If you are running bitcoin-qt, you don't need to wait for a restart - you can just type:


in the debug console.

Sometimes cocaine causes people to wax exuberant (even excessively so) about subjects they are fond of  I think we may have an example here

On the Dave Chappelle Show, there was a series of stories told by Charley Murphy (Eddie's brother) about his adventures with Rick James, which usually involved Rick doing some crazy shit.  He invariably explained the aforesaid 'crazy shit' by saying "Cocaine is a helluva drug...".

I thought it was funny  Clearly, I am alone in this sentiment

Cocaine is a helluva drug...

D/L links are on page 1 of this very thread.

50⁹ is 1,953,125,000,000,000.  Maybe you mean 50+E09 or something like that?  I doubt diff will be in the quadrillions by Christmas  

He does that kind of thing a lot with the English language, i.e. calling a country "Holland", but every thing from that country "Dutch"

I believe Jorge has said that he is an Italian native also.  Maybe he forgot his Italian since he has been away...

God does know - and so do I.  Neapolitan comes from the original Greek name of the city Neapolis  

In solo mining, there really are no "shares".  Until your miner produces a hash that is equal to or greater than the network difficulty, nothing will be accepted.  When one is accepted, you will have mined a block, and will receive 25 BTC + transaction fees.

I assume here that you are using the GBT solo-mining mode of cgminer and mining directly to a local bitcoin node.

Theoretically, you will make exactly the same BTC over time mining solo as you would on a no-fee pool that pays out transaction fees (like Eligius).  The only real difference is expected variance.  If you see minimizing variance as a desirable goal, it is advantageous to pool-mine, even if you have a lot of hash power, because variance( pool + my hashpower) will always be less than variance(my hashpower).

I have a handful of miscellaneous old mining hardware (10 block erupters, 1 Jalapeno, and 2 BE Blades) with a total of about 30GH running in one instance of BFGMiner (pulled from git a few days ago, version visible in the screenshot below), and this morning I noticed that the mining rate was displaying in TH, instead of the usual GH.  I have seen this before once, when I solo-mined a block with this same HW about 15 hours after starting to mine - but in this case, no block was mined.  I figured that maybe one of the devices had submitted a very high-diff share that got rejected, but this does not seem to be the case either.

In the screen shot below, taken some time after the 'event', you can see that the BES7 device is apparently the one that generated a high share (its rate is displayed in TH while all the others are in GH or MH), but looking at the log, I don't see ANY indication of that device generating a big share, neither accepted nor rejected:




LOG SNIPPET -  All it shows is a share of 55/32 by PXY 1 (a BE Blade), then the rate changes to EH from GH with no indication on any share generated by BES 7:

 [2014-07-31 05:45:19] 5s:25.49 avg:30.21 u:28.65 Gh/s | A:51983 R:926+15(1.3%) HW:104175/3.9%
 [2014-07-31 05:45:24] 5s:25.24 avg:30.21 u:28.65 Gh/s | A:51983 R:926+15(1.3%) HW:104175/3.9%
 [2014-07-31 05:45:29] 5s:29.01 avg:30.21 u:28.65 Gh/s | A:51983 R:926+15(1.3%) HW:104176/3.9%
 [2014-07-31 05:45:34] 5s:27.39 avg:30.21 u:28.65 Gh/s | A:51983 R:926+15(1.3%) HW:104176/3.9%
 [2014-07-31 05:45:35] Accepted 049e34be PXY 1  pool 2 Diff 55/32
 [2014-07-31 05:45:39] 5s: 1.43 avg: 0.00 u: 0.00 Eh/s | A:51984 R:926+15(1.3%) HW:104177/3.9%
 [2014-07-31 05:45:44] 5s:873.2 avg: 0.05 u: 0.00 Ph/s | A:51984 R:926+15(1.3%) HW:104178/3.9%
 [2014-07-31 05:45:49] 5s:534.7 avg: 0.05 u: 0.00 Ph/s | A:51984 R:926+15(1.3%) HW:104180/3.9%
 [2014-07-31 05:45:52] Accepted 0325d931 PXY 0  pool 2 Diff 81/32
 [2014-07-31 05:45:54] Accepted 0083bd86 BFL 0  pool 2 Diff 497/32
 [2014-07-31 05:45:54] 5s:327.4 avg: 0.05 u: 0.00 Ph/s | A:51985 R:926+15(1.3%) HW:104182/3.9%
 [2014-07-31 05:45:59] 5s:200.5 avg: 0.05 u: 0.00 Ph/s | A:51986 R:926+15(1.3%) HW:104182/3.9%

Can anyone explain to me how this can happen?  Did I lose a potentially block-solving share due to a bug?

If this had been posted right before 'The Great Deletion of 7777', he would've been just as wrong this time too

I must be misunderstanding what you are looking for...  Doesn't the bolded part above tell you exactly that?  I know it was fairly accurate at predicting my payouts when I was mining on P2Pool.

http://localhost:9332 will give you that information if you are running your own node.  The 1st page will tell you your current payout if a block is found now (based on shares actually found), and it also shows an estimate of what you should earn per block if you maintain your current hash rate for 24 hours.

I definitely agree with this - this is the fundamental basis of my interest in Bitcoin.

I think the point I am failing to convey to you is that government and regulation pose EXACTLY the same threat that you ascribe solely to the market participants.  Yes, it is theoretically possible for a regulated market to be a free market, but we need only to observe the real world we live in to see that that never really happens.

I believe that we live in a world that is not painted purely in swaths of black and white.  The truth rarely lies in absolutes at either end of any spectrum.

I agree with you that bad actors in the economy would subvert free markets if allowed to do so, BUT so will their agents, the government, if empowered to do so.

Total freedom in the sense of absolutely no restraint, is certainly never desirable...  My need for individual liberty does not demand that I have the freedom to coerce and murder, and economic entities should certainly be held to the same standard.  THAT is the problem that needs to be solved: how do we prevent the players in the game from bending the rules in their own favor, thus cheating the other participants?  The answer is surely not as simple as government regulation - that is just another cheating mechanism.

I don't claim to know what the ideal answer is.  I imagine that there probably is no ideal answer, really.  But I do know that empowering regulators is just arming the enemy.

We need to find the sweet spot...  We need to cut through the vast web of regulations that have become the worst part of the problem, while still requiring the players to play fair.

It's not a trivial task, and the answer is not going to be something you can put on a bumper sticker or into a sound bite.  And it won't be yet more government regulation either.

You may have discussed some of these principles with someone on this forum.  It was not me.

I see it exactly the opposite way from you:  The regulations you believe are necessary for a free market (ironic, if you think about it) are always and everywhere used to subvert market forces, and give preference to whichever entity has the most political control over the 'regulators'.

I can't speak for all Libertarians, but personally, I believe that an entity of some kind is necessary to prevent those who would deprive others of their life, liberty, or property from doing so - and I believe that acting in a manner that would make free markets less free is one way of imposing such deprivation, and consequently, should be prevented.

The goal is to minimize coercion as much as possible.  It will always be necessary, however, to coerce those who would harm others into not doing so.

So your definition of 'ultra-capitalism' is plutocracy?  I think the more plutocratic a society is, the less possible free markets are - and the lack of free markets is antithetical to any kind of real capitalism.  I would call such a country 'faux-capitalist', not 'ultra-capitalist'.

Crony capitalism is no more representative of "capitalism" than rigged elections are representative of "democracy".

What exactly do you define as 'ultra-capitalist'?  Could you name a few such countries, just so I understand what you mean here?