I'm sorry if this has been asked but I've been fooling around with this all day. Basically I have a machine I run slackware on...yes yes not your standard distro. I built all the necessary packages installing stream 2.1 sdk, pyopencl, rpc, etc. Everything compiled fine and runs without a hitch. I'd like to run poclbm in INIT 3 vs running it in INIT 4 so im not sharing resources with kde. Everytime i try to run poclbm in init 3 it tells me ati needs x windows. I never had this issue with nvidia which i can start poclbm in init 3, i took the same script and ran it on this box and basically it cant find the gpus unless x is running. Anyone found a way to bypass this? I exported my library and the display in the begining of the script.
ATI uses xserver to load the fglrx drivers for the GPUs (take a look in your xorg.conf) .... it sucks but you are stuck with it unless you figure out a new way in which case you will be v. popular around here. |
|
|
|
|
There is a false dichotomy here and it is trap for thinking about these matters.
There is the "store of value" function that money performs and the "proof of work" concept the BTC uses to define that store of value. They are subtly different and using energy as basis for currency reveals some of the difference.
Labour is a way for creating wealth (well spent labour), but that wealth is represented by the product of the labour not the proof of work done. Energy expended, kinetic, can be used as substitute for labour, robots, cars, etc.
These concepts are well based in the physical units of energy, work done is joules and the chemical potential energy stored in barrel of oil can also be stated in joules thermal for example.
But when the barrel of oil is converted (through combustion) to some kind of useful work, the "proof of work" value, i.e. the product of that conversion, becomes a store of value, depending upon its marketability. Just burning oil in the middle of the desert is converting stored energy into kinetic energy (thermal) but does the conversion of that energy in anyway represent a store of value, clearly not to most rational human value systems.
Energy is a mechanism by which money can flow from one form of stored value into another form of stored value. Tying a currency value to energy needs to be careful that it is linked to the store of value not the proof of work, which is not always the same thing, depending on value judgements. The free market needs to be allowed to value the energy, stored or expended, without manipulations.
Clear?
|
|
|
|
|
Nah, they are not competing since in the end they both get paid for the work they have done. It is just another route to get onto the btc network that pays differently, i.e. diversification. If you have two rigs both going solo on the network, or even just two GPU nodes, sure they are competing on the same problem but you are getting paid for both their work eventually .... unless you are a really, really unlucky mofo.
|
|
|
|
1 share in 5 seconds that paid 0.875 BTC, must be my lucky day  4174 2011-05-05 21:38:39 0:00:05 56 0.87500000 122100 95 confirmations left i'd go hit the casino or the blackjack table right now if I was you, what's the chances ... lol! I remember a 1 second block that had 8 shares on slush's pool. I was happy to be one of those 8 shares. Did you go to the casino that day? Heh, no. I have to drive for a few hours to find a casino, and I only like to gamble when it comes to Bitcoins. Who needs to drive ? Check out the Marketplace, or wiki https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Category:Gamblingit's got casino, poker site, blackjack, lotto ... any number of ways to lose your hard earned BTC .... hehehe ... i'm awful i shouldn't be encouraging you ... life's a gamble. |
|
|
|
...is back open for registration on certain conditions ... ie if he can verify you are not a botnet herder  Please, do not invite people to other pools in MY thread, that's impolite. I'm not posting my ads in other pools threads. Apologies. in my defence I was responding to clear up an erroneous comment .... but it is retracted now anyway. |
|
|
|
|
Don't know about static electricity, never seen it or had any issues and i have exposed boards all over the place ... spider webs are getting to be a nuisance though .... although maybe they are filtering the dust so i'm undecided if they are definitely a 'bad' thing ....
|
|
|
|
On linux, use cron with for poclbm or for pheonix on ubuntu both programs look like: /usr/bin/python ./phoenix.py /usr/bin/python ./poclbm.py and they aren't the only programs that are python scripts so just killing python could kill other system programs inadvertently if pgrep phoenix or poclbm returns the right pids then pkill should work for both Both phoenix and poclbm can be started by using the explicit python call (from inside the relevant directory or using the absolute path) eg. $python phoenix -u ..... or $python poclbm -u .... so on a dedicated mining rig without other python called processes running "$pkill -9 python" would work fine from cron. I've always wondered what the difference is between using the python prefix command or just the $./process.py ... doesn't seem to make a difference to hashrate but who knows ... |
|
|
|
1 share in 5 seconds that paid 0.875 BTC, must be my lucky day 4174 2011-05-05 21:38:39 0:00:05 56 0.87500000 122100 95 confirmations left i'd go hit the casino or the blackjack table right now if I was you, what's the chances ... lol! |
|
|
|
|
One bad assumption the miners are not socialists, they are "greedy" free market capitalists and just in it for the bitcoin ... wahoo!
Nobody is incentivised to be locked into a pool for longer than the next block, in fact the miners move about quite fluidly. It would be economic suicide for the pool operators to go on strike. Look at what happens when slush's webpage goes down for a few minutes (even though his back-end mining s/ware is fine) ... they jump like scalded cats.
You guys are gonna have to come up with something better than "political attack" vectors on bitcoin. They are feeble and don't pass the first smell test. Socialist can always just use the banksters fiat statist currency they love so much ... we'll stick to gold and bitcoin, thankee.
|
|
|
|
|
Better yet, engrave the key to a high value address/wallet in a good sized gold ingot and bury the whole damn thing somewhere.
|
|
|
|
|
So it is solo, you against against the dealer.
I prefer a table with multiple players ... safety in numbers. Any plans to implement multi-player tables?
|
|
|
|
BTCMine is back open for registration on certain conditions ... ie if he can verify you are not a botnet herder http://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=4251.320I think we need to grow BTCMine now, he is doing a good service over there ... not sure if [Tycho] is okay with me saying that here but it is better for bitcoin network stability to not have too big of a central (single) point of failure. Deepbit.net is just getting scary BIG!!! Almost a super-computer class hasher on its own now! kinda cool too though. I've been trying to explain this for a while now. It seems no one cares. They are all concerned with being in the biggest pool, forgetting what makes Bitcoin secure to begin with. I wonder if the large pool operators have considered this. The bigger their pool, the more money they make. But if the system is easily exploitable, no one will be making any money at all. If I was a government goon, I would certainly go after the big pool operators first. Either bribe or threaten them to do what I want. Of course, we don't need to worry about governments, right? Bitcoin doesn't threaten them in the slightest. I think all the pool operators are doing a great job. But the security of Bitcoin is more of a concern to me. Yeah, but the perceived economic incentive with the big pool is steady payouts. BUT, if you are in it for the long term and have some good sized hash power BTCMine is actually a better economic choice right now because it has zero fees and the variance will even out quite quickly if you have enough power ... also I think deepbit.net grew quite big recently because a lot of newbs showed up and the OCN guide just showed them how to connect to deepbit.net so that is what they did ... after a while some will figure out where they fit in and how which pool suits which the way they mine ... night-time, daytime, class-time, all the time ... I started on slush but then moved to deepbit when he had only 15 JiggaHash to help him grow, now I like to gamble some time on BTCMine and help him grow, maybe to catch a run wahoo! or blow some of my cluster time on nothingness booooo ... and if I have other things to do for days I just leave it running on slush or deepbit and the meter ticks over nicely ... its all good. |
|
|
|
|
RETRACTED
Deepbit.net is just getting scary BIG!!! Almost a super-computer class hasher on its own now! kinda cool too though.
|
|
|
|
knightmb:
How much?
PM me if you want to move large amounts.
Hehe It's just going to sit at the bank for now until the investors decide what to do with it. The irony is, they think the project is a bust, so I've requested to take over ownership of it but never mentioned anything about it's current value because they have never bothered to check since last year. Can you believe all the "smart business" people that told them that BTC was just a waste of time for them? Shows how smart they were. Far out. So let me get this straight. You have just secured the ownership of the keys to 371k btc for USD$5k because the initial investors wanted out and can't be bothered to check current trading value of BTC .... and your wife is skeptical!? That's epic. As I said earlier, if you need to move large amounts contact me ... or have your wife contact me if she is still skeptical. |
|
|
|
Supposedly this would be done in real-time and need to be synced with the bitcoin network?
This shouldn't be a practical problem with Bitcoin's 10-minute target block rate. If they have different difficulty levels then somehow you have to tell the miners that they have to also report to the adjoint network solutions to the "lesser difficulty" problems and you would need code to be checking for that .... what is the miner's their incentive to do that?
The pooled mining operators already have access to "lesser difficulty" solutions and could easily contribute those to the adjunct network, in return for whatever reward the adjunct network provides. Okay, so the pool operators code would be the main target for these efforts. I imagine there must be some super-computer houses looking at deepbit.net for instance (360GHash/s and it was put together in less than 4 months) and thinking far out ... how do we get our hands on that kind of power? The latent potential in the installed hardware base that bitcoin has tapped is a sight to behold for the big iron people, I can tell you. Tailoring a new problem to suit the network as it is configured now could be too hard to implement though. Bitcoin shows that if the right incentive structure is put in place the nodes will figure out best how to optimise to solve the problem, decentralised growth based on few simple rules beats centrally planned clusters and huge blocks of cabinets. |
|
|
|
I am not a firm believer in the theory that opensourcing something would automatically eliminate chances of having deliberately planted malicious code. Its the peer review that eliminate that, not the public source itself (see the underhanded C contest eheh).
Yes, source is the prerequisite, however there is also something else. Hashkill has already turned into a relatively large enough project (~130-140.000 lines of code at present) with a good number of dependencies and supporting all this in my spare time is not easy. I add new functionality faster than I fix bugs (unfortunately as my spare time is limited). This of course reflects on my autoconf/automake stuff (the bitcoin part brought 3 new dependencies - curl, json-c and ADL). Autoconf macros are still buggy and building is a bitch. There are also sometimes some minor API changes in some library that may fail everything. It's just not tested well enough at the moment. I don't feel like answering questions like "build failure XXX, please help" while having to fix some serious issues with the bitcoin code. Static-linked binaries are a nice way to make it working for most distros out there without depending on additional packages and stuff.
One might argue that rewriting everything in a higher-level language like e.g python would be a better idea and I completely agree. It is also much more portable. However it is already too late for this.
Okay I can appreciate an argument like this ... if you tearing through a development stage things are flying everywhere and its easier to spit out binaries ... good on ya, poclbm and phoenix are tough competition. In this case, it is probably best for people who want to test with this code to do it on a dedicated test rig or VM maybe, but not a production mining rig of a cluster or one with a real currency at stake or in the environment anyway. |
|
|
|
Take a look at Open Transactions. You may find it an interesting open source project. It can be made bitcoin capable. The wallet project Moneychanger could be just what you are looking for. https://github.com/FellowTraveler/Open-Transactionshttps://github.com/FellowTraveler/MoneychangerCan already do lots of stuff but needs more work and testing. OT server can be a used as the basis for network of exchangers. Edit: I think mining software is in good shape, maybe the main client needs the work more can't say, but we desperately need some tools to make it easier for small local exchangers to get up and running. |
|
|
|
Different block chains would be encoding a different set of transacations on the different networks right? So they would be hashing different blocks ... No free lunch.
For a miner to "get a free lunch" by mining another block chain simultaneously with Bitcoin, that other chain must be designed for this purpose, by incorporating an extra field that will make the hashing problem the same as the one being solved for the Bitcoin chain. Also, if the other chain has a different difficulty level, you will get different numbers of blocks mined on the two chains. That's quite a clever idea, adjust the adjoint network problem so that it becomes the same problem to be solved as the one bitcoin is doing anyway. Supposedly this would be done in real-time and need to be synced with the bitcoin network? Btw, I'm not talking about the miner getting the free lunch, he's the guy doing the work, it is whoever is hoping to get their problem solved for free by piggybacking onto the block-chain hashing that would be getting a free lunch .... would it require any mods to the miner hashing code or does it just need to sync up with the inputs and outputs to the hashing? If they have different difficulty levels then somehow you have to tell the miners that they have to also report to the adjoint network solutions to the "lesser difficulty" problems and you would need code to be checking for that .... what is the miner's their incentive to do that? |
|
|
|
But think about it this way, even if you have say BTC 1000 if the exchange rate went up to 100 you'd have 100,000 BTC!!! Ah no, you'd still have BTC 1000 but they would be worth USD100,000. Better make sure you don't get hacked or leave an old copy of your wallet lying around in memory somewhere .... |
|
|
|
|
No conspiracy theory, I think you are probably doing some good work here, it has the right pedigree.
Just it would be bad practice to do what you are asking for people who are testing it ... unless of course they know and can trust you. I'm pretty sure you wouldn't do it yourself, knowing which side of the security fence you come from. Good luck, carry on.
"Here I've got a binary that is a sub-system for your digital currency miner, just use root to install it and you'll be sweet." (Has a bad look, if you know what I mean.)
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
