It might be good to have a block explorer set up for this coin, too.
Together with fflo I'm trying to setup an abe blockchain explorer for 611 (SixEleven). Since yesterday we struggle with the strange bug, that bitcoin-abe (or any other related fork) loads the current blockchain into the MySQL database perfectly; but it does not update any new blocks after the initial import expect on manual "-rescan".  If you have an idea how to fix it, please let us know.  |
|
|
|
$60 is not a bad price tbh, but I do expect that to rise as more miners adopt the coin - not that I'm into exchanges, I don't trust'em  You need 0.1922 SIL to register a name object (name_new) which is currently about 12 bucks in the case above, or about 1 buck each month if you do not mine SIL yourself. I think that's ok knowing that early adopters have the chance by now to register many cool names  Keeping in mind that the number of SILs circulating we stay below about 611 thousand coins only and considering that the name_new fee for the new name registration is destroyed I guess that using a private and anonymous 611 name (or id object) is a kind of priviledge for the user owning the wallet. |
|
|
|
Thanks Patrick, those links did work noticeably more quickly than regular webpages from behind one of the slower settings in my VPN.
I will see if any mining pool owners are interested in hosting a pool. That would generate a little more interest.
It might be good to have a block explorer set up for this coin, too. Especially since the first 20,000 blocks were CPU-mined privately-- it will show users that the network distribution is improving as pool miners join.
Yes, I've already found two open source projects allowing to setup a block explorer and a mining pool. I will tryout to setup each of them on a virtual host asap. It would be great if we can get trade support for SIL/BTC or other pairs on any crypto exchange. Existing mining pools are welcome to add (merged) mining support for 611 (SixEleven)  I don't fear the CPU-mined blocks during the development phase as anyone can check the GitHub commit history (and DNS records) for the development steps taken before the announcement on bitcointalk: https://github.com/fflo/sixeleven/commits/master.611All main functions of 611 (SixEleven), especially the DNS related features are working fine since beta2.  Searching the Web for 611 (SixEleven) it also seems that we have a good basic price level of about 60$ per SIL at the moment. So as long as no miner is going to sell SILs for a lower price level I think this coin can be good investment for (merged) miners  |
|
|
|
Any exchange ready at launch?
Do you know of any exchange trading SIL or which is ready at launch? On Crptsy we have 64 coin votes, now; if you use Cryptsy - please vote (or donate) for 611 (SixEleven): https://www.cryptsy.com/coinvotes |
|
|
|
Has anyone hosted a 611.to site with DNS yet? I want to check it out in a browser.
The more famous ones are websites like: On the other side there are more privacy related websites like: ... which can also be used to browse anonymously using a torbrowser bundle without having to remember cryptic xyzabc...onion website names Accessing 611 (SixEleven) hosted websites should work very fast, as the DNS servers are spread all over the world. Using 611 (SixEleven) as name(s) for the website should optimize both: access performance and availability. Next feature I can imaginge is a kind of public SSL infrastructure allowing anyone to secure any 611 (SixEleven) website very userfriendly and simple by adding a ssl hash to the 611-Qt domain configuration... |
|
|
|
Me too - everything seems to work as planned so far I like the way this coin is heading, good work dev. Great news: 611 (SixEleven) has an english Wikipedia article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SixEleven You are welcome add an entry in your foreign language to support SixEleven. |
|
|
|
Cool, that's a useful feature. Though it may timeout the wallet if there ends up being a lot of domain names registered!
Guess that should be no problem for your wallet; even if you register a few thousand domain names with it. If there are many thousand names active in the blockchain, then you may need to adjust the name_scan parameters to find the information you need: > help name_scan
name_scan [<start-name>] [<max-returned>]
scan all names, starting at start-name and returning a maximum number of entries (default 500)
If you like to lookup a special name syntax, you may also use: > help name_filter
name_filter [[[[[regexp] maxage=36000] from=0] nb=0] stat]
scan and filter names
[regexp] : apply [regexp] on names, empty means all names
[maxage] : look in last [maxage] blocks
[from] : show results from number [from]
[nb] : show [nb] results, 0 means all
[stats] : show some stats instead of results
name_filter "" 5 # list names updated in last 5 blocks
name_filter "^id/" # list all names from the "id" namespace
name_filter "^id/" 36000 0 0 stat # display stats (number of names) on active names from the "id" namespace like i.e. name_filter d/NameToSearch$ |
|
|
|
I've registered a few names (but without filling out hosting information, etc.) in order to test things out.
Me too - everything seems to work as planned so far I like the way this coin is heading, good work dev. Would the names be visible in a block explorer? I wanna see what's out there. That's quite easy: Just run the following command in the debug window (console >): name_scan --- --- --- Note: If possible please do not abuse 611 (SixEleven) by blocking cool names for other users without need. At least please add your contact details to the e-mail configuration field, so that others have the option to contact you in case they like to buy the name for a real project later... --- --- --- |
|
|
|
beta 2 working
Yes - the mining rate has stabilized, now - so beta 2 is working fine, here. {
"version" : 61100,
"balance" : 0.00000000,
"blocks" : 21987,
"timeoffset" : -2,
"connections" : 5,
"proxy" : "",
"generate" : false,
"genproclimit" : 1,
"difficulty" : 78449.99287632,
"hashespersec" : 0,
"testnet" : false,
"keypoololdest" : 1446306707,
"keypoolsize" : 100,
"paytxfee" : 0.06110000,
"mininput" : 0.00010000,
"unlocked_until" : 0,
"txprevcache" : false,
"errors" : ""
}Registration and updates of the "Names Manage(ment)" works stable. Updates are accessible via dns requests on [domainname].611.to within reasonable time. So I still have the following task on the TODO (to be supplemented): - Wiki or Howto register, use and renew the domain name and idendity options
- Add 611 (SixEleven) to a public Exchange like Cryptsy
>>> Please vote for 611 (SixEleven) on https://www.cryptsy.com/coinvotes/ <<< 
or push the votes by donating to BTC 18ZNY2nL4g7mB8G1rcfBDnCmhUTi7YbwT
or contact your preferred crypto coin exchange service provider to add a 611 (SixEleven) trading pair - Setup a mining pool for 611 (SixEleven) to support weaker mining equipment and to level the revenues
What points are you missing on the TODO? Thanks for your feedback. |
|
|
|
Thanks for your reply men!
Yeah i also found out later that this should be the las vegas bug, this because in 12 hours i didn't get any reward on beta2. This should mean i must use asic hardware to mine it.
Yes - I've no asic hardware for mining sha256 and at the current difficulty rate it will take quite some time to solo mine a new block. Have you already registered and tried out the domain name system functions of 611 (SixEleven)? |
|
|
|
[...]
I'm working with the qt version.
I thought server=1 in the .conf file would be enough to enable the RPC interface. I guess namecoin was from a bitcoin fork so early such commands don't work in a conf file like coins I'm used to from more recent forks?
I ran 611-qt.exe with -server in a batch file and opened the external port on the machine running 611-qt.exe -- the miner is connecting and working!
Will repost if/when I find a block.
Thanks for your help and clarification!
Yes, I was also wondering that the 611-qt version blocks the RPC interface by default. Maybe it's possible for fflo to address this issue in the next beta release. Thanks for your feedback and happy mining! |
|
|
|
OK, try as I might, I still can't mine this for some reason. My router shows port 8661 open in UPNP and port 8336 open in virtual servers as specified in my conf file. My 611.conf file is as follows: server=1
daemon=1
listen=1
port=8661
rpcport=8663
rpcuser=USER
rpcpassword=PASS
rpcallowip=127.0.0.1 Pointing my miner at either 127.0.0.1:8663 or [internalIPaddress]:8663 (the RPC port) results in no mining. Same effect with pointing the miner at 127.0.0.1:8661 or [internalIPaddress]:8661 (the regular port). No mining. Are you running your miner and the 611d (or 611-qt) on the same machine? By default for security reasons you can only access the 611 rpc interface on port 8663 on the local host. Using rpcallowip=add.an.other.ip you may add external IPs. Any ideas on what I'm doing wrong?
Are you running a self compiled text only (rpc) version of 611d or the graphical 611-qt variant? If you are working with the 611-qt version you have to add the option " -server" on startup to enable the RPC interface on (default) rpc port 8663 (tcp). Running "netstat -lnp" on any terminal you can check that tcp port 8663 (process 611d) is available for inbound connections. |
|
|
|
There are 2 coins what i like to mine with mining equip: Bitcoin and Litecoin...
All the rest i think its beter for CPU only, people can not join and mining bitcoin / litecoin anymore without hardware, special made for it.
People want to join a coin they can also mine, and that would mean resistance against mining hardware. So CPU only ( like cryptonight etc ).
Yes - personally, I would also prefer a non asic based coin design with a useful output for the public; like Primecoin. As SixEleven is a fork of Namecoin the current design uses the standard Bitcoin SHA256 hash function which is best mined using special asic based hardware. On the other side SixEleven does support merged mining with Bitcoin which should add some stability to the future development. You can mine it together with Bitcoin at almost no additional cost. I had like 100.000 coins on beta 4 probably haha, now i changed to beta2 and i got 0 coins ( i think that's part of the bug in beta4 )
Hey - I've only had reached about 60.000 coins; that's the Las Vegas bug *gg* |
|
|
|
Thanks for the feedback. A new block should be mined on average every five minutes. You are running merged mining successfully now using the merged-mine-proxy script from contrib? i.e.: contrib/merged-mine-proxy -w $PORT_to_direct_mining_equipment -p http://pw:un@127.0.0.1:8332/ -x http://pw:un@127.0.0.1:8663/ No, I use the standard p2pool merge mining parameters. I'm still getting loads of orphaned blocks though: [...]
ProcessBlock: ORPHAN BLOCK, prev=bb519e1964dedc13baed
sending: getblocks (869 bytes)
[...] Isn't this a well known feature of p2pool to generate new blocks at a stable rate? Difficulty seems a bit too slow to adjust, especially with all the orphans.
The difficulty factor should adjust in 48 block intervals (target: one block every five minutes =48 blocks in four hours): src/main.cpp unsigned int static GetNextWorkRequired(const CBlockIndex* pindexLast, const CBlock *pblock)
{
const int64 nTargetTimespan = 4 * 60 * 60; // four hours
const int64 nTargetSpacing = 5 * 60; // five minutes
const int64 nInterval = nTargetTimespan / nTargetSpacing; But the factor may only increase or decrease by a factor of four on each retargeting: src/main.cpp // Limit adjustment step
int64 nActualTimespan = pindexLast->GetBlockTime() - pindexFirst->GetBlockTime();
printf(" nActualTimespan = %"PRI64d" before bounds\n", nActualTimespan);
if (nActualTimespan < nTargetTimespan/4)
nActualTimespan = nTargetTimespan/4;
if (nActualTimespan > nTargetTimespan*4)
nActualTimespan = nTargetTimespan*4; |
|
|
|
Have you setup a pool supporting 611 (SixEleven) merged mining or is this your private mining equipment?
It's my own p2pool node, not public - my internet is crap  I had to lower the hash rate, it was causing too many doa's. Hopefully when a few more miners jump in it will smooth out a little & I can raise it again gradually. Thanks for the feedback. A new block should be mined on average every five minutes. You are running merged mining successfully now using the merged-mine-proxy script from contrib? i.e.: contrib/merged-mine-proxy -w $PORT_to_direct_mining_equipment -p http://pw:un@127.0.0.1:8332/ -x http://pw:un@127.0.0.1:8663/ |
|
|
|
Can anyone following this thread please check out if merged mining does work successfully using beta2:
[...]
...I can't test merge mining unless you post the correct port & rpcport 611 uses.......a search on your git repo for them reveals nothing. 611d standard port 8661, rpc port 8663: ... Allrighty then - we have some movement. Merge mining tested OK with a small amount of hash, so I'm gradually increasing to see how it goes. Diff has risen & the blockchain is moving again I'll keep an eye on it for a while.... Yes, looks good! Movement again and the difficulty factor is rising in steps like expected: ...:$ 611d getinfo
{
"version" : 61100,
"balance" : 17.42289792,
"blocks" : 21279,
"timeoffset" : -3,
"connections" : 12,
"proxy" : "",
"generate" : false,
"genproclimit" : 1,
"difficulty" : 75087.00781482,
"hashespersec" : 0,
"testnet" : false,
"keypoololdest" : 1442356160,
"keypoolsize" : 102,
"paytxfee" : 0.06110000,
"mininput" : 0.00010000,
"txprevcache" : false,
"errors" : ""
} Have you setup a pool supporting 611 (SixEleven) merged mining or is this your private mining equipment? |
|
|
|
How to create a Altcoin?
[...]
Can I just upload the files onto Github.com? Is there anything else I have to do before hand?
Please check this forum for older threads on this topic, like https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=225690.0. I would also recommend you to read carefully through the Announcement Altcoins Board to check what will probably go wrong if you try to folk the original bitcoin code... |
|
|
|
Port 8661? I will try again then - can you confirm what the rpc port for 611 is? ...I can't test merge mining unless you post the correct port & rpcport 611 uses.......a search on your git repo for them reveals nothing. 611d standard port 8661, rpc port 8663: that's where you can find the relevant parts in the source code -> $ grep -n 866 * 611.cpp:2738: return fTestNet ? 18661 : 8661;
bitcoinrpc.cpp:62: return GetBoolArg("-testnet", false) ? 18663 : 8663; The forked original source code of namecoin is really painfully unsystematic  |
|
|
|
My wallet is runing perfectly Curently at block 89772 Are you still on the beta4 fork with the las vegas bug? Because there was essentially a rollback to the point at which the blockchain originally got stuck, during the reversion to beta2. First: How to check wich version i have? When i go in my wallet is say:version 0.6.11 When i go to the link above from github i only see the beta4 to download, when i go to the website i can only download the beta4. I dont know wich version i have atm... But it looks like mining is working etc, but if all this coins are gone because i'm at the wrong blockchain or something(what means i am mining for nothing) i want to know that asap. Edit: i just re-opend the wallet, i got coins but it dont start syncing ( is that the beta4 bug?) here is that beta2 version anyway, just changed b4 to b2 and got this. Sorry guys - I know the current situation is very confusing and unsatisfactory. Rolling back to beta2 also means that the block chain is still stuck at block #21085 until this task has been resolved at "difficulty" level 4692.86619945. So we are in dire need of some powerful mining ressources to resolve the next blocks until difficulty recalculation. Can anyone following this thread please check out if merged mining does work successfully using beta2: Merged mining should work like described for Namecoin here: https://github.com/namecoin/namecoin-legacy/blob/b043fba28018721b68c90edfc81b9eacb070b47d/doc/README_merged-mining.mdJust replace the Namecoin port 8331 with the 611 (SixEleven) port 8661. Or should we discuss to move the PoW concept to a non asic compatible code to make sure that the new block mining rate and difficulty levels gets more resistant against big mining pool attacks? Thanks for your feedback. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
