I guess it's somewhat reassuring I wasn't the only one that had this issue... Somewhat... 

I just repeated the withdrawal and did exactly the same steps as before: enter 2fa code on withdrawal page, wait for email asking to confirm withdrawal and confirm it, suffer through the Cloudflare DDoS bullshit that S.E does every 5 minutes (literally!) and this time, lo-n-behold, the withdrawal was approved.

When I did this 2 days ago I did not check the status of the withdrawal immediately afterwards as I did today, so I don't have a point of comparison there. It is entirely possible the withdrawal was initially marked as approved and then changed back to awaiting confirmation.

I'll update this post if/when the transfer arrives at my local wallet.

In the meantime, I just checked the pool and saw the network hashrate exceeding 200MH/s... incredible, really.

UPDATE - well, that didn't take long... the transfer arrived so guess it was just a glitch yesterday.

FYI - I tried to withdraw some of my DERO from Stocks.Exchange yesterday and it didn't show up after more than 24 hours. I just checked the status on s.e and was incredibly annoyed to see it was still marked as "unconfirmed" despite that I had to both enter the 2FA code (expected) and then also confirm the withdrawal via an email (unexpected, and rather annoying as it just adds friction to the process).

I'm really not sure what else I could do to ram it through those idiots heads that, yes, I really want to withdraw my coins, but until I figure it out I would say withdrawls from s.e. is broken again, but in a new and exciting way compared to previous times.

I've been meaning to post the same thread but Jet Cash beat me to it. One of my posts from a few weeks ago was marked bad and I'm pretty sure I reported it for either spam or plagiarism, so it should've been a slam-dunk. Whenever I report plagiarism I provide the message # that was copied or a link to the post (if not in the same thread).

Also, one of the users I most recently reported for plagiarism has gone unpunished and is still posting, but my post accuracy went up so the report was presumably marked good. I am especially vexed by this one because said user plagiarized me! 

Just 2-3 weeks ago the Atlantis announcement might have staunched the bleeding for a few hours, the market was in such a funk; now it's good for a 6-bagger, to use the old Peter Lynch terminology.

My purchase of 300 DERO at 4800 Sats was supposed to be the first of several increasingly large purchases to be made over the next couple of weeks because I fully expected price to trend downward from the ASICs; instead it looks like I bought at or near the bottom!

M2, IIRC... but it's been a loooong time since I took an economics class.

In other news, that's a helluva spike in price for DERO today. And not to give out any financial advice, but I sold a fraction of the 300 coins I bought a few days ago so the remainder effectively cost me nothing to acquire. I have to admit I am a bit puzzled at the extreme strength today, despite there not being any notable news (except the Atlantis announcement, but that was a couple days ago) and the massive increase in network hashrate (I saw 132MH/s at one point today!?!). My theory that ASIC miners dump their coins as fast as they mine them seems to be suffering from a reality that does not agree.

One theory is that people deploy mining capacity until they reach the practical limit of the power available, so ASICs didn't really reduce the amount of power used to mine BTC, they just massively increased the difficulty (ie - it takes far more computational effort to solve each block, so, net-net, no real power is saved).


I'm not really sure about the effect NH has, to be honest. Those that rent hashrate are effectively trading BTC to mine a specific coin, and presumably intend to hold said coin for some period. Those that rent out their hashrate are getting paid in BTC to provide their hardware to the NH marketplace so I suspect the net effect is a total wash.


I am holding a modest position in 2 PoS coins mostly as an experiment (ie - not because I have any particular love for either project), and after a few months of doing so I have found I am deeply reluctant to sell either of them, because I feel like I have to wait until I receive a block reward from staking to justify the time spent. I understand this is not entirely rational, but that's partly why I am doing the experiment, to see how I feel about PoS in general. Consequently, I would say that PoS is not appropriate for a coin intended for transactional purposes (rather than purely contractual, say) unless the effective annual interest rate is in the range of what fiat currency banks pay for a savings account or CD, because otherwise it appears to have a chilling effect on actually using the coin. At least it does for me.

Maybe, but you and your shitty cryptoknight [sic] pools have a bad reputation here and your post history makes this post supremely ironic, as it is full of similar dog-ate-my-homework type excuses. Miners on your pools complain about gross underpayment and you respond with, "not my fault we didn't find a block," and never, "well, I set my PPLNS parameters to ensure you get screwed out of most of your hashrate if we don't find a block for a day; sucks to be you."

That's happening to a lot of wallets so the only real solution is to exclude the folder from scanning.

What happened to bitcoin isn't applicable for a number of reasons. Firstly, we don't know the counterfactual; i.e. - what would have happened to BTC had ASICs not been developed for it. Secondly, BTC was the *only* cryptocurrency when ASICs became available, so there was nowhere else for GPU and CPU miners to go. Thirdly, ASICs were adopted very slowly for BTC because its price was quite low and no one knew if it would really ever take off. Plenty believed it would, sure, but it's not like recent history where price went to nearly $20k US and dragged almost every other crypto with it, so now it is more or less known that crypto can be successful. Fourthly, the even more recent crash in crypto prices shows that prices can, indeed, do just that: crash. Since ASICs tend to be very expensive, especially the first batch, those that buy them have a very strong incentive to dump their coins as fast as they mine them to try to recoup the cost, and for a small market cap coin like DERO that can push the price down so far the coin loses all momentum, especially since GPU/CPU miners have been all but pushed out by the ASICs.

Granted, DERO is holding up rather well in the face of the ASIC invasion, but I, and many other long time miners, stopped mining it completely, and if the recent positive price action reverses and DERO trades to new lows because of relentless selling pressure I suspect that many of us once staunch supporters will lose interest and drift off to other projects.



These points I mostly agree with, and have argued such before - ASICs can be a very good thing if for no other reason than they are usually much more energy efficient, it's just that the manufacturers are a bunch of sleazebags that are all but untouchable because they are located in countries where, shall we say, the rule of law is not paramount.

Yep, same here. I'm on day 2 and so far everything running smoothly.

One thing I do miss from the old pool, though, is the calculator for estimating ITNS per day for a given hashrate.

Jet Talk and Cash Merits ought to swing by the altcoins\mining subforum as there is very little shitposting, and even a few threads in the altcoins\announcement subforum have some rollicking good discussions happening. See, for example, these gems (no posts are mine, btw, though one is a response to one of my posts):

ETHlargement - the hashrate hardener
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=3370685.0

Building cheap miners : my secret
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1955358.0

XMR-stak 2.4.2 Compiled with no devfee [note - the devs of xmr-stak provide instructions to do this, so not cheating/theft)
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=3264773.0

Post #2668 in DERO [ANN] thread - one of two posts by same user which persuaded me to change my position on hard-forking.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2525508.msg35314263#msg35314263

The user statt tirelessly supports TrezarCoin on a purely voluntary/unofficial basis, but the last line in the submitted post is priceless
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2140812.msg28510084#msg28510084

Excellent information by user storx on automatic trading with gunbot
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2674194.msg34802638#msg34802638

Etc. and so on.

Ah, yes... you make a compelling argument here; so much so that it has persuaded me to go back to my earlier position which is to let CaptDero and friends keep doing whatever it is they are doing. In the end, if you believe in the merit of a project you have to trust the course the devs are taking, even if - from an outsider's perspective - it seems to be counterproductive or even short-term injurious.

Likewise, I agree with you almost, but not quite, 100%. Where I differ with you is that I see the DERO network as having already passed the stress test, more or less, and so it now seems reasonable to divert some effort into forking off the ASICs. I want to emphasize that I would rather DERO continue on with its core development plan for the same reasons as you: it's best for the long term success of the coin, and I am also mining XMR to buy DERO, so the presence of ASICs is mainly an annoyance, rather than something that totally incapacitates my ability to acquire more DERO from mining. And since anyone who wants to mine DERO can also mine [insert whatever coin] then sell it to buy DERO, too, there really isn't a rational argument to press for forking...

..however, humans aren't entirely rational, and so forking off the ASICs will almost certainly generate much good will.

Furthermore, changing the PoW algo would also give the DERO team valuable and relevant real-world experience, much as the massive hashrate increase and hack attempts of the last few weeks have provided. In fact, I rather suspect all coins are going to have to be a bit more proactive with changing their PoW algos on a regular basis because the rollout of CN ASICs proved that "ASIC-resistant" does not equal "ASIC-proof". It looks like an arms race between coin devs and ASIC manufacturers is all but certain now, so might as well take the fork in the road, to paraphrase the late, great Yogi Berra.


Hah, yes, I admit I was playing a bit fast and loose with my approach to estimating whether a coin is fairly priced based on network difficult, but I think it has some value in a relative sense, if not an absolute one. I also try to keep the same perspective as you with your hypothetical approach outlined above, which is why I not only switched over to mining XMR to buy DERO, but also outright bought a bunch of DERO just to kickstart the process (and I should note I rarely buy any coins with cash).

While I can understand the argument for continuing with core development - especially to address these nebulous "security" issues you keep alluding too - I also wish to invoke the apocryphal quote usually attributed to John Maynard Keynes* - "When the facts change, I change my mind; what do you do?"

More specifically, the fact that changed here is the network hashrate, which has gone from 5MH/s to as much as 100MH/s. Contrast that with ZenCash, for example, which has a network hashrate of 75-80MH/s and a market cap of $131M (all $ in USD), so is worth about $1.75 per MH/s. The situation is even more stark with Monero, which now has a hashrate of 530MH/s and a market cap of $4.5B, so is worth about $8.50 per MH/s. Extrapolating these two examples to DERO would result in a market cap of somewhere between $87.5M ($1.75 * 50Mh/s) to $850M ($8.50 * 100MH/s)**. Does even the lower valuation seem at all realistic given the recent market conditions and the near total absence of any actual use for DERO (at the moment)? Not to me, it doesn't.

I rather suspect the pitchforks and cudgels would be brought out if DERO's price had continued its downward trajectory, but fortunately for all it seems to have not only stopped declining, but reversed smartly to the upside, and so the community is merely upset, rather than furious. But again, the facts have changed, --Serena-- and CaptDero; will you change your minds, or stubbornly continue on the same path?



* - but most likely first said by another economist, Paul Samuelson

** - I picked ZEN because the equihash algo generates a similar hashrate to CryptoNight with similar hardware; XMR is the more obvious analog to DERO here, of course.

I had the same problem until I changed the --add-priority-node switch to --add-exclusive-node (using the same IP:port).

Why are some blocks remaining as pending despite more than 100 confirmations? Yesterday there was 1 block that was still pending with >200 confirmations, another with >150 and today there is currently 1 which is at 101, but only 1 new orphan over the last day, which is what I thought excessive confirmations indicated...

UPDATE - now there are 3 blocks with more than 100 confirmations - 294273, 294277, 294279 - and my balance has not changed in about 6 hours. The definition of insanity: doing the same thing over and over again but expecting a different result. Clearly, then, I've lost my marbles...

Yeah, you ASIC loving motherhumpers done trashed the DERO network but good. It went from an average of 5MH/s to as much as 100MH/s over the last week or so. Difficulty has increased so much, however, that a Giant-N only makes about 6 DERO per day, which is worth about tree fiddy.

Good times...

Don't bother replying to tonthattung238 - he made the supremely stupid mistake of copying one of my posts so I reported him/her/it for plagiarism.

***

I just recently diverted some of my CN-optimized hardware to mining Monero, which I will then use to buy DERO because I can make 6-10x more DERO that way. That said, it tickles me to no end to see that the Baikal Giant-N now makes 6 DERO per day, which is what my 1.9kH/s CN rig used to do. So the ASICs have already been dealt with, in a way.

However, I have allocated just as much hashrate to IntenseCoin because it drastically moved up its hard fork date to deal with the ASIC invasion when their network hit a "mere" 35MH/s. Yes, there were some hiccups from this hasty forking, but overall I feel ITNS did much more than pay lip-service to preserving the decentralization that only GPU/CPU miners can bring to a coin, and I am even more happy to support that project with mining.

I point my hashpower where it is loved and appreciated and I am definitely not getting the loving vibe from the DERO network these days. On a purely intellectual level I realize that even another month's worth of ASICs hammering the network with 100MH/s or more shouldn't affect decentralization too much, but it still burns me to see Bitmain X3 make in 7-10 days what it took me 4+ months to amass.

Mining to your old address is fine, you just need to follow some rather complicated instructions to use that address in the new version wallet. I suspect this will be true even for the GUI wallet which will eventually be released. The instructions are posted to a reddit thread:

https://www.reddit.com/r/IntenseCoin/comments/89gw15/guide_converting_your_141142_wallet_to_the_145/

Very important: you have to extract the 4 keys from the old wallet (e.g. - 1.4.1 or 1.4.2) to restore that address in the new wallet. Do that now if you haven't done so already because those keys are also the only way to recover your balance if something happens to the wallet file (there is no 25 word recovery seed, AFAIK).