Where to exchange ProtoShare to USD?
after a quick search of their forums Want To Buy PTS 2000PTS @0.0013BTC this was posted today & closed, so apparently got filled. according to the post, at that time it was equivalent to $9 (i guess more now since bitcoin price is up)... so maybe 1/2 a cent? i think that's probably less than the $1.50 I can get from other place i recall having all my servers running protoshare mining on that first day and got 2 orphans and 5 stales... which would have been... 350 protoshares.. this in about two hours. i imagine the block difficulty is a lot higher now, probably don't get all the orphans and stales anymore either, but, still.. i fail to see how that's profitable if you pay for electricity |
|
|
|
Well, I just restarted everything w/ the latest git of p2pool. 28 shares, 1 orphan, 5 DOA amongst all four All 5 DOA came from one reporting a 12% DOA & the historical DOA would make around 2-2.5 or so normal. I did notice that all 5 DOA came from the same worker, while the other workers had 0 (the worker with 5 DOA shares had 8 or 9 total.... just extremely unlucky, or it's underreporting some DOA % or what?). I did notice the web values don't always coincide with the values you see in your log Anyway, nothing changed other than the index.html & number of outgoing and incoming connections on this new git. Not sure if it still did/does the stratum connection interrupts or not? btw: I'm assuming this increasing latency from everyone is because of all the free priority transactions that p2pool stores? 2013-11-18 23:59:38 ERROR: AcceptToMemoryPool : free transaction rejected by rate limiter
2013-11-18 23:59:38 ERROR: AcceptToMemoryPool : free transaction rejected by rate limiter
2013-11-18 23:59:38 ERROR: AcceptToMemoryPool : free transaction rejected by rate limiter
2013-11-18 23:59:38 ERROR: AcceptToMemoryPool : free transaction rejected by rate limiter
2013-11-18 23:59:38 ERROR: AcceptToMemoryPool : free transaction rejected by rate limiter
2013-11-18 23:59:38 ERROR: AcceptToMemoryPool : free transaction rejected by rate limiter
2013-11-18 23:59:38 ERROR: AcceptToMemoryPool : free transaction rejected by rate limiter
2013-11-18 23:59:38 ERROR: AcceptToMemoryPool : free transaction rejected by rate limiter
2013-11-18 23:59:38 ERROR: AcceptToMemoryPool : free transaction rejected by rate limiter
2013-11-18 23:59:38 ERROR: AcceptToMemoryPool : free transaction rejected by rate limiter
2013-11-18 23:59:38 ERROR: AcceptToMemoryPool : free transaction rejected by rate limiter
2013-11-18 23:59:38 ERROR: AcceptToMemoryPool : free transaction rejected by rate limiter
2013-11-18 23:59:38 ERROR: AcceptToMemoryPool : free transaction rejected by rate limiter
2013-11-18 23:59:38 ERROR: AcceptToMemoryPool : free transaction rejected by rate limiter
2013-11-18 23:59:38 ERROR: AcceptToMemoryPool : free transaction rejected by rate limiter
2013-11-18 23:59:38 ERROR: AcceptToMemoryPool : free transaction rejected by rate limiter
2013-11-18 23:59:38 ERROR: AcceptToMemoryPool : free transaction rejected by rate limiter
2013-11-18 23:59:38 ERROR: AcceptToMemoryPool : free transaction rejected by rate limiter
2013-11-18 23:59:38 ERROR: AcceptToMemoryPool : free transaction rejected by rate limiter
2013-11-18 23:59:38 ERROR: AcceptToMemoryPool : free transaction rejected by rate limiter
2013-11-18 23:59:38 ERROR: AcceptToMemoryPool : free transaction rejected by rate limiter
2013-11-18 23:59:38 ERROR: AcceptToMemoryPool : free transaction rejected by rate limiter
2013-11-18 23:59:38 ERROR: AcceptToMemoryPool : free transaction rejected by rate limiter
2013-11-18 23:59:38 ERROR: AcceptToMemoryPool : free transaction rejected by rate limiter
2013-11-18 23:59:38 ERROR: AcceptToMemoryPool : free transaction rejected by rate limiter
2013-11-18 23:59:38 ERROR: AcceptToMemoryPool : free transaction rejected by rate limiter
2013-11-18 23:59:38 ERROR: AcceptToMemoryPool : free transaction rejected by rate limiter
2013-11-18 23:59:38 ERROR: AcceptToMemoryPool : free transaction rejected by rate limiter
2013-11-18 23:59:39 ERROR: AcceptToMemoryPool : free transaction rejected by rate limiter
2013-11-18 23:59:39 ERROR: AcceptToMemoryPool : free transaction rejected by rate limiter
2013-11-18 23:59:39 ERROR: AcceptToMemoryPool : free transaction rejected by rate limiter
2013-11-18 23:59:39 ERROR: AcceptToMemoryPool : free transaction rejected by rate limiter
2013-11-18 23:59:39 ERROR: AcceptToMemoryPool : free transaction rejected by rate limiter
2013-11-18 23:59:39 ERROR: AcceptToMemoryPool : free transaction rejected by rate limiter
2013-11-18 23:59:39 ERROR: AcceptToMemoryPool : free transaction rejected by rate limiter
2013-11-18 23:59:39 ERROR: AcceptToMemoryPool : free transaction rejected by rate limiter
2013-11-18 23:59:39 ERROR: AcceptToMemoryPool : free transaction rejected by rate limiter
2013-11-18 23:59:39 ERROR: AcceptToMemoryPool : free transaction rejected by rate limiter
2013-11-18 23:59:39 ERROR: AcceptToMemoryPool : free transaction rejected by rate limiter
2013-11-18 23:59:39 ERROR: AcceptToMemoryPool : free transaction rejected by rate limiter
2013-11-18 23:59:39 ERROR: AcceptToMemoryPool : free transaction rejected by rate limiter
2013-11-18 23:59:39 ERROR: AcceptToMemoryPool : free transaction rejected by rate limiter
2013-11-18 23:59:39 ERROR: AcceptToMemoryPool : free transaction rejected by rate limiter
2013-11-18 23:59:39 ERROR: AcceptToMemoryPool : free transaction rejected by rate limiter
2013-11-18 23:59:39 ERROR: AcceptToMemoryPool : free transaction rejected by rate limiter
2013-11-18 23:59:39 ERROR: AcceptToMemoryPool : free transaction rejected by rate limiter
2013-11-18 23:59:39 ERROR: AcceptToMemoryPool : free transaction rejected by rate limiter
2013-11-18 23:59:39 ERROR: AcceptToMemoryPool : free transaction rejected by rate limiter
2013-11-18 23:59:39 ERROR: AcceptToMemoryPool : free transaction rejected by rate limiter
2013-11-18 23:59:39 ERROR: AcceptToMemoryPool : free transaction rejected by rate limiter
2013-11-18 23:59:39 ERROR: AcceptToMemoryPool : free transaction rejected by rate limiter
2013-11-18 23:59:39 ERROR: AcceptToMemoryPool : free transaction rejected by rate limiter
2013-11-18 23:59:39 ERROR: AcceptToMemoryPool : free transaction rejected by rate limiter
2013-11-18 23:59:39 ERROR: AcceptToMemoryPool : free transaction rejected by rate limiter
2013-11-18 23:59:39 ERROR: AcceptToMemoryPool : free transaction rejected by rate limiter
2013-11-18 23:59:39 ERROR: AcceptToMemoryPool : free transaction rejected by rate limiter
2013-11-18 23:59:39 ERROR: AcceptToMemoryPool : free transaction rejected by rate limiter
2013-11-18 23:59:39 ERROR: AcceptToMemoryPool : free transaction rejected by rate limiter
2013-11-18 23:59:39 ERROR: AcceptToMemoryPool : free transaction rejected by rate limiter
2013-11-18 23:59:39 ERROR: AcceptToMemoryPool : free transaction rejected by rate limiter
2013-11-18 23:59:39 ERROR: AcceptToMemoryPool : free transaction rejected by rate limiter
2013-11-18 23:59:40 ERROR: AcceptToMemoryPool : free transaction rejected by rate limiter
2013-11-18 23:59:40 ERROR: AcceptToMemoryPool : free transaction rejected by rate limiter
2013-11-18 23:59:40 ERROR: AcceptToMemoryPool : free transaction rejected by rate limiter
2013-11-18 23:59:40 ERROR: AcceptToMemoryPool : free transaction rejected by rate limiter
2013-11-18 23:59:40 ERROR: AcceptToMemoryPool : free transaction rejected by rate limiter
2013-11-18 23:59:40 ERROR: AcceptToMemoryPool : free transaction rejected by rate limiter
2013-11-18 23:59:40 ERROR: AcceptToMemoryPool : free transaction rejected by rate limiter
2013-11-18 23:59:40 ERROR: AcceptToMemoryPool : free transaction rejected by rate limiter
2013-11-18 23:59:40 ERROR: AcceptToMemoryPool : free transaction rejected by rate limiter
2013-11-18 23:59:40 ERROR: AcceptToMemoryPool : free transaction rejected by rate limiter
2013-11-18 23:59:40 ERROR: AcceptToMemoryPool : free transaction rejected by rate limiter
2013-11-18 23:59:40 ERROR: AcceptToMemoryPool : free transaction rejected by rate limiter
2013-11-18 23:59:40 ERROR: AcceptToMemoryPool : free transaction rejected by rate limiter
2013-11-18 23:59:40 ERROR: AcceptToMemoryPool : free transaction rejected by rate limiter
2013-11-18 23:59:40 ERROR: AcceptToMemoryPool : free transaction rejected by rate limiter
i'm assuming it stores them all somewhere, else i'd get a lot more of the log:2013-11-18 17:46:18.884577 invalid hash for xxx 'remember_tx' 248810 54ae5455 log:2013-11-18 17:46:53.459911 invalid hash for xxx 'remember_tx' 248925 9d3b9599 log:2013-11-18 17:47:30.062552 invalid hash for xxx 'remember_tx' 248888 b5e1de16 log:2013-11-18 17:47:41.372764 invalid hash for xxx 'remember_tx' 248888 b5e1de16 log:2013-11-18 17:47:45.965405 invalid hash for xxx 'remember_tx' 248823 b174ddb7 log:2013-11-18 17:47:50.254166 invalid hash for xxx 'remember_tx' 248823 b174ddb7 log:2013-11-18 17:48:17.342628 invalid hash for xxx 'remember_tx' 248929 b771bc0a log:2013-11-18 17:48:23.296767 invalid hash for xxx 'remember_tx' 248778 05d4da52 log:2013-11-18 17:48:28.075889 invalid hash for xxx 'remember_tx' 248778 05d4da52 ed: haha, ok, this time I'm seriously done w/ p2pool. too buggy & f*cked up. bogs system down hardcore when 100 people connect to you for 2 seconds. fails to close closets. could be a python problem. plus no response from developer... oh, yeah, gg having like 400 sockets clear after closing p2pool process |
|
|
|
I ran into the same problem myself, posted about it a couple different places so I would get different responses from different people and not the same canned responses all the time. Not one thing out there is going to show you how it works. These pools we join are all done by programmers. That programmer is the only person who knows what's going on. I hear so many people say they are making great return...then my story is the opposite. Who knows. Once it all becomes commercialization we won't have to worry about anything. I have tried a couple different pools myself....staying on each on for a few days....I do favor one of them above the rest, but according to some of the online calculators I've tried out, i'm still making a little less than what I "should" be getting back. I've come to the conclusion that everyone is in the same boat and to compensate they just go out and buy more hashing power to make themselves feel better. i think i shant like to be included in this boat you speak of i work by the numbers, not superstitions i made great returns, my mistake was not buying a batch 1 or 2 avalon and not keeping the thousands of bitcoins i mined. but as for the asics, there hasnt been one worth buying in over 6 mo asicminer smart, sell all that shit for 3x value instead of mining with it. gpus required a little more technical expertise, now we're open for the masses. bitcoins version of the transition from .edu, .gov, .mil, and the few .com shell providers to using slip/ppp on crap like AOL |
|
|
|
|
All this time and I only get one referral? Sigh. My i7-960 makes about $1.50 a day at ipuservices
|
|
|
|
zvs, thanks that you care so much about p2pool if you have some suggestions about efficiency of http://elizium.name write me please. this node based on an excellent server with a lot of memory, bandwidth, good pings, 99.9% uptime so there is a lot of reasons to use it any ways yeah, i've noticed it's on a really good system (next time i restart it, you're in my p2pool-node list so that should help some anyway) i'm having issues w/ my own right now, at least some of it is probably connected to dropping efficiency rate w/ higher hash rate? but finally someone w/ decent hash rate sat on here for a bit, now i'm getting occasional stratum interrupts on my video card. it resyncs fine, but some other ppl report that it essentially destroys the connection and never fixes itself? i'm trying it now with an expiry time of 60 seconds instead of 120 seconds, then stratum should never time out? i know machine isn't overloaded or anything, so not really sure what the deal is with that/.. but whoever that was is gone now, so i'll have to test some more later i guess, haha i see the getblocktemplate latency went up a lot.. i guess i should put p2pool in tmpfs also, that's strange. i do still have memory leak issues with bitcoind, it was up to 6GB memory, so i reset that i'm also getting those random miners again w/o having a bitcoin address set. this time fr333n3rgy, which looks like another minecraft player, same with ccg121. capitall is too generic a name, tomparis2000, well, i don't know what's up w/ those google results. just a lot of ppl that come over for a minute or two w/o bitcoin addresses. is there someone running a modified pool somewhere where people have user accounts & they have other p2pools as backups? do you get a lot of ppl w/o a bitcoin address as username as well? it's also still having the issue of leaving 9332 sockets open, i have about 200 so far now |
|
|
|
|
well, particularly the bioshock infinite price. i've seen bioshock lower.
i think the xcom price and civ 5 prices are decent as well, but not positive
|
|
|
|
|
it was because hetzner was being DDoS'ed
Networkfault in consequence of incoming
Type: Fault report
Categories: Network
Start: November 17, 2013 1:30:00 PM CET
End: Unknown
Description: We have unfortunately just experienced a large incoming attack on a server in RZ19.
We have resolved the issue and are currently dropping the udp traffic for 144.76.36.0/27. It appears the Attack switches targets, we'll may need to put additional IP or Subnet on this filter rules.
We apologize for any inconvenience caused.
Thank you for your understanding.
Update: November 17, 2013 2:42:00 PM CET
Please avoid further support and telephone inquiries, as there already is at this time too a corresponding delay in the processing.
Thank you for your understanding.
Networkfault in consequence of incoming
Type: Fault report
Categories: Network
Start: November 16, 2013 1:00:00 PM CET
End: November 17, 2013 1:00:00 AM CET
Description: We have unfortunately just experienced a large incoming attack on a server in RZ19.
We have resolved the issue and are currently dropping the udp traffic for 144.76.36.0/24. We're closely monitoring the further behavior.
We apologize for any inconvenience caused.
Thank you for your understanding.
Update: November 16, 2013 4:00:00 PM CET
The Target of the Attack is switching, we're altering our filter as soon as possible.
We apologize for any inconvenience caused.
Update: November 16, 2013 10:15:00 PM CET
We're currently deactivating those filters and closely watch the further behavior.
Update: November 17, 2013 1:00:00 AM CET
Our countermeasure are disable since approximately two hours, the attack appears to be over.
Thank you for your patients.
------
patients!
|
|
|
|
|
it looks like their plan so far has been rotating null routing? wtf..
|
|
|
|
ed: fixed name As far as the bgahl@bawcsa.org (awfully similar to the person mining under " bgahl@bawcsa.org_batman" on pool), I did notice this: nm, that info was too old. there are a few reports of email spam coming from bgahl@bawcsa.org, but i doubt that really has any relevance maybe the non-clearing sockets are just a side effect of hetzner having some rather serious issues atm? that would be a bug within python I guess? heh, Type: Fault report Categories: Network Start: November 17, 2013 1:30:00 PM CET End: Unknown Description: We have unfortunately just experienced a large incoming attack on a server in RZ19. We have resolved the issue and are currently dropping the udp traffic for 144.76.36.0/27. It appears the Attack switches targets, we'll may need to put additional IP or Subnet on this filter rules. We apologize for any inconvenience caused. Thank you for your understanding. ... my point about the sockets not closing still stands tho... I was having that problem *before* this was announced =p .. and it isn't resolved, still get about 60% ploss to hetzner.de... 144.76.36, some bitcoin pool there? heh |
|
|
|
OK, so I'm guessing people probably use 204.10.105.113:9332/static because of the domain p2pool.org... even though it's horribly set up & has a 2% fee. quite sad really, when one looks at the one month/one year chart. (oh and ofc he never took me up on my offer, no mails from that guy) now, second question, why do people use elizium.name?... or is it just all local traffic? though I'd be shocked if 95% or more of it wasn't just from random people using a remote p2pool. 400 shares I think is enough to get a trend & 55 orphans is bad. I can see there's 11 outgoing connections, but I guess I'll assume that those are just random outgoing connections? It looks like my node @ 198.12.127.2 used one of its random outgoing connections to hook up w/ it, but not connected to me at the other two places. normally i'd add it to --p2pool-node since it seems to be on a fast enough computer & good connection, but i've just been observing the sub 100% efficiency for the last few days & curiosity killed the cat. Is it all just because of that interface? The most important part is busted (the share explorer). I also don't understand why so many people use 183.136.216.39:9332/static/graphs.html?Year when it's absolutely horrid. 10 outgoing connections, that are either totally random or not good choices. For location (China), he's not connecting to some critical western US & Russian nodes that he should be on. I *think* it's also on an old version of bitcoind. at least it's at 0% fee But why would you use that over this: mine.yuyi.tw:9332 a far superior pool in Taiwan with 1/10th the hashrate. This one runs 0% fee too, so that's not it is there some place i'm missing where these sites are being advertised? reddit? asic hardware manufacturer forums? lol. some people want to use p2pool for whatever reason, but don't want to spend money on hosting for their own node (I'll assume they live in a crap rural area like myself w/ shit for bandwidth). but why always choose the wrong pools? then you get all the bullshit misinformation about how p2pool pays out less than <insert x pool>. yeah, probably cause you were on one of these low efficiency pools or running a local node that was getting 15% orphans and 5% DOA.. though if it weren't for those people, I guess the rest wouldn't be picking up the bonus but, seriously, who is mining on one of those 3 pools right now and why? is there anyone that reads this thread that does? if not, where are they coming from? I use Elizium for one of my backup failovers so I can keep on p2pool when my local node is updated and needs to restart. Secondary Backup on BTCGuild. Elizium's current efficiency of 105% isn't bad and they have decent uptime and ping from my location. Of course I only need them for the minute or so when I'm restarting the node after a git pull or the few minutes I need to do a full reboot and system maintenance. That wouldn't be causing it to get the 4thash then...  Uh, I think all these bizarre miners on my node are just someone loading me up with TCP sockets that never close. The daily chart at the moment has quite a few: http://www.nogleg.com:9332/static/graphs.html?DayThis Kyle Rubenok fellow in particular doesn't really seem like a bitcoin miner to me. I've tried to contact a few of those ppl, anyway Here's an example from dstat: ------sockets------ --net/eth0- -dsk/total- ---load-avg--- ----interrupts---
tot tcp udp raw frg| recv send| read writ| 1m 5m 15m | 44 54 55
981 940 3 0 0| 108k 603k| 0 0 |0.09 0.21 0.22| 0 0 1403
982 940 3 0 0| 243k 1255k| 0 0 |0.16 0.22 0.23| 0 0 3291
982 940 3 0 0| 79k 622k| 0 24k|0.16 0.22 0.23| 7 0 1092
984 942 3 0 0| 168k 991k| 112k 80k|0.16 0.22 0.23| 18 0 2319
987 945 3 0 0| 289k 911k| 52k 0 |0.16 0.22 0.23| 4 0 1473
987 945 3 0 0| 313k 992k| 0 0 |0.16 0.22 0.23| 0 0 1633
987 945 3 0 0| 284k 881k| 0 0 |0.15 0.22 0.23| 0 0 844
987 945 3 0 0| 181k 1163k| 0 0 |0.27 0.25 0.23| 0 0 2430
987 945 3 0 0| 45k 625k| 0 0 |0.27 0.25 0.23| 0 0 786
989 947 3 0 0| 30k 353k| 0 0 |0.27 0.25 0.23| 0 0 473
992 950 3 0 0| 130k 786k| 0 16k|0.27 0.25 0.23| 4 0 1593
992 950 3 0 0| 56k 418k| 0 0 |0.25 0.24 0.23| 1 0 715
992 950 3 0 0| 190k 1110k| 0 0 |0.25 0.24 0.23| 0 0 2562
992 949 3 0 0| 72k 2964k| 0 0 |0.25 0.24 0.23| 0 0 1437
992 949 3 0 0| 146k 3193k| 0 24k|0.25 0.24 0.23| 6 0 2251
994 951 3 0 0| 94k 3100k|2048k 0 |0.25 0.24 0.23| 5 0 1342
998 955 3 0 0| 73k 3181k| 0 0 |0.23 0.24 0.23| 0 0 1295
998 955 3 0 0| 106k 3168k|2048k 0 |0.23 0.24 0.23| 5 0 1383
998 955 3 0 0| 46k 2527k| 0 0 |0.22 0.24 0.23| 0 0 993
997 954 3 0 0| 122k 1866k| 0 0 |0.22 0.24 0.23| 0 0 1815
997 954 3 0 0| 43k 2023k| 0 0 |0.22 0.24 0.23| 0 0 981
998 955 3 0 0| 48k 2575k| 0 568k|0.22 0.24 0.23| 8 0 1047
998 955 3 0 0| 92k 4088k| 0 0 |0.22 0.24 0.23| 0 0 1328
998 955 3 0 0| 104k 3917k| 0 0 |0.28 0.25 0.23| 0 0 1279
998 955 3 0 0| 96k 4044k| 0 0 |0.28 0.25 0.23| 0 0 1315 the 1st and 2nd numbers being of interest (it was 900 to 1000 in a minute or so) this also caused a stratum disconnect & some lost shares, though I'm not sure if that's even related to this, since Hetzner itself is getting 600ms ping times and hardcore packetloss as well... Some ping stats around the same time: Reply from 5.9.24.82: bytes=32 time=185ms TTL=46
Reply from 5.9.24.82: bytes=32 time=185ms TTL=46
Reply from 5.9.24.82: bytes=32 time=181ms TTL=46
Reply from 5.9.24.82: bytes=32 time=185ms TTL=46
Reply from 5.9.24.82: bytes=32 time=185ms TTL=46
Reply from 5.9.24.82: bytes=32 time=185ms TTL=46
Reply from 5.9.24.82: bytes=32 time=184ms TTL=46
Reply from 5.9.24.82: bytes=32 time=184ms TTL=46
Reply from 5.9.24.82: bytes=32 time=184ms TTL=46
Reply from 5.9.24.82: bytes=32 time=184ms TTL=46
Reply from 5.9.24.82: bytes=32 time=184ms TTL=46
Reply from 5.9.24.82: bytes=32 time=184ms TTL=46
Reply from 5.9.24.82: bytes=32 time=184ms TTL=46
Reply from 5.9.24.82: bytes=32 time=184ms TTL=46
Reply from 5.9.24.82: bytes=32 time=184ms TTL=46
Reply from 5.9.24.82: bytes=32 time=184ms TTL=46
Reply from 5.9.24.82: bytes=32 time=184ms TTL=46
Reply from 5.9.24.82: bytes=32 time=184ms TTL=46
Reply from 5.9.24.82: bytes=32 time=184ms TTL=46
Reply from 5.9.24.82: bytes=32 time=183ms TTL=46
Reply from 5.9.24.82: bytes=32 time=182ms TTL=46
Reply from 5.9.24.82: bytes=32 time=181ms TTL=46
Reply from 5.9.24.82: bytes=32 time=181ms TTL=46
Reply from 5.9.24.82: bytes=32 time=179ms TTL=46
Reply from 5.9.24.82: bytes=32 time=185ms TTL=46
Reply from 5.9.24.82: bytes=32 time=181ms TTL=46
Reply from 5.9.24.82: bytes=32 time=185ms TTL=46
Reply from 5.9.24.82: bytes=32 time=280ms TTL=46
Reply from 5.9.24.82: bytes=32 time=280ms TTL=46
Request timed out.
Request timed out.
Reply from 5.9.24.82: bytes=32 time=281ms TTL=46
Reply from 5.9.24.82: bytes=32 time=281ms TTL=46
Request timed out.
Reply from 5.9.24.82: bytes=32 time=281ms TTL=46
Request timed out.
Reply from 5.9.24.82: bytes=32 time=281ms TTL=46
Reply from 5.9.24.82: bytes=32 time=280ms TTL=46
Reply from 5.9.24.82: bytes=32 time=280ms TTL=46
Reply from 5.9.24.82: bytes=32 time=278ms TTL=46
Request timed out.
Request timed out.
Reply from 5.9.24.82: bytes=32 time=278ms TTL=46
Reply from 5.9.24.82: bytes=32 time=281ms TTL=46
Request timed out.
Reply from 5.9.24.82: bytes=32 time=281ms TTL=46
Request timed out.
Reply from 5.9.24.82: bytes=32 time=280ms TTL=46
Reply from 5.9.24.82: bytes=32 time=279ms TTL=46
Reply from 5.9.24.82: bytes=32 time=279ms TTL=46
Request timed out.
Reply from 5.9.24.82: bytes=32 time=280ms TTL=46
Request timed out.
Request timed out.
Reply from 5.9.24.82: bytes=32 time=281ms TTL=46
Reply from 5.9.24.82: bytes=32 time=280ms TTL=46
Reply from 5.9.24.82: bytes=32 time=280ms TTL=46
Request timed out.
Reply from 5.9.24.82: bytes=32 time=280ms TTL=46
Request timed out.
Request timed out.
Reply from 5.9.24.82: bytes=32 time=280ms TTL=46
Reply from 5.9.24.82: bytes=32 time=280ms TTL=46
Request timed out.
Reply from 5.9.24.82: bytes=32 time=280ms TTL=46
Request timed out.
Reply from 5.9.24.82: bytes=32 time=280ms TTL=46
Request timed out.
Reply from 5.9.24.82: bytes=32 time=280ms TTL=46
Reply from 5.9.24.82: bytes=32 time=279ms TTL=46
Request timed out.
Reply from 5.9.24.82: bytes=32 time=279ms TTL=46
Request timed out.
Reply from 5.9.24.82: bytes=32 time=279ms TTL=46
Reply from 5.9.24.82: bytes=32 time=279ms TTL=46
Reply from 5.9.24.82: bytes=32 time=279ms TTL=46
Request timed out.
Reply from 5.9.24.82: bytes=32 time=279ms TTL=46
Request timed out.
Request timed out.
Reply from 5.9.24.82: bytes=32 time=280ms TTL=46
Reply from 5.9.24.82: bytes=32 time=280ms TTL=46
Reply from 5.9.24.82: bytes=32 time=279ms TTL=46
Request timed out.
Request timed out.
Request timed out.
Reply from 5.9.24.82: bytes=32 time=279ms TTL=46
Reply from 5.9.24.82: bytes=32 time=279ms TTL=46
Request timed out.
Reply from 5.9.24.82: bytes=32 time=279ms TTL=46
Reply from 5.9.24.82: bytes=32 time=279ms TTL=46
Request timed out.
Request timed out.
Reply from 5.9.24.82: bytes=32 time=279ms TTL=46
Ping statistics for 5.9.24.82:
Packets: Sent = 5596, Received = 5491, Lost = 105 (1% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 179ms, Maximum = 286ms, Average = 186ms
Pinging google.com [74.125.227.238] with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 74.125.227.238: bytes=32 time=46ms TTL=56
Reply from 74.125.227.238: bytes=32 time=46ms TTL=56
Ping statistics for 74.125.227.238:
Packets: Sent = 2, Received = 2, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 46ms, Maximum = 46ms, Average = 46ms
Pinging 5.9.24.81 with 32 bytes of data:
Request timed out.
Request timed out.
Request timed out.
Request timed out.
Request timed out.
Reply from 5.9.24.81: bytes=32 time=605ms TTL=47
Request timed out.
Reply from 5.9.24.81: bytes=32 time=604ms TTL=47
Request timed out.
Reply from 5.9.24.81: bytes=32 time=600ms TTL=47
Reply from 5.9.24.81: bytes=32 time=594ms TTL=47
Reply from 5.9.24.81: bytes=32 time=604ms TTL=47
Reply from 5.9.24.81: bytes=32 time=600ms TTL=47
Request timed out.
Reply from 5.9.24.81: bytes=32 time=599ms TTL=47
Reply from 5.9.24.81: bytes=32 time=598ms TTL=47
Request timed out.
Reply from 5.9.24.81: bytes=32 time=603ms TTL=47
Request timed out.
Reply from 5.9.24.81: bytes=32 time=599ms TTL=47
Reply from 5.9.24.81: bytes=32 time=598ms TTL=47
Request timed out.
Ping statistics for 5.9.24.81:
Packets: Sent = 22, Received = 11, Lost = 11 (50% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 594ms, Maximum = 605ms, Average = 600ms
Pinging hetzner.de [213.133.107.227] with 32 bytes of data:
Request timed out.
Reply from 213.133.107.227: bytes=32 time=599ms TTL=47
Request timed out.
Reply from 213.133.107.227: bytes=32 time=599ms TTL=47
Reply from 213.133.107.227: bytes=32 time=598ms TTL=47
Reply from 213.133.107.227: bytes=32 time=598ms TTL=47
Request timed out.
Reply from 213.133.107.227: bytes=32 time=594ms TTL=47
Request timed out.
Reply from 213.133.107.227: bytes=32 time=593ms TTL=47
Reply from 213.133.107.227: bytes=32 time=593ms TTL=47
Request timed out.
Reply from 213.133.107.227: bytes=32 time=589ms TTL=47
Reply from 213.133.107.227: bytes=32 time=594ms TTL=47
Reply from 213.133.107.227: bytes=32 time=589ms TTL=47
Reply from 213.133.107.227: bytes=32 time=574ms TTL=47
Request timed out.
Request timed out.
Reply from 213.133.107.227: bytes=32 time=493ms TTL=47
Reply from 213.133.107.227: bytes=32 time=498ms TTL=47
Reply from 213.133.107.227: bytes=32 time=457ms TTL=47 I don't see why so many people would mine w/ invalid addresses to a p2pool node, honestly. I mean, I've had a big warning written up there for several weeks now. A couple of the "real" addresses have zero total transactions, but a few are active.... So, are all these locked sockets just being caused by Hetzner's network getting messed up, is there really a dozen or two people not using a valid bitcoin address mining to me over the last week? Does anyone else get hundreds of dead sockets to 9332? |
|
|
|
OK, so I'm guessing people probably use 204.10.105.113:9332/static because of the domain p2pool.org... even though it's horribly set up & has a 2% fee. quite sad really, when one looks at the one month/one year chart. (oh and ofc he never took me up on my offer, no mails from that guy) now, second question, why do people use elizium.name?... or is it just all local traffic? though I'd be shocked if 95% or more of it wasn't just from random people using a remote p2pool. 400 shares I think is enough to get a trend & 55 orphans is bad. I can see there's 11 outgoing connections, but I guess I'll assume that those are just random outgoing connections? It looks like my node @ 198.12.127.2 used one of its random outgoing connections to hook up w/ it, but not connected to me at the other two places. normally i'd add it to --p2pool-node since it seems to be on a fast enough computer & good connection, but i've just been observing the sub 100% efficiency for the last few days & curiosity killed the cat. Is it all just because of that interface? The most important part is busted (the share explorer). I also don't understand why so many people use 183.136.216.39:9332/static/graphs.html?Year when it's absolutely horrid. 10 outgoing connections, that are either totally random or not good choices. For location (China), he's not connecting to some critical western US & Russian nodes that he should be on. I *think* it's also on an old version of bitcoind. at least it's at 0% fee But why would you use that over this: mine.yuyi.tw:9332 a far superior pool in Taiwan with 1/10th the hashrate. This one runs 0% fee too, so that's not it is there some place i'm missing where these sites are being advertised? reddit? asic hardware manufacturer forums? lol. some people want to use p2pool for whatever reason, but don't want to spend money on hosting for their own node (I'll assume they live in a crap rural area like myself w/ shit for bandwidth). but why always choose the wrong pools? then you get all the bullshit misinformation about how p2pool pays out less than <insert x pool>. yeah, probably cause you were on one of these low efficiency pools or running a local node that was getting 15% orphans and 5% DOA.. though if it weren't for those people, I guess the rest wouldn't be picking up the bonus but, seriously, who is mining on one of those 3 pools right now and why? is there anyone that reads this thread that does? if not, where are they coming from? |
|
|
|
|
wow, that was sold for way too cheap
|
|
|
|
|
he's looking to buy
but he's branching out now from saturns
|
|
|
|
30-39 is a pretty wide range. How many watts does it take to power each cube (did I miss it listed somewhere?)?
i'll pay $800-$1400 for 4, depending on elec usage & whether I'd get 30ghash or 39ghash cubes
I should say 30 or 39 gh/s. Low clock setting vs high. ah, I see. diff energy requirements too. that makes a lot more sense.. I won't repeat offer since I know it's too low. but probably good to get the specs out there or, I probably just missed it the first time I read the message... the pictures made it hard to see the text on top of 'em.  |
|
|
|
|
Did you forget to mention the 'buy two get two free' deal? I'm in for that
|
|
|
|
|
i think you should just keep mining on them, if you think 3BTC/ea for those is a fair price.. or, wait, maybe bitcoins are at $430 again now instead of $470. maybe they're back down to $350. who knows. As for you already making ROI, great. Did you pre-order those way back when? Shame you didn't buy bitcoins instead, I guess. I don't see why that'd really have an impact on whether or not you'd sell them right now, anyway... sounds more like some lame attempt to try to inflate the price a bit
anyway, people need to give $, €, £ amounts... not bitcoins. Convert it to bitcoins afterwards.
Oh, I'd pay $1400 for both, as long as I received them on or before Thursday of next week
|
|
|
|
How much you trying to get for a Jupiter?
have them up for $7300 USD, but not getting many firm offers around what i'm looking for. lots... and lots of low-ballers. buyers market right now i think. what exactly are you considering a 'low-baller'? you're insane if you think ASICs are a 'buyers market'. How many of the chumps buying ASICs now to mine bitcoins do you think will come out ahead? esp. those godawful USBs. now, i don't know exactly what you're considering a lowball offer, but if it's something around $4000-$4500, you should probably rethink your valuation of that jupiter as it's a bit off oh, just for the hell of it, i'm not interested in buying a jupiter for bitcoins, but if you live within 500 miles of dallas, austin or within 100 miles of tulsa, memphis & possibly some other areas (there are lots of people I could ask), i'd pay $4500 USD for a jupiter (assuming it's not some lemon and can do at least 500ghash/s). I'd possibly be able to make that $4500 back (and if I was *really* lucky, maybe a few hundred extra) by using it for a month or 6 weeks or so, then reselling it & consider it a nice break-even investment for a hobby. and, no, I wouldn't pay any more than $4500... which is why I put $4500 and not $4000. there's no way I'd make a profit @ $4500 if I kept mining on it until it became dust unless BTC went up significantly (in which case, the better off party would be the one that spent that $4500 on bitcoins instead). If you look at it from a 'wtf should I have done to make the most money' perspective, the best case scenario in regard to purchasing bitcoin mining material is for the bitcoin price to remain stable. worst case is for it to go down -- then you lose money, because buying ASICs at the prices they're at now is a bit loony to begin with. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
