 Show Posts
|
|
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 »
|
|
Btw I don't get why everybody is crying here because of low hashing power prices...these prices are directly linked to coin mining profitability. And check the coin profitability charts now. THIS is the reason of crappy prices. The sinking altcoin market full of scams and pump'n'dump projects.
I am a miner and I had to shutdown 14 AMD cards last month because of this. But I don't blame NH.
Litecoin mining profitability is atm 0.38409727 BTC / GH / day, Nicehash is currently paying 0.3922 BTC/GH/Day for scrypt to its miners. Highest running order is 0.42. Why would anyone pay more than that and lose money?
Also miners are not forced to mine on NH, they can setup the minimum price a mine elsewhere in times where they are not satisfied with current price. This is self-regulating environment.
Also arbitrage bots can drive the price higher in case the average price on NH drops considerably below coin mining profitability. But this is not the case here.
I think prices on nicehash are completely realistic and in order with current shitcoin market situation.
|
|
|
|
I don't understand where the lack of interference comes from either. I didn't say NH should be shut down, but BOTS, non-human entities that automatically push humans out of the market should be eliminated.
...
I think you're confusing regulation for blatant exploitation of miners and buyers by automated entities. How is making a human set up orders regulating the market anyway? Man up and stop crying!  I hope you complain to coin exchanges and stock markets the same way. |
|
|
|
Since there is so few miners on westhash, orders below them never get filled and despite their order having relatively little amount of bitcoin (to reduce cancellation fees)
AFAIK order cancellation fee is fixed (0.0001 BTC deducted from returned fee). So having orders with little amount of bitcoin does not help to reduce any fees. |
|
|
|
Why not just make payouts once a day.... and a minimum of .05btc...?
Also, if a miner hasnt met the .05btc after 5 days then trigger payout for whatever amount he is owed.
Or something to that affect...
I would suggest pay daily if it reaches 0.01, once a week pay the rest owed. |
|
|
|
After further analysis I'd HIGHLY suggest Nicehash disable their API, implement captchas for making new orders, remove the ability to modify hashpower, disallow people from refilling orders, and increase order cancellation fees to 5-10%.
Maybe you should also HIGHLY suggest to ban multipools (they are an essence of coin difficulty arbitrage) and coin exchange APIs (bots steal good prices!). Also, imagine there are exchanges running arbitrages themselves! This all should be banned! Yeah, that's what arbitrage does - targets market inefficiencies and destroys them. You will have live with it. (I am not running arbitrages of any kind myself). |
|
|
|
Nicehash ... please make payout amounts changeable.
Every 4 hours is way too often and the fee is WAY too high!
0.01btc / payment with a 2% fee .. is fucking rape, because that just puts a bunch of tiny inputs in my btc addy. Meaning when I go to spend all of them Ill have to pay yet another huge fee!
+1 I have wallet full of dust. |
|
|
|
I am actually surprised at the current network hash rate. Why is anyone still mining this at the low price?
For me, GPU mining is somewhat profitable. Not much for making a living, but it means I should rather mine than buy in preparation for world domination. +1 I still get slightly more BBR for electricity burned than if I bought it for the electricity cost at the current price. But it is so-so. Solo mining with 8 GPUs in total. |
|
|
|
coin wil lget kicked of bittrex soon
We need some simple bot which will simulate some trading volume |
|
|
|
Boolberry is a cool name and a refreshing change from the usual *coin convention. There is no reason to change the quirky yet memorable name; the project will succeed or fail based on (market reaction to) its utility. Plus we already have a sweet logo!
The Benevolent Dictator For Life schema works for Linux, so BBR's pristine cathedral may turn out better than Monero's chaotic baazar.
It's far too early in the life of CryptoNote to declare winners and losers. Give it at least 6 months to a year before playing CZ's armchair psychologist.
Block rewards are decreasing every hour. These are the days of cheap and easy Boolberries we will look back on, and wish we'd bought more.
Well, I also voted for Rings, but I must admit that I like Boolberry too. There's nothing wrong with this name, the logo is nice as well. |
|
|
|
Make it Symbol- TLDR  |
|
|
|
why the heck since u launched the westcrap site, prices for MH are like 50% lower ?
+1 I would at least advise to try to make the order book central (common to all regions). |
|
|
|
Yes, we need the optimisation desperately. On average I am getting 1.2-1.3mh over a longer period of time (from initial 1.4mh) versus 3mh+ Wolf is getting (he has improved over 2.2mh and I am not sure if he is sharing his private miner to a few privileged). That is less than half of the hash rate of what Wolf's private miner can do. This is by no mean a small amount! With the current exchange rate of 0.000024, we are all losing a lot when mining with the public miner.
Why is this thread full of crying people? This is really pathetic! Yes, it is a significant difference in performance, but it is not devastating. You just mine 50% of what he does with the same HW, this is still fine. Instead of crying and waiting for everything served on a silver plate, you can: 1) dedicate your own time to learn CUDA programming, run NvProfiler and do your own optimizations, like Wolf0 did 2) pay someone to do optimizations for you 3) buy twice more HW you have now |
|
|
|
|
Website not working?
504 Gateway Time-out
The server didn't respond in time.
|
|
|
|
Unfortunately I run all rigs under Linux...including the nvidia rig |
|
|
|
I am testing nicehash multialgo service since today (with 10 GPUs so far) and it works quite fine...I only wish prices to be better though  Is there a plan to make auto-swich fork of ccminer for nvidia cards? I have one nvidia rig I cannot use for this... |
|
|
|
|
Centralized in the worst possible way and closed source on top of that.
Security by obscurity concept.
I will watch this but I don't think I am going to participate in this.
|
|
|
|
OK I narrowed the problem down to linker flags. I chose the connectivity_tool binary for demonstration. Linker flags are in file /boolberry/build/release/src/CMakeFiles/connectivity_tool.dir/link.txt: /usr/bin/c++ -std=c++11 -D_GNU_SOURCE -Wall -Wextra -Wpointer-arith -Wundef -Wvla -Wwrite-strings -Werror -Wno-error=extra -Wno-error=deprecated-declarations -Wno-error=sign-compare -Wno-error=strict-aliasing -Wno-error=type-limits -Wno-unused-parameter -Wno-error=unused-variable -Wlogical-op -Wno-error=maybe-uninitialized -Wno-reorder -Wno-missing-field-initializers -march=native -O3 -DNDEBUG -Ofast -DNDEBUG -Wno-unused-variable -flto CMakeFiles/connectivity_tool.dir/connectivity_tool/conn_tool.cpp.o -o connectivity_tool -rdynamic libcurrency_core.a libcrypto.a libcommon.a -Wl,-Bstatic -lboost_system -lboost_filesystem -lboost_thread -Wl,-Bdynamic -lpthread -Wl,-Bstatic -lboost_date_time -lboost_chrono -lboost_regex -lboost_serialization -lboost_atomic -lboost_program_options -Wl,-Bdynamic -lrt If I execute just this linker command, it gives me same errors as posted in my earlier posts. Now I modify the command like this (took some flags from the monero build files): /usr/bin/c++ -std=c++11 -D_GNU_SOURCE -Wall -Wextra -Wpointer-arith -Wundef -Wvla -Wwrite-strings -Werror -Wno-error=extra -Wno-error=deprecated-declarations -Wno-error=sign-compare -Wno-error=strict-aliasing -Wno-error=type-limits -Wno-unused-parameter -Wno-error=unused-variable -Wno-error=undef -Wno-error=uninitialized -Wlogical-op -Wno-error=maybe-uninitialized -Wno-reorder -Wno-missing-field-initializers -march=native -O3 -DNDEBUG -Ofast -DNDEBUG -Wno-unused-variable -flto CMakeFiles/connectivity_tool.dir/connectivity_tool/conn_tool.cpp.o -o connectivity_tool -rdynamic libcurrency_core.a libcrypto.a libcommon.a -lboost_system -lboost_filesystem -lboost_thread -lboost_date_time -lboost_chrono -lboost_regex -lboost_serialization -lboost_atomic -lboost_program_options -lrt  So there is just something messed up with linker flags, that's all. Any idea? (I disabled the static linking mode in order to do the comparison with monero, it is giving same errors anyway). Edited: http://www.diffchecker.com/p8dr5qxbStripping the red flags at the left fixes the process. I don't know how to change cmakelists to get rid of those flags. For now, I will just hack link.txt files manually. |
|
|
|
try
git clone git://github.com/cryptozoidberg/boolberry.git
cd boolberry
./autogen.sh
./configure
make
i recommend you updating to 14.04
I am sorry, but your advise does not make sense. Boolberry uses cmake... |
|
|
|
|
