@antonio8: You're on a (bad) fork. A quick fix, is to delete your blockchain data, and run the old client (not the one with updates from Vertoe). You'll forcibly resync to the proper chain. Always do a wallet backup, etc, etc  |
|
|
|
I think a 5 hr. test would be enough, but... We are a bit off topic...a little. I'm on my tablet right now & am sure I have a bookmark for that stat sheet somewhere. I believe it's on my 'puter. I'll get back & look.
Later-
Again, as I'm used to looking at the 24h graphs at nicehash, I can tell you that the reported average can easily go up or down by 5% or more, in a 5h window. This stands to produce a potential reading variance as high as 10% overall, or more. I'd put my finger at the 12h mark for the minimum period of reliable reporting, and ideally, the full 24h time frame. On a slightly related note: people that benchmark often, and especially on the 970s & 980s, should take into account the temperature of their cards when trying to benchmark. From a cold start, my 980s always hash at their fastest for a couple of minutes, until they settle on their usual (hot) hashing temperature. If starting from a warm/hot state, then the output is more consistent throughout. Anyone mining in the north pole or using liquid cooling will probably not care though... |
|
|
|
|
Vertoe did not change the difficulty adjustment parameters.
However, the difficulty retarget system needs a major overhaul (IIRC, Singula rightfully hinted at that the other day). What happens these days, very shortly, is that block times slowly increase to the point where they are well over the coin specs, until a difficulty brake kicks in, and abruptly lowers the difficulty.
Some miners (such as myself), jump on and off at certain times to optimize returns.
There's a pattern very familiar for anyone that mined cache for long periods of time:
For the past 2 days or so, block times were miniscule.
Over the next week or so, block times will be way higher.
|
|
|
|
|
FWIW, for me, mining quark, nicehash reports exactly the same hashrate as ccminer does locally (using any recent release on windows, 980s).
I've always kept an eye on the 24h averages, and they neatly match what ccminer reports, sometimes the pool reports a little higher, but just a negligible difference.
The instant hashrate (or small windows like 5 minutes) is rather pointless.
Going by instant hashrate, I've mined as slow as 10MH/s, and as fast as 80MH/s, you know, variance...
Just my 0.02 BTC ...
|
|
|
|
|
@DudeAtWork420:
It really looks that you are staking alright, going by the tooltip display. I don't think I have *ever* checked my staking status via getinfo...
About not having any stake now that 11 days have already passed:
Difficulty is sky high with HyperStake. This is a community of staking fanatics & hoarders (and I love them all), so there is a lot of competition to hit a stake. A ~4K block size, on average, will probably take well over 30 days to hit a stake!
Most people have by now sized their blocks around 10K and upwards, though some are salmon, and picked the opposite tactic, many tiny blocks (vs just a few larger ones).
Happy Staking!
|
|
|
|
@DudeAtWork420: That might actually be a benign artifact of the awesome staking powers in the HyperStake wallet. The screenshot you took looks to me that you are staking (see the staking icon in the main wallet dialog page). Since the wallet has an energy saving feature that produces stake hashes by short bursts of processing (as opposed to non-stop hashing), it might be that getinfo misrepresents this energy-saving state as not staking... Wish I could check it out myself. No mature coins here at the moment  |
|
|
|
I deposited 4291 around 11 days ago, nothing is staking....."getinfo" states "Not staking", so how does one get the coins to stake? All the other pos auto stake, does this not? Should have started at 8-9 days right?
If your wallet is encrypted, then you need to unlock for staking. If it is sync'ed, you should be in staking mode by now. |
|
|
|
Fork passou por algumas complicações, novo software !!!
Actualizem as vossas carteiras para a versao 2.3 !!!
__________ .__ .___ .__
\______ \| | ____ ____ __| _/ ____ ____ |__| ____
| | _/| | / _ \ / _ \ / __ |_/ ___\ / _ \ | | / \
| | \| |__( <_> )( <_> )/ /_/ |\ \___( <_> )| || | \
|______ /|____/ \____/ \____/ \____ | \___ >\____/ |__||___| /
\/ \/ \/ \/
Uma moeda pela Paz, com o propósito de ser um instrumento financeiro experimental global pela união da humanidade, o fim das guerras, pelo amor e ciência Lançada !Código Fonte: http://github.com/blood2/bloodcoinCarteira Windows: http://www.bloodcoin.cc/DL/bloodcoin-v2.3-qt.exeCarteira OSX: http://www.bloodcoin.cc/DL/Bloodcoin-v2.3-Qt.app.zipPágina Web: http://www.bloodcoin.ccExplorador de blocos: http://explorer.bloodcoin.cc/chain/BloodcoinEspecificações:Algoritmo para minar: Quark Recompensa por bloco: Nos blocos 10-17280: 8192 por bloco Nos blocos 17281-25920: 4096 por bloco Nos blocos 25921-34560: 2048 por bloco Nos blocos 34561-43200: 1024 por bloco Nos blocos 43201-86400: 512 por bloco Nos blocos 86401-129600: 256 por bloco Nos blocos 129601-259200: 128 por bloco Nos blocos 259201-388800: 64 por bloco Nos blocos 388801-777600: 32 por bloco Nos blocos 777601-1166400: 16 por bloco Nos blocos 1166401-2332800: 8 por bloco Nos blocos 2332801-3499200: 4 por bloco Nos blocos 3499201-6998400: 2 por bloco Do bloco 6998401 em diante: 1 por bloco * Até ao bloco 18000, a cada 500 blocos, um bloco de bónus com recompensa de 32768 moedas. Foi efetuado um premine de 2500000 moedas, para desenvolvimento, suporte e recompensas para a comunidade. Endereço com o premine: http://explorer.bloodcoin.cc/address/bH6xWZtH7pzebsqCRYhtGrj4YeMTAzSg7aEspaçamento entre blocos: 20 segundos Ajuste da dificuldade a cada 13 minutos, considerando um intervalo de 60 minutos Dificuldade inicial: 0.12499833 Tamanho (dados) por bloco: 200k Maturidade após 240 confirmações Porta RPC: 5009 Porta P2P: 5011 Pools:https://blood.suprnova.cc/http://blood.idcray.com/Mercados:YoBit.net - BOD/BTCServiços:Largas Recompensas:1a Pool: 50000 BOD - atribuído a ocminer 2a Pool: 50000 BOD - atribuído a saymissme 3a Pool: 50000 BOD 4a Pool: 50000 BOD 5a Pool: 50000 BOD Logo: 60000 BOD - atribuído a logocreator Interesse/Promoção: 25000 BOD - atribuído a notsofast Tradução em Português: 30000 BOD - atribuído a myagui
bloodcoin.conf (criada automaticamente): listen=1
server=1
gen=0
daemon=1
rpcuser=u
rpcpassword=passwd
rpcport=5009
rpcallowip=*
paytxfee=0.01
addnode=nd000.bloodcoin.cc
addnode=nd001.bloodcoin.cc
addnode=nd002.bloodcoin.cc
Como compilar em Ubuntu/Debiancd ~
apt-get update
apt-get dist-upgrade
apt-get install -y git make g++ build-essential libminiupnpc-dev libdb++-dev libgmp-dev libssl-dev dos2unix libboost-all-dev
git clone https://github.com/blood2/bloodcoin
cd bloodcoin/src
chmod +x leveldb/build_detect_platform
make -f makefile.unix USE_UPNP=-
strip bloodcoind
./bloodcoind -daemon=1
./bloodcoind getinfo
Verifica a resposta de " getinfo", e se tiveres sincronizado, passa o seguinte comando para minar com o CPU: ./bloodcoind setgenerate true 4
(neste exemplo, 4 é o número de threads de CPU a executar )
Thread Original (em Inglês): https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1091421.0
|
|
|
|
For input splitting instructions, I posted this earlier on: To split coin blocks, you need to enable the coin control features (wallet > settings > options > display > display coin control features). Then select one block at a time, and send it to yourself, adding your (same) address as the 'custom change address'.
So say you start by selecting a 1000 XQN block. You then send yourself a transaction of 500 XQN, but specifying the change address as your own as well. Once you hit send, you will be splitting that 1000 XQN block into 2x 500, a primary transaction, plus change, back to your original address.
A single address can hold all of your blocks/inputs. There is absolutely no advantage to holding the split coins in multiple addresses. Happy Staking! |
|
|
|
Thanks! Can you tell me how large is the blockchain as size in Mb? And how do I mine with the wallet? With my cpu? Automatic? Or account on a pool etc..?
Thank you again for the feed-back.
Blockchain is currently under 100MB. To mine with the wallet, you simply select the mining tab, move the slider around to how much of your CPU you want to dedicate to hashing, and hit Start Mining... Doesn't get any simpler than that. To mine with a pool (recommended, unless you are a big hasher), check instructions here: http://ziftrpool.io/getting_startedHappy Mining! |
|
|
|
Btw, I really don't want to get caught in the cross fire, but anyhow, I'm all for private miners, in all their forms. However, I'd sooooo much prefer a fee-based system, whereby the miner assigns a % of shares to the developer, instead of some upfront entry fee. This is the one scheme that works for miners of all sizes, big and small.  As I understand, there's some (GPL?) licensing trouble to make this easily available. A miner developer will need to essentially build a full miner from scratch - not just the hashing portions - in order to properly release his miner as closed source, thus embedding a fee and protecting his source/work. Sidenote: I'm actually inclined to think that SP_ has done more for the community at large (with Quark), than for the people that bought his miner. Going by the hashrates advertised and/or thin markets, don't think the private XMR or SPR versions will have represented any meaningful return. Maybe just my impression though, I'm not trying to pick on SP_ or anyone in particular... Heck, maybe it was very much worthwhile for people with large farms (as they bought the miner for the same price as any small timer on a single gaming/mining rig).  |
|
|
|
That was not djm34, it was someone else, a group of people in fact - sadly - it was not me... |
|
|
|
Did a bit investigation on the fork.
[...]
Very nice singula! BTW: in light of your cache pool history & all, it would be awesome to get you to be a contributor to the new cache repository. I think one of the important points of Vertoe's ann, was that she should not be the sole code author or owner, rather, known community contributors could/should also push code whenever needed or appropriate. Now would be one such time. I hope things get moving sooner rather than later ^^ Again, great work, and thank you. |
|
|
|
|
Whoever is still mining on P2Pool is just wasting their hashes. Catcoin.cz is rather obviously the correct chain.
FWIW, I deleted the cachecoin data folder (backing up the wallet), loaded up the old client (found in the original cachecoin release ann), and quickly resync'ed, since remaining on the right chain. In any case, moving funds around is not advisable at a time that the network is forked.
Trolls are as quick to show up as were the pumpers (in earlier circumstances).
I'm confident in Vertoe's leadership for this project, though we're not off to the best start, that's for sure....
|
|
|
|
I agree about needing a collateral for PoN. HOWEVER, 5 or 10k is NOT a smallish amount at 10K you will limit the number of PoN in the entire system to less then 250!!!
"moneysupply" : 2476086.41995300
I confess that I didn't do that math specifically, was only going by the ATH exchange values from the last couple of weeks, and working out a reasonable "cost" in fiat terms. Plenty of nodes is definitely the desired goal, so perhaps within the lower boundary, around 5K? At current mining rates (and mining will continue for a good while), there are enough new coins generated per day for such a node. In other words, if mining returns remain relatively stable, and assuming a collateral of 5K coins, we'd be talking about a theoretical maximum number of about 500 PoN nodes today, with the potential for a new one to be added with each passing day. More reasonable? Also, let's remember that not all nodes need to be mining PoN. Regular (traditional) clients running a PoS node are also participating in the backbone of the network. Actually, we should also first clarify if PoN would prevent (or strongly discourage) pool mining for PoN blocks. With pools, we're back at the starting point, with new & fancy terminology, but in practice, the mining process would remain largely centralized. I guess this is where we need to wait for the whitepaper  |
|
|
|
I'd also love to know if the PON will require collateral and if so, how much.
Thanks Vertoe.
@MyFarm PoN requires no collateral except that your node must be running. There is no need for having a balance at stake for PoN to work. I'm not sure about the details, but without collateral this could become a candy for botnet owners, this approach might be undesirable. I would prefer nodes to require collateral, it also ensures certain level of quality. While we wait for Vertoe to speak up re: the forking issues, I just wanted to express that I also would prefer that there is some collateral requirement in order to generate PoN blocks. A small'ish figure would be fine, perhaps something between 5K ~ 10K CACH (as opposed to some ridiculously high number with the sole purpose of inflating prices). Also, by design, one of the neat incentives with PoS, in that by holding more you get a greater reward. But PoS does lack in that many times people just run their wallets for the short period needed to get a stake, then close them up again, and so these are not providing a long lasting, reliable node service. The idea is that PoN with a collateral requirement promotes the concept of a miner-holder, in contrast with the usual miner-dumper, and so I think this is the ideal approach. @Vertoe: Would much appreciate if you would start organizing the schedule/venue for community meetings. Obviously, the ongoing fork needs urgent attention, but once that settles, it would be great if we could all start engaging feature/future discussions more interactively. |
|
|
|
@bensam1231 I have the 980's undervolted, which has so far proven to provide about the same stability ceiling, while driving less power and heat (so yeah, I'd expect that overvolting would tend to lower the efficiency). Standard voltage at top clock bin is 1.125v IIRC, while mine are running at 1.112v. I don't have any 750's anymore, but I do recall those behaving very differently. The ones I had before, would allow quite a bit more overclocking if also running overvolted - but on those - I was not bound by thermal or TDP limitations (which I am on the 980s). The issue with running the cards very hot (near the specification limits) is not one of killing the cards in an instant. They are certainly designed to manage the temperatures for long periods of time (hence the thermal throttling). The issue is that, cards that always run hot, will tend to have a shorter lifetime than those than always run cool. Manufacturers are also not stupid. They will be happy to have a good number of cards failing after some 4 or 5 years of abuse, so they can sell some new ones  @SP_ 980 @ 1370, 3505 - quark release 44 - 19.2MH/s release 51 - 19.5MH/s |
|
|
|
Hey myagui.
Thank for your report. Actually vertoe changed a lot of things in the code which could cause a hard fork like setting the max coin and stopping the PoW after block 100k. Another friend of mine used the new client and he's on the wrong chain too. It's not the fault of the p2pool IMHO. It's very strange.
@AizenSou: Update: while for block 86172 I was on the right chain, I checked a more recent block just now, and I found that I am on the wrong chain now (I'm taking the official block explorer as the reference, as it appears to be on the right chain). That said, I'm changing my #1 on the suspect list, to be the updated client. I'd expect that we are well isolated from all of the hardfork stuff, as there should be a simple conditional statement ( if block height < 100.000 ) that keeps us going on the same codebase as before, up until block 100K. But I understand issues happen, and it might be a lot more complicated than what I was making it out to be  |
|
|
|
|
@AizenSou:
I have the new client from Vertoe, and going by the block hashes you posted, I am on the right chain. Also, I don't see that any of the updates that Vertoe did to the standard client would be prone to cause a fork. Not that I understand much about this though...
I think the problem is strictly related with P2Pool, which had not been working until Vertoe picked it up. P2Pool had some issue before, of which I do not know the details. Looks as though the fixes to bring P2Pool back online, either had some gremlin planted, or there is additional fixing to be done...
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
