 Show Posts
|
|
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 »
|
|
By idea originaly. By bitcoin is now tyed up as backpay on eligius. Sorry for the lack of response
|
|
|
|
|
I was so excited to see that Antminer s3's were again available and I finally have enough coin to buy one. sad to discover that the minimum order is two and I don't have enough coin for two. I am looking for a partner who is in a similar situation who would like to order one as well. I would prefer someone in the local Salem Oregon area as it would simplify the matter not having to do shipping.
|
|
|
|
"disconnrcted-old job" only 24 hours? really?
I would understand if you limited it to a week but 24 hours is a little silly considering many orders take over 24 hours to complete. |
|
|
|
|
"disconnrcted-old job" only 24 hours? really?
|
|
|
|
|
I have started using a new pool (eligus) it sent bitcoin to my wallet but it is marked as "immature" and not available to use What is that?
|
|
|
|
•Pool deaths and order cancellations are penalized with 5 seconds worth of mining. Penalties go to the miners working on that order. Should be 5 minutes. too many users using unstable pools in my opinion |
|
|
|
Stratum pool has to use extranonce2 size 3 or higher. Minimal pool difficulty is 16 (0.001 for X11 and X13). We had to change this, because some pools were using difficulty 1 regardless of hashing speed being sent towards them causing very high load on our servers thus bad performance. Every decent pool gives you ability to configure worker difficulty, so make sure you configure higher diff (we recommend at least 4096 or more). I had minimum difficulty set at 1024. I increased it to 4196. Still seems dead. What pool does nicehash think works best with its service? (don't say ghash.io) |
|
|
|
|
my orders which have been mining on btcguild are suddenly dead (low difficulty). They had been alive for days and BTCguild is usually rock solid did something change with nicehash?
|
|
|
|
|
How about a feature that if a live order goes dead more than twice it is automatically canceled. As it is a user can place as many orders as he wants, one at every price point, and then go to his pool and change the names of his workers from: x.1, x.2, x.3... to x.a, x.b, x.c... this would make the worker appear dead. the user can then activate the worker at the best price point (by changing the name back to x.1)having it come back to life and bump the other users. if anyone places a bid at a higher price than the clever user he can simply activate the worker above the person who tried to outbid him.
this is what I believe is happening on the script market with the user with all of the 5.00 ghs limits (or it's a bot)
|
|
|
|
When you make order: Non-refundable 0.0005 BTC is taken to prevent order spam.
Refundable 2% is taken for the service. and 0.0004 BTC is returned in case there was no work performed - accepted or rejected shares (dead pool, no miners, etc). ok |
|
|
|
|
Ok what gives the FAQ lists the fee as 2% but my order that was .01btc had a fee of .00069btc or 6.9%?
|
|
|
|
|
I am having trouble figuring out the multi algorithm thing. I cut and pasted the example config file into a text document that I named sgminer.conf. when I start sgminer it says Fatal JSON error in config file and doesn't work. I usually use cgminer. I am running a single gigabyte 7950
|
|
|
|
Terrible!!! First your "upgrade" allowed new orders to be qued above older ones and you didn't return them to the proper order. Now you add another decimal place allowing people to place orders at a small fraction above what someone else placed an order at weeks ago at an expected interval.
I placed my order at .04 and .03 when ordinary pools were still paying over .05 knowing that patience would yield me an arbitrage. By first refusing to fix the error caused by your "upgrade" and now allowing others to place orders at a small fraction above my orders you have stolden that opportunity.
The proper way to handle the adding of another decimal place would have been to close to new orders and allowed existing orders to be filled and only then added more decimal places and reopen for orders. As it is you have effectively ripped everyone with an order smaller than .05 off
Ok, I feel better after my rant. Nice hash is trying very hard to provide a quality product and I am quite happy with the returns that I am receiving on my sold hashing power. I an sad because if the queing mistake not been made I would've already made 20% return simply by using the service. I am sure that even under the current circumstances I will make an acceptable return. |
|
|
|
|
Terrible!!! First your "upgrade" allowed new orders to be qued above older ones and you didn't return them to the proper order. Now you add another decimal place allowing people to place orders at a small fraction above what someone else placed an order at weeks ago at an expected interval.
I placed my order at .04 and .03 when ordinary pools were still paying over .05 knowing that patience would yield me an arbitrage. By first refusing to fix the error caused by your "upgrade" and now allowing others to place orders at a small fraction above my orders you have stolden that opportunity.
The proper way to handle the adding of another decimal place would have been to close to new orders and allowed existing orders to be filled and only then added more decimal places and reopen for orders. As it is you have effectively ripped everyone with an order smaller than .05 off
|
|
|
|
|
Hi Burnside,
I understand that you Don't have the time to operate the pool as the full time business that it would need to become. I was wondering if it might be possible to keep some parts of it around. I really like the calculator. I use it almost daily to see if my rented hashing power is producing as it should I also still look to see when the difficulty will increase again. I was wondering if you could keep theese components around.
Thanks
|
|
|
|
|
Naggers (south park reference)
|
|
|
|
Still having problems with new orders going ahead of existing orders. Another order showed up ahaid of mine which has been in cue for a week
As said before, remove that order and place a new one. Looks like there was an error during the maintenance we performed few days ago. If I do that I would completely loose the spot I've been holding for a week. You should reeordervthe orders basedbon their order numbers-problem solved That would break first-come-to-price mechanism. That mechanism is already broken. I have what was the second and third orders at the .04 price for sha256. There are now 3 orders ahaid of me and the person who should be first (#5071). Perhaps two of those orders got in while doing maintance a couple of days ago, no biggie. But just today a large order #10757 usurped not only me and 5071 but like 4 others who are behind us. |
|
|
|
Still having problems with new orders going ahead of existing orders. Another order showed up ahaid of mine which has been in cue for a week
As said before, remove that order and place a new one. Looks like there was an error during the maintenance we performed few days ago. If I do that I would completely loose the spot I've been holding for a week. You should reeordervthe orders basedbon their order numbers-problem solved |
|
|
|
|
Still having problems with new orders going ahead of existing orders. Another order showed up ahaid of mine which has been in cue for a week
|
|
|
|
|
