What open source pool / proxy software is available for Scrypt?

It came up on another thread that the early generation bitcoin ASICs will likely become museum pieces over time.  Which I think is true.

I would be interested in buying a batch 1 Avalon if anyone has it available, and maybe an original ASICMINER blade.

On the flip side, for any would be collectors, I can offer:

Cairnsmore CM1 quad FPGA boards (very few of these left)
Avalon Batch 2 Generation one boxes*
KNC Jupiters (or is it saturns - the first generation ASIC from them)
Cointerra Terraminer IVs
Spoondoolies SP10 or SP30
Also one high performance batch 2 Avalon box - I can't even remember the story on that - I think it has 4 hash boards instead of the 3 boards in the original 68 Gh/s systems

* Technically these are Avalon Batch 3 as Yifu and gang stole Batch 2 and mined for themselves with them.

I have 54 units for sale in the United States.

Let me know if you are interested in purchasing some or all.

I thought these were pretty neutral points but apparently Michael has something to hide.

DPoS, I appreciate that you are genuinely concerned about this, but variance happens.

If you have any evidence beyond the de facto luck of the pool, I'd personally be delighted to see it, but claiming to be the only guy who can see the conspiracy while the math nerds politely nod and smile...

I say this without malice, but it reminds me of the scores of (to a person, bad) poker players I've met over the years who talk about how dealers screw them, how winners are just lucky, how they usually win when they sit in their lucky seat, how they never win with pocket aces, and a gillion other things that all come down to the reality that variance happens.

They don't understand it, and so the game must be rigged.

It's funny you mention poker.  I remember a friendly game once where I never seemed to get hands breaking the way you would expect from the odds.  So when the deal came around to me, I counted the deck.  There were only 46 cards in it!

Sometimes bad luck is bad luck.  But it never hurts to check.

Michael rakes ~$250k per month from this little game.  And his participants have been losing out on over $1.5M / month for the last 3+ months.  That calls for a LOT more diligence than a little hand waving about variance.  Bitcoin is a dirty business, with cheats and thieves always looking for a weakness to exploit.

I can think of half a dozen ways Michael could be testing for exploits that would explain the pools recent performance.  But he seems more interesting in collecting his rake and insulting anyone who asks reasonable questions.

It reminds me of how Deepbit disappeared from the pools list.  Tycho was too busy with hookers and blow to respond to his users, and in a year he went from the biggest pool, to non-existence.

[/quote]

It reminds me of how Deepbit disappeared from the pools list.

It's no wonder [Tycho], and others, have disappeared from these forums.  Let's accuse everyone else, with NO evidence, of malfeasance as well so that we have no responsible people left in the community.

Great idea.

No evidence of malfeasance?  Why use a $3 word when a 5 cent one will work?

Allowing your pool to leak $1.5M / month and disrespecting people who ask reasonable questions about the possibility that some actors could be cheating other participants in the pool isn't exactly malfeasance - it's simply a lack of diligence.

And I've seen no trend of losing responsible people in Bitcoin.   Tycho made his fortune and moved on, because he didn't care any more.  Michael seems quite happy taking in $250k per month and not addressing this issue.  If I were in his shoes I would be madly coding performance tests until I was 100% certain my pool wasn't being abused.  That would be the responsible thing to do.

[/quote]

We have lost patience with management at Hashfast.  As outside observers, it is impossible to separate incompetence from systematic fraud but it is clear that one or both is pervasive at the company.

We have waited patiently on a moderately large order (62 Sierras) while 6 months from our promised shipping date has gone past.  Over a month ago we cancelled our orders and demanded a refund as is our legal right. Not only has a refund not been forthcoming, no one at Hashfast bothers to respond to messages.  However when we inquired about purchasing another $1M in hardware, we had three emails and phone calls within an hour.

We have determined that a lawsuit is an ineffective approach at this point.  Instead we are going to apply to the court to have a receiver appointed to take control of the company.  By law, if 3 creditors, owed over $15k IN TOTAL apply to the court, the company can be placed under the control of a receiver.  The receiver will take control of the assets and debts of the company, determine if the operation can continue under new management or liquidate the assets as needed.   The receiver will also be obligated to find and report for prosecution any misuse of company funds that he finds.

Understandably this is a drastic move, but we believe it is our only option.  Hashfast has no right to operate using our money, and clearly they cannot operate without it or our refund would have been paid long ago.  If you would like to join us in this action, PM me.  All of the legal fees to move forward have already be paid.

Some people will not want Hashfast to be disrupted in this way, but we believe it is the only fair way to handle the situation.  Experience with MtGox and Bitfloor has shown that allowing an insolvent company to continue operating just results in additional losses for everyone (and often rewards insiders who cheat and steal from the rightful creditors).  By taking this action, all money flows from Hashfast will be reviewed and any fraudulent payments will have to be returned.  It will also stop boards that were paid for last year from being resold to scammers like Ken Slaughter rather than being delivered to their rightful owners.

We anticipate actual filings will be made next week.  Hashfast can easily prevent this by paying the refunds that are owed.

[and]

I find the timing of this transaction spamming bot very suspicious.

There is no financial gain from running the bot, just aggro for uninformed users.  Their transactions do go through, all funds end up in the addresses where they belong, but they end up with a invalid transaction in their wallet that has to time out.  And of course there can be secondary effects if they have software that relies on outcomes that change because of the vandalism.

It's easy enough to argue that it's just some child exploiting a flaw for amusement. But to be having the far reaching impact that is being reported today, the script that is modifying transactions has to be running on well connected, high bandwidth nodes, and probably quite a few of them.  It also has to be nodes that promiscuously transmit zero fee transactions, which eliminate the mining pools as core suspects.

So who benefits from this behavior and has access to multiple highly connected nodes?

MtGox is the only candidate I see. 

Kerio updated their flood prevention rules to drop incoming packets from several pools last night.

So if your miners aren't running but everything looks kosher with your network, check the firewall rules.

Concerning yourself with the future actions of others is a waste of energy.

The future of others is also the future of Bitcoin.

If small independent miners keep losing their shirts on deals like this we'll end up in a case where only huge consolidated operations with captive manufacturing will be profitable. The end result would be an enormous centralization of hash-power which would undermine the security assumptions in Bitcoin, and result in the ultimate failure of the cryptocurrency... which wouldn't be in the interest of anyone currently mining or holding coins.

Besides, the future actions of others may include my friends and future friends. Not everything is about making a profit denominated in coins or dollars.

You really didn't care when it was BFL ripping people off, so what makes this different?  Is it that you are one of the people that were deceived?

Don't get me wrong, I've been screaming about this for 18 months now.  But I'm surprised to see this new attitude from you in particular.

If you want to improve things, as a mod you can easily have a positive impact. Abolish all discussion of hardware that hasn't shipped in volume to mining speculation.

Looking for additional 3 module systems.  Must be undamaged and overclockable to 80 GH/s.

Willing to pay 85 BTC each for up to 10 systems. 

I will also consider BFL singles for 54 BTC.

Selling off my Quad FPGA boards.  All boards perform in the 760-820 Mh/s range.  I will ship either in the standard configuration with a single top down fan, or paired with updown cable and stacking hardware.  Each unit includes a tested USB cable.  Up to 12 available.

Price is 1.8 BTC plus shipping and escrow fee, if any.  Escrow with John K.  Shipping is typically $20 in the US.  

Here is a link to a previous sale.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=151573.msg1608562#msg1608562

I am offering 20 BTC payment to set up a stratum merged mining pool for solo mining.

The pool server should run on the latest version of Ubuntu.  I will provide the hardware and set up the operating system.  Setup of the pool can be done either by providing me with step by step instructions or by remote login.

Full payment will by made when the system has demonstrated stability for 1 week, and found both bitcoin and namecoin blocks.

[Wrong]

So Ken's big announcement is out, and his pump and dump is failing.

He needs to sell another 3 Million shares at 0.0025 to raise the money he is going to gift to VMC, his privately held company, for chip NRE.  But Bitcoiners aren't buying a $25 Million dollar valuation for a $300k company.  So the party is over for Ken right?

Wrong.  Shortly he is going to hit all the bids on BTCT.co and Bitfunder so that he can give himself that million dollar gift.

How do I know?  Well if you read his contracts, you would know too.

From the summary page on Bitfunder:

Notes On The IPO:

As long as AMC does not sell it's shares below 0.0005 then they may do as they please with their shares. It is their company, their ownership, and their shares.

During the IPO, not all shares may be posted as an ASK.

So expect Ken to start hitting bids, and keep hitting them all the way down to 0.0005 if that's what he needs to do.  Because who wouldn't when every dollar they raise goes to benefit their company rather than the company they are selling the shares in?

[infinite]

The recent controversies over mining bonds has made me realize that people are missing a fundamental of value analysis.  If you use a few simple tools, being ripped off by the sharks issuing bitcoin securities becomes a lot less likely.

A simple measure is price to book value.
http://www.investopedia.com/terms/p/price-to-bookratio.asp

This is simply the market value of the security divided by the value of it's assets.  In very basic terms it is the markup that the shares are being offered at relative to the existing assets.  It gives you an idea of the value that could be recovered from the security in receivership.  Note that it is common for stocks to trade at a price to book under 1.  This could indicate a great bargain, or it could indicate a stock where management is actively skimming value to themselves at the expense of shareholders.

ASICMINER's IPO sold at a price to book of 2.  That is because all the investor funds went into the company, and the principals held 50% of the stock as sweat equity.  Today, I estimate the price to book of ASICMINER to be less than 3.  That is based upon valuing existing hash rate at 3 BTC / GH/s, and future hash rate at 0.2 BTC.

Now let's look at a couple other offerings.

TAT.V - no assets, just a promise from a psuedonym on the internet.  Price to book value here is infinite. 
BFMINES - hash rate purchased at $20 / GH/s and selling for $400 / GH/s.  Price to book of 20.
AMC - Price: 100 000 000 * 0.0008  = 80000 BTC.  Book value (6 Avalons at 70 GH/s + 5 TH/s of future hashing) 2260 BTC.  Price to book 35

It should be obvious why these securities are beneficial only to their issuers, and why listings for BFMINES and AMC on BTCT.co should be rejected.

I received this notice from one of the buyers of my ASICMINER shares:

Also, I received a PM from BitNit. It had the same address as the one you provided.

If you are still interested in ASICshares make me an offer, I have been debating posting an auction but I am worried about selling to low.

16Esrbw6SgJsNHoCiGNmRjmkx4ZobqaXqs

I can have friedcat confirm shares via PM or thread if needed. You can see if sold single shares for 2.95BTC but if you are looking for 25+ I can go 2.90BTC

As I own that address, this is clearly a scam.

Selling any number of ASICMINER shares up to 100 total for 2.95 BTC each.

I hold 600 shares at address 16Esrbw6SgJsNHoCiGNmRjmkx4ZobqaXqs

This offer is valid up until the Bid at BTCT.co exceeds 2.9 BTC

I am offering for sale direct shares in Asicminer at a fixed price of 3.1 BTC.

Optionally you can use escrow through John K., but I think escrow is unnecessary if your purchase is documented here as you could always appeal to Friedcat.  Fees for escrow are your responsibility.

I have 600 shares at address 16Esrbw6SgJsNHoCiGNmRjmkx4ZobqaXqs

https://blockchain.info/address/16Esrbw6SgJsNHoCiGNmRjmkx4ZobqaXqs

[Auction Rules]

I am auctioning 12 Cairnsmore CM1 Quad Lx150 FPGA boards.  All boards are in good operating condition, programmed and ready to hash.  Buyers of 2 or more will receive enough stacking kits and up-down connectors to pair boards into 1 USB connection per 2 boards.  Power consumption is 45W / board, so these board will continue to be profitable for a long time.  Shipping costs and escrow fees are the buyers responsibility.  I will escrow with John K.



Auction Rules

Minimum bid increment is 0.05 BTC
This auction will end at 12:00 noon NYC time Monday June 17th.
If there is a bid within 30 minutes of the auction close, the auction is extended for 30 minutes
Bidding in the extension period is ONLY open to people with winning bids during the normal auction period.

I have a few more CM1 boards for sale.  6 BTC each plus shipping and escrow fees.  Shipping is from the western united states and is usually less than $20.

Typical performance is 820 MH/s but could be as low as 760.  The boards have been programmed with Makomk's bitstream.  Several people I have sold boards to have reported better results with the Hashvoodoo bitstream.  If you purchase pairs, I will ship the units stacked with an up down connection so only 1 USB per pair of boards is required.

Does Bitfunder actual maintain it's site?  I have a support ticket open for a full week now with exactly zero action taken.

What are people's experiences with the site?  Given the huge fees relative to Btct.co, I am beginning to wonder why anyone would use the platform.  Clearly it is a haven for scams like AMC, but that isn't exactly an attraction for buyers of stocks.

[Mt. Gox pays no fees on their transactions!]

I was digging into why it takes so long to get a new bitcoin client synchronized when I came across a shocking fact.

Mt. Gox pays no fees on their transactions!  Look here, where they have moved over 5 500 000 BTC in 35 500 transactions and never paid a fee.  
https://blockchain.info/address/1LNWw6yCxkUmkhArb2Nf2MPw6vG7u5WG7q?filter=1

Why do the pool operators tolerate this?  I read here recently that Gox is making $3M / month.  They could clear afford a few mBTC for transaction fees.  And paying a fee would give them an incentive to use the blockchain efficiently.

There is an easy fix.  Blockprioritysize could be set in bitcoin.conf to a lower level forcing free transactions to wait several blocks.
https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Transaction_fees

I have also commissioned Jon Steffensen to add a set of tools to Bitcoin-qt that will allow fee rules to easily set by pools and solo miners.  The branch is on git hub here.
https://github.com/jonls/bitcoin/tree/mining-tx-filters
Blockprioritysize needs to be exceeded before these rules are applied.

I don't want to get into the debate about whether transactions fees are too low or too high.  I am just saying free transactions are clearly being abused and action should be taken to make sure that free transactions have a cost in time to validation.