I would think that whether or not anyone has actually FOUND a block is not really the question at hand. The real question is "Do you have a best share higher than the current NMC difficulty AND that share did not mine a block?" If the answer to that question is yes, there is a problem. |
|
|
|
Monkey tells me ... Tops out near midnight US, drops to ~~316 by morning, then resumes the ramp. Last temporary drop. Next one spells a downturn on the larger scale. I am just the messenger.
I am pleased with monkey's work here. He sees the intraday continuing upwards for 2-3 hours at least. 340 coinbase seems less achievable now. Definitely very toppy. Bad monkey!  |
|
|
|
The request difficulty still isn't working for me against CK Pool.
bfgminer.exe -o stratum+tcp://solo.ckpool.org:3333 -u 1JiWuyX94wrCr7JhkAn7x5qNMCEef1KhqX.bmoscatosticks -p x -S rockminer:all --set rockminer:clock=280 --set compac:clock=250 --request-diff 48 --api-listen --api-allow W:10.0.0/24
The pool starts at 1k and takes about 5 minutes to normalize and then starts from a low number. At 7 minutes I went from 1k to 23 and right now at 8 minutes I'm still at a difficulty of 23, not the 48 that I specified. CG Miner is up and running in less than 15 seconds when I specify a difficulty, it doesn't wait for the ASIC to get to 1000 a few times.
I think you just need this little change: bfgminer.exe -o stratum+tcp://solo.ckpool.org:3333/#cksuggest -u 1JiWuyX94wrCr7JhkAn7x5qNMCEef1KhqX.bmoscatosticks -p x -S rockminer:all --set rockminer:clock=280 --set compac:clock=250 --request-diff 48 --api-listen --api-allow W:10.0.0/24 [Edit: Need a '/' before '#cksuggest' actually, I think.] |
|
|
|
|
There will only ever be 21 million bitcoins, and there are over 7 billion people in the world already.
If you own even 1 bitcoin, you already own way more than your 'fair share'... If you took all the bitcoins that currently exist and divided them among all the people in the world equally, there would only be a little more than 0.002 bitcoins per person.
|
|
|
|
- Pool option #cksuggest to use CKPool-compatible mining.suggest_difficulty stratum extension.
Could you please explain how to use this command? I do not see it in the readme and it does not appear to be a command line option. Thank you! I believe you add "/#cksuggest" to the end of the pool URL. That's how but what does it do ? . I Don't see were it did any thing on CKpool . It causes the difficulty request set by '--request-diff' to be sent in the format expected by ckpool, I would imagine. I have not tried it, but that's what I would expect it to do. |
|
|
|
- Pool option #cksuggest to use CKPool-compatible mining.suggest_difficulty stratum extension.
Could you please explain how to use this command? I do not see it in the readme and it does not appear to be a command line option. Thank you! I believe you add "/#cksuggest" to the end of the pool URL. |
|
|
|
Since there are clearly a lot more people doing Bitcoin development who DON'T work for Blockstream than there are that DO work for Blockstream, why is it that so many people seem to presume that Blockstream will somehow dominate Bitcoin development and pervert it into their own personal corporate tool?
Because there is nothing that guarantees they won't and everything already points that they already are. But HOW will they do that? Since they are greatly outnumbered by non-Blockstream devs, how will they force changes that are self-serving on the rest of the development team? Simply by not allowing consensus on any change on the bitcoin protocol. Wladimir already requires consensus among Core devs to do any changes. You only need 1 Blockstream dev that also work for Core to disagree with a change that threaten their business model and that change won't happen. That's why Blockstream and Core dev should be completely disassociated or otherwise Core development is being perverted by a for profit company. I imagine that many, if not most, core devs are employed by various Bitcoin-related businesses, ALL of which, presumably, are capable of having a conflict of interest - indeed, I would imagine that such conflicts are absolutely unavoidable, given a long enough time-frame. Why single-out Blockstream? Just because they disagree with a change that you want? It is the nature of all critical systems that one has to be very, very conservative about making changes to vital components, and Bitcoin is no exception. That necessity for conservatism is advantageous to anyone whose interest is served by maintaining the status quo, and I think that is unavoidable. It seems to me that your argument assumes a priori that increasing block size is the correct and proper solution to the scaling problem (and a superior solution to the Blockstream/LN solution), and also assumes that the only reason many devs (Blockstream employees AND others) might oppose that solution is because it serves their business interests to oppose it - even though I have not seen you present much in the way of actual facts to support either of those suppositions. It does not seem fair to me to just say "the possibility of a conflict of interest exists, so therefore they are wrong". It seems to me possible that the Blockstream solution does a better job of maintaining decentralization while still allowing scaling of Bitcoin performance. We should always be wary of conflicts of interest; however, as I point out in the first paragraph above, those possibilities will ALWAYS exist - and we shouldn't presume that just because a potential conflict of interest exists that any solution proposed by the possibly conflicted party are immediately wrong. If you really want to change people's minds, then you should make it clear why increasing block size is a technically superior solution to the problem at hand, rather than just screaming "conflict of interest!" ad infinitum. |
|
|
|
Since there are clearly a lot more people doing Bitcoin development who DON'T work for Blockstream than there are that DO work for Blockstream, why is it that so many people seem to presume that Blockstream will somehow dominate Bitcoin development and pervert it into their own personal corporate tool?
Because there is nothing that guarantees they won't and everything already points that they already are. But HOW will they do that? Since they are greatly outnumbered by non-Blockstream devs, how will they force changes that are self-serving on the rest of the development team? |
|
|
|
|
Since there are clearly a lot more people doing Bitcoin development who DON'T work for Blockstream than there are that DO work for Blockstream, why is it that so many people seem to presume that Blockstream will somehow dominate Bitcoin development and pervert it into their own personal corporate tool?
|
|
|
|
Tried to find good point from side chain, but give up after saw this : "paying an undisclosed monthly subscription fee"
Not transparent, centralized & have to pay monthly subscription fee. Why should we use it, unless if we really need to send bitcoin instanly?
It's good solution to fix long waiting time, but i hope it could be more transparent & cheap
well, we have to assume the exchanges are using it because they choose to. No one is forcing them. Perhaps its easier to settle than using Bitcoin. Maybe they find it less cluttering and easier to manage than the main chain. I have no problem with it as long as people have a choice and its not used to justify keeping blocksize limited.Indeed but it is also clearer now why the blocksize is being kept limited. It's not clear to me why the Bitcoin blocksize would make any difference at all with respect to Liquidity. Can you explain? By letting the blocks getting bloated which will gives incentives for businesses to move to their lucrative centralized solutions. Liquid being the first of many. Liquid is an alternative to the already-centralized private databases of the exchanges. The block size has nothing to do with it at all. |
|
|
|
Tried to find good point from side chain, but give up after saw this : "paying an undisclosed monthly subscription fee"
Not transparent, centralized & have to pay monthly subscription fee. Why should we use it, unless if we really need to send bitcoin instanly?
It's good solution to fix long waiting time, but i hope it could be more transparent & cheap
well, we have to assume the exchanges are using it because they choose to. No one is forcing them. Perhaps its easier to settle than using Bitcoin. Maybe they find it less cluttering and easier to manage than the main chain. I have no problem with it as long as people have a choice and its not used to justify keeping blocksize limited.Indeed but it is also clearer now why the blocksize is being kept limited. It's not clear to me why the Bitcoin blocksize would make any difference at all with respect to Liquidity. Can you explain? |
|
|
|
Yes they have partners but it doesn't say they will be using that instead of their centralized logs. They are probably going to be selling liquid for BTC or USD, you are just assuming they will be using liquid as their internal system.
You may be right - I don't know anything about Liquidity that was not in the announcement. [Edit] Actually, after re-reading the announcement, it seems that Liquidity would only make sense for use by an exchange, or some other business making lots of Bitcoin transactions. I don't see how selling the 'coins' to end-users would be viable. Maybe I am misunderstanding what you are suggesting. How will it work?
As mentioned above, the Liquid sidechain will aim to reduce the load that the Bitcoin blockchain currently handles. We have seen on numerous occasions, such as the recent Greece crisis, that the current version of Bitcoin blockchain cannot handle a sudden, huge surge in Bitcoin transactions. This limitation has also given birth to infrastructures such as SETL, which now boasts of processing more than 1 billion Bitcoin transactions.
The sidechain Liquid will reduce ISL – Interchange Settlement Lag – by fostering a high-speed transfer environment between accounts held by several participants in a separate, high-volume and low-fee cryptographic system. This will also enhance the liquidity, the security, and considerably bring down counterparty risks.
|
|
|
|
I hate sidechains, they seem like taking a step backwards. These sidechains are just Altcoins with a different name, you don't magically get coins on them you have to buy them and most are going to be shitchains just like all the shitcoins out there. Be weary of this and don't run off and invest in whatever sidecoin comes around screaming it's the future, remember it's just an altcoin.
Yes, ignorants are usually scared of what they don't understand Would you rather prefer that exchanges remain dependent on centralized databases, which they currently use in order to move their clients coins? and fluctuates, how many variables are we going to tie to an exchange? Like I said a sidechain is essentially an altcoin so if ExchangeChain is released and it is it's own crypto it will be traded for a value and speculated on, how are exchanges supposed to handle this? From their announcement, it looks like they have already made partner agreements with several exchanges, so it appears that they ARE going to use this. Blockstream has announced Bitcoin’s first production Sidechain Liquid in collaboration with a limited number of partners including prominent Bitcoin exchanges such as Bitfinex, BTCC, Kraken, Unocoin, and Xapo. The Company is holding talks with at least a dozen more major institutional traders and licensed Bitcoin exchanges.
|
|
|
|
I hate sidechains, they seem like taking a step backwards. These sidechains are just Altcoins with a different name, you don't magically get coins on them you have to buy them and most are going to be shitchains just like all the shitcoins out there. Be weary of this and don't run off and invest in whatever sidecoin comes around screaming it's the future, remember it's just an altcoin.
Yes, ignorants are usually scared of what they don't understand Would rather prefer that exchanges remain dependent on centralized databases, which they currently do in order to move their clients coins? We perfectly understand that this first sidechain requires permission to use it. Thanks. You do realize that this is a commercial service, that these exchanges are free to use or not, at will, right? Yes and I also do understand that most Core devs are being on the Blockstream pay roll and are not interested to make the bitcoin permissionless blockchain scalable so their company can make a profit. Thanks. So what is your solution? You don't trust devs that are free to develop whatever they want, so what should be done? Should we give Bitcoin development to some theoretically uncorruptible government of your choice, who will always do the right thing (in your opinion)? Or should we just wait and let nature take its course, and see what happens? I don't know what should be done but what I know is that if Core devs successfully impede on scaling the bitcoin blockchain for their own profits then one can conclude that bitcoin has been hijacked and is under control of a private company so the whole experiment is a failure. If it is possible for Bitcoin to be hijacked in the way you describe, then it deserves to die. Personally, I think the imminent death of Bitcoin is being exaggerated a bit these days. Maybe but things are already heading the way I am describing it though so its not looking good... Ultimately I think the bitcoin blockchain will find a way to scale even if Core/Blockstream are trying hard to avoid that but this is yet to be seen. I agree with you. I also believe that Bitcoin will evolve as necessary. I'm not as sure as you that Blockstream (and the Bitcoin devs that work for them) are acting in a purely self-serving manner here. It seems to me that it is entirely possible that the Blockstream way of scaling Bitcoin may be a perfectly legitimate way to address the problem without sacrificing decentralization - which in my opinion, is an even more important consideration than scaling. It seems wrong to me to presume that Blockstream is acting in a self-serving manner just because the possibility of conflict of interest exists. We should at least give them some benefit of the doubt. I think a good argument can be made that their solution is the best solution proposed, in that it addresses scalability AND preserves decentralization of the main Bitcoin network. But I understand that some people disagree, and I am happy to just wait and see what happens as nature takes its course. You may be right, and this may be the end. But I remain optimistic for now. |
|
|
|
I hate sidechains, they seem like taking a step backwards. These sidechains are just Altcoins with a different name, you don't magically get coins on them you have to buy them and most are going to be shitchains just like all the shitcoins out there. Be weary of this and don't run off and invest in whatever sidecoin comes around screaming it's the future, remember it's just an altcoin.
Yes, ignorants are usually scared of what they don't understand Would rather prefer that exchanges remain dependent on centralized databases, which they currently do in order to move their clients coins? We perfectly understand that this first sidechain requires permission to use it. Thanks. You do realize that this is a commercial service, that these exchanges are free to use or not, at will, right? Yes and I also do understand that most Core devs are being on the Blockstream pay roll and are not interested to make the bitcoin permissionless blockchain scalable so their company can make a profit. Thanks. So what is your solution? You don't trust devs that are free to develop whatever they want, so what should be done? Should we give Bitcoin development to some theoretically uncorruptible government of your choice, who will always do the right thing (in your opinion)? Or should we just wait and let nature take its course, and see what happens? I don't know what should be done but what I know is that if Core devs successfully impede on scaling the bitcoin blockchain for their own profits then one can conclude that bitcoin has been hijacked and is under control of a private company so the whole experiment is a failure. If it is possible for Bitcoin to be hijacked in the way you describe, then it deserves to die. Personally, I think the imminent death of Bitcoin is being exaggerated a bit these days. |
|
|
|
I hate sidechains, they seem like taking a step backwards. These sidechains are just Altcoins with a different name, you don't magically get coins on them you have to buy them and most are going to be shitchains just like all the shitcoins out there. Be weary of this and don't run off and invest in whatever sidecoin comes around screaming it's the future, remember it's just an altcoin.
Yes, ignorants are usually scared of what they don't understand Would rather prefer that exchanges remain dependent on centralized databases, which they currently do in order to move their clients coins? We perfectly understand that this first sidechain requires permission to use it. Thanks. You do realize that this is a commercial service, that these exchanges are free to use or not, at will, right? Yes and I also do understand that most Core devs are being on the Blockstream pay roll and are not interested to make the bitcoin permissionless blockchain scalable so their company can make a profit. Thanks. So what is your solution? You don't trust devs that are free to develop whatever they want, so what should be done? Should we give Bitcoin development to some theoretically uncorruptible government of your choice, who will always do the right thing (in your opinion)? Or should we just wait and let nature take its course, and see what happens? |
|
|
|
I hate sidechains, they seem like taking a step backwards. These sidechains are just Altcoins with a different name, you don't magically get coins on them you have to buy them and most are going to be shitchains just like all the shitcoins out there. Be weary of this and don't run off and invest in whatever sidecoin comes around screaming it's the future, remember it's just an altcoin.
Yes, ignorants are usually scared of what they don't understand Would rather prefer that exchanges remain dependent on centralized databases, which they currently do in order to move their clients coins? We perfectly understand that this first sidechain requires permission to use it. Thanks. You do realize that this is a commercial service, that these exchanges are free to use or not, at will, right? |
|
|
|
I'm trying to request a starting diff by using --request-diff 48, but the command doesn't seem to work. My entire batch files is: bfgminer.exe -o stratum+tcp://solo.ckpool.org:3333 -u 1JiWuyX94wrCr7JhkAn7x5qNMCEef1KhqX.bmoscatosticks -p x -S rockminer:all --set rockminer:clock=280 --set compac:clock=x0d82 --request-diff 48 --api-listen --api-allow W:10.0.0/24 CKPool does not honour target requests. I'm assuming that it works with CG Miner 4.9.2 which I use to run my U3's because it's written by the same people? I set the diff to lower number than the 1000 in CG Miner than the poll initially requests. ckolivas says that BFGMiner does not set the diff correctly: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=763510.msg9453275#msg9453275I don't claim to know which is actually correct. |
|
|
|
I have never had success with the --suggest-diff command, I don't think it is implemented properly.
I don't think BFGMiner supports any such switch as '--suggest-diff'. BFGMiner has a '--request-diff' switch, but I seem to recall reading somewhere that it does not work on ckpool specifically. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
