https://www.miningrigrentals.com/MMR - Mining Rig Rentals are a good shout if you don't want to use nicehack never had issues with MMR good staff and support and lots of SHA256 gear available.
|
|
|
|
 Hostility is the first sign of defeat.  |
|
|
|
I'm writing my own software to do the double SHA-256 hashing on my Windows 10 system.
I want to test it on real data, i.e., testnet.
My code can be called from C++, Python, or run as an executable from a command line.
It will take a message header as an input, and try to find a hash that satisfies the level of difficulty.
I expect that my code will be invoked with many such headers before it succeeds, even on testnet. If I understand it correctly, the nodes on the network each receive different versions of the current block (with the extra nonce varying).
So I'm looking for a program that will get current data from the network, feed the message header to my program, try again if not successful, and post the success when successful. I'd like to see that eventually, I will have successfully mined something.
Alternatively, I'd like to access an older block on the network to see if I can duplicate the successful hashing of that block, using the version of the message that was actually solved by the miner. That way, I know that my program should succeed.
Can I get access to test cases which have a known result?
Is there a way I can estimate how many hashing attempt it would take, on average, to solve a hashing problem? I know this will vary over time because of the adjustments to the level of difficulty, but I'd be interested in a ball-park answer for the testnet. If the answer is in days (given the hashing speed of my software), then I might want to abandon attempts to successfully mine with live data and try some other approach.
Here are the first 50 nonce values for bitcoin. There is no way to know exactly how long hashing would take it's all down to the numbers. 1639830024
2573394689
1844305925
2850094635
2011431709
2538380312
2258412857
1716931356
1397702696
1709518110
4161222679
208296255
2259603767
615369513
2566641720
3591544324
2474926087
4064360242
766824726
1901123894
3592540203
1645155368
1437882917
2969614887
837891875
1555516980
3012316214
2396281646
2688142130
3893691144
716922133
230744328
1076005922
616579874
3890072084
797229870
2244623873
3941073664
1610743848
1902584070
3522947079
3600650283
2093702200
429798192
2771238433
1626117377
2957174816
3759171867
3014810412
1028409902 |
|
|
|
If your looking to provide a service and would like banking facility with crypto and cards wirex are going from strength to strength at the moment and I would suggest you take a look at them. Multi-currency accounts including BTC, ETH, XRP, AUD, HKD, JPY, GBP https://wirexapp.com/business/wirex-business |
|
|
|
It seems to have connected once but still failed to get address from debug.log it shows 2019-05-21T15:42:23Z Binding RPC on address 0.0.0.0 port 8332 failed.
2019-05-21T15:42:23Z HTTP: creating work queue of depth 1000
2019-05-21T15:42:23Z Config options rpcuser and rpcpassword will soon be deprecated. Locally-run instances may remove rpcuser to use cookie-based auth, or may be replaced with rpcauth. Please see share/rpcauth for rpcauth auth generation. I ran with -deprecatedrpc=accounts to test but same result |
|
|
|
I seem to be having some trouble connecting Bitcoin core v0.17.0 with RPC In the wallet configuration I have set the bitcoin.conf with the following. server=1
rpcbind=127.0.0.1
rpcallowip=IP-OF-LOCAL-MACHINE
rpcport=8332
rpcuser=UserHere
rpcpassword=PasswordHere
rpcclienttimeout=30
rpcthreads=2
rpcworkqueue=1000 On checking I can see bitcoin listening on local host with netstat --ip -lpa|grep bitcoin
tcp 0 0 localhost:8332 0.0.0.0:* LISTEN
In my connecting configuration I have set the connection to. "btc": {
"paytxfee": .00001,
"config": {
"port": 8332,
"user": "UserHere",
"password": "PasswordHere"
}
},The connecting module is running from bitcoin npm so it should pass to localhost as default. But when I call the command for balance or deposit address to be called it fail's to return the address or the balance. The commands are being read but the wallet fail's to respond and return the requested info.
bot> treating !deposit from --User-- as command
bot> treating !deposit from --User-- as command
Response:
BOT
Error getting your Bitcoin (BTC) deposit address. Everything seems to be setup and running but for some reason the RPC won't pass the requested info back to the bot. Thanks. |
|
|
|
Hi,
I saw various numbers in Google which they called them-self bitcoin Technical support team. Are they fake or they took franchise from Bitcoin ?
Let me know.
Thanks
You might be best asking here for help if you require some form of specialized help in relation to bitcoin. As you did not post the link cannot check to see the service you talk of but I would guess you are better asking for advice here. |
|
|
|
|
After all the warnings I am shocked to see anyone actually went ahead with this.
The warnings were clear as day with this one.
People just don't learn in this space.
|
|
|
|
LoyceV strikes again! Fantastic to see so many spam accounts being caught out keep up the good work!  |
|
|
|
|
I will throw my two into the pot..
I noticed that we had a spate of bans for spam accounts recently this should help some what with the amount if spam being posted.
I think the market place should be restricted a rank higher that noob ranking this would help in more ways that one.
1. Users might think twice about posting a scam listing if they are in danger of losing a higher ranked account.
2. Being unable to just create a "throw" away account just to post advert without spending the time on the forum to build up reputation will dampen the scammers down a fair bit.
3. It's almost impossible to find good sellers on the forum anymore dew to the sheer volume of posting there.
Agreed there should be some kind of rank before being allowed to sell on the forum this will help protect members somewhat and possibly bring the rate of posting down in that section.
|
|
|
|
|
Anything that is not Bitcoin is a Shitcoin.
Not all that is gold shimmers.
Around 95% of the Altcoins on the market have and serve no purpose they take away from bitcoin adoption and stifle the market most of which turn out to be scams to the highest order.
People should see that the Alt market is nothing more than a was for greedy developers to push some shitcoin to gain more BTC - all alts are a route to BTC nothing more.
Sooner alt's vanish from the industry the better.
|
|
|
|
|
Wassabi wallet get's a vote from me.
Must praise nopara73 for the work on the wallet have been testing out on ubuntu and quite impressed with the project and wallet thus far,
I agree with what is being said about the .NET privacy issue as nopara73 pointed out he is aware of the situation as are many others regarding the telemetry/privacy issues in the .NET framework.
You sir deserve some bounty!
|
|
|
|
Thanks for the test coins trying out the wassabi wallet and coinjoin just realized I could have got to regtest mode. |
|
|
|
Hey everyone. Looking for some testnet coins would any kind members who might have some available please reach out or send spare some test net coins to. tb1qkfhrfkrq2vt5kcnsswy9thelmh2vam9yas4n6s Thank you in advance!  |
|
|
|
I created a simple word smasher as a way to pipe content to BF. So I use the power of 2 scale with randint between specific values. Depending on the size of the list you will need to set the values according. I did find a few wallets this way with specific word lists being used and changes to the values. I have another version that will take content and hash it with hashlib and pipe the output to BF and again this also threw back some results. ## Word Smash Power Of 2
## Set wordlist and pipe output
## Python
from time import sleep
import random
import sys
my_file = open("words.txt", "r")
words = my_file.readlines()
## Power of 2 select from wordlist : ToDo - Evaluate methods
i = 1
while i > 0:
number_1 = random.randint(0, 128)
number_2 = random.randint(0, 256)
number_3 = random.randint(0, 512)
number_4 = random.randint(0, 1024)
number_5 = random.randint(0, 2048)
number_6 = random.randint(0, 4096)
number_7 = random.randint(0, 8192)
number_8 = random.randint(0, 16384)
number_9 = random.randint(0, 32768)
number_10 = random.randint(0, 65536)
number_11 = random.randint(0, 131072)
number_12 = random.randint(0, 262144)
word_1 = words[number_1]
word_2 = words[number_2]
word_3 = words[number_3]
word_4 = words[number_4]
word_5 = words[number_5]
word_6 = words[number_6]
word_7 = words[number_7]
word_8 = words[number_8]
word_9 = words[number_9]
word_10 = words[number_10]
word_11 = words[number_11]
word_12 = words[number_12]
print(word_1.rstrip() + " " + word_2.rstrip() + " " + word_3.rstrip() + " " + word_4.rstrip() + " " + word_5.rstrip() + " " + word_6.rstrip() + " " + word_7.rstrip() + " " + word_8.rstrip() + " " + word_9.rstrip() + " " + word_10.rstrip() + " " + word_11.rstrip() + " " + word_12.rstrip())
i += 1
sleep(0.005)
pass Some of the values
number_1 = random.randint(0, 128)
number_2 = random.randint(0, 256)
number_3 = random.randint(0, 512)
number_4 = random.randint(0, 1024)
number_5 = random.randint(0, 2048)
number_6 = random.randint(0, 4096)
number_7 = random.randint(0, 8192)
number_8 = random.randint(0, 16384)
number_9 = random.randint(0, 32768)
number_10 = random.randint(0, 65536)
number_11 = random.randint(0, 131072)
number_12 = random.randint(0, 262144)
number_1 = random.randint(0, 1024)
number_2 = random.randint(0, 2048)
number_3 = random.randint(0, 4096)
number_4 = random.randint(0, 8192)
number_5 = random.randint(0, 16384)
number_6 = random.randint(0, 32768)
number_7 = random.randint(0, 65536)
number_8 = random.randint(0, 131072)
number_9 = random.randint(0, 262144)
number_10 = random.randint(0, 524288)
number_11 = random.randint(0, 1048576)
number_12 = random.randint(0, 2097153)
number_1 = random.randint(0, 2048)
number_2 = random.randint(0, 4096)
number_3 = random.randint(0, 8192)
number_4 = random.randint(0, 16384)
number_5 = random.randint(0, 32768)
number_6 = random.randint(0, 65536)
number_7 = random.randint(0, 131072)
number_8 = random.randint(0, 262144)
number_9 = random.randint(0, 524288)
number_10 = random.randint(0, 1048576)
number_11 = random.randint(0, 2097153)
=== OFFSETS ==
number_1 = random.randint(0, 256)
number_2 = random.randint(64, 512)
number_3 = random.randint(128, 1024)
number_4 = random.randint(256, 2048)
number_5 = random.randint(512, 4096)
number_6 = random.randint(1024, 8192)
number_7 = random.randint(2048, 16348)
number_8 = random.randint(4096, 32768)
number_9 = random.randint(8192, 65538)
number_10 = random.randint(16384, 131072)
number_11 = random.randint(32768, 262144)
number_12 = random.randint(65538, 524288)
|
|
|
|
Number of things in the release to think about. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-4819Binance seem to have known exactly how this happens very quickly after the breach. Normal practice would tell you the first release is normally not as in depth as this they state that the hackers must have been patent before striking so were Binance aware of this before time? if not how would they know they were holding off? Another thing they said the following to the bbc According to Binance, the attackers used a variety of techniques to break in. They deployed viruses and used phishing attacks to get security information. and then later The hackers "had the patience to wait" and acquire access to a number of accounts before withdrawing the huge haul of bitcoins, according to Binance. All this info from the first 24 hr's of Binance own investigation? Unless they knew prior they had some kind of issue and they were monitoring the situation seems more likely story.  |
|
|
|
Did you add enough swap space? this can cause the RPI to crash. To add a 1gb swap file, in /swapfile: sudo dd if=/dev/zero of=/swapfile bs=1024M count=1000
sudo mkswap /swapfile
sudo swapon /swapfile |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
