BLOCK! 405345 with 1657 transactions and 0.41361588 BTC in fees  2016-04-02 02:00:21 [Pool] [bitcoin] (Thread 3) Block found: 000000000000000000d8c961807e9cfafa3f424d34e89a91bd1edb06f11528f1 by jonnybravo.rental
2016-04-02 02:00:21 [Pool] [bitcoin] (Thread 3) Share was found with diff higher than 1.000.000.000!
2016-04-02 02:00:21 [Pool] [bitcoin] (Thread 3) Share accepted at diff 548332.87963946/1298376489137.13330078 by jonnybravo.rental
1.2T share... could have solved a couple more blocks with that one  Very nice. Saw the email and hoped it was me cause I found a block on Kano today and that would have been epic to get 2 in one day on 2 pools! The share on my Kano block was 8.5T, excellent work Jonny! Maybe next one. That would be epic indeed |
|
|
|
BLOCK! 405345 with 1657 transactions and 0.41361588 BTC in fees 2016-04-02 02:00:21 [Pool] [bitcoin] (Thread 3) Block found: 000000000000000000d8c961807e9cfafa3f424d34e89a91bd1edb06f11528f1 by jonnybravo.rental
2016-04-02 02:00:21 [Pool] [bitcoin] (Thread 3) Share was found with diff higher than 1.000.000.000!
2016-04-02 02:00:21 [Pool] [bitcoin] (Thread 3) Share accepted at diff 548332.87963946/1298376489137.13330078 by jonnybravo.rental
1.2T share... could have solved a couple more blocks with that one |
|
|
|
You and me both - and I'm sure everyone else who has mined here, too |
|
|
|
|
1 TH/s expects to earn 0.003014 BTC a day. NH charges 3% so you should pay 0.00292358BTC per TH per day to expect to break even. I'm paying a bit more than the expected value.
|
|
|
|
Just tossed ~2PH rental up for 24 hours or so... let's crack a block or 3  |
|
|
|
I powered one 3 S3 to try and help.
When some more uᴉoɔʇᴉq comes in i will do a large rental. All i have now is 0.02 BTC.
We could all use some uᴉoɔʇᴉq |
|
|
|
|
P2Pool has a share life of either three days or three times the average work to find a block, whichever is lower.
|
|
|
|
So, I've got a few bitcoin daemons running on multiple OS. Things typically go smoothly; however, every now and then one of them will simply stop getting new blocks. Even though it is fully connected to the network and is responding to queries fine, it's just not caught up. I could understand if it were a few seconds back because of block propagation, but sometimes it's many minutes and multiple blocks behind.
The process itself isn't frozen, the debug log shows nothing amiss - typical advertise local messages, connections coming in, etc. Yes, the proper ports are opened. The CPU isn't spiked. There's plenty of free RAM. It's like it just decides to forget about the fact that it's supposed to get new blocks. If I restart the process, it immediately gets the blocks it was behind.
Any thoughts?
Do your peers have the blocks you dont? That's a good question. I can't imagine that the 80 some-odd peers I'm typically connected to don't have those blocks, but certainly worth investigating the next time it happens. I try to connect to decent peers; however, nobody's perfect I suppose. Is there a good, up to date list of known well-behaving peers somewhere? Also, I'm always connected to Matt's relay network, so wouldn't that be notifying me of blocks quickly? |
|
|
|
|
So, I've got a few bitcoin daemons running on multiple OS. Things typically go smoothly; however, every now and then one of them will simply stop getting new blocks. Even though it is fully connected to the network and is responding to queries fine, it's just not caught up. I could understand if it were a few seconds back because of block propagation, but sometimes it's many minutes and multiple blocks behind.
The process itself isn't frozen, the debug log shows nothing amiss - typical advertise local messages, connections coming in, etc. Yes, the proper ports are opened. The CPU isn't spiked. There's plenty of free RAM. It's like it just decides to forget about the fact that it's supposed to get new blocks. If I restart the process, it immediately gets the blocks it was behind.
Any thoughts?
|
|
|
|
|
Just running tor doesn't mean anything. If you want Bitcoin to connect to tor, you have to open up the control port (typically 9051). Depending on how you configure tor to validate - using a hashed password as I provided earlier in the thread or cookie authentication - will determine how the bitcoin core will attempt to connect. If you have tor successfully configured and running, when you launch the core software, it will automatically create a hidden service and broadcast that.
To answer the other questions, no just running tor does not mean that suddenly everything is anonymized. If you want your web traffic to be, for example, you have to point your web browser to the tor proxy you're running. The default port is 9050. If you want to have hidden tor services, then you need to create those.
|
|
|
|
|
You need to have the earlier OS version libraries.
|
|
|
|
|
Tossed 250TH at the pool for a while... let's crack the block!
|
|
|
|
|
Congrats on hitting the block guys!
|
|
|
|
I'm trying, Phil! Glad mmpool finally hit . Thanks for pointing the hash here... now we need to hit the block! |
|
|
|
|
No problem. Thanks for the quick reply.
|
|
|
|
Any custom FW for S5? -- I am planning to get the S5 FW refreshed to do ckpool solo mining fulltime.
Only the binary I made which has to be manually copied over and is not permanent. you can even shorten the sequence :p ssh 192.168.1.x -l root
cd /usr/bin
mv cgminer cgminer.bak
wget http://ck.kolivas.org/apps/cgminer/antminer/s5/4.9.0-150105/cgminer
chmod +x cgminer
/etc/init.d/cgminer.sh restart So I installed your binary and my S5 fan shot up to 100% and stayed there, even though I have it set to 20% in the UI. Just to make sure that really was what caused it, I unplugged the S5, plugged it back in and it started up with fans at 20% like usual. I re-installed the binary, restarted cgminer and it was back to 100%. Is there a fan speed flag or something I'm missing? 20% I can deal with... 100%? Not so much when it sits with me in my office |
|
|
|
Was the block found by the Avalon that indeec444 won? That would be perfect |
|
|
|
Pretty sure you meant 11th of April WooooHooooooo 5th. Great Job!
hehe - Do It Again!
----------------------
I will donate 2 each $100.00 Bitmain Coupons to each person that solves a BLOCK until the 11th of March. Just PM me with your Bitmain Address and I will donate one to you once you solve a block.
Let's ROCK this Pool!
5th, PM me with your Bitmain Address. Congrats!
|
|
|
|
Again, extremely small sample set. 50 blocks? Come on, now . In the last 2 diff changes AntPool has ~12% of its blocks empty. When I ran the data yesterday 223 of their 1870 blocks were empty. 223 blocks multiplied by an average 1500 transactions per block: 334500 transactions that could have been confirmed but weren't. That's one pool - granted they are the worst offending one. So, how about everyone stops mining on the pools producing the empty blocks and starts mining on pools that properly validate the work and always have transactions in the mempool? Once that happens and we are straining against the limit of the block size, then we can worry about increasing it. |
|
|
|
|
Just posting a screenshot and stating that the last 30 blocks have been full, and there are still unconfirmed transactions doesn't give the whole picture.
On my pool, prior to the latest block (404861) I had just over 2000 transactions in my mempool with just over 1BTC in fees. When Bitfury hit the block, my mempool went down to under 30 transactions.
My point being that the vast majority of the unconfirmed transactions on the network right now don't meet the rate limiter qualifications - i.e. they are spam or very low fee transactions that most pools are simply going to ignore until such time as the higher-paying, higher-priority transactions are processed.
Don't get me wrong - I support larger blocks. However, you are taking a very small sample set to make your argument.
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
