That's too much work for little to no gain, anyone who runs a mining farm should be able to afford a PC or laptop of some kind, if the farm has many gears then tracking them on a mobile app is going to be a nightmare, if it has a few then monitoring apps are not really needed to begin with.

Not trying to discourage OP, but the best question to ask yourself before attempting to sell a new piece of software is "why would people use it", since 99% of the users won't be to able to safely check if the software is "honest", chances are -- most of them won't run it anywhere near their mining farms, all you need to have a miserable couple of months ahead is a nightswitcher or antbleed virus infecting a dozen miners on your farm.

Cgiminer folder isn't going to help you recover your lost coins, you are going to need the wallet files, try to find the wallet.dat on all drivers, search for


in C, D or whatever drives/partitions you have on that PC, assuming you don't recall using a different PC for the wallet, it should be there somewhere on your PC.

Also, don't respond to any PMs, especially by newbie accounts trying to help you out, they are most likely trying to steal your coins.

You kind of answered the mystery by yourself, it's the "fast boot" that makes a difference, not the pool, the pool part was just a coincidence.

the fast boot will speed up the upfreq which you see on your miner's status page, all 3 boards will start with upfreq 0 and when all are tuned to their best ability they will turn to 1, the default tuning is a bit slow, so they introduced this fast boot to make it tune faster, however, as a result of this "fast" boot, some of the boards might not reach their maximum frequency and thus the miner will hash at a lower rate.

Keep in mind that even if tuned fine for one time, it could be bad in the other, it could be bad when you first test it, then on the second time it would be good, so my guess is you had pool x with fast boost enabled, the tunning was bad, you changed pool, the tunning went fine this time, so you assumed it has to do with the pool, if you kept the "bad" pool and rebooted a few times, you would eventually get it to hash at full speed.

It's great that you brought up that fast boot to the discussion, I advise AGAINST it unless you have these two things:

1- your farm encounters many power outages and you want your miners to tune in as fast as possible.
2- you have some monitoring software like AwsomeMiner which will automatically reboot the miner in case the tune doesn't get to full hashrate.

If you don't have the first one, there is exactly no need for fast boot, if your miner reboots once a month, why risk having a bad tune just to save a few mins? if you don't have the second one, what happens if the miner tunes at 70% of the hashrate and you don't notice it? it would be better to let it take its time to tune at 100%.

---

Alternatively, if you do care about fast tuning, you could use the upfreq speed option in the tools, it has a scale from 1 to 10, the higher the number the faster the tunning but the more likely the issues, so you could test something in between, maybe 4-6, then do a few reboots to make sure your miner tunes fine with every reboot and stick to that number.

 

I highly doubt it has any affect, the hashrate is still whiting the specs of -+5% but i think it could do better, it seems like the env temp was not so great when the miner tuned, although temps look good now according to the image, I think a reboot would change the hashrate if the env temp is better than when it tuned the first time.

It would be pretty unlogical to vote for anything but #3, I think anyone who cares enough about their anonymity would understand that they need to save that info.

With that said, I am interested in hearing from them, maybe they have some "valid" reasons for not doing so? maybe he saved the 3 files and they were empty? what excuse do they have?




If the campaign works, I think your point of view is correct, having a random 10k deposit will most likely have a large variety of values and thus, it would make no sense to tell the users how much to deposit to get a better %, it could make things less attractive to potential customers.

Another way to mix/blend your own deposits (if the campaign doesn't succeed) would be renting hash power and using PPS pools to withdraw funds to the mixer, if done carefully, the fees could still be below 3%, i.e if you pay 1.03 BTC to hashrate, you would get 1 BTC in rewards.

The good thing about pool coins is that they are already "mixed" somehow, and most of them have little to no history anyway.

Now depending on how much the mixer grows, you could even go to the extent of running your own pool, some pools offer 0% fees while being a proxy to another pool, so they pay fees from their own pocket, but they get a decent mixing (probably the only reason they do so, if not, what else?), in your case, you might not have to pay from your own pocket, the fees/donations might be greater than fee difference between the fees you pay the actually pool and the fees the users pay you.

Anyway, these are just some 4 AM thoughts, hopefully, the campaign works fine and manages to keep enough users who actually find the use of using the mixer rather than the rewards, it's going to take some time given the recent incidents with CM, not the easiest start one could have that's for sure.

---

Anyone else thinks the CAPTCHA used in Whirlwind's website is really difficult to see? I prefer hitting a dozen fire hydrant images than having to attempt to read those letters that go on top of each other.

The image is not working, I don't use imgur as much recently since it does these stuff where it gives you a link and the link doesn't show anything, I use https://imgbb.com/ instead, you can copy the image link and post it here it will show just OK on the forum.

Please include a picture showing the frequency of the gear you said is underperforming.

I am going to help you run some math first, 600kWh is really nothing as far as miners with decent profit-creating ability are concerned, the average will be in the 3kw range which means nothing more than 200 hours a month, guess what? this does match your $60 a month based on today's number, 100th M30s++ or S19 pro will make you 60$ roughly 37.5 cents an hour, so that x 200 = $75.

But let's look at the downside, that gear will cost you nearly $1500, so you are looking at 1.7 years ROI (everything else not taken into account), besides, those gears are pretty loud if they run on stock air cooling, so more money will have to be spent on some other type of liquid cooling.

You could be looking at the small USB sticks that need 200-300w and do 2-3 terahash, those are expensive, very low in hashrate, but are indeed very quiet.

If you could overcome the noise issue and can do large miners, things might be doable with some underclocking, better efficiency, and lower noise, a possible shot at getting ROI in less than 2 years then keeping the miners alive to generate some income, or, buy old gears, 3 S9s for pretty cheap (probably 400$ for 3 of them) underclocked to 10th each, they can run for 230-240 hours and make you 20-25$ a month, this will be a bit faster ROI, and less initial investment.

Also, I am not sure how your 600kWh is reached, but it would be best to let it accumulate and then run the miner in the last 7-8 days (you are going to run some math) instead of the on-offs which can damage your mining gears.

There is a direct correlation between block time intervals and fees, when the demand for block space is pretty large, every second matters, on the 5th of May, the average block time was 12.01 mins which helped in making things worse.

on a side but related note, Luke Dashjr seems to be pretty upset about what's happening with fees and he is calling for "actions", it will be an interesting scene to watch, I doubt mining pools will signal any change in that regard since they all are enjoying the extra profit.

Let's look at the bright side, Segwit adoption has not increased for nearly a year now, it has been stuck at a 90% level, but it jumped to 95% in no time.



This debate is déjà vu, to be honest, I will start and finish by saying that almost nobody uses BTC for daily payments, you may know a person or two, but the percentage of people who use BTC for daily payments rounded to the nearest whole number is basically 0, BTC gained most of it's value for being a "store of value" even when fees are dirt cheap it is still expensive and slow to most payments, even if fees were 0 (cash is, most local payments are) how are you going to convince someone to wait for an average of 10 mins to get his coffee?

It almost feels like the whitepaper is being universally misunderstood, P2P e-cash does not necessarily mean (cheap, can buy coffee, fast), or none of that, it simply means P2P, BTC is not suitable for daily payments because it's too secured for that, it's a part of its strength not weakness, if you want to convince someone to use BTC you will have better luck (by a few orders of magnitude) if you focus on the value aspect and to show them the chart of Bitcoin, people care more about preserving their wealth and increasing it, than finding an alternative for the grocery store checkout, because honestly, nobody seems to have a problem using their credit card or cash to pay for a cart full of vegetables.

You are going to add to that that "bad money drives out good", we will need to get rid of all the government-printed money first, only then we will be forced to spend dear bitcoins.

Anyway, I am pretty sure this wave is going to be over soon and we will go back to normal the moment this hype is gone just like any other sort of hype/fomo we had in the past, more things will come in the future and clog the network for a few days and then disappear, I don't think we need to worry about it, it will resolve on its own.

JayJuanGee quoted my post so I checked his post and found him answer your questions, not that his answer wasn't correct, but I thought I need to add an important fact that many people seem to be unaware of is that not all miners are friends, they don't know each other, they share one interest and one interest only (making the most profit).

If there was a universally agreed upon way to increase their profit, they won't even have to discuss it on forums or send emails, everyone would be doing it and it would just happen, and given that miners have been mining for over a decade, regardless of how miners as people change, the mindset is the same.

Many people like to come up with all kinds of different theories on how miners could do x to achieve z, you got a theory that suggests miners can intentionally shut down some of their gears to achieve.

1- Lower difficulty for the next epoch.
2- Fewer blocks found > larger amount of stuck transactions > more fees.

You got another theory that suggests, miners can shut down 90% of their miner gears, save 90% on operational and power costs, and still make the same money since the rewards are the same.

You got many more weird theories that all look great on paper, but can't be done simply because the nature of Bitcoin mining is decentralized, if 10,000 miners agree to exploit something based on one of the theories, I myself as a miner will make more money by exploiting their exploit, i.e if they shut down 90% of their gears, I will power 100% of my gears, a dozen thousand miners will do the same, so that 10,000 miners will actually lose money simply because they can't tell me or anyone else how to operate.

in fact, even if 90% of miners agreed to apply one of the theories, the remaining 10% can rekt the whole plan and eat the profit that 90% left on the table before any of their goals are achieved.

As long as you don't need a license from a single entity like the U.S., British or Russian government to mine BTC, there is exactly NOTHING miners can do to hurt BTC or its users without hurting themselves even more.

I rather worry about being hit by a lightning strike in the middle of the summer than worry about any of those theories surrounding miners becoming true in real life.

---

In the recent high fee waves, some serious hashrate was lost, it was as large as 10% and then quickly settled at 6% (could be lower or higher depending on the luck status which we can't tell), someone might assume that some miners intentionally did that to clog the network even more and cause fees to rise so the remaining hashrate they had left online would make more money, but that is just theory, if we run the math (we did so many times in the Mining section) you will see that that 6% would have made more money by just mining rather than playing any kind of games and taking a huge risk.


 

Honestly, it's difficult to be confused about the quote I posted


It was a simple question with a short direct answer, I did not know you didn't mean it, or that it was a sort of sarcasm, I thought you really meant the network is not working as advertised. good that you cleared the statement further.


Unfortunately, Bitcoin doesn't solve poverty issues, does it? it simply gives you a means of payment that are not controlled by a single entity, whether someone can afford to use it or not is beyond the inner workings of BTC, it all boils down to simple economics, blocks will have to increase in size at some point the future there is no denial about it, it's only a matter of time before everyone who opposed block size limit change (including myself) will get to the point where we can no longer hold to that thought.

There might be other things that need reassessment, an example would be the difficulty epoch length, one of the reasons why fees got pretty high this week is because in the first few days of this epoch, we were finding 6% less block, in other words, the average time between blocks was  10.6 mins rather than just 10, it could have been worse if say 20% of the hashrate was lost, fewer blocks found per x timespan = more fees needed, so at some point in time we may need to see if the 2016 blocks rule is good enough or if we should change it to something like 1008 so in case we lose 20-30% of the hashrate we won't be having 13 mins block intervals for nearly 20 days till the next epoch adjustment.

However, doing that and increasing the block size just due to a wave of BRC-20 transactions that might not last beyond 1 week isn't the wisest thing to do, but eventually, when this becomes the norm and paying 200-500 sat/Vbyte isn't something that lasts for just a few days, we are going to have to increase the block size, still however, that won't allow "everyone" to use the main blockchain for every transaction, it also won't solve every problem that BTC faces to become widely accepted for daily payments, we are going to need to compromise a huge portion of the security to achieve that, sidechains or different layer solutions will be a MUST if we want transactions of small values to make sense in the future.

Categorizing what is spam and what is not is pretty subjective, i am sure those who paid 500 sats for a BRC-20 transaction do not think it was spam.

I have not found a way to check the size of those transactions but they are not much different from normal transaction judging by the blocksize in the recent wave, i has not gone up, still in the range of 1.6, those BRC-20 transaction are rather small unlike the normal ordinals that are pretty large in size, but given the FOMO they outbid each other pretty badly.

One more thing worth mentioning is that the pace of finding blocks has been 6% slower than average, today it picked up to 2% which means more blocks are found per day, this should greatly reduce the fee base.

Why do you think it's not working as "advertised", you can still transfer on permissionless bases despite the high fees, BTC was never advertised for being both cheap and permissionless, so practically, the network still works in the same manner it was on day 1, blocksize is limited, people outbid each other to get transactions confirmed, nothing has changed except for the fact that people are now willing to pay more.

---

Is this a bad thing for many people? it is, but that doesn't mean BTC has changed. no, we can blame Ordinals and BRC-20, but if we look at the numbers


May 08 > 41.4% of transactions were non-Ordinals
May 07 > 34.2% of transactions were non-Ordinals
May 06>  46%    of transactions were non-Ordinals
May 05>  64.9% of transactions were non-Ordinals 

There is no doubt that these Oridnals caused the initial spike, but the data shows that there are many people willing to pay high fees to move their BTC around, they are okay with paying 1 sat if they could get away with that, but when it's 500 sats/Vbyte that doesn't seem to stop them.

Which why I strongly agree with your following statement:



Even without Ordinals, at some point in the future, we will have people transacting millions of dollars whereby paying $20 fees to have a final settlement of 10M on the most secured blockchain on the planet earth is considered dirt cheap, where the plebs like us who want to send $200 worth of BTC find it stupid to pay 10% in fees.

eventually, the "weaker" hands will have to move to L2 solutions, the only reason why the usage of LN has not been increasing drastically is that people could still transact with 1-2 sats, when they can no longer do that, they will be forced to use things like LN.

Nothing changed in terms of the block rewards, it still is 6.25 BTC, what has been happening in the past few days is that transactions fees became pretty high, some blocks generated more fees than the actual block reward itself, so if your pool got 11BTC, it means 11-6.25 was generated from fees paid by those who had their transactions included in that block.

Well, they could also do the latter themselves, in fact, it's easier to just split a couple of bitcoins into a dozen random outputs of different sizes and send them to the mixer, you can increase the number of deposits to 10,000 in a few hours and be done with it.

Also, if what you say is correct, then the mining campaign would reward people based on the number of deposits rather than the amount, so instead of someone sending a single deposit of 1 BTC, they could send 10*0.1 BTC, this will increase the number of deposits by 10 as opposed to just 1.

I believe both are equally important.

Say we have 4 Whirlwind pools.

Pool A has the following deposits:

1- 1 BTC from address 1111
2- 0.5 BTC from address 2222


a total of 1.5 BTC and 2 deposits, if I was to send 0.5 to mix it, the output with be 1 of 2, I either get 1 or 2.

Pool B has the following deposits:

1- 0.2 BTC from address 1111
2- 0.1 BTC from address 2222
3- 0.4 BTC from address 3333
4- 0.3 3BTC from address 4444

a total of 1 BTC and 4 deposits if I was to mix the same 0.5 BTC, the number of suspects isn't exactly 4 in this case since I'll need to get at least 2 deposits, this means 4/2, and the suspect addresses will still be only 2 despite having 4 deposits in the pool.

Pool C would outperform pool B if it has:

1- 0.5 BTC from address 1111
2- 1 BTC from address 2222
3- 0.7 BTC from address 3333

it's 1 of 3 now, despite having fewer deposits.

Pool D which outperforms them all would be something like this:

1- 0.6 BTC from address 1111
2- 1.4 BTC from address 2222
3- 0.7 BTC from address 3333
4- 3.2 3BTC from address 4444

Of course, I could be wrong, this is just based on my understanding of how the multi-sig pool works, I hope to get more clearance and corrections of the different pool examples I posted above.

What is more important to the Anonymity set, the number of deposits or the total amount? if I understood correctly it's both, but according to what I understand from the "Anonymity Mining campaign" the goal is to increase the number of deposits only -- simply because when the 10,000 deposits number is reached there will be no incentives for people to keep their funds in the pool, so you would end up with 10k deposits and maybe next to nothing of BTC in the pool.

The reason why I ask is that I think there could be "easier" and probably "cheaper" ways to create those deposits if the only result required is a certain number of deposits, I understand that the pro of doing the Anonymity Mining campaign is that it would increase the level of trust since a mixer that ones had 1000 BTC and did not exit scam is unlikely to do so when they have 500 BTC.

So many details that I will try to summarize, the S19 XP comes with 2 large bolted heatsinks,  regular power cuts are not good for miners, humidity is worse than heat and can really kill your miners.

the water plates are a tough route, why not use immersion cooling instead? Have you looked into it? it would be a lot easier to do than water cooling, and nowadays, they sell those plug-n-play tanks which would make life a lot easier for you.

NiceHash will brag about paying 6% more fees when that happens, but won't tell you when they pay you 34% LESS than what normal BTC pools pay.

Obviously, today's fees were pretty high, with some block fees netting nearly the same as the block reward itself, an example of that would block 788685 that had 6.13 BTC in fee rewards alone, that's nearly 100% more profit for that single block.

Current earning for the average large PPLNS pool and most PPS pools is nearly $140 per 1 PH (keeping the figures in fiat for easier comparison for the readers), while if your miner is pointed to nicehash AsicBoost or None-AB you would be making 104$, and 92$ respectively, that's a loss of 26% or 34%.



It's worth mentioning that this could last for a few hours only, it could last for a few days, maybe weeks, nobody knows, which applies for the other side of the equation, when NiceHash is pays 6% or 10%, it doesn't mean it has to last forever, in many cases those payouts last no longer than a few hours, so while you could make more BTC by giving your hashrate to Nicehash, in times like these, you could be loosing more.

I am not here to bash Nicehash or the other services that have the same business model (NH doesn't need more bashing IMO anyway), but this topic was made to make people aware that the way some of those services advertise their services couldn't be further from the truth, that brag-post of "we are paying 6% more" shouldn't be there because it gives the assumption that this is what they always pay, which is wrong, I would have the utmost respect for Nicehash if they would post another topic today and say "We are paying 26-34% less", but we all know they won't do that.

I have not been following the diff changes much, I am now more interested in watching the block fees, block fees have been above 5BTC for a while now, block 788685 generated 12.38 BTC in rewards, that's insane.

Current fees are 500 sats/Vbyte, you are looking at $20 for an average transaction, I don't recall seeing anything like this for a couple of years now.

37% of today's transactions were non-BRC-20 and non-Ordinals, which also suggests that there are enough "normal" BTC users who are willing to pay a premium to have a transaction stored on the main blockchain which so happens to be the most secure blockchain on planet earth, of course, someone who got used to paying 1 sat/Vbyte won't like what they see, but anyway, I doubt this will last forever, but it's possible that the days of 1 sat/Vbyte are gone, if these NFTs/Ordinals are here to stay, I believe they will set the new minimum to at least 5x or 10x of it used to be before they show up.

لم يعد هدا الامر ناقصا فهوا موجود الان, واول تطوير ساهم في انتشار ال NFTs على بلوكتشين البتكوين هوا BRC-20 وهوا شبيه جدا من ERC-20 الخاص بالاثيريوم.


الامر جيد للمعدنين, جيد لمحبي تلك الصور الغريبة, ولكنه سيء للاشخاص الذين يستخدمون بتكوين للتحويلات الصغيرة, مثلا الان عليك دفع 400 ساتوشي للبايت, اي ان متوسط التحويل 15$ وهدا امر سيء في نظر الكثيرين, طبعا لا اعتقد ان هده الطفرة سوف تستمر بهده الوثيرة ولكن ايضا من المحتمل ان لا نرا تحويلات 1 ساتوشي للبايت مجددا.




نعم يمكن للمعدنين اضافة قدر محدود من البيانات داخل ال Coinbase transaction, ولكن هدا التطوير اتاح لهم اضافة بيانات اكثر بطريقة سهلة ورخيصة نسبية, يمكن الان حفظ الصور ولربما في المستقبل القريب حتى فيديوات ان لم قد حدث.


دخل المعدنين في الايام القليلة الماضية ارتفع بمقدار 10% تقريبا, نعم سوف يوثر على nodes ولكن يبقا الحجم الاقصى للبلوك نفسه, الفرق انه في الماضي كانت معظم البلوكز تقريبا نصف فارغة, اما الان فهي ممتلئة بنسبة 100% تقريبا.

اخي خالد لايوجد اي اضافة ولا اي موافقة, فالامر اصبح من الماضي, هناك تطوير حصل العام الماضي معروف بأسم  taproot يمكنك قراءة BIP 340 و 341 و 342 لفهم فائدة هدا التطوير, قام بعد المطورين بايجاد طريقة تسهل عليهم تخزين بيانات اضافية داخل البلوك تشين تقريبا باستخدام Schnorr signatures التي تم اضافتها مع تطوير تابروت, ثم قام بعض المطورين بانشاء بعض المحافظ لتسهيل عملية ال mint وقام مطور اخر بانشاء بروتوكول BRC20 واصبح طريقة برمجمة تلك البيانات على البلوك تشين اسهل بكثير للمطورين.

بالنسبة للمعدين فان معظم مزارع التعدين الكبيرة بنسبة 95% يعدنون بتكوين فقط, نسبة تعدين العملات البديلة عبارة عن قطرة في نهر, اما عن كيفية حصول المعدنين على اموال اكثر بوجود NFTs and Ordinals فيمكنك قراءة تعليقي هدا في قسم التعدين الانجليزي https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5431167.msg62194657#msg62194657