I'm really skeptical regarding these recurring trends. The situation is completely different, but we have seen in the past that even big world or bitcoin news don't seem to move the price that much. So maybe it will repeat like you suggest, maybe it will be flat till new year. Well, I guess I'm still waiting for the Indians to wake up and go crazy on BTC  Okay, umm but what's so different? We actually had less positive news last year, it seems. In fact, we just had the silk road seizure back then. There is no positive or negative, there is just movement. Every news can bear or bull. If that is "good" or "bad" for you is a whole other story. |
|
|
|
I really think we this is "the calm before the storm"   65 USD ~ 340 USD 85 USD ~ 450 USD 100 USD ~ 545 USD 115 USD ~ 550 USD 135 USD ~680 USD I'm really skeptical regarding these recurring trends. The situation is completely different, but we have seen in the past that even big world or bitcoin news don't seem to move the price that much. So maybe it will repeat like you suggest, maybe it will be flat till new year. Well, I guess I'm still waiting for the Indians to wake up and go crazy on BTC |
|
|
|
So, I've been getting a few emails from people, and wanted to bring it up here so that everyone knows what is happening.
It looks like BTC-e changed their deposit addresses (not sure why - haven't looked into it), and a handful of users had been mining to the deposit address listed there. Now that their deposit addresses have been reset however, those coins are now essentially lost.
With a normal address that you own the keys (a personal wallet, on your own computer, or something like blockchain.info - who gives you the keys), you can sign a message from your address. Which is a way to prove that you own the address. Unfortunately, when you use an exchange's address, you don't actually own it. The exchange owns the address (they hold the private keys), and they let you use it on their terms.
In the past (and still), if you end up needing a payout address changed, an email to me with the old address, new address, and a message signed by the old address with text like "Please transfer my earnings from XXX to YYY" is what I would need to prove that you owned the old address, and it is a (reasonably) trivial matter for me to switch the earnings.
The reason for the precautions is just a matter of proof. While I don't think anyone has tried to "steal" balances from another user, allowing balance transfers just from an email request, with no proof that you owned the original address is just a matter of security.
So what you are saying is you relied on a third party wallet and now that the third party changed their addresses your users are fucked? Seriously? That's the level of professionalism you base your service on?  No, what he is saying is that users who used a 3rd party wallet (pool wallet) cant transfer balances from their old deposit address because there is no way to prove they own the address Woops, yeah I read over it again and it makes a lot more sense. Well, to bad for those users I guess. |
|
|
|
Can I use BFGMiner with 2 different types of ASIC devices at the same time? Currently I’m running 10 AntMiner U2’s, I just ordered a few Rockminer R-BOX units. I’d like to run all from 1 instance of BFG.
Sure. There was a config some pages back I think that did the same thing, might just read through the last couple pages. Hope that helps. |
|
|
|
Just found out about nicehash.
Looks interesting.
How do I calculate profitability per mh/s for the different algos ?
GHs/1000 |
|
|
|
These are my stats of a 14hour window on wafflepool. You guys think this is okay? Will try with clock 342 and otherwise exact same settings over at least 12hours now. 14 hour / eu.waffle / d=4096 / clk=328
8 | 14.54/10.75/10.43Mh/s | A:2036 R:5+18(1.1%) HW:68/3.2%
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ZUS 0: | 1.75/ 1.34/ 1.28Mh/s | A: 252 R:1+ 2(1.2%) HW: 8/3.1%
ZUS 1: | 1.72/ 1.34/ 1.27Mh/s | A: 248 R:0+ 1(.40%) HW: 7/2.7%
ZUS 2: | 1.72/ 1.34/ 1.30Mh/s | A: 253 R:0+ 2(.79%) HW: 6/2.3%
ZUS 3: | 1.72/ 1.34/ 1.15Mh/s | A: 228 R:0+ 2(.89%) HW:14/5.8%
ZUS 4: | 1.75/ 1.34/ 1.29Mh/s | A: 252 R:1+ 3(1.6%) HW:11/4.1%
ZUS 5: | 1.72/ 1.34/ 1.37Mh/s | A: 266 R:0+ 2(.75%) HW:10/3.6%
ZUS 6: | 1.75/ 1.34/ 1.29Mh/s | A: 250 R:1+ 1(.80%) HW: 4/1.6%
ZUS 7: | 1.72/ 1.34/ 1.47Mh/s | A: 287 R:1+ 5(2.1%) HW: 8/2.7%
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
|
|
|
So, I've been getting a few emails from people, and wanted to bring it up here so that everyone knows what is happening.
It looks like BTC-e changed their deposit addresses (not sure why - haven't looked into it), and a handful of users had been mining to the deposit address listed there. Now that their deposit addresses have been reset however, those coins are now essentially lost.
With a normal address that you own the keys (a personal wallet, on your own computer, or something like blockchain.info - who gives you the keys), you can sign a message from your address. Which is a way to prove that you own the address. Unfortunately, when you use an exchange's address, you don't actually own it. The exchange owns the address (they hold the private keys), and they let you use it on their terms.
In the past (and still), if you end up needing a payout address changed, an email to me with the old address, new address, and a message signed by the old address with text like "Please transfer my earnings from XXX to YYY" is what I would need to prove that you owned the old address, and it is a (reasonably) trivial matter for me to switch the earnings.
The reason for the precautions is just a matter of proof. While I don't think anyone has tried to "steal" balances from another user, allowing balance transfers just from an email request, with no proof that you owned the original address is just a matter of security.
So what you are saying is you relied on a third party wallet and now that the third party changed their addresses your users are fucked? Seriously? That's the level of professionalism you base your service on? |
|
|
|
This is funny. Keep em coming!  |
|
|
|
|
Thanks for this review man. Looking forward for your summary after your tested it for quiet some time.
|
|
|
|
Seltsam wenn Newbies mitbieten (dürfen), die vorher noch absolut nichts gepostet haben...
Bin raus aus der Nummer hier.
Es gibt halt Senioren hier die "anonym" bleiben möchten. Hiermit kann ich weder bestätigen noch abstreiten das ich einer dieser jenen bin. |
|
|
|
Anyone got this 4.4.0 with Zeusminer Blizzards running and care to share startup parameters and config file? Cheers!
bfgminer -S zus:all -o host:url -O user:pass Yeah thanks, but I already copied the string that MultiMiner generates and copied a config from somewhere and edited it to my needs. Works pretty well. bfgminer --scrypt --scan noauto -S zeusminer:\\.\COM10 -d zeusminer@\\.\COM10 -S zeusminer:\\.\COM11 -d zeusminer@\\.\COM11 -S zeusminer:\\.\COM3 -d zeusminer@\\.\COM3 -S zeusminer:\\.\COM4 -d zeusminer@\\.\COM4 -S zeusminer:\\.\COM6 -d zeusminer@\\.\COM6 -S zeusminer:\\.\COM7 -d zeusminer@\\.\COM7 -S zeusminer:\\.\COM8 -d zeusminer@\\.\COM8 -S zeusminer:\\.\COM9 -d zeusminer@\\.\COM9 --set zus:chips=6 --set zus:clock=328 --set zus:ignore_golden_nonce=1 -c miner.conf {
"pools" : [
{
"url" : "stratum+tcp://stratum.nicehash.com:3333",
"user" : "...",
"pass" : "d=512",
"pool-priority" : "0"
},
{
"url" : "stratum+tcp://eu2.multipool.us:7777",
"user" : "jeezy.512",
"pass" : "x",
"pool-priority" : "1"
},
{
"url" : "stratum+tcp://us-east2.multipool.us:7777",
"user" : "jeezy.512",
"pass" : "x",
"pool-priority" : "2"
}
],
"expiry" : "120",
"expiry-lp" : "3600",
"failover-only" : true,
"failover-switch-delay" : "120",
"log" : "20",
"no-pool-disable" : true,
"no-client-reconnect" : true,
"no-show-processors" : true,
"no-show-procs" : true,
"no-unicode" : true,
"queue" : "9999",
"quiet-work-updates" : true,
"quiet-work-update" : true,
"scan-time" : "20",
"scrypt" : true,
"submit-stale" : false,
"temp-hysteresis" : "3",
"shares" : 0,
"kernel-path" : "C:/mining/bfgminer-4.4.0-win64/bfgminer"
} |
|
|
|
|
How is this LR3 thing working exactly? Can't seem to find a setup guide.
|
|
|
|
|
Anyone got this 4.4.0 with Zeusminer Blizzards running and care to share startup parameters and config file? Cheers!
|
|
|
|
why does it tell me that it wont connect to the pool?
"poolname" : "NiceHash-X13",
"url" : "stratum.nicehash.com:3337",
"user" : "1D75BgAientKNn8JbvxFifALmEENQK5Ztj",
"pass" : "x"
Try "url" : "stratum+tcp://stratum.nicehash.com:3337", |
|
|
|
still under DDOS attack I think...web site down, but selling my hash power is still ok
hope The DDOS will end soon...
Site and Pool work fine for me all day. Check your connection maybe? |
|
|
|
Take Dell for instance and personalise it for understanding. Michael Dell is already rich beyond the dreams of Croesus -
Because he stole my (and every public shareholder's) money. I hope the asshole invests his entire net worth in Bitcoin and then deletes the private keys. I hope he spends his life begging in the streets. Story behind this? |
|
|
|
Now with smarter "sanity check" logic ( based on a moving stats window) to do better TA science ...makes sure the price is actually good before reinvesting, and it worked better than I expected: Start: 2014-07-16 01:17:20 PM
Stop: 2014-07-19 04:48:38 PM
Purchased @ 0.00487063 (volume weighted average price of actual / live / real GHS reinvest orders)
moving median, market price (min) 0.00485721 -0.28% (occasionally a better price was missed)
moving median, market price (avg) 0.00495821 1.77% (on average, purchase price was better)
moving median, market price (max) 0.00536019 9.13% (occasionally the bot did really good)
^ The latest version I've been testing does a good job reinvesting GHS... Relevant settings from config.js: // ZERO settings:
config.ZERO = {
// EMA weight (α)
// the higher the weight, the more smooth (and delayed) the line
short: 12.576709,
long: 17.786152,
signal: 10.992447,
// how optimistic is the MACD extrapolation going to be?
crystalball: 0.00000907,
// how large is the stats window for sanity checking?
window: 1361,
// the difference between the EMAs (to act as triggers)
thresholds: {
down: -9999,
up: 0.00000001,
}
};
((...snip...)) As you can see, EMA weights don't have to be integers because of the way EMA works ( it's really an infinite impulse response filter, and technically not a moving average).
Anyway, here's the new version: /releases/tag/zerolag "zerolag" EMAs [2014 July 16th] It's been well-tested, and so it is the "latest" recommended build, currently @ https://github.com/kuzetsa/gekko/releases/latestThanks for sharing this Sarah. I will make sure to have a look at the code and give it a test spin. |
|
|
|
|
Thanks for sharing your bot man. Will have a look at the code. Are you still active developing it or do you want to wait till others contribute?
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
