If the project cannot stand on its own two feet without special care and feeding, it will die and deservedly so. So as to loop this to an on-topic tangent...taking KnC miners into consideration the fact that anyone with a large enough capital base can purchase such a device (or multiples of devices) means that no longer is bitcoin given the luxury of being coddled by nurturing hobbyists who will do anything (including sacrificing their own profit margin) in order to make sure the network survives. Bitcoin is now in the limelight of the world, and the Big Boys are entering the game wearing their Big Boy Pants and playing by Big Boy Rules. ASIC companies such as KnC will fill whatever demand is out there in order to line their pockets (and rightfully so if you believe in free enterprise). People buying these machines will implement them in such a way as to maximize their returns on investment (classical definition). Those who stand in the way of that will get squished. Those who work towards filling niches that are complimentary to that will be rewarded (ie alternative pools that people actually want to use, developing a less cumbersome way to use p2pool-type technologies that appeal to the masses, etc). That's the reality, and trying to pontificate from some "moral high ground" about some kind of socialistic operational theory is less than helpful. That type of input, if actually a majority-held one in the community, would only hasten bitcoin's demise as the people putting in the capital that is making bitcoin relevant would stop doing so and the whole house of cards would collapse. Bitcoin only has value because people THINK it has value. If you tell people it only has value as long as they are willing to lose money (either directly or through less-than-optimal operations that decrease potential profits versus other investments) through participating in it...how long until it stops having value? So again..want to help? Work on those things that are symbiotic with the large-scale capitalism that bitcoin is meant to help foster beyond the bounds of government oversight and regulation. Telling people they shouldn't be trying to maximize their investment in it is the same as telling people that they shouldn't invest, period...which is not helpful. Now that KnC has a proven ASIC design, I expect them to begin flooding the market in 2014 with as many as they can churn out in order to cash in before the big difficulty crunch where average power costs equal expected fiat-converted returns and extending that run with a transition to a more power-efficient gen2 product. Ditto bitfury and their distribution outlets. That's the trajectory of the market...the only thing an individual can do is choose on which side of the bullet he wants to stand. The best thing for the overall market is to encourage more (and bigger) investment that will drive the price of BTC upwards to extend the useful life of the individually-owned miner, as well as encourage more mainstream adoption of the currency as a storage of value. And as for "centralized operations such as mine"...in the bitcoin mining realm I'm just another guy with miners at home trying to get them to pay for themselves and maybe a little extra to the greatest extent that I can manage. The "big business" portion is in the markets which should be outside your moral concern. I've already left a lot of potential gains on the table by mining in the first place instead of just using those funds to buy more bitcoin directly and you want me (and others) to sacrifice even MORE for some "code of ethics" or whatever. LOL. The notion that I should somehow sacrifice "for the greater good" when it's clear that any concession that I might make would just be pocketed as profit by somebody else is ludicrous. But hey, if that's your bag...go for it. The rest of us thank you for your contribution. And make sure and buy as many KnC rigs as you possibly can to keep them out of the hands of those evil profit-mongers like me. I'm sure KnC might even send you a Christmas card if you buy enough  +1 Well said. There is a lot of truth in this post that people need to try to understand. Even if it isn't what you want to believe, the nature of the world is what it is. You can make it better - but you need to learn to work with reality, not against it. |
|
|
|
Why don't you just admit you were wrong, and stop this nonsense? It is clear that who gets the reward for a block, and who "solves" it are two different questions. In pool mining, a group of people agree to share block rewards regardless of which individual miner solved the block. That agreement obviously has no bearing on who actually solved a given block. If you think "that who gets the reward for a block, and who "solves" it are two different questions", then I am certain you do not comprehend that even in pool "mining" there must be an entity to receive the reward, what is not the pool participant. The reward needs to be transmitted (first transaction) to the entity which "solves" the block. You are failing to understand that the receiver (thus the "solver") it is not the pool participant. Ok, you are just typing nonsense in lieu of admitting that your narrow semantic point was just plain wrong. Please feel free to continue to be wrong without my continuing to point it out. |
|
|
|
A bunch of naive, idealistic blather
The first thing you fail to understand is that this is a business, not a charity. Get that through your head and the rest of it will make sense. If you want to buy a miner for me, I will happily point it at any pool of your choosing. As long as I'm spending MY money on equipment, then I'll point MY equipment on whatever fucking pool I see fit. If smaller pools want to attract more miners, they should get their asses in gear and improve the pools to make them more attractive for use. Things like extended stats, DDoS protection, and consistently working payouts (I'm looking at you, Eligius). If you are so concerned about decentralization, I sure hope you are solo mining. If you can't walk the walk, then stop trying to talk the talk. ... a comment on this post. I am not sure a post could have been more skillfully crafted to drive home my point. This next comment is not meant to be inflammatory, although I understand if you take is so. It is meant for you to take into account, as a data point while making and employing your business plan. Centralization is the enemy of this experiment. "Business men" that mine for profit without regard for the network are not a friend to the experiment if their efforts result in too much centralization (usually a goal of a for-profit company). Those of us that see this as a threat (such as ASICminer & a couple of other Chinese companies) to the eco system, are working hard to drive up the diff with de-centralized hashing in an effort to make your business less-viable. The hope is that this will cause fewer people to sink huge sums of money into centralized operations such as yours if the returns are simply not there. I hope it works. I am doing my part. If bitcoin mining requires that it be done by good men with good intentions, it will be dead before you have time to be disappointed. If you really are a bitcoin enthusiast, you'd better hope bitcoin is more hardy than that. It is the nature of humans to act in their self interest. No matter how your philosophy chooses to view this inclination, it will not change it. |
|
|
|
That is not relevant to the question of who "solved" the block. Why the question is not relevant if who receives the reward is who supposedly "solves" the block? Perhaps you are confusing what "solving" means in the metaphorical concept of "mining"? https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/BlockBecause there is a reward of brand new Bitcoins for solving each block, every block also contains a record of which Bitcoin address is entitled to receive the reward. This record is known as a generation transaction, or a coinbase transaction, and is always the first transaction appearing in every block. Why don't you just admit you were wrong, and stop this nonsense? It is clear that who gets the reward for a block, and who "solves" it are two different questions. In pool mining, a group of people agree to share block rewards regardless of which individual miner solved the block. That agreement obviously has no bearing on who actually solved a given block. |
|
|
|
The pool provides you with a block header to work on. You double-hash the block header iteratively while incrementing the nonce, and return any results that are of higher difficulty than the pool difficulty to the pool. If one of those results happens to also be higher difficulty than the network difficulty, you have solved the block for the pool. The pool does not do any of the calculations associated with solving a block, so I don't see how you think the pool "solved" the block. Yeah, but guess who got the 25 BTC + fees? That is not relevant to the question of who "solved" the block. |
|
|
|
I don't get the distinction you are making here. It looks to me like he solved a block for the pool in exactly the same way he might have solved a block for himself if he had been solo mining. When people participate in pools they are only providing the SHA-256 hash generated by their machines to let the pool find a block header with a number equal or lower than the current target. Therefore participants in a pool cannot "solve" a block because it is the pool who execute this process. What the pool participants only do is to provide the necessary requirements to complete this process, know as Proof of Work, which is just to generate a high rate of SHA-256 hash until the current target is found. Solo "miners" can "solve" a block like pooled "mining" because their are not only generating the SHA-256 hash, but monitoring the block header of every block propagated in the Bitcoin network. https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Pooled_miningA share is awarded by the mining pool to the clients who present a valid proof of work of the same type as the proof of work that is used for creating blocks, but of lesser difficulty, so that it requires less time on average to generate.
https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Proof_of_workProofs of work that are tied to the data of each block are required for the blocks to be accepted. The difficulty of this work is adjusted so as to limit the rate at which new blocks can be generated by the network to one every 10 minutes. Due to the very low probability of successful generation, this makes it unpredictable which worker computer in the network will be able to generate the next block. The pool provides you with a block header to work on. You double-hash the block header iteratively while incrementing the nonce, and return any results that are of higher difficulty than the pool difficulty to the pool. If one of those results happens to also be higher difficulty than the network difficulty, you have solved the block for the pool. The pool does not do any of the calculations associated with solving a block, so I don't see how you think the pool "solved" the block. |
|
|
|
I have Eligius set as back-up pool, 6 days ago went back to my first pool . Since then nothing happened, still says "approximately 0.03927529 BTC remaining to enter payout queue (mined 0.12btc), you will enter the payout queue, due to inactivity, in approximately 6 days, 16 hours and 43 minutes."
I think if additional shelved shares get paid to your total due to a nice run of lucky blocks it resets the 1-week timer. As I recall, it actually says something like "If you remain inactive, and the pool does not pay towards any of your shelved shares, then you will enter the payout queue, due to inactivity, in approximately 6 days, 6 hours and 39 minutes." |
|
|
|
whoa, 426m! you solved a block! coooool
 Nope. The pool "solved" the block, not him. What he did was to use a machine which generated the SHA-256 number for the pool to "solve" the block. He would only had "solved" the block if he was solo "mining", what is not the case. I don't get the distinction you are making here. It looks to me like he solved a block for the pool in exactly the same way he might have solved a block for himself if he had been solo mining. |
|
|
|
Could a pool problem. If the pool doesn't have a manual pay out feature the pool will ALWAYS have some extra bitcoin. What if I want to stop using that pool? How would I get my balance that is my reward if there is no payout method? Granted .08 isn't a lot of bitcoin but all those amounts do add up and I need them all. I want to switch over to BTCGuild again, but wondering what will happen to the 18 hours of mining I just did with the pool? Where would that payout go and when?
You will get your balance paid out automatically 7 days after you stop mining on Eligius. |
|
|
|
I know I'm such an idiot and really deserve all the smart ass remarks most responses usually are. In general, people are cruel animals, too selfish to even realize or aware of their doings.
Is it true on the Eligius pool there is no manual payout process and you just have to wait for it?
YES!  (That's as cruel as I could make it.) You evil bastard. That frowny-face could cause him emotional discomfort for as much as 3-5 minutes!  |
|
|
|
Those are good points I guess there is no way to give access to just the web interface and block ssh access.
If not I guess the renter would have to prepay enough to justify the risk.
As I said, the root password is not the same as the admin password, you can change the root password to be different to the admin (web login) password. So change the root password and they can't ssh into the box, they can just use the web admin. To change the root password from ssh just type passwdTry it, change the root password, then logout of ssh and login again with the new root password. You will notice that the web account still uses the old password. If you want to change the web account password its: passwd adminI don't think that's actually true... The lighttpd daemon has it's own password file and pays no attention to /etc/shadow for its authentication. |
|
|
|
I have a hypothetical question. If a 3rd party wants to rent a few days of hashtime on my Jupiter and I give him access including my password, if he changes the password without telling me is there any way to regain access without the new password or is the Juptier permanently hi-jacked?
hard reset should reset the passwords I believe. hard reset just copy a bunch of pristine files placed in /config in various places, among them /config/shadow.factory will be copied over /etc/shadow. that means that after an hard reset the pwd for root will be re-set to admin. what if during the period of time u rent your miner that guy just change /config/shadow.factory?  anyway as long as u have physical access to the miner u could reflash your miner using RecoveryFile ( https://www.kncminer.com/userfiles/file/SD_image_0.96.1.zip) and everything will be under your control again. If someone was REALLY malicious, they could possibly use those low-level i2c commands to actually do physical damage to the miner - like setting the PLLs to ridiculously high values, or whatever... Maybe write a script that just blasts random values over I2C, and see if you can make something smoke  I can't imagine why anyone would want to do something like that - but it's still something to consider if you are giving root access to random people... |
|
|
|
I have a hypothetical question. If a 3rd party wants to rent a few days of hashtime on my Jupiter and I give him remote access including my password, if he changes the password without telling me is there any way to regain access without the new password or is the Jupiter permanently hi-jacked?
Why in the world would you give him access to the device. Just point your miner at his address at eligius and be done. +1 Someone with root access could theoretically do a 'rm -rf /' or equivalent - intentionally or even non-intentionally. Then you would probably need KnC support just to unbrick the unit. I would not give anyone I don't trust 100% direct login access to my miner(s). |
|
|
|
so I added NMC addy to my config yesterday for fun... nothing paid out yet however as of now. how often are NMC paid out, any place I can see stats related to NMC?
Don't know your answer, but i think it is linked to your btc minimum payout option, i lowered that and then i started to receive nmc daily. Also make sure that "NMC_Address=blablblahblah" is actually displayed on your my eligius page, near the submit changes button. I had to submit my info. a couple times to get it to work. I believe NMC payouts are still being done manually by Wizkid, and there is no regularity as to when he hits the payout button. |
|
|
|
Apologies if it's been asked before. But any method to fix the error below? Everything seems to be running fine but I don't see stats.
CGMiner Status Running (Connect to CGMiner API failed)
On the mining page in the webui of your miner, make sure the 'CGMiner API Enabled' checkbox is checked. |
|
|
|
With 0.98 installed, everytime I restart CGMiner via the web interface, and then quickly start a screen session so I can see the startup, I see the warning "Error in configuration file, partially loaded.". If I start cgminer by hand with '-T -D', I see this error: [2013-10-29 23:20:43] Invalid config option --api-network: Invalid value Looking at the config file saved by the KnC WebUI, I see this line: "api-network": false as the last line in the file, before the closing brace. Looks ok to me... Any one else seeing this? It doesn't matter if remote management is enabled or not, it still causes the error. It still starts and runs, so it's not a show-stopper, but I don't understand the error. |
|
|
|
Hi Mr. Ckolivas. I have a KnC Saturn with the new 0.98 firmware which includes your new CGMiner for KnC. Everytime I restart CGMiner via the web interface, and then quickly start a screen session so I can see the startup, I see the warning "Error in configuration file, partially loaded.". If I start cgminer by hand with '-T -D', I see this error: [2013-10-29 23:20:43] Invalid config option --api-network: Invalid value Looking at the config file saved by the KnC WebUI, I see this line: "api-network": false as the last line in the file, before the closing brace. Looks ok to me... Any idea why I am getting an error here consistently? |
|
|
|
Here are the stats on the 49 port HUB (pic above) running for 18+ hrs so far:
It's interesting that all your erupters show up as the old Emerald (BEE) erupters. All of mine show up as BES (Block Erupter Sapphire). No idea if it even makes a difference... |
|
|
|
I can't seem to download the file, it failed. - Edit - solution posted before me Use the link on the support page. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
