What, like sending 8 merit to the shining star of erudition reprinted below?

I ignore all the local sections, too, but not the alts and, surprise-surprise, of labake's most recent page of posts, 8 are bounty submissions with the rest very similar to  such chosen epistolary gems as:




And my favorite:


Go really blessed Russians?!

@labake - you are the very user the merit system is trying to weed out.

Why do I get this feeling this is about to turn into Yet Another Spam Megathread?

Also, why is this topic even in meta? It's not about the forum, rather, it's basically speculating about BTC's future prospects.

@Vod - if you are lusting for more technical discussions there is plenty of hot GPU-on-CPU action in the altcoins\mining subforum. We could use a few (more?) merit sources over there, too. Don't wander into altcoins\discussion (and to a lesser extent, but not much lesser, altcoins\announcements), however, because that is ground zero for the sig campaign and bounty hunting spammers.

Dunno if the L3+ is a safe bet, either - the recent drop in price may very well presage the release of a more powerful ASIC miner that renders the existing generation all but obsolete. Again, I don't think any ASIC miner is a good deal because of the manufacturer's themselves.

And the $1900US for "1 + 4 free" Giant-N only applies if you buy them direct from Baikal, and I seem to recall reading that you actually have to buy 2 (ie - spend $3800US) to get that deal. But that requirement may not have existed or has already been relaxed; dunno, I don't follow the pricing shenanigans of these jokers too closely since I am, for a 3rd time, not interested in adding to their already fat-n-happy bottom line.

Gotcha, and I left you my last sendable merit for your previous answer. May you and I both make it to Full Member before the turn of the next decade! 

Yeah, that's not what I'm talking about. I understand that mining earnings vary with difficulty (and pool luck); what I was saying is that I was making a lot less ZEN per 24 hour period than the calculator on minethecoin.com predicted based on the average 24h difficulty and my average hashrate (which is a very stable 2800 H/s). When the calculator says I should make 0.26 ZEN in a 24 hour period but I only receive 0.1 ZEN then something is very clearly wrong.

Now one particular issue which may or may not have been the pool's fault is that no blocks were found for at least 16 hours then the pool kicked my rigs offline from, presumably, a reboot. While that could be a string of fantastically bad luck, I noticed that by the next morning 2 blocks had been found so I rather suspect there was, indeed, a problem with the pool which the (presumed) reboot fixed.

I want to stress that I understand all too well that computers sometimes misbehave and the proverbial shit happens, but it really irks me to see a message claiming the pool is monitored 24/7 and finding blocks on the very day the pool didn't find a block for 16+ hours and then apparently needed a hard reset...

Like I said before, I'd rather not stay on Suprnova because it consistently underpays by 10-15%, in my experience, and that has been the case for the last 2.5 days (so, nothing has changed there), but I also have to admit I am getting a bit wary of Zhash.pro because it seems to require a lot more vigilance on my part compared to the other 3-4 coins I am mining at any given moment.

One last question despite it probably being a moot one: does the wallet have to remain open for the next 10 blocks for the balance to unlock, or do 10 more blocks merely have to be found? I ask because I only open my non-staking wallets once or twice per day to update balances then leave them closed the rest of the time and this morning when I tried Serena's suggestion the same split between locked and unlocked balance was present, despite that >100 blocks had been found since I last opened the wallet.

This is a classic error, thinking that there is some natural floor in the earnings you will make per day, or that what you can earn now will persist indefinitely when neither is the case.

Consider what would happen if even 2-3 coins stay on the original CryptoNight algo - every ASIC miner is going to mine the shit out of them and what do ASIC miners tend to do with their coins? They sell most, if not all, of them as fast as they can in a desperate race to pay off their "investment" ASAP. The inevitable consequences of this groupthink action are:

1. difficulty shoots through the proverbial roof, so earnings per day suck even with the massive hashrate advantage of an ASIC over a GPU; much fewer coins than expected are mined.

2. the price of the coin in USD or BTC plummets because everyone is dumping their mined earnings on the (usually tiny/shitty) exchanges as fast as they can.

For example, when network hashrate on ITNS spikes to 35 MH/s, as it has done several times over the past couple of days, 20kH/s brings in about 800 coins per day with a current value of $3.60US (56 Sats). Ignoring the cost of energy - because only 60W, right? - that will take 530 days to pay off if you bought the Giant-N for $1900US (or "only" 127 days at the current listed price on asicminermarket of $550US).

Earnings look a lot better for Karbo at this moment - around $18US per day - but that's because its total network hashrate is only 7MH/s; I don't follow this coin, but I suspect if a relatively unknown coin like ITNS has seen sustained spikes to 35MH/s then a much better known coin like KRB will see even more dramatic pumps in network hashrate.

I should note that despite my usual arguments against ASICs I am not anti-ASIC, per se; rather, I am anti-foreign-ASIC-manufacturer because all of them so far have engaged in predatory/deceptive behavior like mining with their ASICs for several months, selling them as "new", refusing to honor any sort of warranty for the 1/3rd of them that arrive DOA or break within a few days of use, and are all but untouchable in a court of law for these bad behaviors.

Huh, that worked... but next I have to ask why it worked, and what happened in the first place?

Meanwhile, thanks, as always, for your tireless efforts and help here!

What's the deal with the balance being split into two parts, some in green and some in yellow? I did not appear to get credit for my last mining payment so I rescanned the blockchain and the total balance was then correct, but around 1/3rd of my coins are green and 2/3rd are yellow (whereas before just the last payment of 2 DERO would be yellow). I vaguely recall seeing something about this earlier in the thread, but hell if I can find the post.

I've never used that site before, but I see that it has appended "Unreal" for the DERO estimate; quite right, as the official pool says you'll make about 1.16 DERO per day with 560 H/s.

This thread is still droning on? Although it was nice to see suchmoon tag tsoyens01 for copy-pasta (and I also see that The Pharmacist gave him red trust! Bam!).

Now just to be on topic and contribute to the flotsam here, I ascended to the mighty rank of member via merit, so I guess I'm part of the 0.1%. I sure hope there isn't an Occupy Bitcointalk movement, because just like Eric Cartman, I can't stand dirty-sweaty-smelly-hippies.

Meh... 75% of my merit came from either helping people out or providing some entertainment value* while 25% has come from posting about merit in meta, which I can't help but find entirely apropos (that is, talking about merit in meta, which is itself meta, hence why the subforum is called meta). So I would say I am both an example of what you claim - that lots of merit can be obtained by talking about merit - as well as a counterexample, in that 3/4th of my merit has not come from talking about merit.

And FWIW, I was definitely conflicted about posting my perspective on merit the first few times for the exact reason you find so repugnant - I did not want to be involved in a circle jerk of meriting, either, just from talking about merit. However it appears I have since taken a different path from you in that I am not actively trying to annoy people to not get merit (nor am I actively courting high ranking members or merit sources to get merit). To quote from Vince Vaughn's character in that epic comedy, Dodgeball, "I've found that if you have a goal, that you might not reach it. But if you don't have one, then you are never disappointed. And I gotta tell ya... it feels phenomenal."




* - that said, I was honestly surprised I got a merit for my recent, "meat popsicle" comment, but hey, if someone found it funny and had merit to spare, why not?

It does look like you found a relatively high market cap coin still using CN - karbo - but even in the time you posted this reply it went from $16.50US per day at 20kH/s to around $11.50US per day... A good thing to remember is that any coin listed on whattomine.com should be assumed to be well known by the mining community, so you are unlikely to get a competitive advantage deploying your ASIC on it; the best situation for an ASIC owner is to only have to compete against GPUs and CPUs, not other ASICs.

You haven't really addressed the two key points I brought up: 1) the audit team (or person) must be competent programming in golang; 2) any audit team or person which is competent in golang could also use their access to the source code - even if just read only - to push out an insta-fork coin.

Frankly, only a few people have complained about the source being closed currently, and CaptDero has said this is only temporary. I really don't get why any of you clamoring to see the source code are so vexed about this because any investment of time or hashrate into a crypocurrency is pretty much an act of faith in the first place (a bit ironic, I realize, given that cryptocurrencies are supposed to enable trustless transactions...). Yes, I understand the concern about CaptDero getting killed by a bolt of lightning or whatever and the project going tit's up as a result, but again, that seems to be a reasonable risk for maintaining a competitive advantage for a few more weeks.

If a competent and trustworthy team or even individual can be found to audit the code then I'm all for it getting audited; but if there is any doubt as to the trustworthiness, at least, then I am ABSOLUTELY AGAINST auditing it.

And 80% of your merit came from posting about... merit. So all I have to say is:

Dear Pot,

You are black.

Signed,
Kettle

That's precisely what I was worried would happen - that any other algo fork than what Monero chose would be ignored by the major miner devs.

Cryptonight Lite v7 seems to be working very well for Turtlecoin so seems like a good choice, and higher absolute hashrates are always nicer psychologically, even if they don't get you more blocks in a relative sense. 

I'm currently in the process of switching over to the new wallet (post 350k hard fork) and while I followed the steps to bootstrap the blockchain precisely, the wallet still started syncing from 0; it kinda feels like I d/l'ed that 2GB file for nothing.

I, for one, am cool with this. I did have to stop mining ITNS because of the ASIC invasion, but I'd rather see progress made on the core features than a hasty attempt to thwart the ASIC bastards. Besides, Dark Gravity Wave (or whatever you use for difficulty retargeting), seems to be doing a bang-up job of thwarting them already.