windows gpu miner is running for ~10 hours on my pool (var diff) without problems. [08:48:08] Share accepted: 975/1072 (90.95%)
[08:48:08] Total Hashrate: 542.37H/s if someone can confirm his % of accepted (perhaps my pool or windows build are the reason) not tested if it's better on mooo's pool and if linux is faster. cpu usage: 50% with peak at 80-90% every 3 seconds. platform: win64 and hd7950, pentium g2030 I'm using a 7950 on Linux Mint Mate 17.2. The current miner gives around 680 H/s, so I've put the latest disconnect code into the original miner which gives me 700+ H/s. Even inside a PC case, with CPU also at 100%, the GPU runs at a cool 59c. [09:56:52] Share accepted: 1240/1240 (100.00%)
[09:56:52] Total Hashrate: 701.72H/s The driver I'm using is fglrx 14.40.1. My config: "corefreq": 1000,
"memfreq": 1300,
"fanspeed": 65,
"powertune": 20,
"threads": 1,
"rawintensity": 2048,
"worksize": 32 I'm mining AEON @ 900 H/s with an AMD FX-8320 at the same time. This drops to ~810 H/s when I start GPU mining at the same time. |
|
|
|
|
Is there a plan for a Linux wallet release, or maybe someone has build instructions?
|
|
|
|
|
There doesn't seem to be much development going on really.
CZ, are you busy on other projects? If so, will they benefit Boolberry?
|
|
|
|
Have not used Empoex recently, so no idea there.
Does anyone else notice a long pause with "Waiting for new work from Pool 0" when solo mining? Something very strange going on. Mining is working, but with huge long pauses where the miner doesn't receive work from the wallet. The wallet is installed on the same system.
It's normal, as was explained earlier here. You're quite lucky you can mine though. My miner stops with this message completely shortly after starting. I just tried to buy som KHC on Empoex, it's working . Did anyone try to use Empoex recently? How long has their wallet been in maintenance?
You can buy but you can't withdraw. Seems like we'll lose the last exchange KHC is being traded at soon. Thanks for the tip. Now that you mention it, I remember this "waiting for new work" question coming up before. Good to know it's expected. An OTC thread might be a good idea if Empoex isn't playing ball... |
|
|
|
Just pushed some improvements to the GitHub - MoneroMooo is working with me on the disconnection issue now. The improvements are for hashrate, as well as some better output, so far (NSFW): https://ottrbutt.com/tmp/aeonwolf-10262015.pngI've tried the new code. Hashrate is slightly lower on my 7950. It dropped from 701H/s to 680H/s. I nicked the changed lines of code in the latest XMR miner main.c file and dropped it into the old (faster for me) code. This appears to be working in terms of the connection time out issue which is awesome - thanks! Actually I spoke too soon. Reconnect did work once or twice, but then it stops reconnecting from what I can see, and starts having it's shares rejected. Of course, I did botch the miner together, so that probably explains it. I'll wait for the real deal! |
|
|
|
Just pushed some improvements to the GitHub - MoneroMooo is working with me on the disconnection issue now. The improvements are for hashrate, as well as some better output, so far (NSFW): https://ottrbutt.com/tmp/aeonwolf-10262015.pngI've tried the new code. Hashrate is slightly lower on my 7950. It dropped from 701H/s to 680H/s. I nicked the changed lines of code in the latest XMR miner main.c file and dropped it into the old (faster for me) code. This appears to be working in terms of the connection time out issue which is awesome - thanks! |
|
|
|
|
I tried fix diff of 20k on aeonpool2 for the last few hours to try and force relatively quick shares, but still have the same issue. The AMD miner appears to keep hashing, it submits shares and the GPU stays warm. The reporting I get from the miner never seems to change - all looks good. This all suggests that the miner is receiving work from the pool, yet the pool eventually reports that no shares are being submitted.
Can I work with someone to troubleshoot? I'd like to check whether the pool is still sending work to my miner.
|
|
|
|
Miner is working only for 10 minutes and then loses connection to stratum.
Win build 280x speed is only 550 h/s, unfinished it is.
There is a timeout on pools, if no shares from you for X time pool will drop connection. Do you know how this is handled by other miners? Seems trivial. |
|
|
|
Do you see anyone having problem buying or accepting the Bitcoins sold by the FBI? No. Do you see exchanges using some sort of blacklist database considering BTC as bad? No.
Do you see some sort of centralized authority that track and detect all BTC used in criminal activity? No. And wait, its not even possible to detect/enforce, since bitcoin does not have a centralized authority.
So unless you have actionable example of your super project that isint even possible in the first place (Its effectively impossible to detect which BTC has been used for anything you mentioned or not, its impossible to enforce, etc) then we can safely say that we're at no risk.
There just is no way for a company to dedicate billions of USD trying to track and tag every single transaction ongoing when there's not even a way to consistently connect the BTC to a crime or even an identity.
TLDR; Its fungibility, even though its not even relevant with BTC, is assured because there is not way to say whether the BTC was obtained legally or illegally. Especially when you take into account how easily it is to mix BTC.
Bitcoins sold by the US gov would drop off any such blacklist and be considered clean again. http://www.blacklistedbitcoins.com/Fair enough, individual bitcoins or satoshis cannot be blacklisted, but addresses can. I also doubt the cost of creating such blacklisting services would be anywhere near millions of dollars, never mind billions. So it's not true fungibility problems, but it creates perceived fungibility problems. I think the only solution to this issue is private, untraceable transactions by default. Transparent transactions should be optional somehow, maybe on a side chain. |
|
|
|
|
Have not used Empoex recently, so no idea there.
Does anyone else notice a long pause with "Waiting for new work from Pool 0" when solo mining? Something very strange going on. Mining is working, but with huge long pauses where the miner doesn't receive work from the wallet. The wallet is installed on the same system.
|
|
|
|
Great stuff! Monero just gets better and better. Re block time - if it is changed to 2 minutes, will the block reward be doubled to keep the emission curve the same? |
|
|
|
wr104, Please update kryptohash.org. I just noticed the first line of text says "Kryptohash is a new cryptocurrency based on the Bitcoin protocol but, with few significant changes" which suggests there are little to no significant changes. I suppose it should say "Kryptohash is a new cryptocurrency based on the Bitcoin protocol but, with a few significant changes"  Bosco |
|
|
|
I think I can understand all of the points being made now, and my preference is that nobody has any way to discriminate against a satoshi based purely on it's previous transaction history. Whether this is fungibility or not (I can see why it is perceived to be), this is all I desire  Coming soon to a sidechain near you. I should have said: I'd like it in Bitcoin, not in a side chain Bitcoin has it is constructed requires a transparent ledger. Such a ledger also has its perks. Do you appreciate what a sidechain is and how it helps resolves issues with Bitcoin's limited extensibility and functions? I think I do. I'd like to see privacy as the default, and there can be a transparent side chain. Privacy should be of utmost importance. I imagine more transactions would benefit from privacy, and less of them from transparency. |
|
|
|
I think I can understand all of the points being made now, and my preference is that nobody has any way to discriminate against a satoshi based purely on it's previous transaction history. Whether this is fungibility or not (I can see why it is perceived to be), this is all I desire Coming soon to a sidechain near you. I should have said: I'd like it in Bitcoin, not in a side chain |
|
|
|
I think I can understand all of the points being made now, and my preference is that nobody has any way to discriminate against a satoshi based purely on it's previous transaction history. Whether this is fungibility or not (I can see why it is perceived to be), this is all I desire |
|
|
|
Are we discussing the fact that Bitcoin is not perfectly fungible, or how big an issue a lack of fungibility is? Adam Back considers that Bitcoin is not perfectly fungible when he says: some of the analysis you talked about could potentially lead to some currency units which you might receive for no fault of your own being somewhat tainted or frowned upon or, you know, so things are generally okay at the moment and the fact of it's been treated as fungible, but there is a slight risk that could degrade at some point. Here's the full transcript of an interview with him about Confidential Transactions: https://www.weusecoins.com/adam-back-confidential-transactions/Having read this thread I am actually coming around to the idea that fungibility is not as big a problem as I'd thought before. I think the point some are trying to make is that since people (peers or third-parties) could trace historical movements of bitcoins, they could refuse them based on this history. It is a possibility, that's all. Whether in a world where Bitcoin exists alongside FIAT or not, it is still possible. More Adam Back: I mean, it increases indirectly so it doesn't directly -- I mean, so what bitcoin does have is a way to improve fungibility somewhat is the idea that the addresses are not reused. So, you know, when you make a payment and it split into a payment and change address the some ambiguity as to which was the payment and which was the change. And as that flows through the system and, you know, there are thousands of transactions in a big graphic it becomes increasingly not ambiguous as to, you know, it was -- So there are ways to improve fungibility, therefore it cannot be perfect in its current state. Regardless of how uneconomically viable you may think it is to exploit this imperfection, it is impossible to know how and who will exploit this in the future. Businesses might not survive by following such practices, but is it so impossible to imagine that government probably would exploit if it gives them greater control of people or trade? I'd say that's a distinct possibility, and this is my biggest worry. Surely the best solution is perfect privacy (unlinkable, untraceable transactions), providing perfect fungibility. The best of both worlds. Why compromise? |
|
|
|
I don't see it? If the price is 2.1BTC then it does not matter what bitcoin you send, the price is the same. The price you PAY for a bitcoin varies, but not the value. I might be able to sell you a dollar for $1.05, however that does not mean dollars have lost their fungibility.
If someone won't accept your tainted coins, then you may be able to swap 1.1 BTC of tainted coins and receive 1.0 BTC of clean coins in return. You could then spend your clean coins, but you've lost 0.1 BTC. |
|
|
|
Hold on here. I'm not dismissing the privacy issues. While the two may seem related they are not the same and my position is that fungibility is not a problem.
OK, I understand that you are differentiating privacy and fungibility, but I believe you need perfect privacy to have perfect fungibility. If you are intent on going through Coinbase to process your Bitcoin transactions then you are completely missing the point and might as well use your VISA credit card. Bitcoin enables unprecedented proliferation of the black market/informal economy. There are no government regulations or "blacklists" that will resist this change of paradigm. Discrimination of economic participants based on the origins of their money is a one way street to destruction of your market reputation. Again: Bitcoin exists so that you can work outside of this system. I understand it takes a bit of foresight to imagine a world where KYC/AML are not a thing anymore but understand that it is coming and it will be all because of Bitcoin.
I'm intent on the best a crypto can be, period. Who mentioned FIAT? If, one day everyone is using only Bitcoin, how will you buy your passport from the government if they won't accept your tainted coins? |
|
|
|
These recurring fungibility threads have FUD written all over them.
It is not a problem and will never be if you use Bitcoin as intended.
Why design it to rely on something when it can be built into the core protocol, eliminating "improper use"? You don't have to rely on anything to use Bitcoin and not be involved with any of this "fungibility" FUD. Quite the opposite: as long as you deal with your Bitcoin business in a purely peer-to-peer way, as Satoshi intended, this is not a problem. A fully private chain involves trade-offs, it is not so simple as "stick ring signatures into Bitcoin and we're done here". That's why sidechains are the most natural evolution if you desire to transact anonymously. You seem to dismiss the privacy/fungibility problem, and at the same time suggest a solution. If privacy/fungibility were not a problem, you wouldn't need a side chain to fix it. Perhaps a side chain will give the privacy/fungibility desired. But then only coins which spend their entire life on that chain will remain private and fungible. Will people also need to check so they can be sure they are using a privacy side chain? There's that reliance again... What if the side chain decides to remove its privacy features at some stage? Find a new one? Fungibility issues are not FUD, they are fact. The evidence shows this - so the only example I know if is Coinbase, but that's just the beginning. Say at some stage government regulations stipulate tainted coins will not be accepted in certain institutions/retailers/wherever. Are your Bitcoins still fungible then? There is also the fact that leaving Bitcoin unchanged is enabling one of the greatest surveillance tools of all time. It may not be as simple as sticking ring-signatures in there to fix it, however I think we should do something instead of ignoring a glaring problem. |
|
|
|
These recurring fungibility threads have FUD written all over them.
It is not a problem and will never be if you use Bitcoin as intended.
Why design it to rely on something when it can be built into the core protocol, eliminating "improper use"? |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
