 Show Posts
|
|
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 »
|
|
Please cancel my previous offer.
WTS 100M Ducknotes for 5BTC.
|
|
|
|
|
Please cancel my previous offers.
WTS 40M ducks for 2.5 BTC.
|
|
|
|
WTS 10M ducks @ 1BTC in 100K increments  Sold 10M. Another 10M ducks for 1BTC still available.  |
|
|
|
WTS 10M ducks @ 1BTC in 100K increments |
|
|
|
I'm not focusing on that bug, I addressed it because someone else brought it up. If I was going to bitch constantly about one thing, it would be NOT FUCKING COMPILING ON LINUX.  Okay I missed that one (it does compiler for me on Ubuntu). Can you be more specific? Give me just a minute. I'll attempt to compile it yet again and then post the results. Here you are. I copied the whole thing, not just the relevant bits, in case I would have missed something: http://pastebin.com/Nc5XrpEHWow. Just... wow. I did a "make clean", then tried "make build-debug" just for fun... I think the devs failed so hard they won: http://pastebin.com/c9X2H7a9Anyone have a solution for the above? Did you try gcc 4.8.x as suggested? Did you even look at the first pastebin? You might be able to blame the compiler for the debug build failure, but saying a compiler bug is responsible for the regular build failure is ludicrous. Whether or not its a problem with the compiler has to be eliminated. If you refuse to eliminate it as a factor then we will end up with the same discussion over and over; that is the ludicrous part. Come back when you're ready to fix your problem, otherwise just deal with it yourself. Okay, your faucet is broken. So the obvious thing to do is get the engine in your car checked; anything else is ludicrous. You're asking me to hunt down an old ass package or custom compile an old version of GCC - while the obvious problem is "shit ain't being linked correctly." Either you know jack shit about C/C++ and coding in general, or you like wasting people's time. Such is life, either do something about it or just whine until the your mouth froths with saliva. I'm sure you find the latter more worthwhile. Cheers. |
|
|
|
I'm not focusing on that bug, I addressed it because someone else brought it up. If I was going to bitch constantly about one thing, it would be NOT FUCKING COMPILING ON LINUX. Okay I missed that one (it does compiler for me on Ubuntu). Can you be more specific? Give me just a minute. I'll attempt to compile it yet again and then post the results. Here you are. I copied the whole thing, not just the relevant bits, in case I would have missed something: http://pastebin.com/Nc5XrpEHWow. Just... wow. I did a "make clean", then tried "make build-debug" just for fun... I think the devs failed so hard they won: http://pastebin.com/c9X2H7a9Anyone have a solution for the above? Did you try gcc 4.8.x as suggested? Did you even look at the first pastebin? You might be able to blame the compiler for the debug build failure, but saying a compiler bug is responsible for the regular build failure is ludicrous. Whether or not its a problem with the compiler has to be eliminated. If you refuse to eliminate it as a factor then we will end up with the same discussion over and over; that is the ludicrous part. Come back when you're ready to fix your problem, otherwise just deal with it yourself. |
|
|
|
I'm not focusing on that bug, I addressed it because someone else brought it up. If I was going to bitch constantly about one thing, it would be NOT FUCKING COMPILING ON LINUX. Okay I missed that one (it does compiler for me on Ubuntu). Can you be more specific? Give me just a minute. I'll attempt to compile it yet again and then post the results. Here you are. I copied the whole thing, not just the relevant bits, in case I would have missed something: http://pastebin.com/Nc5XrpEHWow. Just... wow. I did a "make clean", then tried "make build-debug" just for fun... I think the devs failed so hard they won: http://pastebin.com/c9X2H7a9Anyone have a solution for the above? Did you try gcc 4.8.x as suggested? |
|
|
|
WTS 3M bcn for .6 btc
Made a deal with abit2slo. He is a good trader. Tried to sell to abit2slo but he never replies to PM's. |
|
|
|
Just gave it a go. No problems so far, deposits working as well as withdrawals. Good job TheKoziTwo! |
|
|
|
For sale 20M BCN for 2.9 BTC. Ends May 10, 2014 06:00 AM UTC.
Please change to 20M for 2.5 BTC.. No expiration. Thanks. |
|
|
|
For sale 20M BCN for 2.9 BTC. Ends May 10, 2014 06:00 AM UTC.
Please change to 20M for 2.5 BTC. No expiration. |
|
|
|
For sale 20M BCN for 2.9 BTC. Ends May 10, 2014 06:00 AM UTC.
You and your "sales" dump  And my choice. |
|
|
|
|
For sale 20M BCN for 2.9 BTC. Ends May 10, 2014 06:00 AM UTC.
|
|
|
|
|
For sale 20M BCN for 2.9 BTC. Ends May 10, 2014 06:00 AM UTC.
|
|
|
|
For sale 1150 @ 0.00125. Thanks.
Keep existing order @ 0.00165? Yes please. |
|
|
|
|
For sale 1150 @ 0.00125. Thanks.
|
|
|
|
price update: 1m = 0.25 BTCbuying BCN: 1m for 0.4 BTC. Buying until I say stop.
hey abit2slo I pm'ed your this morning haven't heard back.. you still buying? sorry, didn't notice - replied. Sent PM. Thanks. |
|
|
|
I've made a research on the commit that the NoodleDoodle has claimed to make publicly available. And you know what, I have found something very weird.
Experiment
Core I5, Windows.
Two attempts
1) Binaries compiled from the source code that NoodleDoodle committed yesterday.
2) Pre-compiled binaries that were spread on this topic.
Results
Hashrate:
1) Compiled binaries: 8.3 - 8.9 hr/s
2) Pre-compiled binaries: 15.1 - 15.5 hr/s
Come on guys, this stinks! Aren't you lying again?
My questions:
1) How exactly can the hash rates differ by the factor of 2 if they are on the same code? (Hint: it is impossible).
2) Why do the "team" claim that they've made the source code publicly available when they actually hide the real optimization?
3) Doesn't this mean that instamine is actually going on?
4) How much more the "team's" miners are optimized?
I guess, explanation is required.
Everyone is welcome to try it out themselves.
You should try compiling with ubuntu/linux, you'll see that it will run as fast as the "pre-compiled" windows binaries. This means that the build environment is the difference. For windows, you need the intel C++ compiler (version 14.0 sp1) and turn SSE3 optimization and loop unrolling for the "crypto" project only. The rest can be built using the VS2012 compiler. Cheers. |
|
|
|
|
