Bitcoin Forum
May 22, 2019, 04:00:26 PM *
News: Latest Bitcoin Core release: 0.18.0 [Torrent] (New!)
 
  Home Help Search Login Register More  
  Show Posts
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 »
1  Bitcoin / Pools / Re: [6600Th] Eligius: 0% Fee BTC, 105% PPS NMC, No registration, CPPSRB (New Thread) on: April 08, 2014, 01:13:07 AM
The pool does this by using unique extranonce/coinbase data for every connection.  It also checks for duplicate submissions.
What about the S1 itself, or any other large mining equipment?  Has anyone reputable audited the output of the S1 to make sure all is copacetic?  200gh/s (OCd) is a lot of hashes to verify everything is working right.  Has anyone fed it controlled data and verified the output is sufficiently random to indicate it's working properly?  I think I know enough about mining works to think that a hash is a hash is a hash, so if it appears to be generating good hashes, presumably at sometime it would generate a hash that equates to a block?

A hash is a hash is a hash.  In fact, each difficulty level 1 mining pool share is equivalent to finding a block at difficulty level 1.  It's trivially easy to determine that any given share is valid, and in fact, all mining pools do this for all shares.  Shares that are invalid are rejected and don't count towards your indicated hash rate.  So your indicated hash rate is your real hash rate.

There's nothing to worry about.
2  Bitcoin / Pools / Re: [6600Th] Eligius: 0% Fee BTC, 105% PPS NMC, No registration, CPPSRB (New Thread) on: March 25, 2014, 02:42:25 AM
Are there problems with NMC payouts?  I've been mining at a good clip for a week now and I haven't seen a single NMC payout.  Yes, I configured the NMC address.
3  Bitcoin / Hardware / Re: [Setup & Troubleshoot] Bitmain AntMiner S1 180GH/S miner on: March 25, 2014, 12:36:21 AM
I'm running an Antminer from the latest batch and I'm noticing curious pool-switching behavior when multiple pools are configured.  With my older Antminer it always mines using the pools in order of priority, so it only uses the second one as a fallback if the first one is down.  With this new Antminer it seems to be alternating between configured pools?  That's not what I want.  How do I get back to the fallback functionality of the older Antminers?  Is anyone else seeing this issue?

I got mine about two weeks ago.  I'm not seeing this.  Check your system log and post the startup command it passes to cgminer. 
Make sure you mask your pool/worker info if you don't want it public.

It settled down now and has reliably been mining only on my primary pool.  God knows what happened.  It was erratic for a bit after configuring the second pool.  I don't think it has anything to do with network connections because my other Antminer has the same pool configurations and it didn't switch over at all during the time in question.
4  Bitcoin / Hardware / Re: [Setup & Troubleshoot] Bitmain AntMiner S1 180GH/S miner on: March 24, 2014, 11:51:30 PM
I'm running an Antminer from the latest batch and I'm noticing curious pool-switching behavior when multiple pools are configured.  With my older Antminer it always mines using the pools in order of priority, so it only uses the second one as a fallback if the first one is down.  With this new Antminer it seems to be alternating between configured pools?  That's not what I want.  How do I get back to the fallback functionality of the older Antminers?  Is anyone else seeing this issue?
5  Bitcoin / Hardware / Re: [Antminer S1 Sales open] Price changes daily, now 0.988 BTC for 180GH/s on: March 20, 2014, 12:42:25 PM
in "My Orders" status is now Paid/unshipped/valid, however BTC pay and confirm is still 0 BTC.  Is this normal? sorry if this is a silly question but this is my first of hopefully many orders with Bitmain.

My order shows the same.  I think it's because they manually marked the orders as shipped (Blockchain.info is still having problems, or hasn't retroactively gone back and fixed accounting for transactions made during their problems).

If our orders' status remains Unshipped for another couple days, then I'll start to get worried.
6  Bitcoin / Hardware / Re: Announcement: Bitmain launches AntMiner solution, 0.68 J/GH on chip on: March 19, 2014, 04:22:10 PM
Guys what is up with this. On my wallet in coinbase, it says I withdrew 0.988 nut when I look at Bitmaintech it only says 0.987. Is that okay?

Link us the txid and we can try to figure it out.  That's too high to be a transaction fee though.  Tx fees are 0.0001 BTC.
7  Bitcoin / Hardware / Re: Announcement: Bitmain launches AntMiner solution, 0.68 J/GH on chip on: March 19, 2014, 02:53:46 PM
My order expired too.  I sent BTC within a few minutes of generating the invoice, but it never registered as paying, even though the network found 11 blocks within that hour (go go gadget increasing hashrate).

I'm suspecting that their integration with Blockchain.info is still messed up.  They're generating Bitcoin addresses properly (which is a very easy thing to do and doesn't require awareness of the blockchain), but maybe they're still getting caught up on the blockchain and they're not registering incoming transactions properly?

Anyway, I'm sending a PM.

To everyone else, I wouldn't place an order until this is fixed.
8  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Why is bitcoin proof of work parallelizable ? on: October 07, 2011, 08:47:10 PM
Things like this tend to be prone to Sybil attacks. I'm not an expert but what I learned from comments like this is that there are some very good reasons why Bitcoin is based on Proof-of-Work rather than trust. Not sure if this applies to your system.

Sybil is on my mind.

I plan a register of persons to prevent fake multiple identities. Assuming a core number of trusted users, every user would show up in person at a certain number of users in his area (partially to be selected by random choice, to prevent systematic collusion). The user would present some official documents and then get a uid based on a standardized id scheme, eg a hash on "Firstname Middleinitial Lastname-When-Born Birthplace Birthdate". To be able to act anonymously, the user would first logon using this id and then use this to generate secondary anonymous credentials for login. These will be produced in a manner that there will only be one credential for every user per time unit. Thus, the user is anonymous AND the risc of a large number of fake users is small. It is kind-of a decentral implementation of a PKI, similar to the web-of-trust in PGP (but preventing collusion attacks).

What you are describing requires strict identity verification, and thus also requires a central authority (to do said verifications) and lots of trust.  In other words, it's nothing at all like Bitcoin.  If you're going to require a central authority, don't bother with proofs of work or anything like that; just record balances in a database.

Absent some centralized mechanism, which is contrary to everything Bitcoin stands for, you have to realize that there is absolutely no way to distinguish any sort of difference between one person running one hundred computers or one hundred people running one computer each.  If you cannot tell who is running what there is no way any sort of "non-parallelizable proof of work" could possibly work.
9  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Annotating the blockchain on: August 09, 2011, 06:18:43 PM
So you accept Bitcoins from someone, and because their inability to choose the inputs for the transaction they send to you, you end up with some coins that were "unclean" a few transactions ago. Or maybe you don't realize this, because you don't happen to subscribe to the arbitrary group watchdog that monitors this shit - until you go to spend those coins and someone who is subscribed calls you a scammer.

The fact that you have unclean coins does not mean that you are a scammer, it means that the scammer is somewhere between you and the victim. If you end up with unclean coins, the website will allow you to get in touch with the victim of the scam/theft.


Why would I want to do that?  I received the money in a legitimate transaction, presumably in exchange for something else that I no longer have.  Why would I turn around and give it to someone else?  Exchanges of currency in real life don't work like that.  Odds are that one of the bills in my wallet was stolen from someone at some point, but that doesn't mean that, if I could track down the original person it was stolen from, I should give it to that person.  I received these bills from bank, which gave them to me because my job deposits money into said bank.  I don't owe them to anyone else.  Likewise for Bitcoins.
10  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Annotating the blockchain on: August 08, 2011, 09:42:05 PM
Wouldn't this be very vulnerable to scamming in itself though?  It's trivial to, say, parse the top 10,000 receiving addresses from the blockchain that hold the most value at this moment.  What's to stop a scammer from taking a coin that's marked as "stolen" and transferring a single satoshi to each of these top 10,000 mostly valid addresses?  Wouldn't everyone just be marked bad at that point?

Remember, there's no way to "deny" a transaction.  Anyone in possession of coins that had been annotated as bad could go on to cause lots of trouble for other people very easily.
11  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Technical Support / Re: The bitcoin client is eating my bitcoins, WTF? on: August 05, 2011, 08:28:02 PM
First of all, are you now, or were you ever, running a modified client that messed with the required minimum transaction fees?  If so, there's your problem.

If not, then your problem is that you have an unconfirmed transaction that the network no longer sees, and that will thus never be confirmed, tying up your coins in your wallet indefinitely.  You need to remove that transaction from your wallet file.  I don't specifically know how to accomplish this, but as the wallet file is just unencrypted binary data, and the client that reads and writes the wallet file is entirely open source, it is definitely possible.  Somewhere out there should be a wallet munger program that lets you import/export private keys, modify transactions, etc.  Obviously make a wallet backup before trying anything like that.
12  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: bitcoin stores are bad for bitcoin / bitcoin atm on: August 04, 2011, 01:24:21 AM
You realize neither end has to make an exchange for every transaction, right?  Most people buying food there are probably going to be miners, who don't need to buy Bitcoin at all, and Meze Grill might only cash out once a week or so.
13  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Found: Bitcoin mining bot that is controlled via Twitter on: August 03, 2011, 02:06:53 PM
Wow, what an ignorant bot writer, didn't even use any sort of encoding on the Twitter messages.  Including mining pool URLs directly into Tweets, unencoded, is just amateur hour.
14  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: what happens to the BITC when you loose a wallat.dat on: August 03, 2011, 01:57:35 PM
Yes, they are gone forever.
15  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Banks are fundamentally unnecessary and actually dangerous for bitcoin on: August 02, 2011, 03:57:45 AM
no no, what he said is that having your money in the bank gives you so much more opportunity.
the part when he said opportunity value, he means you get the full extent of what it can do by being able to use it at many more places.

for instance, you can't buy a videocard from newegg if the cash is in a safe in your house or even sitting in your pocket.

It's the same idea if your bitcoins only exist on a computer that is turned off, there is zero opportunity to actually use them. It really was a very insightful thought he shared.

No, that's not what he's talking about.  It only takes a few minutes to turn your computer on if you had to spend Bitcoins.  Heck, you'd wait on average longer than that just for the transaction to confirm, and I guarantee you'd wait much, much longer for something like a check to clear.  Heck, even a credit card transaction takes up to a few days.  It's not an issue of your PC not being on at that very moment at all.

What it is an issue of is the economic use of that money.  Let's say you get some Bitcoins, you hold onto them for a year, and then you spend them.  In that interim period they had precisely zero economic activity.  They didn't contribute to any economy, they didn't help anyone make money, etc.  Now, let's say you get some dollars in your bank account, you hold onto them for a year, and then you spend them.

Well, see, those dollars actually did have an economic impact, because your bank turned around and lent them out to people buying homes, new businesses starting up, and other economic activities.  Those dollars may have been exchanged many times from person to person, business to business, all while you just "thought" you had a static balance in your bank account.  So that amount of money "sitting" in your bank account actually had many times its value in effect on GDP.  Your Bitcoins, however, had precisely zero impact.

That is the fundamental difference between using a bank and stuffing money under your mattress that we are talking about here, and in the absence of trustworthy Bitcoin banks, the only thing you can do with your Bitcoins is the equivalent of stuffing them under your mattress.
16  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Bitbills used mybitcoin - grrrrr. on: August 01, 2011, 09:17:16 PM
Wow, see, that's actually the way to handle complaints.

Not like the way MyBitcoin has been silent for the past three days.  But I'm sure they're just having technical difficulties  Roll Eyes
17  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: MyBitcoin guys might NOT be thieves!!! on: August 01, 2011, 08:27:14 PM
Even if all turns out to be some kind of big misunderstanding in the end: a service holding bitcoins in the tens or even hundreds of thousands of bitcoins for thousands of users simply cannot be left unattended for a period of three days. If nothing else, the owners of mybitcoin are unprofessional and careless, which invalidates their service for further use.

The only reasonable thing for everyone to do, if they come back is: get your bitcoins the hell outta there!

+1.  They've already been down for a length of time exceeding anything reasonable (made much worse by the complete lack of communication).  Even if it's not a scam and MyBitcoin comes up in the next hour, they're still completely incompetent, and not deserving of anyone's repeat patronage.
18  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: MyBitcoin guys might NOT be thieves!!! on: August 01, 2011, 07:33:43 PM
It's been about three days so far.  How long will you give it?
19  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: MyBitcoin guys might NOT be thieves!!! on: August 01, 2011, 07:27:20 PM
OK, how much good faith are you willing to extend to them?  If another week goes by and we still haven't heard anything from the MyBitcoin people, then you admit that it was a scam?  Or are we just supposed to extend unlimited good faith and wait indefinitely?
20  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: MyBitcoin on: August 01, 2011, 07:22:34 PM
I hate to say "I told you so", but why were you people using MyBitcoin in the first place?  By far the largest advantage of Bitcoin is its centralized nature.  If you're going to give that up, you might as well not use Bitcoin at all.  Hell, I know we all hate PayPal, but if I'm going centralized, I trust them a lot more than some random site like MyBitcoin that it turns out we don't know anything about.  PayPal, meanwhile, is owned by eBay, has thousands of employees, and is publicly traded.  They're not just going to disappear.  MyBitcoin, well, .... poof!
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 »
Sponsored by , a Bitcoin-accepting VPN.
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!