It happened in block 302400, 302401. So it already happened  . and there were 2 proposals at the time... Do you I get a bounty for such my research? I agree would be great to create a proposal to refund the accounts fees and transfer back the rest. Post address for the bounty  Now in my cell and difficult to research  |
|
|
|
|
Check, correct the bug, and reimburse the quantity through proposal approved by MN owners. Could be a solution?? If true, and it looks legit, as Mn owner y prefer to find some kind of solution than a flame war here.
|
|
|
|
|
It seems promising, signature changed and waiting for more news. Lite clients at launch sound really promising.
|
|
|
|
berron
Why remove 185.141.25.63?
Maybe easier to throw 94.23.102.99 and 212.12.18.9 - only these two are knocked out 5-6 active node?
It is better to wait for the developer solutions.
True, when I try to sync following 94.23.102.99 I end always stuck in block 1130. And when I sync through 185.141.25.63 I sync the complete chain but ending 100 blocks after pool. Let's wait. Ah, devs, If you launch new version remember to update version numbers in the wallet. |
|
|
|
|
Till we started to study engineering and we discover our university had a T1 connection, we were paying a connection amongst three friends. PreNapster times...
|
|
|
|
1.List of major node on the first page
2.No difference
If you are on linux, Nugget.conf and nugget.conf are different, windows doesn't matter. for linux it's nugget.conf In some wallets in windows same behaviour appeared if a remember correctly. Anyway, as nugget.conf in my folder, nugget wallet 1508 blocks, mineblocks 1675. Will eliminate 185.141.25.63:32703 from the node list and resync. In short chain 10:18:27
getblockhash 1495
10:18:27
00000004a37142222fbe043940251268248223989774e21e3cd8d02884e41574
Salute |
|
|
|
|
Two questions.
What the correct fork (please getblockhash of a representavit block)?
Node listing to get here?
Ah, another one, correct conf file name, Nugget.conf or nugget.conf
|
|
|
|
As oldDIN says, seems to be forked. But strange thing is:  [
{
"addr" : "185.141.25.63:32703",
"services" : "00000001",
"lastsend" : 1476516072,
"lastrecv" : 1476516081,
"conntime" : 1476516071,
"version" : 60013,
"subver" : "/Satoshi:1.0.0/",
"inbound" : false,
"startingheight" : 1403,
"banscore" : 0
},
{
"addr" : "185.106.122.33:32703",
"services" : "00000001",
"lastsend" : 1476516081,
"lastrecv" : 1476516114,
"conntime" : 1476516072,
"version" : 60013,
"subver" : "/Satoshi:1.0.0/",
"inbound" : false,
"startingheight" : 1403,
"banscore" : 0
}
]
Both are nodes in http://www.mineblocks.eu:8080/nodes.php but mineblock chain is in block 1565, more than 100 blocks ahead. No payments since 7.51 GMT+1. Will stop mining till we have more light about the matter. |
|
|
|
|
You know, no source no pool. Good night.
|
|
|
|
No pool no party... |
|
|
|
I already did.
No pools from the development team will be out.
If OCminer contacts me, I will need him on skype to tell him when he can start.
Otherwise, solo miners will be the first to dig in.
In that case, rpcport? |
|
|
|
|
Is there any testnet version to test mining conf???
|
|
|
|
Not sure what you are asking?
When ultraexpensive quantum computers were used to steal our Dnet...  |
|
|
|
looks like alot of people switching to ipv6 ips. cheaper do at only $1 a node on vultr.
Agreed. It just makes more sense that way. Hard to do tho. I tried and failed even with that script. I also prefer pay a bit more and have classical MN's, one in each IPv4 address. I continue thinking that when Darknet start to climb the difference in price will be clearly compensated. And when a node falls, only a node falls (yes, I know, vultr is a very, very stable platform, I had a node sometime there (initial promo and so on) and worked really well). |
|
|
|
|
Ey, dev, if it's already dead have a moment to tell us....
|
|
|
|
|
I continue thinking about the reason of only an hour of POS period. Good for coincontrol masters. Any explanation, devs?
Salute
|
|
|
|
Great Algo
Haha, I was just talking with someone about the ANN and I said "well, it's Qubit, there will be a suprnova pool" I'd prefer Nist5 as it's not mineable by the Baikal's but Qubit is nice too  Are you going to put a pool at launch, oc?? And yes, Nist5 could be a nice option, and gives a combined con with Join for multipools. Salute |
|
|
|
OP updated
Dev, premine is going to stake or not? Thanks |
|
|
|
|
If you want to do a mineable coin, new algos or multiple algo are now the only options IMHO...
Anyway, good luck with the coin, sir.
EDIT : A not pump and dump mineable coin.
|
|
|
|
Qubit is not GPU algo anymore. Have you heard about Baikal Mini Miner??? All in X11,X13,X14,X15, Quark and Qubit is ASIC now. Only an hour of POS  |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
