I have no axe to grind about any pool. If I'm going to use a pool it will be one that charges a fee and provides good service and has a business model that provides for longevity. Being anti-deepbit just because they are successful isn't productive. But folks are free to choose to do so.
Yeah, um, I think you WAY overreacted with your "crusade against socialism" here Maybe so. But this thread was started for the purpose of discussing pools having too much veto power over a specific change to the way Bitcoin will work in the future. My twofold opinion is one that people have the right to mine where they want no matter what others may think. Or the veto power a large pool may have. The miners choose to give said pool that power. And two that we should be cautious of making changes to the bitcoin protocol/blockchain for the sake of increased security. We don't know what the internet is going to look like in the future so these changes could be detrimental in that unknown future. It seems to me that the security can be, and is, being enhanced in software (encrypted wallet) devices (smartphones/PDA's/Secure USB sticks) or services such as online bitcoin banks. Sam |
|
|
|
There's no good reason to mine on deepbit.It's the pool with the highest fees for proportional AND PPS. Don't like high variance with smaller pools? there are plenty of pps pools with zero fees. That's right folks, zero variance, AND you don't pay fees. crazy, right? inb4 diablo locks this for being off topic. Gee, I've never heard this before. I find it so insightful, helpful and informative, NOT! People have the right to choose. Get over it. If you can do a better job than Deepbit or any other fee based pool, then just do it. Let the free market prevail. Just my opinion, Sam |
|
|
|
Have I missed something?
Yes, you missed that the debate isn't over weather or not to implement multi-sig transactions, but rather which protocol change is best to implement - and there are several, with support from different developers and pool operators. And my, consistent, point is why change it at all? The impetus to make these changes is to make it harder to hijack someones unsecured wallet. Hasn't that problem been solved with encrypted wallets? Sam The impetus is to allow Bitcoin o be used by businesses and corporations, which often require TWO signatures on a check to send money. Currently you would have to assign a single person ALL the powers to spend money. That is a huge security risk for businesses. The "use a phone app to validate your sending coins" is just another bonus. You also missed the point of P2Pool. It is exactly like a pool, in that you pool your mining power with everyone else, but it's better than a pool in that you pay no fees, you KEEP the transaction fees that pools usually keep, you get to configure your own miner however you wish and vote on whatever changes you want, you run your miner and pool software on your own computer, so don't have to worry about the pool going down for whatever reason, and being completely distributed, P2Pool can not be DDOSed. It's the best choice for capitalism, but is still not well known because it's so new and obscure. The "donations" are there to get people to bother to try it out, since part of a pool's appeal is total hashing rate: the higher the pool hash rate, the lower the variance. P2Pool had a fairly low has rate, thus high variance (there are still days when you won't find a block). Once more people join, the variance will go away, donation incentives won't be needed, and it'll be the superior option. That can be done in software/devices without modifying the protocol/blockchain. It is up to the user/organization to implement it if they choose. The encrypted wallet already provides for additional security, if a user chooses to implement it. The P2Pool is something I haven't looked into and, as I said, I probably should. Can't comment on that one way or the other. I have no axe to grind about any pool. If I'm going to use a pool it will be one that charges a fee and provides good service and has a business model that provides for longevity. Being anti-deepbit just because they are successful isn't productive. But folks are free to choose to do so. Sam |
|
|
|
Have I missed something?
Yes, you missed that the debate isn't over weather or not to implement multi-sig transactions, but rather which protocol change is best to implement - and there are several, with support from different developers and pool operators. And my, consistent, point is why change it at all? The impetus to make these changes is to make it harder to hijack someones unsecured wallet. Hasn't that problem been solved with encrypted wallets? Sam |
|
|
|
And the people who use deepbit, or any other pool, are in effect voting by proxy. That is the individuals miners choice.
As for the solution in search of a problem comment, the less tinkering with something that works, the better. I don't think we should be messing with the foundation of the way bitcoin works. It just feeds the seed of distrust.
We now have encrypted wallets what else do we really need to secure our transactions? Sending a message to my smartphone will really help that much? Smartphones can't be compromised? Really?
Sam
If you don't think we should be messing with the foundation of the way bitcoin works then why are mining at a pool which is for changing the foundation of the way bitcoin works  Have I missed something? This Gavin guy wants to change the functioning of bitcoin to add an additional signature to the Bitcoin block which will require me to reply to a query sent to my smartphone when I want to initiate a transaction. And he is worried that Deepbit won't honor those transactions? So it seems to me that deepbit is voting, on my behalf, for the current status quo. Besides, like I said before, if you don't like a pool being successful then lets all start solo mining again. I would be fine with that. Sam |
|
|
|
As for the solution in search of a problem comment, the less tinkering with something that works, the better. I don't think we should be messing with the foundation of the way bitcoin works. It just feeds the seed of distrust.
Pools are not the foundation of the way Bitcoin works. It was a hack to reduce variance for solo miners. Unfortunately, you normally pay a fee and give up your vote. If you like voting by proxy, great! Some people might want the choice to vote for themselves. This is why forrestv took the challenge and created P2Pool. Now you can have reduced variance and keep your vote. It doesn't require trust, which is a better model in my opinion. To each his own of course. I know that pools weren't supposed to be the foundation of the way Bitcoin works. But the Bitcoin community continually badgers and belittles people who want to solo mine because it is just "stupid" to not use a pool. I felt that heat when I first got interested in Bitcoin. So now that pooled mining is the only way to effectively mine for Bitcoin people want to gripe about paying a fee or the success of certain pools. Well running a pool cost's money. Now that the community has successfully forced miners into using pools they want to whine about said pools having too much power. I think it is time for people to take responsibility for their own actions and quit whining about the success of others. I haven't looked into the P2Pool, maybe I should. But when it comes to money and greed there will always be way for someone to take advantage. There is no such thing as something for nothing or a get rich quick scheme. I still say we shouldn't be messing with trying to fix something that ain't broke. Sam |
|
|
|
OK, I guess I'll mine more at Deepbit. Sam I think that's the opposite of what most are wanting to happen, but to each their own  Really, I didn't get that. If deepbit is the problem then the solution is to get rid of pooled mining altogether. The idea that because a pool is successful that it must be evil is offensive. I would hope that all pools have the goal of success. In my view a pool that wish's to fail is the one that is more evil. Seems to me that some people thrive on creating solutions in search of a problem. Success is NOT a bad thing. Sam I think the "problem" is that Deepbit has the ability to veto any vote, due to their hashing power. I could be wrong though, just what I got from Gavin's post. And the people who use deepbit, or any other pool, are in effect voting by proxy. That is the individuals miners choice. As for the solution in search of a problem comment, the less tinkering with something that works, the better. I don't think we should be messing with the foundation of the way bitcoin works. It just feeds the seed of distrust. We now have encrypted wallets what else do we really need to secure our transactions? Sending a message to my smartphone will really help that much? Smartphones can't be compromised? Really? Sam |
|
|
|
OK, I guess I'll mine more at Deepbit. Sam I think that's the opposite of what most are wanting to happen, but to each their own Really, I didn't get that. If deepbit is the problem then the solution is to get rid of pooled mining altogether. The idea that because a pool is successful that it must be evil is offensive. I would hope that all pools have the goal of success. In my view a pool that wish's to fail is the one that is more evil. Seems to me that some people thrive on creating solutions in search of a problem. Success is NOT a bad thing. Sam |
|
|
|
OK, I guess I'll mine more at Deepbit. Sam |
|
|
|
Gavin is wanting to change one of the rules, to allow multi-sig transactions.
What in the world does mulit-sig transactions mean? Sam |
|
|
|
I installed this version and it worked just fine initially. But now every time I try to run it I get a DEP violation. Does this version of the official client really execute code from the stack or other protected data only memory areas?!?!?!?!?
Thanks,
Sam
what windows version are you running? i'll see if i can reproduce it. edit: tested on windows xp sp3, in VMware, no DEP issues. Yep, using WinXP Pro SP3 as well. I had rebooted several times running virus scans and chkdsk and now it seems to be running fine. I just thought it was strange that I was getting DEP violations out of the blue. Maybe Windoze just got tired and needed rebooting. That happens sometimes. If I can reproduce it I'll open a bug. Sounds like nobody else is having this issue, so that's good. Thanks, Sam |
|
|
|
|
Would it be possible to have a forum topic just for release announcements for the Bitcoin Client software? It would be nice to have them all in one place.
Just a thought,
Sam
|
|
|
|
Well I have scanned this system with Security Essentials, MRT, System Sweeper and Windows Defender Offline.
So I don't think it has a virus.
But now after several reboots I can again run the client. Doesn't exactly give me a warm fuzzy feeling. Perhaps open an issue on GitHub; maybe someone else knows how to debug Windows stuff. If I can get it to reproduce I'll do that. Thanks, Sam |
|
|
|
I installed this version and it worked just fine initially. But now every time I try to run it I get a DEP violation. Does this version of the official client really execute code from the stack or other protected data only memory areas?!?!?!?!? I'm assuming "DEP violation" is some kind of no-execute thing? AFAIK, no Bitcoin-Qt does this. Since you mention it worked before, I would be concerned that perhaps you've been infected by some kind of virus/trojan. I suggest getting your wallet.dat off that computer ASAP just in case, then looking into it further. Well I have scanned this system with Security Essentials, MRT, System Sweeper and Windows Defender Offline. So I don't think it has a virus. But now after several reboots I can again run the client. Doesn't exactly give me a warm fuzzy feeling. By the way, why is it now called Bitcoin-qt? Sam Try MalwareBytes. It is called Bitcoin-qt because the GUI interface was re-written in the QT language by Wumpus. I just scanned again with Malwarebytes. The only malware it found was CGminer and Ufasoft miner. Thanks, Sam |
|
|
|
I installed this version and it worked just fine initially. But now every time I try to run it I get a DEP violation. Does this version of the official client really execute code from the stack or other protected data only memory areas?!?!?!?!? I'm assuming "DEP violation" is some kind of no-execute thing? AFAIK, no Bitcoin-Qt does this. Since you mention it worked before, I would be concerned that perhaps you've been infected by some kind of virus/trojan. I suggest getting your wallet.dat off that computer ASAP just in case, then looking into it further. Well I have scanned this system with Security Essentials, MRT, System Sweeper and Windows Defender Offline. So I don't think it has a virus. But now after several reboots I can again run the client. Doesn't exactly give me a warm fuzzy feeling. By the way, why is it now called Bitcoin-qt? Sam |
|
|
|
so, here is the kicker, I get to the last box. a windows 7 rig with a 5830 and 2x5970s. My hashrate dropped significantly when I added the flags to this rig. If the 5970 individual hashrate dropped on Win7 and rose on Linux provide the driver & SDK versions used on both platforms. It most likely is driver/SDK dependent. Did it lower just the 5830 or did the 5970 individual hash rates drop also. Each model has different # of ALU and thus respond differently to differently to changes in vector & work size. Really all the v & w flags are doing is trying to optimize the # of ALU used in each clock cycle. I noticed it immediately on the 5970's. down to like 320ish. I think the 580 was lower too but was inconsequential since the clock on the box is 800/300 for all cards. ( I bump the 5830 up manually if I feel like it  ) jjimm64: where do you put the -v -w 256 - I have 15 5870s and would like to try this , when I use -v -w 256 with cgminer it does load for me thanks! [/quote] After the pool logon's and before CGMiner specific switch's. Also my 5830 would only accept -w 128 NOT -w 256. So you may have to specify each GPU independently if your 5970 does accept it but 58xx doesn't. Sam |
|
|
|
I installed this version and it worked just fine initially. But now every time I try to run it I get a DEP violation. Does this version of the official client really execute code from the stack or other protected data only memory areas?!?!?!?!? I'm assuming "DEP violation" is some kind of no-execute thing? AFAIK, no Bitcoin-Qt does this. Since you mention it worked before, I would be concerned that perhaps you've been infected by some kind of virus/trojan. I suggest getting your wallet.dat off that computer ASAP just in case, then looking into it further. Yes DEP is Data Execution Prevention. Memory can be marked as Data only so that it should be impossible to execute code from an area marked as such. The stack is the main area that should be read only but many old/legacy apps do execute code from the stack. I appreciate the assurance that the Bitcoin Client does/should NOT do this, which is what I had suspected and hoped for. I am currently scanning my system for virus's/malware. I don't think I've gotten anything on this machine, but hey it is Windoze. Thanks, Sam |
|
|
|
|
I installed this version and it worked just fine initially. But now every time I try to run it I get a DEP violation. Does this version of the official client really execute code from the stack or other protected data only memory areas?!?!?!?!?
Thanks,
Sam
|
|
|
|
Something tells me that ckolivas doesn't live in the same country. Same country as what? |
|
|
|
Site and mining back up, unfortunately the power werk took longer than expected
I still can't get to https://ozco.in get a message saying page not found and the non ssl http://ozco.in gives a CloudFlare message saying web site is offline Maybe I just need to wait for the DNS to get updated? Sam |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
