Oh wow, was that 5% of all CACHE in a single dump? Fork it...

A couple of problems I had in mind, just the high level description, are that:
 - by embedding the IP address of the mining node, any node with significant mining power becomes a well advertised target, for however long it maintains the same IP. I don't think we'd be exposing any information that was not previously available in other altcoin designs, but in effect, the blockchain itself becomes a resilient archive of past miner locations (IPs).
 - as the latest PoN block verification requires a connection to the node that generated the block, network resiliency can be easily impacted, or otherwise cause disturbances to nodes running on domestic (aka, crappy) internet connections, which are many times limited to a very small number of active connections. When Node A mines a PoN block, it will be spammed with connections from every other network participant (who is trying to validate the block).

I'm not saying that the current approach is good or bad, just that - to me - it introduces some concerns since this is an entirely new feature, and with any new feature, there's a good chunk of unknown stuff (performance, security, scalability, etc...).

Cheers

@vertoe:

Have you (or will you) consider making PoN rely on some other element, such as transaction data or some signing with the generating address private key, instead of IP addresses? IIRC, both Spreadcoin and Ziftrcoin use similar schemes to promote decentralization (more nodes), and I can see all sorts of potential hazards of using IP addresses.

Finally, will PoN operation have any balance requirements at all? (node must hold at least X amount of coins to generate blocks)

Cheers

@mendoza1468:

Simply put, just convert your hashpower to units of GH, and multiply that by the paying rate...

Quark at 30 mh/s = 0.7072 BTC/GH/Day -> 0.7072 * 0.030 = 0.021216 BTC/day
lyra2 at 2.4 mh/s = 3.0539 BTC/GH/Day -> 3.0539 * 0.0024 = 0.00732936 BTC/day

As far as your other questions, you should really spend some time reading their FAQ.
Everything that you asked is very well explained there.

In practice, 7 days is just the minimum age before these coins are allowed to stake. On average, they stake much later (at 2 weeks, 3 weeks, 4 weeks old).

How quickly they stake, is also impacted by the size of the inputs. Larger inputs will - on average - stake much faster than smaller inputs.

And finally, there's a luck factor involved - though keeping your wallet unlocked for staking at all times will give you optimal stake chances.

I strongly recommend high fan settings for anyone that can afford the extra noise that this will cause. Modern day GPUs can certainly run very hot without any trouble, heck, the 980 specifications allow for 98C temperatures, however, with cards at full load for prolonged periods of time (aka, mining), higher temperatures will simply cause higher failure rates.

Failure rates vary greatly, and everyone's experience is their own. In any case, with lower average temperatures, one should expect less failures over time. For most of us, I think we tend to replace the hardware (upgrade, new toys, etc) before the GPUs fail definitively - but there's certainly exceptions now and then.

My "hot" 980 runs 80% fan, and the "cold" one 70% fan (both reference cooler designs), and both of them sit at 70C (+/-2) temperatures while hashing non stop. I think that 80C is perfectly ok for these cards, but if you can run them cooler, all the better.

Note that a lot of the GPU failures are caused by VRMs running too hot (most times, they are much hotter than the GPU core itself). Cards with backplates should do better in this respect, but only slightly.

Happy mining heating!

@SP_

I have a pair of 980's doing ~19.2MH each, with just a moderate overclock. I'm currently running a much earlier release, as all the recent ones have either been unstable, or performed worse - and I've not had a chance to test around much with the different intensities on those.

I might try building the latest version tonight to report back on the speed with that one and the exact clocks I'm using.

Happy Mining!

@CapnBDL:

This was just one of the 1st hits on google, and I had a run through and looks to be fairly correct. You can solo mine with ccminer and any of the supported algorithms, for any coin that runs a properly configured QT wallet. You cannot solo mine cryptonotes with ccminer - for that you need to setup a local pool.

https://cryptocointalk.com/topic/9505-how-to-solo-mine/

Happy Mining!

@djm34: I'm not sure that particular observation (investors moving away from PoW) has much to do with multipools, as it does with mining in general. The economical balance and interests are certainly very different in PoW versus PoS.

A PoW network is secured at a relatively high running cost: a certain number of miners or hashrate, providing overall an expensive service (or a cheap one, depending from where you stand  

In contrast, a PoS network is (arguably) secured at negligible cost: the cost of establishing/hodling a certain amount of funds, locked and/or maturing during their stake periods.

There is great and open debate about Bitcoin being the largest running global network of space heaters.
Maybe that bears some weight in this too...  

I understand your points bathrobehero, but I still mostly disagree. I'm quoting just the portions that concern my reply, there is no intention of taking your statements out of context. 


Are you referring to some sort of difference of moral values?
I don't see any difference on a technical level:
 a) assign hash power
 b) earn share reward
 c) dump reward for an exit token/currency
 d) spend exit token/currency on beer/hookers/blow (in whichever order pleases you)

If you are dumping it, you are dumping it. The reasons why you are dumping it, do not magically cause the effects of the dumping to become any different. I would go as far as saying that the more dumping, the wider a coin is distributed, and someone else will be happy to be buying cheaper. This is not a simple matter of right or wrong, black or white...


You raise here a very critical point, which is that security for various coins is actually worse on account of the multipools, given the crazy hashrate at one's disposal and how easy this makes it for someone to mount an attack. However, we take very differently views on "what is broken" in this respect.
I find this to be stimulus towards developing newer and better difficulty retargeting methods - as has precisely happened in the past already. It is forced evolution, if you will. Also, multipools are just the equivalent of a large enough farmer - and be certain that they exist - in that they are simply a very concentrated amount of hashrate, that can quickly hop from coin A to coin B when the mood (profit) arises.
The coins need to evolve to a point where such hopping on and off from multipools (or large enough farmers), are not a catastrophic event to their network. It is that simple.


Most new algorithms have brought absolutely nothing of relevance to the evolution of crypto currencies.
That all those coins using obscure algorithms are insecure (aka, easy to attack) is a strong representation of a fundamental flaw in their design. It is that they have this unique characteristic (a never-before-seen algorithm), for the simple sake of being "different".
What did x14 offer the world of crypto currencies that did not already exist in x11? What about x17? What about X, Y, Z algorithms? The few that have a compelling argument to exist, are most likely to survive. All others are more likely not to survive. I do not see a loss here, I see cleanup.
There is also the even worse case, of all the new algorithms that were "invented" for the sole purpose of allowing stress free private mining (at much greater performance). There are plenty of those around, and they are just another form of technological garbage.

We should set our minds away from this idea that somehow mining is this all important process that determines the value of a certain altcoin. It is not so.
Like I said earlier: [...] PoW mining, accounts for just a tiny/miserable fraction of the daily trade volume on coins with any meaningful reach of success. [...]

Note: I have the greatest respect for mining software coders, and even more so, when they so generously share with the community at large. I've even donated a beer or two! (rarely though, I'm a cheapstake)

Note2: I hereby agree to disagree! 

I kindly ask that people stop quoting the troll(s), in hopes of improving the SNR...
The ignore button does wonders, but it is partly defeated by so much troll quoting.
Thank you!  

Maybe click on "Releases"?   

https://github.com/Thirtybird/cpuminer/releases

Thirtybird has kindly made available all the optimized versions one could ask for...

https://github.com/Thirtybird/cpuminer

Cheers!

There seems to be a lot of anger towards multipools and profit-switching pools. Most people seem to ignore that PoW (so, mining), accounts for just a tiny/miserable fraction of the daily trade volume on coins with any meaningful reach of success.

To say that dumping mining rewards kills a coin, is to say that such coin bears no significant value beyond that of the mining process. So is the coin useless, or has no merits at all to drive demand? If so, by all means, dump it to death please.

Also commonly ignored, is the fact that PoW mining is a service to that coin's network. It is this service that ensures the security of the network (without which, double spending, etc etc...). Like any other service, it should be adequately rewarded. If a coin economy cannot afford the balancing act (and cost) of maintaining a secure network (in other words - absorb it's mining costs) again, by all means, dump it to death please.

I'm not saying all coins should simply be dumped upon and that all are shitcoins (though most of them should & most of them are  ), but just that mining cannot be the focus or measure of any one coin's success. The focus should be on utility, demand, adoption, innovation, well... The forever pursued "real world value"...

Do you believe in a coin, do you think it has merits and want to hold on to it, for whatever the future might bring or for the speculative exercise? Mine some, buy some, and hold them. It's all very much the same.

If you do not believe in any particular coin, and mining is just a (fiat/btc?) revenue opportunity, then go right ahead and point your hashes at whatever rental service, profit switching pool, or gamble on the coin-du-jour launch...

For those with the necessary time & energy, research some more. There's usually better profits to be had.
Oh well, I figure I'm not on the popular side of this discussion 
Happy mining!

The network seems to be working just fine. I'd bet that you just need to repair your wallet or resync, and you'll find the coins have never left your balance. How about you paste the TXID and we check if the transaction ever made it to the blockchain?

When I'm mining straight for BTC, I just use MinerControl:
http://cryptomining-blog.com/tag/miner-control/

It may take a while to fully configure, but I think that it is definitely worth it, for the ease of use (basically, set and forget). MinerControl takes care of switching between what is paying the most, and also switches when a pool is dead/offline.

When I'm mining a specific coin, I use a batch file with a single call to ccminer. I don't ever have a crash, so I never cared to make a looping system. This configuration does not include a backup pool though. I babysit my miner when I'm not using MinerControl.

Here's what I'm running right this instant:

@echo off
C:
cd "C:\1. Cudaminer\cudaminer-2014-02-28\x86\"
C:\Windows\System32\cmd.exe /C start "CACHE GPU-0" /HIGH /AFFINITY 0x5 "C:\1. Cudaminer\cudaminer-2014-02-28\x86\cudaminer.exe" -a scrypt-jane:CACH -o stratum+tcp://cach.catcoin.cz:3333 -u <user.worker1> -p <password> -i 0 -L 8 -l t64x4 -b 4096 -m 1 -q -d 0
C:\Windows\System32\cmd.exe /C start "CACHE GPU-1" /HIGH /AFFINITY 0xA "C:\1. Cudaminer\cudaminer-2014-02-28\x86\cudaminer.exe" -a scrypt-jane:CACH -o stratum+tcp://cach.catcoin.cz:3333 -u <user.worker2> -p <password> -i 0 -L 8 -l t64x4 -b 4096 -m 1 -q -d 1

This batch file runs 2 concurrent cudaminer instances - both get launched at the same time - as it is using a "start" parameter. The point of using 2 instances is to have a separate worker for each GPU, which improves the reported hashrate for this pool/algo. This launch type also let's you easily tweak priority/affinity settings, which is useful in certain instances (and specially if you are also CPU mining).
IIRC, I had to set the shortcut to such batch files with the "run as administrator" option enabled, otherwise priority and/or affinity would not stick.

I'm assuming that your launch batch file is placed on the same folder as the ccminer executable.
For sake of example, let's say that ccminer.exe is stored in this folder:

c:\miners\ccminer\release99\

So your batch file would be right alongside ccminer.exe (placed on the same folder), but for completeness, you would call the executable with a full path string, like so:

:loop
c:\miners\ccminer\release99\ccminer.exe -r 1 -R 5 -a quark   -o stratum+tcp://anypool
c:\miners\ccminer\release99\ccminer.exe -r 1 -R 5 -a quark   -o stratum+tcp://anypool
goto loop

So now just replace c:\miners\ccminer\release99\ from this example with whatever is the actual location of your executable, and there you go. No clue this will help at all though, just a quick experiment that cannot hurt.

If you want to place the batch file in a location separate from the miner executable, you can just add a folder navigation command at the loop start, like so:

:loop
cd c:\miners\ccminer\release99\
c:\miners\ccminer\release99\ccminer.exe -r 1 -R 5 -a quark   -o stratum+tcp://anypool
c:\miners\ccminer\release99\ccminer.exe -r 1 -R 5 -a quark   -o stratum+tcp://anypool
goto loop

You might need to tweak the path strings depending on how long your folder names are, or if there's any spaces on them. Adding one more example in which one folder name is using a space - note the added quote symbols (")

:loop
cd "c:\miners\ccminer\latest release\"
"c:\miners\ccminer\latest release\ccminer.exe" -r 1 -R 5 -a quark   -o stratum+tcp://anypool
"c:\miners\ccminer\latest release\ccminer.exe" -r 1 -R 5 -a quark   -o stratum+tcp://anypool
goto loop

@tbearhere:

I'm not using loops myself and I don't have any crashes, but seeing as the error message is that 'ccminer.exe is not found', have you tried adding the full path to ccminer? Could be that the crash is somehow messing up the set working directory for the batch file. If you are already using the full path at launch, then the suggestion is moot.
The result would be something like:

:loop
<somedrive><somefolder><somesubfolder>\ccminer.exe -r 1 -R 5 -a quark   -o stratum+tcp://anypool
<somedrive><somefolder><somesubfolder>\ccminer.exe -r 1 -R 5 -a quark   -o stratum+tcp://anypool
goto loop


Good Luck!

Hey there acquafredda,

I would recommend pool mining, at least at first, to make sure your setup is in good working order. Solo mining will work fine as well, but somewhat more complicated to get going and takes longer to confirm that everything is correctly configured (because, variance).

You didn't mention which card model you have, so note that only recent gen cards are supported, compute 3.0 or higher (series 7xx or newer).
Go right ahead and try this miner:
https://github.com/tpruvot/ccminer/releases

The only pool that I'm aware is Suprnova:
https://wood.suprnova.cc/index.php

Sample miner launch string:
ccminer -a skein2 -o stratum+tcp://wood.suprnova.cc:1158 -u <username.worker> -p <password>

Happy Mining Chopping!

You have a better shot at someone helping you, if you post:
- What coin it is that you are mining,
- What your miner launch command, (omit password if you care, but otherwise be accurate)
- What ccminer release you are using (2 recommendations below)

by tpruvot
https://github.com/tpruvot/ccminer/releases

by SP_
https://github.com/sp-hash/ccminer/releases/

Good Luck!