|
2
|
Alternate cryptocurrencies / Announcements (Altcoins) / Re: [ANN] Ethereum: Welcome to the Beginning
|
on: March 30, 2016, 10:20:03 PM
|
honestly here is the best place to ask
theres no support, no public team, no ticket system, no live site just the placeholder they put up every 6+months with same template
no real documentaion only community stuff, and no ONE place for all those documents (maybe eth wiki?)
good luck!
and as far as your errors good luck on that, eth gives so many different errors for everyting its impossible for one straight answer to help you, but they might! haha
A two year software project and no real documentation or support...that's a little scary. |
|
|
|
|
3
|
Bitcoin / Mining speculation / Re: USB miner
|
on: March 25, 2016, 06:12:34 PM
|
Is this the only good option available if you talk about usb miners.
The Compac by GekkoScience (aka sidehack) is pretty good although at this point you can only get them from re-sellers. It will do ~8-10 gh/s on regular USB power but can be overclocked to near 20 gh/s if you have a USB hub that can supply enough power |
|
|
|
|
4
|
Bitcoin / Mining speculation / Re: New mining hardware
|
on: March 24, 2016, 06:43:02 PM
|
All this is pure speculation of course, it's just that basing any theory about price on an unproven assumption about the Chinese is dangerous and misleading.
Originally I made no distinction about whether the miners were located in China or not. The point was that all major mining operations have to sell BTC for fiat at some point. Whether that's a day or a month after a block is mined doesn't really matter. Less BTC to sell means less downward pressure on the market. All other costs remain the same. The cost to produce ASICs isn't halving, nor is the cost to produce an actual miner. For a major mining operation that's the real cost anyways, not electricity or warehouse space. But even those smaller items are not negligible, and they're not being halved either. I'm not saying the price is guaranteed to rise. There could be any number of things that cause it to fall that are totally unrelated to the halving. But when it does happen the amount of BTC being sold on the markets by miners will absolutely decrease. How much and what sort of long term impact will that have on the price? I have no idea. But its entirely reasonable to think the price will rise and allow less efficient miners to continue making a profit, even if its a small amount or for a short period of time. |
|
|
|
|
5
|
Bitcoin / Mining speculation / Re: New mining hardware
|
on: March 24, 2016, 12:32:41 PM
|
Large miners sell their BTC because they have to pay the bills in USD.
I see this said a lot. Is there any basis for it? What USD bills do large Chinese miners have to pay? Fine then CNY. The point is they pay bills in fiat not BTC. As for what bills they pay that should be obvious. Companies producing Asics sink millions of fiat into development and production costs to pay whatever foundry produces the chips. Individual miners buy them in fiat most of the time as well. And of course there is always electricity. I've not heard of a single electric company taking payments in BTC yet. Not to mention rent payments wherever they're leasing warehouse space and of course internet costs. All of that paid in fiat not BTC. |
|
|
|
|
6
|
Bitcoin / Mining speculation / Re: New mining hardware
|
on: March 23, 2016, 10:16:02 PM
|
|
You should consider the possibility of an increase in BTC price. When the halving occurs its reasonable to assume the price may go up. Large miners sell their BTC because they have to pay the bills in USD. With less BTC to sell the price could rise. I say might because there is a lot of FUD and market manipulation that will take place so who knows what actually happens. But should the price rise it will improve profitability and allow many older miners to keep running.
|
|
|
|
|
7
|
Bitcoin / Bitcoin Technical Support / Re: Why does the core wallet suck so bad? Dead people move faster than the d/l
|
on: March 23, 2016, 10:08:20 PM
|
|
At this point the only people who need to use Bitcoin Core are people running a node. Its just not a good solution for the average Bitcoin user. Who wants to download 68+ GB of data just to start using the wallet? And if you don't leave the wallet open you quickly fall out of sync. SPV wallets will be the future for the average user and there is no other way around it. Satoshi himself predicted this would happen.
|
|
|
|
|
8
|
Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: P2P Cash or Settlement Layer?
|
on: March 19, 2016, 01:46:35 PM
|
We should be able to come up with a reasonable platform that can do both without jeopardizing security, or usability. Its just a matter of getting the right minds working on it, and time. This is going to take time to create.
We already have a platform, that's the issue. You can't fundamentally re-engineer Bitcoin from scratch anymore. Except that its being "re-engineered" every single day already. There are developers already working on changing Bitcoin right this minute. |
|
|
|
|
9
|
Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: P2P Cash or Settlement Layer?
|
on: March 18, 2016, 09:21:06 PM
|
|
Why can't it be both? This is just software isn't it? We should be able to come up with a reasonable platform that can do both without jeopardizing security, or usability. Its just a matter of getting the right minds working on it, and time. This is going to take time to create.
|
|
|
|
|
11
|
Alternate cryptocurrencies / Announcements (Altcoins) / Re: [ANN] Ethereum: Welcome to the Beginning
|
on: March 18, 2016, 12:21:37 AM
|
Today, we are excited to announce in an effort to bring our members every conceivable form of currency, we are on track to launch Litecoin and Ethereum in April and May 2016, respectively. At Uphold, we care about the underlying principles that embrace innovation, such as open source development, bitcoin and other blockchain-based technologies. Their potential for disruption in the financial sector, including traditional financial institutions, regulatory bodies (and beyond) is monumental. As Uphold delivers its vision for the Internet of Money™, we strive to create a seamless and inclusive financial platform where its free to hold, move, convert and transact in any form of currency or commodity. Our platform combines world-class service and support with features that incorporate and celebrate the development of new and innovative technologies and companies, such as Voxelus and its in game currency, the Voxel. Furthermore, Uphold continues to innovate with the goal of providing our members with access to all forms of value -- That's why today we are proud to announce the upcoming support of two new blockchain based currencies: Ethereum and Litecoin these additions will allow even more ways for our members to take advantage of any new and disruptive applications We chose to support these two new cryptocurrencies because of their growing popularity in the developer and open source communities, financial traders and enthusiasts. We will launch Litecoin in April 2016 and Ethereum in May 2016. Until then, we invite you to check out http://Ethereum.org and http://Litecoin.org to learn more about these two great new additions to the Uphold platform. We can't wait to extend all the benefits Ethereum and Litecoin can bring to you, our members. In the meantime, we’d love to hear from you: Send any questions or comments to jorge@uphold.comOnwards and Upwards! Jorge Pereira Executive Vice President, Chief Product & Engineering Officer Uphold is a disgraceful company. They are trademark whores who make money by suing small businesses and individuals |
|
|
|
|
12
|
Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: There is a problem with core development
|
on: March 08, 2016, 12:25:36 AM
|
i think what the OP is trying to say if Mastercard usually had a 2% fee. and somehow someone hacked a retail terminal to charge 300% fee EG $6.70 transaction with a $15.70 transaction fee. comparable to 6.7btc tx out with 15.7btc fee https://blockchain.info/tx/6fe69404e6c12b25b60fcd56cc6dc9fb169b24608943def6dbe1eb0a9388ed08now knowing the retailer cant amend this issue as they never received the funds and the funds are alreadygone and its visa that received the fee (bitcoin mining pool received) there shouldnt just be something at the retailer(wallet) side that prevents over spends. there should be something deeper at the pool/network level that realises that something has gone wrong. though i still oppose the dire need of transaction fee's to suppliment the block reward(for atleast a decade), those that do want to pay a fee should still be protected from making mistakes. EG. if fee is $1+(0.0025+), then nodes shouldnt relay it. same for miners if fee is $1 (>0.0025) then dont add to block. that way people can still pay 4cents. or if stupid upto $1 in a race for priority.. but anything more is an obvious mistake especially a $6000 fee. I understand but what happens if the fee is not a mistake? It should not be the responsibility of the base protocol to assess what is and isn't a valid fee. Any sort of protection of the end user should be handled by the wallet, and most importantly by the user. That means check what you're sending. It could be as simple as adding an extra confirmation step for fees over a certain amount, say 10x the current estimated fee. But this would be handled by the wallet application. Your scenario relies on a hacker getting access to a payment terminal. That's an extreme case and I would hope whoever is responsible for the terminal to accept responsibility and come to some sort of resolution. At this point the core Bitcoin software is not really suited for day to day retail transactions. But many other wallets/services are. Most retailers rely on services like Bitpay, which are similar to Visa or Mastercard in the fiat world in that they act as a third party to process the transaction, taking on some responsibility. When something goes wrong, i.e. hacked terminal, Visa and Mastercard will often foot the bill. I would expect the same from Bitpay or any of its competitors. |
|
|
|
|
13
|
Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: There is a problem with core development
|
on: March 07, 2016, 11:49:36 PM
|
The community here could have pointed that out just as easily.
Yep. Thought it often does a fairly inconsistent job. OP failed to actually mention or link to any of the discussion and only wrote about it in vague terms. If I hadn't actually linked to the requests and quoted from the messages would you be saying "but it really is an unnecessary change" now? If you only went on what the OP said, I think it would sound pretty bad... Unfortunately, there has been a rash of misinformation where I looked at it and thought exactly as you suggested-- this isn't important and other people will handle it-- and then people didn't handle it, and not it's being continually repeated as fact from so many directions that it seems hopeless to correct. In this case, a pretty clear response took about 12 mouse clicks to bring up all the relevant messages and then copy and paste some quotes... which allowed fully contextualizing the issue. I hope it was a good investment. I wish I could turn back time and do this in a number of other places. Understood. I read the OP and my first thought was...well what was the issue? I was going to ask but when I scrolled down I was surprised to see a response from you. I guess I was just wondering what compelled you to respond here. To the OP I would say that I agree with most of what was written on the issue page. You said on Github: my guess is whoever it was is using a client that does not auto adjust fees There is already a mechanism to prevent accidental large fee transactions and to auto adjust. Its up to the user to make use of them. Anything additional should be implemented by a third party wallet. I understand you want to prevent accidental large fees but that really isn't something the base layer should be concerned with. |
|
|
|
|
14
|
Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: There is a problem with core development
|
on: March 07, 2016, 10:44:02 PM
|
Interesting that you had plenty of time to write that long winded response though. If you didn't have time then why do you have time now?
Because a direct response here doesn't waste any of the other developers time, time wasted for the Bitcoin dev community is at most the ten minutes I'm spending here-- and potentially a large amount of time _saved_; if the sunlight I shone on the issue prevents it from turning into another forest fire FUD fest. I suppose. My concern is that I've heard far too often that the developers are too busy to respond to such small things. I have no doubt that's the case. But how then do you determine what to actually respond to? What is not worth your time and what is? This was something anybody else could have responded to. No offense to the OP but it really is an unnecessary change. The community here could have pointed that out just as easily. |
|
|
|
|
16
|
Alternate cryptocurrencies / Mining (Altcoins) / Re: Best GPU's For Mining?
|
on: March 03, 2016, 04:43:20 PM
|
I just got the R9 380 for 200$ brand new I'm going to test it out anyone have any experience with that one?
For Ethereum, R9 380 can get you 20MH/s. Do you have the 2GB version? 2GB should be slower than 4GB in the future. No 4GB for 200$ Brand new couldn't turn it down..  That's a good price and probably worth it because a used 280X would cost ~$180. But you should be able to reach 22-23 MH/s on an R9 380. If you're comfortable with firmware flashing you could attempt to flash it to 380X firmware, it might give you a a small performance increase. I did this with my R9 290 and saw a a small increase Also good you got the 4 GB version because 2GB cards will not be able to mine for much longer (some people have reported already they can't mine with a 2GB card) |
|
|
|
|
17
|
Alternate cryptocurrencies / Mining (Altcoins) / Re: Best GPU's For Mining?
|
on: March 01, 2016, 10:50:38 PM
|
Looking into building a rig for mining XMR ect. What are the best GPU's for that right now?
Thanks for the help and this should help newbies in there research as well. Also I'm not looking for necessarily energy efficiency more hash power I know 290s are good but price wise better to get 280s and run them in crossfire or sli?
280x and 290 are definitely the way to go. 290 is a slight performance increase but the 280x costs less. If you get the right 290 you can flash the firmware and run your 290 as a 290X which will give a marginal increase. But the newer 300 series are not worth it, they cost more for the same hash power. If you can get your hands on some used 7970s at a good price they are about the same as the 280x. They provide a little less hash power, but they cost less as well. The difference between the 7970 and 280x is about the same as the difference between the 280x and the 290. If Energy efficiency isn't your concern you could look at some older 6990 or 7990 dual GPUs, but they're harder to find And whatever you do, don't run them in Crossfire, that will only hurt their performance mining. Thanks, so sli is fine as there all running independently correct? I've only ran one GPU so upscaling now. No SLI is for nVidia graphics cards only. Crossfire is for AMD cards. You won't be able to put the cards into SLI if you have AMD cards (which is the 280x/290 product line). For mining the best thing to do is run each card independently. You would just install them like any other graphics card and then not go through with the setup for Crossfire. If you're using Windows it should have no problem detecting multiple graphics cards. |
|
|
|
|
18
|
Alternate cryptocurrencies / Mining (Altcoins) / Re: Best GPU's For Mining?
|
on: March 01, 2016, 10:40:02 PM
|
Looking into building a rig for mining XMR ect. What are the best GPU's for that right now?
Thanks for the help and this should help newbies in there research as well. Also I'm not looking for necessarily energy efficiency more hash power I know 290s are good but price wise better to get 280s and run them in crossfire or sli?
280x and 290 are definitely the way to go. 290 is a slight performance increase but the 280x costs less. If you get the right 290 you can flash the firmware and run your 290 as a 290X which will give a marginal increase. But the newer 300 series are not worth it, they cost more for the same hash power. If you can get your hands on some used 7970s at a good price they are about the same as the 280x. They provide a little less hash power, but they cost less as well. The difference between the 7970 and 280x is about the same as the difference between the 280x and the 290. If Energy efficiency isn't your concern you could look at some older 6990 or 7990 dual GPUs, but they're harder to find And whatever you do, don't run them in Crossfire, that will only hurt their performance mining. |
|
|
|
|
19
|
Economy / Computer hardware / Re: WTS Alcheminer 256 MH/s miner and boards
|
on: February 29, 2016, 09:59:58 PM
|
Sorry it is bfgminer. I have no idea why I put cgminer. I've been using cg for my gpus I got them mixed. Sorry for the confusion.
No problem I was just curious, I might be interested in 1-2 boards but I will need to do a little research on this first. I will PM you an offer if I decide its worth getting into. |
|
|
|
|
20
|
Economy / Computer hardware / Re: WTS Alcheminer 256 MH/s miner and boards
|
on: February 29, 2016, 06:23:58 PM
|
So if I understand you have successfully flashed the boards, but are unable to get cgminer to recognize and begin mining with them?
I'm curious how did you actually interface with the boards to flash them? Is there a USB connection, or UART maybe? And once they are flashed how did you connect them to the Pi? I'm hoping its standard USB, but if its UART or something else that complicates things.
It is UART. There's a way to connect them easier to the pi with a UART USB adapter. I have not tried that, but the guide I linked shows you how to use those too. Thanks. I edited my comment to say I read through and found its UART, and then when I saw your response I accidentally deleted it...one of those days I guess. My next question though...these drivers are designed for bfgminer, so why did you choose cgminer? |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
