 Show Posts
|
|
Pages: [1] 2 »
|
|
I am here to add another checkmark to the tally of people asking for ARM support in cpuminer-opt. There are so many people who want to mine with ARM SBC clusters but are effectively locked out of the most promising emerging cpu coins because there is no mining support.
|
|
|
|
|
Is there an ARM miner for this yet? It's been out quite a while without an ARM miner.
|
|
|
|
хуя на, нигга, кто здесь?)
You close a whole shitload of parentheses that you don't open. |
|
|
|
Dont we have enough pools already?  Nothing wrong with more pools. If there were more small pools that enforced hashrate limits and actively banned botnets then the coin would be healthier. Sorry but i really cant see that happening. you forget something the smaller the pool the less blocks found the less blocks found by that pool the longer it will take users to mine xmg. unless minerclaim limits users or shuts down. its pointless. i've already tired a few small pools past week. run for over 24 hours and earnt almost nothing. ran on minerclaim and got 3xmg in 24 hours. See the point now. As much as i would love to see another pool with limits on it. while minerclaim is up and running its pointless. the more hashrate a pool has the more it finds blocks for its users edit: Sorry to sounds blunt/rude minerclaim is in a way the caner of the coin Edit: Until the devs get their finger out of their butts and start enforcing limits on solo miners and pools we can kiss this goodbye I can't argue that minerclaim makes it hard for smaller pools. But you can't get an honest picture of long term performance of a smaller pool off of a 24 hour period. You will of course get more consistent results mining on minerclaim because they find a consistent number of blocks. I fully understand it is more attractive to see your coin balance growing at a steady pace though. For most miners that is probably a comforting thing to see. |
|
|
|
Dont we have enough pools already? Nothing wrong with more pools. If there were more small pools that enforced hashrate limits and actively banned botnets then the coin would be healthier. |
|
|
|
Has any pool received a block in the past 9 hours?
Yeah, what's up with pool mining right now? I see trasmamod pulling a lot of blocks, minerclaim pulling none, m-hash pulling none. They all seem to be on the correct block height at least. Why can't some pools find any blocks? |
|
|
|
Is minerclaim going to do anything about the whales? i mean the users with very high hashers?
This is a frequently asked question. Just a few months ago, we warned and banned users who violated the rules. But this caused an enormous time and effort which we were not able to cope with since there is currently no technical limitation. After banning those whales we saw many of these users on other pools. So - its only a solution for a very short period of time. We can inform users more about the high rates - but there's always a way. These whales have the capacity to do solo mining. So Minerclaim's solution is to do next to nothing? We can inform these whales about how what they're doing is unfair until our faces turn blue, but the main issue is that they don't care. Nor should they really care. They must be doing it because it's in their self interest - and that's all that matters to them. The solution has to be on the development side. I don't know that there really is a solution but it does need to be approached from the dev side of things. Anything on the mining pool side of things is a very temporary bandaid solution. |
|
|
|
To state it a little more clearly, I want to know if it works like this.
Person A has 100 devices mining that have a total hashrate of 1000kh/s
Person B has 1 device mining that has a total hashrate of 1000kh/s
Do person A and person B have the same affect on block rewards or does person A result in low rewards and person B results in high rewards? In order for this coin to make any sense then I think it has to work like this. This type of reward structure disincentives certain types of miners from even bothering the network at all since their rewards won't be worthwhile if they solve blocks.
1000Kh is 1000Kh, regardless of number of machines. The block reward is set by global hashrate and nothing else? What is the point of this coin? Any single person can tank the block reward for the whole network. A next gen eco-friendly coin would work like my scenario and reward low hash devices higher than large hashrate devices, thus emphasizing a smaller mining footprint. Where is that coin being developed? Because I want to join that community. This is what I also thought at first. however, it's more challenging than it seems. The problem comes down to the problem that it is impossible (in this case) to link a computer to a specific person, and that doing so goes against the nature of cryptocurrencies. All you can do is look at the machine. However, computers are inherently completely configurable. Even to the point where a large computer can appear to the outside as 2, 3, 4, or how ever many smaller computers it wants to. In other words, the large miners would just create multiple accounts that each appear to be a smaller miner. Damn, this is a really good take on that. Its a shame that is the case because something like I am envidioning would be naturally ASIC resistant as well. But I never thoight that such a coin would be easy to develop. But with so many coins in development it does seem like something that deserves a serious thought. But maybe it has been and its thoroughly debunked as a concept. I am actually a developer myself but not in the crypto space. It would take me a long time to get familiar enough with everything to the point that I could assess the actual viablity of something loke this. What is the closest thing to this? Is it magician? |
|
|
|
To state it a little more clearly, I want to know if it works like this.
Person A has 100 devices mining that have a total hashrate of 1000kh/s
Person B has 1 device mining that has a total hashrate of 1000kh/s
Do person A and person B have the same affect on block rewards or does person A result in low rewards and person B results in high rewards? In order for this coin to make any sense then I think it has to work like this. This type of reward structure disincentives certain types of miners from even bothering the network at all since their rewards won't be worthwhile if they solve blocks.
1000Kh is 1000Kh, regardless of number of machines. The block reward is set by global hashrate and nothing else? What is the point of this coin? Any single person can tank the block reward for the whole network. A next gen eco-friendly coin would work like my scenario and reward low hash devices higher than large hashrate devices, thus emphasizing a smaller mining footprint. Where is that coin being developed? Because I want to join that community. |
|
|
|
|
To state it a little more clearly, I want to know if it works like this.
Person A has 100 devices mining that have a total hashrate of 1000kh/s
Person B has 1 device mining that has a total hashrate of 1000kh/s
Do person A and person B have the same affect on block rewards or does person A result in low rewards and person B results in high rewards? In order for this coin to make any sense then I think it has to work like this. This type of reward structure disincentives certain types of miners from even bothering the network at all since their rewards won't be worthwhile if they solve blocks.
|
|
|
|
Sure, after the orphaned blocks, whales who mine at over 1,000 KH/S make more XMG, but for people like myself who mine at anywhere between 35-75 KH/s, there is not a significant increase in profit. It's not a great exploit for everyone if only 5% of the community benefit from it.
This is what everybody who thinks this is beneficial needs to understand. If you can dump a bunch of hash at it then you are probably coming out ahead. If you have only a modest hashrate then you aren't. I am interested in having a technical conversation about how the block reward calculation is supposed to work when the network is healthy. The way that this coin can grow and succeed is if modest hashrate devices are incentivized and large hashrate devices are disincentivized. So is the block reward set based on the global hashrate or is it set based on the individual hashrate of the device that solves the previous block? I think the ideal way that the coin SHOULD work is like this: a low hashrate device such as a raspberry pi solves a block --> the block reward goes up. a high hashrate device solves a block --> the block reward goes down. Can someone with more technical knowledge of the coin let me know if that is true? Is the reward adjustment for the current block or does it change for the following block? |
|
|
|
And about devaluation
I am add 0.06% avg to moneysupply every day. It is not so much in fact that soon dev will fix it.
You are devaluing the currency far more than 0.06% if your chart is remotely accurate. Devaluation is not money supply alone. Agree 100% with this. 0.06% DAILY is ridiculous. |
|
|
|
So is the coin abandoned by its own team? This attack is happening for a while now, Bittrex suspended the market as well, so the shit sort of hit the fan.
Anybody has any idea if there is any kind of support left?
Source on bittrex suspending the market? I don't have an account there but it seems to be actively trading. I have personally divested 100% from the coin aside from my daily mining accumulation. The way I see it the market is not valuing the coin correctly at all given the state of the network. Should be 1000 sats or something IMO. |
|
|
|
Okay, message received. Bad idea, but you want to hear an ever worse one that could possibly work and not require any changes to the current MagiCoin infrastructure?
Hand-approved pool registrations in conjunction with pool-side hashrate limits, where users would need to disclose their estimated hashrate upon registration. That way, if a user goes over their registered hashrate (or if their registered hashrate is exactly the pool limit, then the pool limit), then they will be kicked from the pool. Sure, it adds more work to the pools, but it ensures the fairness of the rest of the miners who are actually following the rules. You could just solo-mine with a botnet, but at least that's less unfair to pool miners because you're not invalidating the blocks of miners who did nothing wrong. You're just lowering the block reward for everyone on the network, which is still unfair.
So I've been a programmer for several years now, I am quite fluent in C, but not so much with C++ for the last couple of weeks, I have been going over the Magi code and the m7m algo in the hope I could suggest some ideas and fixes to the dev, problem is without knowing the exact method the attacker is using, its hard to suggest a fix. How the attacks are happening, I would expect is being kept very secretive as if this information was to make it into the wild, then many crooks would be jumping onboard and hitting the network hard. Aside from building wallets and custom miner code, I have been looking at starting a pool. I'm not sure if I will yet, but if I did I would be enforcing strict hash rate limits, a place to answer queries and complaints from pool members. Email and or support tickets. One of my biggest problems with mining pools, has been little to no communication or reply from pool owners. Another feature that I have thought about, could be a weekly random draw with prizes in XMG. The prize fund would come from 100% of donations. All who donate would automatically be in the draw. I have a wealth of experience with running servers, web applications, including CMS portals, databases, forums, live chat, support ticket systems. If I do go ahead with this, then I will obtain a paid SSL cert from a trusted CA, a reliable dedicated server, rather than a shared VPS. Low server latency would be key. Maybe if I got a lot of interest from sub 150Khps miners who are sick of the whales killing the pool rewards, I could get something started. If mining could be more rewarding for people with lower hashrates, maybe It could give Magi a small boost in popularity and value. Just thought I would put this idea out there for opinion. I've been thinking about this post and I am still really interested. I know the current state of mining is kind of dominating the forum discussion but I would very much like to join and promote a pool like you suggested. If you want to maybe start a thread on the coinmagi subreddit we could discuss it further. |
|
|
|
Got home from work and all my miners are not getting any response from mining.m-hash.com. Anyone else? [2018-04-24 18:59:41] Starting Stratum on stratum+tcp://mining.m-hash.com:3334
[2018-04-24 18:59:41] 3 miner threads started, using 'm7mhash' algorithm.
[2018-04-24 19:00:11] Stratum connection failed: Connection timed out after 30000 milliseconds
[2018-04-24 19:00:11] ...retry after 30 seconds
I recently switched off that pool but I just tried it with one of my miners and I am getting your same error. Maybe they decided to go the route of suprnova and exit the coin until these network attacks stop. That would be my best guess unless they are just experiencing some random or planned downtime for another reason. |
|
|
|
Yes, I am attacker Yes, all POW miners mine significant more coins after my attack. If you not understand this just because you complete newbie) I worked hard from feb to march to implement one vulnerability in protocol. Now just collecting rewards from spending time) I belive in Joe, he will find solution to fix it soon.  Better sell your stack soon and lock in profits. You're getting a good price now and but its starting to fall. |
|
|
|
I am a sub 150k miner, and I have to wonder if none of you notice what I have during these weird times:
I'm getting more coin per day thn I was when things were "STABLE". Now, sure, I don't make much, but it is more than before.
Is it not the same for the rest of you?
On a different note: Is everyone here minting as well to help the network?
Last thought: XMG is at $0.55 today and I am now in profit after 4 months.
I am curious about the dev situation and would like to talk about strategies for expanding that team.
Overall, I am happy and not complaining.
Am I the only one noticing the increase in coin/day?
Orphans starting on Trasmamod, more hashing in a vacuum.
You not hashing into a vacum, when I finish my so called attack, you will get much bigger rewards due to POW block rewards stay big. Sorry but that's not how it works. The temporary bump in rewards post attack looks good but is extremely short-sited. I know it FEELS good to get that extra couple of xmg but the attacker is banking thousands of extra xmg at your expense while your hashing into your orphans. You just won't realize the severity of the problem until the attacker decides to sell his massive stack and tank the coin value. Then watch all that extra value evaporate instantly. |
|
|
|
Maybe if I got a lot of interest from sub 150Khps miners who are sick of the whales killing the pool rewards, I could get something started. If mining could be more rewarding for people with lower hashrates, maybe It could give Magi a small boost in popularity and value.
I am interested in this for sure. Since you have studied the code a bit maybe you can clarify to me how the hashrate affects the block reward. If you have a perfectly moderated mining pool that actively kicks off users with >250kh/s does that gaurantee a larger reward when the pool atually finds a block or are bad actors on the global network still going to spoil it for us? |
|
|
|
Okay, message received. Bad idea, but you want to hear an ever worse one that could possibly work and not require any changes to the current MagiCoin infrastructure?
Hand-approved pool registrations in conjunction with pool-side hashrate limits, where users would need to disclose their estimated hashrate upon registration. That way, if a user goes over their registered hashrate (or if their registered hashrate is exactly the pool limit, then the pool limit), then they will be kicked from the pool. Sure, it adds more work to the pools, but it ensures the fairness of the rest of the miners who are actually following the rules. You could just solo-mine with a botnet, but at least that's less unfair to pool miners because you're not invalidating the blocks of miners who did nothing wrong. You're just lowering the block reward for everyone on the network, which is still unfair.
Seems fine but how do you get all pools onboard? You can't - and whichever one is the holdout will be the one used for the attacks. I don't know what the actual solution is though. What is the feasibility of a protocol side upper limit on hashrate for any one mining device? If that upper limit is a carefully selected value it might solve a lot of problems. But this is probably not that easy to actually implement. |
|
|
|
Fork the coin else this project is dead. Simple as. It's not an easy decision to make and some people might lose out on it, but they stand to lose everything if this keeps up.
Has anyone been able to traceroute the attacker's IP? If it's a VPN maybe contact them and tell them that their network/service is being abused or call their local serious crime agency. This is theft at the end of the day, and with over $2m market cap it's not a small sum to go missing.
How does a fork solve the problem? Not being flippant, I am seriously curious how that helps. What about the coin needs to change to address this attack? |
|
|
|
|
