Rented rigs off of LeaseRig.net -- worked great!

Is there an official buy/sell thread anywhere?

Sure:


There might be a better way to do a few things, but that will get you running at least.

For anyone that wants to know, you *can* use a different port on CGWatcher. It's on the "Miner" tab under the "Settings" tab. This may be useful as some routers don't do sensible port forwarding -- I have one that will only forward a port to the same port internally, so e.g. 7777 has to forward to 7777. Totally whack, but in the end for this specific use case it doesn't matter much.

A few questions:

1) Port forwarding (with cgwatcher) -- do I forward 7777 to 7777, or 7777 to something else (4028), or do I use 4028 (the default)?
2) How many rigs can I put up for lease? If I have more than one, I need multiple port forwarding rules, so how do I configure that (e.g. they can't all be external port 7777)?
3) Is there a way for the owner of a rig to login through your site and test out the rig, to verify all is working properly?

Here's what I have as my cgminer startup command:


The cgminer-lease.conf specifies my normal mining pools, which I assume would be active any time the rig isn't being leased. Did I miss anything?

If you've done business with me, rented one of my mining rigs, traded currencies, etc., please post below! For reference, I run the cryptocurrency blog/newsletter at HolyNerdvana. If you have problems with any of my mining rigs, please drop me a note there and we can work things out. My goal is to keep all my readers and renters happy.

As noted, the reason other alt-coins are having huge problems is because of the multi-coin pools (e.g. Hashco.ws). They'll hop on a profitable coin for 10, 15, 60, whatever minutes and then move away when the difficulty vs. price is no longer favorable. RPC has a network hash rate of what -- 228MHash! So when Hashco.ws jumps on with 1GHash, it's a huge problem. That can't currently happen with VTC because you need to run a custom version of cgminer, which targets the different PoW algorithm. Of course, if a bunch of copycat coins start using the same PoW algo (Scrypt-Adaptive-N-Factor or whatever we're calling it), then maybe someone will make a multi-coin pool that runs for all of those pools. If that happens, as the first coin to use the new PoW, VTC will likely have a large enough following that the multi-coin pools won't be much of a problem.

All that said, I don't mind the idea of shorter rounds and/or faster confirmations. 2016 blocks was a figure chosen because adjusting every two weeks sounded like a good idea back in 2008 or whatever. Now, I'd agree that block adjustment times have no need of being measured in days let alone weeks. With 2.5 minute average block times, I wouldn't be opposed to adjusting difficulty every 24 or 48 blocks (one or two hours).

Hey, I love that blog! I was just going to come over here and shamelessly promote it, but you beat me to it. LOL

And what's the problem with difficulty adjustment? People coin-hopping shouldn't be as much of a problem (at least for now) due to the modified PoW algorithm. It's not like we're going to get Hashcows or Middlecoin dropping several GHash of mining on VTC for a few days and then jumping back off. I know from my experience that getting the modified cgminer up and running isn't as simple as just changing the pools and running the same conf file with VTC as you use on scrypt. Hopefully by the time there's any real concern of people coin hopping on/off VTC, we'll already have a high enough GHash rate that it won't matter too much.

In the meantime, I'm mining as many VTC as possible before the difficulty (and price) jumps!

Maybe a silly question, but when VTC hits N-Factor 8192, why is that a problem for GPUs? The chart indicates a memory requirement of 1MB, compared to 512KB at N=4096. If that's per hashing thread, then at N=4096 a card with 3GB (7950, 7970, etc.) could still run TC=6144 while at N=8192 you would have to drop to TC=3072. You certainly won't get the same performance at lower TC values, but tweaking will almost certainly mean it's not going to be half as fast. Newer versions of cgminer and such will likely also play a role. In other words, there's no magical N-Factor at which GPUs are suddenly unable to perform the hashing calculations. In ten years when we're at N=131072 and using 16MB, a 3GB GPU could still run with TC=192. Then again, ten years ago we were looking at GPUs with a whopping maximum 256MB VRAM, so in ten more years we might be running GPUs with 144GB RAM. :-D

Um...no it doesn't. Renting hashing power gives you the hashing power to use in the exact same way as a miner. I think the only reason to rent is if you want to accumulate some coins without buying mining hardware and without buying the coins outright, but even that doesn't make much sense as you have to have coins to rent the systems in the first place. Basically, renting is a gamble that apparently a few people are willing to take because they think they can earn more than the cost of the rent. "Tomorrow, I predict that mining CoinX is going to pay me 0.025 BTC per MH, so I'll pay 0.02 BTC per MH and come out ahead!" Unless I misunderstood something?

If the giveaway is still running:
Vms2TDqt4tCGDo5kFoXCSZmStnopgbZB3Z

Let's be frank: this is a "fair start" relative to something like Quark, but IMO it's hardly a "fair start" as a coin meant to stand the test of time. Bitcoin and Litecoin were designed to stand the test of time. They give out steady block rewards for years, not months! Even with the 10K blocks at the start being worth next to nothing, the coming weeks will have a deluge of MRC hit the market. Maybe I'm getting the math wrong, but here's what it looks like to me:

From blocks 10,001 through 360,000 we will mine 25,500,150,000 MRC:

(10001+160000) * 150000 = 25,500,150,000

After that, we will continue to mine out 10K to 1K blocks, dropping by 0.01 per block as we generate another 4,950,000,000 MRC:

(10000 + 1000) * ((9000 / 0.01) / 2) = 4,950,000,000

Given that the average block time is targeting 32 seconds, that means we will finish with the biggest block rewards (through block 310,000) in about 115 days from the time Microcoin first launched -- and we are already on block 43323. From there, it will be another 900,000 blocks (1,210,000 total) before we hit the steady 1K block rewards. This will take approximately 333 days. That means in the first 448 days of existence, we will generate the first 30.45% of all MRC, but more importantly the first 115 days will generate 25% of all MRC. By contrast, in the same 115 days Bitcoin and Litecoin generated just 3.9% of the total supply of coins for their respective currencies. DOGE by comparison will generate around 50,000,000,000 coins in the first 69 days, then half that amount in the next 69 days, and so on. So yes, MRC is better than DOGE in the sense of being "fair", but DOGE tends to be an anomaly -- none of the other attempted meme coins have come anywhere close to matching its performance.

Incidentally, I mined about half a million MRC in one day using a single 7950. The same GPU can mine about 0.0044 BTC worth of LTC per day. Thus, a fair valuation of MRC right now at best would be 0.000000009 BTC per MRC. Except, we're still on the leading edge of the massive mining spree for MRC, so I'd say the price might be less than 1% of that in a month or two. But if hundreds of thousands of people suddenly believe MRC is worth mining, things could shift dramatically -- again, witness DOGE, which was created as a joke. If you want to try mining something "fair" that isn't standard scrypt, I'd be more inclined to go with Vertcoin (VTC). Not only is the current valuation far better than MRC, but it has the same rate of coin generation as LTC. But I do have to admit that I like the name Microcoin more than Vertcoin. :-p


TL;DR: this coin is "fair" compared to some coins, but IMO it will be mined out a lot faster than coins built to last. Plan to hold MRC accordingly. I'm done mining it for now and will sit on my 500K to see if they're worth something in a year or two. Wish me luck!

PS: Feel free to correct my math if I screwed up anywhere. LOL.

So the website bounty says "claimed and paid"... but where is the official site? Did I miss something?

FrozenCoin Blossoms
Snow, Ice, Movies, and Popcorn
Come and join the fun

FPqu3yeCspob8NtWBdfLhHbwpSBEQ2ysdd

I was going to post this here, but it was a bit lengthy and may get lost/ignored/shouted down. Whatever. I blog as a hobby, sort of like aTriz and nearmiss run Hashco.ws, so I wrote up my analysis of the recent performance. Bottom line: I'm not saying nearmiss/aTriz are doing anything shady, but either their coin selection algorithm is somehow busted or there's something else causing Hashco.ws to consistently choose under-performing coins. The pool is jumping around alt-coins like a jack rabbit on speed, and virtually none of the selected coins seem to be delivering the expected returns. That's not even mentioning the 42 Coin rounds that keep popping up (and keep failing to outperform LTC). Ugh.

The goal is (or should be IMO) profits that are better than mining LTC, and looking at Coinwarz/Coinchoose there seem to be many options that are hitting that mark. Or perhaps stated better: the goal is to mine the most profitable alt-coin, so something other than LTC or BTC, but again there are many candidates that have been consistently above LTC during the past month. So if that's true, why are the coins selected by Hashco.ws somehow getting us less than half the profits of mining LTC? Is Coinwarz lying about profitability and Hashco.ws is getting mislead, is Hashco.ws just getting (really!) unlucky, or is something wrong with the coin selection algorithm? Or maybe something else.

I'd love to see the problem fixed, because I'm lazy and all I want is better returns on my investment. Hashco.ws used to provide that pretty consistently; since the hack and rebuild, I'm not sure I've ever seen us match let alone clearly outperform LTC. That's bizarre...and Middlecoin hasn't been any better that I can see, which is equally bizarre.

Maybe they should just put up the old site and code that got hacked instead? Seriously, I'd rather have things done right than to have them vulnerable to another SQL injection or whatever.

Noticed this as well. Also, the length of time on the current round is busted -- possibly just for the current round on 42, though? Maybe intentionally so as not to tell everyone else how much we're mining 42? LOL. Anyway, I'm not sure where that ranks on the list of things to fix, but "current round time" seems pretty trivial to implement.

Has the pool been on 42 that whole time? Probably. So it might go back to how the pool does things -- specifically, stats don't show up for the current round until it's completed (AFAICT).

Because there is no payout until a round is complete and exchanged into BTC, you really have to mine for >48 hours to fully see the daily returns on Hashco.ws -- and as noted, bugs and other issues caused lower than expected results the past few days. There are coins that are more profitable if mined on your own, yes, but not if they're mined by the 1400+ MHash (1,400,000 KHash) that a big pool like Hashco.ws brings. It's a question of how much time and effort you want to spend trading coins on your own I suppose.

Are you the one that crashed the Frozen price? I mean, coming up with 50 or 80 BTC or whatever it was would have required a lot of FZ, but I'd guess you had over 100K or more. Hopefully the cashing out is mostly done and those with FZ can start hanging on to it for a reasonable price. What's reasonable? Probably at least 10X what QRK sells for, long-term, so 0.0008 or higher per FZ is my target, and even 0.002 (2BTC per 1K) isn't out of the realm of possibilities. It will take a while to get there, sure, but the current people selling at 0.000058 are going to be kicking themselves at some point.