The simplest way is to join public grid http://pubgrid.tahoe-lafs.org/.
Second way is to run own introducer by running 'tahoe create-introducer' command.
Last way, if you are interested, you may ask to access to volunteergrid.

In any case, you will get introducer's strange URL started with pb:// which you have to enter to ~/.tahoe/tahoe.cfg under "introducer.furl". Then start your node and everything will work!

Yes, I'm using it almost year very intensively (for backups ~50GB). I even made binding for pyfilesystem https://code.google.com/p/pyfilesystem so anybody can mount Tahoe-LAFS as normal drive (Windows, Linux, Mac).

Unfortunately there is no real effort for accounting, I think joining Tahoe and Bitcoin would be great. Unfortunately everybody who says that running Tahoe-LAFS is too much complicated is right. There is effort to simplify installation on all platforms, but IMHO it is not ready for end user yet. On the other side, TahoeLAFS is great piece of software!

Question to stability - there were made massive improvements and I can say it is pretty stable now. But I don't know which type of connection uses peers in my grid.

Feature request: Please support targets with less than 32bits of zeros
Reason: Miner is not properly working on testnet, where target can be under that. I'm also working on cooperative mining server and would like to introduce small targets for counting shares of every worker. DiabloMiner with correct target handling will be compatible with this mining server...

Thanks!

Hi Diablo, I tested new binary on MacOS, which was not working before two days. Everything works perfectly now!

Yes, I'm working on that: http://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1976.40 . It is already working. Want to go live until Sunday. m0mchil's miner working well with that.

Agree. I don't see any reason why non standard, maybe non-financial transaction should be inside financial block chain. Also don't understand why major miners are going to fork client. I thought this software is about currency. So I'm absolutely OK with last release and I already updated all my miners.

I'm definitely NOT against software based on chains and personally will support any BitDNS effort, but, please, keep bitcoin chain consistent.

Infrastructure for accounting (and payments) is available, but nobody done this yet. Volunteergrid working on members honesty, that nobody store more than share (* share ratio).
Btw Zooko (project coordinator) like an idea to use bitcoins for storage payments. I think TahoeLAFS together with Bitcoin would be amazing cloud storage solution. Maybe we will find somebody interested in accounting implementation here...

Do you know Tahoe-LAFS project (http://tahoe-lafs.org)? I think it is project what you are talking about. It is decentralized storage (SPOF still here, but AFAIK removing of them is in progress) with strong security model. There are also plans for accounting, but nobody done it yet. By the way, they are very progressive - they already accepts Bitcoins .

I'm member of it's volunteergrid for a while and must say it works for me. Currently using around 40GB of cloud storage mapped as Windows drive.

Edit: SPOF is 'introducer' - nodes are asking them for another peers in grid. It does not manage any access rights and it is not a data hub; file transfers go directly between nodes, it is real p2p. Currently there can be many introducers in one grid, so this is not _real_ SPOF.

Glad to read that!


You are right. Currently I have same target for all workers, but dynamic target depending on worker performance is in my TODO. I'm testing on Nvidia ION (~2000khash/s) and HD 5970 (~560mhash/s) and think target near 8 zeros should be fine for beginning. 8 zeros (32bit) gives one blocks every ~30 minutes on Nvidia and every tens seconds on Radeon, which is yet OK.

I'm glad I understood your code well . I agree full check is too expensive. But what about compromise - check so many bits for zeros how many zeros is in target sent by getwork? Simply do not have hardcoded '32 bits' inside miner... This should be quite simple, fast and good enough!

By the way, I'm using modified version of your scanhash_c for checking proof-of-work in my server. My reward from first block found by cooperative mining is yours.

Cooperative miner is almost ready. It is already working and pretty fast. Tested on 'testnet', my Intel Atom can manage clients >500Mhash/s without any significant load. There is just need for some web UI for users and a lot of code cleanup.

It is working with jgarzik's cpuminer, m0mchil's python miner and Diablo's java miner pretty well. But I found one problem in comparing targets. As I understand their codes well, they don't fully compare found hashes with target. So if I set difficulty pretty low, because I want many low-difficulty blocks for fair accounting, miners simply does not return correct hashes (hashes corresponding current target).

For example DiabloMiner. Even if I set target to 'ffff..ffff00', miner does not return hashes with less than eight zeros on the end. Am I wrong or miners really need patches to work correctly with low-difficulty targets?

When I set target with eight zeros on the end (so all tested miners work correctly with that target), computer with ~2mhash/s gives around 2 blocks per hour, which is IMHO too little for fair short-term distribution.

Thanks. I tried to find solution here before post, but missed this comment 

Just installing miner to my friend. We found this error on his MacOS box. Did anybody see this already? Thanks

Hi jgarzik, getting problem with configure on pretty old CentOS 5. Any idea, please? 

Tried 2.1 and got very poor performance. Core is working only on ~60%. Core is working on 100% after short time, but performance is still poor. 2.2 working perfectly for me (core on ~94%).   --- Oh, finally found 'bitalign' option.

I tried newest binary on Win7 and ATI right now and it is also not working


I was so happy there is no need to getwork patch, but I had to revert everything back to old version, because current version is not working on any of my cards .

Same on Win7 & Nvidia. Previous binaries working like a charm.

Btw thanks for getwork update! It's cool we do not need patch anymore!

It would be better to enter amount which will be received, not paid. Commision should be added to final amount to send. Currently, when I want to send 1 BTC to someone, I have to calculate commision itself.

Are you performing some scrambling in transaction? For example, when I send 1BTC, it should pay some amount instantly and some amount later even from another sending address. This way it should me much harder to pair both transactions.

By the way, I see you are living in Slovakia. Do you speak Slovak or Czech?

If somebody is fan of pistols and guns (btw I'm not), that does not mean he shoot kittens every morning.

I like idea and I will definitely buy one, but agree with SmokeTooMuch - no crappy logos, please.

How many unique addresses are joined to mining? '93 clients' aren't probably computers/users, but threads/cores, because remote miner is single threaded.