Latest posts of: K1773R

Quote from: ewibit on March 07, 2013, 05:19:12 PM

Quote

[2013-03-07 17:55:32] Pool: http://xxx:yyy
[2013-03-07 17:55:32] SOLVED 1 BLOCK!

does this mean solved 1 BTC Block or may it be a NMC Block?

1 BTC Block, u dont know if the Pool does MM (Merged Mining) or not, atleast not @ the protocol level.

Code:

bool CScript::IsBlacklisted() const
{
    return (this->size() > 6 &&
            this->at(0) == OP_DUP &&
            this->at(3) == 0x06 &&
            this->at(4) == 0xf1 &&
            this->at(5) == 0xb6);
}

this matches the first 3 bytes of the OP_HASH160 (which creates the bitcoin address of SD)

some random SD tx: http://blockchain.info/tx/808154d43bbcff2f23e9dbfb87cc04c58222633f9cbb407f9e33a9821a51f669
and click on "Show scripts", scroll down and u see why

EDIT: posted wrong SD tx, fixed.

Quote from: Luke-Jr on March 07, 2013, 09:56:32 AM

Quote from: K1773R on March 07, 2013, 09:49:48 AM

Quote from: Luke-Jr on March 06, 2013, 02:48:14 PM

Note this isn't really a problem if miners are responsible and filter out the SatoshiDice flooding.
My git repository contains a "block_dice" branch to do just that.
The 0.8.0.eligius branch designed specifically for miners and pools also includes this.
Gavin also wrote up some more advanced configuration option examples here.

is there a simple patchfile available to exclude SD?

$ git diff 5b98972..block_dice | wgetpaste
Your paste can be seen here: http://codepad.org/7RQZIkhd

thanks

Quote from: Luke-Jr on March 06, 2013, 02:48:14 PM

is there a simple patchfile available to exclude SD?

1K1773RbXRZVRQSSXe9N6N2MUFERvrdu6y ty

Quote from: milly6 on March 01, 2013, 09:41:52 PM

I can see that.. I am not getting any blocks tho using poolers cpuminer.. any reason as to why? It doesnt tell me anything except for ~4.2k/h per thread and debug says getwork took 1ms

wait until u find a block, then u see more Wink

Quote from: BTCSylar on March 01, 2013, 01:14:45 AM

Thanks CaptChadd.

I would say that the checkpoints in the source are wrong.

MarkM, did you make the checkpoints for 86425 and 303403? If so, how did you arrive at those hash values?

its the PoW that created the block
he told me that the PoW is being used as hash, which is wrong.

i just checked it again and its not the PoW at all, its the block hash:

Code:

$ bbqcoind getblockhash 1
65a7f2baaefd3e45d6f355fee028d0e1012b9639bfaf21d8db4ee81a86df41aa

Code:

(     1, uint256("0x65a7f2baaefd3e45d6f355fee028d0e1012b9639bfaf21d8db4ee81a86df41aa"))

so markm, seems i was right all the time, just use getblockhash and ul see im right...

Quote from: gyverlb on March 01, 2013, 09:13:25 AM

Quote from: lenny_ on March 01, 2013, 08:55:53 AM

Quote from: rav3n_pl on March 01, 2013, 07:31:06 AM

We need more power. Pool have to be over 600GH to have chance to make over 3 blocks per day and pay like it should.
NOW is best time to join p2pool ;]

Yeah, but who gonna pay for extra 300Gh/s of GPU hashpower? As we know, FPGA are useless on p2pool

Bullshit: the last block I found on p2pool was with a Spartan6, they work perfectly on p2pool. Only BFL FPGAs are useless on p2pool

not quite true, u can even use BFL FPGA's with p2pool if you use cgminer in combination with --bfl-range

Quote from: crazy_rabbit on February 28, 2013, 08:11:22 AM

Quote from: hamdi on February 26, 2013, 12:39:25 AM

i always liked vircurex for its appearance and diversity,
but i always wondered why not much is going on there.

The interface isn't nice. People can't see any graphs/charts and have to enter everything rather manually. With a nicer layout and interface, I'm sure it would take off.

so ur blind or why cant u see the "graphs/charts"? just wondering.

just use Armory, can even be the same wallet (then u have to use Coin Control) Wink

Quote from: MoneypakTrader.com on February 24, 2013, 02:04:31 AM

Quote from: etotheipi on November 19, 2012, 12:44:16 AM

Quote from: Red Emerald on November 18, 2012, 07:49:25 PM

I'm in offline mode, but it looks like it still tried to check http://bitcoinarmory.com/versions.txt. You should also sign versions.txt, and maybe check https instead.

Yeah, I'm not that advanced yet. I don't have an SSL cert for the site, [...] I should do all this, but it's not my priority, yet.

I'll donate $10 BTC if you implement SSL (https) on your site for downloading your client and another $5 BTC if you support connecting to a btc client that uses a proxy to connect.
PM if you implement this.
Same goes for bitcoin.org, how can they distribute banking software without https/ssl connections to the download?!?!

the proxy stuff isnt related to armory, its a bitcoind/qt thing.
just put "listen=1" without the " on a newline in ur bitcoin.conf and u can use any proxy u want (tor, etc, everything works).
do i get 5BTC now? Tongue

Quote from: dollarbill on February 24, 2013, 01:54:19 AM

Hi K1773R, I don't know anything about writing or editing code. Where do I find or add "listen=1"
Thanks

in the bitcoin.conf

Quote from: dollarbill on February 24, 2013, 12:53:48 AM

When I try to use Armory with TOR, Armory stays in the Offline mode and says that Bitcoin isn't running--when in fact it is. BTW I'm using Armory 0.87 on a Windows 7 laptop with 8 gigs of RAM. Armory works fine when I use Bitcoin with a commercial VPN. I know this subject was discussed recently on this thread (pp 86-87) but I don't think a definite solution was proposed. Also I'm a real noob--can't write a line of code. Can anyone tell me how they've gotten Armory to work with TOR in a "For Dummies" format.
Many thanks.

over and over again... listen=1

Quote from: Evan on February 23, 2013, 04:39:02 PM

HAVING AN ISSUE WITH .42 AND .44 WHERE PROCESSOR SHOWS WORK BUT CONSON SHOWS NOTHING GOING TO MY ACCOUNTS? Huh

??

UFA ARE YOU AVAILABLE FOR CHAT?

WRITE IN CAPSLOCK SO OTHERS HELP U FASTER AND USE ALOT OF ? TO MAKE IT MORE IMPORTANT.

well done, u just made it on my ignore list Tongue

well, i got 1 instance running. thats enough Wink

virtual interface, so it has all the port availabe (besides ssh)
iptables in the kernel as usual, altough a FW cant restrict me from listening on a interface, so dosnt matter.

EDIT: still, all this dosnt matter since bbqcoind NEVER does the bind() call for the RPC port.

fresh VM, of course there is no instance running and the port isnt already maped to something.
according to strace, bbqcoind never trys to setup a port to listen on. funny

now i got the next problem:

Code:

Error: An error occured while setting up the RPC port 19322 for listening: Cannot assign requested address

altough, there is nothing blocking this port.
i had this once with litecoind too, dunno how i fixed it...

EDIT 1: wait, i think its because i did build without UPNP, thats how i fixed it @ litecoind
EDIT 2: err, still dosnt work...

my fault then, did look at the bitcoin checkpoints.cpp.
thougd there has to be the hash of the block.
let me compile it and try to sync, will see if it works

sry, was kinda stressed because the hashes where still wrong.
why scrolling trough debug.log? use grep for it, saves time.
the hash in the debug.log u mention is not a block, its the PoW (proof of work) which was below the target, out of this a new block has been made.