If I understand correctly, and you are using bitcoind, you can type 'bitcoind getnewaddress' to get an address to use (or 'bitcoind getnewaddress <accountname>' if you want the address to be associated with a specific account name). If you are trying to find the address for which some coin has already been sent to, you can type 'bitcoind listtransactions' to see all the addresses that have been used in transactions. Ah! Thank you! It seemed like it should be something simple like that. Full ugly command line now looks like: ./bfgminer -S opencl:auto --gpu-fan 100 --auto-gpu --intensity 18,20 --temp-overheat 90 --temp-cutoff 100 --temp-target 80 --scrypt --coinbase-addr DmQJs6eTNDP2pWZA9PmqJWEjGosYFgqLKe --coinbase-sig "Gentoo1: This block generated by Cassey via GPU" -o http://localhost:6332 -O yaccoinrpc:471EQrAidMjGKb8GYk9P2S4wLcbmKWhNkKXNV4g3vi9M Which returns: ./bfgminer: --coinbase-addr: Invalid address The coinbase address specified is a getnewaddress generated on one of my seed hosts. Thoughts? (Besides me being a p.i.t.a?) (I do sincerely appreciate the help, it feels like bits and pieces are falling into place) By using the --coinbase-addr and --coinbase-sig options, you are telling BFGMiner to use getblocktemplate for mining, and that may be incompatible with the alt-coin you are trying to mine. If you take those options out, it will connect to your coin daemon with getwork instead, and the daemon will automatically generate a payment address in your wallet whenever you find a block. EDIT: If you are using ASIC h/w to mine that alt-coin, getwork will not be fast enough. You may have to set up a private pool with stratum to solo mine that coin. |
|
|
|
Most of you are terrible people.
You, sir, have what is probably the most annoying avatar I have ever seen. Well played. |
|
|
|
So here is a question that makes me feel really stupid: Without a QT wallet, how can I look up my wallet address? The coin binary, of course, generated a wallet.dat on the user when it was first started, but that is not readable. I didn't see a bitcoin command that would display the current wallet address...
That is the million <coin> question. I have no idea OK, thanks. That made me feel better. Guess its time to for try 2718 at getting a clean Windows-QT coin executable built. Command line is (generally) just so much easier... (yeah, I'm an old fart that started with 110 baud teletype machines for a UI). If I understand correctly, and you are using bitcoind, you can type 'bitcoind getnewaddress' to get an address to use (or 'bitcoind getnewaddress <accountname>' if you want the address to be associated with a specific account name). If you are trying to find the address for which some coin has already been sent to, you can type 'bitcoind listtransactions' to see all the addresses that have been used in transactions. |
|
|
|
Confirmed: Bitcoin is a terrible store of value, because you can just copy your bitcoins over and over, thus increasing the supply without bound. This was confirmed by one of America's top bankers, Jamie Dimon, in an interview at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland: http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/a00df0fc-8496-11e3-b72e-00144feab7de.html#axzz2rLVmv6pUHe added that Bitcoin was “a terrible store of value” that “can be replicated over and over”, and that according to reports, “a lot of it is being used for illicit purposes”.
It looks like Proudhon's warning to shotr bitcoin at maximum leverage is, indeed, confirmed by reliable sources. You'd think the Bitcoin people would have thought about this possibility and protected against it somehow... |
|
|
|
Almost every point you have quoted here with my name is not anything I said. Please edit it and attribute it correctly, thanks.
Done. Thank you for the kind request to correct myself, always appreciated. Thanks |
|
|
|
I believe I know enough about the positive arguments, and in general I do not dispute them.
Unfortunately there are negative or highly uncertain arguments and I have still to see good answers to them. "Selling" articles like Mark's generally avoid them.
The risk of bitcoins being stolen (possibly en masse) by hackers is an example.
An example of what? There is a risk of <INSERT NAME OF ANY CURRENCY HERE> being stolen en masse, in exactly the same way. This is not a problem unique to Bitcoin. Bitcoin is only one cryptocoin. Why should it be the one to survive?
Did you actually read the article? He discusses this at length, focusing on network effects primarily. Non-cancellation may be good for merchants (especially dishonest ones) but is bad for customers.
As is true of cash in any currency. Again, this is not unique to Bitcoin. Governments can ban, restrict, or heavily tax cryptocoins if it suits them.
That is a possibility. Some governments can do damn near anything. What will prevent banks and Wall Street from taking control of Bitcoin?
I will have to refer you to the original whitepaper here. Success is not yet proven, but so far it's looking pretty good, I think. How could the value of a bitcoin be stabilized enough for merchants who thrive on 2% profit?
Again, I have to wonder if you really read the article. It addresses stability concerns very well, and shows how many merchants with low-margins can seriously benefit by avoiding CC processing fees. And so on...
|
|
|
|
This article by Mark Andreessen http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2014/01/21/why-bitcoin-matters/claims that Bitcoins cannot be stolen. But of course they can, if people keep the keys in an easily hackeable computer or smartphone (which increasingly means "any computer"), or hand over their bitcoins to exchanges. (How can he say that that after the SheepMarketplace incident?) In a sense, it is your computer, not you, who owns "your" bitcoins; and if Apple or the NSA or the Russian mafia control your computer, they will control your bitcoins too. Indeed stealing Bitcoins is easier and "safer" than stealing credit cards, because a virus can spend your bitcoins as soon as it infects your computer, whereas cashing out from a stolen card usually implies human intervention, delays, checks, etc. Please quote the part of the article where the author claims bitcoins cannot be stolen? I would like to see that quote too. @JorgeStolfi, I am just trying to expand your view of Bitcoin, but you seem to be more interested in finding a point of argument over some detail in each article. I guess maybe you already knew all this about what Bitcoin is, and what it can be, and I am just wasting your time. Sorry about that. |
|
|
|
Lots of nice predictions, we will see if they materialize. (By the way, CNN blogs are not very selective on what theiy publish, it seems. The author does not seem to be affiliated with CNN. Is that a reader-contributed article?) The title of that article is rather funny though. Does the author realize that Napster was originally a pirate site that threatened to bypass the copyright industry's monopoly market, was crushed for that, then assimilated by that industry? If we take that title literally, Bitcoin will be appropriated by the banks, and turned into a fancy brand for something entirely different from the dream of its inventors. Napster and other pirate music sites had perhaps the merit of forcing the music industry to accept the internet as a delivery channel (instead of physical records) and reduce their prices from absurd to merely exaggerated. (But the merit for that goes to Apple, whoc ould not simply be crushed like Napster was.) I do hope that cryptocoins will at least have the same effect on the cost and delay of international money transfers. Beyond that -- well, I am still not convinced. Here is some more food for thought for you, from the NY Times. Bitcoin is much more than just a simple financial instrument: (The author is the same Marc Andreesen who created the original Mosaic webbrowser and co-founded the Netscape Corporation) http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2014/01/21/why-bitcoin-matters/?_php=true&_type=blogs&_r=0 |
|
|
|
I'm trying to understand this. Off-putting, how?
Too much effort in convincing people to invest in Bitcoin, rather than to use it. "Look at how many millions you could make by investing bitcoins" instead of "Look at how many cents you could save by buying a toaster with bitcoins instead of a credit card." A sure sign that an investment is a scam is when its TV ad shows a smug man on a luxury boat with three girls on each side. Renting a storefront next to NYSE is not as bad, but is going in that direction, IMHO. If you read and understand this article, you will be enlightened: http://finance.fortune.cnn.com/2014/01/21/bitcoin-platform/ |
|
|
|
It is going up in the short-term only to go even lower by next week or so. We are eventually headed to the $400-$500 level - maybe slightly lower.
Probably much, much lower, now that the absolute worst has been confirmed by sources and by official PBOC statements. Get out now. just because we have a lot of new users in here now who may not understand the full context http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A7TuFy0fcuwROFL, that is awesome  Thanks  |
|
|
|
It is going up in the short-term only to go even lower by next week or so. We are eventually headed to the $400-$500 level - maybe slightly lower.
Probably much, much lower, now that the absolute worst has been confirmed by sources and by official PBOC statements. Get out now. The google-translated version of the text at that link does not even mention bitcoin or virtual currencies. |
|
|
|
I'm glad you don't want to force people to use p2pool.
Why? Ok, that's it. If you had a point to make, you have wasted too many chances to make it, and I am bowing out of this inane exchange. Hopefully the mods will have mercy on the other readers and delete all of these posts. |
|
|
|
I don't want to organize miners to force people to use p2pool. More miners would equal smaller per-block payouts, but more blocks - so it evens out.
Huh? It would help the problem of centralization because, as you must know, p2pool is not centralized.
Bitcoin isn't centralized either, but that doesn't mean there's no centralization problem in Bitcoin. 1) I'm glad you don't want to force people to use p2pool. 2) You said "Among other things, block rewards would only be a bit over 5% of what they would be otherwise." I can only interpret that to mean that because there are more miners the reward per-block would be smaller, which is true - but if there is more hashpower on the pool, the pool will also mine more blocks. These two changes are inversely proportional, so they offset. (i.e. 0.1 btc per block * 5 blocks per day = 0.5 btc per day. 10 times as many miners means 0.01 btc per block payout, but 10 times as many blocks - which is 0.5 btc per day - the same as before.) If this is not what you meant, then I have no idea what you mean. 3) Again, I have no idea what the point is that you're trying to make with this statement about bitcoin centralization - whatever it is, it has nothing to do with pools in general, or p2pool in particular. You seem to have strayed a long way from your initial question, and from the topic of this thread. |
|
|
|
Is the point you are trying to make that everyone should solo mine?
No. I was just asking a question. I guess you don't care to answer it. I'm not smart enough to figure out your question apparently. Why don't you ask it like you were asking a 2-year old so I might have a chance of understanding? If your question is the literal question you originally asked, then, clearly, I answered that above when I pointed out that there is, to my knowledge, no 'we' that has the power to force anyone to use p2pool - nor should there be. The miners would be one such "we". If 51% of miners only accepted blocks which met the criteria for being valid in p2pool, we'd effectively force everyone to use p2pool. I'm really confused now. First you said I clearly liked p2pool more than you, and now you want to organize miners to force people to use p2pool? If 51% of miners agreed that p2pool was the way to go, there would be no force necessary, as the majority of miners would already be using p2pool and there would be no centralization problem to start with. ----- EDIT: You added some more to your reply while I was typing, so I should reply to that part too. More miners would equal smaller per-block payouts, but more blocks - so it evens out. It would help the problem of centralization because, as you must know, p2pool is not centralized. |
|
|
|
Is the point you are trying to make that everyone should solo mine?
No. I was just asking a question. I guess you don't care to answer it. I'm not smart enough to figure out your question apparently. Why don't you ask it like you were asking a 2-year old so I might have a chance of understanding? If your question is the literal question you originally asked, then, clearly, I answered that above when I pointed out that there is, to my knowledge, no 'we' that has the power to force anyone to use p2pool - nor should there be. |
|
|
|
I mine on p2pool, and I wish everyone did, just so over-centralization of mining would no longer be a threat.
If over-centralization of mining would no longer be a threat if everyone mined on p2pool, why don't we just force everyone to mine on p2pool? Why don't we just change the protocol to the p2pool protocol? (Hint: I'm not actually suggesting we do this.) Then why bother asking the question? Because apparently you're more fond of p2pool than I am, so I thought maybe you'd have an answer. Maybe I need a bigger hint to see what your point is.
My point is that p2pool is less secure than solo mining, and that solo mining on average pays slightly more in the long run. But I think you'd be better able to see that by working through the question without worrying about the point that's going to be made. And who is this 'we' you speak of?
Probably related to the "everyone" you speak of. Is the point you are trying to make that everyone should solo mine? Nothing in you original post suggested that, or even hinted at it. To be clear, I have no emotional relationship with p2pool at all. It is a tool I use for mining, no more, no less. Of the numerous such tools (mining pools), I think p2pool serves my needs the best. You need to expand on your security concerns about p2pool, as I (and probably other readers) don't know what you are talking about. My question about your use of 'we' is because your statement suggested that you were part of some 'we' that has the power to force people to mine on p2pool, and I was curious to know what 'we' had such power. |
|
|
|
I mine on p2pool, and I wish everyone did, just so over-centralization of mining would no longer be a threat.
If over-centralization of mining would no longer be a threat if everyone mined on p2pool, why don't we just force everyone to mine on p2pool? Why don't we just change the protocol to the p2pool protocol? (Hint: I'm not actually suggesting we do this.) Then why bother asking the question? Maybe I need a bigger hint to see what your point is. And who is this 'we' you speak of? |
|
|
|
I'm not sure what your issue is there. Low hash-rate miners won't be paid in every single block— once their rate is low enough that they don't constantly have a share in the window, but when they do get paid you'll be "overpaid" and as a result there returns will be as expected on average.
I wouldn't call 70+gig a low rate miner - not yet anyway. I just got tired of watching blocks fly by without finding shares, therefore no payments. It's false economy. But I don't have an issue with it, I'll use my hash rate on another pool, one that pays for the work  I think what you mean is: "I'll use my hash rate on another pool, one that pays less for the work at a commensurately lower share threshold, and I'll end up with the same amount of reward long term " I think what he is really saying is "I want to mine on a pool that has less variance for me." Seems like a reasonable move to me. Solo mining also pays the same in the long run, but most people mine on pools to reduce variance. Also, some other pools also have no fees, and pay transaction fees to miners, just like p2pool. Don't get me wrong - I mine on p2pool, and I wish everyone did, just so over-centralization of mining would no longer be a threat. But I definitely understand the frustration of small miners with the variance they see on p2pool. |
|
|
|
I didn't read the KNC issues in detail. But one issue I seem to be having lately is if the 'pool difficulty' is high for my device, it seems more likely to crash(Temperature runs higher). Which requires a full power down of the device(BFL 60GH). I'm looking forward to the set-able difficulty, so I can do some testing.
Difficulty does not affect devices at all. Even if you could set difficulty, it is unlikely to allow setting it lower than the automatic variable difficulty (which is lower than most pools use on Eligius). So for example, when it's finished, if I set the '--request-diff' flag to '64' for example, it will still give a automatic value? What is this flag really accomplishing? Just a FYI, '64' diff. seems to be the safe limit for my device, when it starts using '128' the temp runs higher and then it is more likely to completely crash, requiring a cold boot. Changing the diff does not change the operation of your device at all. It still generates shares exactly the same way it was already doing. The difficulty simply determines which shares actually get submitted to the pool. If the difficulty is 64, then only shares with a difficulty over 64 are submitted. If the diff is 128, then only generated shares that just happen to have a difficulty of 128 or higher are submitted. Changing difficulty does not make your hardware work harder, or less hard, or change anything at all about the hardware operation - it just defines which generated shares actually get submitted to the pool by the miner software. PS - The last time I mined on Eligius, the '--request-diff' flag was not honored by the pool. I don't know if that is still true or not. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
