|
Going to assume that at this point Claymore's not going to be making any more updates to this miner (he removed the devfee when he released 4.0).
|
|
|
|
Ahh Blocks, I remember those...  |
|
|
|
|
Hmmm.. haven't seen hashrate this low on P2Pool in a long time. Lost Faith exodus or some drunken guys tripped over the power cord during the Chinese New Year celebrations?
UPDATE:
Ahh it must have been drunk guys then... It's climbed back up to the general below 1PH level again (dipped into the 300TH level for awhile there).
Anyone feel like experimenting with 3PH or so again? Please? *crickets*
|
|
|
|
It isn't.
It has never worked.
It's not & never was part of the p2pool framework or sharechain.
It was an attempt to hijack p2pool that failed.
It is a lie.
Just like The Cake. |
|
|
|
almost 1 week since we found a block  (( Bitcoin Difficulty: 113,354,299,801 And Hashrate hovering around 1.14PH. |
|
|
|
Okay, can you post the output of the RPC getinfo command? {
"version" : 110000,
"protocolversion" : 70010,
"blocks" : 387805,
"timeoffset" : 0,
"connections" : 1,
"proxy" : "",
"difficulty" : 79102380900.22598267,
"testnet" : false,
"paytxfee" : 0.00000000,
"relayfee" : 0.00010000,
"errors" : ""
} |
|
|
|
Note the new P2Pool Hardfork version 15 currently does not support the BitcoinXT client (neither the 0.11C nor pre-release 0.11D version) and won't fully startup unless you're running BTCore 0.11.2.
Forest: when BitcoinXT gets the BIP65 pull request merged in, will P2Pool be able to support the resulting BXT version #?
I'm not sure what version number they'll use, but when they release it (and somebody tells me), I will whitelist it and release P2Pool 15.1. Hey Forrestv, v0.11D of BitcoinXT is now officially released with support for BIP65: https://github.com/bitcoinxt/bitcoinxt/releases/tag/v0.11D |
|
|
|
Note the new P2Pool Hardfork version 15 currently does not support the BitcoinXT client (neither the 0.11C nor pre-release 0.11D version) and won't fully startup unless you're running BTCore 0.11.2.
Forest: when BitcoinXT gets the BIP65 pull request merged in, will P2Pool be able to support the resulting BXT version #?
I'm not sure what version number they'll use, but when they release it (and somebody tells me), I will whitelist it and release P2Pool 15.1. Thanks, I'll shoot a message over once Gavin and Mike have a version with BIP65 available. |
|
|
|
|
Note the new P2Pool Hardfork version 15 currently does not support the BitcoinXT client (neither the 0.11C nor pre-release 0.11D version) and won't fully startup unless you're running BTCore 0.11.2.
Forest: when BitcoinXT gets the BIP65 pull request merged in, will P2Pool be able to support the resulting BXT version #?
|
|
|
|
Bad luck seems to be a problem with many pools atm, I've been reading loads of theories on pool threads as to why. Personally, I think it's just the increased diff - any thoughts anyone?
BTW, I can't remember the last time I found an NMC block - anyone else found one lately?
Regarding NMC - If you're using the Namecoin client version 3.80 or older, you won't be able to find a block. Only the newer Namecoin Core clients are supported after BIP66 was implemented. I stopped merge-mining NMC since they haven't had a working client for Mac (yet). I was helping them test new Mac versions a few months back, but the devs were arguing about whether or not to continue to support bitcoin derived QT GUI or another GUI and the test clients they made for me failed at merge-mining (including the namecoind daemon client). BIP66 started to be enforced in July. There are beta clients available for Windows and Linux, but only from the Namecoin forums and not the main Namecoin site which only hosts the now useless legacy Namecoin clients: Details here: https://forum.namecoin.info/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=2354 |
|
|
|
Nice to see some blocks rolling in again - makes up for the baron spell earlier. I'm seeing some big spikes in hash rate lately, up to 5Ph+ - hopefully a big player will be joining us soon  More than likely a big player has us as a backup pool and they just rebooted/restarted their primary pool instance. Definitely looks more like a failover spike to me. |
|
|
|
|
Any chance that anyone can build and provide the latest Namecoin Core beta wallet? The current release Namecoin 3.8.0 is on a fork that makes merge mining on it useless as of a few days ago and there are Windows binaries available for the new Namecoin Core beta from their forums, but I haven't seen anyone release a Mac build yet. I can successfully make a namecoind but the Core QT app I'm having trouble with.
|
|
|
|
Seriously, I want to know how I pissed you off so bad and if I was wrong apologize. But I really don't want bad blood here either way.
I'm alright, you're not as offensive as you seem to think. You were one of many who consistently, on many occasions, supported personal attacks on the developer of p2pool. In fairness, you've also been more accommodating since then. I have been reading this thread although I don't always post. You were wrong to behave that way towards the developer. So apologise, as you've intimated. Being nice when he returned is not an apology (to adults, anyway) I did NOT intend to take personal attacks on forrestv at all and only held the position that others should take up the mantle if he was too busy with his personal life and school to work on p2pool. I also was on the side of turning the donation fee into a bounty for those that would take up that mantle, if forrestv really couldn't work on this anymore. anyone who does know the post history also knows that it was NOT like that. You people had NO PLAN as to how you would replace the person that wrote this code, you simply shouted loudly for weeks and weeks about how no-one should give forrest money. Trying to squirm out of it now with diversions and fantasy reflect very badly on you. Either way I'm not the one taking things to a personal level here and I apologize if you think I've ever come across that way.
Apologise for backing the (now heavily discredited) coyotes who tried to push forrest out of his own project. That would be entirely appropriate. But it seems you're too intransigent for that. If anything I think you're unjustly conflating my positions on the subject with those who have a more, shall we say emotive presence on this thread.
You're consistently referring to emotions and making repeated use of expressions like "pissed off". I supply morality, but not emotion. Don't get confused. Wow... Just wow. The project is open sourced on Github. Forrestv was absent by his own admission for a long time due to personal priorities. Like ANY open source project, we asked for developers to contribute and fork the code to a more maintained state. No one picked up the mantle. As simple as that. Believe what you want. Doesnt matter. forrestv is back and there have been numerous github commits and developer pull requests from others since then. Not going to apologize for advocating what open source development and github branching and forking are all about. Others may have been more vehement about it, but im not going to stand here and be buried under retarded statements of imaginary slights. Welcome to the ignore list. I see only one person trolling here now. |
|
|
|
Seriously, I want to know how I pissed you off so bad and if I was wrong apologize. But I really don't want bad blood here either way.
I'm alright, you're not as offensive as you seem to think. You were one of many who consistently, on many occasions, supported personal attacks on the developer of p2pool. In fairness, you've also been more accommodating since then. I have been reading this thread although I don't always post. You were wrong to behave that way towards the developer. So apologise, as you've intimated. Being nice when he returned is not an apology (to adults, anyway) Well, please read my posts again, and forrestv's in relation to his long absence. I did NOT intend to take personal attacks on forrestv at all and only held the position that others should take up the mantle if he was too busy with his personal life and school to work on p2pool. I also was on the side of turning the donation fee into a bounty for those that would take up that mantle, if forrestv really couldn't work on this anymore. I also backed the donations going to forrestv for solving some of our continuing issues coming from the Litecoin Dev camp (I believe you've seen me post in those threads as well, since I remember you posting there too). But if you remember, those solutions did not come even though he put some time into it. I don't see how that is a personal attack on forrestv at all. Besides it's a moot point since he's been back as you've said. Either way I'm not the one taking things to a personal level here and I apologize if you think I've ever come across that way. If anything I think you're unjustly conflating my positions on the subject with those who have a more, shall we say emotive presence on this thread. |
|
|
|
You should be patient then, instead of performing any of your other suggestions. Because backing a bad faith, badly conceived idea is exactly what you jedimstr specifically did the last time something controversial happened on this p2pool sub-board, isn't that right? Carlton: care to remind me? Don't know which of my posts or questions have pissed you off so much. I mean, seriously I don't. EDIT: Ok, I've been digging into my post history and can't for the life of me find where the supposed controversial posts that got you so pissed off in this thread for P2Pool. This is the closest I can find: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=18313.msg7224251#msg7224251 and it's not all that controversial at all. Seriously, I want to know how I pissed you off so bad and if I was wrong apologize. But I really don't want bad blood here either way. |
|
|
|
|
Well, long before the potential January fork we'll know which way the wind is blowing and hopefully will have more viable BIP proposals out there. In the meantime switching between BitcoinXT and Bitcoin Core clients is seamless and utilizes the same db/configs and can be done in just a few minutes. So technically it won't hurt anything for now to essentially "cast a vote" with my node for larger blocks (even if it's still contested which implementation is best, none have been "perfect" yet). I can always change my node to whatever client implementation is best down the line.
There's a huge difference between patience and complacency in the face of change. Burying your head in the sand either way won't help anyone.
|
|
|
|
|
Windpath: Have you gotten CoinCadence running BitcoinXT yet? Looks like the big pools are pushing BIP100 (even without anything really coded for this BIP yet) and BIP101 is plateu'ing where it is.
I've been running my p2pool node on BitcoinXT and would hate to see the momentum drop off.
|
|
|
|
Just wanted to share a couple things with everyone to maintain transparency: 1. I have been testing P2Pool with BitcoinXT on my development node, it works as expected with really no performance differences at all. 2. In the next couple weeks(TM) I'll be releasing Chain Query (alpha: http://chainquery.com) on Github, once thats done I plan to rewrite my P2Pool node front end to use Chain Query and MySQL (the core P2Pool code does not need to be altered) and will relaunch http://minefast.CoinCadence.com on BitcoinXT with the new front end. I will release the full source for the new front end on Github. The switch to XT is a personal decision, and shows my support for scaling Bitcoin. I believe it is the right path. If you don't like the idea of bigger blocks and mine on my node you are welcome to find another that runs Bitcoin Core, or run your own. My intention is not to start some debate about block size in this thread, there is plenty of that elsewhere. As P2Pool miners we vote with our hashrate, in the coming months that hashrate on my node will be running off of BitcoinXT. I hope that many of you (P2Pool node operators) will join me in supporting Bitcoin's growth by voting with your hashrate, I know that some of you will not, and thats your choice. And that's all I have to say about that.  Cheers. And that's why you've got my spare mining nodes pointed in your direction... Let's hope more test the waters soon. It will take much more than just us few on p2pool to bring mining consensus to BitcoinXT. |
|
|
|
Last block found was on Tuesday, August 4th @ 06:17 AM (UTC -08:00).
Not surprising with the drop in active mining on P2Pool the last few days. Active miner accounts have been somewhat steady, but it seems people have been taking their hashes elsewhere lately. That said... BOOM we just got a block. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
