Still waiting
Also waiting. |
|
|
|
Glad to have another miner on the coin  My Xeon isn't very impressive either. It's 24 cores and tops out at 1.5 KH/sec - the newer generation of CPU's are just so much more efficient and faster that I don't even use it right now. Well, thanks for my 3 blocks so far . Is there anyway on your cpuminer release to see current difficulty and best share? |
|
|
|
If your going by a site like coinchoose of coinwarz, your already way behind the curve for most likely the many multi pools are now or have been raping the coin or in the process of dumping said coins making the price crash along with the quick rise in dif. The only thing you should use those sites for is to figure out when to start mining BEFORE the multi pools hit. This mean sitting on coins for a while.
Not really my question. I'm sure that I'll get to dislike multi pools like you one day and plot a scheme to get rid of of all multi pool evil in the world. However, for now I'm solo mining because I'm trying to diagnose my finicky hardware. Hence I want to figure out which coins will statistically yield the most frequent blocks. (As opposed to yielding the most amount of BTC on conversion or some other criteria). But since you seem to be a fan of BQC, let me restate this in BQC terms. The listed difficulty on CoinWarz & CoinChoose of BQC is 4.6648. CGMiner difficulty says it's 306K. How to correlate one to the other? It only seems to be weird like this with the AltCoins. BTC difficulty is the same on both |
|
|
|
I give up.  CoinWarz is publishing a unit of difficulty that I cannot make sense out of. http://www.coinwarz.com/cryptocurrencyE.g. AlphaCoin's "Current Difficulty" is listed as: 0.589 of some or other  unit (let's call that unit fluffybunnies). cgminer tells me that the AlphaCoin difficulty is: 44.8kH/s. It's been that for a while, so it's a good time to compare now. I know there are things I can look at, like the 50 block award or 30 seconds/block, but no matter what formula I'm guessing at I can't seem to convert 44.8kH/s into 0.589 fluffybunnies. This isn't specific to AlphaCoin. I similarly can't convert FastCoin's current 46.1kH/s into its 0.7037 fluffybunnies listed on CoinWarz. What is this supposed to be? |
|
|
|
Are you sure it was newegg and not a 3rd party merchant. Anyone can open a store on newegg and sell equipment. I've seen a lot of shady things happen from those merchants.
On the other hand my company has bought $100k of equipment on newegg and you would think that they would provide some better customer service but no.
No, it's Newegg itself - sold and shipped by Newegg (N82E16814125499). I stay far away from the newegg 3rd party merchants. If I want Amazon, I know where to find it. |
|
|
|
The webpage denotes the right NFactor (which is what is important for determining hash). It's possible that was not the miner they were using, and it might have been the 64 bit version or something. I strongly recommend using the latest CPU miner here : https://github.com/Thirtybird/cpuminer/releases. It supports stratum and also has the optimized scrypt-chacha routines mikaelh authored. You will see a performance increase by using the x64 miner so long as you installed Windows x64. For the i7 3930, you'll probably be best off with the AVX executable. You'll have to experiment with the Xeon though - but my guess would be the minerd-corei7 will work. Woo-hoo!! That miner gives me 1.32kHs on my Core i7. (and 0.8kHs on my Xeon as well). Thanks a bunch! |
|
|
|
So I'm running minerd_scrypt_jane_x86_avx.exe on 2 machines: 1) 4-core E3-1240 (It's a Xeon Sandy Bridge running at 3.3ghz) 2) 6-core Core i7-3930K, overclocked to 4.2ghz However, I get the same hashrate per core on both (0.06kHs/thread). How can that be? Also, my specific Core i7 model is listed on: http://yacoinwiki.tk/index.php/Mining_Hardware_Comparisonand stated as performing at 1.2kHs in total. I'm using the exact same miner, but mine totals 0.72kHs. Is my configuration wrong, or is the site out of date perhaps with regard to current difficulty? |
|
|
|
You wouldn't think that Newegg would treat you the same way that some kid in a basement on a far away continent does, but here they go: I ordered and paid for a R9 290x from Newegg yesterday for $550 with overnight shipping. This morning Newegg decided to void my order without a specific explanation, and recommended that I should check with my Credit Card company for a wrong address (Uhh... I used Paypal). Immediately after the email I came back to the site and see that the same card is now listed at $650. So they basically just went and cancelled my order because they decided that can gouge other customers for an extra $100. Yes, I know that $550 is on the low side for an R9 at this point, but that doesn't mean screwing over open orders from existing customers. Just venting.  AltCoin: Changing perfectly legitimate companies into common thugs. |
|
|
|
ASIC manufacturers should come up (read: Really FAST) with new hardware to make mining profitable in the future, as it will take more than three months to mine a single block in the end of august with 25 TH/sec. Umm... It's because ASIC manufacturers come up with faster hardware that it takes more hardware to run blocks. If they don't come up with faster hardware the difficulty won't increase by much. If they come up with any faster hardware the difficulty will increase by even more. It's not just a pre-set thing. PS: Your numbers are trying to assert that there will be the equivalent of 1.6 million KNC Neptunes being released over the next year. That would sure be a neat trick. |
|
|
|
|
Does anybody have an idea why I would have such a high reject rate mining Fastcoin? (Solo mining). I've never seen that with any other coin. It also has 0 accepts even though best share is far over diff.
I've been able to mine FastCoin blocks on the same wallet, but from another machine running cudaminer.
And this cgminer machine can successfully mine altcoin - but it trips up on fastcoin. What gives?
cgminer version 3.7.2 - Started: [2014-01-26 20:02:01]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(5s):0.000 (avg):252.6Kh/s | A:0 R:300167 HW:0 WU:220.0/m
ST: 0 SS: 0 NB: 1450 LW: 0 GF: 0 RF: 0
Connected to xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx diff 18.4K without LP as user xxxxxxxxx
Block: 604ffa3e... Diff:0 Started: [08:43:36] Best share: 1.8M
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[P]ool management [G]PU management (S)ettings [D]isplay options [Q]uit
GPU 0: | 253.7K/252.6Kh/s | A:0 R:300167 HW:0 WU:220.0/m I:16
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
|
|
|
400 GH will probably only earn around 5 BTC mining nonstop from now until it is no longer viable.
That assumes a perpetual exponential rise in difficulty of about 80%, which isn't sustainable. E.g. by the end of the year, ASIC companies would have to ship 5000ph of mining power per month, or the equivalent of 4 million KNC Neptunes. There isn't another leapfrog in technology available like there was from GPU to ASIC. |
|
|
|
You can pick up 400 GH/s now for 3.8 BTC.
Where?? |
|
|
|
I'm surprised you paid this out from mature blocks? (Or is it just coincidental - some people will get mature, some immature). It's impossible to pay from immature coins. They're essentially invalid until 100 blocks deep. Eligius in the past has always paid from immature - which then shows up in your wallet and matures 12 hours later before you can use it. This is the first time I've seen a directly mature payout (in 6 months). |
|
|
|
Actually, all payouts are done, in three transactions since it was too large for one.
Happy mining. Thanks for your patience.
Woo-hoo! Thanks. Didn't doubt you for a second. I'm surprised you paid this out from mature blocks? (Or is it just coincidental - some people will get mature, some immature). |
|
|
|
I must have missed this. Are you talking about the email where they say that: Your amount of refund will be the same as the USD amount shown below and in your order confirmation. Our products were purchased based on the purchase price stated in USD. We accepted payment in Bitcoin and other currencies as a convenience to our customers. For the great majority of our Batch 1 customers, we never received Bitcoin, but instead received USD from our payment processor, BitPay, and used the money to pay our suppliers and costs. Most early customers received a preferable exchange rate that reduced our revenue by 8%-10%. We also have customers that have paid in Bitcoin when the exchange rate was far higher than it is today, so our approach to providing refunds in USD is not a policy designed only to benefit us.
Yes. Same quote, I would highlight a different section though: For the great majority of our Batch 1 customers, we never received Bitcoin, but instead received USD from our payment processor, BitPay Not saying it's true or false (wouldn't know - it's probably false just because HashFast said it)... just saying that they have severe communication issues. This of course starts with the fact that they said they can ship in October without communicating any information about how they could possibly do that. They kept hiding behind NDA's. With open communication they wouldn't have had this many refund requests (well, for starters, because they wouldn't have had this many orders, and the orders they DID have would have known what they were in for), and they WOULD be able to pay out the requests they had - even in BTC. |
|
|
|
Ok, so lets consider for a moment if Hashfast did not do what was good for Hashfast... Hashfast refunds the BTC at the current rate, presumably having to purchase them off the open market. Where does that money come from? They probably don't have it, as it's already been spent on development... but lets say they do have the cash to purchase at least some of the BTC back. They exhaust all of their cash to do this and issue as many refunds as they can. Now they have zero cash to continue operations (people don't generally work for free and suppliers sure as hell don't give away product for free), have not paid back everyone and are forced to go out of business.
The end result of your solution: Some people get paid back, others get nothing. No one gets hardware.
At least to me, that sounds like a much worse solution than everyone at least getting your hardware, even if it is late. If I were a customer, I'd rather have guaranteed late hardware than a crapshoot of a 1 in ten chance of a refund or nothing. Maybe you have a different opinion.
How do YOU of all people, don't get that their problem isn't with their actions. It's with their communications. If they kept communicating honestly every few days saying where the real problems are, when we can expect hardware, upgrade kits, MPP etc. there would be much less people asking for refunds, and they would be able to pay the rest out even at current rates. After all, only a small percentage of people actually paid with BTC, right? (According to THEIR communications.) |
|
|
|
Yes i mine six days. About ~500, i just edit some another post for tell everybody about digits on some internet page is not money on your wallet.
You did not mine BTC 500 in 6 days. If you really owned that much hashing power you'd use your own pool. Nobody in the world will blindly trusts another entity with $70'000 per day. |
|
|
|
Im switching off my two blades tonight as soon as Im clear of the payout threshold, it seems that they are no longer profitable  If the pool would like to make a small contribution to my shortlived mining experience then heres my btc address 1N1Ajs4PVvSeDg2jiPd2yJNS7SvPZExeYM Thanks to everyone on the BTC forum, sorry to see Eligius in trouble in my final days! Im in the world of litecoin from now on! See you there! How much are you paying for electricity that blades aren't profitable?? |
|
|
|
Just an anecdote of "trust" here;
I moved from BTCGuild to Eligius DURING the db problems.....I'm not worried
Just a thought WK....what % pool fee would you have to charge to make it your "full time job"?
I suspect the vast majority of significant miners would stay even if you did charge a fee.....
I'm down with this idea. So far, in my limited experience, Eligius has been the easiest to use AND the most profitable. Granted, that is very limited experience, but still... I guess I just like Whizkid's style. I'd pay a fee. But wait a second - doesn't Whizkid still use the transaction fees to run the pool? (The pool is 0%, but that's 0% on 25 BTC). Not that I mind - I think he totally deserves it, but the transaction fees can easily run up to 1 BTC per day, considering 20 blocks per day. (And considering that, if Whizkid would steal any particular amount of money from the pool at any given instant and thereby killing the pool, he'd be an idiot - which he's not. He'll make a lot more by just keeping it running.) |
|
|
|
|
The pool seems to be down. Timeout on all clients - multiple geographic locations, and stats says pool at 0 kh/s.
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
