 Show Posts
|
|
Pages: « 1 2 [3] 4 »
|
I'm with you, my deposit is also with yours in the same tx:) |
|
|
|
it will show, but not sure if it will show before cutoff time. I have had one confirmation on the site, 11 confirmations in my wallet
how do I know the confirmation # on the site? Look at Account Balance in your Wallet. It will show pending deposits to the right and the number of confirms. Thanks, I see 2/3 Confirmations now, nothing was showing before. |
|
|
|
my guess is that Burnside has a service that checks transactions on the block chain and updates the site. That service may be having the same difficulty talking to the database and doing the updates as we are trying to reach the site.
Yes, I see 2/3 Confirmations on the site now, no worries. |
|
|
|
it will show, but not sure if it will show before cutoff time. I have had one confirmation on the site, 11 confirmations in my wallet
how do I know the confirmation # on the site? |
|
|
|
Anyone else having problems depositing BTCs? 9 Conformations and nothing showing up in the btct wallet.
same here |
|
|
|
The only people pissed are the one planning on doubling up and gaming the system.
I'm not, this is the first time I use the site. Also, if you think gaming the system is wrong, then they shouldn't have setup the system like this. |
|
|
|
Will this be the largest IPO in Bitcoin history?
Not sure if anyone has kept stats on things like this.
Interest wise, it probably is. Value wise I think 7k BTC does not even make top-10 (I could be wrong) Please do something with the ddos, I cannot bid now. |
|
|
|
|
Somebody is ddos'ing. it can't be just real people.
Stop please, it's 2AM here and I need to go to sleep.
|
|
|
|
not just you, I am having difficulty as well
OK, is this how they stop me from biding? |
|
|
|
|
I'm having problem accessing BTCT.CO.
is it just me?
|
|
|
|
the network hash rate went up quite a bit this week, is it 100TH?
Some hashes comes from 100 TH but next week is expected to deliver serious hashpower (70Th). But they said "We expect mining hardware to arrive at the data center next week." on 27th. so to me it's reasonable to think this is them. |
|
|
|
|
the network hash rate went up quite a bit this week, is it 100TH?
|
|
|
|
Another small dividends... Looks like paying scrypt is working hard  0.00000053 ... I heard it saying "testing" |
|
|
|
|
Just received dividends of 0.00000978 per share!
|
|
|
|
Hello, do you know why my primes per sec is around 350/400 now and one week before it was 850 ?
I have an AMD FX 6300..
Does primes per sec depends of the difficulty ?
Thank you
yes. but the number looks low, maybe you need to update your miner if you are not using the latest of this https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=255782.0 |
|
|
|
If you know something about Big Number calculation and the nature of GPUs, you know it's a lot more harder for the GPU to do prime test than to do hashing.
GPUs don't like branching and memory access is also limited.
Yeah, right. Thats as true as no asics for scrypt.  )))) Primecoin mining is not another scrypt. Scrypt is just another hashing algorithm, and hashing algorithms are generally the best candidates for GPU to do. Because they tend to have no branching, and the width of the input& output are fixed in *each* step. That's why sha256 on GPU is so easy. Scrypt tried to be GPU-proof by introducing random memory access, and it failed probably due to this ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scrypt): "The large memory requirements of scrypt come from a large vector of pseudorandom bit strings that are generated as part of the algorithm. Once the vector is generated, the elements of it are accessed in a pseudo-random order, and combined to produce the derived key. A straightforward implementation would need to keep the entire vector in random access memory so that it can be accessed as needed. Because the elements of the vector are generated algorithmically, each element could be generated on the fly as needed, only storing one element in memory at a time and therefore cutting the memory requirements significantly..." Big number calculation used by Primecoin is a totally different beast. it's doable, but i'll definitely be much slower. |
|
|
|
a lot more harder
Is English not your native language, oxfeeefeee? The question is sincere and not intended to harass you if you have learned English as a second / nth language. Thank you, it's corrected. |
|
|
|
I don't think CPU mining hit limit. When more pools are available, more people may join mining. It's hard to estimate how much more mining power one can benefit from GPU, maybe less than 10, or maybe more than 100. The algorithm can be improved too, although we may need some serious mathematicians to take a look... Block time seems to be roughly around or above 1 minute now.
Are all the botnets priming away? Or is that why the block times are so normal?
EDIT: nvm seems it was only for a few blocks.
It's not just for a few blocks. The difficulty is decreasing. Seems we are stable around 9.24, for now. That would explain the difficulty decreasing by .001 over the last 3 hours. Now that CPU mining has hit it's limit, what will GPU mining bring? If you know something about Big Number calculation and the nature of GPUs, you know it's a lot harder for the GPU to do prime test than to do hashing. GPUs don't like branching and memory access is also limited. |
|
|
|
Another paper with a nice table, gives you some idea on how things will go. http://trone.di.fc.ul.pt/images/e/e2/ASAP11-paper.pdfGTS8800 [17] GTX8800 [10] GTX260 (This paper) GTX580 [39] Intel W3565 [46] AMD Phenom II 1090T [46] Cores 112 128 192 512 4 6 Frequency (MHz) 1188 1350 1294 1544 3200 3200 Price (USD) 250 173 100 500 300 200 TDP (W) 150 155 202 244 130 125 GFLOPS 399 518 715 1581 102 153 Modexp/s 6504 11074 41426 149464 32608 77002 Modexp/s (scaled) 13052 15282 41426 46973 N/A N/A Modexp/s/W 43 71 205 612 250 616 Modexp/s/USD 26 64 414 298 131 385 Table I COMPARISONS OF MODULAR EXPONENTIATION PERFORMANCES ON VARIOUS CPU AND GPU IMPLEMENTATIONS. looking at the numbers, looks like GPU is only around 2x CPU??? Yes it seems so, and the performance/watt is basically at the same level. But you can't just plug 6 AMD CPUs to a single rig like what you'd do with GPUs. I'm guessing this is because CPUs have AVX which is 256 bit, and that makes them very good at dealing with big numbers compared to GPUs which can only support 64bit natively. |
|
|
|
Another paper with a nice table, gives you some idea on how things will go. http://trone.di.fc.ul.pt/images/e/e2/ASAP11-paper.pdfGTS8800 [17] GTX8800 [10] GTX260 (This paper) GTX580 [39] Intel W3565 [46] AMD Phenom II 1090T [46] Cores 112 128 192 512 4 6 Frequency (MHz) 1188 1350 1294 1544 3200 3200 Price (USD) 250 173 100 500 300 200 TDP (W) 150 155 202 244 130 125 GFLOPS 399 518 715 1581 102 153 Modexp/s 6504 11074 41426 149464 32608 77002 Modexp/s (scaled) 13052 15282 41426 46973 N/A N/A Modexp/s/W 43 71 205 612 250 616 Modexp/s/USD 26 64 414 298 131 385 Table I COMPARISONS OF MODULAR EXPONENTIATION PERFORMANCES ON VARIOUS CPU AND GPU IMPLEMENTATIONS. |
|
|
|
|
