The getwork protocol has been removed from Groestlcoin core since it was a inefficient way to mine (due to the speed of FPGA devices).
The old protocol in Groestlcoind or -QT was limited to about 5GH before running into bottlenecks. Groestlcoind could not serve work fast enough for the FPGA's.
...
Maybe you guys should change the tag line to "The New Home of the FPGA Miners"  Why is network hashrate so low if there are superfast FPGAs mining? I mean, I can get like 10-20% of the network with a few video cards... |
|
|
|
Any special trick to getting solo mining working with new release v2.11.0? I can't even get it working on local host computer using sgminer 5.1.1 released on 9 March or an older version of sph-sgminer 4.1. I just get this message: [20:43:11] Pool 0 slow/down or URL or credentials invalid
But I'm pretty sure it was working before I updated client. Is there a special switch in sgminer for newer clients? Need a newer sgminer? When I use debug mode on old sph-sgminer I get this output (debug mode on new sgminer causes it to immediately crash): [20:46:07] Pushing sem post to thread 1
[20:46:07] Probing for an alive pool
[20:46:07] Testing Pool 0
[20:46:07] Probing for GBT support
[20:46:07] No GBT coinbase + append support found, using getwork protocol
[20:46:07] HTTP request failed: The requested URL returned error: 404 Not Found
[20:46:07] Succeeded delayed connect
[20:46:07] Socket closed waiting in recv_line
[20:46:07] Closing socket for stratum Pool 0
[20:46:07] Failed to parse a \n terminated string in recv_line
[20:46:07] Initiating stratum failed on Pool 0
[20:46:07] Suspending stratum on Pool 0
[20:46:07] Closing socket for stratum Pool 0
[20:46:07] FAILED to retrieve work from Pool 0
[20:46:07] Pool 0 slow/down or URL or credentials invalid
[20:46:07] Waiting on sem in miner thread
[20:46:07] Popping work from get queue to get work
[20:46:17] Waiting for work to be available from pools. Also, I changed GroestlCoin.conf to groestlcoin.conf, even though I'm not sure that really matters on windows. Also, also, I'm able to make an rpc call to 127.0.0.1:1441 successfully using curl, so the wallet conf seems setup correctly... |
|
|
|
-snip- I'm going to say two things as a response to the undermining attempt: - My post was made before that was made public
- Appeal to authority anyone?
I'm not appealing to authority, just placing your quote about a "handful" of individuals in the context of reality. I'm in favor of larger blocks, and I think BIP101 is the best proposal at the moment. I would prefer a solution that can scale as needed, as alluded to by ArticMine, but since that doesn't seem forthcoming, I'm all in favor of BIP101. |
|
|
|
we don't need to discuss bitcoin XT if we don't care about bitcoin XT of course bitcoin XT will die.
-snip-
Then why start another thread about it? Why start it in the wrong section? At least you could have done that right. Obviously there are a handful of individuals who believe that BIP 101 and XT are the right way forward (no; unsustainable growth). Ignoring problems doesn't usually make them go away. A handful of individuals, which just happens to include the CEO's of practically all of the largest Bitcoin companies: http://blog.blockchain.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/Industry-Block-Size-letter-All-Signed.pdfAs our community grows, itis essential — now more than ever that we seek strong
consensus to ensure network reliability.We pledge to support BIP101 in our
software and systems by December 2015, and we encourage others to join us.
Stephan Pair - BitPay CEO
Peter Smith - Blockchain.info CEO
Jeremy Allaire - Circle.com CEO
Sean Neville - Circle.com President
Sam Cole - KNC Miner CEO
John McDonnell - Bitnet.io CEO
Wences Casares - Xapo.com CEO
Mike Belshe - Bitgo.com CEO Not too mention Coinbase, which has expressed support for Gavin Andersen's proposal prior to it being formalized in BIP101. |
|
|
|
 here's the new game faucet  Faucet is pretty awesome. Is that something that the admins of goldmin.es put together? Do they have that same game for all the coins they mine? |
|
|
|
i dont mean pruning of some bits out of the chain like messages, or reductions here or there. i mean full blockchain pruning where i could run a node and only store a partial chain that consists of say, the last 50/100/500 etc blocks. whats the closest anyone has gotten to this and are any coins currently developing this?
I think cryptonite's miniblockchain scheme might be the closest thing. |
|
|
|
Vertcoin is more mining profitable from other coins
This is true. But Ethereum mining is 10 times more profitable than even VTC at the moment. All my 64-bit rigs are switched to it at the moment. I'm mining VTC on the only one that is 32-bit. Isn't Ethereum POS? No, there's some rumor about them switching to PoS in the future, but for now pure PoW (besides ICO and premine). |
|
|
|
...
The problem with this is that it's released under the "BitcoinXT" label. We wanted the same thing released under the "Core" label as well. People would then choose to support (or not) BIP101 either via the Core dev team of via the XT dev team. I realize it would result in the exact same code either way.
Maybe someone (reputable) can just fork XT repo (big-blocks-only branch) and rebrand it as Bitcoin101, or BitcoinBB (big blocks), or something... |
|
|
|
Who is in control of "plain vanilla". Who can launch Core + BIP101? Wouldn't it in and of itself be the compromise everyone seems to dance around?
Any programmer should be able to pull the BIP101 (big-blocks only) patch into the latest version of Core (e.g., if they don't trust the people with commit access from XT). Unfortunately, for non-programmers, I believe the only choice right now is to use the one built by the XT team. I really wish the Core team would do something similar and create a Core + BIP101 branch and allow the community to decide which to run (although the code would be the same as if you just did this yourself). can we convince Gavin or Jeff to do this ? It's already done: https://github.com/bitcoinxt/bitcoinxt/tree/only-bigblocks |
|
|
|
|
Just started solo mining. Why do you find shares for solo mining? Haven't found a block yet but have like 34 shares, just not understanding why it shows that. Just to show you that miner is actually working?
|
|
|
|
Maybe if you use larger, redder text people will strap on their tinfoil hats and indulge in your conspiracy fantasies. There's code available that will implement BIP101 without the rest of the XT patches, btw: https://github.com/bitcoinxt/bitcoinxt/tree/only-bigblocksThis is what I'm planning to run. |
|
|
|
Sorry if this has already been asked but what would stop any plattform from having "centralized app utilizing blockchains" ? Shouldn't this just be green for all of them ? Or is this to merely point out the existence of such services ? Even if so...they all have block explorers, faucets or whatever  I kind of thought the same. Anybody that has a faucet has a faucet or tip bot or block explorer basically has a centralized service. I was kind of trying to reserve it for applications that are a bit more unique than explorers or tipbots and such, like the MMO or maybe a prediction market or big gambling site or something... |
|
|
|
Well - if you are referring to a "programming language" you should understand that AT is a "virtual CPU". So it is not a high-level language but is a "machine code" (and it should be noted that Ethereum is also not a high-level language but is a VM which is an approach that I think was far less elegant).
So - if you accept that things like RISC chips are "Turing complete" then it should be obvious that AT is (I even gave you the link to a "single instruction virtual CPU" that is "Turing complete" to show just how simple it is to achieve this).
If you don't accept that CPUs (and thus "virtual CPUs") are "Turing complete" then clearly we have nothing further to discuss.
OK, you convinced me - I'll leave Automated Transactions and Turing complete lumped together for now. What is the method to prevent an infinite loop being run in Burst or Qora's Turing complete scripting/instruction set? Just the transaction fee on each "instruction"? Is there a fee market on Burst and Qora a la Ethereum, or a hard-coded fee for each instruction/script/transaction? |
|
|
|
Overstock used to maintain a wikia on the 2.0 projects. Overstock discontinued maintaining their wikia and later launched their own ledger called tŘ.
tŘ is a blockchain ledger but not a cryptocurrency nor a solutions platform for the public. It is not a "2.0" and not a "1.0" project but something entirely else: "blockchain securities ledger" best describes it.
tŘ was designed to do one thing: securities listings. tŘ already has 10 stocks listed on it but it is not accessible to the public. I don't think Overstock will ever make tŘ public for download. As far as I can tell tŘ is closed source and that means most companies would never use it. Would you list your company's equity on something that could have backdoors and other vulnerabilities? There's no reason to when the future will probably have an open source securities ledger.
Interesting, JBC. I'd heard about this t0 project, but didn't realize that it was already live... Edit: I just went to their site, http://t0.com/ , and it looks like every other bootstrap crypto site I've ever seen  |
|
|
|
In the case of Stellar it's a pity, as they seemed to have a less corporate outlook than Ripple.
They seem to have a less corporate outlook, but as far as I can tell it's just subterfuge. The "non-profit" Stellar Foundation doesn't really mean anything: Stellar Development Corporation filed with the Delaware secretary of state as a “non-profit non-stock corporation” on July 2, 2014. This means no shareholders or members have rights to receive the company’s assets or profits. It is a self-declaration, not a judicial or administrative determination.
Even as a self-declaration, it means almost nothing. Delaware does not have additional laws or requirements for non-profit corporations. In New York, for example, there is a Not-for-Profit Corporation Law. In New York, you have to earn not-for-profit status, registering and reporting to the Attorney General’s Charities Bureau, which has conducted many high-profile investigations. (In New York, educational non-profits also have to file for approval from the Department of Education.) None of that exists in Delaware. You just file a certificate of incorporation as a non-stock corporation. But that declaration means nothing—it’s the IRS that will determine whether Stellar is a non-profit, not Stellar itself. Read more at http://observer.com/2015/02/the-race-to-replace-bitcoin/ |
|
|
|
The recent fork in BTC has made me wonder what is the best altcoin that is set up to handle lots of transactions should it become popular?
Unobtanium, no doubt. Very small and clean chain due to low numbers (not even 1GB after 2 years running), secure network and 3 minute blocks does three times or more what btc does in tps - and faster - and less inflationary. I'm asking myself since ages why people don't switch to it. It's basically a faster bitcoin with lower max coins and less inflation. Unobtanium is Bitcoin on steroids. ... All the rest is fucking crap. I think you meant to say Unobtanium is fucking crap. It's a straight clone with a few numbers changed - mainly the total number of coins and halving schedule. So it ends up that 80% of total coins are mined now, and like 50% were mined in the first month or few. So, maybe there's very transactions in the blocks because the vast majority of all total coins were ninja mined by Bryce Weiner and his ninja cohorts, and they are just sitting on their stockpile. Why would someone want to buy into that fucking crap? |
|
|
|
...
CIYAM's "specification" document is wrong as well as imprecise, ATs in themselves are not Turing complete and scarequotes won't make it so. The document, if it aspires to meet the requirements of a specification, should contain the precise details of the features ensuring Turing completeness of the programming language in which the ATs are expressed.
I can understand why people might want to distinguish sharply between ATs and a Turing complete scripting language.
Cheers
Graham
This is my sentiment as well. I'm probably going to split AT and Turing complete into two different rows on the next iteration. I'll add a row for aliasing as well, and remove that from the unique features for Syscoin. Also, sorry Sebastien256, missed that one. I'll add those NXT services next go-around as well. |
|
|
|
Thanks for info and suggestions Table updated with Syscoin, CoinoUSD, Qora founder, and I also added some links at the bottom of the table (and date of last update). I'm still thinking about removing Crypti since it's closed source. I don't think any of the technology can really be verified if the source isn't available. I will try and see what the timeframe is for them to release source code. Lemme know if you have any other info, suggestions, suggested reading, cat pictures, links, corrections, etc. |
|
|
|
Why would any miner update their software to a version that increased the 21 mil cap and lowering the value of all their coins?
I agree, they wouldn't, and the fact that this is being thrown around as a threat if blocksize increases by hardfork is just indicative of the ridiculous level this debate has devolved to. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
