|
Anyone have a dead 5850 Reference card that would be willing to sell a working stock cooler? Prefer 5850 but 5870 will probably work too if it has thermal pads intact.
|
|
|
|
This type of forks is easy to detect. Every time it happens, bitcoin deamon prints "REORGANIZE" is debug.log. There is one every a few thousand blocks due to coincidental finding two blocks at roughly the same time. After that miners try to add to the chain they received first. If the one that won the race is not the one you have stored as the longest in memory, the chain reorganizes. For those who has the other chain, nothing will be printed in debug.log because no reorganization takes place.
If he's asking for a program that to show all orphaned blocks on the network, will a program be able to see all orphaned block behavior on the network or only the behavior of the local node that it's pulling data from? You need to look if the forked chain contains the transactions that are inconsistent with the previous chain.
Since the client requires 5 confirmations, any shorter than 5 fork cannot reverse any confirmed transactions. So detecting large forks is the very first step in finding potential problems.
I have never seen a fork longer than 1 on mainnet (I have seen some on testnet) and it is very rare by accident. I remember that on IRC someone claimed that after the very first slashdoting in July last year, the blocks were generated so quickly (and the network was smaller), there were quite a few longer than 1 accidental chain splits.
It sounds like a supernode could accomplish this without too much trouble since it has multiple connections to have the most up to date block chain info and can listen to all transactions like bitcoinmonitor does. Someone would just have to develop the code to identify the forks? |
|
|
|
I'm surprised you are getting this Mhash/s rate in Windows. If you were able to recreate these settings in say the latest stable of Debian or the latest release Ubuntu x86_64 do you think it would be even faster?
I'm surprised you're surprised. I get 372 MHash at 930 MHz in Debian. If I could run at 1050 MHz like the other guy I should get about 420 MHash. I'm running this card on Debian @ 950 MHz. On poclbm I'm getting 317 MHash. On phoenix 304 MHash. How are you getting 372 MHash? EDIT: also running: AMD APP SDK v2.4 ATI catalyst & drivers 11.3 I'm getting 360Mh/s on ubuntu. See sig |
|
|
|
Couldn't that "short block variance" be mitigated by calculating rewards/shares for multiple blocks instead of dividing them one by one? With a straight, proportional payout system it would simply mean that shares for blocks that are found in less than XX minutes are transferred to the next block.
Maybe, but you'd have to get a "big" pool operator to implement that ... it becomes quite a messy calculation of who's working harder on which particular block, who was luckier on which block, rolling averages over multiple blocks, time-depreciating share values to stop "pool hopping" attack, etc. Bottom line is, right now the little guys are losing out when a pool gets too big, their variance starts going up again. Lucky there's at least 4 other smaller pools to pick from, 5 if slush is back up and stable. |
|
|
|
|
btcmine.com shot up to 74
"Eligius" more than doubled to 40
|
|
|
|
How does decentralized get centralized so quickly?
The biggest pool had some technical troubles and stopped working. The majority of people flocked to the second biggest pool and it became the biggest pool. |
|
|
|
http://www.bitcoinmonitor.com/ is almost as close as you can get to a real time network monitor, theoretically the data gathering processes behind it would be a great place to start ... Is orphaned block information even broadcast on the network, or is it something that is just dropped when nodes receive new block chain information? The double spend part I have no clue how to detect.
|
|
|
|
|
Also the GPU limit for Windows is 4 GPU's (or 2 dual gpu cards) and 8 GPU's in linux (or 4 dual gpu cards). 6 dual gpu cards is nice but not possible for either system.
Also not counting the cost of a windows license.
|
|
|
|
|
The highest I saw was 548. Seeing as it's down to 526, it looks like the answer is not many.
|
|
|
|
How do you run your multiple miners from behind a router? The only way I know is port-forwarding, which would require a different port for each pc.
You don't need to port forward for mining clients, they work behind nat just fine. You only need to port forward to a the bitcoin client to get incoming connections from the network. |
|
|
|
they have about 1 inch in between them ill try the open case now.
watercooling maybe? will that even help?
What case do you have them in? 6990's are pretty big and with dual gpu's they are putting off a lot of heat. Compounded by the fact that they blow some of that hot air back into the case from the back end of the card. You need a case that can ventilate a lot of heat. |
|
|
|
|
Is your case closed? If so try leaving it open and letting it breathe open air for a while and see where the temps go. If they go down then you need more airflow in and out of the case. Also if they are side by side I would suggest loosening up the screws and putting a spacer between the tops of the cards so that they have can bring in more air.
|
|
|
|
I agree. I just answered your question, I'm not accusing Tycho of anything  The question was dramatic for a reason, to disarm all the illogical statements and topic. I have been around long enough to read and understand the concept of double spending. The document (even though it's not clear in the wording) is talking about someone owning >= 50% of the network hashing power directly under their control vs just controlling a pool with >= 50% of the hashing power of the network. It also relies on being anonymous. If the block chain gets screwed up and the majority controller is anonymous then it's hard to pin on someone. If someone detects a problem in the block chain in a situation like this, guess where they're going first? Is it possible? Yes. Is it a imminent threat? No! |
|
|
|
What is this mythical "attack" that everyone keeps alluding to? Read Satoshi's paper for an explanation. We consider the scenario of an attacker trying to generate an alternate chain faster than the honest chain. Even if this is accomplished, it does not throw the system open to arbitrary changes, such as creating value out of thin air or taking money that never belonged to the attacker. Nodes are not going to accept an invalid transaction as payment, and honest nodes will never accept a block containing them. An attacker can only try to change one of his own transactions to take back money he recently spent.
(...)
We assume the sender is an attacker who wants to make the recipient believe he paid him for a while, then switch it to pay back to himself after some time has passed. The receiver will be alerted when that happens, but the sender hopes it will be too late. He then explains how such an event is extremely unlikely under the assumption that (probability an honest node finds the next block) > (probability the attacker finds the next block) This falls apart when one person controls >50% of the network's hashing power. So from what I understand it works like this: In case of a blockchain fork, the longest chain is considered the valid one, and with >50% hashing power, you can generate blocks faster than the rest of the network. Therefore, you can force a fork from an earlier block, catch up with the rest of the network, and still have your chain end up being the longest one. This invalidates all blocks on the other side of the fork and reverses the transactions included in those blocks. And now that deepbit is slightly over 50% of the global bitcoin hashing power he's going to take his honestly earned wages and try something like this? *sarcasm in case it wasn't clear* He does not own 50% of the hashing power outright, it is given by the users of the pool. If I were in his position and wanted to be evil I would push the fee up from 3% to 5-6%, much more profitable, easier to accomplish, right out in the open, and doesn't have the possibility of messing up the block chain and impeding future earnings. |
|
|
|
So after playing your online BlackJack for some time I yesterday went to a casino. Guess what, I've been lucky, maybe due to practising with your site Anyway, yesterday I've seen how much fun multiplayer BlackJack is, so I just wanted to chime in and express my interest in a multiplayer version of your site! Be careful! It can be addicting!  |
|
|
|
It's not an investment club, no one bought in. It's a service and the users are the ones creating the so called "potential issues" and "problems". Users don't own shares in deepbit and they're free to cash out and leave anytime.
Didn't say it was an investment club.. it was a comment on control over a group effort (bitcoin) Deepbit was not mentioned. If you're part of a group effort and have voting control then you can vote to change the circumstances, if you don't then your options are participate or leave. I won't mention deepbit either. |
|
|
|
My real life investment club has a rule where no one person can own more than 25% shares in the club... and I think this is a good thing.
Seems to me this pool situation is not what was originally intended and one person or group controlling 50%+ of the total hashing power is a potential issue. I don't like potential issues in a curency system.
It's not an investment club, no one bought in. It's a service and the users are the ones creating the so called "potential issues" and "problems". Users don't own shares in deepbit and they're free to cash out and leave anytime but they don't because it's a good service. Don't blame the service provider when the users are the one's causing the "potential issue". |
|
|
|
|
What is this mythical "attack" that everyone keeps alluding to? Does anyone have any real details about what could possibly go so wrong or are they just regurgitating the same paranoid BS arguments that everyone else is? So far I've seen a much bigger list of what Tyco can't do to the network than what he could with >= 50% power. He doesn't own the protocol and he can't change it's behavior. So far the best argument is that it is centralizing hashing power and if it goes down the network will be affected. It's a decentralized P2P network, it will recover. More to the point, anyone who is regurgitating this argument will lose their convenient income, and that is really what it's about.
If I was in his position I wouldn't want to have >= 50% power because this exact thing happens. The petty, jealous, and paranoid come out of the woodwork because their worried about a central entity having control over their income and try to disguise it in some thinly veiled reference of being able to attack the network, with no details whatsoever. You either believe in the power, agility, and ideals that were put into the bitcoin network and the protocols or you don't, either way makes you a hypocrite. If you don't like deepbit being as big as it is, chances are you're part of the problem and free to leave anytime.
Like I said in the other thread Tyco, congratulations on being so successful that you're hated. Keep doing what you're doing and keep up the good work. I know it's an uncomfortable position for you and I'm sure this will all go away as soon as Slush gets back up to speed.
|
|
|
|
Thanks for turning my brainfart and temporary lapse in logic skills into an FAQ entry xenon.  |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
