Basically from what I discussed with the previous developer is this, He is willing to go with a 1:1 swap that will be included in the premine. There will be a swap period and those coin holders still alive will send me their wallet and I will record their JPC balance. The amount of premine required is uncertain because nobody knows how many of these coin holders are active in the Bitcoin world. Looking at the rich list: http://explorer.jpcpal.com/richlist.phpTaking the Top 10, results in almost 3 Billion coins. Hence the coin swap premine will be most likely at least 10%. Maybe even up to 20% premine. So if the community feels comfortable with this figure we can proceed from here. But if this huge premine makes the coin have no chance of getting any investors, miners, pools, exchanges then it seems like it would be nothing but a huge waste of time. I don't understand the point of a relaunch with a coinswap. Why not resurrect the old chain then? It's pretty much the same. Based on the votes I think it should just be forked with a new name. |
|
|
|
- Total coins will be approximately 30 billions.
- Initial payout will be 100000 coins per block
1% premine to cover development costs (website, server, development), code maintenance/enhancements, bounties, shops/games, faucets/giveaways etc.
I loved Jackpotcoin! But, these three things do not work together anymore in 2017. 1% premine is MASSIVE in this case. What you should be doing is there should be a developer address where 1% of every block goes. So the devs would get their premine but not all at once. That would prevent the devs from dumping a shitton of coins on the market and would keep them motivated. |
|
|
|
|
If you don't know when you'll be reaching ROI you should either
- stop bothering with mining or
- researching more until you know what to mine.
|
|
|
|
With mobile phones getting more powerful in processing power,more RAM,internal memory,would it be possible to mine any crypto with mobile phone?Can any Altcoin still be mined with Android or IOS mobile phones?
Mining is simple; your earnings are based on how much you invest. Which is partly why CPU and mobile mining is literally a waste of time. And on top of that, CPUs (especially laptop CPUs and even GPUs) and mobile hardware are not designed to be stressed 0-24h so they will die relatively quickly. |
|
|
|
I'm not sure what to say, I was obviously being sarcastic.
Across all their users they made $4.42. Whoop-de-doo.
Well I want to be clear here that I'm not accusing NH of any wrong doing, I'm just of the opinion that benchmarked shares should go to the miners. I agree its not much but to the OP point, they weren't very clear as to what they were doing with these benchmarked shares and the information(not sure if true) that says they once did provide those shares to the miners but then they changed it without clearly putting that information out there seems like an opportunity to NH either make a change or make the information about where benchmarked shares go, more clear. I spent an hour the other day trying to get a multi-rig system to finish a benchmark on RX480s with 1.7.4.2 because it kept crashing at different points prompting me to re-run the entire benchmark. I'm sure it wasn't very many shares but the reason my system was crashing is due to an issue with the new SGminer thats documented over on Github. That's fair, my point was that they didn't make 44 BTC or anything significant off of users this way. |
|
|
|
I dislike nicehash a lot but come on guys, at least check shit out before accusing them. Here are all the incoming transactions to that address (reverse chronological order): 0.00020728 BTC 0.00020707 BTC 0.00041969 BTC 0.00021641 BTC 0.00021065 BTC 0.00021423 BTC 0.00021226 BTC 0.00020601 BTC 0.00020922 BTC 0.00021408 BTC 0.0002092 BTC 0.00020454 BTC 0.00016164 BTC 0.00018588 BTC 0.00017548 BTC 3.94271301 BTC
14.30226584 BTC
8 BTC
8 BTC
0.28751105 BTC
9.71248895 BTC
0.1 BTCThe address was inactive for almost 17 months after the 3.94 BTC transaction so they made exactly 0.003254 BTC since then from all the benchmarks with 0.00157894 BTC unpaid balance so they ripped you guys off with a total of 0.00483294 BTC. exactly.  I'm not sure what to say, I was obviously being sarcastic. Across all their users they made $4.42. Whoop-de-doo. |
|
|
|
I dislike nicehash a lot but come on guys, at least check shit out before accusing them. Here are all the incoming transactions to that address (reverse chronological order): 0.00020728 BTC 0.00020707 BTC 0.00041969 BTC 0.00021641 BTC 0.00021065 BTC 0.00021423 BTC 0.00021226 BTC 0.00020601 BTC 0.00020922 BTC 0.00021408 BTC 0.0002092 BTC 0.00020454 BTC 0.00016164 BTC 0.00018588 BTC 0.00017548 BTC 3.94271301 BTC
14.30226584 BTC
8 BTC
8 BTC
0.28751105 BTC
9.71248895 BTC
0.1 BTCThe address was inactive for almost 17 months after the 3.94 BTC transaction so they made exactly 0.003254 BTC since then from all the benchmarks with 0.00157894 BTC unpaid balance so they ripped you guys off with a total of 0.00483294 BTC. |
|
|
|
I modified the pascal cuda miner and optimized it, now it's doing 900 Mh/s on a 1070 consuming just 100W.
Is it good? Worth working on it, now that there are pools?
That'd be great if it consistently gets that. The other miners also have extreme issues with CPU utilization. Only worth it if you get it working with pools. You can't solo mine anymore. the hashrate is consistent and cpu usage is much lower. the 970 does 500 Mh/s @100W. the miner can't be easily adapted to pools, it's too basic. I'm interested, let me know if I can help with testing. |
|
|
|
Not sure why you guys keep quoting payment estimations. You can just type that into cryptocompare and gives you the same results, once again depending on nethash which is all over the fucking place and doesn't seem to be a accurate place for it yet (which is also why whattomines calculator isn't up yet).
Because more ways of estimating earnings gives us a better overall picture. And because the difficulty is the most reliable factor, not nethashrate. It's not different, it's the same thing, the only thing that's different is the nethash you put into the equation. Both nethashrate and the difficulty fluctuates a lot so we don't have precise estimates but they're very different metrics. The difficulty is the clear and precise number of how much work has to be done to solve a block while nethashrate only shows us the total mining power on the network. If the difficulty retarget would be perfect, the two would be the same (as to showing profitability) but it's far from it. If the nethashrate is higher than what the difficulty should be to keep the blocktime then you just get more blocks mined than the intended blocktime and vice versa - which is why we had rapid blocks and very slow blocks. |
|
|
|
Not sure why you guys keep quoting payment estimations. You can just type that into cryptocompare and gives you the same results, once again depending on nethash which is all over the fucking place and doesn't seem to be a accurate place for it yet (which is also why whattomines calculator isn't up yet).
Because more ways of estimating earnings gives us a better overall picture. And because the difficulty is the most reliable factor, not nethashrate. |
|
|
|
|
Meh, otherwise it would be wasted electricity.
And why would anyone run the benchmark for more than a few minutes?
|
|
|
|
|
Currently 10 Gh/s a day will get you:
- based on the in-wallet block explorer's network hashrate (7 Th/s): 41 coins
- based on the difficulty calculation (current target): 39 coins
- based on nanopool's hashrate (11 Th/s) combined with the fact that they find roughly 90% of all blocks: 24 coins.
So with a single 1070 at 800 Mh/s you earn somewhere between $1.19-$2.04.
So it was both fun and frustrating while it lasted for nvidia.
|
|
|
|
Yeah, I'm still trying to wrap my head around this fucked up miner. Do you need one wallet per computer? Importing the miner key mines all to the same account, correct?
I've tried just using one wallet, but it looks like it duplicates work for miners named the same thing prefix01. Using multiple wallets with the same miner key and miner name still yields to the same nonces being submitted by the same worker name.
Does each rig need one wallet with each a different miner name?
I get the same problem...i ru n one proxy on each rig and they get the same workername as the other rigs and work on duplicate data. So i think i need to create 1 key for each of my rigs.. 1 wallet, but one key/name for each of the rigs So wallets/minername doesn't matter, but the keys do? I thought each key is a wallet? Yeah, each my rigs have different keys.
How can you have one wallet and multiple rigs with different keys? If you have one wallet with one miner name, look at the payload name (which is the miner name and 01-05 for each device) and nonces, they're duplicated about 50% of the time across multiple machines. I don't get what you're saying. I have different miner names. Rig1 - bathr001 Rig2 - bathr002 with 6 GPU each so the payload for the 3rd card in the second rig is bathr00203. I wonder if running two miner instances per GPU (which is much faster) would work. |
|
|
|
I use one wallet.
what -i and -c param are you using? 1070 rigs? What speed do you have per 1070? Thanks in advance Afaik -i/-c doesn't work for cuda. I just use the 'd' parameter. Speed for 1070 is somewhere between 500-1200 Mh/s. Yeah, I'm still trying to wrap my head around this fucked up miner. Do you need one wallet per computer? Importing the miner key mines all to the same account, correct?
I've tried just using one wallet, but it looks like it duplicates work for miners named the same thing prefix01. Using multiple wallets with the same miner key and miner name still yields to the same nonces being submitted by the same worker name.
Does each rig need one wallet with each a different miner name?
I get the same problem...i ru n one proxy on each rig and they get the same workername as the other rigs and work on duplicate data. So i think i need to create 1 key for each of my rigs.. 1 wallet, but one key/name for each of the rigs Yeah, each my rigs have different keys. |
|
|
|
Volk's new miner works flawlessy. I found two blocks with one between them mined by someone else. Which is pretty lucky considering I should get 1 block about every 5-6 hours based on my sharerate (5-6 hours to get 8k shares).  |
|
|
|
Hey everyone, updated the CUDA GPU miner with some of KlausT's improvements: https://github.com/Vorksholk/PascalCoin-CUDA/releases/tag/v1.04No promise that the new miner can actually mine blocks, but if anyone gets a block with this, please let the rest of us know. About 360% performance improvements, I'm getting around 900 MH/s on an overclocked 1080. I've also seen some people worried about the PascalCoin wallet saying "Error: Proof of work is higher than target payload." This isn't a problem--the way my miner works (and presumably some others that are floating around now, although I haven't looked at the code for them) is by submitting shares that meet a target of 24000000. Note that we are currently on track for a target of 31000000 soon, which is 8192 times higher, so you should expect to see, on average, 8192 of those errors per actual block mined. The miner is submitting shares to the wallet, effectively. These shares don't count for anything unless they meet the target. Your miner works! I just found two blocks in rapid succession (with only one block between them  ) with a rather low hashrate. |
|
|
|
I take everything back. I solved my issue. I haven't changed the default, very long node name:  Now that I changed it, I'm mining fine with the expected "Proof of work is higher than target". |
|
|
|
I've mined with a pretty substantial amount of hashing power for about 12 hours and didn't find a block. I tried .4 for about 8 of those, .3 for about 4 of those, I also tried one wallet per rig with the same 8 character mining name and the same mining key (newest wallet), no block.
A lot of things could be happening here. Since there is no way to verify whether or not your mining setup is working till you're finding a block I'm basically possibly pissing hash away. A lot of people are basing profitability based off of cryptocompare, but I definitely don't think that's right. I'm pretty sure the amount you make is a lot lower then that. I should be hitting a block every half a hour. Given there are 12 blocks per hour and I've already been through 12 hours of those, it's safe to say something is fucked up.
Just a FYI, don't waste your time on this. Unless someone comes up with a guide down to the letter, this is a silly waste of time and energy. AMD seems to work, but that may be due to a large amount of AMD users... not necessarily because the miners/wallet are broken for Nvidia.
At this point I'm pretty certain if you get "Sending Error JSON RPC id () : Invalid payload" in your pascalcoin log then mining is not working. The issue has to come from the java proxy. That's incorrect. Not blaming you, but there is definitely a lot of misinformation flying around right now. Alright, here's the CUDA miner with the working proxy: https://github.com/Vorksholk/PascalCoin-CUDA/releases/download/v1.02/CUDA_Pascal_v1.02.zipVirusTotal: 0/55 https://virustotal.com/en/file/a7c451c3a19c4052cdf10d974da057f51bdb957734bb47c29115044741540648/analysis/1477111465/These instructions are slightly different than the previous GPU miner! Take note!1. You must already have PascalCoin installed. If you don't have it, download it from sourceforge here: https://sourceforge.net/projects/pascalcoin/. Once it is installed, run the PascalCoinWallet.exe provided in the download. 2. You must be using a 256-bit secp256k1 key. This is the default behavior of the PascalCoin wallet. 3. Your miner name must be exactly 8 characters long. The miner expects that the input is exactly 176 total bytes (which is achieved by using a secp256k1 key and a 10-character name) NOTE: NOT 10 like before! 8 characters, because the last two will be used to identify each GPU!4. You must have RPC enabled in your client (any port of your choosing, default is 4009) 5. You must run the proxy miner (PascalProxyv1.jar) in the same directory as the PascalCoinCUDA_ProxyMiner_smXX.exe file you run (everything is where it needs to be if you just extract the provided zip). To run the proxy, just double-click on it on Windows, or in Linux do java -jar /path/to/PascalProxyv1.jar How does this work? The proxy connects to the PascalCoin wallet, grabs the current mining data, and then creates a headerout.txt file for the miner(s) to use. In return, the miner(s) write their shares to files called datainXX.txt, where XX is the GPU number (starting at 00, and going through 99). The miners use the device argument (0 if none is provided) to determine which device to use, and that's the file they write out to. The proxy waits for changes in those datainXX files, and then ferries the results back to the PascalCoin wallet. You will notice that the PascalCoin wallet log constantly says "Sending Error JSON RPC id () : Error: Proof of work is higher than target" whenever you find a share. This is because the proxy's behavior is to submit any target 24000000 share, and since the target is 29xxxxxx, only about 1 in 2^5 = 32 shares will be an actual block. At a target of 2Axxxxxx, that'd be 2^6 or 64 shares. At a target of 2Bxxxxxx, that'll be 2^7 or 128 shares. etc. Whenever I can get around to it, the OpenCL miner will work with this proxy. Bottom line: you no longer need to rely on my modified PascalCoin wallet. You can use the official one from the developer, and run the proxy. The proxy won't work with old versions of the miner, but it will work with the version included in the zip linked above.  I spent a lot of time looking over everything in that thread, I'm leaning more towards payment calculators and estimations being insanely fucked up. People aren't calculating how likely they are to find a block correctly. All the AMD ethbabies from Ethereum and Equihash are riding it right now. I don't think net hashrate on the block explorer is correct... Nor is Cryptocompare or What reporting it correctly either. I think that's inherently a bug with dealing with this coin as it was never completely tested and vetted under load, something is buckling. It does make me wonder if investors like finding the most fucked up coin they can just to make miners squirm for a good couple days before things get remotely ironed out. I see. Well, after enabling logging in the wallet earlier today, I have a 4.2 MB log file without any "Error: Proof of work is higher than target" lines. Instead, I have ~120 invalid payloads. I tried every cuda miner I got my hands on, (even compiled it myself) every setting, miner name, miner name length, etc and it's the same. I could might as well be missing something simple. I'm not even sure everyone with cuda miners have these invalid payload messages, but based on the guide it's clear that it's an error that shouldn't be there. |
|
|
|
I've mined with a pretty substantial amount of hashing power for about 12 hours and didn't find a block. I tried .4 for about 8 of those, .3 for about 4 of those, I also tried one wallet per rig with the same 8 character mining name and the same mining key (newest wallet), no block.
A lot of things could be happening here. Since there is no way to verify whether or not your mining setup is working till you're finding a block I'm basically possibly pissing hash away. A lot of people are basing profitability based off of cryptocompare, but I definitely don't think that's right. I'm pretty sure the amount you make is a lot lower then that. I should be hitting a block every half a hour. Given there are 20 blocks per hour and I've already been through 12 of those, it's safe to say something is fucked up.
Just a FYI, don't waste your time on this. Unless someone comes up with a guide down to the letter, this is a silly waste of time and energy. AMD seems to work, but that may be due to a large amount of AMD users... not necessarily because the miners/wallet are broken for Nvidia.
At this point I'm pretty certain if you get "Sending Error JSON RPC id () : Invalid payload" in your pascalcoin log then mining is not working. The issue has to come from the java proxy. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
