|
Yep, everything seems to be in order. At first I was a little scared that they might have been hacked, but then I understood that Bitstamp should be able to cover their losses even if the hot wallet is breached some day.
Speaking of security, I recently enabled two-factor authentication for my account. While it works well, it was disappointing that withdrawals can still be made freely after logging in. I wish there was a way to make withdrawals require the 2-factor authentication code. It's always best to use a separate, high-security computer when dealing with large amounts of money. However, every little bit helps, and this extra authentication requirement should be easy to implement.
|
|
|
|
|
Great site, I appreciate the graphs especially. A small problem: I noticed that after leaving it open for a long enough time, it always ends up with 502 gateway error.
|
|
|
|
I Is my site right on TRC? I am using info from a public block explorer.
Looks correct to me. If so, you are on old, now abandoned TRC blockchain. Gratz for being ignorant on notices and warnings about mandatory upgrade!  I think he means my site at http://www.coinchoose.com. Is that one wrong as well? TRC explorer and my node 0.1.3-38 = block 110407 difficulty 11939.784 but 27008.146945855326 on your website, so something is not right on your side. I average out the difficulty on TRC over the past hour - so it is different. This accounts for the wild swings (since miners don't usually hope off each minute), but open to other suggestions I believe the recent fork was made precisely because of that problem, so the swings should be much milder now. No idea of the exact details, though. |
|
|
|
Is my site right on TRC? I am using info from a public block explorer.
Looks correct to me. I was talking about http://www.coinchoose.com there. However, now my terracoind shows a different difficulty (11663.00545825) than that site (25435.61495618385) for block 110417. The difference was much smaller when I first checked. BTW, can anyone explain why terracoind shows the difficulty of the last block, not the difficulty of the next block to be generated? This can be easily observed when comparing the network difficulty from cgminer and from terracoind getdifficulty. Is this just working as intended, I realize it wouldn't matter so much for BTC and other chains that don't retarget frequently. |
|
|
|
Is my site right on TRC? I am using info from a public block explorer.
Looks correct to me. |
|
|
|
|
Terracoin has forked, looks like the site is still displaying data from the wrong fork.
|
|
|
|
|
I can confirm that the limit buy/sell order page is not updating very well, I think it worked better in the past. Now I don't even expect it to display correct prices before pressing F5. If everyone's behaving like me, that's not going to help lighten the load...
|
|
|
|
|
I was pleasantly surprised by how fast my first SEPA withdrawal from Bitstamp was. I initiated it on Sunday April 7th, and received on my bank account on Wednesday, April 10th. If my second withdrawal goes as fast, it should have arrived today (I can only check it tomorrow). It wouldn't be surprising if that gets delayed by a few extra days because of the recent crash. Overall, I'm very pleased with the service of Bitstamp, I've been a customer for about one year now. It just amazes me how short this thread is, I expected this would be about a hundred times larger, filled with complaints & the usual chattering that goes by on a very popular service.
|
|
|
|
Please add a line to the graph that represents the MtGox Lag.
I believe that this information is essential for making decisions.
+1 |
|
|
|
You could turn this into a simple pool software that could mine on litecoind if you did the 2 following things:
#1) Allow the rollproxy to rewrite target difficulty
#2) Add the option to only submit shares that meet difficulty upstream.
Would you be willing to implement this for solo miners?
I used rollproxy to force reuse of work units when solo-mining ppcoin for a few days. It worked very well, fixing my problem with running out of work when pointing miners directly to ppcoind. I found 2 blocks and those were the only shares submitted to rollproxy. Why would you want any other difficulty "shares" on a setup like that, or are you thinking of something different? |
|
|
|
Would like to request a feature. If you launch with -c filename.conf then change that to the default filename when going to Write Settings.
This is already possible using the --default-config option. |
|
|
|
Got to admit: BitMinter has a better look and feel, but I don't care about looks, I care about performance and profitability.
Bitparking has a 2.5% fee, plus not paying transaction fees. That's a total fee of 3.5% to 4.5%. Seems a bit steep. Seems like the profitability of mining at either BitMinter or Bitparking is switching back and forth. I moved over to Bitparking when I noticed DVC and IXC both added about +10%. That returned to just a a few extra percent pretty quickly, and now I'm back at BitMinter. However, today DVC + IXC again add about +5%. I believe +4% or more makes Bitparking more profitable: 2.5% covers the pool fee, while 1.5% should cover the exclusion of transaction fees from block reward. |
|
|
|
Correct, devices that hash ~5s or slower per nonce range indeed do not show a very reliable value for a 5s average ... since that really is what to expect if you think about the mathematics of it  Your reasoning sounds valid, but this is a bug that didn't exist in a previous version. How is that not a regression? I am always using the latest git version, and at least for now, reverting commit 072ffbba424770afcbd2e1a10aead8a5035f80de returns the old (correct) 5s hashrate average for slow devices. |
|
|
|
Are you removing NMC?
Yes, Stratum backend (93% of hashrate and rising) isn't merged mining namecoins now. Does this mean that only 7% of the pool hashrate is used for merged mining, but when that 7% manages to find a NMC block, it's reward is paid out for everyone? My NMC balance is still increasing, albeit very slowly. |
|
|
|
I experienced an almost hour-long streak of rejects on all my rigs today: [2013-03-26 14:24:41] Accepted 2ea359f0 Diff 5/4 GPU 0 pool 1
[2013-03-26 14:25:02] Pool 0 http://bitparking.com:3333 alive
[2013-03-26 14:25:02] Switching to pool 0 http://bitparking.com:3333
[2013-03-26 14:25:19] Accepted 2a33ecea Diff 6/4 GPU 1 pool 1
[2013-03-26 14:26:32] Stratum connection to pool 0 interrupted
[2013-03-26 14:28:03] Stratum connection to pool 0 interrupted
[2013-03-26 14:29:34] Stratum connection to pool 0 interrupted
[2013-03-26 14:31:06] Stratum connection to pool 0 interrupted
[2013-03-26 14:32:31] Rejected 0b0bf29a Diff 23/16 GPU 1 pool 0
[2013-03-26 14:33:28] Rejected 0cfc80bb Diff 19/16 GPU 1 pool 0
[2013-03-26 14:33:43] Rejected 0c587808 Diff 20/16 GPU 1 pool 0
[2013-03-26 14:35:12] Rejected 043f3340 Diff 60/16 GPU 1 pool 0
[2013-03-26 14:35:43] Rejected 0e270e0c Diff 18/16 GPU 0 pool 0
[2013-03-26 14:37:13] Stratum connection to pool 0 interrupted
[2013-03-26 14:38:32] Rejected 04f8a93b Diff 51/16 GPU 0 pool 0
[2013-03-26 14:38:54] Rejected 0cbdae48 Diff 20/16 GPU 0 pool 0
[2013-03-26 14:40:13] Rejected 03c21af8 Diff 68/16 GPU 1 pool 0
[2013-03-26 14:41:43] Stratum connection to pool 0 interrupted
[2013-03-26 14:43:11] Rejected 02e988dd Diff 87/16 GPU 0 pool 0
[2013-03-26 14:43:17] Rejected 0594d835 Diff 45/16 GPU 1 pool 0
[2013-03-26 14:43:34] Rejected 0f623749 Diff 16/16 GPU 0 pool 0
[2013-03-26 14:44:32] Rejected 0e803bb5 Diff 17/16 GPU 1 pool 0
[2013-03-26 14:45:23] Rejected 00d0b807 Diff 313/16 GPU 1 pool 0
[2013-03-26 14:46:19] Rejected 0d2cc8b0 Diff 19/16 GPU 0 pool 0
[2013-03-26 14:47:49] Stratum connection to pool 0 interrupted
[2013-03-26 14:48:19] Rejected 0608e4c4 Diff 42/16 GPU 1 pool 0
[2013-03-26 14:49:49] Stratum connection to pool 0 interrupted
[2013-03-26 14:50:45] Rejected 04009065 Diff 63/16 GPU 1 pool 0
[2013-03-26 14:52:15] Stratum connection to pool 0 interrupted
[2013-03-26 14:53:17] Rejected 0344433e Diff 78/16 GPU 1 pool 0
[2013-03-26 14:53:22] Rejected 0b26bf66 Diff 22/16 GPU 1 pool 0
[2013-03-26 14:54:03] Rejected 03092403 Diff 84/16 GPU 0 pool 0
[2013-03-26 14:55:33] Stratum connection to pool 0 interrupted
[2013-03-26 14:55:41] Rejected 0af6e183 Diff 23/16 GPU 1 pool 0
[2013-03-26 14:56:38] Rejected 0c23f2ea Diff 21/16 GPU 0 pool 0
[2013-03-26 14:57:41] Rejected 0017fbfb Diff 2.73K/16 GPU 0 pool 0
[2013-03-26 14:59:11] Stratum connection to pool 0 interrupted
[2013-03-26 15:00:43] Stratum connection to pool 0 interrupted
[2013-03-26 15:02:14] Stratum connection to pool 0 interrupted
[2013-03-26 15:02:36] Rejected 03d2b552 Diff 66/16 GPU 0 pool 0
[2013-03-26 15:04:06] Stratum connection to pool 0 interrupted
[2013-03-26 15:04:57] Rejected 0b57cc8e Diff 22/16 GPU 0 pool 0
[2013-03-26 15:05:29] Rejected 0394e2d3 Diff 71/16 GPU 1 pool 0
[2013-03-26 15:06:21] Rejected 07998493 Diff 33/16 GPU 0 pool 0
[2013-03-26 15:07:11] Rejected 0793fb0f Diff 33/16 GPU 0 pool 0
[2013-03-26 15:07:47] Rejected 057fb64e Diff 46/16 GPU 1 pool 0
[2013-03-26 15:08:43] Rejected 0589c94d Diff 46/16 GPU 0 pool 0
[2013-03-26 15:09:06] Rejected 098a6bac Diff 26/16 GPU 0 pool 0
[2013-03-26 15:10:26] Stratum connection to pool 0 interrupted
[2013-03-26 15:10:28] Pool 0 http://bitparking.com:3333 not responding!
[2013-03-26 15:10:28] Switching to pool 1 http://mint.bitminter.com:3333
[2013-03-26 15:10:46] Stratum from pool 1 requested work restart
[2013-03-26 15:10:53] Accepted 7f2f6c34 Diff 2/1 GPU 0 pool 1
This happened simultaneously with 6 rigs and 3 internet connections. |
|
|
|
|
I'm using my Google account to log in, and my browser keeps that account logged in until I clear the cookies. However, BitMinter requires me to log in for each browser session, which just quickly takes me through the Google page (which sees that I'm already logged in) after the first session. I'd prefer to stay logged in on BitMinter as long as I'm logged in to my Google account, but is that possible?
|
|
|
|
If possible, why not just remove the password requirement from workers? I see many new users have problems authenticating their workers, and the password for workers is really useless anyway. You could even reuse the password that clients still have to submit for compatibility's sake. For example, Bitparking allows users to set a custom difficulty by using a pass like this: d=32. Users (including me ) have requested a setting for minimum difficulty, this would be one way to implement it, and also help new users at the same time. Just authenticate the miner and use default difficulty settings if the password field doesn't contain a difficulty request. EDIT: Also, don't use the password for custom difficulty if a user hasn't reset his password after being made aware of the feature! |
|
|
|
|
1FBzt5VMaTQ1pCRYCgtsyJvXWVAz4Yq2zj
|
|
|
|
|
LNYd6v6hNUvgAAxSvc3pys5jQTvhA483KC
EDIT: LTC received, thanks!
|
|
|
|
New release: 2.11.3, 17th March 2013
Human readable changelog:
...
- Changes to the hashmeter to update it more frequently - for fast devices it will update smoother but for long-return devices (like slow FPGAs) it will look worse. This is in preparation for faster devices
...
The 5s hashmeter is indeed way too high for all my 5800 series cards now. Why not add an option to get the old hashmeter back? They were accurate with a below 1% error margin before, while now I'm seeing 10-20% higher hashrates constantly. EDIT: Added git revert -n 072ffbba424770afcbd2e1a10aead8a5035f80de to my compile scripts, and the hashmeters are working again. This might cause problems when that part of the code is changed again in a future commit. I wonder what that git command will actually do then. I don't recommend this, just wanted to confirm that commit being the culprit. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
