Sounds like a plan. I'm thinking about switching my Scrypt miners over to Nyan soon, as Myriad scrypt is going auxpow soon, so that way I can solo mine Nyan and Myr at the same time  |
|
|
|
Thanks for the feedback jwinterm. I know that most up-to-date ccminer forks are built with static libraries (so separate dll's are not required), but the cryptonight base from which .....
Working now myagui. Turns out I have cuda5.5, and both versions work, so I guess it was just the missing dll. I'm getting much lower hashrate on that windows computer though, around 250 h/s per 750ti, compared to about 425 h/s per card on ubuntu machine. So, don't know if that's cause I need to update cuda, or just cause windows sucks, but, anyway, it's working now  |
|
|
|
I'm exchanging PMs with SRBOOTH to see if we can figure out why the ccminer binaries that I posted are not working for him. @jwinterm, if I read correctly, you also had some trouble on Windows. In case you used the binaries that I had posted, do you recall what was the error on your end? @smooth, awesome job on the pruning release! I've been happy solo mining, hitting at least one block per day, sometimes two. Need all the power we can have against nefarious Moooooooooo.  I'll see if I can build the pruning release and start testing that as well tonight. When I try to launch the binary, I get a "MSCVR120.DLL is missing from your computer" error box popup, but I'm pretty sure I have all the microsoft redistributables installed, and regular ccminer works ok. It works fine when built from source on Ubuntu computer though. |
|
|
|
Is there a Windows compilation for the light version with pruning??
Is there a ccminer for cryptonight-light? ...excuse my ignorance but I have only been able to find the updated cpu miner through the threads.
There is a windows compilation for ccminer, but it didn't work for me. I've only been able to get it working for my 750tis using debian. Link is available here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=641696.msg11897727#msg11897727 |
|
|
|
Its a myth that any PoW coin are FPGA/ASIC resistant. In fact for 99% PoW coins there are already working FPGA implementations.
...
I'd disagree in that some PoW algos are certainly more FPGA resistant than others. For instance, the cryptonight algo used by monero and others uses a 2 MB scratch pad and AES encryption. Afaik these values and ciphers were chosen because modern cpus have a 2 MB cache and a built-in ASIC for doing AES; this is why cryptonight is one of the only algos where cpus are remotely competitive with gpus in terms of hash/watt. I don't think there's any FPGA out there that's going to compete with an newish i7 or 750ti in terms of hash/watt, but I could be wrong. As far as 99% of PoW already having working FPGA implementations, I guess this is probably true since probably 99% (or at least 90%?) of coins are sha or scrypt based. Most coins aren't SHA or scrypt based, and FPGA would KILL an i7/750Ti on hash/watt on CryptoNight - just not in hash/$. I think if you include all "dead" coins, then most would be sha or scrypt, or if you define most by marketcap, then btc+ltc+doge dwarfs market cap of all other PoW coins combined (90+%), even with ethereum release. What do you mean not in hash/$? Only really expensive FPGA would be able to mine effectively? |
|
|
|
Its a myth that any PoW coin are FPGA/ASIC resistant. In fact for 99% PoW coins there are already working FPGA implementations.
...
I'd disagree in that some PoW algos are certainly more FPGA resistant than others. For instance, the cryptonight algo used by monero and others uses a 2 MB scratch pad and AES encryption. Afaik these values and ciphers were chosen because modern cpus have a 2 MB cache and a built-in ASIC for doing AES; this is why cryptonight is one of the only algos where cpus are remotely competitive with gpus in terms of hash/watt. I don't think there's any FPGA out there that's going to compete with an newish i7 or 750ti in terms of hash/watt, but I could be wrong. As far as 99% of PoW already having working FPGA implementations, I guess this is probably true since probably 99% (or at least 90%?) of coins are sha or scrypt based. |
|
|
|
Sorry if this has been asked before.
Is there a trusted / open source Monero vanity address generator out there?
No. Well there's a Javascript one on Mooo's/saddam's site. It's super slow though. http://moneroaddress.org/There's one written in Go as well: https://github.com/ehmry/monero-vanityLast commit was 1+ year ago, but I don't think it would break with updates. I imagine Go would be at least a little speedier than JS, but not really sure. |
|
|
|
So far, from all the devs i have spoken to, they all say burst is flawed. The core dev hasn't shown his face in a while, and devs have only left this coin. Why would I stick around? I have never been paid, and tbh i'm not much good anyway. It's a shame that burstcoin.biz doesn't has an asset explorer....but that's all i've managed to achieve. The burstcoin.info is about as crap as a site gets. I dunno guys, can you tell me why I should stick around without a whitepaper? I am not good enough to be able to review the algo.
All your efforts are apperciated. I'm sure they'll often go un-noticed by many but I really apperciate all that you've added to this coin and the community as a whole. A few other guys here are also great and all lots of value to this coin! We've just got to push through these rough times together. I would still like a clear explanation of exactly what it is you think is flawed in PoC. To my knowledge it has been tested to see if it can be exploited, and every attempt has either failed, or been completely pointless... such as trying to mine on GPU. It would be completely pointless to try because a great GPU would only equate to a very small amount of HDD space and thus be extremely ridiculous in power consumption VS HDD... But yea, I don't know exactly what you're worried about with this flaw theory. I think you should stick around because this is not the end, by far. Just because the few active devs we had have decided to move on, doesn't mean we can't get new ones, and in fact I'm already prepared if need-be. I'm going to wait a while for the main dev to show up again before making any executive decisions, but it is entirely possible to re-boot the coin, new OP, new devs, and pick up where the other left off, if we need to. People are acting like he has been gone forever, when in reality I spoke to him personally on the first of August. That's less than a month of actually not being around. Is this really enough time for people to lose their minds? if PoC is flawed in some way, I would like to know what way you think that is, so it can be documented and fixed. Only criticism I remember seeing leveled at BURST: https://www.reddit.com/r/ethereum/comments/2tukar/cryptocurrency_burst_makes_smart_contracts_a/co2fywm |
|
|
|
...
What is PoC btw?
...
Proof-of-capacity, used by Nxt derivative Burst. |
|
|
|
The getwork protocol has been removed from Groestlcoin core since it was a inefficient way to mine (due to the speed of FPGA devices).
The old protocol in Groestlcoind or -QT was limited to about 5GH before running into bottlenecks. Groestlcoind could not serve work fast enough for the FPGA's.
...
Maybe you guys should change the tag line to "The New Home of the FPGA Miners"  Why is network hashrate so low if there are superfast FPGAs mining? I mean, I can get like 10-20% of the network with a few video cards... |
|
|
|
Any special trick to getting solo mining working with new release v2.11.0? I can't even get it working on local host computer using sgminer 5.1.1 released on 9 March or an older version of sph-sgminer 4.1. I just get this message: [20:43:11] Pool 0 slow/down or URL or credentials invalid
But I'm pretty sure it was working before I updated client. Is there a special switch in sgminer for newer clients? Need a newer sgminer? When I use debug mode on old sph-sgminer I get this output (debug mode on new sgminer causes it to immediately crash): [20:46:07] Pushing sem post to thread 1
[20:46:07] Probing for an alive pool
[20:46:07] Testing Pool 0
[20:46:07] Probing for GBT support
[20:46:07] No GBT coinbase + append support found, using getwork protocol
[20:46:07] HTTP request failed: The requested URL returned error: 404 Not Found
[20:46:07] Succeeded delayed connect
[20:46:07] Socket closed waiting in recv_line
[20:46:07] Closing socket for stratum Pool 0
[20:46:07] Failed to parse a \n terminated string in recv_line
[20:46:07] Initiating stratum failed on Pool 0
[20:46:07] Suspending stratum on Pool 0
[20:46:07] Closing socket for stratum Pool 0
[20:46:07] FAILED to retrieve work from Pool 0
[20:46:07] Pool 0 slow/down or URL or credentials invalid
[20:46:07] Waiting on sem in miner thread
[20:46:07] Popping work from get queue to get work
[20:46:17] Waiting for work to be available from pools. Also, I changed GroestlCoin.conf to groestlcoin.conf, even though I'm not sure that really matters on windows. Also, also, I'm able to make an rpc call to 127.0.0.1:1441 successfully using curl, so the wallet conf seems setup correctly... |
|
|
|
-snip- I'm going to say two things as a response to the undermining attempt: - My post was made before that was made public
- Appeal to authority anyone?
I'm not appealing to authority, just placing your quote about a "handful" of individuals in the context of reality. I'm in favor of larger blocks, and I think BIP101 is the best proposal at the moment. I would prefer a solution that can scale as needed, as alluded to by ArticMine, but since that doesn't seem forthcoming, I'm all in favor of BIP101. |
|
|
|
we don't need to discuss bitcoin XT if we don't care about bitcoin XT of course bitcoin XT will die.
-snip-
Then why start another thread about it? Why start it in the wrong section? At least you could have done that right. Obviously there are a handful of individuals who believe that BIP 101 and XT are the right way forward (no; unsustainable growth). Ignoring problems doesn't usually make them go away. A handful of individuals, which just happens to include the CEO's of practically all of the largest Bitcoin companies: http://blog.blockchain.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/Industry-Block-Size-letter-All-Signed.pdfAs our community grows, itis essential — now more than ever that we seek strong
consensus to ensure network reliability.We pledge to support BIP101 in our
software and systems by December 2015, and we encourage others to join us.
Stephan Pair - BitPay CEO
Peter Smith - Blockchain.info CEO
Jeremy Allaire - Circle.com CEO
Sean Neville - Circle.com President
Sam Cole - KNC Miner CEO
John McDonnell - Bitnet.io CEO
Wences Casares - Xapo.com CEO
Mike Belshe - Bitgo.com CEO Not too mention Coinbase, which has expressed support for Gavin Andersen's proposal prior to it being formalized in BIP101. |
|
|
|
 here's the new game faucet  Faucet is pretty awesome. Is that something that the admins of goldmin.es put together? Do they have that same game for all the coins they mine? |
|
|
|
i dont mean pruning of some bits out of the chain like messages, or reductions here or there. i mean full blockchain pruning where i could run a node and only store a partial chain that consists of say, the last 50/100/500 etc blocks. whats the closest anyone has gotten to this and are any coins currently developing this?
I think cryptonite's miniblockchain scheme might be the closest thing. |
|
|
|
Vertcoin is more mining profitable from other coins
This is true. But Ethereum mining is 10 times more profitable than even VTC at the moment. All my 64-bit rigs are switched to it at the moment. I'm mining VTC on the only one that is 32-bit. Isn't Ethereum POS? No, there's some rumor about them switching to PoS in the future, but for now pure PoW (besides ICO and premine). |
|
|
|
...
The problem with this is that it's released under the "BitcoinXT" label. We wanted the same thing released under the "Core" label as well. People would then choose to support (or not) BIP101 either via the Core dev team of via the XT dev team. I realize it would result in the exact same code either way.
Maybe someone (reputable) can just fork XT repo (big-blocks-only branch) and rebrand it as Bitcoin101, or BitcoinBB (big blocks), or something... |
|
|
|
Who is in control of "plain vanilla". Who can launch Core + BIP101? Wouldn't it in and of itself be the compromise everyone seems to dance around?
Any programmer should be able to pull the BIP101 (big-blocks only) patch into the latest version of Core (e.g., if they don't trust the people with commit access from XT). Unfortunately, for non-programmers, I believe the only choice right now is to use the one built by the XT team. I really wish the Core team would do something similar and create a Core + BIP101 branch and allow the community to decide which to run (although the code would be the same as if you just did this yourself). can we convince Gavin or Jeff to do this ? It's already done: https://github.com/bitcoinxt/bitcoinxt/tree/only-bigblocks |
|
|
|
|
Just started solo mining. Why do you find shares for solo mining? Haven't found a block yet but have like 34 shares, just not understanding why it shows that. Just to show you that miner is actually working?
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
