 Show Posts
|
|
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 »
|
Ruben would you be able to recommend a pool besides corpool that has some sort of legitimacy. I wasn't able to connect to corpool.
Just use the one you like, you can check the payments with the block explorer, but owning a pool is easy to cheat. Obviously i would recommend my pool  , but don't have much hashrate now, because the gpu miners are in other pools, so i am not mining anything...... How did you use the block explorer to detect the rogue pools. What address or input did you use and how were you able to link it to the pool 1. search your wallet address here. http://xdag.me/cgi-bin/block.cgi2. click the last input link. It should be the last transaction from the pool if nobody just transfer xdag to you. 3. click the only input link. 4. check the balance of this page. the balance is pool fee. If the pool fee is 1%, it should be 10.24 xdag. In this way, you could check whether the pool you are mining is cheating or not. |
|
|
|
Please give a link to
Claymore CryptoNote GPU Miner v4
https://mega.co.nz/#F!e4JVEAIJ!l1iF4z10fMyJzY5-LnyC2A |
|
|
|
|
1 - 5% of PoS to secure the network and low inflation.
|
|
|
|
I donīt mind people disagreeing with the attempt to go for a quick decrease of inflation and I donīt see why it shouldnīt be done in a year or even more instead of 6 months. Fact is that even if it would be 10 years then the main criticism that has been brought to Quark would still apply to every clone and every other crypto: given the fact that crypto is still far away from mainstream every launch gives huge advantages to current miners.
Thatīs why I think it is not really intelligent to talk about a "badly executed" idea. What matters is if you can get enough creative and powerful people behind you to get your idea going. Every Alt has compared to Bitcoin these problem as it has a good headstart but as long as people are motivated I donīt see why any project with some dozens of supporters canīt be successful in the end.
Good luck to your project anyway!
Let me explain some points: Decrease of inflation is good because otherwise the currency isn't viable. But quark and other bitcoin-like crypto because of their design are not threatened by inflation (at least in long term), therefore the main concern should be broad adoption and not inflation. If 99% of bitcoins were distributed in the first 6 months it wouldn't have worked. Don't think that it's problem of the timeframe of coin distribution, because if quarkcoin was released by let's say apple or facebook, 6 months or one year would have been enough, but quark devs are not famous or mainstream, so yes 6 month is extremely short. I don't blame the premine, it's non-sense. A premined currency can work. It's just that early adopters tend to dislike premined currencies, especially because devs endup by dumping and destroy their currency. And yes a motivated project team can be successful in the end as long as more and more people get involved and embrace the project. I guess everybody will shut up if quark was distributed in the one week as blackcoin did. |
|
|
|
i am facing shutdown problem sapphire 7950 dual x
i am using this script in cgminer
cgminer --scrypt -o stratum+tcp://pool.com:3322 -u user.worker -p x --intensity 13
it work fine but giving me just 250 kh/s to get high kh/s i have to change intensity 13 above but when i try 14,15,16,17,18,19 my computer direct shutdown and screen blank..
please help me..
put this before "cgminer --scrypt -o stratum+tcp://pool.com:3322 -u user.worker -p x --intensity 14" in your bat file setx GPU_MAX_ALLOC_PERCENT 100 setx GPU_USE_SYNC_OBJECTS 1 |
|
|
|
I have 10 rigs + other 3 rigs friend of mine, all of them are 4xGPU, 280x (Sapphire, Asus) 7970 (Sapphire), all sorts of cards combined,
but I never had a problem with ver. 3.x, which is most people stating in here.
For tweaking I'm using MSI afterburner, if you have low hashrates and clocks are jumping,
just try to give more volts.
I did not made any other adjustments.
And as well I'm mining with 2-3 threads with CPU on those rigs.
It's running full throttle and nothing is lagging, everything is running stable.
So I can say there is no problem at all with Claymore miner.
I have 7950x4 rig, undervolted it today from 1.031 to 1.009, all work nice. Hashrate 470h/s from card. What is the core clock and memory clock you use? |
|
|
|
I have 10 rigs + other 3 rigs friend of mine, all of them are 4xGPU, 280x (Sapphire, Asus) 7970 (Sapphire), all sorts of cards combined,
but I never had a problem with ver. 3.x, which is most people stating in here.
For tweaking I'm using MSI afterburner, if you have low hashrates and clocks are jumping,
just try to give more volts.
I did not made any other adjustments.
And as well I'm mining with 2-3 threads with CPU on those rigs.
It's running full throttle and nothing is lagging, everything is running stable.
So I can say there is no problem at all with Claymore miner.
I would love to try any method to get this working. What voltage increase should I attempt? I also would like to note that I do not have problems with the clock speeds bouncing around. Just lower than usual hashrate. ~360 h/s edit: If you could check to see what memory type (elpida?) your cards run that would help me out too. What is the hash rate if you mine scrypt algo with the 280x ? |
|
|
|
I have 10 rigs + other 3 rigs friend of mine, all of them are 4xGPU, 280x (Sapphire, Asus) 7970 (Sapphire), all sorts of cards combined,
but I never had a problem with ver. 3.x, which is most people stating in here.
For tweaking I'm using MSI afterburner, if you have low hashrates and clocks are jumping,
just try to give more volts.
I did not made any other adjustments.
And as well I'm mining with 2-3 threads with CPU on those rigs.
It's running full throttle and nothing is lagging, everything is running stable.
So I can say there is no problem at all with Claymore miner.
what is the hash rate you get with 280x and 7970? |
|
|
|
Is this coin mined mainly by botnets? I see the biggest pool has only 1.5% of the network hash rate. Where is all of the hash rate coming from?
This is the biggest pool which has about 50% of the network hash rate. http://moneropool.com/ |
|
|
|
v3.3 is available:
- Improved mining speed up to 5%, depends on card, I get 650 h/s on stock 290x.
- Improved stability.
It seems I fixed issue with bad performance on 280x, though not sure, on my 280x it works fine.
What is the hash rate on your 280x? |
|
|
|
HI gentlemen we had some issues with this daemon. I had to review code and stuff for a bit. We're up and running.  OTC.V2.DEDICATEDPOOL.COMMining Information- SSO (single sign-on) - one account for all our pools on Dedicated v2.0
- Custom stratum/mpos environment
- Vardiff enabled
- PPNLS payout system
- Everything is transparent - blocks, donations, fees.
Server Infrastructure- SIX(6) SERVERS IN CLUSTER
- DDoS level 7 cloudflare, 5 and 3 stratum, and level at 1 switch level
- 8 Core servers, 256GB DDR3 RAM, RAID 10 SSD
- Ramdisks, memcaches, to make things go extremely quick
|
|
|
|
To the developer:
There seems to be an issue causing the daemon to error out when an amount of coins over 300 coins are sent out. It reports "transaction failed".
I have to currently divide all the amounts over 300 coins up and send them manually out to people.
Can you please look in to this issue with the daemon?
I have recreated my wallet.dat from scratching by importing private keys, but the problem continues to exist.
Here is the error code:
error: {"code":-4,"message":"Error: Transaction creation failed "}
Please response to my withdrawal request. I have sent you PM. |
|
|
|
As highly requested.. here's a pool that can handle the hash  RZR.V2.DEDICATEDPOOL.COMMining Information- SSO (single sign-on) - one account for all our pools on Dedicated v2.0
- Custom stratum/mpos environment
- Vardiff enabled
- PPNLS payout system
- Everything is transparent - blocks, donations, fees.
Server Infrastructure- SIX(6) SERVERS IN CLUSTER
- DDoS level 7 cloudflare, 5 and 3 stratum, and level at 1 switch level
- 8 Core servers, 256GB DDR3 RAM, RAID 10 SSD
- Ramdisks, memcaches, to make things go extremely quick
Please response to my withdrawal request. I have sent you PM. |
|
|
|
we must improve Gravity Well
when the hashrate slow down,and the diff down,someone prize the hashrate and diff quickly
when the diff going so high,they leave us,I think there is a bug in it
Well, i see as a main problem now is that we don't have pools. Since we have a different PoW it's not so easy to be add BBR to existing pools. I'm working now on simple built-in pool, to allow everyone to run his own daemon-based pool withot any development, just plug-and-pool. But if this won't help - i'll hardfork BBR with new difficulty adjustment. I think the pool won't help on difficulty adjustment a lot. The Gravity Well was developed when the pool mining was available for those coins. |
|
|
|
No block in 3 hour ?
Cloud people left when difficulty went to 214G Whoever this is: STOP THAT! I bet you it's a GPU miner. Why? There are people who can launch thousands of instances on Amazon for a hour.... And how much do they pay each time they do that? You only have to buy graphics cards once. To all who is wondering where did the evil came from: if it is a super-GPU or it amazon: take a look to BBR graphs: http://boolberry.com/state.html You could see there just a lot of new connections, and a lot of peers appeared in greylist. And this is only peers seen by one machine(monitoring node). So it seems that it was just huge amazon evil. >And how much do they pay each time they do that? Unfortunately not everyone have to pay for servers  I think we need to implement Kimoto's Gravity Well to regulate difficulty. It will change the difficulty more quickly. |
|
|
|
Why would the network without human intervention not accept my second chain? It perfectly follows the rules...
Because you cannot reverse public blockchain using your one secret longer blockchain twice.
The point is that you dont need to reverse it twice but only once. Apart from that you misunderstand what a decentralized autonomous corporation like bitcoin means. There are certain rules and all clients follow those rules. The rule is to work on the longest chain aka most cumulative stake for PoS and most work for PoW. If you have the stake in your history you can reverse it 2,3,5 and as many times as you like if you want. Noone stops you from that only human intervention aka centralized checkpoints. Why would the network without human intervention not accept my second chain? It perfectly follows the rules... The other attack you are describing is the nothing at stake problem where you can keep trying double send without any cost. I am talking about a more severe attack that will force the network to become centralized or investors/exchanges/reputation take massive losses....
It do cost to attack Pos coin. You have to buy 5% coin from market.
You only need to own the keys at some point in the past. For example, a person who deposits/withdraws multiple times from exchanges (think of exchanges using multiple addresses) can get the keys for a lot of stake ownership in the blockchain history and use it to create an alternate chain. Exchanges own a lot of stake in their history... Pools do the same.... and many other services... I am talking about a more severe attack that will force the network to become centralized or investors/exchanges/reputation take massive losses....
Please describe the more severe attack in detail.
https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Altcoin#Proof_Of_StakeIronically, Feathercoin, AudroraCoin and Quarkcoin, all of those PoW coin, have centralized checkpoints. Thats true... It is like a chicken and egg problem... The value needs to rise so that more hashing power flows in and secure the network.... So I guess these coins are waiting if more adoption happens so that the price rises and become secure... On the other hand PoS cannot be decentralized at any value... I am sure if these coins become more valuable they can remove the checkpoints.... When the mining reward of PoW coin is decreased dramatically, it will require centralized checkpoints like PoS coin. That is what happened on quark. |
|
|
|
Why would the network without human intervention not accept my second chain? It perfectly follows the rules...
Because you cannot reverse public blockchain using your one secret longer blockchain twice.
The point is that you dont need to reverse it twice but only once. Apart from that you misunderstand what a decentralized autonomous corporation like bitcoin means. There are certain rules and all clients follow those rules. The rule is to work on the longest chain aka most cumulative stake for PoS and most work for PoW. If you have the stake in your history you can reverse it 2,3,5 and as many times as you like if you want. Noone stops you from that only human intervention aka centralized checkpoints. Why would the network without human intervention not accept my second chain? It perfectly follows the rules... The other attack you are describing is the nothing at stake problem where you can keep trying double send without any cost. I am talking about a more severe attack that will force the network to become centralized or investors/exchanges/reputation take massive losses....
It do cost to attack Pos coin. You have to buy 5% coin from market.
You only need to own the keys at some point in the past. For example, a person who deposits/withdraws multiple times from exchanges (think of exchanges using multiple addresses) can get the keys for a lot of stake ownership in the blockchain history and use it to create an alternate chain. Exchanges own a lot of stake in their history... Pools do the same.... and many other services... I am talking about a more severe attack that will force the network to become centralized or investors/exchanges/reputation take massive losses....
Please describe the more severe attack in detail.
https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Altcoin#Proof_Of_StakeIronically, Feathercoin, AuroraCoin and Quarkcoin, all of those PoW coin, have centralized checkpoints. |
|
|
|
Why would the network without human intervention not accept my second chain? It perfectly follows the rules...
Because you cannot reverse public blockchain using your one secret longer blockchain twice. Why would the network without human intervention not accept my second chain? It perfectly follows the rules... The other attack you are describing is the nothing at stake problem where you can keep trying double send without any cost. I am talking about a more severe attack that will force the network to become centralized or investors/exchanges/reputation take massive losses....
It do cost to attack Pos coin. You have to buy 5% coin from market. I am talking about a more severe attack that will force the network to become centralized or investors/exchanges/reputation take massive losses....
Please describe the more severe attack in detail. |
|
|
|
if PoS provides for more security how come advanced check-pointing was conceived with PoS only?
Because it isn't. PoS suffers from a "nothing at risk" problem. An attacker can use coins they no longer have but did have at one point in the past to attack the network. Actually there is no reason to not do this. If the attacker is unsucessful well they lose nothing in the attempt and if they are successful they get all their coins "back" (that they may have lost, had stolen, or sold). Checkpoints limit how far back the chain can be reorged but they don't solve the nothing at stake problem, only limit the extent of the damage. Please tell us which PoS coin has been attacked by so called "nothing at risk" problem. None definitively although more than one POS coin has been 51% attacked. Many of them have stake requirements which are negligible so often cheap attack is easier than a more sophisticated nothing at stake attack. No POS coin has extensive history in the field other than PPC and it avoids an attack by using 100% centralized checkpoints. Still you don't really believe that "hasn't happened" = "can't happen"? Bitcoin has never been 51% attacked therefore you believe an attack is impossible? Could you provide any other theoretical evidence to support your claim if it had never happened in practice? In PoS, you use your stake to determine the longest chain thus total cumulative stake on a chain is the one to make nodes follow that chain. Say currently 5% of the stake is used to secure the network. An early adopter/exchange/group of people/stake pool with more stake (more than 5%) at some point in the coins history (the people might have sold long time back) can create a parallel secret chain and reverse the current chain by showing more cumulative stake. How do you get the current chain with this decision mechanism? Cannot be decentralized... No matter what is the approach the attackers can repeat the steps of the PoS approach... Does it make sense? It doesn't make sense at all. To do this kind of attack, you need generate a parallel secret chain using your 5% coin first. To sell your 5% coin on exchange you need to synchronize to the publick blockchain. Then your blockchain is not secret at all and you can't go back after you sell your coin. The clients accept the longest chain. Once you sell you withdraw say bitcoins you dont need to go back to the current chain at all to make a profit.... To make a profit you need to reverse the current chain by showing more cumulative stake after you sell your PoS coin to bitcoin. Then you can get bitcoin and PoS coin at same time. However, to move 5% PoS coin to exchange, you have to publish your secret longer blockchain to public. Then your secret longer blockchain becomes to public chain and you lose the ability to reverse the public blockchain. |
|
|
|
if PoS provides for more security how come advanced check-pointing was conceived with PoS only?
Because it isn't. PoS suffers from a "nothing at risk" problem. An attacker can use coins they no longer have but did have at one point in the past to attack the network. Actually there is no reason to not do this. If the attacker is unsucessful well they lose nothing in the attempt and if they are successful they get all their coins "back" (that they may have lost, had stolen, or sold). Checkpoints limit how far back the chain can be reorged but they don't solve the nothing at stake problem, only limit the extent of the damage. Please tell us which PoS coin has been attacked by so called "nothing at risk" problem. None definitively although more than one POS coin has been 51% attacked. Many of them have stake requirements which are negligible so often cheap attack is easier than a more sophisticated nothing at stake attack. No POS coin has extensive history in the field other than PPC and it avoids an attack by using 100% centralized checkpoints. Still you don't really believe that "hasn't happened" = "can't happen"? Bitcoin has never been 51% attacked therefore you believe an attack is impossible? Could you provide any other theoretical evidence to support your claim if it had never happened in practice? In PoS, you use your stake to determine the longest chain thus total cumulative stake on a chain is the one to make nodes follow that chain. Say currently 5% of the stake is used to secure the network. An early adopter/exchange/group of people/stake pool with more stake (more than 5%) at some point in the coins history (the people might have sold long time back) can create a parallel secret chain and reverse the current chain by showing more cumulative stake. How do you get the current chain with this decision mechanism? Cannot be decentralized... No matter what is the approach the attackers can repeat the steps of the PoS approach... Does it make sense? It doesn't make sense at all. To do this kind of attack, you need generate a parallel secret chain using your 5% coin first. To sell your 5% coin on exchange you need to synchronize to the publick blockchain. Then your blockchain is not secret at all and you can't go back after you sell your coin. |
|
|
|
|
