|
At this difficulty, I'm not sure this pool is sustainable at this hash rate.
80 hours per block (average) is way too much variance. I feel like I am losing money mining here and it is my own pool.
But the last thing I want to do is shut it down. There are not enough pools and too much mining power is in too few.
|
|
|
|
|
It is entirely possible that I should look at bitcoin addresses beyond the first three characters and everyone should ignore this thread.
168JPchhq3U8GMj89ht21FYPV9eX3Xf3kp != 168hbE5b23GprdVS1xovBXfUhpXGVJyKhX
|
|
|
|
|
commands.py 260:
for k, v in self.wallet.labels.items():
if change_addr and v == change_addr:
change_addr = k
This is probably it. I think this is saying if one of the inputs is a change address, just use it as the output change address.
|
|
|
|
|
Offending bit seems to be:
wallet.py, line 1206:
change_addr = self.accounts[account].get_addresses(1)[-self.gap_limit_for_change]
Read that as, get address from chain 1 (change chain) and go 3 from the end of the list (gap_limit_for_change defaults to 3).
This seems fine, if a transaction is confirmed the list will be extended so -3 should generally be an unused change address.
However, this doesn't jive with my testing. So I'm guessing that there is some code explicitly reusing a change address if all the funds come from a single change address. I haven't found that yet.
|
|
|
|
Hey gents, on the main mage we show "Orpahans", it should be Orphans.
-Wave
Wave, it this pool we say orpahans...  spiccioli I guess I couldn't change it now. |
|
|
|
I describe a way to do it in this post. I haven't tried it with the official precompiled windows builds, though. But I guess it should work.
Edit: sorry can't seem to paste the link from my phone. Just check out my windows build thread for the post. Hope this helps
Hey thanks, here is the link to your post: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=73651.msg3627894#msg3627894Cannot get it to work with 1.9.4 portable though:( Please put the option to adjust gap limit back in 1.9.4 or post instructions. Instructions: Load wallet with 1.8.x and set the gap limit. Exit. Load in 1.9.x and you are fine. Load what in 1.9.x? The wallet in question. The gap limit will be retained after setting it in 1.8 as far as I can tell. |
|
|
|
I describe a way to do it in this post. I haven't tried it with the official precompiled windows builds, though. But I guess it should work.
Edit: sorry can't seem to paste the link from my phone. Just check out my windows build thread for the post. Hope this helps
Hey thanks, here is the link to your post: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=73651.msg3627894#msg3627894Cannot get it to work with 1.9.4 portable though:( Please put the option to adjust gap limit back in 1.9.4 or post instructions. Instructions: Load wallet with 1.8.x and set the gap limit. Exit. Load in 1.9.x and you are fine. |
|
|
|
- Gap limit option has been removed, right?
it has been hidden. it was unnecessarily complicated for normal users, and it is not a good method for merchants. hidden to well for me to find apparently. |
|
|
|
Support the discouraging of address re-use.
The exchange rate value of everyone's Bitcoins depends on killing the lists. Including you, me, spiccioli, and everyone mining, pooled, decentrally or solo.
spiccioli, please consider using the address re-use de-prioritising mining node. This will be a step along the way to preventing the public blockchain record from being used against us to devalue our Bitcoins.
Everyone at HHTT should familiarise themselves with the forthcoming HD wallets feature, keychains. You can create as many keychains as you wish, just like single addresses. This will let you lock reward payments to a sequence of crytographically determined keychain addresses instead of one address. It is a superior alternative to locking to a static address, you can gain more privacy with the same level of security.
HD wallets will likely be available in the 0.9 Bitcoin client.
Support the discouraging of address re-use.
So whatever this thread spam is aside, I've been thinking about that. For example, if someone wanted to give me an electrum master public key, I could send payments for them to unused addresses on that chain. I'd be glad to support any other deterministic schemes I could find software for. Example (not implemented, stated as an example): A person mines with a username of an electrum master public key. In the suckers list and status pages HHTT would show something like HMAC(mpk, 'hhtt').substring(0, 20). That way, no one would be able to see the who mpk. Then when doing a payment, I would find an unused address on that mpk chain and send the payment to that. I would also stop posting transaction IDs to make it harder to figure out who each miner was in the payment transactions. Still possible, but hard after the fact. The transactions would of course still be visible, but not how much each miner was paid and which miner is which. |
|
|
|
I want to know that is electrum safe or not?
Both PC and Android client.
Yes. For what it is worth, I use it extensively. I don't know of any security audit done but it has been around for a good amount of time without any major issues being discovered. And the simplicity of being able to recover your wallet from your 12 word seed is very powerful in helping users avoid common mistakes. I am mostly talking about windows and linux clients. The android is somewhat more experimental. I've used it but I wouldn't store a lot of bitcoin there. |
|
|
|
|
Unless I am just not seeing it, the gap limit option seems to not be there anymore in electrum 1.9 on windows.
Due to some silly that I'd rather not get into I need to restore a wallet with a gap limit of around 25.
I managed to work around by loading the wallet in 1.8.1, setting the gap limit and then loading it in 1.9 just fine.
|
|
|
|
Okay, I see. My misconception was that I assumed the user password had to be stored somewhere, when in reality, it is itself the key for decrypting the seed. D'oh.
In other words, someone gaining physical access to my (Electrum) files will gain no additional benefit over trying to brute force the user password directly.
An attacker needs the seed. If you are using a password their options are: If they have physical access to your stuff: - Read the piece of paper you probably have your seed words on If they can run things on your computer (malware): - Read the seed out of your computers RAM when you type in your password - Read the electrum files off your drive and read your password when you type it - Read the electrum files off your drive and brute force your password |
|
|
|
Nice growth lately, we're around 30 TH/s now. spiccioli edit: and five blocks so far... we should try not to get accustomed to such a bonanza...  Maybe we have broken numbers and they don't work correctly anymore. |
|
|
|
|
us-central-1b is down for maintenance for a week. Once that is back I'll remove us-central-2a since that is going to be deprecated in December.
I've added eu-west-1b to get us back up to four nodes.
|
|
|
|
Variance, look at 30 and 45 days luck, one day is too little. The other day we had 4 blocks... it can't be so every day  spiccioli edit: you can have a look at a comparable size pool's luck and you will find out that, sadly, at this pool's size it can and it does happen to go a couple of days (and even more) without a block. Yeah, if you guys could go ahead and find some blocks that would be great. |
|
|
|
I personally vote for Trezor, I want one and looking in getting it in the future. I want to know the feedback from other users first.
Netbook is good if that is what you can afford now. I am using my laptop with Bitcoin-qt also Truecrypt encryption. I also have back up of different wallets (Other alt-coins) in 2 USB flash memory.
But I think Netbook isn't a bad idea. If you already have a computer. Then why don't you use the netbook with armory for offline wallet?
Yeah. I am not sure about the Trezor. Can you load a seed onto it or is having it generate a new seed the only option? Also, I have a bunch of wallets and wouldn't want to have to buy a trezor for each. |
|
|
|
|
Supposing I have enough bitcoin to justify either expense in the name of security, which would be better:
A) A netbook running linux (probably debian) and electrum. I would use it for nothing else and would use disk encryption.
B) My existing moderately secure computers running electrum and using Trezor devices for high value wallets?
(bitcointrezor.com)
Anyone have any arguments for either? I am somewhat inclined towards netbook but that is mostly because I can get my hands on one now.
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
