I forked again. Solomining with only mooo1 which banned me.
As far as I know forks happen when blocks are generated from different sorces and those new blocks aren't make it to the whole network in time. And the fact that we fragment the network by only using connect/maxconnection and refusing other nodes to connect to us with listen=0 I don't think we will ever solve it this way.
With that said I think the best course of action would be if all of us would start generating blocks on the same node, meaning we should all mine on the same pool until we can interconnect all of our nodes. A pool that generates most of the blocks can't be thrown off by forked nodes as far as I know - unless something is really messed up. We should also only connect our wallets to the pool in order to make sure our wallets always get the newest blocks. For miners the dedicated nodes like the three mooo nodes doesn't really help with the forks because they aren't generating blocks just helping the communication between nodes but they do let you fork and ban you if you do because of solomining.
Since the cryptoworld pool solved 504 blocks in the last 24 hours it seems to be the biggest pool so now I'm only connected to it (connect=amber.thecryptoworld.org:4034) and will only mine there instead of solomining, BUT will re-enable PoS so if I get forked it will be safe to say it's because of PoS.
there are as well forks happening by POS... ...and the pool @ thecryptoworld might have been forked as well... but it might as well be me, the blockexperts explorer and mooo1 Yeah, thecryptoworld seem to have issues as well. With the current difficulty and the pool's hashrate it should find roughly 2-3 blocks per minute yet it barely finds anything. Damn. |
|
|
|
|
I forked again. Solomining with only mooo1 which banned me.
As far as I know forks happen when blocks are generated from different sorces and those new blocks aren't make it to the whole network in time. And the fact that we fragment the network by only using connect/maxconnection and refusing other nodes to connect to us with listen=0 I don't think we will ever solve it this way.
With that said I think the best course of action would be if all of us would start generating blocks on the same node, meaning we should all mine on the same pool until we can interconnect all of our nodes. A pool that generates most of the blocks can't be thrown off by forked nodes as far as I know - unless something is really messed up. We should also only connect our wallets to the pool in order to make sure our wallets always get the newest blocks. For miners the dedicated nodes like the three mooo nodes doesn't really help with the forks because they aren't generating blocks just helping the communication between nodes but they do let you fork and ban you if you do because of solomining.
Since the cryptoworld pool solved 504 blocks in the last 24 hours it seems to be the biggest pool so now I'm only connected to it (connect=amber.thecryptoworld.org:4034) and will only mine there instead of solomining, BUT will re-enable PoS so if I get forked it will be safe to say it's because of PoS.
|
|
|
|
|
I forked roughly about 6 hours ago only using:
connect=ambercoin01.mooo.com
connect=ambercoin02.mooo.com
connect=ambercoin03.mooo.com
|
|
|
|
try with --diff 256 or --diff 0.00390625
Yep, it's 0.00390625 (1/256). --diff is a difficulty divider so 256 would decrease the difficulty even more causing more low difficulty shares. It's not neccessarily a problem with ccminer, it's just the pool and ccminer using different standards. |
|
|
|
What the hell is goin on? Orders at 2000 sats going tru, it was 800 sats just a hour ago! Anything spectacular reason for this?
 One dude has 20-45 BTC worth of coins (depending on the price) so likely the price is just being manipulated quite heavily. |
|
|
|
Massive sell wall on bittrex.  Well i got some at 800 sats anyway! The distribution and the order book looks terrible. A dump is probably coming. |
|
|
|
|
Hey, is there a bootstrap for this coin somewhere? I can't sync.
Edit: nevermind, it started syncing.
|
|
|
|
How much hash does a 750Ti get on Lyra2REv2?
I get between 5000 and 5500 depending on the card and overclock Huh, I only get about 4.6 Mhs with about +100 Mhz. |
|
|
|
|
Yeah, the diff increased quite a lot since yesterday because people started to successfully sync on the right fork and started mining. Yesterday I was able to mine a few hundred blocks, today not so much.
|
|
|
|
|
You can vote multiple times if you block cookies so it's not exactly reliable.
|
|
|
|
My 980 rig have now been running perfectly for 24 hours after i added 4GB more ram and increased the virtual memory to 16GB.
Glad to see you're running stable. I'd like to understand more about the pagefile size issue, particularly the notion that's it's needed but not realy used. Clearly it is being used even if only momentarilly. Does anyone know if this issue exists on Linux? From my understanding the memory/pagefile requirements increase with the number of GPUs. This suggests that all GPU threads initialize in parallel, allocate the memory at the same time, use it briefly, then free it. If the threads initialized serially only one would require large amounts of memory and would free it before the next thread initializes. The dynamic memory requirements would be reduced and larger rigs could run with less memory and smaller swap space. Make sense? It's definitely parallel initialization but every software I used to monitor pagefile use, they never showed anything just a few MB tops. But if you run multiple instances of ccminer on the same device, then it will - depending on the algo - use a huge amount of memory and of course pagefile if needed. It's almost like it needs memory/pagefile just in case the GPU rans out of it. |
|
|
|
|
The payouts on utc14.yacoin.club doesn't work.
|
|
|
|
|
I have 3 connections with maxconnections=1 so the connect command is overriding it.
Just checking:
getblockbynumber 601532 "proofhash" : "000000001be41dbdcf2d082ead1d0b5a358c55258ea307f88604c089c19c310c"
|
|
|
|
Current status: 2 active connections to Ambercoin network
.conf:
listen=0
addnode=ambercoin01.mooo.com
addnode=ambercoin02.mooo.com
getblockbynumber 601182 "proofhash" : "0000709ddf69c904205bf4e922f49d32775c9ec6d1313d72b34f9f9f4e402b5d"
it looks ok for now...
I'm only connected to the original node (ambercoin01.mooo.com), but: getblockbynumber 601182 "proofhash" : "000076b401342b25950ed4eab565bc720043bb35b80713efcc4f46ccedb52c35" |
|
|
|
We need more nodes that are only connected to the main node and connect to each other one at a time with maxconnections=2, 3, etc.
We have 2 more nodes which currently are connected to first one. Should they to be connected to each other only? Or they should allow 2,3 additional connections? Edit: should it look like that? : Node02: ./AmberCoind -connect=ambercoin01.mooo.com -connect=ambercoin03.mooo.com Node03: ./AmberCoind -connect=ambercoin01.mooo.com -connect=ambercoin02.mooo.com I'm not sure. The point is that each node that is only connected to ambercoin01.mooo.com should eventually be interconnected while blocking nodes with the old walelt and nodes on the wrong fork. It should probably solve itself if the new wallet is refusing to connect to old wallets and people abandon the bad fork(s). |
|
|
|
|
We need more nodes that are only connected to the main node and connect to each other one at a time with maxconnections=2, 3, etc.
|
|
|
|
@bathrobehero ....... What is a swapfile? thx
Pagefile or virtual memory. |
|
|
|
|
Anyone can give me a node list? Even with the ones mentioned I can't sync.
|
|
|
|
The problem started right away and i was spending a few days to sort things out. I have not been around when it is shutting down so i dont know exactly how it happends. But when i get back and see that it is offline it is completely turned off. I am almost certain that it just totally crashes and shutting off like in a second, because when firing it back up i get a message that my system ran into a problem etc. I have already swapped most parts when troubleshooting so i start to run out of options. I hope it was memory related but time will tell  What problem? A standard disk checking or a post boot windows error message? A sudden power loss never causes a post boot windows error message so that's useful information. Based on your symptoms so far I would first change the riser cables, blow the dust out of the PCI-E slots and if that doesn't work I'd run the rig with only half the cards enabled and see if it crashes. Then I'd run the rig with the other half of the cards. I had a few rigs randomly crashing periodically but mostly with cudaminer or if I used --cpu-priority 5 with ccminer. A couple of times it was with bad USB risers (no visual clues though). |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
