Can anyone confirm whether mkxminer 3.0.1 is working against a p2pool node or not?

I'm running a private p2pool node that I'm able to connect to and mine against with another PC (nvidia - ccminer) on my local network, however the amd (mkxminer) rig on the network shows it successfully connects to the node, yet does not receive a difficulty setting nor does it submit any shares. Testing it against public p2pool nodes also either fail to connect or it will print a Pool Stratum Auth error ...Service not found, Code: 32601, data: null.

The miner does slowly spin up, but I'm quite sure it's mining to the dev pool and I'm not running a charity.

Shortly following the scrapping of the digimex/icedrill.io PU fiasco, distributions were shifted to a direct address payment system and it required a transaction of a token amount to verify a controlling ownership - there were no attempts made to notify shareholders of this responsibility outside of this thread.

Large stakeholders had requested all available bitcoin be paid out immediately instead of a prolonged, but regular distribution of dust. Unless 297 had reserved a sum of bitcoin for still unverified addresses, all available bitcoin had been disseminated in the transaction I linked previously. Again, unless there is a reservation, there is nearly nothing left to distribute.


***edit***
Mining has ceased

Looks like some machines had been down and are coming back online in phases, but still doesn't account for all the hardware.

Dividends lol - with the possible exception of another dusting or two, I'm afraid we've received all we'll ever see from this venture. Operation costs are paid from the mining address on eligius, and the last known payment was in January for 23 btc. That address currently holds ~25 btc, and shareholders split surplus that is siphoned off to the distribution address - which holds essentially nothing. Unless costs have reduced with the mining power, and assuming no dramatic increase in bitcoin price or mining reward, we've exhausted the well.



A large distribution with all currently held bitcoin was done May 9. If you hadn't confirmed your address with 297 or received dividends up until this point, I'm sorry to tell you; you're screwed. Maybe get in touch with 297, but even he hasn't been online in two months.

So we are down to ~25Th, yet continue to mine. Since it seems all proceeds are now dedicated to the operation of the mine with the current hash rate, what happened to the balance of the hardware?



Maybe a massive loss is favorable to a complete one? Lol sorry to dig up old stories, but in the process of looking through old posts I had a nice laugh and you can't be involved in this game without a sense of humor. And besides, as you probably know, an honorable captain goes down with his ship. 

we can't expect them to work for free

Any chance of seeing the audit that we were told we could expect by the beginning of this year?

^Had to login to agree, it's exactly correct;

and only until massive increases in volume led by interests in bitcoin's utility rather than its speculative potential will the trend look any different.

+1 can't argue with this, and I'd certainly welcome your outlook coming to fruition.

Patience is a virtue; time a commodity, but here's hoping the s.s. cointerra has patched those holes.

But how would an opportune time to sell shares to the most benefit of the investors be determined? Without knowledge of the specific details of the investment or the agreement between ID and CT, and judging upon 297's comment, I believe it's safe to assume we're in the red in regard to CT share value. So what you proposed was to wait and hope for Cointerra to assume a mining market dominance.

My argument was that I didn't see the risk worth the reward in waiting as I believed any potential appreciation in the value of the CT shares would largely be as a result of an increase in btc price as opposed to an advancement of Cointerra itself. Even if the USD value of the shares increase, the quantity of BTC those USD can purchase once those shares are finally sold are likely to remain roughly the same.


I'm not saying it was necessarily a bad hedge, but I wouldn't call it a good one either.

Not even sure how to feel about that happening honestly, but I find it more likely that I go outside tomorrow to survive a lightning strike only to be killed by a micrometeoroid as I leave the hospital.

Outperforming holding btc; over what timescale? Any considerable appreciation of our assets in Cointerra are most likely to follow a relative price path with bitcoin. And even if didn't, Cointerra, while showing the effort to remain relevant, won't find the opportunity at obtaining an Intel-like status in as polarized of a market. The cost and complexity of designing for a mining purposed chip is nowhere near as inhibiting to engineers, allowing a markedly wider potential pool of qualified entrants/competitors ...on top of which you're dealing with a market whose quantified potential for profits and opportunities for competition to join the market are already heavily reliant upon bitcoin's price.

Our shares in CT also remain denominated in USD, so whatever theoretical profits can be taken from the sale of shares (assuming they're not paying dividends lol) at some arbitrary point in the future, will likely only be able to buy us back roughly the equivalent amount of bitcoin as it would get us today (best case scenario). In a sense, a USD valuation of our shares in a company like Cointerra and any appreciation thereof is practically irrelevant when the shareholder's ..err ID profit-unit-holders are to be paid in BTC.



So that would seem to account for the deficit between current balance and July, however, that doesn't take into consideration anything that would have been mined in that same time frame.

I'm not expecting further figures from you, 297. I realize our cry for answers has reached the 'beating a dead horse' phase, but that audit has certainly made it to the top of my 2015 must reads list. Thank you very much for the explanations you've provided.

My final questions; Can you provide us the mining addresses? And what is our cumulative hashrate now?

Talk about poor decisions mating with bad luck and having an ugly baby. To argue now that putting all your btc in one HF basket was a bad idea, or exactly when shareholders agreed to funding the development of a pool, or the feeling of being mislead in that a reasonably priced hosting contract had already been secured at IPO launch -or at least why a query for a facility wasn't put out to invested parties when failure was realized is all now moot, however disgustingly frustrating it is. As somewhat concerning our point of contact shifting to some surprise anon may be, the update you've provided is very appreciated. So thank you for that.

~In July we were told ID had accumulated 720 bitcoin. Now, we've got a brand new address with a balance down nearly 200 bitcoin from just over 2 months ago. Not to intentionally sound like an a**hole, but appropriately maintained funds? The machines were still on, yes? I guess this isn't so much of a question, but I expect this sanitized audit will shed some light on who we've been paying and why our balances are going down?

~Are the machines currently in this new facility -or in the process of being moved? What is the anticipated remaining lifetime?

~Will distributions be withheld until the audit is complete and the HF bankruptcy comes to a resolution?

How do you mean? -is ID mining Bitcoin? Yes.


Will or DT;
-What is preventing dividend payouts from being executed?

-Where did the funding come from to develop the pool project you've been mentioning? https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=790323.msg8909278#msg8909278

-Where are the proceeds from the pool fee going?

-How many Bitcoin have been mined by ID? The balance of the addresses below is only 341 btc, while the amounts received total ~2500 btc.
*of course, 12ej4RUwoszmQoKYyFg6Ej27L82xhFS5Ao seems to be the address of the pool you developed, which may or may not include other parties


-Lastly, if 12ej4RUwoszmQoKYyFg6Ej27L82xhFS5Ao is indeed the pool that ID was mining to, and that address has not seen a reward for a block solved since Sept. 16 while only 1NJNrRgQL9VDkd78HHDBukoayfcdEy7nwU from the addresses above is receiving a very small mining revenue from F2Pool, what addresses are the bulk of ID's machines currently mining to?

It's 1,000 btc and they're rewards won by the pool Icedrill has developed and/or commissioned.
https://blockchain.info/address/12ej4RUwoszmQoKYyFg6Ej27L82xhFS5Ao



-If Icedrill developed and/or commissioned the creation of this pool, where did the funding come from?
-Who are these major PU holders that will be holding the keys and how were they selected?
-Why is a fund manager necessary for "day to day financial-handling"? Since it hasn't been going to PU holders, why so much activity - where is it flowing?
-So Cryptomex, the very instrument built for our PU assignment and the reward payout system, may now be axed? What is the alternative at this point?
-What has held up the implementation of a reward payout system? How long does the process take to go from a suggestion to realization? I hope not another 4 months...

Sorry, Will, but why does it seem there are so many different branches to this project; Cryptomex, no Cryptomex; Developing a pool; Trying to reclaim money from HF; Waiting for the accountant; Hiring a Fund Manager; We're moving facilities; Company Reorganization; Changing wallet solution, one can't help but get the feeling these distractions are intentional? While much of these things are great and wonderful, the very first priority for the people that gave you money remains, "When will I see some return on my investment?" -and this seems to be the only thing that's either being ignored entirely, or getting extremely little attention.

 


 

At the time of launch, this was a lucrative fund. Personally, I liked the aggressive reinvestment plan and the promise to repay public before private shares didn't hurt either. At the time the IPO opened, I don't believe anyone anticipated HF would be as late with shoddy equipment nor the shutdown of bitfunder (and the poor choice to go to cryptomex for accounting & trading)

Even though I don't completely agree with some of the decisions & actions, or appreciate the lack of communication, it's easy to throw Will and DeadTerra under the bus in this situation in which they really have little recourse but to react to problems caused by other parties. Tying IceDrill so tightly and exclusively to HF was a problem since our success then depended entirely on HF's success. Now, the ship has sunk and we're all just trying to cling to scraps of debris left in the wake. Without raising any further capital, there really isn't a happy ending for us; not even raising more capital is the answer as it'd only further dilute current shareholder value.

IMO, IceDrill worrying about the trading platform is entirely pointless as who would want to purchase assets that are not only guaranteed to depreciate in value quickly, but also with no apparent plan in place.


..you did use the same email address on cryptomex as on icedrill, correct? If so, then it's probably time to get in touch with Will.


I guess the 2 week wait time for PU assignment wasn't a sarcastic response. I've been waiting 1 week myself.

Anyone feel they have a firm grasp on the status of this venture?

A summary of the situation as I understand it -please correct me where I'm wrong:

· Bitfunder shuts down so accounting for shares transferred to icedrill.io
· HF delivers late with faulty & underperforming hardware
· Shares are converted to profit units and transferred from icedrill.io to cryptomex.io
· All terms and agreements made at the start of the IPO are thrown out in the share conversion process
· IceDrill's reinvestment strategy is scrapped while mining returns diminish and hardware assets devalue
· Profit unit trade becomes subject to KYC information filed with cryptomex
· Profit units depreciate while there remains no method for trade
· Profit unit allocation and dividend distribution executed manually, behind schedule with a fraction of available funds
· IceDrill admin in court seeking financial reimbursement alongside other creditors with HF filing chapter 11

...
Is there any other outlook for investors besides hoping for the largest possible award in the settlement with HF, mining with current hardware for as long as mining return outweighs hosting costs, liquidating assets for whatever value remains and hoping IceDrill management distributes the balance of funds to investors?

That won't even be necessary. In a recent university double blind study, participants were asked to differentiate between earth dirt and moon dust only by taste. What they discovered was that not only is the moon made entirely of cheese, it was gouda.

Hmm ..well, if you're speculating the original intent was to prevent profitable returns to investors, then it almost without a doubt fits 6 sigma. As we all know, mining experiences a deterioration in performance over the long term, albeit unpredictably. If the aforementioned accusation were to be accurate and given the knowledge of mining long term variations, a 1.5 sigma shift would have likely been taken into account; thus requiring a mere 4.5 standard deviations to accomplish intent. This can't be overlooked.



Precisely, but further still; one must consider the relative perspective of the subservient witness on the parabolic progress. If the perpendicular tangent to focus places the intersecting reference point anywhere below the intersecting midpoint of the latus rectum, then we're golden. If it lies anywhere above our latus rectums well, I don't need to tell you what that means. Of course, this is mostly academic.

I'll start by saying, I actually respect you, Avenger, more than you know. My addresses to you haven't shown it and I'd even wager you wouldn't believe it. I've followed the objections and critical thoughts you've lent here since last year and they were a great & needed counter to a lot of the over exuberant KnC praise that was spilling in here. What rubbed me the wrong way was that you 1)have arguably the loudest voice here, in combination with 2) seemed to devolve from providing those objections and rational thoughts and insisted on using that voice for mud flinging and conspiracy theories -the worst of it in the last few weeks. I hated that picture of Sam, Josh & co since it was first made public -when sudden paranoid accusations became; "run for the hills, miners. All hardware players now in collusion." As if somehow posing respectfully with business competitors required that they all slept in the same bed. The dredging up of that picture set me off, and I flung an undeserved personal insult at you. I was the first to throw a low punch. For that, I am sorry.

Regarding this much more chiseled response from you, thank you. That was the type of thing I was hoping for. I understand your position, and I won't argue against your objections. You clearly felt slighted by KnC for numerous reasons and you are entitled to your position. All I'll add is that in regard to their, "We'll never forget the help of our first customers" attitude, I don't feel as detested by their actions as you as I never actually believed that in the first place. I never felt entitled to benefits nor anticipated preferential treatment despite the persona they wished to convey, because at the end of the day, KnC's primary goal (or any business for that matter) does not include you or me as the beneficiaries. Any demonstrated values any company shows is essentially a facade, a tool to further that main objective -but still one I can't hold against them.