on my development unit, whichever is available first).
Support for ASICMINER boards and Avalons will at this rate probably wait until 3.1, but that might not be too long after 3.0.
|
|
|
|
|
I'd suggest just adding an optional field to the end of mining.submit for extranonce1 that the miner can use for old share submissions on reconnect.
Let the pool decide whether to honour them or not, and for how long.
|
|
|
|
Is it possible to put the .dll files into the miner itself? That's called static linking. It's pretty pointless, though.. |
|
|
|
slush doesn't use CPPSRB... O.o
Apologies. Made an assumption. I'll go look to see who actually does.  (Beginning by following the link you helpfully provided.) And I now remember being put off that pool, back then, by statements such as: "New miners are better off mining elsewhere until the new reward system is setup, unfortunately" - https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=23768.msg1118133#msg1118133I never bothered to check back to see if a "new reward system" was ever instantiated. Yeah, that "new reward system" turned out to be CPPSRB ;p |
|
|
|
I find the mechanism of PPLNS easier to understand for distributing a share of the Transaction Fees in a block than DGM. Have you considered CPPSRB? It's very similar to PPLNS, but much less variance without sacrificing reward times (with PPLNS, you can get equivalent variance only by using N=difficulty*8, which means it takes 8 blocks to get your full reward on average). Yes, I did. I had some hassles setting up for slush in the Fall of 2012 - surely all on my side, and also ran across statements such as these when doing research at that time: "slush's method is high variance, less hoppable than proportional, but still significantly hoppable." - https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1976.msg712136;topicseen#msg712136No doubt my experience is outdated and the actual pool performance has changed since Meni Rosenfeld made those comments, but it is what it is. I've felt no need to make another try at slush since that first try. -- edit "it takes 8 blocks to get your full reward on average" And since I typically see about 10 blocks a day, this hasn't impacted me. To my notice. slush doesn't use CPPSRB... O.o Edit: Example CPPSRB pools would be Eligius and BitPenny. The 8 blocks thing is with low-variance PPLNS - to my knowledge, no pool uses this. |
|
|
|
I find the mechanism of PPLNS easier to understand for distributing a share of the Transaction Fees in a block than DGM. Have you considered CPPSRB? It's very similar to PPLNS, but much less variance without sacrificing reward times (with PPLNS, you can get equivalent variance only by using N=difficulty*8, which means it takes 8 blocks to get your full reward on average). |
|
|
|
agath's been on IRC a while. Registered : Jun 20 01:49:36 2011 (1 year, 34 weeks, 1 day, 02:11:39 ago) |
|
|
|
Oh I think an addition to the network of that much hashpower is relevant regardless of who the beneficiary is, but eh... have a coke Too bad they're throwing it all on a centralized and also 2nd largest pool... kinda defeats the purpose of mining. And why pick a pool with a whopping 5% fee anyhow? |
|
|
|
But it goes beyond mere irritation; when he doesn't get free stuff he actually makes up false accusations in order to get attention. Wow, phrased this way it sounds an awful lot like ckolivas too. |
|
|
|
|
nLockTime isn't killed "for good", it's just considered non-standard so the default client won't relay or pay attention to it. Since the client already doesn't support replacement, this really is pretty harmless. A future client that does support replacement can add it back in after another conversation.
|
|
|
|
I will help in the development of eloipool, but I do not know python very well (and certainly not as good as Luke) , for now I can help in testing
is it ok that stratum server reports different difficult than client? i have send You PM with detailed description of this issue.
Some clients display truncated bdiff (what bitcoin uses) instead of pdiff (what mining pools traditionally use). Pdiff 1 is about 0.9999 bdiff (and similar for higher difficulties), so truncating as bdiff will show 1 less than the actual difficulty. BFGMiner uses truncated pdiff, so it will show these correctly. |
|
|
|
|
Actually, on further investigation, this looks like it might possibly be a BFGMiner bug.
Will fix it for the next version, if so.
|
|
|
|
Using version 2.10.5 I'm getting the error below when attempting to connect to mtred and it switches to stratum.
Am I missing something in my build? Looks like a bug in mtred - my first guess would be they're sending a mining.notify before you subscribe. You can use --no-stratum to disable the automatic switching as a workaround until they fix it. |
|
|
|
|
TrackerAddr and CoinbaserCmd are invalid. That's all that stands out..
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
