 Show Posts
|
|
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 »
|
*** Introducing CHTC - CryptoHashTank Coin *** No hype, no fluff, no snazzy graphics.
Just hard work, dedication and perseverance. If you're looking for yet another sky high ROI, pump and dump masternode coin,
this is not the coin you're looking for.... CryptoHashTank has been providing shared masternode services for over a year, continually evolving to meet the needs of our investors. With a small but dedicated team, we've grown to serve more than 2,300 investors.
CHTC is a utility coin, it'll be used as payment on our platform for a number of services including shared masternode hosting, cold node hosting and yet to be announced services.
⭐ Coin Specs ⭐ ⭐ LINKS ⭐
WEBSITE: https://cryptohashtank.com
LIGHT PAPER: http://bit.ly/CHTC_lightpaper
EXPLORER: http://exp.cryptohashtank.com
WALLETS: https://github.com/CryptoHashTank/CHTC/releases
EXCHANGE: https://crex24.com/exchange/CHTC-BTC
MNO: Coming Soon!
Shared MN Hosting: https://www.cryptohashtank.com/masternodes/CHTC
DISCORD: https://discord.gg/nUfkHuR
⭐⭐⭐ JOIN The CryptoHashTank Community! ⭐⭐⭐ |
|
|
|
Looks like MIDAS Investments is still garnering plenty of bad press.    dozens and dozens of similar posts |
|
|
|
Think about it, if we wanted to be scammy and trick people.. then the easiest way to do that would be to replace that glaringly highlighted 90% with $0.08 per dayNo one would balk at a measly $0.08 Instead, we want to make it clear as can be, that this masternode is not profitable to host unless it's at an insane commission rate... and you should probably do something else with your coins because we will be shutting it down soon.  |
|
|
|
Variable comission? really? up to 90%?
yes, really. Variable commission is $0.08 per dayPercentage is based on the value of the masternode's daily earnings, and is equivalent to $0.08 per dayif you have a masternode that earns $0.10 per day, then maybe you should host it yourself, or remove your coins and stake. Regardless, we start shutting down masternodes and returning coins after they drop below $0.50 in daily earnings (about 16% commission) We encourage people to withdrawal their coins once hosting the masternode becomes unprofitable for us, and the commission is clearly posted. obviously |
|
|
|
Can you explain how you had 4 nodes of KTS on first trading day? this is not corelating with your say that only 4% can't affect market
Sure. - January 24th - KTS genesis block
- January 25th - CHT first KTS masternode running
- February 22nd - KTS first day of trading
We had one of the very first masternodes on the chain, ROI was insanely high, about 1 to 2 days. On the first day of trading there were fewer than 100 masternodes, and our platform had about half of them. If you include people that withdrew coins from CHT to host their own nodes, that percentage is even higher. |
|
|
|
Have you seen our tariffs? Why are you so sure that we don't charge GTM?
So nice of you to jump on the BS bandwagon... You're either lying here or in your discord server.. which is it? You currently charge a 2% fee of rewards from the coin you host for shared service, correct? No GTM coin involved... In the future you will charge that same 2% PLUS $4.99 in GTM equivalent.  |
|
|
|
CHT should start their own coin like trittium, and take payment from fees in their own currency, insted of dumping the fee on the market
CHT coin is in the works... All shared masternode providers take fees in the coin that they host. GTM, Midas, TRTT, everyone Do you really think a 4% commission from rewards is going to move a market? get real. This purported article is nothing more than a slanderous puff piece from a half witted employee of Midas, at the direction of Titrium Some services do provide an option to pay fees using the shared service's native coin, why isn't it a requirement? The largest shared masternode service, GTM, does not use their own coin for shared mn fees, even though they charge cold wallet hosting in their own native coin. Open your eyes people, do some critical thinking. |
|
|
|
The author is an obvious Midas shill, reposting an article from Midas' blog. These defamatory articles, speak volumes about the type of company Midas Investments is. A company that would stoop so low, as to fabricate lies about their competition? I'd be very careful. Regardless, these libelous statements will not go unchallenged. The semi-literate author confirms that KTS price dropped from 100K to 13K sats BEFORE CHT was able to deposit any coins on the exchange. Yet somehow manages to attribute that to the fault of CryptoHashTank? how? Moving coins onto an exchange, does not equate to dumping coins... if CHT is as greedy as the Midas shill claims, then they are incentivized to try and get the most value for their coins, that they can. Dumping coins, has the exact opposite effect.. again, common sense. Regarding Variable commission, what the Midas shill fails to mention is that the variable commission rate is based on commission earnings of $2.50 per month. That's right, those of you with at least a third grade education, can do the math to see $2.50/month equates to about 8 cents per day If you think CHT is able to move a market with $0.08 per day, you're an idiot. Attributing the price dump of IFX (Infinex) to CryptoHashTank?  |
|
|
|
|
Is there an updated ETA on a Windows version?
|
|
|
|
|
Windows version, please....
|
|
|
|
Lyra2z - Head to Head test of CoolMiner 1.3 Vs CryptoDredge 0.4.1
Hash rate numbers are vanity metrics and can be gamed. The only thing I care about is " which miner puts more coins in my wallet?" I've done dozens of Head to Head tests in the past see: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=3385643.0I've decided to test CoolMiner 1.3 Vs CryptoDredge 0.4.1 to see which one mines more coins on Lyra2z.
MINERS:CoolMiner 1.3 intensity = 20 CryptoDredge 0.4.1 intensity = 6 The Setup:I use a 12 GPU 1080Ti rig on Windows 10, split into three mining instances of 4 GPU's each (for this test, only two of the instances are used). All three mining instances are balanced to get as close to the same hash rate as possible. Each mining instance is running at the same time on the same machine mining on the same pool. Overclock settings: 100% TDP, NO overclocking Drivers: Nvidia 398.11
Test 1 Results: Test aborted  about 4 hours into the test, the rig crashed. I'm confident that it was due to CryptoDredge, the rig had close to two weeks of uptime running Coolminer. When I went to restart CryptoDredge, I got the following error: > Error: bad lexical cast: source type value could not be interpreted as targetGiven the increased temps, increased power draw, and stability issues; I cannot recommend CryptoDredge, even if it does provide a few percentage point gain over Coolminer. I'll wait until CryptoDredge has the bugs worked out to give it another try
Notes on CryptoDredge: - GPU's run about 6-8 degrees Celcius hotter than with coolminer
- The GPU count starts at 0, whereas ccminer variants start the count at 1. this obviously makes a difference when using the -d flag
- Intensity ranges from 0 to 6, 1080Ti defaults to a 6
- I initially had issues with stability. The miner would crash the rig after a minute or two of running. I had 397 drivers on the rig, which I knew caused issues for some miners. So I DDU'd the rig, installed 398 drivers, and didn't overclock... that seemed to clear up the problem.
- No API support
|
|
|
|
Lyra2z - Head to Head test of CoolMiner 1.3 Vs CryptoDredge 0.4.1
Hash rate numbers are vanity metrics and can be gamed. The only thing I care about is " which miner puts more coins in my wallet?" I've done dozens of Head to Head tests in the past see: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=3385643.0I've decided to test CoolMiner 1.3 Vs CryptoDredge 0.4.1 to see which one mines more coins on Lyra2z.
MINERS:CoolMiner 1.3 intensity = 20 CryptoDredge 0.4.1 intensity = 6 The Setup:I use a 12 GPU 1080Ti rig on Windows 10, split into three mining instances of 4 GPU's each (for this test, only two of the instances are used). All three mining instances are balanced to get as close to the same hash rate as possible. Each mining instance is running at the same time on the same machine mining on the same pool. Overclock settings: 100% TDP, NO overclocking Drivers: Nvidia 398.11
Test 1 Results: Test aborted about 4 hours into the test, the rig crashed. I'm confident that it was due to CryptoDredge, the rig had close to two weeks of uptime running Coolminer. When I went to restart CryptoDredge, I got the following error: > Error: bad lexical cast: source type value could not be interpreted as targetGiven the increased temps, increased power draw, and stability issues; I cannot recommend CryptoDredge, even if it does provide a few percentage point gain over Coolminer. I'll wait until CryptoDredge has the bugs worked out to give it another try
Notes on CryptoDredge: - GPU's run about 6-8 degrees Celcius hotter than with coolminer
- The GPU count starts at 0, whereas ccminer variants start the count at 1. this obviously makes a difference when using the -d flag
- Intensity ranges from 0 to 6, 1080Ti defaults to a 6
- I initially had issues with stability. The miner would crash the rig after a minute or two of running. I had 397 drivers on the rig, which I knew caused issues for some miners. So I DDU'd the rig, installed 398 drivers, and didn't overclock... that seemed to clear up the problem.
- No API support
|
|
|
|
|
This is a really program, but it has one easily fixable flaw....
for new coins that are not on an exchange, (only traded P2P/OTC) there's no way to specify price!
We should be able to specify the price in the config.json file. if a price is specified, then it's sent to the AM API.
any chance you could implement this, quickly?
|
|
|
|
TEST 5:
Head to Head test of CoolMiner 1.3 -i 20 Vs -i 18
The Setup:I use a 12 GPU 1080Ti rig on Windows 10, split into three mining instances of 4 GPU's each (for this test, only two of the instances are used). All three mining instances are balanced to get as close to the same hash rate as possible. Each mining instance is running at the same time on the same machine mining on the same pool. Overclock settings: 100% TDP, +75 core, -502 mem Drivers: Nvidia 397.93
Test Results: -i 20 wins by 2.3% Duration 654 mins . |
|
|
|
In first link it’s ccminer ? Look at your worker, it’s showing ccminer And in second link it’s showing coolminer... Any way in second link with coolminer you have much coins  Thank you for all good tests that you are sharing with us... Max Thanks for catching that.. I usually double check everything before I launch a test, clearly I choose the wrong miner prog in Awesome Miner. I edited the test above, and I'm running a follow up test of what should have been. |
|
|
|
TEST 4:
Head to Head test of CoolMiner 1.3 -i 20 Vs ccminer -i 18
The Setup:I use a 12 GPU 1080Ti rig on Windows 10, split into three mining instances of 4 GPU's each (for this test, only two of the instances are used). All three mining instances are balanced to get as close to the same hash rate as possible. Each mining instance is running at the same time on the same machine mining on the same pool. Overclock settings: 100% TDP, +75 core, -502 mem Drivers: Nvidia 397.93
Test Results: Coolminer wins by 6.65%Duration: 687 mins Sorry guys, this was originally supposed to be a coolminer 1.3 -i 18 Vs -i 20 test, but I choose the wrong miner in setting up awesome miner. . |
|
|
|
|
