-ck lets get that webpage fixed up. I'm swamped with other stuff but I just sit on this forum and lurk anyways so I might as well get something done.
What do we need to do? Start over? It doesn't rescale well. I think that could be an issue if you think about page looking nice on 4k and looking nice on old android phone... so it might need stripped down a bit to essentials.
Thanks greyworld. All I suggested was that the fields be made to align with the browser width 100% instead of some particular size. I admit to being really bad at web design but this seems doable without changing the page code much. |
|
|
|
Oh thank fucking God at last \o/ [2017-08-23 22:20:04.379] Possible block solve diff 2593610618586.507812 !
[2017-08-23 22:20:04.525] BLOCK ACCEPTED!
[2017-08-23 22:20:04.550] Solved block 481797 by 16sx9rJR7sDaKEB4xjHnh8Cw2Ci2mwh747.wetsuit
[2017-08-23 22:20:04.550] User 16sx9rJR7sDaKEB4xjHnh8Cw2Ci2mwh747:{"hashrate1m": "386T", "hashrate5m": "364T", "hashrate1hr": "431T", "hashrate1d": "313T", "hashrate7d": "255T"}
[2017-08-23 22:20:04.550] Worker 16sx9rJR7sDaKEB4xjHnh8Cw2Ci2mwh747.wetsuit:{"hashrate1m": "386T", "hashrate5m": "364T", "hashrate1hr": "431T", "hashrate1d": "313T", "hashrate7d": "198T"}
[2017-08-23 22:32:55.255] Hash for block height 481797 confirms block was CONFIRMED
Check out that 150 generation transaction payout  Congratulations and thanks to everyone who contributed and believed, and thanks wetsuit for pushing us across the line. New directory! http://ckpool.org/blocks/I'll be checking all the logs before finally labelling this pool stable and making all the code public. |
|
|
|
[2017-08-23 16:17:37.164] Possible block solve diff 926189289434.616089 !
[2017-08-23 16:17:37.293] BLOCK ACCEPTED!
[2017-08-23 16:17:37.431] Solved and confirmed block 481738 by 1CfPUde3eXjr6PzJAaaVbMpwds1aD3Nzn6.43550
[2017-08-23 16:17:37.431] User 1CfPUde3eXjr6PzJAaaVbMpwds1aD3Nzn6:{"hashrate1m": "101T", "hashrate5m": "96.3T", "hashrate1hr": "82.4T", "hashrate1d": "19.4T", "hashrate7d": "35.1T"}
[2017-08-23 16:17:37.431] Worker 1CfPUde3eXjr6PzJAaaVbMpwds1aD3Nzn6.43550:{"hashrate1m": "14.6T", "hashrate5m": "14.2T", "hashrate1hr": "12.3T", "hashrate1d": "1.19T", "hashrate7d": "177G"}
Congrats to a DE miner  https://www.blocktrail.com/BTC/block/0000000000000000012fe6e2b3668dac909f67e9948683abd6963c59390097f7 |
|
|
|
|
This is a bullshit request because you only know which was the most profitable pool AFTER it has happened. It's like asking what the lotto numbers will be today.
|
|
|
|
I don't know either way, nor do I have a stake in it. I was just interested in the concept, because I understood that is exactly what happened on Aug 1st with BCH, the majority stayed with core and segwit and a minority of vested interest miners and pools took off on their own, they became the lesser fork and therefore didn't become the "official" bitcoin, just an ALT. Will that not happen again? That bitcoin becomes whatever the vast majority is mining, that's what IS bitcoin if that happens, the economics will follow wherever the transactions are being verified.
So I was just curious, would you follow the majority like you and most of the other pools did at the beginning of this month or would you stay on the minority fork just because its core?
Indeed that's a philosophical question about just what is bitcoin that you won't get agreement on from anyone who wants to support a non-core directed change. To me it's still core, and I will continue to follow core, even if most of the hashrate runs away because I don't think the economic and user majority will follow something purely for hashrate. Hashrate will follow profit, not some ideal, but I won't be doing that unless core disappears into oblivion (which I don't think will happen.) The reason is simpler than people seem to want to make their arguments, and it's not about block size or segwit or hashrate - core has hundreds of developers, tens of which are well respected and have all made substantial contributions to bitcoin and have the track record of the safety and security of the network. Yes I disagree with some of the issues core has put emphasis on and what has taken priority but that's a case of put up or shut up on my part since I'm also a coder and have contributed nothing directly. BTC1 pretty much only has Jeff Garzik. Jeff has made almost zero contributions to bitcoin in the last 2 years prior to the NYA and is now (virtually) single handedly responsible for BTC1's development and maintenance. While I don't wish to pass judgement on Jeff's ability as a coder, I can tell you for certain I don't want to leave the development of a 50+ billion dollar economy (pick your current value) to one person. Anyway I expect some, if not many, of the signatories on NYA to start backpedalling soon, especially since no replay protection is planned for 2x, making the situation very different from the BCH hard fork. |
|
|
|
But if the majority, say 90% of all pools switched to 2x you would too right? Because isn't that the way Bitcoin works?
That is not the way bitcoin works. I will evaluate what happens to core as an entity according to the userbase and economic majority after an extended period after the 2x fork. More hashrate does NOT guarantee that everyone follows, it just means that more mining has followed. We shall see... EDIT: By the way, I should add - I wouldn't be so sure that 90% will follow the 2x chain regardless of what's been said and signed. |
|
|
|
|
Hundreds of petahash are thrown around following random chains in Chinese pools and we can't even stay above 100TH even at zero fee.
Oh well maybe if they all run off when 2x comes along, we'll be considered a big pool since we'll remain on the core chain.
|
|
|
|
Create the world's most useless rainbow table? Crack passwords of whatever website still uses Sha256 to hash their passwords, and in an oddly specific turn of events uses double round at that? (disclaimer: I'm not sure if Bitcoin ASICs actually do double rounds on the hardware level, maybe you could use it for other obsolete insecure databases as well).
See they don't even do that. They don't complete the double sha and don't return the hash at the end, only nonces that meet targets. So they really are useless. |
|
|
|
Yes there are many topics already about this.
There are 4 known alternative uses for bitcoin ASICs depending on size and weight:
Paper weight
Book end
Door stop
Boat anchor
Lol I already said, apart from those. I gave you 3 more options, but otherwise, no. You said it yourself, they're application specific and completely useless for anything else. |
|
|
|
someone please tell me the best os for mining  Linux, though it doesn't matter these days since most miners come with or expect images on controllers like the Rpi (all running linux.) Raspberry Pi? sorry i'm newbie Yes. |
|
|
|
|
Yes there are many topics already about this.
There are 4 known alternative uses for bitcoin ASICs depending on size and weight:
Paper weight
Book end
Door stop
Boat anchor
|
|
|
|
|
Futile project if your aim is to "combat these bastard ASIC's dominating the market". Your FPGA will be 1000 times less efficient and 1000 times less hashrate. It will have precisely zero effect on the "bastard ASICs" unless you have trillions of devices and your own power station.
|
|
|
|
someone please tell me the best os for mining Linux, though it doesn't matter these days since most miners come with or expect images on controllers like the Rpi (all running linux.) |
|
|
|
Is there a setting you can put in the password field to define a higher difficulty for a specific worker? This is for solo.ckpool.org
I have tried various common syntaxes but none seem to do anything
I have tried:
d=20000
diff_20000
20000
No. But you can use --suggest-diff 20000 if you're using cgminer. |
|
|
|
I try start CGminer with mining some coins,and command line dont show my hashrate,I dont know why,I have radeon r4 graphics.
Because cgminer hasn't been a GPU miner in many years. It only controls bitcoin mining ASICs. |
|
|
|
I am new in this pool and I wanna ask when the pool normally payout btc to my adress? Once per week?
If you are above the payout threshold, it will be only whenever we find a block, which so far has been never. At our current hashrate we expect to find one block a year unless we get more hashrate. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
