|
I apologize you are experiencing issues. I promise the Baby Jet was working fine before I shipped it to you, I guess something happened while it was in transit. I will poke around on the internet/forums and look for a solution.
Have you checked to make sure the water cooling setup is properly connected and working? Perhaps it is overheating, although your temperatures look OK in your after picture. Also check all connections inside the case to make sure everything it intact and seated correctly.
The screenshots show you are using bfgminer, but you do mention that you are using/have used cgminer. So, have you tried cgminer or not?
After adding up the devices it looks like you are still hashing at 381 Gh (and I disregarded the decimals so it is a bit faster than that), so it is only a bit slower than you started out. Are you sure that it is not an error with the hash rate reporting on minepeon and the pool is showing something different?
I'm assuming you adjusted the difficulty on Eligius/ghash?
One other idea.. I realize this isn't optimal, but have you tried hooking it up to a PC or laptop instead of using the Pi?
|
|
|
|
I haven't read over your whole OP yet, but something caught my eye. If Storj (or maidsafe or ..) are as slow as you assume in you OP, what would be the point of them in the first place? I think you may be selling them a little short. No storj is fast for downloading large files, just like using torrents to download a file can be very fast with enough peers. But I'm assuming storj is less good at is serving files extremely quickly, because it takes time to actually locate the files on the network. Even if it's just a few seconds, that's too long. That said it seems like the redirection idea may work, but it may make it take longer than necessary to develop websites if you need to set this redirection up for every image/file, which adds an extra step. You could set it up on what ever files you want to be distributed across the network and not stored on the server. There's no reason you couldn't store all your files on the server and serve them directly to clients instead of redirecting them. That makes sense, thanks for clearing that up. As to incentivizing node storage/sharing: I think the proof that nodes are sharing files should be done by the nodes themselves. They have incentive to prove that other nodes are sharing the files, because if not then they are basically cheating the other nodes. I think it should be randomized which files are checked to prevent gaming of the system, and they should be checked periodically. Servers can split the costs of these checks evenly since it is necessary for the system to work properly. The servers using the most bandwidth (or most files stored) should pay for more of these costs and the servers with the least bandwidth (or least files stored) should pay for less. |
|
|
|
|
Congrats on the cryptonite launch. I was pretty excited the other day when I saw it had launched.
I haven't read over your whole OP yet, but something caught my eye. If Storj (or maidsafe or ..) are as slow as you assume in you OP, what would be the point of them in the first place? I think you may be selling them a little short.
That said it seems like the redirection idea may work, but it may make it take longer than necessary to develop websites if you need to set this redirection up for every image/file, which adds an extra step.
|
|
|
|
I posted this on Litecoin forums yesterday. Instead of repeating myself I'll just paste the convo here. There are several alternatives to PoW:
Transparent Forging as it is in Nxt.
Proof Of Scrypt 2.0 as it is in Blackcoin
Delegated Proof Of Scrypt as it is in Bitshares
Proof Of Importance as it is in NEM
Consensus as it is in Ripple
.... + others in development
Are these perfect solutions? Probably not.
Are these as secure as PoW? That is debatable.
Has anyone successfully attacked these PoW substitutions? No!!
Will there be more to come and will they be improved upon in the (near) future? Certainly
If they are secure and work as advertised are they a better solution to PoW? Yes, a million times yes.
It was scary enough to have Vericoin roll back their blockchain via a hard fork and NXT considering it (which if they lost 30% also they would have, I guarantee it). Vericoin was an important lesson to all PoS coins in that they should be more careful, as to not storing a large percentage of the total money supply with one exchange or service. I think the recent Nxt scare will only reinforce that. Through community awareness campaigns the issues that got them into those messes in the first place can be avoided. Vericoin is also not Nxt and has never been as big as Nxt, comparing the two is akin to saying if Doge were to fork then Litecoin is vulnerable. There are only 26 million Vericoins and there are almost 1 billion Nxt coins, meaning that statistically it is much more unlikely for 30% of Nxt coins to be hacked or stolen. Simple mathematics.. Furthermore, judging a coin on a failed fork or roll back attempt is a bit prejudiced. Both Bitcoin and Litecoin have had somewhat close calls when it comes to forks. Litecoin had the anti ASIC fork movement and Bitcoin had the anti seized Silk Road coins movement. Both of these movements failed, but they still caused a lot of debate and garnered a lot of support for both sides. Judging Nxt for its failed roll back attempt is akin to judging Litecoin/Bitcoin for these failed forks. Failed Bitcoin rollback: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=412041.0Failed Litecoin fork: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=549572.0None of them happened because community support wasn't there for any of them, believe it or not PoS consensus works much the same as PoW consensus. Except there is one big difference as with PoW consensus is determined by miners (which are becoming more centralized as ASICs proliferate), and with PoS consensus is determined by the owners of the coins. It is debatable which system is best, me saying PoS is better is only MY opinion. The way people act as if PoS is inferior to PoW is only THEIR opinion, however most people try to pass it off as fact which really annoys me. Sure, there are some drawbacks to allowing the coin holders to call the shots (as in PoS), but as PoW mining becomes more centralized there are also drawbacks to having a small conglomerate of industrial miners call the shots. For instance they could decide they aren't making enough on transaction fees and jack the costs up for transactions. That's only one example. There are pros and cons to each consensus system, but I think it is unfair to say one is definitely better than the other and it is a fact. Especially when both systems are so new the potential drawbacks have yet to all surface. I guarantee there will be some issues with PoW as well as it becomes more centralized. I agree it is a good method for initial distribution, and lately I have been encouraging all PoS coins to distribute coins using PoW before switching to pure PoS, but we have yet to see PoW fully mature. ASICs have only been in existence for a year and a half, I would venture to say a lot is going to change in the next few years as mining goes from a hobby to more of an industrial undertaking that requires deep pockets or good connections to people in power within manufacturers. |
|
|
|
Is BitShares really classified as an IPO coin? For months prior to release you could acquire a stake in the genesis block by either mining PTS or buying AGS directly. This method in my opinion was very fair in that you could mine if you have the cpu/gpu setup or purchase directly without mining anything!
Well it is, even in the title it clearly says IPO. I'm too lazy to go through my own posts or that thread, but I was there. I mined PTS and sold a lot of it back in the day. There could be some relating posts about that I do not remember. That was too long ago. So because you sold your PTS it == IPO. K, got it.  He had a point.. There were other ways to get in rather than sending Bitcoins/Protoshares to the AGS fund. Just because you didn't hold onto your PTS it doesn't mean Bitshares was purely an IPO. Anyways.. The assumption that all IPO coins are a scam is a fallacy spread by people uneducated on the subject. Sure, some IPOs are certainly scams, but it doesn't mean all of them are. What people are doing is stereotyping when they make such statements. It's like when people say all Americans are idiots, or that all Rottweilers are vicious animals. |
|
|
|
Perhaps it indicates the technological shortcomings of Ethereum and that they have to "annex" Bitshares (like Hitler annexed Austria to get their small arms / gold and then annexed Czechoslovakia to get their superior tanks).
Well, it basically goes like this: Turing-completeness requires a lot of resources. PoW requires a lot of resources. So, with PoS, they eliminate the latter and save more power for the former. Good point. At least you are being more amicable now than your other Nxt friends. I really don't get the hatred that most Nxt users seem to have against Bitshares and Ethereum. I do not own any crypto currencies at the moment, so all of my opinions are as close to honest opinions as I can get, but I fear others are more worried about their personal agendas and what will make them the most rich. I discuss ALT coins out of genuine interest and the will to see them improved upon, mainly for academic purposes. Honestly, I see great potential in Nxt, Ethereum, AND Bitshares. We as an ALT coin community... Arguably the Front runners in the cryptocoin 2.0 wars work together, much more will come of it rather than fighting all the time. I haven't really seen Eth/Bitshares supporters dogging on Nxt, why do you guys feel the need to? You guys say that Eth/Bitshares is scared of Nxt, but it kind of looks like it's the other way around... I think all three have great potential. it is bad enough to have the Bitcoin/Litecoin nut hungers against us, we don't need more enemies than are necessary. |
|
|
|
thanks for all the info !
great!
No problem --------------------- Well, I am done updating links and descriptions to all crypto currencies that were on the list. Here's an overview in case you haven't read today's posts: - I changed the mini block chain project to Cryptonite. I am excited where that project is headed and with their original innovations.. I think it is definitely a coin to keep an eye on. - I removed eMunie from the list.. it seems rather dead and/or like it was a scam. If anything changes I can easily just add it back on the list, but for now it seems dead. - I changed Zerocoin to Zerocash - I updated all links and descriptions - I also added my opinion if I would buy/hold or sell each crypto currency. I am interested in your opinions if I got these right or wrong. I feel like I may have said "buy/hold" too often. Please please please give me your opinion if you think I should reconsider my opinion.What do you guys think? I'm going to try to add one or two on the "coins to add" list from here on out until I can get caught up. I may add a few as early as tonight. Cheers! |
|
|
|
Good list:
who invented "Coin control" ?
that is a significant innovation also -
Please add :
EQ reward or " trickle inflation" if you like .
for SIF and QUARK.
SIF did it in a crude way and Quark refined it.
Thanks.. I am trying to get everything updated today.  Coin Control was a Bitcoin innovation. I guess I need to add Bitcoin to the list, but I guess I assumed that one is obvious since we are all on a Bitcoin forum!!! Quark was already on my list to be added, but for other reasons. I will look into trickle inflation. so "coin control" common in PoS crypto was a Bitcoin innovation? oh i see it was designed for "dust" right? I don't think it helps with dust, but the mini block chain project helps with dust. I actually just noticed they released their first implementation of it.. Cryptonite. It looks pretty neat, they added several other innovative features as well.. check it out: http://cryptonite.info/I just added Cryptonite to the list in the OP and removed the mini block chain project. Before Coin Control, when you sent bitcoins to someone else, the bitcoin client chose kind of randomly which of your addresses will send the coins. With coin control you can choose exactly which of your addresses will be the sending addresses, and even more specific which of your unspent outputs will be the sending inputs. It just gives users more control over their Bitcoins. I believe the first implementation of it was in the alternative Bitcoin client "Bitcoin OMG" developed by Warren Togami here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=320695.0 and possibly in the Litecoin beta release around that time as well. But, the idea was first thought of here on the Bitcoin forums: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=144331.0 |
|
|
|
Good list:
who invented "Coin control" ?
that is a significant innovation also -
Please add :
EQ reward or " trickle inflation" if you like .
for SIF and QUARK.
SIF did it in a crude way and Quark refined it.
Thanks.. I am trying to get everything updated today. Coin Control was a Bitcoin innovation. I guess I need to add Bitcoin to the list, but I guess I assumed that one is obvious since we are all on a Bitcoin forum!!! Quark was already on my list to be added, but for other reasons. I will look into trickle inflation. |
|
|
|
Updates:- This thread has mostly been me talking to myself.... in an attempt to incite debate, I decided to get off the fence and spice things up a bit. - At the end of each coin's description I will give my honest opinion on whether I would buy or sell the coin, and why the innovation that makes the coin special is important or innovative. Remember this is still not investment advice, I added this merely to incite debate. - eMunie has been removed from the list.. the project seems dead and/or like it was a scam. - Updated links and description for USC.. it seems like the developer is MIA and the coin is somewhat dead. There are now other merge mined Scrypt coins if you are interested, but I will keep USC on the list as it was the first one to do so and earned its spot in crypto currency history. - Updated links and the descriptions for Primecoin and Peercoin, added my opinion - Updated the links and description for Nxt, added my opinion I still am in the process of updating coins A-N, as well as adding some new ones today.
|
|
|
|
#1 Devphp is a Nxt developer
Nope, he is a php dev... which is even worst!  I retract my statement. I confused devphp with ChuckOne. This was the thread I was referring to in which ChuckOne wasted my time by asking questions he knew the answer to to prove his point: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=659349.0I thought that was what devphp was doing here, but I confused him with ChuckOne, so maybe he had honest intentions. Although it still kind of seems like he has an agenda... I still retract my statement. Especially when devphp has 750+ posts on the Nxt forums and says things such as this: Does it mean both Vitalik and Dan are so afraid of NXT that they have to join efforts now? |
|
|
|
There is one thing I can definitely guarantee you - Quickseller is not going to go after you criminally or civilly.
"Your honor, I'm on this Bitcoin forum (oh, you mean that darknet anonymous serial killer drug dealer fake money?) and I buy and sell member accounts so people can impersonate and scam people, and/or promote illegal gambling websites. Well, some user tried to get back the $5 account that was hacked and sold to me! Put the original user in jail!"
I'd say that it accurate. Screw the people selling accounts.. let them rot in negative trust hell. It is not Zedicus' fault that the hacker sold his account, and he should not be punished for it. Maybe this will help teach people a lesson not to buy and sell accounts. Give Zedicus back his account!! |
|
|
|
|
EDIT: Never mind... my memory is bad.. I was confusing devphp with ChuckOne
|
|
|
|
Updates:- Deleted the "News" sections for each coin, as I don't have the time to update it. - Changed Zerocoin to Zerocash, updated links and description - Updated YACoin links and description More updates to come today. Planning on fixing/updating all links and descriptions & adding some of the crypto currencies on the "to be added at a later date" list. For now, it is coffee/breakfast time.
|
|
|
|
What is market pegged BitAssets and why are they important?
derp |
|
|
|
|
I'd like to sell the following domain names:
cryptoreview.net - Expires 3/21/2015
physicalliteco.in - Expires 9/3/2014
physicalbitco.in - Expires 9/8/2014
smarthashing.us - Expires 3/20/2015
Please submit offers ITT.
Thanks
|
|
|
|
|
In my opinion, bayuo is the only one providing solid evidence as to why the Zedicus account should be his. If we are going to assume that every time a situation like this pops up it is because a user sold his account, it can lead down a very slippery slope. I don't think that should be assumed unless this scenario happens to a user more than once or evidence is provided (IE. Screenshots of negotiations and payment transaction IDs.)
Anyways.. I am completely against the selling of forum accounts as they can only be used for nefarious purposes such as cheating coin giveaways, alt coin distributions, or signature campaigns. Or for simply scamming forum users by purchasing an account that people would trust by other means.
IMO, Bayuo has provided enough evidence to have his account back, unless the Zedicus account can provide some evidence to the contrary that the original owner of the account sold it to him. So far he has provided no evidence to support this claim.
|
|
|
|
I have done some digging around looking for something that could link Zedicus to his account. I have done some business with him in the past, as he participated in a group buy I did a while back. Here is a link to all of the transactions in the group buy which were done about a year ago: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=268280.msg2869200#msg2869200Zedicus' transactions include the following Bitcoin transaction IDs: Zedicus; 14 BTC; 4bdb9f02a7a2c4fff8abb6466a1cc0789fc7304f16a3c66ec8dc6040a4caaaeb
Zedicus (refund); 11.82290364 BTC; 42141a90d189ac21ea79a1f70a4da94e90c12fc35f3f216a50c25a2727a606d4
Zedicus (refund); 2.17719636 BTC; 25541429053fc8c34e15a631001acfe3785dc6f4a8398a0895a126428e461ba1
All transactions done with him involved the Bitcoin address: 1Mc6bbZKwthrCWgtwa7yGsADKAqoNNza5L Assuming the real Zedicus still has control of this Bitcoin address, we could have him sign a message proving he owns the private key for that address. Hope this helps! |
|
|
|
|
I've exchanged PMs with both accounts. Bayuo first contacted me asking for help, saying his Zedicus account was hacked. I pretty much told him I couldn't help. I then PMed the Zedicus account informing him of this thread, just in case he is in fact the real Zedicus, and the account Bayou was trying to pull some scam. It is obvious one of them is the real Zedicus and one is not, so I hope a solution is figured out quickly.
To the real Zedicus: Any way to prove you are who you say you are?
|
|
|
|
Try again, I have over 132 post reported in the forum with a 90% accuracy rating. ~BCX~  I have 100% accuracy... BOOOOYAAA!  |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
