~snip~
The best thing they could do now is to open source their firmware right away, this will at least delay the inevitable collapse and allow them to exit the market with some dignity and fewer lawsuits.
I think there is less than a 1% chance of that, because all these years they have not shown their intention to be completely transparent, so I don't see why they would do it now. In addition, they believe that the future 100 million users will support them in what they do, and in addition, they will have the gratitude of all the mothers of the world (read previous posts for reference), so I believe that they are not worried about their business, and even less about possible lawsuits. Nothing major happened after the database leak, right? They had no real reason to open source their firmware code, they sold the most hardware wallet without doing so, people trusted them and thus everything was fine, the customer data leak is pretty minor compared to this issue, besides, it is not like opening the source code would undo the leak. This time however, people are now doubting the fact that current and old firmware can't export seed phrase, by releasing the code people can somehow be sure that as long as they don't update to the latest version -- thier funds are safe, and that ledger did not lie to them about their keys never leaving the secure element. |
|
|
|
Since you bought a few of those machines, it's probably about time to learn how to read the kernel log to spot the potential errors. 2023-05-14 12:36:18 Chain[0]: find 126 asic, times 0
2023-05-14 12:36:19 !!! reg crc error
2023-05-14 12:36:20 Chain[1]: find 124 asic, times 0
2023-05-14 12:36:21 !!! reg crc error
2023-05-14 12:36:22 Chain[1]: find 124 asic, times 1
2023-05-14 12:36:23 !!! reg crc error
2023-05-14 12:36:24 Chain[1]: find 124 asic, times 2
2023-05-14 12:36:24 Chain 1 only find 124 asic, will power off hash board 1
2023-05-14 12:36:26 Chain[2]: find 126 asic, times 0 S19j Pro comes with 126 chips on each hashboard, you can find this information online or by looking at a good miner's kernel log. At first, the miner checks Chain 0 which is usually the one on your left-hand side when facing the miner (you can read on the control board and find the numbering, deosn't always have to be labeled 0,1,2 it could be 3,4,5 , 5,6,7, you know the smallest number represents chain 0). So chain 0 sees 126 asics, it moves to chain 1, which is the middle board and the one that usually fails, it will always try to send the single 3 times until one of these scenarios happen A- it gets a reply signal from chip 126 B- the signal drops before reaching that last chip for 3 consecutive times then it moves to the last chain and repeats the same process. If it returns 0 errors, you will have a few possibilities, but since it is returning 124, it simply means that chip 124/125 has an issue, probably some solder-related issue, something that's beyond the average person's ability to fix. So what to do now? 1- Perform a reboot and see if that helps 2- Flash ONLY stock firmware from Bitmain's website if those two don't help, you should contact the seller and request a refund/replacement, if they offer you 20-30% return, take it, if they ask you to send only the bad hashboard for repair/replacement, go for it, try to refuse the option of returning the whole gear since that could take months. Try to negotiate with the buyer to get the best deal out of this mess, tell them you can send video proof, showing that it's indeed the gear he sold you, would be better if done via a video call and you follow their instructions. do NOT attempt to flash any custom firmware unless the seller approves it, because they will use that against you and won't grand you any warranty. |
|
|
|
In theory, unless you update to the newest firmware that unlocks seed-share and approve it physically by pressing the buttons on your Nano, the feature won't work. What's even worse is "How do we know the current firmware isn't capable of doing the same thing"?. I see most of these videos on youtube telling people not to worry, and that their funds are safe as far as they don't update to the latest firmware, as if they reviewed the current/previous firmware versions and made sure that there was nothing in the code that could send the seed phrase over to someone else. I think Ledger shot themselves in the foot, there is no Control Z in this, it's like telling your friend that you always knew their phone's password -- but you never checked their nudes, and that you never will as long as they tell you not to, it's wishful thinking to believe that person is ever going to trust you ever again even if you were completely honest, you had to keep your mouth shut, you can't unspeak something. The best thing they could do now is to open source their firmware right away, this will at least delay the inevitable collapse and allow them to exit the market with some dignity and fewer lawsuits. With that said it's very important to stress the fact that what's worse than keeping your BTC on Ledger is panicking to move them elsewhere less secured, or even end up sending them to the wrong address, please folks, don't panic, move your funds out of leger (not to Trezor) without panicking. |
|
|
|
لقد قامت منذ ساعات شركة ليدجر (التي تنتج محافظ الهاردير) بتحديث جديد في محفظتها و المخيف في الأمر، أن التحديث يتيح لهم ارسال البذرة الخاصة بك الى أطراف أخرى في حال اختيارك لذلك. هذا ليس مجرد تخمين، لكنه تصريح أحد مدراء الشركة: The device sends encrypted shards of your seed to different companies if you decide to use the service. You can of course still choose to backup it yourself.
على حد فهمي (و قد أكون مخطئأ) لكن حتى ان كانت البذرة مشفرة كما زعم المدير، هذا مازال يعني أنه يمكن للبذرة مغادرة الجهاز و هو عكس ما كانت تزعمه الشركة في الماضي. من يريد استخدام هدا التطوير هما الاشخاص الذين لايثقون في انفسهم في حفظ الseed الخاص بهم ويحتاجون لحماية اكتر في حال ضياع تلك البيانات, في حال الاشتراك في هده الخدمة هدا مايحدث: يقوم المستخدم بالموافقة على الشروط وعمل KYC مع شركة ليدجر, يقوم البرنامج بتشفير ال seed وتقسيمه الى 3 اجزاء (داخل شريحة ليدجر وليس خارها يعني لا احد يرا كيفية التشفير), تم يقوم الجهاز بتحميل كل جزء الى 3rd party منفصل, لايمكن لاي احد من هاؤولاء الاتسفادة من تلك البيانات الا في حال جمعها مع بعضها البعض. عندما تريد ان تستعيد ال seed عليك ان تتبت لي Ledger انك فعليا المالك باستخدام ال KYC وعندها سوف تطلب من الاطراف التلاتة ارسال تلك الاجزاء لمحفظتك الجديدة ويتم فك تشفيرها داخل الشريحة مجددا. هنا, نظريا لا احد سوا ليدجر والمستخدم يمكنه الحصول على الاجزاء المشفرة معا, مما يعني انه عليك ان تتق في ليدجر كشركة, واعتقد انه هدا امر سيء نبسيا, الا انه ليس سيء جدا كما يصوره بعد منافسين ليدجر للحصول على مكساب تسوقية, ماتفعله Trezor من censorship هوا اسواء بكثير من وجهة نظري. ولكن المشكلة هنا تكمن في "المبداء", وخصوصا بعد الtweet التي قالو فها انه "كان دوما من الممكن اطلاق تحديث للفيرم وير يمكنهم من الحصول على مفاتيح المحفظة الخاصة بك"
اما بخصوص هده الجزء لقت اطلعت على هده المواضيع في السابق, واعتقد كاتب الموضوع لديه بعض من سوء فهم حول جملة (المفاتيح الخاصة لاتغادر شريحة الجهاز), اعتقد ان اساس سوء الفهم هوا مكان وجود البرنامج الذي يقوم بارسال البتكوين, الذي هوا فعليا موجود اصلا على الشريحة, لذلك كل البرامج المحملة على الجهاز لديها امكانية الوصول للمفاتيح الخاصة, البرامج مفتوحة المصدرة وتخضع للمراجعة, طبعا هدا لايعني انه لايوجد احتمالية ان يمر شي دون ان يلاحظه احد وتكون انت الضحية وتضيع اموالك, ولكن لا اعتقد انه يوجد حل جدري لهده المشكلة.
اما بخصوص هدا الجزء ا لشركة تقول أن هذه الخاصية يمكن تفعيلها أو ابطالها عن طريق المحفظة الخاصة بهم (Ledger live) لكن المشكل (على حد فهمي) هو ان كان من الممكن لهم القيام بهذا بموافقة المستخدم، فيمكنهم القيام بهذا من دون موافقته أيضا. هنا مربط الفرس, الشركة تقول ان firmware update ضروري لتفعيل هده الخاصية, حاليا نحن نعرف ان اي ابديت يحتاج لموافقة مالك المحفظة عبر الظغط على ازرار المحفظة, اي انه "على الورق" لايمكن للشركة ان تقوم بتحديث الفيرموير من تلقاء نفسها, ولنفترض ان هدا صحيح وهوا على الاغلب صحيح, المشكلة الان, كيف نعرف ان الاصدارات السابقة لم تكن بها هده الخاصية اصلا نظرا لانه لايمكننا الاطلاع على كود الفيرم وير اصلا؟ اعتقد انه اولا, يجب على المستخدمين عدم تحميل اي تحديث, تانيا, البحث عن بدائل بدون تسرع وهلع, اعتقد ان هدا التحديث سيكون بداية النهاية لمحفظة ليدجر. |
|
|
|
Great, now that Russia has become the second largest crypto miner in the world, the western countries and their allies will want to push down even harder on crypto with more regulational nonsense and sanctions. Not that they did not want to do exactly that in the first place, but now they have found an excellent reason to stay on their course with an even higher rate of speed.
China dominated BTC mining for years, I am not talking about second largest or 20% or anything like that, it was 60% at best, at one point, Chinese mining pools had pretty close to 90% of the total hashrate, with more than half of that hashrate physically located in China, that is worse than Russia becoming the second largest BTC miner as far as the west is concerned. Also, I don't think the West (mainly the U.S since that's what the west is all about if we are going to be somehow honest) are that stupid, they know and see the future of BTC, and they probably don't want to be left behind while other countries move closer to adopting BTC. |
|
|
|
So a 3.2% increase, the last epoch started really slow, nearly halfway through the epoch was below 96% pace, then around the last third we climbed really fast to 103%, I guess we shouldn't discuss the same theory of miners shutting down then coming online when the epoch is about to finish, should we? lol Difficulty is projected to adjust downward next week, despite the recent BTC price hike. Sounds like it's curtailment season. Must be getting hot in Texas.  altair was probably right, it's likely a few large farms had to downclock/go offline for a while then came back, anyone from Texas to confirm the wether status during the past 2 weeks? online whether forecasts are not very accurate, my temp sensors were reading 39c under the shadow two days ago, and most wether apps were showing a max of 33c.  |
|
|
|
But normally it is the bear markets that are very good to mine and when bitcoin goes up they can sell it with the higher price and buy more machine.
The best time to be mining BTC is during a side-way market, the bull is the worst, and the bear is just in the middle, the reason is, during a bear market buying BTC directly outperforms mining, think of someone who bought 1 BTC a few months ago for 17k, and someone who bought mining gears instead, the one who bought BTC has nearly doubled his investment while the other person is not even halfway through to ROI. When the markets aren't doing much like they have been in the past couple of months, mining is best, if you bought BTC a few months ago at 25-28k then you had no real gains as the price has been in the same range for months if you bought miners instead you would be 20-30% into ROI. Of course, it's almost impossible to time the market, you will need tons of luck and experience to get in at the right time whether it's buying BTC or mining gear. |
|
|
|
Hello im from ireland and i tinker with tech in my spare time and I’ve recently been looking into crypto and mining for the past couple month anywho i was wondering but is it possible to create your own bitcoin miner not in the sense of a mining rig but an actual miner itself if anyone has any advice or info please send it my way! Do you want to do it for fun and experimental purposes, or for profit, ie, make a real-profitable miner which you could actually use to yield profit? if it's the former, the above source is a great start, if it's the latter, you need to keep in mind that intel failed in making such a miner, so chances are slim to nothing. |
|
|
|
Hello . I'm newbie too. i am having the same problem right now. Can you explain in detail how you solved the problem? thanks for your help.
You are not having the same issue, you are having a similar issue, and thus the solution is probably different, it's very uncommon to have a router that would block mining pools for no apparent reason, so OP's case was very special and you shouldn't follow his path without having done your own troubleshooting, so go ahead and start your own topic, make sure you provide the following: -Image of the status page. -Image of pool settings. -Kernel log. |
|
|
|
Your deposit isn't considered valid by the system because it's under the minimum amount so your funds will be sent back automatically to the address you used to deposit.
It's great that foolazz22 raised this question, I know it's not the mixer's fault but what happens when fees are pretty high, in other words, in order to refund him his $15 at least $10 of it will go in fees, on the other hand, setting low fees might make the transaction stuck for a very long period of time. What I propose instead, if possible, is to give the user enough time to add a second transfer to bring the total of his deposit to 0.001 BTC. |
|
|
|
|
Unlike what the two fine gentlemen above mentioned, there are actually two known custom firmware for Whatsminer, Chipless, and Bixbit, the main problem with these firmware including everything else that might come out in the future, is there is actually no reason to run them and pay high fees.
The stock firmware offers most of the features, you can overclock, underclock, set power limit, and submerge your miners using nothing but the stock firmware, and since using custom firmware requires a lot of trust, it's pretty difficult to find enough reviews from people who use those custom firmware versions, so most people are skeptical about using them especially that "again" there is really no use case.
|
|
|
|
In a perfect scenario, maybe, but the network is not perfect. The mining pool also has to build a candidate block, calculate the Merkle root, and then update all its miners with the new candidate block hash. If the whole process genuinely took only 200ms, then we wouldn't see empty blocks at all. But it simply is not that quick. It takes a few seconds in the real world, and so we still occasionally see empty blocks being mined.
I initially had the same thoughts, but turned out i was wrong, the <200ms average isn't a random figure i invented it was reported by Kano from his own pool logs, his pool is one of the oldest pools and the data he reports is probably the most accurate you can find on the internet. By the way, the figure includes EVERYTHING from knowing about the block to the moment the pool generates work for its miners, ya some will take over 200ms, some less, but the average is around that. It takes less than 200ms from receiving a block in bitcoind, until it can produce a full new block template with transactions. I have a message in debug.log when the block arrives with a timestamp to microseconds, another when it has been processed, and another when the pool has been sent the new work. The largest block in the last 8 hours was 631950 it was 1783877 bytes. bitcoind debug.log shows (as I mentioned) 2020-05-27 19:07:53.985131 ProcessNewBlock
2020-05-27 19:07:54.025189 Pre-allocating up to position 0x3000000 in blk02094.dat
2020-05-27 19:07:54.107985 UpdateTip: new best=000000000000000000067af76e3e524beabb9557f71413d8db9b88760e445d3b height=631950 version=0x20002000 log2_work=91.982404 tx=533594598 date='2020-05-27 19:07:33' progress=1.000000 cache=36.9MiB(236180txo) warning='75 of last 100 blocks have unexpected version'
2020-05-27 19:07:54.108131 Block 000000000000000000067af76e3e524beabb9557f71413d8db9b88760e445d3b provided by 107.191.117.193:8333
2020-05-27 19:07:54.158265 GetBlockTemplate called
2020-05-27 19:07:54.160724 CNB
2020-05-27 19:07:54.174358 CreateNewBlock(): block weight: 3964486 txs: 122 of 10917 fees: 0.04177550 sigops 20166
Also of interest in this case, it had to extend some disk space for the block. Total time from when it arrived until the pool got new work 19:07:54.174358 - 19:07:53.985131 = 189227 microseconds 189 millisecondsAs for empty blocks, the one I see in the last 8 hours is 631926 by ViaBTCI'll include the block before as well for more information: 2020-05-27 16:36:48.892330 ProcessNewBlock
2020-05-27 16:36:48.913863 Leaving block file 2093: CBlockFileInfo(blocks=99, size=133620045, heights=631826...631924, time=2020-05-26...2020-05-27)
2020-05-27 16:36:48.914006 Pre-allocating up to position 0x1000000 in blk02094.dat
2020-05-27 16:36:48.950898 Pre-allocating up to position 0x100000 in rev02094.dat
2020-05-27 16:36:49.011947 UpdateTip: new best=00000000000000000010dab51e5208c538fce5634104fbd059da24140911efe7 height=631925 version=0x27ffe000 log2_work=91.981925 tx=533547943 date='2020-05-27 16:36:37' progress=1.000000 cache=14.5MiB(52565txo) warning='72 of last 100 blocks have unexpected version'
2020-05-27 16:36:49.012075 Block 00000000000000000010dab51e5208c538fce5634104fbd059da24140911efe7 provided by 107.191.117.193:8333
2020-05-27 16:36:49.071051 GetBlockTemplate called
2020-05-27 16:36:49.071136 CNB
2020-05-27 16:36:49.088969 CreateNewBlock(): block weight: 3964991 txs: 1933 of 17715 fees: 0.18324281 sigops 13534
2020-05-27 16:37:08.482568 ProcessNewBlock
2020-05-27 16:37:08.490710 UpdateTip: new best=0000000000000000000f1b87afb1b95a5e681736ea387b60a8bd150b1ec8bb30 height=631926 version=0x3fff0000 log2_work=91.981944 tx=533547944 date='2020-05-27 17:06:23' progress=1.000012 cache=14.5MiB(52772txo) warning='73 of last 100 blocks have unexpected version'
2020-05-27 16:37:08.568545 CreateNewBlock(): block weight: 3964339 txs: 1903 of 17821 fees: 0.21419789 sigops 13493
In this case firstly, you can see the block before, it was 20 seconds before it. Secondly, in this case the work kano.is generated included 1933 transactions and fees: 0.18324281 BTC However as can be seen from the next block on the block chain, it was only 315 bytes ... instead of our "block weight: 3964991" (You'll have to check the 315 bytes number on any block explorer to see it's an 'empty' block) i.e. our work that miners were working on was a full block, but ViaBTC miners were working on an empty block when they found it. It took 196639 microseconds to process i.e. 197 milliseconds... and of course it didn't take 197 milliseconds longer than ViaBTC - they didn't process it in 0ms  You can run a bitcoind yourself and you can see this information - though you'll have to patch it and recompile it to display the extra information  I've been around in bitcoin since 2011 working on code related to it. Working on mining code, pool code, and even simple patches to bitcoin itself. Now if you think <200ms isn't worth it to mine empty blocks, you can read my post in the same topic explaining how it IS worth it for mining pools to invest those 200ms There is 86400000ms in a day, and 144 blocks to be mined, so by utilizing 100ms every 10 mins you get a total of 14400ms which is 0.0167% of the total 24 hours.
When a pool like F2pool saves 150ms for every potential block, that's 552510 terahash worth of mining, if that's hard to understand think of it this way.
When F2pool knows about a new block coming, and while going through that 150ms process they switch their hashrate to another PPS pool and say that is Viabtc, by the end of the day they would get paid $1500 from mining for 150ms every 10 mins or a total of 21.1 seconds a day with 22,100,420.00th worth of hash power, but instead of doing this, they would just mine to their own pool and still by the end of the day/week/month/year, they will theoretically make that same amount of money.
And it gets even better when you don't have to download the block in the first place when your pool is synced with the other pools via any other protocol and all you need is their hash (not even the block header) then that makes it well above 200ms, but even with these numbers F2pool can potentially make over half a million dollar in profit yearly, or otherwise, lose it if they use your code and not mine empty blocks. |
|
|
|
|
Your Stratum URL looks pretty strange, not even sure how it shows alive, nowhere in miningrigrentals where it mentions anything about that 3311 port you are using, either way, it could be any thing that causes this issue, but it would be a waste of time to try and blame anything before checking a different pool, and please tell me, why on earth would you use the same exact URL and worker on ALL three pools? this is wrong in every way even if your miner was hashing at full speed, do NOT use the same pool on all 3 fields.
|
|
|
|
This is a classic approach, or the concept of the Russian world - lie always, lie everywhere, lie with or without reason! The main thing is to lie!
I couldn't disagree, but I think modern western governments are more advanced in the "lying game" than anyone else. - for the local population in Russia, you can give out any nonsense in the media at all You can do the same thing in the U.S, you can lie to someone who works from 8 to 5, take their tax money, and spend it in a war 7000 miles away from home, and they will still believe that an 18-year-old kid living on a mountain is an existential threat to their country. Of course, this is pretty universal, the Chinese do the same thing, African governments do the same thing, it's very important to realize that ALL governments manipulate their own people, by not realizing that and thinking that all governments are lying except yours -- it would only prove that you have had a successful brainwash. |
|
|
|
When a node receives a block from somewhere else, it has to spend a little bit of time verifying that block, checking every transaction in the block is correct and accurate, and then updating its set of unconfirmed outputs to remove all the outputs which have just been spent and add all the new outputs which have just been created. This doesn't take long - usually in the order of a few seconds depending on your hardware - but it isn't instant.
While this is happening, a miner cannot create a new block filled with transactions to work on, because it doesn't know which transactions it can and cannot include until it verifies which transactions have just been mined in the block it just received. So for these few seconds, the miner's options are either to have their mining equipment sit idle and do nothing, or attempt to mine an empty block until they have fully verified the last block. Since having their equipment sit idle would be a waste of money, most miners attempt to mine an empty block for a few seconds until they create a normal block filled with transactions and then switched to trying to mine that instead. Very occasionally a miner will be successful in these few seconds and will mine an empty block.
Downloading, verifying transactions, and adjusting the node's mempool to purge the already confirmed transactions takes no more than 200ms, a mining pool would waste on average 14400ms a day if they refrain from mining empty blocks, depending on the size of their hashrate it could be anywhere between a few thousands to a few million dollars a year, of course, this comes at an expense which is increased probability of orphan race. |
|
|
|
I am not saying that they should not mine the whales first but they should carry along the lower transactions at the same time with the whales and that will make everyone feels better
That would make miners feel worse, not better, it would certainly make you feel better, but sure thing is, miners couldn't care less about how anyone else feels. the Miners are abandoning the lower transaction fee for the whales. So what? someone outbid you and got their transactions confirmed faster, you do that almost every time you transact bitcoin, your wallet checks pending transactions, sees a dozen of them paying 1 sat/byte, sets 2 sat/byte, and your transaction is confirmed in the next block, those poor folks have to wait for your transaction to confirm first before they could have theirs confirmed, you didn't feel bad about it, did you? |
|
|
|
Your analysis was excellent. Thank you. If I do figure out an option and do get a setup, any chance I can tip you to help me get it?
If it's anything I can help with, I'll gladly do it free of charge. note the antminer L3+ uses 120 volts it is okay
the s15 use 240 volts it may be better.
To clarify the subject further, S15 will run just fine with anything between 200 and 240 VAC, it won't run on 110v even with 1 hash board inside. Or why not a S19 with only 1 hashboard connected? It doesn't cost a lot of money to buy a broken S19 online, and could give a good ratio BTC/kwh.
Not a bad idea if the price is right, I'd just make sure the other 2 dead boards are inside the miner, or else the miner will run pretty loud as air will "prefer to" travel through the least resistant area which will be 66% of the miner, so the remaining little air will need to increase to cool the working board and thus increase the fans and the power consumption, if the dead boards are not there, then OP needs to do some modifications to the miner. One thing to keep in mind, S15 has only two fans on the intake, none on the exhaust side, the S19 has 2 on each side, so the S15 is a lot quieter to run, especially during the boot/fan speed test cycle. |
|
|
|
not even a 1 Exa in a month, (0.91) and we're looking at 2.1% with ~ 3 days to do, high chances to still tick under 2.5%
I will take all the diff adjustments for the last years cause I'm really curious percentage-wise how many times we experience changes this low. Of course, I already know it's one thing to get 10% at 30Exa and a different game for it at 300 but could it is that we reached some sort of peak hashrate moment when expansion plans are on hold?
I have been saying for months that any large diff spikes are not "physically" doable, let alone sustainable given the current hashrate and the market conditions, and so far it has been holding true. We started the year with a difficulty of 35.3T, now it's 48T, that's an increase of 35% over the course of about 11 epochs, with an average of roughly 3% per epoch. Another thing to look at is the yearly change, taking the difficulty of exactly 12 months ago (16-05-2022) which was 31.25T, that's an increase of 53.6% or an average of 2.23%. You see the second half had a higher average despite being "harder" to achieve, mainly due to the fact that the price has nearly doubled, but even with the price the pace of difficulty isn't keeping up. Things will only get worse or better (depending on what you want to see) as we move closer to the halving, the next halving is less than a year away, and what gear that pays power has an ROI of less than a year accounting for diff increase for the remaining time till the halving? exactly no gear out there. As someone who sells miners and has close contact with other sellers, I can already see the drop in demand, people now go with the assumption that 1- BTC price will go up due to the halving. 2- gear prices will drop drastically after the halving. (which isn't always the case) Now of course, I don't sell those rich corporate who gamble with other people's money and don't care about doing all the math, but I am sure many of them will hold back on buying gears now which should put more stress on the difficulty spikes, people with free power or some other incentives might still buy gears because their formula is different. having a few random spikes here and there isn't something I would discard completely, but I am talking about the average growth from now till exactly a year later going into the halving will very, very unlikely sustain anything above 2.1- 2.2% per epoch in the best/worst case scenario. So by April 2024, one could argue that the difficulty level will not go above 70T, in fact, I will be surprised if it goes above 65T. |
|
|
|
I'm planning to use whirlwind notes as storage for my extra savings(money that I can afford to lose). I'm curious if the private keys that we are holding can be used on other Bitcoin wallets in the event that your service is not available anymore. If you guys really don't save private keys then that means our funds are still safe in the wallet that we are using.
Just because they don't save the "note private keys" doesn't mean if the service goes down you will still have access to your funds. you don't need to generate the note using their website, you can simply just take your own address, change the first "1" to ww and that gives you a note public key, to access funds owned by that note, you will use your private key of that address (you don't even need to add that ww- part). but think of the public note as a 'receipt' which proves that this note owns x amount of BTC, because when you make a deposit, it doesn't go to your address, it goes to "master pool of coins" which only whirlwind "at least for now" have control over, so even while having ownership over the note, the funds that belong to it aren't controlled by your private key. If you are not doing this for the mining campaign rewards, there is no point in keeping your funds on any mixer, unless, of course, for mixing purposes with a plan to withdraw them after x time has passed. |
|
|
|
I think the first worker (without extension) will disappear after some time being not used.
you are correct, but that "some time" is rather long tho, willi's rental is probably going to finish before it disappears, I am certain it doesn't disappear up to the point of when it has 0 hash on the hour timeframe. here is one of my miners that mined for a few seconds on the pool due to connectivity issues with the main pool "hashrate1m": "0",
"hashrate5m": "0",
"hashrate1hr": "0",
"hashrate1d": "1.34G",
"hashrate7d": "5.44G",
", I am not sure if it will disappear when the 1d = 0, or it has to wait for the 7d mark, if CK doesn't answer by the time my 1d is 0, I will post an update to see if the 1d = 0 got it to disappear or not. @willi9974, of course it is valid, ignore everything at the bottom and just look at the top part that isn't even displaying the btc address, it's all that matters, if it's hashing then it's hashing. {
"hashrate1m": "507T",
"hashrate5m": "281T",
"hashrate1hr": "205T",
"hashrate1d": "164T",
"hashrate7d": "71.6T",
"lastshare": 1684080917,
"workers": 5,
"shares": 13287000000,
"bestshare": 35563521500.24562,
"bestever": 35563521500,
"worker": [
{Good luck bro, hope you hit a new block. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
