Bitcoin Forum
June 07, 2024, 04:39:36 AM *
News: Latest Bitcoin Core release: 27.0 [Torrent]
 
  Home Help Search Login Register More  
  Show Posts
Pages: « 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 ... 85 »
61  Bitcoin / Pools / Re: Laurentia Pool - BAD risk for miners on: July 25, 2020, 12:50:56 AM
Our whitepaper outlines our efficiencies compared to pools with multiple slave nodes. Imagine there will be long reply inc now.

With all your TL;DR's here we all could really quote out considerable "claims" from karen.

I don't make rules regarding titles for countries so you can debate that with Australia. I think we state it twice on website in reference to Con, not sure if we've marketed the pool directly as such. But sure marketing. ..  just like your Kano pool pump thread here at our expense or at least your imaginary one.

You want to clown me about my use of #mineon like we trademarked it or some lame shit like we own the phrase.

Anything else? or can we wrap this up? I've never witnessed anyone deeply committed to the demise of project that's just getting started. I just put it down to jealously. It's incredibly obvious and I don't think you realize how much damage to your already dwindled reputation this is causing.

There are so many deliberate scams in this space and you choose to single us out. A project actually attempting to achieve a little something with principle, and dedication to the user and network.

Kudo's, well done.

#mineon
62  Bitcoin / Mining speculation / Re: Some very 'bad' news on s19 shipments. on: July 24, 2020, 05:17:24 PM
Their asics have been unavailable for a while and now all parts. We've closed all our Bitmain listings and refunded all buyers who opted for it. I think we go lucky most were early batches, and I'm glad we opted to not offer a group buy for the 19 series.
63  Bitcoin / Pools / Re: [∞ YH] solo.ckpool.org 2% fee solo mining 256 blocks solved! on: July 24, 2020, 01:26:59 PM
Sad that big Corp got all the bailout monies as well. We didn’t apply for any in hope that would go the small biz and restaurants and such.
64  Bitcoin / Pools / Re: Laurentia Pool - BAD risk for miners on: July 24, 2020, 01:22:29 PM
“Laurentia Pool - BADLY advertising kano pool”

Take care bud.
65  Bitcoin / Pools / Re: Laurentia Pool - BAD risk for miners on: July 23, 2020, 07:20:00 AM
Any client or potential is able to contact -ck. I have already recommend making a genuine inquiry on our thread or our other contact methods. Even invited Kano to do so. There’s no reason I'm needed as a proxy or mediator for discourse especially by what should be amongst peers.

I will not ask ck or mandate he, or anyone engage with someone like Kano regardless of any history.
66  Bitcoin / Pools / Re: Laurentia Pool - BAD risk for miners on: July 23, 2020, 04:47:13 AM
I just find it "odd" we work with a rival and you proceed with a full attack. Then we expected it.

You also know: That we don't work on the technicals for the pool. That -ck refuses to interact with you. So it's opportunistic "5N" for you to fud the shit out of the thread. Or ours, but I won't allow your bullshit. Likely you'll play your righteous card from a soap box and quote this line pushing your deflective, deceptive narrative towards us.

I believe our mission is 110% explained in detail in our whitepaper. And I'm being frugal with that number. Our server is highly optimized, and ready for mining
https://laurentiapool.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/laurentiapool_whitepaper.pdf 

We do client services, and seek dev on UI by user review, interested devs can dm me for contract or split of fee agreement (please read on). -ck works the server. We collaborate well, and are proactive in management. If you have interest in mining with Laurentia Pool it's entirely up to you and we can be easily contacted for any matter unless you're a complete douche. What we're driving to achieve is to highly compete to out perform F/PPS score and increase revenue directly to the user. All while reducing as much trust as possible for all parties in our methods. All we require is a 2016 block commitment. Using what we believe are the best tools and code to do that to date and pouring our fee into exactly what matters; our server, ui, and development. Our minimum operation cadence, or hashrate, is a projected 5 blockfinds per diffadj, with a score system that will still payout after exit, yet incentivizing continued participation.

If you have millions of dollars in infra, it's likely you'd appreciate and value a full coinbase derived payment directly to your own control. If you have a usb stick you can still mine here, likely we would not be counting you as a dedicated user since your payout would be deferred greatly, still we'd suggest you solo mine. Yet all potential users are allowed to mine right away, knowing fully the risks involved regarding probability and conflicts with fw, hosts, or rentals. Essentially our pool is gauged to those who actually own equipment in possession due to our pw strength. Every hash is scored and accounted and does payout till fall off.

And yes, 70Ph is a feat in this environment for a self funded start up. Debatable to be under expectation but is still a celebrated feat, and we look forward to continued commitments. https://laurentiapool.org/commitment

We're proud of the work we've accomplished, as we know full well none of this easy. We can fund the server without use, as it costs less for us than to manage it than active and also to not have already had preset expectations directly with a user before entrance.
We can easily manage 100 active mining users daily with our recourses. Our fee scales so it incentivizes us to grow and develop, incentivizes participation from any active miner dedicated to the bitcoin network, and obviously and greatly our own.

I really don't care what you say or how much stalk -ck with your weird manic depressive compulsive disorder.

And just to make clear our post was originally locked because we knew you'd be the first to flame, and voila  . . here we are. We also are able to bump once every 24 hours, per forum rules. I'd think a "legend" here would know that. Still we adjusted our method to support the the fluidity of the forum to just major announcements/updates as they occur. Which are reformatted and unfortunately to our unliking so we revise to default, and without complaint.

Again, our only karen is you, as our feedback has been great. Which brings me back to the first line of this reply.

#mineon
67  Bitcoin / Mining software (miners) / Re: The Most powerful tool created for monitoring and management ASIC miners on: July 22, 2020, 07:00:24 PM
Thanks for the referral philip.

We don’t mine as a company as we see it as a conflict of interest considering our target consumer. I do have personal units but those are offline now since our pool testing is done and my home power rate is too high to power on for even my own needs. Paying me to do so would also take away from any objectiveness of review as well. So not really good timing for me to take this on.

The product does look good and it’s always nice to have more competition out there to keep companies innovative and will always benefit the consumer.

Good luck! We’ll be watching how this progresses.
68  Bitcoin / Mining / Re: Bitcoin Mining Pool distribution on: July 22, 2020, 02:02:24 PM
My comment  was on ownership of the pools. What also affects decentralization is the push for vertical “integration” which is buzz word for monopoly. One thing people miss are exchanges and their local as well. Where companies like Binance make it more apparent in this avenue as selling coin is important to miners for operational cost. Though I’m not certain on the operating country of exchanges I feel it’s important to consider where all the fee money is going that users provide to pools, to exchanges. Essentially my take is decentralization is a unicorn but users can do what they can to disperse this now multi billion dollar industry as close to their local economy as possible if they do actually care about any sort of decentralization, or specifically further centralization.
69  Bitcoin / Pools / Re: [∞ YH] solo.ckpool.org 2% fee solo mining 256 blocks solved! on: July 22, 2020, 01:48:11 PM
Free/low power I’d look at an M10. Without pulling up a calc you’d should get more than double the coin with better stock efficiency than s9. Though ROI wise would be longer yet would/should out perform in revenue (pending cost) in six months. I’m still big on starting with gekko products to begin but s9’s are incredibly cheap and low risk as an entry unit. Which anything under de minimis is duty/tariff free, considering the quality issues of the 17 series though some batches were well made it a fairly risky purchase especially as an entrant device.
70  Bitcoin / Pools / Re: Laurentia Pool - BAD risk for miners on: July 22, 2020, 01:34:38 PM
I don’t think it’s easy at all, considering the effort we’ve put into our project. You’re just on a personal vendetta that has nothing to do with LP and the time you waste here could be spent being much more productive on your own work. Specifically your user base, is the point I’m attempting to communicate. Which that and everyother point you mischaracterize to suit the narrative you’re after. Or just simply avoid.
We’ll keep building and you’ll keep complaining, constantly presenting yourself as a desperate, sad, forum troll short on fluoxetine and vitamin D.

If people don’t already know, spreading fear, uncertainty, and doubt to intentionally disadvantage competition is a widely known tactic, used typically in desperation and obviously with malice of intent. And why my first comment here was that this entire thread is defamation and the actual narrative here is just a really sad attempt to pump yourself and shit all over someone who is actually respected by bitcoiners.

You just enjoy your night there thinking of more ways to be unproductive.

We’ll catch up again in a few weeks and let everyone here enjoy some popcorn again ok?

#mineon
71  Bitcoin / Pools / Re: Laurentia Pool - BAD risk for miners on: July 22, 2020, 05:27:34 AM
No, I’m saying you simply reap the rewards from the effort you put in. Obviously you don’t care about your pool to focus your efforts there.

My wife never touches her desktop yet it’s been on 24/7/365 for years as well.

We can go back an forth forever. There's nothing in your criticisms that is note worthy.
72  Bitcoin / Pools / Re: Laurentia Pool - BAD risk for miners on: July 22, 2020, 04:40:04 AM
We can go back an forth forever. There's nothing in your criticisms that is note worthy as every pool has it's features and benefits. You're biased as are we, we can just admit it. Also our code isn't public so please stop assuming you know anything about anything regarding LP. It's a protected mining environment and although -ck would like to make it public we've asked him not to at this point. Which you can flame as non transparent as well but other ops don't have public code either.

0.3% fee covers the cost of operating the pool and more at our minimum cadence, to drive more development specifically to the pool. I've already addressed block loss due to operational error. The fee also scales for us as operators like any other pool, so the more hashrate the sooner we can have reserves and leave fiat based insurance and the more we an do for our users. This is grass roots startup with no VC funding rounds, no grants, and is the product of considerable thought and analysis, and we specifically reached out to -ck because of his skill and bitcoin centric motivations. Also his care for performance, professionalism, and the synergy for us works 110%. We're also showing how operators needlessly rent seek miners with high fees, though we're not greedy but still want our payday. As well we're very transparent in our fee as large pool already have back door deals with farms for considerably low fees. As every hash has the same probability it doesn't make sense to tax one user over another. We don't have a login requirement just pw, and no op wallet to manage for users. So overhead is even less. So who is putting reward and personal data at more risk? I wouldn't trust you hold a door a for someone let alone hold coin.

It's fine if you think you operate a pool "better", I would believe all operators would make the same case. You just seem to be fixated on LP for reasons already mentioned prior. Again, I'm flattered for the attention you give us, as it's just more exposure. Where any sane person easily sees that there's been considerable thought into our design and we're more than proud to work along side -ck. It's also ok if you disagree with anything and everything, we can't please everyone.

If you want to take my distain for pools with a considerable fee that in my opinion doesn't really innovate for it's pool base but funds projects and also excepts grant monies for projects, it fits the narrative you'd like to tell, though completely out of context. And as once a long time Slush Pool user I'm allowed as a consumer to have an opinion on their service. I also don't have a flaming thread attempting to discredit all their work, nor have I cared to flame your work excessively like you do. It also shows that anyone can pick anything apart if they choose to. We don't have a great relationship with Slush Pool but still these are people we happily engage with and always look to have productive, provoking discourse and they take my critiques seriously in our private and public conversations.

Even after all your blatant attempts to incite us to come down to your "karen'ing" of the mining section here, just tells me you're more focused on what others are doing than your own work. Likely scrambling for a FIBRE fix thinking your some sort of god while we already made their loss a non event for us, like many other points in our design.

If you'd like to continue to compare LP to a free and feely open community pool that's ok as well but still has nothing to do with LP besides any arbitrary association you stretch to make. And again, you're still using this thread to promote YOUR work, YOUR preferences, and lack of relationship skills under the guise of some sjw assumptive, conjecture that you then reflect onto us.

You could be so much more productive than continue to write replies that will be tl;dr'd once people realize the immense time sink this is to no result. Which you seem to have in ample supply, showing it's doesn't take much to run a pool now does it. 

We cut zero corners with our services, which are provided at a high level or would not occur. We have limited risk considerably in multiple ways for our users. Our whitepaper isn't perfect but considering the competition is well ahead of the curve and we're not going anywhere.

"So get used to it".

#mineon
73  Bitcoin / Pools / Re: Laurentia Pool - BAD risk for miners on: July 22, 2020, 12:04:27 AM
FIBRE is non essential for LP or solo ckpool, it's loss will be missed by the network but ck pools are unaffected. So beyond that our server is extremely well connected and block switching is extremely fast for both the pool -ck hosts and LP which he co-operates specifically the server side.

Of course like you state any pool which submits a "winning" share from two miners at the same will have conflict. Our whitepaper outlines well our take on networking, and reasoning for our single node setup. I'm not sure what you're trying to argue as larger pools are starting to either adopt something similar or develop more on stratum like V2 which is mostly to support better the inefficiencies of satellite/proxy nodes within the same pool. Also we don't expect higher orphan chance, we expect less than competitors.

Our UI now although very basic displays best share so I'm not sure how we're not transparent as you claim when other pools provide less insight in these metrics, but still have the need to attack our service. Our goal as well is to use our fee to build out the UI to our users needs which could include more metrics requested by consensus. If anything we, including -ck are very open and transparent. Likely this is well known by anyone who has engaged with us before.

Everything you state in this thread is extremely assumptive, we've had great response to our whitepaper and service even from competitors. Which most are welcoming and excited to have new challengers in the sector. So it's more odd you give us soo much negative attention, then I've addressed my speculation on that in previous replies.

As for the technical aspects you'd have to consult -ck but I know that relationship is tarnished, so good luck getting answers. I'll just say there is a reason we chose new high end equipment to host our server on, to not just benefit us as operators but to benefit our users and future optimizations and efficiencies without restraint. 

The quote, those are my words and if wrong I'm happy to fall on that sword. It just shows our confidence in our product and displays without a doubt we're here to compete and drive results. I'm ok with being arrogant or perceived as in this regard, I do find it amusing though that this argument comes from you of all people here.

Please continue to feel free to slander our product and pump your own at the same time which is the theme of this thread. I just don't think you'll be able to piggyback our momentum this way.

70.1 PH in commitments so far, 230 PH needed pending network, likely less now honestly if trend continues.

"Laruentia Pool - BAD risk for miners. .. to not mine with us".

#mineon
74  Bitcoin / Mining / Re: Bitcoin Mining Pool distribution on: July 21, 2020, 12:51:58 PM
Now do a pie chart of pool by operating country and see your decentralization results.

Any PPS score isn’t really dependent on luck unless maybe fpps where they average txs fee with reward.

I’ll be very interested to see how LP shapes up once commitments hit our minimum in regard to “profitability” measures. Luck and tx fees will drive our result certainly.
75  Bitcoin / Hardware / Re: GekkoScience NewPac / Terminus R606 (BM1387) Official Support Thread on: July 15, 2020, 03:08:49 PM
Has anyone running on rockpro64? Seems to be a popular node setup for node enthusiasts lately.
76  Bitcoin / Hardware / Re: GekkoScience NewPac / Terminus R606 (BM1387) Official Support Thread on: July 11, 2020, 07:09:21 PM
We exchange emails fairly regularly. He been super busy working on a local project and gs gear of course.
77  Bitcoin / Mining speculation / Re: It is 2020 time for a new diff thread. on: July 09, 2020, 04:57:11 PM
What does mempool size have to do with lower hashrate? the fees rewards are too small to be considered as the cause of a drop of 15EH worth of hashrate when current average network hashrate is about 100EH, that's nearly 15%.

At the time of writing the average fees for this month has been 0.27BTC per block (266BTC for 964 blocks), that's 4.4% of the block reward (6.25BTC), so even if the mempool was completely empty 15% drop in the hashrate is not possible.

Fees were quite heavy and you can see surplus hr adjust at time. Average fee when I post was about 0.6 BTC for a a couple hours, easily correlate profit switchers adjusting to it. Which fee are still up on 24 rolling average close to a 6.6 reward.
78  Alternate cryptocurrencies / Mining (Altcoins) / Re: GMiner v2.14 Equihash/CuckooCycle/Ethash/ProgPoW/KAWPOW on: July 08, 2020, 07:16:21 PM
I'm getting about 24.5 on my 1080 ti. twitch.tv/minefarmbuy

+10v 60%pwr 125core 740mem
79  Bitcoin / Mining speculation / Re: It is 2020 time for a new diff thread. on: July 06, 2020, 06:08:58 PM
Yea, that hack sucked. I gave up trying to recoup my payback since they've changed their operations so much and require login's now I believe.

Looks like network is adjusting to lower mempool size, down about 15EH from a just a day ago or so.
80  Bitcoin / Mining speculation / Re: It is 2020 time for a new diff thread. on: July 02, 2020, 08:29:53 PM
There are also a lot of big purchases currently, less available product doesn't bode well for asic pricing to come down, along with hr hitting 130EH. Holding patterns for a lot of miners are defiantly happening unless we start to see resellers compete in pricing to move stagnate product. 
Pages: « 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 ... 85 »
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!