Bitcoin Forum
March 29, 2017, 09:24:25 AM *
News: Latest stable version of Bitcoin Core: 0.14.0  [Torrent]. (New!)
  Home Help Search Donate Login Register  
  Show Posts
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 ... 541 »
1  Alternate cryptocurrencies / Mining (Altcoins) / Re: Having Unlimited High End Dedicated Ubuntu Server what to mine? on: Today at 04:48:44 AM
Do you have any other suggestion for me?
Yes - ask in the altcoin mining section.
2  Bitcoin / Mining software (miners) / Re: CKPOOL - Open source pool/database/proxy/passthrough/library in c for Linux on: Today at 01:09:33 AM
Might have a memory leak when running ckproxy. Had a Pi start acting up this morning after running fine for about 3 weeks. Turned out it ran out of free memory and the watchdog had trouble killing it and killed some system processes instead. Checked the other Pis and the ckproxy process was using high amounts of memory. Percentage-wise the memory on most of them had gone over 60%, where on a fresh start it's more around 6-7%.
There could well be, especially if you're running older code. Try running latest git if you haven't upgraded lately as the code has been dramatically updated. When time permits I'll do a more extensive search for memleaks with the proxy code.
3  Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / Re: Bitcoin Update Board: Distributd update proposals & user activation coordination on: Today at 12:59:31 AM
Why the hell do all these radical proposals always come from new accounts? Are you all so scared of associating coordinating radical change with your existing online personas?
4  Bitcoin / Mining / MOVED: How to calculate profitability when using cloud miners? on: March 28, 2017, 08:13:39 PM
This topic has been moved to Service Discussion (Altcoins).
5  Bitcoin / Pools / Re: [∞ YH] 1% fee solo segwit mining USA/DE 229 blocks solved! on: March 28, 2017, 04:32:10 AM
Will be restarting the pool shortly to reset the pool's best share values and incorporate a minor bugfix. Your best diff values will be reset along with this. It turns out that it resets the shares after a block is found but because of DE's remote shares being sent after the block solve data, the remote share may be seen after the blocksolve setting the best share again. This happened since I sped up the block propagation code between the pools dramatically. This means I may have to manually reset it when a DE block occurs again in the future, but I've built provision for manually resetting best shares to be able to do it without restarting now.

EDIT: All complete.
6  Bitcoin / Mining support / Re: Is it possible to link a miner to 3G internet dongle? on: March 27, 2017, 10:10:35 PM
Why not? An internet connection is an internet connection, and mining doesn't require much bandwidth. It's been done before but adding latency to mining is a bad idea since you lose proportionately more shares as stale depending on the latency of the connection. However if electricity costs offset the share loss (which is likely) then it'd be worth it. Additionally 3G connections tend not to be very stable so disconnections are common but mining software reconnects pretty quickly. Certainly being far from a network tower would be a bad idea.
7  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Current statistics Core vs. BU on: March 27, 2017, 10:05:37 PM
The statistical data have shown that bitcoin unlimited has more supporters than the core developers.
I assume you mean more mining hashrate, not "more supporters" since the core deployment is almost ten times larger than the BU deployment by node count. Mining hashrate comes down to an extremely small number of people with extremely large mining hashrate in their power.
8  Bitcoin / Mining speculation / Re: Q: Why do miners mine empty blocks? on: March 27, 2017, 09:42:51 PM
Duplicate topic extensively discussed, please search first:
9  Bitcoin / Mining / Re: Am I the only miner who feels disgusted by the talk of PoW change? on: March 27, 2017, 07:54:51 AM
the problem is that LN alternative are also centralized with their HUB, at least from what i understood, it seems that you can't preserve the current decentralization if you want to fix the block limit/scaling issue

if they cna coem up with something better would be better but there is no time anymore, now the choice is based on what is less worse, not on what is ideal
I didn't say anything about LN. Most people think all the transactions will go to LN which is also completely wrong. To start a lightning channel one must create a regular transaction and then only can LN transactions occur, BUT LN will only work for microtransactions. It's not going to be possible to use it for transactions larger than .042 btc. There will still be heaps of on-chain transactions and consequently transaction fees for miners. If LN increases the userbase of bitcoin dramatically by making the proverbial 'cup of coffee transactions' possible by the general public without dumping them all into the blockchain, the overall transaction fees ending up in miners' pockets will go up substantially anyway. Furthermore, most types of LN transactions can still be implemented even without segwit so it's not like signalling segwit is voting for LN. Even if segwit doesn't get activated, LN will be implemented.

Read more about some of the most common misconceptions about LN and mining here:

If miners weren't so quick to jump to conclusions and make wild accusations BU would never have even been considered and subsequently the threat of a hard fork and PoW change wouldn't ever have been discussed. Either way I doubt a hard fork and PoW change are going to happen anyway.
10  Bitcoin / Mining software (miners) / MOVED: Laptop mining question on: March 27, 2017, 03:04:59 AM
This topic has been moved to Mining (Altcoins).
11  Alternate cryptocurrencies / Mining (Altcoins) / Re: Laptop mining question on: March 27, 2017, 01:59:40 AM
You cannot meaningfully mine bitcoin with a PC by itself. The fastest PCs are 1000 times slower than the average modern ASIC and 500 times less efficient. So laptop or PC makes no difference, you cannot meaningfully mine bitcoin.

If you're talking about altcoin mining though, that's a different story.
12  Bitcoin / Mining / Re: Am I the only miner who feels disgusted by the talk of PoW change? on: March 27, 2017, 01:54:37 AM
My understanding after 6 months involved in the space is that bigger blocks lend towards greater centralization due to increased costs of running nodes etc (storage, bandwidth).

For this fact alone I would never support a block size increase if there were other viable options available.
That certainly would be a problem with a substantial size increase, but there is another more immediate problem even at only 2MB blocks - the quadratic sighash scaling problem. It's possible to DoS the network with transactions that are very heavy handed in input/outputs for their size leading to block verification that can take a very long time to complete. The 1MB block that took 25 seconds to verify a while back on fast hardware was an example of that in action at only 1MB blocksizes. The code that does the verification is much more efficient now but still would have taken 11 seconds to verify. Double the size of that and you have a block that takes almost 45 seconds to verify. 6MB blocks and you have blocks that can take longer than the average time between blocks of 10 minutes. Slower hardware would hit that limit at even smaller block sizes. Segwit transactions scale linearly with signature hashes so 1MB of signatures for segwit transactions are a lot faster than 1MB of normal transactions, and linearly for 4MB of transactions, which is the maximum possible allowed with segwit as currently coded. That 4MB of transactions would take less than 1MB of normal transactions to verify. Note that most blocks are NOT that sighash heavy but the fact remains that it is a mechanism to DoS the network.
13  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Segwit support going up = hemorrage stopped on: March 27, 2017, 01:41:25 AM
the same pools that were mining segwit before are still mining it now, so there doesn't appear to be any increase in support and this is just variance related to pool luck.

It could be those pools (BCC and Bitfury) have increased their share of the hashrate. Which of course is also temporary
The downturn back to the same level of ~26% suggests not. It was just variance. Now if f2pool is actually considering signalling segwit, that would be a totally different story.
14  Bitcoin / Mining software (miners) / Re: Is there any way to speed up the mining process at all? on: March 26, 2017, 11:56:15 PM

If there was, do you think we wouldn't be doing it by now?
15  Bitcoin / Pools / Re: [∞ YH] 1% fee solo segwit mining USA/DE 229 blocks solved! on: March 26, 2017, 11:50:48 PM
Congratulations, another DE block!

[2017-03-26 23:14:44.748] Possible block solve diff 642177867894.756592 !
[2017-03-26 23:14:44.861] BLOCK ACCEPTED!
[2017-03-26 23:14:44.911] Solved and confirmed block 459083 by 1JfDwdSURAxgWqbQRQz4sY12wniGY3Sxtj
[2017-03-26 23:14:44.911] User 1JfDwdSURAxgWqbQRQz4sY12wniGY3Sxtj:{"hashrate1m": "897T", "hashrate5m": "961T", "hashrate1hr": "947T", "hashrate1d": "228T", "hashrate7d": "146T"}
[2017-03-26 23:14:44.911] Worker 1JfDwdSURAxgWqbQRQz4sY12wniGY3Sxtj:{"hashrate1m": "508T", "hashrate5m": "507T", "hashrate1hr": "488T", "hashrate1d": "104T", "hashrate7d": "72.4T"}
[2017-03-26 23:14:44.911] Block solved at 392% diff @!

For those wondering about the pool's best share value, it is now showing the best share of the last block found. If most people prefer to have the old functionality back, please tell me and I'll code it in and restart the pool to adopt that.
16  Bitcoin / Pools / Re: Why are you still mining on AntPool? on: March 26, 2017, 04:29:45 PM

17  Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / Re: Moving towards user activated soft fork activation on: March 26, 2017, 09:05:14 AM

Judging solely by mores law, it would probably be safe to have a max block size of 8 MB 2 years ago if 1 MB was safe 7 years ago.
Except that we fell off the curve for Moore's law years ago. Technology is struggling to grow at even 1/4 the rate Moore's law predicted now.
18  Bitcoin / Mining / Re: Am I the only miner who feels disgusted by the talk of PoW change? on: March 26, 2017, 09:01:49 AM
in the past i remember they said that they were prone to increase the size of the block to 2mb, apparently they changed their mind later...
It's okay to change your mind once you investigate the change and see that it is actually a bad idea to implement it. Too many people are obsessed with a plain block size increase as being some kind of simple change that carries with it no dangers, which we know now is actually completely wrong.
19  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Current statistics Core vs. BU on: March 26, 2017, 08:22:21 AM
I'm waiting for the BU supporters to chime in and say I'm interpreting these charts wrong or something  Cheesy
Maybe my mention of the 4 special trolls forum members has made them NOT post as a way of trying to prove... something?
20  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Current statistics Core vs. BU on: March 26, 2017, 02:58:05 AM
Yet we will still continue to see new "BU is winning, hard fork imminent!!" threads spamming the board every 4 hours for the next week probably. Facts no longer matter, only the loudest proclamation matters it would seem. It's a wonder how some people can still tie their shoes.
If you put precisely 4 people on ignore, you'll see absolutely no threads or responses in this regard and would wonder why anyone would consider BU a realistic topic of discussion. Hint none of them have posted in this thread yet, but they'll be here shortly.
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 ... 541 »
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!