So, after a bit of SC trading on Poloniex I noticed that trades there are rounded to the 8th decimal. This seems to be the limit site wide, across all cryptocoins.
This presents a problem for trading SC on Poloniex, as the smallest price increments are 1 x 10^-8.
With a current SELL price at 0.00000013 and BUY price at 0.00000012, an increment of 1 x 10^-8 is about 7-8%.
In other words, its a market impossible to provide liquidity in or effectively trade while prices are this low, as gain/loss is very high whenever the order book moves.
There are a few ways to solve this:
- Siacoin price must rise by an order of magnitude
- Poloniex increase the number of decimals to 9 or more
- Siacoin block rewards are reduced to allow the market to 'catch up' with all the coins already out there. Not gonna happen obviously.
I'll write Poloniex with a request to increase to 9 or 10 decimals. Maybe others can do the same.
EDIT: Poloniex replied that 8 decimals is the limit. They cannot increase this. So, we're stuck with the current situation until SC price goes up. Or, SC gets listed on a different exchange.
Or asking poloniex to trade in kilosia (ksia) rather than sia! |
|
|
|
With Bitcoin developers having mentioned possible development (yeah right lol) of "Confidential Transactions" they see that privacy AND moreso fungibility of bitcoin is a huge issue moving forward.
Yes, i think they slowly start to realize that lack of privacy and fungibility is a problem. But what would happen with monero, if bitcoin actually managed to introduced these features. If this would happen, that there would be no point in monero? Could monero survive, if bitcoin incorporated zerocash or whatever technique to ensure privacy and fungibility of transactions? Bitcoin seems to have chosen the regulatory compliance way : it can't go at the same time fully to the anonimity way. At best they will add some privacy features... Seeing how changing blocksize is challenging the unity among bitcoin developpers, how could they radically change the core to attein similar privacy/fungibility than monero. |
|
|
|
Ethereum is confusing, try take a shot in the dark with an altcoin other than that, for instance LGBTQoin or BURST.
Any newly released altcoin will have at least a CPU/GPU minimum difficulty so take a look on the Announcements (Altcoin) section. It don't matter anyways. I got everything setup and right excited to start mining on my gtx 960 and I get this C:\Program Files\Ethereum 0.9.41>cd release
C:\Program Files\Ethereum 0.9.41\Release>ethminer -G
No GPU device with sufficient memory was found. Can't GPU mine. Remove the -G ar
gument
C:\Program Files\Ethereum 0.9.41\Release>ethminer --list-devices
Listing OpenCL devices.
FORMAT: [deviceID] deviceName
[0] GeForce GTX 960
CL_DEVICE_TYPE: GPU
CL_DEVICE_GLOBAL_MEM_SIZE: 2147483648
CL_DEVICE_MAX_MEM_ALLOC_SIZE: 536870912
CL_DEVICE_MAX_WORK_GROUP_SIZE: 1024
C:\Program Files\Ethereum 0.9.41\Release>
You should use the cuda version (you have already bat files included with correct configuration : choose the cuda ones): http://cryptomining-blog.com/tag/ethminer-cuda/you should mine with a pool : I am using https://eth.suprnova.cc/It is rather easy to mine eth now (you need a 2gb videocard). |
|
|
|
Any altcoin worth gpu mining [nvidia]?
Depends on the gpu you have : with 750ti you can mine ethereum with good profit. With others maxwell cards, you need to check with coinwarz or something similar. Non maxwell cards are not very good at mining (power efficiency not profitable in general). |
|
|
|
I was contacted to set up a pool for Sia.
Since Sia is a bit different than other coins, can someone briefly introduce me into the mining mechanism ? are you mining with clients to a main wallet via RPC or are you all just doing "in-wallet-mining" ?
Thanks for your interest! I do not mine myself, but here are some resources to get you started: The Sia developers have released a CPU miner, which runs "in-wallet". There is also a GPU miner, here: https://github.com/NebulousLabs/Sia-GPU-MinerBinaries here: https://github.com/NebulousLabs/Sia-GPU-Miner/releasesThey say the GPU miner has some bugs, and the miner can only mine on a single GPU at a time. You can run multiple miner instances for more processors. Chat with miners on Slack: https://siatalk.slack.com/messages/mining/details/Thanks for the reply, i'll have a look at those links. What I need for a pool is some sort of Wallet -> Client or Client -> Wallet communication, because i'll be acting like a "proxy" with the pool.. So it looks like Client -> Pool -> Wallet ... I think KlausT who works on the cuda miner (which I am using) has done some work on the 2.0 version about this : https://github.com/KlausT/Sia-CUDA-Miner/releases |
|
|
|
Does anyone have a list of coins where soloing is known to be broken? Maybe one with low diff?  SecureCoin (SRC) was suggested. It is a Quark coin. Another miner posted that it has the same error message on finding a block (crashing) as VertCoin (VTC). CCminer will generate Quark hash with SRC; SRC has very rapid blocks at low difficulty. Currently, I do not think solo-mining will work with any algo using CCminer. please precise ccminer from sp... my releases have no problem, tpruvot releases neither... so please don't generalize to every ccminer release. That's in part why I am rather unhappy about the situation. myself and other have busted our asses on ccminer while the most publicised version which mostly uses the code we developed gets broken on a daily basis, feature gets removed, not even possible to run in debug mod without recompiling etc...). no offence sp, it is time you get your shit together and stop releasing 4 untested releases a day... PRECISE-- OK, you have a point, DJ. I was posting in sp_'s thread, however. I DO try to be clear about OS, version, hash rates, clock rates, spelling and punctuation, etc. I've groaned about the bleeding edge speed before, myself, but sp_ has brought my 750ti cards from 5.5+ Mh/s to 6.1Mh/s mining Quark within the last 20 releases. Maybe a few releases should focus on code clean-up and standardization rather than speed. Future improvements would then be on a stronger base. --scryptr Considering DJM doesn't release anything, he doesn't really offer an alternative. I'd rather take a buggy and sometimes glitchy version with speed over one that's getting steamrolled by the private miners (usually released by the same person). Also, everyone is getting their panties in a knot about solo mining. Who even solo mines now days? Only people who do have to have a relatively large farm for that to actually work (on the profitable coins). Perhaps consider charging them for a solo mining version. The amount of shits I have for this issue are about 0 as it is I'm sure for the majority of miners as we're all on pools... because, you know, we can't magic 5% of the network hashrate out of our asses. Seems as though people are on SP's balls because profits are tight and he's offering a open source-public miner, which hurts the private miner business. For instance, DJM's toted L2V2 rewrite isn't even worthwhile anymore compared to Quark or other alternatives. Without downplaying what sp_ has bring to us, the nvidia maxwell "small" miners communauty, he has built on top of what others like djm, truvot, tsiv,and before KlausT cbuchner had already built. Without them ccminer wouldn't be what it is. On the other hand solomining is important for small miners : this allow us to benefit from recently launched coins or low profiles ones, often more profitable. Moreover, ethereum (rather shift, exp which have lower difficulties) mining is more profitable in solo, due to very fast blocks which penalized pools mining if you have not low latency network between your rig and the pool. |
|
|
|
... I was mining Eth instead of Vert for awhile, but right now a 280x mines almost twice as fast as 970, so after all the AMD miners hoped on board it was no longer all that profitable. It's about break even with Vert right now though, still sometimes more profitable, regardless of it being slower.
ETH can probably run much faster on the high end cards if some of the memory access can b replaced with computation.
The ET performance depends on the DAG file.. Without a random file, every random acces isside the cached and the hashrate explodes duh ?! there is no way to get rid of those... otherwise,as Myaguy was explaining, it may possible to calculate some of the dag element hence reducing memory usage Have you guys considered more compression? thinking about it, but it isn't really obvious it would help... need to find a compression algorithm which works on it (I tried zipping the file, just to have an idea of what could be done and ended up with a larger file...  ) so it seems there isn't much to compress (well 1.2Gb of integers...). For info, for a 780ti to work correctly on windows 8.1, only 1.3% less dag is required (but that 1.3% is still too large to store anywhere that amount of data (too large for either register or texture/shared ) The GTX 980 ti with +50% more bandwith has similar performance than a GTX 980 : there should be some bottleneck elsewhere... an amd 280x has better performance ... It's not like the algo loads large chunks of contiguous blocks of memory like texture maps. Instead it loads 64 times a 128 byte random chunk, where the index of each can only be found based on the previous one. So the available bandwidth cannot be fully utilized. I've already tried running two of those loops in parallel, but haven't been succesful at that yet. So where does the amd advantage come from ? better memory controler with tighter timings ? I think wider memory bus and therefore higher overall bandwidth. In games, nVidia makes that up with compression, but here there nothing to compress in random chunks of 128 bytes of hashed hashes. The effciency of AMD vs NVidia is about the same. i.e for a GTX980, that hashes about 19MH, the theoretical max. hashrate is 224GBps/8KBph = 28MH. 19MH/28MH = 67%. For a 280/X.290/X that hash at about 27MH on average, the theoretical max is 320GBps/8KBph=40MH. 27MH/40MH= 67%. This reasoning works for gtx 980 but not for gtx 980 ti far less efficient nor r9 280x which has a higher hashrate / bandwidth ratio |
|
|
|
... I was mining Eth instead of Vert for awhile, but right now a 280x mines almost twice as fast as 970, so after all the AMD miners hoped on board it was no longer all that profitable. It's about break even with Vert right now though, still sometimes more profitable, regardless of it being slower.
ETH can probably run much faster on the high end cards if some of the memory access can b replaced with computation.
The ET performance depends on the DAG file.. Without a random file, every random acces isside the cached and the hashrate explodes duh ?! there is no way to get rid of those... otherwise,as Myaguy was explaining, it may possible to calculate some of the dag element hence reducing memory usage Have you guys considered more compression? thinking about it, but it isn't really obvious it would help... need to find a compression algorithm which works on it (I tried zipping the file, just to have an idea of what could be done and ended up with a larger file... ) so it seems there isn't much to compress (well 1.2Gb of integers...). For info, for a 780ti to work correctly on windows 8.1, only 1.3% less dag is required (but that 1.3% is still too large to store anywhere that amount of data (too large for either register or texture/shared ) The GTX 980 ti with +50% more bandwith has similar performance than a GTX 980 : there should be some bottleneck elsewhere... an amd 280x has better performance ... It's not like the algo loads large chunks of contiguous blocks of memory like texture maps. Instead it loads 64 times a 128 byte random chunk, where the index of each can only be found based on the previous one. So the available bandwidth cannot be fully utilized. I've already tried running two of those loops in parallel, but haven't been succesful at that yet. So where does the amd advantage come from ? better memory controler with tighter timings ? |
|
|
|
... I was mining Eth instead of Vert for awhile, but right now a 280x mines almost twice as fast as 970, so after all the AMD miners hoped on board it was no longer all that profitable. It's about break even with Vert right now though, still sometimes more profitable, regardless of it being slower.
ETH can probably run much faster on the high end cards if some of the memory access can b replaced with computation.
The ET performance depends on the DAG file.. Without a random file, every random acces isside the cached and the hashrate explodes duh ?! there is no way to get rid of those... otherwise,as Myaguy was explaining, it may possible to calculate some of the dag element hence reducing memory usage Have you guys considered more compression? thinking about it, but it isn't really obvious it would help... need to find a compression algorithm which works on it (I tried zipping the file, just to have an idea of what could be done and ended up with a larger file... ) so it seems there isn't much to compress (well 1.2Gb of integers...). For info, for a 780ti to work correctly on windows 8.1, only 1.3% less dag is required (but that 1.3% is still too large to store anywhere that amount of data (too large for either register or texture/shared ) The GTX 980 ti with +50% more bandwith has similar performance than a GTX 980 : there should be some bottleneck elsewhere... an amd 280x has better performance ... Eth mining is a big win for amd miners... On the other hand the GTX 750 ti has a quite good performance, the only one on th nvidia side competitive for eth. |
|
|
|
Smooth - the dev of XMR has made serious accusations against Vanilla coin:
john-conner's project, Vanillacoin (VNL), includes a significant amount of reformatted and, at best, lightly-edited Bitcoin code which has illegally and unethically had its attribution and copyright notices removed. In addition, he describes Vanillacoin as written "from scratch in its entirety", a false, misleading, and fraudulent claim that is being used to promote his coin. Given that this shows dishonesty, low credibility, and willingness to engage in unethical conduct, extreme caution is advised.
What do you guys think? Is this accusation grounded?
Yes, this 100% fact. According to people who have inspected somewhat the code, the network part is essentially new while the crypto part is basically a rewrite in c++. For me the expression "written from scratch" is more a borderline overstatement. |
|
|
|
Whirlpoolx is almost unique in how it was conceived: it really looks like it was made to favourite smart developers.
The large part of the optimisations come from "shortcuts", more than general algorithm speedup. In the end it's just reiterated whirlpool (which in turn is similar to groestl and other aes derived algos).
So I guess that a 970 with all the "shortcuts" in place, should be about as good as a 280x (500 Mh/s).
Thats why x11 is safer. Supported by Daesh.. I wonder why the poor NVIDIA miners are skipping the ETHER algo... Such Profit loss my GTX 980 is hashing at 22mh/s which is not very interesting (less than a 280x). I am mining spreadcoin with your private miner, more profitable. Or sia (but without a pool and with their difficulty adjustement bitcoin like, this is only interesting from time to time : there are some big farms which jumps in and out giving incredible volatile hashrate). I think an optimized ether ccminer/ethminer would be highly welcome : would need about 30mh/s for a GTX 980. The maximum theoretical eth hash rate for GTX980 on stock clocks is 28MH/s (== 224GB/s / 8KB/hash). But even if the Keccak stages would be fully integrated, you would only win 15%, so it would max out at about 25MH. So mem bandwith is the limiting factor here ? Mining use P2 state for memory : 3000mhz : therefore overclocking memory/forcing P0 state would gain a lot? On the other hand, I have tried with a GTX 980 ti (>+50% bandwith) and I have a very small gain in ethminer cuda... |
|
|
|
The current price of Sia which is 11 satoshi is quite depressing.
From a previous peak of 36 satoshis 11 days ago and now down to this.
Now is the time to load up on coins. Soon as new wallet releases with fixes and the word spreads the price will move back up. Its just one of those coins that reflects the state of development with SIA. Which is completely unlike all other coins that way.  Most coins have high and lows, even good ones... |
|
|
|
Whirlpoolx is almost unique in how it was conceived: it really looks like it was made to favourite smart developers.
The large part of the optimisations come from "shortcuts", more than general algorithm speedup. In the end it's just reiterated whirlpool (which in turn is similar to groestl and other aes derived algos).
So I guess that a 970 with all the "shortcuts" in place, should be about as good as a 280x (500 Mh/s).
Thats why x11 is safer. Supported by Daesh.. I wonder why the poor NVIDIA miners are skipping the ETHER algo... Such Profit loss my GTX 980 is hashing at 22mh/s which is not very interesting (less than a 280x). I am mining spreadcoin with your private miner, more profitable. Or sia (but without a pool and with their difficulty adjustement bitcoin like, this is only interesting from time to time : there are some big farms which jumps in and out giving incredible volatile hashrate). I think an optimized ether ccminer/ethminer would be highly welcome : would need about 30mh/s for a GTX 980. |
|
|
|
Does anyone know what the whirlpoolx algo is like on ccminer?
On AMD my whirlpoolx miner does 670 Mh/s. I tried ccminer some time ago on 970 and it was about 300 Mh/s, if I recall correctly. I'd be glad to optimize ccminer like I did for AMD, but I see less and less interest in mining that algo, so I dropped the idea. The whirlpoolx kernal is pretty fast already on the maxwell. But if you can make it faster, the same teqniques might be possible in x11 as well. The 750ti does around 75MHASH. the 970 around 230MHASH Whirlpoolx is almost unique in how it was conceived: it really looks like it was made to favourite smart developers. The large part of the optimisations come from "shortcuts", more than general algorithm speedup. In the end it's just reiterated whirlpool (which in turn is similar to groestl and other aes derived algos). So I guess that a 970 with all the "shortcuts" in place, should be about as good as a 280x (500 Mh/s). vnl is a rather good coin with some potential : with a GTX980 @650-700Mh/s it would be one of the most profitable coin to mine... Right one, the miner is @300 for a GTX 980, which is not interesting in front of amd miners. |
|
|
|
?!?! GUI version of wallet 0.3.3.3 for Windows x64 ?!?!? Pm me an email adress and I will send it to you. |
|
|
|
I have recovered my "lost" (not really lost) coins by switching back to 3.3.3 (I think these are recently mined).
Don't erase old wallets when you upgrade.
I think the dev team should focus on the good functionning of the coin before improving file sharing : this include fixing problems on the wallet, use of a good difficulty adjustement algo (the difficulty is too slow in adjustements : you may see the delta algo used by guldencoin for instance) to keep the block time more regular...
On the other hand, I still believe on this projetc and I have invested a bit more thanks to the rather low prices.
We've spent the entire past two weeks working on the problems you've been complaining about, and done nothing with file storage or mining pools since people have been having trouble. We can't switch the difficulty algo, most of the popular ones have problems with other attacks such as difficulty raising attacks. I'm sorry that everyone feels like switching back to 0.3.3.3 is the safest thing to do. As far as losing coins is concerned, 0.4.x is far safer. The UI has bugs where it won't show your balance (we're working on it), and the consensus database has corruption issues (also working on it - it's done but need to continue testing to make sure no consensus forks were introduced). I'm sorry the 0.4.x series has been so buggy.  . We solved a lot of the major security issues but in the process we destroyed usability. I would not blame you about this : the project is ambitious, you and your team has done a huge amount of work. You have been active et helpful when some of us had have problems. Don't be to much sorry. About difficulty algo : it would be helpful while hasrate is up and down and on the low side : some coins with good trading volume and high market cap use them without problems I believe. On the other hand, once pools are ready, it should be less of a problem with hasrate more stable : did you contact ocminer for some help on this? he is really good setting up pools for coins which are not bitcoin clones in the pow side (spreadcoin, ethereum ...). |
|
|
|
...
Do you know where I can download the old but much more reliable version 0.3.3.3? I hope that I have not lost coins and to restore them! Thanks a lot! [/quote] https://github.com/NebulousLabs/Sia/releasesscroll down to 0.3.3.3 |
|
|
|
Just for the record, I have used every wallet since day one. I have never lost any coins, even after 2 corrupted wallets.... once corrected those coins always where there. Of course you need to unlock the 4.1 if ya want to see them Bugs will be worked out. I am confident Taek and the others will perfect this wallet which is a true work of genius. Well good for you.. Maybe you haven't actually 'used' the wallets like making transactions... but I see more people complaining about losing coins for a few months now(when was 3.3.2 released?) . I've lost about 50% of the coins on 3 different occasions and on 3 different wallets.. These issues have never been addressed appropriately and the devs only keep pushing for the next buggy release.. I have recovered my "lost" (not really lost) coins by switching back to 3.3.3 (I think these are recently mined). Don't erase old wallets when you upgrade. I think the dev team should focus on the good functionning of the coin before improving file sharing : this include fixing problems on the wallet, use of a good difficulty adjustement algo (the difficulty is too slow in adjustements : you may see the delta algo used by guldencoin for instance) to keep the block time more regular... On the other hand, I still believe on this projetc and I have invested a bit more thanks to the rather low prices. |
|
|
|
|
Is it safe to use 3.3.3 version ?
It seems to work better for me (mining, sync, balance... I do not speak about files hosting).
|
|
|
|
You can see the graph of the price for a 7 days.
It was a high pump and now maybe it is a dump and the price has fallen to much.
I just checked the graph and it shows that this is the lowest price of Etherum ever. 0.00378BTC
On poloniex, the lowest is 0.0022 a month ago. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
