|
Finally this coin is re-testing the 20 - 25k range. Maybe after this we can get a real rise instead of that janky pump crap like late August.
|
|
|
|
Anyone else's wallet not syncing? I have had up to 8 connections but it's stuck at Oct 7 @ 13:22 UTC.
Who do you have in your peers list in your config file? My node is up to the latest block height. I didn't have any but trying it now after adding a couple. Anyway just wanted to make sure the problem was on my end. I think I might have corruption in my blockchain files cuz of a crash while the wallet was open, so I'll try resyncing from scratch. EDIT: Deleting and re-syncing the blockchain fixed it. |
|
|
|
|
Anyone else's wallet not syncing? I have had up to 8 connections but it's stuck at Oct 7 @ 13:22 UTC.
|
|
|
|
That should be easy with that much hash rate shouldn't it? With such a farm trying to maximize profit I don't see why they wouldn't do that too.
You do realize Supernova has the majority of the hashrate, right? Hadn't checked in a while, but I assume that's still the case, yeah. Doesn't mean anything if total hashrate is 3.25M and someone steps in with 3.75M to make 7M total. Anyway I'm just sayin I think madbuda's scenario seems likely after seeing that, and threw the double spending in on top as a possibility, but I also have a tendency to wear tinfoil hats too ¯\_(ツ)_/¯. In my experience if someone can do something to benefit themselves and get away with it they will 98% of the time, regardless of ethicality. |
|
|
|
|
That should be easy with that much hash rate shouldn't it? With such a farm trying to maximize profit I don't see why they wouldn't do that too.
|
|
|
|
wow didn't expect such a high difficulty in a short time
Yeah I noticed earlier that total hashrate was over 7 MSol/s. Maybe what is happening is every so often some huge farm is jumping in, mining a bunch of blocks, doing some double spending, and leaving after the difficulty is driven up. |
|
|
|
|
Wow awesome! I appreciate the effort and responses. Having a dev like this makes me even more confident in this project.
|
|
|
|
|
I tried disabling ad blocker and also enabling pop-ups for your site but no change. I am using chromium v60.0. I have my location and camera set to blocked, javascript allowed, images to 'show all', and everything else set to allow or ask first.
Would it be possible to just check actual vs expected luck on the pools that you can and ignore the pools that you can't for now?
|
|
|
|
I've been mining hush for a while now (probably 2 months-ish), both at hushpool.cloud and at madmining.club, and I've noticed my payouts are consistently around 25 or 30% less than what I'm seeing on whattomine.com.
I have about 1k Sol/s, and according to whattomine I should be getting 2.2/day and instead I got 1.7. When the difficulty was lower and I was supposed to be getting 3.5 or 4, I was getting 2.5 to 3, etc.
When I was mining on hushpool.cloud I would look at the stats and the pool luck was always at -30% over the previous 4 days (or 7 or whatever the number it was using for the average)
At madmining I don't see the actual luck, just the calculated luck (what it should be getting) but I assume it is also getting bad luck.
What gives? Is this what you would expect to see happening if someone was doing a 51% attack? I understand bad luck can happen for any given day or even a period of days on a fluke, but consistently over this long a time frame? Seems like something is up.
What to mine is a point in time estimate based off a moving average I believe. Hush having a small network hashrate can have large swings in difficulty throughout the day. A large miner or private pool points to hush and say has 1MSol/s (roughly 25-50% network hashrate) for 20 or so blocks then moves to another algo while we are left having to deal with a high difficulty for a few hours. This can skew earning a lot... This happens to other coins but if you look at zcash 350MSol/s 1MSol/s miner will not make a huge impact on the network like it will to hush with 3.hMsol/s So, while yes whattomine cannot give a good estimate you should be close when you look at 7+ days A good gauge is to look at shares per block, with our current hashrate I would expect most to be under 100k shares https://madmining.club/blocks you can see we had 3 well over that. This is a combination of luck and swings in difficulty (which you can see here http://myhush.network/stats.html ) Thanks for the response. That could explain what's happening, but is there any way to tell? That link you provided only shows a blank page for me, with tabs at the top. But if you or someone has a server with all the stats (total diff, hash rate per pool, and blocks found) over a period of a few weeks or a month or whatever, you should be able to check exactly the actual vs expected luck for each pool right? I'm not sure how trivial that would be but I assume there must be tools that could parse and analyze that data for the relevant stats. |
|
|
|
Those numbers are for mining ETH only though. I'm not sure what kind of load or voltage it takes to dual mine, but the last time I tried it (way back when Claymore first implemented it for DCR only) it was way too high. With ETH only the cards are running @ 850 - 925mV @ 1220MHz on the core.
Yes, the power usage isn't as good if you dual mine... But if you were mining DCR and holding it back then... It's worth $34 or so now, instead of $9. DCR is a great coin with a lot of potential. I still have "some" rigs dual mining DCR. Most people dual mine and do whatever is profitable at that moment. They don't analyze the potential for the coin long term. I see both sides of the coin (see what I did there?) but in my own experience going for the long term has proven to be more valuable. I agree with you on regarding Decred, I think it will have a jump to going near current Monero prices in the not too long future. --ypsi I get that, I'm just trying to help dude figure out why his power consumption his high and provide some numbers for context. The fact that I was afraid of burning out the VRMs on my only cards a year ago is not the point. |
|
|
|
|
Well switching pools is a possible option, but I'm more curious if anyone has noticed the same thing; and if maybe madbuda could comment on his pool's actual luck; and/or if anyone has, or knows where to see, all the statistics of pool vs. network hashrate, and actual vs. expected blocks found across multiple pools over time, to be able to see if there really is something up.
|
|
|
|
|
I have a 4 card rig (2x 570 & 2x 580) with a bronze PSU that consumes ~580W at the wall. When the system is idling it consumes about 80W, so it's taking about 125W per card. With a more efficient power supply it could be 115W/card or less.
GPU-Z and afterburner report between 80 - 90 W each, but that only accounts for what the core uses and not efficiency losses or memory subsystem.
Those numbers are for mining ETH only though. I'm not sure what kind of load or voltage it takes to dual mine, but the last time I tried it (way back when Claymore first implemented it for DCR only) it was way too high. With ETH only the cards are running @ 850 - 925mV @ 1220MHz on the core.
|
|
|
|
|
I've been mining hush for a while now (probably 2 months-ish), both at hushpool.cloud and at madmining.club, and I've noticed my payouts are consistently around 25 or 30% less than what I'm seeing on whattomine.com.
I have about 1k Sol/s, and according to whattomine I should be getting 2.2/day and instead I got 1.7. When the difficulty was lower and I was supposed to be getting 3.5 or 4, I was getting 2.5 to 3, etc.
When I was mining on hushpool.cloud I would look at the stats and the pool luck was always at -30% over the previous 4 days (or 7 or whatever the number it was using for the average)
At madmining I don't see the actual luck, just the calculated luck (what it should be getting) but I assume it is also getting bad luck.
What gives? Is this what you would expect to see happening if someone was doing a 51% attack? I understand bad luck can happen for any given day or even a period of days on a fluke, but consistently over this long a time frame? Seems like something is up.
|
|
|
|
in the real world this coin just lost 50 % in value,
but we are in disneyland and the price per coin just went up a bit.
Nothing actually happened to the supply, just one website's accounting of it. It's only half as undervalued as one would have thought by glancing at it on that site, but that still leaves it incredibly undervalued. I don't understand what you two are saying, could you explain this to me ? I'm saying his statement would only be true if the supply of coins had actually doubled. Since that did not happen, the value did not change. What I was saying was that if you were taking the previous (false) coin supply numbers reported by coinmarketcap at face value, then it would appear that the coin went down in value. But even if that were the case, it's still very undervalued. For example; compare the market cap of ~4M to ZCash's ~400M. Even if you think 1 HUSH is only worth, say, 1/10th what 1 ZEC is worth, then 1 HUSH is still worth 10x its current price, as opposed to the previously perceived 20x. |
|
|
|
in the real world this coin just lost 50 % in value,
but we are in disneyland and the price per coin just went up a bit.
Nothing actually happened to the supply, just one website's accounting of it. It's only half as undervalued as one would have thought by glancing at it on that site, but that still leaves it incredibly undervalued. |
|
|
|
|
You should check your logs or keep an eye on it when it gets to that point again to see if that was the problem first.
|
|
|
|
|
Right, instead of reading what I wrote or trying to understand it, you just imply that I don't understand how market cap is calculated or how to read the chart, as if that clears everything up and the question can be overlooked. Meanwhile you don't bother to look at the chart yourself even after your first reply. Since I was talking about dollar value and market cap, that means btc value is obviously already factored in. Now we have several posts back and forth and it got us nowhere. The same Dunning–Kruger shit happens all the time and it gets pretty annoying after awhile.
|
|
|
|
Why Claymore restarts once a week? Always when it reaches about 135 hours running (with no issues) it restarts, no one GPU fails. I don't understand... Claymore is configured for do this once a week? Please tell me. Many thanks
You probably ran out of physical or virtual memory. I've had claymore run for at least 2 weeks before and only stopped it manually to do an update. |
|
|
|
|
Didn't he say he was just renting rigs temporarily?
I think it's a good thing for devs to own or 'mine' some of their coin, just so you can be sure that they will continue to have an interest in the price and development, etc....but 10% of the team's folding power does seem a little excessive.
Still, I agree there's no reason he shouldn't be able to spend his own money renting those servers. On the flip side though if enough folders have issues with that it may not be the best stance to take.
|
|
|
|
Because Coinmarketcap had the wrong supply (static value) and have since gotten it closer to what the actual supply is (block height x 12.5)
Ok thanks. Did this coin have the same slow start like ZCash or was it 12.5/block right from the start? Even if so I guess that would have only affected the first 20k blocks anyway so it wouldn't have a huge effect on total supply at this point. coinmarketcap must have had over 1 million coins unnacounted for :p |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
