That doesn't make them pyramid schemes.

At least people are incentivized to hold and not just trade the majority of the available supply.

Also, if you call masternodes pyramid schemes, what about Proof of Stake coins? They're even worse in terms of the rich gets richer while staking wallets also have much less use than masternodes.

Is there a way to solomine with a wallet in testnet mode without peers? So mining blocks from 1 without nodes?

That would help us test nexus miners.

Yay, centralized services!

I strongly disagree with that. Known leaders behind coins is what brings an unnecessary layer of politics and personality to coins.

Besides, no coins should have leaders.

No coin should have a single (or even a couple of) known people behind them.

I strongly believe Bitcoin's success partly comes from the detachment of a single active leader and mystery of Satoshi.

As soon as a coin is tied to a known and active person it becomes problematic; it introduces unnecessary politics, opinions and personality. It takes away from decentralization.

It only happens with Eth and other coins using the same algo, Dagger-Hashimoto.

The DAG file that's required to hash keeps increasing over time which makes it slower and slower.

Not sure if it's a good read but first google result explaining the situation: https://steemit.com/ethereum/@thexmikkel/ethereum-mining-dag-file-grows-rx-series-hashrate-decreasing

Not in every case, but in most cases, yes.

Make it an Ethereum token. /s

Yay, centralized projects!

I don't get how people can trust stuff like ICOs that have a single centralized website that can be manipulated (eg. "649846 BTC donated already!") or hacked.

Only if each jackpot also comes with a Spoetnik quote. 

I liked JPC and I'd like another coin like that. Sweepstakes tried to be that but it's a failure and jackpot blocks are still disabled.

Couldn't agree more.

Coins never replace each other, otherwise Bitcoin would be a thing of the past.

Coins can co-exist amd this only-one-coin-can-win cutthroat mentality is both silly and pointless.

Agreed, there's no reason to use 10 for mining.

Also, for mining rigs with no valuable data on them it's much better to have a static system which doesn't keep changing in the background, meaning auto updates and scheduled tasks being completely disabled. No surprises that way. A lot of long term stability issues are coming from windows always doing stuff in the background. Eliminate that and you get more stability.

Also, if you don't intend to connect to teamviewer outside of your local network, it's advised to set it that it only accepts local connections. You can also disable autoupdating so your teamviewer isn't going online at all. No surprises and no risks that way.

Otherwise, auto updating is of course recommended.

Way overkill and likely very loud.

I have rigs running with up to 8 wallets with only 4GB ram, lots of pagefile and a dualcore Pentium without issues.

That difficulty is how big chunks of work are required by the pool. Higher difficulty means it takes longer for your miner to solve the job (find a share) and vice versa.

Both too low and too high difficulty is disadvantageous.

The difficulty of your shares are calculated accordingl to well, their difficulty which is what the pool reported hashrate is calculated from.

You'll probably want a difficulty that allows you to find a share between about every 10-30 seconds.

Most pools will override your defined difficulty setting as time goes on if it's set too high or too low so it mostly acts as a starting difficulty.

Not defining it will just mean the pool will give you the starting difficulty (which you can see when you start mining).

You clearly have no idea about what flashmining is.

PIVX was not flashmined at all. 1440 blocks were intended to be generated each day, which it did:

block 1: 29 Jan 2016
block 1440: 31 Jan 2016
block 2880: 01 Feb 2016
block 4320: 02 Feb 2016
block 5760: 03 Feb 2016
block 7200: 04 Feb 2016
block 8640: 05 Feb 2016
block 10080: 06 Feb 2016
block 11520: 08 Feb 2016
block 12960: 09 Feb 2016
block 14400: 10 Feb 2016
block 15840: 11 Feb 2016
block 17280: 12 Feb 2016
block 18720: 13 Feb 2016
block 20160: 14 Feb 2016
block 21600: 15 Feb 2016
block 23040: 16 Feb 2016
block 24480: 17 Feb 2016
block 25920: 18 Feb 2016
block 27360: 19 Feb 2016
block 28800: 20 Feb 2016
block 30240: 21 Feb 2016
block 31680: 22 Feb 2016
block 33120: 23 Feb 2016
block 34560: 25 Feb 2016
block 36000: 26 Feb 2016
...

I couldn't care less about Dash and I dislike the comparisons between PIVX and Dash but since you brought it up here's the first few days of Dash:
block 1: 19 Jan 2014
block 576: 19 Jan 2014
block 1152: 19 Jan 2014
block 1728: 19 Jan 2014
block 2304: 19 Jan 2014
block 2880: 19 Jan 2014
block 3456: 19 Jan 2014
block 4032: 19 Jan 2014
block 4608: 20 Jan 2014

Each line should have been mined a different day (576 blocks per day).

There's nothing wrong with that. 6 months of mining is plenty.


That's a backwards way of looking at it. Why should have early investors sold their MNs? What makes you think they didn't? PIVX had plenty of rollercoasters both price and stability-wise so likely most masternodes changed hands by now. I'm sure early Dash masternodes were very lucrative as well.


What do you consider "few people"? Also, when Dash launched X11 was new so it was also subject to being mined with publicly unavailable, optimized GPU (and even CPU) miners which were much faster. So it's safe to say only a few people mined with great speeds early on as well. Quark in early 2016 was well known and optimized so it was fair.


So was Dash when it was the same age. And it's easy to break down coins into many addresses and Dash owners had plenty of time to do that so we don't know how much the top 250 holders hold.


- Because that didn't happen and it's easy to verify which should people do before talking about them as fact.

I know that you're account is just for shilling for Dash and I see you've been spewing the same uninformed nonsense about Pivx since your very first post in April and I'm not expecting you to stop, my reply is simply to try prevent new people believing your nonsense. And for someone who complains about Dash being compared to Pivx, that's all you're doing.

I have two wallets running on two different computers and one wallet is almost always a few blocks behind with the debug.log filled with:
***** Core LLP: Unified Samples Out of Drift Scope Current (8205) Samples (8234)

Both wallets have 8 nodes connected and the time is also synchronized.

This is the part in the source for the error but it's no help to me: https://github.com/Nexusoft/Nexus/blob/master/src/core/unifiedtime.cpp#L287

What is causing this?

I only mine Storj and disk activity is pretty low. But it depends on how much of the shared space is filled which takes months to get even ~20 GB.

I don't know about Burst, I haven't mind it in years.

Even super slow HDDs are enough for Burst/Sia/Storj. For Storj your bottleneck will be CPU/RAM/bandwidth way before disk speed.

Besides, per gigabyte SSD prices are super high compared to disks which makes it a bad investment.

At the time of writing that's almost exactly 1 block per day. Which is $3.3 before electricity.

V10 fix3 @ 192W PL, +80/-502 - 14.3 Mh/s
V11 fix1 @ 192W PL, +80/-502 - 14.7 Mh/s
V11 fix1 @ 275W PL, +80/-502 - 16.0 Mh/s

So that's 3% BUT I'm heavily power starving my cards (192 watts for the test) as I have some issues with all my cards crashing around 100% (300W) power, even if I only mine with a single card on a 1600W EVGA P2 PSU so I guess I should replace my risers after all these years as I can't see anything else having issues.

So my results might not what others should expect.

I did some test at 100% PL and even beyond which made a much bigger difference but I've lost the results and had to manually restart my test rig about a dozen times and I CBA to do them all over again. Either way, good job sp_!