We have been like this for almost a week and have remained floating around 1 USD. That's pretty damn good, in my opinion.
+1 |
|
|
|
guys
its been almost 2 month mining Vert Coin, i recently noticed that mining scrypt-n consume alot of bandwidth (almost 650 MB per Day)
i just wanted to know if is it the standard, or there is something wrong going on
Interesting question, I never thought about bandwidth used for mining. I had a look at my traffic logs, and yes, something in the order of 500 MB/day seems to be possible. First point: There really should be no difference in traffic between "normal" scrypt and scrypt-n. The client/server protocol stays the same, it's just the hashing algo which is changed. Second point: To reduce traffic you could tune the stratum protocol. Set your miner's minimum diff to 128 or 256, so fewer hashes will be submitted to the pool. (I don't know if the pools you're mining at allow to set the diff manually. Read their FAQs or ask the pool operator...) Third point: You could set up a local p2pool node on your miner pc. So the whole mining traffic will stay local. In exchange you will get additional traffic for vertcoind and p2pool network. If you use the available command line switches to limit vertcoind and p2pool to only a few peers, IMHO this traffic should be far less than mining traffic. But this is my thought only, if you choose to try this option, don't rely on this without measuring your actual traffic. |
|
|
|
Meanwhile while all this silent dev crap talk here i am testing electrum vert btw:
Very, very cool stuff.  Let me know if you need somebody for beta-testing and/or running an electrum server. |
|
|
|
Is there a monocle p2pool network (not a vertcoin/execoin p2pool that is solo mining monocle on top of the pool coin)? I'd like to add a mon node...
Yes, there is, I run one at mon.coinpools.de:26888Feel free to use it or to connect your own node. But understand that this is more experimental than useful for mining as you "throw away" your possible VTC earnings when directing your miner to a MON only pool. To run your own node use this code in networks.py: monocle=math.Object(
PARENT=networks.nets['monocle'],
SHARE_PERIOD=15, # seconds
CHAIN_LENGTH=24*60*60//10, # shares
REAL_CHAIN_LENGTH=24*60*60//10, # shares
TARGET_LOOKBEHIND=200, # shares
SPREAD=12, # blocks
IDENTIFIER='a06a81c827cababc'.decode('hex'),
PREFIX='7c3614a6bcdcfabc'.decode('hex'),
P2P_PORT=26889,
MIN_TARGET=4,
MAX_TARGET=2**256//2**20 - 1,
PERSIST=False,
WORKER_PORT=26888,
BOOTSTRAP_ADDRS='mon.coinpools.de'.split(' '),
ANNOUNCE_CHANNEL='#p2pool-vtc',
VERSION_CHECK=lambda v: True,
),
and in bitcoin/networks.py: monocle=math.Object(
P2P_PREFIX='e1d7fcef'.decode('hex'),
P2P_PORT=6889,
ADDRESS_VERSION=50,
RPC_PORT=6888,
RPC_CHECK=defer.inlineCallbacks(lambda bitcoind: defer.returnValue(
'monocleaddress' in (yield bitcoind.rpc_help()) and
not (yield bitcoind.rpc_getinfo())['testnet']
)),
SUBSIDY_FUNC=lambda height: 25*100000000,
#>> (height + 1)//840000,
POW_FUNC=lambda data: pack.IntType(256).unpack(__import__('vtc_scrypt').getPoWHash(data)),
BLOCK_PERIOD=120, # s
SYMBOL='MON',
CONF_FILE_FUNC=lambda: os.path.join(os.path.join(os.environ['APPDATA'], 'Monocle') if platform.system() == 'Windows' else os.path.expanduser('~/Library/Application Support/Monocle/') if platform.system() == 'Darwin' else os.path.expanduser('~/.monocle'), 'monocle.conf'),
BLOCK_EXPLORER_URL_PREFIX='http://monexplorer.vertcoin.org/block/',
ADDRESS_EXPLORER_URL_PREFIX='http://monexplorer.vertcoin.org/address/',
TX_EXPLORER_URL_PREFIX='http://monexplorer.vertcoin.org/tx/',
SANE_TARGET_RANGE=(2**256//1000000000 - 1, 2**256//1000 - 1),
DUMB_SCRYPT_DIFF=2**16,
DUST_THRESHOLD=0.03e8,
),
|
|
|
|
|
new entry for whishlist @betarigs: Could you please add the algo which was mined to the reviews. Doesn't help if a rig is perfect for scrypt, but badly configured for scrypt-n...
Thanks a lot.
|
|
|
|
Linux wallet .zip file is messed up. Can't decompress it nor on Linux or OSX. Errors are shown  Best to get the source from github. But for the linux binaries: it's compressed with 7zip, you need 7z to unzip it. apt-get install p7zip-full |
|
|
|
Ports: Mainnet RPC port 6888, mainnet P2P blockchain sync port 6889. Testnet RPC 16888 and p2p 16889.
By the way, did anyone notice that 6889 is the port of the h2ocoin network? Not a big coin, really, but there are enough other ports, aren't there? |
|
|
|
Yes, but where will the devs hardfork if asic is capable to change N as well ? Don't mean to spread fud, I'm all in on vtc, but looks like things are moving a bit too fast ...
Just read a little bit about scrypt functions, e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scrypt and the pages referenced there. You'll see that these algorithms have lots of parameters. Just change one/some of them and you're rendering any perhaps-at-some-time-in-Q3-existing ASIC useless. So, basically, nothing to see here. Just move on and ignore the FUD and panic kids. |
|
|
|
There will be no changes to the p2pool code before launch. You could merge-mine monocle now if you had the wallet by just starting p2pool with run_p2pool --net vertcoin --merged http://monoclerpcuser:monoclerpcpassword@127.0.0.1:monoclerpcport
Since forrestv implemented merged mining support for Namecoin in p2pool some time ago. It's a bit on the proof of concept level though and has since been kind of forgotten by the maintainer I think. (...) Which is why we are releasing a temporary solution (my p2proxy payment scripts) for public nodes, so that they can pay their miners. What p2proxy does is sit between the p2pool node software and the miner and maintains its own shares (with a difficulty different from that of p2pool). This is done to allow it to credit miners for work even when a share hasn't been found yet (like a regular pool). This means that the monocle blocks and Vertcoin p2pool shares that get found will be paid out to the pool's wallet (or some other address if you want) and paid to the miners addresses once the coins mature. But I'm not done updating p2proxy for monocle merged mining yet.. and I now I need to get back to finishing that up. Thank you for the post. I really wanted to get more details on the p2pool solution. But I'm sorry, at the moment my reaction to this is: I'm out, as far as my public p2pool nodes are concerned. While I clearly see the difficulty to implement a shared chain solution, I'm definitely not doing anything like "collect & payout" for my VTC miners. For me, not having a pool wallet is one of the main reasons for using p2pool. I've to think a bit more about what to make of this. |
|
|
|
Mintpal : voted once again
That's unbelievable how some from-beyond-coins can be so high in the table.
This voting does say more about the business ethics of mintpal than about the importance of vertcoin  |
|
|
|
I am gonna try it, never done it, only read few discussions,
There's a lot of FUD out there concerning p2pool, and some of the warnings are more or less true for the litecoin or bitcoin p2pool (but only for them). on p2p pool list is 2nd for 1.5-3Mhash, and here are less than 1M on 2nd , is there any benefit if I go to 3rd from 2nd ? ( I have 620 khash)
thanks
These hashrate categories are no strict rule, they're more or less informational. At first you've to understand that on the long run (say: three or four weeks of constant mining) you'll earn the same amount of VTC regardless on which of the three p2pool networks you're mining. (Use one of the mining calculators to know how much to expect for your hashrate. Keep in mind that the VTC difficulty does change quite a lot, see http://www.coinwarz.com/difficulty-charts/vertcoin-difficulty-chart or so.) On the first p2pool the pool share difficulty is quite high (120K at the moment), so it is difficult for your miner to get a share at all. But when you get one, you'll get lots of small payments quickly, as the pool finds a lot of blocks (roughly 50-60 blocks per day). But one share is only valid for 12 blocks, so there will be times where the pool finds a block and you get no payment, because you're too small to find pool shares quick enough. If you can live with that, you are fine even with the biggest vtc pool (remember: these "times of no payment" are a purely psychological thing. The sum of your payments will be correct according to your hashrate.) If you - unpatient as most miners (including myself) are - prefer to get regular payments with each block the pool finds, you're better off with the second p2pool network. Share difficulty is at 20K atm, and the pool finds about 8-12 blocks per day. As a share is valid for 12 blocks also, you can be certain to get paid with each block found. The third p2pool network has quite a low hashrate atm, so it finds only 0-2 blocks per day. This can be an advantage if you prefer to get only few (but bigger) payments, or if you're a really slow miner (say you have an old spare GPU which does 50KH/s or something). So I personally don't like it, but as far as I know there's no disadvantage to use it. |
|
|
|
i understand decentralisation, but p2p is a bit problematic for <1MH miners.
That's definitely not true. I'm mining on the second p2p myself for weeks now, with about 750kH/s. It pays out regularly and quite as much as one would expect. |
|
|
|
|
Anybody knows where to get the p2pool sourcecode for caishen?
|
|
|
|
As long as the dev team stays on top of the technological advances coming out of this space as they are now we will continuously see improvement and a robustness that other coins will not have.
Agreed that sidechain-enabling merged mining is a key development. I anticipate that Vertcoin could have it before the slow moving and cautious Bitcoin Core developers get convinced to implement it. (...) There is a big first mover advantage to enabling sidechains - I think.
Totally agreed. |
|
|
|
To be honest its sad to see how the Vertcoin P2Pool network is getting destroyed by splitting it up in multiple sub pools.
Err, what? p2pool network for VTC is quite alive and works perfectly well, I can't see any signs of destruction  And I can't see any problem with having three parallel pools. If this is too complicated for you, just stick with the first well known p2pool and leave the other two pools to miners (like me...) who prefer to mine with lower share difficulty. At the moment the first pool alone has about 870 MH/s which is roughly 12% of the total VTC network hashrate. I don't know any other coin where p2pool gets such a big piece of the cake. So no signs of dying out, sorry. Edit: If you want to know how not to handle things, just look at LTC: They're well aware of the problem with too high share difficulty and resulting huge variance for smaller/normal miners. All they did is setting up a page which tells you to stay away from p2pool if you're not big enough. Very clever solution, so LTC p2pool get about 1% of the total LTC hashrate... |
|
|
|
Its a gamble and it might pay off sooner or later ;-) but the whole life is a gamble anyway. This is certainly true. But it doesn't change a thing on the fact that mining isn't profitable atm with powercosts of 0.20-0.25 Eur. If you think VTC value will rise in the future, just take your money to cryptsy and buy some VTC there. It's cheaper than to mine them. |
|
|
|
Hello devs! any comment? Fix is broken, you're still wasting other people's hashpower... I'm out for now  //Exploit fix https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=552895
if (LatestBlockTime < BlockReading->GetBlockTime()) {
if (BlockReading->nHeight > 9000)
LatestBlockTime = BlockReading->GetBlockTime();
So the wallet is still broken, as the fix will apply after block 9000 only. Or do I get something wrong here? |
|
|
|
Who is coding this??? //Exploit fix https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=552895
if (LatestBlockTime < BlockReading->GetBlockTime()) {
if (BlockReading->nHeight > 9000)
LatestBlockTime = BlockReading->GetBlockTime();
So the wallet is still broken, as the fix will apply after block 9000 only. Or do I get something wrong here? |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
