Since bitcoin block reward cut in half in December 2012, does that mean it will not cut in half again until December 2016?
It can only be an estimate, but here's a countdown clock: http://bitcoinclock.com/Reward-Drop ETA: 2016-07-31 03:44:40 UTC (82 weeks, 2 days, 22 hours, 20 minutes) |
|
|
|
use 3334 not 3333.
to be more clear
use stratum+tcp://solo.ckpool.org:3334 not stratum+tcp://solo.ckpool.org:3333
IIRC
No, it makes no difference. All ports point to the same pool instance now. The different length nonces were for AM tubes previously but now the pool is compatible with them. No idea what rented hashers need... but it might work if you set up a ckproxy that points to the solo pool and point the rented hashes at the ckproxy. Too many layers of expectation from the rental service... |
|
|
|
I'm trying to run solo via the http://solo.ckpool.org/ but however just a tiny fraction of shares are accepted. Is it possible to increase prevetively the minimum difficultiy form my (miner) side? I see the +diff option was named above. However I can't fid any relevant information regarding this option. How can I use it with my USER(i.e. BTC address) parameter? You're posting in the support thread for the ckpool software. The solo ckpool thread is here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=763510.620However the quick answer is with solo mining it doesn't matter how many shares you get accepted since you don't get paid for shares at all and you only get a reward if you solve a block. Don't worry about what diff it's using since it's just an indirect marker of how hard you're mining. |
|
|
|
Is there anyway to disable a specific type of hardware unit? I have either Antminer U2s that I don't want CGMiner controlling but I want it to control my RockMiner New R-Box.
Check readme for documentation of the --usb option. |
|
|
|
|
Those devices are usually used to mine scrypt instead of bitcoin and btcguild is a bitcoin pool. Are you running them in sha256 (i.e. bitcoin mining) mode?
|
|
|
|
I understand but these should really have all been collated here as it ends up being advertising for spondoolies on the forum that costs spondoolies but did not actually pay the forum. Unfortunately there is no merge function in this forum software which would be the ideal solution. Out of respect for the legendaries I've forgone the locking for now, but can I urge the reviewers themselves to lock their threads and refer back to this one once they have completed whatever they have to say instead then?
I'd say your 'urging' seems a tad aggressive and would advise against it. To 'Urge' anyone to partake in an activity which may or may not be of his or her will, in this form of recommendation, seems clear to me that your purpose is to take the responsibility off the shoulders of the forum and it's moderators to restricting trade by Spondoolies-Tech, and 'urging' those who committed to collating a review, to do the restraining of trade, on behalf of the forum and it's moderators? I say this, without any personal prejudice, and wholly respect the other work that you do for the community as a whole. Thanks for your reasoned response. All of you do whatever the fuck you want, see if I care. |
|
|
|
your comment quoted above, smacks of double standards and if you are locking one single manufacturer review threads and not locking others then this could be seen as you, and this Forum being complicit in a 'Restraint of Trade' that's a legal term, look it up
Not really when the reviews are conducted by people who paid for the hardware instead of got the hardware as a free gift for the promise of a review in return. |
|
|
|
|
I understand but these should really have all been collated here as it ends up being advertising for spondoolies on the forum that costs spondoolies but did not actually pay the forum. Unfortunately there is no merge function in this forum software which would be the ideal solution. Out of respect for the legendaries I've forgone the locking for now, but can I urge the reviewers themselves to lock their threads and refer back to this one once they have completed whatever they have to say instead then?
|
|
|
|
|
There are quite a number of these reviews now cluttering up the hardware area and while it was nice publicity for spondoolies, I will be locking each thread after they have been up for a couple of days and I suggest further discussion regarding the reviews should go here. @spondoolies-tech, you may wish to create links to all the original review threads in your top post.
|
|
|
|
pointing few miners at your pool, will they work toward finding one exact block, or will they work each for themselves, egoistically, each for it's own block... are they working as a pool('cauze i put my wallet on all of them) or individual miners?  It makes no difference. There is no way of adding work up with mining nor is there any such thing as "progress towards a block". Whether they're all pointed to the same address or different addresses as the same workers or different workers your chance of finding a block is purely proportional to the total hashrate. |
|
|
|
Thank you for answering the question. Just to make sure I understand. Even though it says "best share" =0 My miner is still submitting shares? http://solo.ckpool.org/users/1HUs9na6NgY85DXxi4dXLGQu9ZDBayMde3I should be around 2.4TH so as long as my reported speed by looking at the link above is close, then everything is working correctly other than I have no idea what my best share is? That is correct. |
|
|
|
Hoping you can help. I have a few workers on your pool. The
Antminer s1's are having no issues. However the Antminer C1's do no report "best share"
When I use them on another solo mining pool they report the best share however on your pool they do not.
Personally I would rather use your pool as I like it better, but I would like to be able to see my best shares so I can know how close I come to finding a block. A big fat 0 under best share is kinda disheartening even though as far as I can tell it is reporting shares.
That's just an S1 driver design issue. It happens when the diff is exactly a power of two and is harmless and cosmetic only but of course doesn't fix your issue. |
|
|
|
|
I guess this is more a bitcoin economy discussion than a mining one.
|
|
|
|
So, I know that on another pools thread, the empty block submission issue has been discussed. What I am now a bit curios about is the occasional block that really isn't? IE-
Number Of Transactions 1
Output Total 50 BTC
Estimated Transaction Volume 25 BTC
Transaction Fees -25 BTC
Height 334933 (Main Chain)
Timestamp 2014-12-19 10:02:34
So, it looks like Blockchain counts 25BTC and -25BTC as 50BTC? All in one transaction? Its not an Orphan but contains nothing and stays as part of the permanent ledger? These seem to appear more frequently than orphans, usually submit time is long enough for plenty of transactions to have occurred after the previoius block height and are not immediately(Timewise) followed by the next blockheight submittal.
This example happens to be relayed from Discusfish but I have seen plenty others from Most of the existing , established pools.
No this is simply blockchain.info breaking and showing stupid stuff. The transaction fees are zero. |
|
|
|
heres a better idea - how bout everyone stop mining for a day and let me mine all day, solo mining starting to look very profitable  You still wont find a block any easier, as the diff is still fucking high... |
|
|
|
|
Please stop opening topic after topic asking the same question in slightly different ways. Consolidate your questions into one thread.
|
|
|
|
I think Eleuthria gets it but most people don't hear it when he says the very same things.
I keep telling Eleuthria (and other pool ops) that what pool operators really get paid for is to explain luck and variance over and over and over and .... ad nauseam. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
