And you can verify your books by getting a reputable 3rd party auditor to audit your figures and verify them for us to see. As I remember, mtGox's user database was stolen during "3rd party audit" :) |
|
|
|
Ist there any other port to use? My ISP blocks port 8332. Any chance to make port 80, 443 or anything like this available? Currently no other ports are available for mining. Have you tried asking your ISP support to unblock it ? |
|
|
|
I am trusting that Tycho will wait for us to all calm down, eventually review this thread, determine that the consensus is clearly with Gavin, and run with it. Looks like I have to remind one of my points: - I don't think that there is any chance of BIP17 winning because it's not supported by any major force besides Eligius (sorry, luke)
I like the fact that it doesn't uses magic cases and serialized form, but it may have drawbacks too. Also, I expect most people to be disappointed if I choose BIP17. So I'll repeat: I don't think that there is any serious competition between BIP16 and BIP17. The only question is WHEN BIP16 will be adopted (if no other proposals appear soon). I would immediately support any plain multisig scheme or sane long-address multisig TX proposal as possible first-stage on our way to P2SH to allow people play with it and get more time for preparing P2SH deployment. |
|
|
|
Michael Marquardt (theymos) suggests compiling a list of everyone intimate with the bitcoin protocol to invite to a two-week email discussion. After those two-weeks a vote is taken. It will be the job of the champions of each idea (BIP 16, BIP 17 and no change) to win over the committee into supporting them. If an idea has necessary support, bitcoin clients will be programmed to apply the new rules for 3 months in the future. Good idea, but it solves a problem that never existed (chosing between BIP16 and BIP17). |
|
|
|
Thanks for the explanation. It would be nice if stats are delayed by a day or so in this pool, or a hopper unfriendly payment scheme could be implemented. Stats delaying is not effective anymore, there are other ways to detect pool's new blocks. |
|
|
|
|
Всё правильно с банковским выводом. Просто он не предназначен для таких незначительных сумм.
CP1252 → CP1251
Moderator
|
|
|
|
Tycho, are you waiting for 50%+ of hashing power to confirm to activate any of the BIPs?
At this moment I decided to start working on implementing BIP16 when 50% of OTHER (not total) miners "vote" for it. This may be changed if some new scary bugs are found or other important info becomes available. I don't like the "special case" magic and serialized script form in BIP16, but if most people want it (or lured by Gavin), then I'll let it be. As I said before, I'm not going to oppose the majority. |
|
|
|
did you notice deepbit pool voted with 1 block so far? http://blockchain.info/p2shI missed the info however that he [Tycho] chosed a side in the 16 vs 17 poll. was this 1 block / vote an accident or just saying "I'm watching you, here's my .5 % of voting capacity" No, I didn't. It's a false positive, possibly caused by my node relaying someone else's new block. I wouldn't choose a side because I don't like both. |
|
|
|
Thats rather disturbing. More than 3 double spends being attempted as we speak by the looks of it.
Most of those "attempts" are just people recently restored their wallet.dat from backups or trying to use copies of same wallet.dat file on different PCs without performing full rescan. It's not dangerous. |
|
|
|
There are many reasons not to pull any tricks with "selling mining power"
So, what is the purpose of selling hash power to someone else? Possible reasons: 1) Direct this mining power to some pool with lower fees and just take the difference without supporting own servers. 2) Sell it to some other reseller, paying more than 0% PPS. 3) Sell it directly as mining contracts. This may sound like a kind of gambling, but some persons may think that in future, with ongoing difficulty or USD/BTC rate adjustments they can gain more than the amount paid for given hashrate. Sometimes this is profitable. |
|
|
|
So I've made a bit of progress and have patched bitcoin-js so it can generate multi-sig transactions and also patched my bitcoind with the latest git Script changes.
However for some reason the MultiSig transactions are not passing IsStandard() and are being rejected. They aren't standard, you should patch your bitcoind to mine them into blocks. |
|
|
|
The second is that I recently discovered the pool I am with is selling its mining power and isn't really mining its own blocks. I did not sign up for that and someone said Deepbit is doing the same thing but I do not believe that is the case. Can you please confirm that deepbit is not selling any of its hashing power? No, we are not selling any hashing power. Hashes of all our mined blocks are published on the stats page and can be analyzed by anyone to check this. There are many reasons not to pull any tricks with "selling mining power", including those: 1) relaying shares to some other place greatly reduces stability. 2) selling small part of hashing power is meaningless, but selling most power is impossible since very few private projects can sustain it (if any) 3) (I forgot the 3rd one, but it has something to do with responsibility) As for the case with your other pool, I think that pure PPS pool can do anything he wants with those shares unless you don't like some specific usage. |
|
|
|
hmmmmmmmmmm.... Clearly i am wrong.... I suppose i fucked up on my earlier testing? Somehow? Some months ago we had US server too, that may explain your first results. |
|
|
|
I wonder why rush to deploy such extremally dangereous changes
without months of torturing testing on the testnet ??
I mean BOTH proposals (16 and 17).
Gavin created a bot that makes BIP17 testing impossible on the testnet. You are kidding, right ? No, I'm not: Luke has had to test BIP 17 on the main network instead of testnet because I wrote a BIP-17-stealing robot and ran it on testnet * Disclaimer: I don't think that BIP17 is better than BIP16. Both are ugly hacks. I will support one only if most other miners will. |
|
|
|
I wonder why rush to deploy such extremally dangereous changes
without months of torturing testing on the testnet ??
I mean BOTH proposals (16 and 17).
Gavin created a bot that makes BIP17 testing impossible on the testnet. |
|
|
|
" There are four functional fundamental implementations of the bitcoin protocol" - looks like you forgot about the Ufasoft client. |
|
|
|
Wasn't DB the first PPS pool? Actually BitPenny was the first one, but he gone bankrupt later. |
|
|
|
-how much fiat is deposited
-how much btc is deposited I don't think that it's a good idea because it looks like a security risk. -show us your entire profit history
-show us the entire costs of running your business Why do you think that a business should provide such info ? |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
