Denarius? Are you kidding me? I setup the wallet 3 weeks ago and it stopped working, cannot update it by some reason, so abandoned it. I have feeling that sp_ is fooling us  Not that miners care about stuff like this but DNR is Carsen Klock's newest, soon to be abandoned scamcoin - as it is his signature move after years of not releasing coins or maybe doing so anonymously. Doubt it though, considering his massive ego. He released dozens of shitcoins which he all abandoned after the initial pump... But he certainly evolved from shit like Carsencoin [COCK]: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=720684.0Please fix power issue on skunk, because cards work very hot without overclocking and eat too much power. What oc settings do you use for 1060/1070 cards? I did 100% Power and -500 mem and 1060s runs ~72c, 1070s from 70 to 84
That means the algo is either ASIC friendly and that it's highly optimized and using the cards to close to their full potential. ya, dont blame SP, he just making money off people with more $$ than math skills hehe His mods are LEGIT, but math may change that daily  Investments are risky and Sp_'s mods are no exceptions. I bought most of them but not all of them. I'll certainly not buy optimizations for tribus. Unfortunately the risk depends on how big ones farm is. For some people 0.05-0.1 is nothing, for others it takes weeks to earn that much making it a bad investment. But then again, a fee only system is very hard to develop - as it was discussed here numerous times. |
|
|
|
Why not make it a poll?
I'll definitely dump the free altcoin and grow my BTC holding.
I'm a complete ignoramus about this, and I did read what Theymos wrote about the split thing--and I still don't quite understand it. Are we getting BCC as a separate coin after the split? How will we get that? How can I tell if I only use Mycelium as a wallet? Don't think I'll sell either way. I'm trying to hoard everything I get. If you have a non-custodial wallet (e.g. you own the private keys) you'll have both Bitcoins and BCC as they are different chains. With custodial wallets it depends on the policy of the service. I'm not familiar with Mycelium though. |
|
|
|
Yeah, well I think we all know that Bitcoin BTC will remain the leader, but what I worry about is the longer term effect.
This will end up being the same scenario as the ETH and ETC split where in this case BCC is a fraction of BTC's value, possibly around $200-$400 or so depending on how much the future's market price is being manipulated by the powers behind BCC.
So while I am not worried about BCC's effect, which will be temporary and I am sure two chains can co-exist, but does this set a precedent? Up until now most alt-coins have pretty much left BTC itself alone, but now with actual forks off the BTC chain if this were continue, say in 2 years we have dozens of forks that split off, how long can BTC survive that type of indirect attack?
Certainly something to consider. Hopefully BCC will be a massive failure setting a precedent not to try and chip away from BTC with other future splits. That will be my hope as well, but I remember reading something awhile back where the BCC people bragged they had millions in reserve to handle the fork, at the time I think it was for BU or something, but anyway there was an indication of a lot of money invested in pushing their version of the fork. So now if they changed tactics and will support BCC for awhile, much like I think special interests supported ETC in its early days by keeping the market price artificially high until it found support, it won't simply die and go away easily as we would like. I don't kid myself for a minute that most people here are here for the quick money that can be made and they could give a rats behind about the tech or which coin is number 1 as long as they can make a profit. So if the split gives them free coins with some value, then I do not see BCC going away anytime soon. I can see it (BCC) dropping down to $100 or even a bit under, but that is no means a recipe for disaster as it wasn't too long ago that BCC was trading at these levels. But what's the benefit of BCC then? Big empty or cheaply spammed blocks? Bitcoin is old tech but it's the boss. Generally no altcoins have 10 minute blocktimes for years for a good reason - it takes too long for confirmations for today's standard. New coins starting with 10 minute block times are at a disadvantage. XT, BU, BCC... it all seems to me all their supporters are mostly the same group of people I described in my first reply. They hate the status quo and rather watch BTC burn out of either spite or delusion while ignoring both the faults of their proposals and that BTC is doing just fine. There has to be a transaction fee market, there's no way around that. Otherwise gigabytes of blocks could be filled cheaply with simple scripts. I just really hope all the mindless people supporting these craps (especially the /r/btc circlejerk) will put their money where their mouth is at so I can trade my BCC for some free BTC. |
|
|
|
|
Why not make it a poll?
I'll definitely dump the free altcoin and grow my BTC holding.
|
|
|
|
can't wait for all this bitcoin drama to be over with..
Same. Then again the next drama is probably only weeks away... |
|
|
|
Yeah, well I think we all know that Bitcoin BTC will remain the leader, but what I worry about is the longer term effect.
This will end up being the same scenario as the ETH and ETC split where in this case BCC is a fraction of BTC's value, possibly around $200-$400 or so depending on how much the future's market price is being manipulated by the powers behind BCC.
So while I am not worried about BCC's effect, which will be temporary and I am sure two chains can co-exist, but does this set a precedent? Up until now most alt-coins have pretty much left BTC itself alone, but now with actual forks off the BTC chain if this were continue, say in 2 years we have dozens of forks that split off, how long can BTC survive that type of indirect attack?
Certainly something to consider. Hopefully BCC will be a massive failure setting a precedent not to try and chip away from BTC with other future splits. |
|
|
|
I would not even dare to ask what kind of "stuff" u're purchasing with this currency, but nevertheless let me ask u this: what value has money which cannot obtain u even a cup of coffee? How many people actually use bitcoin to buy toys, furnitures or rent a room or whatever else online? Or rather bitcoin community consist mostly from speculators and gamblers + ponzi scheme operators who don't see any intrinsic value in bitcoin and just exploiting this new fad for their own avid ambitions? I don't want this shit, I want scalable convenient currency not some get-rich-quick bunkum.
I buy all kinds of shit with BTC from PC hardware to softwares, appliances and furnitures, sometimes even services if I can - and most of the time the BTC accepting webshops I use have the stuff I need. Why are you being stuck up on coffee? It's not like you're buying coffee with bonds, checkbooks or gold shavings off of an ingot either. Why are you trying to shit on Bitcoin saying that it's filled with gamblers and scammers? The same Bitcoin you're trying to argue it only really needs bigger blocks to be perfect? You're not making any sense at all here. And as I said, considering how many people use Bitcoin nowadays we can say that it did scale sp far pretty damn well. And without network spams it can handle a whole lot more. It wouldn't worth $2780(!) otherwise. But seriously though, let me ask your argument against this; let's say with 8MB blocks transaction sizes become 1/8th of what they are now (not that it would still be optimal to buy coffe because of the slow block times but whatever). That would mean that if someone were to spam the network as it was the case weeks ago spending, let's say 0.5 BTC each day (just a random number) with 8 MB blocks he could fill all the 8MB blocks for the same amount of 0.5 Bitcoins. So what's the difference? |
|
|
|
Denarius? Are you kidding me? I setup the wallet 3 weeks ago and it stopped working, cannot update it by some reason, so abandoned it. I have feeling that sp_ is fooling us Not that miners care about stuff like this but DNR is Carsen Klock's newest, soon to be abandoned scamcoin - as it is his signature move after years of not releasing coins or maybe doing so anonymously. Doubt it though, considering his massive ego. He released dozens of shitcoins which he all abandoned after the initial pump... But he certainly evolved from shit like Carsencoin [COCK]: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=720684.0Please fix power issue on skunk, because cards work very hot without overclocking and eat too much power. What oc settings do you use for 1060/1070 cards? I did 100% Power and -500 mem and 1060s runs ~72c, 1070s from 70 to 84
That means the algo is either ASIC friendly and that it's highly optimized and using the cards to close to their full potential. |
|
|
|
BCC is the sad manifestation of a very small yet very loud group of people who believe they know better for everyone else. They believe they represent everyone while they are utterly disconnected from the silent majority who actually uses BTC on a daily basis.
They are the people you can't possibly argue with, and if BTC was launched with 8 MB blocks, they'd still do the same but with a higher number.
They can't possibly understand that transactions should have a price and Bitcoin is not intended for dust transactions. Even if the blocksize was 50 MB, eventually casinos, dice games and various services would fill the blocks with dust transactions requiring users to increase their fees to compete. It's a very simple notion they can't seem to understand.
After <insert the latest fork proposition> propaganda ended, we now currently have 10223 unconfirmed transactions (which is very low) compared to 100k+ when the network was spammed by supporters of various fork attempts.
And considering how high BTC's price is and how many new people are interested in it, the backlog is really nothing. Besides, with 8MB blocks, the whole network could be spammed for the same amount of money - if transaction fees are linear.
You have to have a market for transactions, because spamming the network will always happen! 100k transaction backlog with 1MB blocks or 800k transactions with 8 MB blocks doesn't make any difference at al - it costs the same!
Besides, transaction fees going to miners are intended as blockrewards decrease...
The whole thins only really going to temporarily set BTC back in exchange of having some power over it. But at least the real BCC buy walls will actually show how many people actually care about this abomination.
PS.: what a dumb name Bitcoin Cash actually is?
I'll tell u smth boy. Bitcoin Cash means that by means of by far larger adjustable block size BCC will be able to process all transactions it needs to. Adjustable block cap means that there will not be such an issue like people defecting from bitcoin because it's congested like toilet pipe and crowded by speculators and gamblers. BitcoinCash is the future, while Bitcoin BIP148 is sinking shit. it's going down, boy Bitcoin already processes all transactions it needs to. You'd know if you'd use it and not just talk about using it. Go back to your ciclejerk that is /r/btc, "boy". Regardless of block sizes, transactions will eventually cost the same because you can spam 1MB blocks just the same as 8MB blocks for the same amount of money if fees scale linearly. Maybe try understanding basic principles like this instead of calling people "boys". Whose needs are covered by bitcoin right now?Besides of gamblers and speculators? Can u buy yourself a cup of coffee or a bus ticket not risking to spend all day in coffeshop or riding on the bus in circles-jerkles? Who said Bitcoin is intended for buying coffee or bus tickets? With 10 minute transactions it's pretty clear it's intended for much bigger transactions. You can't buy a coffee and wait 20-30 minutes for the first confirmation in case blocks are late regardless of transaction fees. Even without transaction fees, higher block sizes will not help you buy your cup of coffee. Bitcoin has grown to be too big to be used for tiny shit like that. And that is completely fine! I buy most things above $100 with Bitcoin but I would never even want to buy small stuff that's payment is very time sensitive. |
|
|
|
I'm just going to quote myself: BCC is the sad manifestation of a very small yet very loud group of people who believe they know better for everyone else. They believe they represent everyone while they are utterly disconnected from the silent majority who actually uses BTC on a daily basis.
They are the people you can't possibly argue with, and if BTC was launched with 8 MB blocks, they'd still do the same but with a higher number.
They can't possibly understand that transactions should have a price and Bitcoin is not intended for dust transactions. Even if the blocksize was 50 MB, eventually casinos, dice games and various services would fill the blocks with dust transactions requiring users to increase their fees to compete. It's a very simple notion they can't seem to understand.
After <insert the latest fork proposition> propaganda ended, we now currently have 10223 unconfirmed transactions (which is very low) compared to 100k+ when the network was spammed by supporters of various fork attempts.
And considering how high BTC's price is and how many new people are interested in it, the backlog is really nothing. Besides, with 8MB blocks, the whole network could be spammed for the same amount of money - if transaction fees are linear.
You have to have a market for transactions, because spamming the network will always happen! 100k transaction backlog with 1MB blocks or 800k transactions with 8 MB blocks doesn't make any difference at al - it costs the same!
Besides, transaction fees going to miners are intended as blockrewards decrease...
The whole thins only really going to temporarily set BTC back in exchange of having some power over it. But at least the real BCC buy walls will actually show how many people actually care about this abomination.
PS.: what a dumb name Bitcoin Cash actually is?
|
|
|
|
BCC is the sad manifestation of a very small yet very loud group of people who believe they know better for everyone else. They believe they represent everyone while they are utterly disconnected from the silent majority who actually uses BTC on a daily basis.
They are the people you can't possibly argue with, and if BTC was launched with 8 MB blocks, they'd still do the same but with a higher number.
They can't possibly understand that transactions should have a price and Bitcoin is not intended for dust transactions. Even if the blocksize was 50 MB, eventually casinos, dice games and various services would fill the blocks with dust transactions requiring users to increase their fees to compete. It's a very simple notion they can't seem to understand.
After <insert the latest fork proposition> propaganda ended, we now currently have 10223 unconfirmed transactions (which is very low) compared to 100k+ when the network was spammed by supporters of various fork attempts.
And considering how high BTC's price is and how many new people are interested in it, the backlog is really nothing. Besides, with 8MB blocks, the whole network could be spammed for the same amount of money - if transaction fees are linear.
You have to have a market for transactions, because spamming the network will always happen! 100k transaction backlog with 1MB blocks or 800k transactions with 8 MB blocks doesn't make any difference at al - it costs the same!
Besides, transaction fees going to miners are intended as blockrewards decrease...
The whole thins only really going to temporarily set BTC back in exchange of having some power over it. But at least the real BCC buy walls will actually show how many people actually care about this abomination.
PS.: what a dumb name Bitcoin Cash actually is?
I'll tell u smth boy. Bitcoin Cash means that by means of by far larger adjustable block size BCC will be able to process all transactions it needs to. Adjustable block cap means that there will not be such an issue like people defecting from bitcoin because it's congested like toilet pipe and crowded by speculators and gamblers. BitcoinCash is the future, while Bitcoin BIP148 is sinking shit. it's going down, boy Bitcoin already processes all transactions it needs to. You'd know if you'd use it and not just talk about using it. Go back to your ciclejerk that is /r/btc, "boy". Regardless of block sizes, transactions will eventually cost the same because you can spam 1MB blocks just the same as 8MB blocks for the same amount of money if fees scale linearly. Maybe try understanding basic principles like this instead of calling people "boys". |
|
|
|
BCC is the sad manifestation of a very small yet very loud group of people who believe they know better for everyone else. They believe they represent everyone while they are utterly disconnected from the silent majority who actually uses BTC on a daily basis.
They are the people you can't possibly argue with, and if BTC was launched with 8 MB blocks, they'd still do the same but with a higher number.
They can't possibly understand that transactions should have a price and Bitcoin is not intended for dust transactions. Even if the blocksize was 50 MB, eventually casinos, dice games and various services would fill the blocks with dust transactions requiring users to increase their fees to compete. It's a very simple notion they can't seem to understand.
After <insert the latest fork proposition> propaganda ended, we now currently have 10223 unconfirmed transactions (which is very low) compared to 100k+ when the network was spammed by supporters of various fork attempts.
And considering how high BTC's price is and how many new people are interested in it, the backlog is really nothing. Besides, with 8MB blocks, the whole network could be spammed for the same amount of money - if transaction fees are linear.
You have to have a market for transactions, because spamming the network will always happen! 100k transaction backlog with 1MB blocks or 800k transactions with 8 MB blocks doesn't make any difference at al - it costs the same!
Besides, transaction fees going to miners are intended as blockrewards decrease...
The whole thins only really going to temporarily set BTC back in exchange of having some power over it. But at least the real BCC buy walls will actually show how many people actually care about this abomination.
PS.: what a dumb name Bitcoin Cash actually is?
|
|
|
|
|
BCC is the sad manifestation of a very small yet very loud group of people who believe they know better for everyone else. They believe they represent everyone while they are utterly disconnected from the silent majority who actually uses BTC on a daily basis.
They are the people you can't possibly argue with, and if BTC was launched with 8 MB blocks, they'd still do the same but with a higher number.
They can't possibly understand that transactions should have a price and Bitcoin is not intended for dust transactions. Even if the blocksize was 50 MB, eventually casinos, dice games and various services would fill the blocks with dust transactions requiring users to increase their fees to compete. It's a very simple notion they can't seem to understand.
After <insert the latest fork proposition> propaganda ended, we now currently have 10223 unconfirmed transactions (which is very low) compared to 100k+ when the network was spammed by supporters of various fork attempts.
And considering how high BTC's price is and how many new people are interested in it, the backlog is really nothing. Besides, with 8MB blocks, the whole network could be spammed for the same amount of money - if transaction fees are linear.
You have to have a market for transactions, because spamming the network will always happen! 100k transaction backlog with 1MB blocks or 800k transactions with 8 MB blocks doesn't make any difference at al - it costs the same!
Besides, transaction fees going to miners are intended as blockrewards decrease...
The whole thins only really going to temporarily set BTC back in exchange of having some power over it. But at least the real BCC buy walls will actually show how many people actually care about this abomination.
PS.: what a dumb name Bitcoin Cash actually is?
|
|
|
|
dear all, i am looking for the latest cuda miner installation software. to mine artbyte.
all hyperlinks to mega.nz are dead. And please I do not need ccminer. But looking for CUDAMINER.EXE and installation in particular.
Anybody can help ?
Artbyte is using Scrypt algo. That is mined with super efficient ASICs meaning that mining with GPUs are a completely waste of electricity. Even if you spend the amount of money you'd spend for electricity and buy Artbyte, you'll earn more. |
|
|
|
|
BCC is silly altcoin.
BTC will remain BTC.
|
|
|
|
Thanks for the response.
Added "diff-factor" : "2" to the config file and gave it a try.
8.11-Klaus-T quickly found 1 share which was rejected with a reason of "reject reason: low difficulty share of 0.23825932042784703" after which it apparently died. That is, it did nothing for the next 12 minutes, with task manager showing 0 CPU activity for the ccminer task.
The 2.1-tribus version ran with "diff-factor" : "2" in the config, and the effective hashrate in the pool was close to the 151.x hashrate shown by the miner. The problem with 2.1-tribus and the suggested option is the almost 50% rejection rate. After 1h 24m, tribus found 839 shares of which only 437 were accepted, the other 402 shares were rejected with the same "low difficulty share" message. During the same time, the amd cards had 548 accepted and 5 rejected shares.
The suggested option fixes the problem of the pool showing a very low effective hashrate for the nvidia worker, and increases the shares ccminer solves to a level that actually exceeds the % difference in hashrates reported by the two miners, but only at the cost of an unacceptably high rate of rejects.
I'll try a different pool tomorrow, and maybe the 2.0 x86 and x64 versions of ccminer if the pool switch doesn't help. Just out of curiosity, which version of ccminer would you recommend for mining myriad-groestl? I like the fact that 8.11-Klaus-T shows a 10Mh/s higher hashrate than the other miners, but that is only useful if the higher hashrate translates into more shares.
I'll post what I find tomorrow after the pool switch.
If you have half the hashrate on a pool, or too many low difficulty share rejects then it's usually caused by the pool and the miner not being on the same page regarding what they consider the same amount of work (difficulty) due ton how they were configured. With -F 2 the miner also submits work to the pool that is half of what the pool tells the miner is required. If you have too many rejects with -F 2, then you should lower it (1.5 or something) until you figure out the correct number which hopefully gets you your hashrate reported on the pool without rejects. |
|
|
|
Hello everyone, I'm looking for suggestions on how to increase acceptance rate and effective hash rate for myriad-groestl mining with ccminer. I have a mining rig with 3 older AMD cards and 2 new GTX 1070s. According to ccminer, the 2 1070s are hashing myriad-groestl at 162.x Mh/s which is 140% of the 115.x hashrate of the 3 AMD cards as reported by sph-sgminer-x11mod running with an updated myriad-groestl kernel. The pool reports that both miners are mining at the same difficulty in the following screenshot, so I would expect to see the 1070s getting somewhere around 140% of the shares of the AMD cards. I'd also expect to see the effective Hashrate reported by the pool for the cuda worker to be closer to 160, I've never seen it go above 60.  Actually, the 1070s are getting less than half of the accepted shares of the amd cards. Here's a screenshot of both miners, started at the same time, after a 14h:42m run:  I've tried ccminer 2.0 x86, x64, 2.1-tribus, and 811. All exhibit the problem of reporting a high hash rate but finding fewer shares than the slower AMD cards hashing at the same difficulty for the myriad-groestl algorithm. What sort of tuning might be done to ccminer or the cards to increase the effective hashrate in the pool and/or increase the rate of share acceptance in the miner? Or, is this a problem with the pool? I'm only seeing this problem with ccminer/myr-gr. When mining equihash with different mining software (EWBF), the 1070s are also hashing around 140% faster than the AMD cards, and the effective hashrate in the pool and the number of accepted shares reflect the higher hash rate. Hi, try adding -f 2 to your ccminer bat file or check another pool. |
|
|
|
|
Difficulty times 2^32 is the number of hashes required to find a block on average - if it weren't for variance.
So 2000 diff requires 8 589 934 592 000 hashes and 100 diff requires 429 496 729 600 - which is exactly 20 times less.
So if you're mining with let's say 100 Mh/s, you're doing 100 million combinations (hashes) every second to find a block.
So it would take exactly a day with 2000 difficulty and 100 Mh/s to find a block (again, ignoring variance) and 20 times less with the difficulty being 100.
Difficulty is decided based on how fast blocks are being found on a network so it gets adjusted to slow or speed up how fast blocks are being found to following the block target (e.g. 60 seconds).
Higher difficulty only means more people are mining and higher diff shouldn't be rewarded more because then we wouldn't know the inflation rate of a coin in advance.
|
|
|
|
|
Hey, I'm selling several of these keys I got with some Nvidia cards. I can provide screenshot of the email if requested.
$30 in BTC.
PM if interested.
|
|
|
|
|
Useless attempt at reviving a massively premined shitcoin probably because OP has a bag.
if(pindexBest->nHeight == 5)
{
nSubsidy = 240000000 * COIN;
}
else if(pindexBest->nHeight > 60)
{
nSubsidy = 240 * COIN;
}
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
