Bitcoin Forum
May 07, 2024, 11:22:18 AM *
News: Latest Bitcoin Core release: 27.0 [Torrent]
 
  Home Help Search Login Register More  
  Show Posts
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 »
1  Bitcoin / Armory / Re: Using Armory on the BCH chain on: January 05, 2018, 11:19:45 PM
Spent quite a long time with bitcoin-abc-0.16.2 and armory 0.96.3.991 and trying to get it to work.

This combo throws in the bitcoind log.
2018-01-04 21:34:48 PROCESSMESSAGE: INVALID MESSAGESTART version peer=0

However, bitcoin-abc-0.16.1 and armory 0.96.3.991 allows the connection to happen:
2018-01-05 07:11:02 receive version message: [127.0.0.1:34586] Armory:0.96.3.991: version 70012, blocks=-1, us=127.0.0.1:8333, peer=0

Just a heads up to others. I believe something changed in the bitcoin-abc repo around 12/3/2017 surrounding this PROCESSMESSAGE output.
2  Bitcoin / Armory / Re: 0.96.2 Freezes When Opening Coin Control Menu on: January 05, 2018, 08:25:51 PM
Quote from: bertoch on November 16, 2017, 08:15:31 PM
Quote
You need to remove line 'ccDlgGeometry' from ArmorySettings.txt
Had the same problem for 0.96.3.99 and removing that line helped.

Same problem for 0.96.3.991 (updated to see if it was fixed) but removing that line helped me too.
3  Bitcoin / Group buys / Re: Update from Soniq on: December 18, 2015, 10:54:15 PM
Quote from: markj113 on December 12, 2015, 08:19:18 PM
Quote from: agibby5 on December 11, 2015, 11:59:29 PM
Any update? I was never reached to help with orchestrate the last payout.

Talk about bringing a thread back from the dead lol

How could I not bring it back?  It needs to be never forgotten.
4  Bitcoin / Group buys / Re: Update from Soniq on: December 11, 2015, 11:59:29 PM
Any update? I was never reached to help with orchestrate the last payout.
5  Bitcoin / Hardware / Re: The Habanero Project - Third Party HF Mining Board on: April 11, 2014, 01:14:57 AM
Quote from: Colour Salute on April 09, 2014, 07:57:51 PM
What's the price you guys are aiming for ?

Ping
6  Bitcoin / Group buys / Re: [Group Buy]12 KNCminer Jupiter's 15 Sold [Closed] Jupiter Pool on: April 08, 2014, 07:01:56 PM
Quote from: soniq on April 08, 2014, 06:56:39 PM
We have made a list of addresses that will be getting a hosting refund here https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AtH6ASvoAExHdF9IcFh3QmQ2dEt4Zk5qT3lRUDFDTVE&usp=drive_web#gid=45

Please verify that you have access to the address you paid the hosting payment with.  Will process hosting refund  payment tomorrow at noon.


Cheers

P.S.  As there still is no clarification from KnC on shipping the Jupiters at the end of the month, next mining payment will be suspended till they respond. Which hopefully will be soon.


we don't want to change any refund addresses unless there's a legitamate reason. everyone should have access to their refundTo address.
7  Bitcoin / Group buys / Re: [Group Buy]12 KNCminer Jupiter's 15 Sold [Closed] Jupiter Pool on: April 01, 2014, 10:20:29 PM
I was asked to look at the hosting payment refunds. I created this sheet: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AtH6ASvoAExHdF9IcFh3QmQ2dEt4Zk5qT3lRUDFDTVE&usp=drive_web#gid=45

It may be a little confusing, but I made a script which dumped out the data and then i created some columns for cross checking to make sure the amounts are okay and there was no variance.  Also, I dumped if they were a shareholder or not.  If not, I also added a column to see if the address to which we'd make a hosting payment refund to has a 0 balance. If so, these addresses may be problematic in that the end user may not have access to the address or no longer use the address. 14/38 of the accounts are such accounts totalling about 24 BTC of the 40.12 BTC to be refunded. Please review this when you have time.
8  Bitcoin / Group buys / Re: [Group Buy]12 KNCminer Jupiter's 15 Sold [Closed] Jupiter Pool on: March 21, 2014, 09:44:45 PM
In the group's interest...

I'm not trying to undermine Larry, but rather just trying to be fair.  If I went along with this, I wouldn't sleep right at night so here I am.

Larry adamantly doesn't want to convert the NMC to BTC.  He wants to payout directly in NMC.  Converting to BTC makes the process about 99% easier.  Not only will we not have to keep track of the past payouts and keep a ledger like we do with BTC, we will ensure everyone gets paid out their share.  Larry refuses to solicit a vote on this and is using an executive decision to payout NMC directly even though most people haven't linked their addresses.   I do understand that a formal vote would take a while to complete.

I haven't done any real analysis on this but it looks like 32 users have linked their addresses and there are way more than 32 shareholders in this group.  There's probably around 125 members in the group.  So maybe 25% of the group has linked their NMC to their BTC address. This concerns me greatly.

Here's the list: http://bitcoinfun.ca/nmcsign/viewlist.html

We can look at that as a vote and assume only ~25% (more or less) want to be paid out directly in NMC. You can argue that we could payout that subset of memberes their share in NMC and convert the rest and pay those out in BTC... but that this becomes unnecessarily complicated and I don't want to spend the time discovering and working out the kinks.  If we payout in NMC to the subset of members, who gets the rest of the NMC?  Do we incorrectly split the entire amount among the people who supplied their NMC addresses?  

I say we should convert them to BTC and add them to the mining income address and payout as a BTC dividend.  This covers all the bases.  There's a fee to do this at an exchange, but it's minimal especially when spread out across the entire group.

An example if we did it right now...
Amount NMC: 3671.53861891   
Price per NMC: 0.00479 BTC
Total: 17.58667 BTC
Fee:   0.0352 BTC

Converting to BTC does have risk like what if NMC doubles tomorrow compared to BTC?  Well, at least everyone got their payout today. No one can predict the future.

Larry's point was getting flak about exactly when to convert.  In other words, he doesn't want to be responsible if he picked the wrong time to convert BTC to NMC.  I think it's pointless to worry about this at this point in the game. You could argue that we should have been paying out NMC all along... but if we had, less than 25% of the group would have registered their NMC addy.

Thoughts?
9  Economy / Service Announcements / Re: AntMiner S2 $3599 || AntMiner S1 0.988 BTC NINJATECH.ORG -BITMAIN'S DISTRIBUTOR on: March 20, 2014, 01:42:58 AM
Quote from: greaterninja on March 20, 2014, 12:11:35 AM
Quote from: Todamont on March 20, 2014, 12:03:11 AM
It seems odd to me that the 1TH/s miner is priced at approx 6 btc, for a pre-order to April 10th, when for the same amount you could get 6 Antminer S1, with a higher total hashrate, for the same price, shipped from stock. Shouldn't there be a price incentive for the newer pre-order stuff?




Hello Todamont,

The new miner has more chips.  So it has the potential for a higher overclock OR much less power draw.

That is where the profitability will come from.

V/R,

GreaterNinja

Or... they're just new and they are taking advantage of pent up demand?
10  Bitcoin / Hardware / Re: Visit of ASICMINER's Immersion Cooling Mining Facility on: March 05, 2014, 04:49:51 PM
Plus, I'm sure Asicminer hardware is profitable for MUCH longer for the manufacturer than it is for the retail purchaser.  They probably haven't upgraded this stuff yet, while most smaller miners have had to dump this hardware long ago.
11  Bitcoin / Group buys / Re: [Group Buy]12 KNCminer Jupiter's 15 Sold [Closed] Jupiter Pool on: February 27, 2014, 08:41:55 PM
Quote from: dutu on February 27, 2014, 06:56:20 PM
Hi aggiby,

Please let us know when the amount (and the additional mining income post this date) will be paid out to shareholders.


I cannot answer this... I have not heard from him for 3 days and he dropped off quickly that day. I talked to him at length 4 days ago. I reached out to him a few times since then though.
12  Bitcoin / Group buys / Re: [Group Buy]12 KNCminer Jupiter's 15 Sold [Closed] Jupiter Pool on: February 25, 2014, 03:29:53 AM
There's another issue that came up... hosting refunds/penalties and how to handle the 40.7 BTC Larry paid out of his personal account.  Currently, this amount is distributed across various GB members directly out of mining income. However, we would need to debit soniq's account for the 40.7 so that it balances with the credits to the member's accounts. At first, I thought it should all go back to soniq, but people did pay into that account (1NaE9oXe9ZkCUrhtEPTFGU4HbUqZXVanGw).

Quote
[9:18:27 PM] agibby5: you got 105 from bitfunder
[9:18:34 PM] agibby5: it was in your own wallet address
[9:18:38 PM] Larry/soniq: yes
[9:18:41 PM] agibby5: you paid that AND 41 of your own BTC to KNC for the initial hosting fee?
[9:18:45 PM] Larry/soniq: yes
[9:19:10 PM] agibby5: and then you booked it as an expense
[9:19:20 PM] agibby5: and took it off the top of the mining income
[9:19:29 PM] Larry/soniq: yes
[9:19:49 PM] agibby5: i feel like your account should be then credited for that 41 btc
[9:20:16 PM] agibby5: but you paid the 146 out of mining income i thought?
[9:20:31 PM] Larry/soniq: well that what I am not sure about? I have a tough time wrapping my head around all the complexities that happened
[9:21:16 PM] Larry/soniq: I paid the 146 BTC out of my original wallet, you cannot sellect a payment address to send payments
[9:21:33 PM] Larry/soniq: so 146 BTC came from the baalnce in my wallet


Here's that transaction of 146 to KNC we're referring to: https://blockchain.info/tx/e8db2d85774fe0c6defe45fb1d7851c2b7cd2fd81a87b6b76981a6ed599ce461

EDIT: I talked to espen about this, and people did pay into the hosting address.  Basically, we would need to debit soniq's account for the 40.7 and credit everyone's account for their share of the 40.7 so it balances and has absolutely no impact on the mining income.  I deleted the rest of this post as it had severely incorrect information.
13  Bitcoin / Group buys / Re: [Group Buy]12 KNCminer Jupiter's 15 Sold [Closed] Jupiter Pool on: February 24, 2014, 09:17:47 PM
Quote from: MilkyLep on February 24, 2014, 09:16:25 PM
Quote from: dutu on February 19, 2014, 07:44:07 PM

Here is the file posted by soniq which I have verified: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AtH6ASvoAExHdF9IcFh3QmQ2dEt4Zk5qT3lRUDFDTVE&usp=drive_web&pli=1#gid=24 


I step out and return to find out this is more convoluted than what appeared at first glance.

I take it the prorated amounts still need to be paid out since they are not in the ledger? I fear because I moved share(s) to BF then purchased more my payments could be off, although it becomes increasingly difficult to solve as time goes on.

Soniq, what is your take on the GB1 & GB2 mixture of mining funds from the beginning and how will this be resolved?

We understand things come up, especially family emergencies, but we need to hear a solidified date when this situation will be resolved with a true timeline.

Did you read any of my posts?
14  Bitcoin / Group buys / Re: [Group Buy]12 KNCminer Jupiter's 15 Sold [Closed] Jupiter Pool on: February 24, 2014, 06:27:40 PM
Quote from: equipoise on February 24, 2014, 07:13:54 AM
Quote from: agibby5 on February 24, 2014, 02:20:51 AM
I agree. EVERYONE, particularly those who have changed their addresses at some point, should definitely be reviewing their own accounts in the ledger and make sure the payouts have been correct. With that information, it's generally easy to lookup if something was missing, especially where payment addresses have changed.  There shouldn't be many of these situations. It appears the change initiated with Ben's addresses was bad timing.
There is no GB1 prorated share price adjustment for my shares too. 1PW6xey6xQex1kJZMkAJvXouoGzeorfqVq

This does not apply to Bitfunder shares
15  Bitcoin / Group buys / Re: [Group Buy]12 KNCminer Jupiter's 15 Sold [Closed] Jupiter Pool on: February 24, 2014, 02:20:51 AM
Quote from: BenTuras on January 31, 2014, 10:40:57 PM
Quote from: BenTuras on January 30, 2014, 08:43:31 AM
How can the books be balanced if it's so clear that some of the participants never got their refund for the share price/jupiter purchase price difference ?
I ask this again, and now more specific to one participant (it's me):
These are my transactions on the last sheet, that horrid mess on Ledger Jan 20/14:

Code:
	1Ji6RWCLiBDK4mJx5szy8XBiSV3h9feRfr	1Ji6RWCLiBDK4mJx5szy8XBiSV3h9feRfr	-3.49282052	https://blockchain.info/tx/9074bdc9df9a46ea7f5d296885f66847e0964c92dd4ab4fa3da14eb54dbf91ec
	1Ji6RWCLiBDK4mJx5szy8XBiSV3h9feRfr	1Ji6RWCLiBDK4mJx5szy8XBiSV3h9feRfr	-10.6937631	https://blockchain.info/tx/ef13b0e1aae1d1fd8a6773a9f222ac5ae1d4122c839976d3dd8a434b1e350c5d
	1Ji6RWCLiBDK4mJx5szy8XBiSV3h9feRfr	1Ji6RWCLiBDK4mJx5szy8XBiSV3h9feRfr	-3.49282052	https://blockchain.info/tx/29b0b50d92b6bc240a62cccc804f0c40c08a235b27d1677bc5d8240b34ca19c5
	1Ji6RWCLiBDK4mJx5szy8XBiSV3h9feRfr	1Ji6RWCLiBDK4mJx5szy8XBiSV3h9feRfr	-0.01070447	https://blockchain.info/tx/2b43e9a81196fda1ccbbdae258a519c1dde535a86d3f03a2f45ca6bd68f1958d
	1Ji6RWCLiBDK4mJx5szy8XBiSV3h9feRfr	1Ji6RWCLiBDK4mJx5szy8XBiSV3h9feRfr	-10.47846154	https://blockchain.info/tx/a218e3583f0571377ef29fded24d47147c6820c6040ec1f07b8c2dd91e96f6d5
	1Ji6RWCLiBDK4mJx5szy8XBiSV3h9feRfr	1Ji6RWCLiBDK4mJx5szy8XBiSV3h9feRfr	-3.49282051	https://blockchain.info/tx/2aa34458daf0928789629d174424a8dd18e937550e0f49b18b958faeecf8f40e
	1Ji6RWCLiBDK4mJx5szy8XBiSV3h9feRfr	1Ji6RWCLiBDK4mJx5szy8XBiSV3h9feRfr	-1.78133844	https://blockchain.info/tx/32279ab5df9fd2b327500949fd0b5bcadda47d6f36cbf3283dbb11519f506436
	1Ji6RWCLiBDK4mJx5szy8XBiSV3h9feRfr	1Ji6RWCLiBDK4mJx5szy8XBiSV3h9feRfr	-3.49282052	https://blockchain.info/tx/4d3ea5ba035605af59e2c2c57089a5f0b1f674e58306345b34d515d8b24ff247
	1Ji6RWCLiBDK4mJx5szy8XBiSV3h9feRfr	1Ji6RWCLiBDK4mJx5szy8XBiSV3h9feRfr	4.54066667	GB1: 0.98 * 85 * 15/17 / 45000 compensation * (2780) shares
	1Ji6RWCLiBDK4mJx5szy8XBiSV3h9feRfr	1Ji6RWCLiBDK4mJx5szy8XBiSV3h9feRfr	2.67098039	GB1: 0.98 * 50 BTC mined * 15/17 / 45000 mined * (2780) shares
	1Ji6RWCLiBDK4mJx5szy8XBiSV3h9feRfr	1Ji6RWCLiBDK4mJx5szy8XBiSV3h9feRfr	24.44974359	0.98 * 700 BTC mined split between 78000 shares. Payment for (2780) shares
	1Ji6RWCLiBDK4mJx5szy8XBiSV3h9feRfr	1Ji6RWCLiBDK4mJx5szy8XBiSV3h9feRfr	4.57559487	As of 12/29/2013: 0.98 * 131 BTC mined split between 78000 shares. Payment for (2780) shares
	1Ji6RWCLiBDK4mJx5szy8XBiSV3h9feRfr	1Ji6RWCLiBDK4mJx5szy8XBiSV3h9feRfr	0.6985641	As of 01/20/2014: 0.98 * 20 BTC mined split between 78000 shares. Payment for (2780) shares
	1Ji6RWCLiBDK4mJx5szy8XBiSV3h9feRfr Sum		0

There is no prorated share price adjustment transaction. Many other participants do have one.

Now have a look at the tab Updated Balance Sheet in the excel sheet KNC Balance sheet. Search my name, Turas and go to column O, prorated. I see an amount of 2.43256 BTC, being the compensation you calculated for me.
If I calculate the compensation, I get this: share price I paid(2.25) -/- the Cost per share(2.159223) * number of shares(25): 25 * (2.25-2.159223) = 2.2694. The compensation you calculated and the one I just specified differ.
1. Can you explain the difference ?
2. Can you show me the transaction in which you refund me the compensation you calculated ?
Thanks.


So basically, it looks like your address was changed as a member of this GB at some point or another.  You old one had the amount credited in teh system, but wasn't paid out because the change occurred before the first payout.

It looks like the address in the spreadsheet is this: 19ZdYEyjVCWnGPSqQyinrQXTedCjfAsV8e
Spreadsheet I'm referring to: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AtH6ASvoAExHdHRmNnY1Qm9xTWM1aHhyU09sdVRsNFE&usp=drive_web#gid=6
But in the ledger is this: 1Ji6RWCLiBDK4mJx5szy8XBiSV3h9feRfr
Ledger I'm referring to: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AtH6ASvoAExHdF9IcFh3QmQ2dEt4Zk5qT3lRUDFDTVE&usp=drive_web#gid=33

I fixed this and it will go out during the next dividend payment.


Quote from: BenTuras on February 10, 2014, 07:23:31 AM
Quote from: MilkyLep on February 10, 2014, 07:11:57 AM
@Ben and dutu, did you ever receive further response to your requests/questions?
None outside the forum messages, which only answer part of the questions.
My biggest question is the missing refunds for the jupiter purchase price versus share purchase price difference, which is over 2.2BTC for me for example. Soniq has ignored my questions about this missing refunds. I think everyone should check if they deserve a refund and got it or not.

I agree. EVERYONE, particularly those who have changed their addresses at some point, should definitely be reviewing their own accounts in the ledger and make sure the payouts have been correct. With that information, it's generally easy to lookup if something was missing, especially where payment addresses have changed.  There shouldn't be many of these situations. It appears the change initiated with Ben's addresses was bad timing.
16  Bitcoin / Group buys / Re: [Group Buy]12 KNCminer Jupiter's 15 Sold [Closed] Jupiter Pool on: February 20, 2014, 09:40:21 PM
Quote from: dutu on February 19, 2014, 07:44:07 PM

Hi Soniq and group members,

Here come part two of the report on my analysis of Soniq’s balance sheet and dividend payouts.
This verification and the report posed here is for Soniq’s balance sheet and transactions on the transactions up to Jan 31.

Here is the file posted by soniq which I have verified: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AtH6ASvoAExHdF9IcFh3QmQ2dEt4Zk5qT3lRUDFDTVE&usp=drive_web&pli=1#gid=24  


This is the excel file I have produced with verification calculations and results: http://1drv.ms/1d0t1j2


(1) I have looked at “Dividend Payment Balance Sheet” in soniq’s file

(Line 6)   Total Mining income  Received: 1332,890284
(Line 14) Total Expenses: 211,2304057

Total BTC to be paid out 1121,65987854


(2) I have looked at “Ledger Jan 31_14” sheet in soniq’s file (and have copied original sheet into my file so I can color it)

Positive values (column D) consist of
•   Mined coins that have been paid out
•   Other stuff that has been paid out (refunded hosting payments, share price adjustments, private loans, 2% management fee)

(Negative values are the bitcoin transactions to users)


Let us take an example to clarify and we exemplify with a random user:

[img-]https://9ncosq.bn1302.livefilestore.com/y2pBKS5epy1p5mfG6g5fE6kYDkIbjb7kavouEbv829TQqf4V_mXss9Jo8BzFtZ_bNoD7H9aUIX-abR3PM_-iW7HFz8vRs06BD3-HxepI5NakDA/Capture.JPG?psid=1[/img]


The user he has been paid out:

0,66000000    Refunded hosting payment (line 368)
0,28645000    GB1 prorated share price adjustment (line 369)
4,28738914 Mined coins (lines 370-275 marked in green)


I have applied a filter to sum all mined coins that have been paid out (green lines).

The sum of the mined coins that have been paid out to all users is 1044,68000011 BTC.

However, total BTC to be paid out is 1121,65987854 BTC

1121,65987854 - 1044,68000011 = 76,97987843

To conclude, up to Jan 31, there is still 76,97987843 BTC mining income received that Soniq has missed to pay out.






I ran though this with dutu. I'm not going to post the convo, because we went down several trains of thought and went into several different issues. It's a complicated chat to follow.

Here's my analysis which ends up coming to the same conclusion.  We cannot consider refunds, penalties, other nonmining payouts to be part of mining payouts.  

Here's my math in sheet "Dividend Payment Balance Sheet" on lines 17 through 26: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AtH6ASvoAExHdF9IcFh3QmQ2dEt4Zk5qT3lRUDFDTVE&usp=drive_web#gid=31

We come to the exact same conclusion that mining income of 1044.68 has been paid out.

What absolutely complicates this matter is that the ledger has all these personal loans, and nonmining transactions going on... which leads to this (and some other) problems.  More to come later.  

This concludes and fixes the missing 76 BTC...  the spreadsheet is now up to date and shows 128.752061356 to be paid out.
17  Bitcoin / Group buys / Re: [Group Buy]12 KNCminer Jupiter's 15 Sold [Closed] Jupiter Pool on: February 19, 2014, 10:06:40 PM
Quote from: equipoise on February 19, 2014, 10:02:25 PM
dutu: You are perfectly right.
agibby5: It seems you don't have a clue how and when Eligius mining pool is sending the coins mined. Please read the Eligius FAQ (at least) and come back: http://eligius.st/~gateway/faq-page

I didn't ask for any criticism of my understanding... but thank you for reaffirming dutu's point.  At least I followed and came to the same understanding at the end.  If we get more people to understand this, I think soniq has this adjustment to make.

I guess that's what you get for being transparent though.
18  Bitcoin / Group buys / Re: [Group Buy]12 KNCminer Jupiter's 15 Sold [Closed] Jupiter Pool on: February 19, 2014, 09:33:42 PM
I had a chat with dutu about the question that GB2 members may owe GB1 members... here's the entire chat.

The cell references are in regards to this spreadsheet: http://1drv.ms/1d0t1j2

Basically the answer is the timing that the pools paid out fell into the territory of time where GB2 machines had joined, but the income was accrued when only GB1 machines were active.  Read below.  Please comment.

Quote
Wednesday, February 19, 2014
[3:29:16 AM] agibby5: anyway, i wanted to ask what the whole GB2 owes GB1 calculation is about?
[3:29:18 AM] dutu: i think i missed that
[3:29:20 AM] agibby5: i don't follow that at all
[3:29:37 AM] agibby5: and i don't see how you can assume that expected earnings are == actual earnings
[3:29:38 AM] dutu: i think it's easy to explain
[3:29:55 AM] agibby5: i mean, do you have proof that soniq was mining to other addresses?
[3:30:02 AM] agibby5: that's the only way i can see that happening
[3:30:06 AM] dutu: no i think he wasn't
[3:30:17 AM] dutu: what happened is:
[3:30:22 AM] agibby5: otherwise, the payouts are the payouts and you can see them in teh addresses via recieved btc
[3:30:29 AM] dutu: GB1 started mining before GB2
[3:30:55 AM] dutu: GB! should have been paid for all this mining income which was when only GB1 was mining
[3:30:57 AM] dutu: right?
[3:31:56 AM] dutu: the fact is GB1 has not been paid for all this income, as pard of this income has arrived at soniq wallet later
[3:32:05 AM] dutu: and then it was split between GB1 and GB2
[3:32:21 AM] dutu: when it should only been sent to GB1 users
[3:32:26 AM] dutu: does it make sense?
[3:33:09 AM] agibby5: yea. i follow that
[3:33:22 AM] agibby5: but when i look at your spreadsheet, it indicates alot of "expected" income
[3:33:29 AM] agibby5: but expected results are not equal to actual ones
[3:33:49 AM] dutu: yes, that is the estimated income
[3:34:14 AM] dutu: estimated theoretical income based on the Jupiter hash power
[3:34:35 AM] dutu: and this is in line whit what we have received in soniq's wallet
[3:34:52 AM] agibby5: but GB2 members can't makeup for any variance to actual vs expected income recieved by GB1 members
[3:34:53 AM] dutu: this is why I am saying i believe he hes not mined anywhere else
[3:36:00 AM] dutu: can you repeat the question please?
[3:36:23 AM] agibby5: you cannot take mining income from GB2+ members to pay for any variance related to actual results for any GB1 members
[3:36:26 AM] agibby5: example:
[3:36:37 AM] agibby5: say GB1 was expected to earn 100 btc, but they earned 85 instead
[3:36:48 AM] agibby5: and now GB2 gets on board, and they earn 200 now combined
[3:36:49 AM] dutu: ok, one sec
[3:36:56 AM] agibby5: you cannot take the 15 btc out of the new 200
[3:37:08 AM] agibby5: because GB1 didn't really earn that in teh first place
[3:37:22 AM] agibby5: btw, i'm in GB1 so i would love a bump Smiley Smiley
[3:37:29 AM] dutu: let us go one step back
[3:37:30 AM] agibby5: please convice me Smiley
[3:38:15 AM] dutu: column G "expected amount" is the theoretical mining income based on Jupiter has rate, ok?
[3:38:27 AM] dutu: now look at line 38
[3:38:55 AM] dutu: it shows that the theoretical mining income is equal with the actual mining income
[3:39:12 AM] dutu: good, then we have concluded that
[3:39:31 AM] dutu: 1) theoretical mining income is a good estimate
[3:39:47 AM] dutu: 2) soniq has not mined somewhere else
[3:39:53 AM] dutu: next:
[3:41:19 AM] dutu: line 26 shows that received amount is much hi=hers the expected amount to be mined during that period
[3:41:22 AM] dutu: why?
[3:41:51 AM] dutu: because the coins received were coins mined during thet period + coins mined during previous period
[3:42:34 AM] dutu: late transfer of coins is also shown by negative values in colum g on lines 24 and 25
[3:43:09 AM] dutu: taht is coind mined during periods in line 24 and 25 were only received during the period on line 26
[3:43:11 AM] dutu: got it?
[3:44:38 AM] dutu: btw, we can chat on the group chat if you want i don't mind
[3:45:25 AM] agibby5: i do, but it seems like you can't keep balancing between GB1 and GB2 members. for example, how do you fix the lines 29 and 34?
[3:45:55 AM] agibby5: i guess my question is, at what point do you assume that GB1 and GB2 shares payout equally during that dividend payout?
[3:47:31 AM] dutu: i'm not sure if I understand the question
[3:48:09 AM] agibby5: at what point should soniq assume that payout of shares for GB1 and GB2 are the same?
[3:48:16 AM] agibby5: is it line 25?
[3:48:24 AM] agibby5: if so, then you can't go to line 26, and send a "rebate" to GB1
[3:48:47 AM] agibby5: if it's line 26, then you can argue that GB2 also earned a bit less because of line 25s lower income
[3:48:49 AM] dutu: no you don't do it at every line and I agree with you you cant
[3:49:24 AM] dutu: becuase the mined bitcoin is not coming to the wallet in real time
[3:49:57 AM] agibby5: i just take issue what what you're saying a bit here... becuase it seems like you want to take income that's been recieved at the wallet when GB2 was in action and put it into GB1's hands.
[3:50:05 AM] agibby5: and that's hard to explain to people
[3:50:13 AM] agibby5: i think i understand now... but I don't know how it'd be justified
[3:50:26 AM] agibby5: i believe it's due to mining variance, right?
[3:50:31 AM] agibby5: everyone shoulders that risk
[3:50:46 AM] dutu: well, that's a small amount per user anyway
[3:50:54 AM] agibby5: what's the real difference?
[3:51:12 AM] agibby5: do you see my point?
[3:51:12 AM] dutu: but the fact is mining income that should been received for line 24
[3:51:20 AM] agibby5: but it wasn't though
[3:51:28 AM] agibby5: variance showed us that we couldn't get that many coins
[3:51:40 AM] agibby5: but the next time period, the variance worked in our groups favor
[3:51:44 AM] dutu: has only been received during the period on line 26
[3:52:56 AM] dutu: the mistake soniq did was thet he didn not collected at wallet all the bitcoin mined before GB2 started to mine
[3:53:10 AM] agibby5: that's not his mistake
[3:53:15 AM] agibby5: that's the pool paying out at that time
[3:53:19 AM] agibby5: because it found the blocks when it did
[3:53:19 AM] dutu: and then when he received this income later he splited it between GB1 and GB2
[3:53:23 AM] agibby5: that's the definition of variance
[3:54:13 AM] dutu: hm... not sure about that
[3:54:42 AM] dutu: pools would pay per mining share and will not have such a big variance i believe
[3:55:37 AM] agibby5: what explains that income coming in later then?
[3:55:45 AM] agibby5: magic? Smiley
[3:57:03 AM] agibby5: despite my humor, that's a serious question
[3:57:11 AM] dutu: when did soniq stared to mine at Bitminter?
[3:57:38 AM] agibby5: offhand, i don't know. he would say that's public information and it could be found... but i don't know where.
[3:57:55 AM] dutu: on the Oct 16 we have the first payouts
[3:58:07 AM] agibby5: how about this? https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=226319.msg3364200;topicseen#msg3364200
[3:58:11 AM] dutu: of a total of 39.78 BTC
[3:58:50 AM] dutu: which means teh miners were mining
[3:58:58 AM] agibby5: that was oct 18th
[3:59:04 AM] dutu: but the payout address was only setup on the 16
[3:59:47 AM] agibby5: yes, first payments look like the 16ht
[3:59:48 AM] dutu: after that you have regular payments of ~5 BTC
[4:00:14 AM] agibby5: yeah, 16th it looks
[4:00:58 AM] dutu: which explains why you ahve a huge amout of coins received for the period on line 26
[4:01:16 AM] dutu: because some coins where mined before
[4:01:33 AM] agibby5: where did you get your figures?
[4:01:44 AM] dutu: what figures
[4:01:52 AM] dutu: teh transactions?
[4:01:54 AM] agibby5: in the spreadsheet
[4:01:58 AM] dutu: from the blockchain
[4:02:16 AM] agibby5: it looks wrong
[4:02:27 AM] agibby5: 10/16+ should be GB2+3 starting
[4:02:30 AM] agibby5: not the 15th
[4:02:37 AM] agibby5: right?
[4:02:52 AM] agibby5: and 10/15 is still part of the original 15 miners
[4:04:28 AM] dutu: as per soniq's information:
[4:04:38 AM] dutu: "Date reached advertised hashing rates"
[4:04:44 AM] dutu: GB2, GB3
[4:04:48 AM] dutu: 10/15/2013
[4:04:55 AM] dutu: this is what I have in the file
[4:05:19 AM] agibby5: i'm still unclear how this happened
[4:05:25 AM] agibby5: if it's not variance, what is it
[4:05:29 AM] dutu: but if something is wrong i can correct
[4:06:01 AM] agibby5: for example, i buy a car that says it can get 25miles per gallon. sometimes it gets 32, sometimes it gets 17
[4:06:27 AM] agibby5: can i call the manufacturer of the car or the builder of the road to complain when I get 17?
[4:06:36 AM] dutu: Smiley
[4:07:33 AM] dutu: are you saying one day the jupiter is hasing 100oGHS and another day at 300?
[4:07:42 AM] dutu: i don't get the analogy
[4:07:43 AM] agibby5: no, i'm trying to come up with an analogy
[4:07:57 AM] agibby5: but i wonder this...
[4:08:20 AM] agibby5: i know larry was switching pools a few times and trying to let everything settle during those first few days. people weren't happy with teh output
[4:08:24 AM] agibby5: maybe that's what caused it
[4:08:32 AM] dutu: cause of what?
[4:08:56 AM] agibby5: so yes, on average, i'm guessing perhaps that this would be attributed to teh lower income... hence the lower hash output because the miners weren't hashing 100% of the time due to switching pools?
[4:09:14 AM] dutu: yes, this is understandable
[4:09:15 AM] agibby5: i'm asking you what, other than variance would cause this
[4:09:33 AM] agibby5: and along the way, i'm trying to think of reasons and making up analogies that i can understand
[4:09:35 AM] dutu: OK,
[4:09:56 AM] dutu: as you can see the payout from bitminter at least is done every ~5 btc
[4:10:04 AM] dutu: if you mine 7.5 btc a day
[4:10:10 AM] agibby5: it looks like 5, then it jumps to 7.2 i think for the next few
[4:10:14 AM] dutu: one day you get 5 the second day you get 10
[4:11:03 AM] dutu: but in average and for a long period of time the value should reach close to the theoretical value
[4:11:25 AM] agibby5: yeah, this seems to be a prime example of luck and variance
[4:11:29 AM] dutu: now when mining income is verly low cvolume you'll probably see that variance is almost none
[4:11:37 AM] dutu: it's not luck
[4:11:44 AM] dutu: it's how the pool pays out
[4:11:52 AM] dutu: it doesn't pay out in real time
[4:12:01 AM] dutu: it pays out in blocks of 5 for example
[4:12:06 AM] agibby5: yeah, it waits until it finds a block to satisfy those shares mined
[4:12:17 AM] agibby5: it cant payout without hvaing a block reward already found
[4:12:58 AM] dutu: regardeless, the average is the same
[4:13:38 AM] agibby5: if i had a machine in my house, i'd swallow that variance and i cannot call teh pool and complain
[4:13:43 AM] dutu: and you ahev it here
[4:13:43 AM] dutu: http://www.bitcoinx.com/profit/
[4:14:31 AM] dutu: well, I'm mining with my machines at home for quite a long time already... and have no variance
[4:14:48 AM] dutu: but the payment comes in portions
[4:14:57 AM] dutu: one day 5 the next day 10
[4:15:11 AM] dutu: because they pay every 5
[4:15:19 AM] agibby5: so how do you explain and convince GB2+ members that GB1 members deserve a portion of the payouts they generated?
[4:15:42 AM] agibby5: because i think the expected/theoretical comparison doesn't work
[4:15:50 AM] dutu: GB1 do not deserve portion GB2 has generated
[4:16:44 AM] agibby5: where does the "adjustment" amount come from?
[4:16:51 AM] agibby5: the later earnings of GB1 machines?
[4:17:41 AM] dutu: the adjustement comes from coins mined by GB1 which were not receiving the walled before the 16
[4:17:43 AM] agibby5: if you make a sheet with that info, i think that proves your point.
[4:17:58 AM] agibby5: you'd have to do a sheet of the GB1 income only
[4:18:17 AM] agibby5: the GB2 mix i think confuses things too much
[4:18:48 AM] dutu: cell E24 is amount recived at wallet by GB1
[4:19:02 AM] dutu: this is too low
[4:19:30 AM] dutu: because the coins were received on the 16, that is cell E26 which is too high
[4:19:32 AM] agibby5: if you can show that they earned 5 btc on day 1, and 10 on day X... but day X payouts were distributed incorrectly to GB2 members, then perhaps you have a point
[4:20:06 AM] agibby5: because it shouldnt take almost an hour long convo to hash this out
[4:20:12 AM] dutu: i can but i need the list of transactions from the account at the pool
[4:20:27 AM] agibby5: cant you use the blockchain?
[4:21:04 AM] agibby5: i think GB1 is the one payout address, and GB2+ is the other, right?
[4:21:19 AM] dutu: I ahve used the blockchain to show that for GB1 miners thay neve mot received the complete amount
[4:21:29 AM] dutu: 51 received
[4:21:33 AM] dutu: expected 85
[4:21:48 AM] dutu: the delta was received on the 16
[4:22:22 AM] dutu: but really i won't spend more time on this
[4:23:30 AM] dutu: I have received no feedbak
[4:23:37 AM] agibby5: so maybe i'm stupid, but why does it take me this long to undersatnd this? even with your spreadsheet and almost hour long convo
[4:23:41 AM] dutu: so what's the pojt to spend time and explain more
[4:23:59 AM] agibby5: you've not presented the data in an easy to understand way
[4:24:07 AM] agibby5: and convincing others is going to be tough
[4:24:15 AM] agibby5: you probably didnt get a reply becuase most peopel don't get it
[4:24:46 AM] dutu: that's soniq job to figure out correct payment
[4:24:49 AM] agibby5: i know larry didn't know what you were talking about
[4:25:08 AM] dutu: i'm sure he had zero interest to figure that out
[4:25:28 AM] agibby5: i didn't really follow it until we talked
[4:25:37 AM] dutu: and he will have zero interest to figure out he owns us 76 BTC
[4:25:58 AM] agibby5: so basically the answer is the timing that the pools paid out fell into the territory of time where GB2 had joined, but the income was accrued when only GB1 was active?
[4:26:12 AM] dutu: correct
19  Bitcoin / Mining software (miners) / Re: [ANN] Eloipool - FAST Python3 pool server software - GBT/stratum/dyntarget/proxy on: February 18, 2014, 09:37:39 PM
Quote from: valsha on February 18, 2014, 06:41:49 PM
Quote from: agibby5 on February 18, 2014, 03:31:28 PM
Quote from: valsha on February 18, 2014, 11:53:21 AM
Quote from: kinlo on January 19, 2014, 03:11:26 PM
eloipool only supports sha256, basically only bitcoin is supported.
all cryptocurrency sha256 is supported ? or ONLY bitcoin ??
Thank you.

alt sha256s work well too. you need to change the UpstreamNetworkId in the config though to match the alt.

Code:
# Network ID for the primary blockchain
# Other known network IDs can be found at:
#     https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Protocol_specification#Message_structure
UpstreamNetworkId = b'\x0b\x11\x09\x07'  # testnet3
Thank you.
Let say i need to run bitcoin and continuum, all sha256 based.
I need to run 2 separate copies Eloipool?

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=61731.msg3807307#msg3807307
20  Bitcoin / Mining software (miners) / Re: [ANN] Eloipool - FAST Python3 pool server software - GBT/stratum/dyntarget/proxy on: February 18, 2014, 03:31:28 PM
Quote from: valsha on February 18, 2014, 11:53:21 AM
Quote from: kinlo on January 19, 2014, 03:11:26 PM
eloipool only supports sha256, basically only bitcoin is supported.
all cryptocurrency sha256 is supported ? or ONLY bitcoin ??
Thank you.

alt sha256s work well too. you need to change the UpstreamNetworkId in the config though to match the alt.

Code:
# Network ID for the primary blockchain
# Other known network IDs can be found at:
#     https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Protocol_specification#Message_structure
UpstreamNetworkId = b'\x0b\x11\x09\x07'  # testnet3
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 »
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!