Ok, so why is Avast finding the new 1.3.1 wallet to be a virus? I have had zero problems downloading and running wallets. Is this an Avast change or a change to the wallet code?
Try submitting the wallet file to Avast for analysis, then they might update their virus definitions to give the wallet a clean bill of health. Just to be clear: NEVER send your wallet.dat file to anyone. Keep it private! The "wallet file" they are talking about is Guldencoin131.exe |
|
|
|
|
Or let /GeertJohan work on his simulator and have GuldenDiffAlgo, that will also work in future situations.
|
|
|
|
@Fuse, I guess not many people have seen it then. [edit] I'm a bit surprised that all this "profit" for miners on CM was only from NLG.  [/edit] |
|
|
|
Gazo at 22% now. :/
we have a new clevermining? This multipool has been on our chain already before DIGI, but didn't manage to get more than 10%. With the price rise yesterday I think things got more profitable for them (together with the hashrate drop by Frais and me that might even be more). Still, not as bad with Clever (they keep < 50% and block times are still reasonable). |
|
|
|
|
I'm still very happy with DIGI. Current situation is better than the past few months.
|
|
|
|
Slow blocks generation is a problem.
Please enlighten us with your explanation why this is. |
|
|
|
Don't we need more daily/hourly blocks to offer the NLG users a stable fast network? Regardless of if we are a bit ahead of schedule with creation of coins.
I did a quick calculation this morning. The change to 400 blocks would mean that the block time is about 30 seconds longer than target (so, 3 minutes instead of 2,5 minutes). I did some math too, I came up with between 3.5 and 4 minutes or .278 blocks every minute. But "target" is just that, a target and not an actual. As people hop on and off mining, it will fluctuate as we're seeing, especially with people renting large hashes.  If there was a constant hashrate, we'd see closer to 2.5 minutes. I'm satisfied for now with DIGI. It's doing it's job as far as diff spikes. 400/24=16.67/60=.278 blocks per minute or one block is found every 3.59 minutes Can we get an actual number of blocks found over the last 24 hours? No, hasn't been 24 hours yet But soon. 3, 3.5, 4 minutes... nothing to worry about for guldencoin functionality. |
|
|
|
Don't we need more daily/hourly blocks to offer the NLG users a stable fast network? Regardless of if we are a bit ahead of schedule with creation of coins.
I did a quick calculation this morning. The change to 400 blocks would mean that the block time is about 30 seconds longer than target (so, 3 minutes instead of 2,5 minutes). |
|
|
|
Thank you for adding us. I'll have a look into the exchange. 849 sat is a nice price. |
|
|
|
Spread the hashes folks, Criptoe at 49%
Did that already when Criptoe hit the 51% a few hours ago. Same here. But hashes are still better spread than 24 hours ago. I guess Criptoe managed to profit from new miners coming in. |
|
|
|
Finetuning and testing with the simulator will do the rest.
There's no finetuning. I asked GJ yesterday in the chat if we can expect some Digi tweaking after for example a week. There're no plans at all to change the code. Unless there are some big problems. This is it. But development of the simulator will go on for future plans, isn't it? Maybe GJ can give insight on this. Yep, but that will probably be a completely new algo, not some variation on DIGI. |
|
|
|
2) Where did that 6GH/s come from? New dedicated miners?
I'm renting around 5 Gh/s at this moment.. It is dropping again. Not sure what is causing that. |
|
|
|
Gazo is another one, but their ability to get blocks is way less than what Clever managed to get in the past. Both are at 11% together at the moment. |
|
|
|
|
1) Block time of >30 minutes is still too long for me, to be honest. Diff extremes seem to be like pre-digi.
2) Where did that 6GH/s come from? New dedicated miners?
3) Are people on the other chain still able to send transactions? And get validations (by Clever)?
|
|
|
|
Do we inform CM miners that their pool OP is wasting 4GH of their mining power on a fork because he doesn't pay attention to his pool, or do we let them mine nothing for all the months of raping us?
Check back on their thread and see how they told us it was our fault being abused by CM. Well, let themselves find out their own fault of staying there. |
|
|
|
Yeah, but those can't make up 15% of the blocks, right? I see NLG pool speed: 2.7545 Gh/s of http://www.coinmine.pw/poolinfo.php?coinid=109 Sometimes it is just tens of MH/s and then suddely more then 1 GH/s. Last day about 1,25 GH/s top. Ah, ok. Last time I checked coinmine it was only a few MH/s. So that explains. |
|
|
|
Yeah, but those can't make up 15% of the blocks, right? |
|
|
|
A few more hours. Hashes seem to spread nicely running up to the DIGI switch: http://nlgstats.iblogger.org/15% of the blocks are not accounted for, I guess it's in the other multipool(s)? |
|
|
|
I think we'll see more stability and not at the expense of those people driving the buy support of late. Thanks to those who have helped maintain the price, it's taken quite a few BTC to do what they did to absorb the CM dumps. So here's a big:
THANK YOU!!!!
Are we the first coin that kept stable (prise wise) under CM pressure? Or have there been others before? |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
