I suggest not selling the domain until connection attempts for stratum ports have stopped.

There, gave you some more positive

I've never been happy with Python and consider Eloipool mostly a failure in terms of language choice (and would ideally be designed very differently post-getwork era).
Without having seen your code, I can't commit - but I wouldn't rule out possibly maintaining it instead of Eloipool.

This is false. It was always disclosed, and always optional.

The majority of Bitcoin users also did/do not use it.
It is not established that the majority of people using it did not want it, nor that the majority of Gentoo users do not want it.
It is also not established that the majority of people who actually understand it (as opposed to reading lies such as the first quote) do not want it.

No, they are perfectly honest and accurate.

So your ratings were false. Big difference from the ratings I gave which are true.
Your argument should be directed against lenny_ and cooldgamer, who, like you, posted false ratings.

k

If they're worried about their reputation being "destroyed", then they shouldn't have done something to "destroy" it.
It's ironic that I'm being accused of censorship in this thread, yet the goal of this thread appears to be to censor me.

No, I don't really care.

No one has any right to call it abuse in the first place.

To the "negative trust is only for scammers" view: this makes it hypocritical to be bothering me specifically, since it makes the lying ratings against me a precedent "abuse" of the trust system.
In other words, the fact that I am the one being specifically attacked means this argument is just a distraction and not a real concern.
If negative trust is only for scammers, go after cooldgamer and lenny_ first.

P.S. You will note anderl and danielpbarron have also given me subjectively-bogus negative ratings, but since they did not lie, they do not have distrust from me for that reason alone.

I have no action to take. I still do not trust him.

Not the censorship part.

I still have no reason not to distrust BPB or any of the others.
It's not my job to babysit their daily life just because I don't trust them.

Which is a lie, just as I said in my feedback.

You also lie now, since I am not trying to censor the Bitcoin network.
Clearly you are biased since you are yourself pushing this lie.

I have the right to distrust whomever I like for whatever reasons I like.
Furthermore, I gave a clear and honest reason why I distrust these people.

In other words, you don't think theymos and dserrano5 have a right to trust whomever they like either, and want them to obey your lie-based demand not to trust me...

k

done

FYI to the new people here, those are all lies.

CoiledCoin: I used my own hashing and did not perform any actual attacks. I stopped it from working simply from playing by the rules fairly. As a result, the scammers who were planning to pump & dump it got pissy and started making up accusations.

"Blacklists": My spam filter improvements are not substantially different from the ones written by Satoshi and included in the reference code since 0.3, except in terms of effectiveness. They do not target specific entities/people (non-spam sent by the spammers is unaffected), and are thus not blacklists.

bitsofproof: I offered to have Eligius use his alt-node software as a precaution against potential bugs. It would have improved his software's security to do so, and you can clearly see he understood that from his replies on the thread.

cgminer: I have never denied them credit for the parts they actually wrote. They were not significantly involved in FPGA/ASIC mining until approximately the time they decided to fork the project. Even after they forked the project, I continue(d) to clear attribute their improvements when I ported them over (for example, see here). On the contrary, the cgminer developers have since pretended I didn't do anything (such as modularising the code and adding the FPGA/ASIC support foundations, as well as some of the initial drivers, the others of which were written by neither of them).

Note: Reposted with permission from Eleuthria

The exact command is: bfgminer -d? -D -S all
Post the full output in a [ code] block here.

Everyone is okay, but my wife has a medical condition that will need monitoring 1.5 hours away and possibly emergency surgery, so it's apt to be a bit time-consuming. Thanks for asking.

As for S5, there is still a lot of work before it is at a usable state, especially since I basically need to reverse-engineer Bitmain's code to understand what everything does (I miss the good documentation other now-defunct vendors, despite their other deficiencies, put out).
I would expect at least another month or two, depending on how much time I can spend on it.

Probably best to just figure out what that is, and fix that.
Can you pastebin a debuglog of the detection (output of bfgminer -d? -D)?

Since the U3 doesn't identify itself, there isn't anything good for this.
Maybe you can use the serial number (IIRC, always 0001 for U3s): -S antminer@0001

-S antminer:all will probe all devices with only the antminer driver.
Unfortunately, Antminer still does not set the product name on their devices, so there is no way to identify what devices they are without probing.
By default, BFGMiner only probes identified devices, not "scan all"; if you want to turn even that off, use -S noauto

P.S. Due to more pressing issues (medical), I will may sporadically have less time to work on things. Please open GitHub issues for problems so I don't forget about them, and thanks for your patience.

It came from weeks of statistical measurement. In theory, you could leave timing out and BFGMiner will autodetect it, but setting it correctly gets better performance, at least at the start.
The U3 PDF (which I didn't see until after release) is giving you a "Prefer timeout" time, which is not the same thing.
The timing option is measured in microseconds per hash, while the timeout would be per 2³² hashes and probably cut-off early to give some breathing room.

I saw that a few months ago, but never figured out what caused it... before I released, it had run fine for at least a month straight, so I didn't really have any way to troubleshoot further.

Yep, exactly. Try to  be sure as often as possible

Yes.