As many miners switch off their older (but p2pool compatible) miners due to inefficiency & electrical costs, I can't help but wonder what the future holds for p2pool unless a manufacturer steps up with something to rival bitmain or a dev steps in who can fix the broken bitmain firmware for use with p2pool. I can't hold my breath long enough for that to happen, & the more I think about it, the more I dislike bitmain - both their broken firmware & their empty block producing crappy SPV pool with zero support......  Spondoolies - rescue us please?  Spondoolies have left the building. Their next generation is for farms only unless they come up with another product (which might happen). The Avalon A6s will work well with p2pool but as per the last generation they're pricier than the bitmain product. |
|
|
|
Yes not only did we both see it live but so did my home miner [2015-12-10 02:09:10.342] Possible block solve diff 284226037748.637451 !
[2015-12-10 02:09:10.929] BLOCK ACCEPTED!
[2015-12-10 02:09:10.931] Solved and confirmed block 387505 by melancon.068
[2015-12-10 02:09:11.166] Pool 0 message: Block 387505 solved by melancon.068 @ ckpool! |
|
|
|
|
Dealing with a small database issue at the moment. The website will be offline again soon to restart it.
|
|
|
|
 Congrats to 1EPSY7YmK8yd3jYJ3zuKuVHxPvGLmsmEPS for the solved Block! [2015-12-09 13:24:40.579] Possible block solve diff 1408065188011.553223 !
[2015-12-09 13:24:40.895] BLOCK ACCEPTED!
[2015-12-09 13:24:40.895] Solved and confirmed block 387490 by 1EPSY7YmK8yd3jYJ3zuKuVHxPvGLmsmEPS.200
[2015-12-09 13:24:40.895] User 1EPSY7YmK8yd3jYJ3zuKuVHxPvGLmsmEPS:{"hashrate1m": "640T", "hashrate5m": "612T", "hashrate1hr": "609T", "hashrate1d": "248T", "hashrate7d": "44.2T"}
[2015-12-09 13:24:40.895] Worker 1EPSY7YmK8yd3jYJ3zuKuVHxPvGLmsmEPS.200:{"hashrate1m": "327T", "hashrate5m": "322T", "hashrate1hr": "309T", "hashrate1d": "123T", "hashrate7d": "21.7T"}
|
|
|
|
I've configured the stock cgminer in my S7 batch 6 with "submit-stale" : true,
"queue" : "1",
"expiry" : "1",
"scan-time" : "1"
and looks like it's now submitting stale shares. [2015-12-09 03:27:21] Pool 1 stale share detected, submitting as user requested
[2015-12-09 03:27:21] Accepted 00000058 Diff 0/8192 BTM 0 pool 1
[2015-12-09 03:27:22] opt_bitmain_freq:600 tmp:600
[2015-12-09 03:27:22] Pool 1 stale share detected, submitting as user requested
[2015-12-09 03:27:22] Accepted 00000058 Diff 0/8192 BTM 0 pool 1
[2015-12-09 03:27:23] Pool 1 stale share detected, submitting as user requested Don't know if it's a bogus submission or if it's really happening but I'm on full speed p2pool The cgminer default is always to submit stale shares. That entry in your config does nothing on current versions of cgminer. The problem with bitmain's driver is it deletes shares in the driver before even returning them to the main cgminer code in a way you can't configure in cgminer to avoid. These shares don't even show up as being deleted in any logs. |
|
|
|
|
That's not going to put out any significant heat whatsoever...
|
|
|
|
Wired which claims to have revealed SN's identity
kano: Have you ever heard of Wright in your country?
It can't be him. He's 44 years old and last I checked I was 45. |
|
|
|
|
Nope. This Wright guy is vain. Look at Satoshi's posts on this forum and there is no sign of that vanity.
|
|
|
|
|
It's now been activated at >75% penetration so now for someone to send the first transaction using it...
|
|
|
|
can Slush rep come on here and explain whats wrong please
No official slush support is on this forum any more. He uses facebook instead... |
|
|
|
You can wish all you like but there's absolutely no way to confirm a full node really is a full node and not just faking it. If full nodes were to get paid, then one could spoof as many full nodes as they like and get paid for each of their fake nodes. To prove they're full nodes you'd have to invent some kind of "proof of work" and add it to some kind of blockchain - congratulations you've invented mining and an altcoin blockchain.
This is incorrect. Although, you can't incentivize the process of just running a node, you have to incentivize both the speed and volume of the process of tx propagation. You're talking to the wrong person. I wasn't pushing for incentivising anything; only pointing out the flaw with the idea. |
|
|
|
what was the hashrate?
200+ ms ping is it OK CK? or it's too much? will that be an disadvantage?
The hashrate is in my post... It's not too much. The next real pool in terms of verified block change speed is almost 1 second slower than solo is, and many are far slower. |
|
|
|
Congrats to 15X8ziBTCLEQCU2eUwWoQCYqJV7CoJSFoC  [2015-12-08 01:28:37.014] Possible block solve diff 196279564100.381348 !
[2015-12-08 01:28:37.355] BLOCK ACCEPTED!
[2015-12-08 01:28:37.355] Solved and confirmed block 387235 by 15X8ziBTCLEQCU2eUwWoQCYqJV7CoJSFoC.104G
[2015-12-08 01:28:37.355] User 15X8ziBTCLEQCU2eUwWoQCYqJV7CoJSFoC:{"hashrate1m": "374T", "hashrate5m": "332T", "hashrate1hr": "74.6T", "hashrate1d": "9.87T", "hashrate7d": "4.13T"}
[2015-12-08 01:28:37.355] Worker 15X8ziBTCLEQCU2eUwWoQCYqJV7CoJSFoC.104G:{"hashrate1m": "372T", "hashrate5m": "330T", "hashrate1hr": "72.8T", "hashrate1d": "6.68T", "hashrate7d": "1.23T"}
|
|
|
|
Anything's possible... likely? No, it will take you millions of years to find a block on average. As for why they sell them to you, it's because it's easy to sell hardware to people who don't know what it is they're buying if the sales pitch is all bullshit.
I bought on Amazon UK, And sales pitch was that I could earn at least 25 bitcoin per month. If that's really not true I will raise an issue with Amazon That is the biggest load of horse shit I've heard in a very long time. You won't earn 25 bitcoin from them if they mine for the next 100 years. |
|
|
|
|
Anything's possible... likely? No, it will take you millions of years to find a block on average. As for why they sell them to you, it's because it's easy to sell hardware to people who don't know what it is they're buying if the sales pitch is all bullshit.
|
|
|
|
|
What sort of mining software are you running? Running bitcoin miners uses very low resources on a PC and shouldn't raise your core temperature at all.
|
|
|
|
Forgive me if i'm wrong; but Antpool appears to be doing the same thing (found block, not submitting straight away, mining on header of found block, submitting both in quick succession).. standard behaviour from them?
This is not quite correct. They are submitting it straight away as they have a lot to lose by not submitting it. It's just that they start mining on the header of a any pool's found block without verifying it's valid. As they're only mining on the header they are also unable to generate work with further transactions in it so they are always empty transaction blocks they're mining. In their next work update from the pool they are then working on verified blocks with transactions mined in. The effect you are seeing is that SPV mined blocks by design only ever occur within a short timespace of a previously solved block. The fact that it's often two blocks back to back by the same pool is purely because those pools are TOO FUCKING BIG and get lots of blocks. |
|
|
|
got a quick question.. is there a way you can incorporate the voting process into cgminer so that each mining machine can vote individually vs the pool wallet submitting the vote? What some people would like to do is stay on the pool of there liking and still vote with there mining hash regardless of the pool operators views;). By allowing only the pool operators control, that centralizes this rather drastically! Sorry if this was asked or is a stupid question:)
I assume by "vote" you mean what transactions are included and what goes into the coinbase, in which case the answer is realistically no. By design pooled mining gives that control to the pool. While it is possible to redesign the protocol so the miners design their own work and send it to a pool, the ability to make the pools and mining majority change to such a system is quite beyond the level of improbability. The bulk of the hashrate you see on the network is not personal miners as they only account for maybe 5% of the network now and swaying those will have zero net effect and only make mining more difficult for them. If you're talking about political debates of BIP101 versus mainline bitcoin, that's even more unlikely as the choice of protocol is done and verified at the pool mining node, and pools consciously choose what software to run on their bitcoin node. When you are pooled mining, you are all mining to that pool's bitcoin node so you can't change its protocol from the mining end in any meaningful way. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
