|
You posted in the multipool thread. That was enough. Don't start other threads unnecessarily please.
|
|
|
|
if you want to mine in solo, and this what it appear to be, you need to set scantime and expire to 1, so there is less stale
share above target is actually an error, it mean you're not mining properly, you're probably getting lot of HW
^^^Ignore this. Everything he said is wrong. When you mine solo to your own bitcoind you will get no shares, only block notification changes. Share above target means you found a low difficulty share that isn't good enough to solve a block - normally this message is filtered unless you're in verbose mode since it's not useful to you. The only notification you'll ever get is if you solve a block. |
|
|
|
Here's a dumb question. Why is there a decimal point in the reported bestshare stats for a given worker?
Because that's the precision used internally when calculating the value in the ckpool code and the stats you're reading are just the exposed data stored in ckpool; it wasn't really designed with users reading it in mind. I just happened to make that data visible to users on this pool since it makes them get an idea of how close (or far) they got from solving a block. |
|
|
|
I think, a full bitcoin node is a MUST HAVE for every serious miner, obviously we disagree in that ...
Don't argue against something I never said. Every miner should be running their own node(s). If you think you can set up a solo mining node for yourself locally that performs as well as that from the one I set up and avoid the 0.5% fee then by all means do. I provide a service and many many people have found it invaluable. Since I wrote the software that you are mining with and the pool software you are mining to and modify the bitcoind software of this pool it's fair to say I speak with some authority when I say it is NOT not comparable to mining solo at home. But as I said, it's your prerogative if you wish to try and recreate the performance of this pool at home - but it is also not your "responsibility" to try and steer people away from this service if they wish to use it. |
|
|
|
why on earth should a solo-miner pay someone any fee, what he can get for free @127.0.0.1 ?
And even, if he got it for 0%, why should a solo-miner risk his reward, if the "solo-pool" is beeing attacked?
The benefits of mining here over true solo mining are explained clearly in the top post and the website. If you don't wish to take advantage of those benefits for a measly 0.5% fee and risk mining one solo block in your life that ends up being orphaned, then that's your choice. |
|
|
|
Block solved, gratz 1CzunTmSszVnJoz7uJxySNUPadWwodBEFQ
That is like three in short order
1 more to go for 100th by soloCK
99th block and a big fat one thanks to the "stress testing" spam transactions, 975kb and 0.42btc in transactions https://www.blocktrail.com/BTC/block/000000000000000008b9174244dfc9b20d18015ba68c49bf2892ea518d2f1a12[2015-09-10 15:42:14.509] Possible block solve diff 126045333588.326096 !
[2015-09-10 15:42:14.910] BLOCK ACCEPTED!
[2015-09-10 15:42:14.914] Solved and confirmed block 373891
|
|
|
|
|
A new round of massive transaction spam is underway again (won't affect this pool significantly as I've already put in place lots of customisations for this purpose).
|
|
|
|
|
And hopefully it won't be another steaming pile of shit like the U3 was.
|
|
|
|
Any plan to merge novak's compac driver back into master?
Unfortunately we don't "suck code" from others, they "push code" and we accept it after making suggestions, so no. Got it. So once it's mature he'd push back this way then possibly you merge it if it looks acceptable? Yep. |
|
|
|
Any plan to merge novak's compac driver back into master?
Unfortunately we don't "suck code" from others, they "push code" and we accept it after making suggestions, so no. |
|
|
|
Like a poker table you would think they might throw you a "coin", even if it is just for future good luck.
Virtually all the early block solvers on this pool were very generous and did donate after solving a block, but lately that practice seems to have died off. Presumably they're high stakes people if they're renting (owning?) petahashes whereas the early solvers almost all had a lucky strike with lesser hashrate. Oh well, it's not like they're obliged to. |
|
|
|
|
No, that's the whole point of ASICs, they only do one thing.
|
|
|
|
Hmm eventually the pool went dead but i was mining still with no problem, while the frontend was down. But now my miners all failed over. Weird.
If miners connected before the DNS outage, then provided there is no interruption to their connection they will remain connected to the IP address they used. If they try to reconnect for whatever reason, a domain name lookup will fail and then they will fail to reconnect. Most miners have not failed over during this DNS outage for that reason. |
|
|
|
Numerous solutions named BIP 100, BIP 101, BIP 102, BIP  , and others—BIP stands for “Bitcoin Improvement Proposal.” Another proposed solution has been Gavin Andresen and Mike Hearn’s Bitcoin XT client, which supports bigger blocks, but also poses the possibility of a hard fork for the Bitcoin protocol and network. I think all of them require a hard fork. Correct. Any increase in the maximum block size from the current 1MB requires a hard fork regardless of the implementation. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
