|
The current version of the wallet appears to have significant problems sending transactions.
Please have a dev contact me to resolve these issues.
|
|
|
|
failed connection
The stratum+tcp://us-east.multipool.us:8888 pool just started working for me. Pool is down again for me. Both east and west have been on and off. It appears there were some transient issues on the BTC pool today for about an hour. It is wise to set a backup pool for these unexpected incidents. |
|
|
|
★★ DigiByte v3.0.2 Coming Soon!★★ We have decided to release a version 3.0.2 wallet after the BTC China expo. This wallet will feature two main changes and will require mining pools to update:
1) A standardized Chinese name for "DigiByte" in the DGB wallet. We will be asking several native Chinese speakers at the conference what the proper translation for "DigiByte" into Chinese characters should be. Once we decide on the correct characters we will put it into the wallet. This will dramatically help DigiByte enter the Chinese market place. 2) We will be issuing a fix for the Scrypt block issue as well as the daemon rejection issue several pools are experiencing. In the mean time we would like some feedback & help testing this fix. A big shout-out to Thrassos for pointing this out and helping us figure out this issue!
The Scrypt block & daemon rejection issue:Scrypt blocks are being rejected do to this code: "if (block.nVersion < 2)" https://github.com/digibyte/DigiByteProject/blob/1dda53450ca9b2d0aad767007f01f12578b7f39e/src/main.cpp#L2576 // Reject block.nVersion=1 blocks when 95% (75% on testnet) of the network has upgraded:
if (block.nVersion < 2)
{
if ((!TestNet() && CBlockIndex::IsSuperMajority(2, pindexPrev, 950, 1000)) ||
(TestNet() && CBlockIndex::IsSuperMajority(2, pindexPrev, 75, 100)))
{
return state.Invalid(error("AcceptBlock() : rejected nVersion=1 block"),
REJECT_OBSOLETE, "bad-version");
}
} The fix should be simple by changing BLOCK_VERSION_DEFAULT from 1-2. If anyone knows of any issues we might see with this please let us know. https://github.com/digibyte/DigiByteProject/blob/master/src/core.h#L30{
// primary version
BLOCK_VERSION_DEFAULT = 2,
// algo
BLOCK_VERSION_ALGO = (7 << 9),
BLOCK_VERSION_SHA256D = (1 << 9),
BLOCK_VERSION_GROESTL = (2 << 9),
BLOCK_VERSION_SKEIN = (3 << 9),
BLOCK_VERSION_QUBIT = (4 << 9),
};The github account has been updated with this change. If we could get some mining pools to test this change & report back it would be much appreciated! Thank you all! It would be great if you could tag the releases in github. 3.0.1 was never tagged, compiling git head gives a wallet version (in getinfo) different than the version reported by the binary downloads. Please tell me how to get a proper source tree for 3.0.1 so I can make this change. |
|
|
|
|
The ANC situation should be better now. The ANC network apparently is down to us and maybe 1 or 2 other pools. Our hot wallet and whatever it was connected to apparently was not connected to any of those pools.
I typically like to have the hot wallets NOT directly connected to the pools, because it makes network issues more obvious, but in this case I had to connect the ANC daemon directly and we are now mining our own ANC transactions.
As far as Cryptsy trade key, you should be able to use it to pull in Cryptsy addresses for new coins as they are added, and I'll also be adding Bittrex integration shortly.
|
|
|
|
|
Has there been a fork? I got an alert from the client.
|
|
|
|
|
Can the 3.0.1 changes please be uploaded into Github and tagged? I do not like using precompiled binaries.
Thanks.
|
|
|
|
Sorry for the lack of updates, been working on the UBTC launch. Testing out a few things before it goes live. We have a firm commitment from a new exchange to list UBTC (insured) on launch. ULTC is still chugging along, trying to get us onto larger Litecoin pools. We are also looking for a partner to create a new pool (Quintuple Mining) to offer everyone. With 5 coins it should be interesting (Litecoin / Umbrella-LTC / Syscoin / Dogecoin / Viacoin).
Thanks for the support everyone!
--Robert
Wat! Viacoin is aux PoW? That's news to me. No, it's not. It was proposed at one point but I don't believe there was an official decision on implementing it. |
|
|
|
|
The website VPS had some issues overnight, had to open a ticket with the provider. Not sure why their automated systems didn't catch it.
|
|
|
|
|
Is 3.0.0 considered stable? Mine segfaults whenever I send an RPC command. Or am I just supposed to be using git head? There doesn't seem to be a tag for 3.0.1.
|
|
|
|
Just a quick update, I was able to speak to s0br directly on IRC and he admitted that there were some possible issues between stratum servers and db which could have caused our shares to be lost.
Currently he has paid us all back payments due including the bonus using my share count. I would like to publicly thank s0br for following through with the back payments and working to improve the system.
I hope you will go through your prior posts & edit/delete them. And he should modify/remove the "News" item on his pool's web-site for August 31st. No, I'm not going to revise history. I don't believe I ever said anything that was factually incorrect at the time. What happened happened and hopefully things will be better for the users of this pool going forward. It's just sad that you can thank your pool's members for being patient, yet you couldn't extend the same courtesy here, and be just a little patient. ~$4000 of my miners' BTC was held in limbo for almost a week. I think I showed quite a bit of patience, probably more than was warranted. |
|
|
|
Just a quick update, I was able to speak to s0br directly on IRC and he admitted that there were some possible issues between stratum servers and db which could have caused our shares to be lost.
Currently he has paid us all back payments due including the bonus using my share count. I would like to publicly thank s0br for following through with the back payments and working to improve the system.
I hope you will go through your prior posts & edit/delete them. And he should modify/remove the "News" item on his pool's web-site for August 31st. No, I'm not going to revise history. I don't believe I ever said anything that was factually incorrect at the time. What happened happened and hopefully things will be better for the users of this pool going forward. |
|
|
|
|
Just a quick update, I was able to speak to s0br directly on IRC and he admitted that there were some possible issues between stratum servers and db which could have caused our shares to be lost.
Currently he has paid us all back payments due including the bonus using my share count. I would like to publicly thank s0br for following through with the back payments and working to improve the system.
|
|
|
|
OMFG are you guys serious... Like s0br is not smart enough to use a mailing center to ship his packages I can help you he used a mailing center in california. You can call and offer to pay/bribe them but they wont be able to help you. So umm GFYS the both of ya...
Or we could subpoena them. But if s0br is legit as you say, what reason would he have to hide his identity? |
|
|
|
|
Still waiting on our 2.4 BTC of backpay. Has the scam thread been started yet?
If so, we should all get in there and start posting whatever info people have on s0br (return addresses on miner shipments, etc.) and so we can stop bumping this one. I know an attorney who handles Bitcoin stuff so if we can get together enough people and enough info we can perhaps go after BAN legally.
|
|
|
|
I say screw it and just publicly discuss it because we already know s0br will make up for whatever he can if something turns out to be his fault. If it turns out to actually be MP's fault then we will know that too and then get watch him try to save face.
I've said it before and I still stand by it. Sure the pool is far from perfect, but it is still rather new. That said there are bound to be issues. So can we all just try to play nice, myself included, and try to fix whats wrong as a group or we can all continue our childish ways.
On any new pool there are obviously bound to be issues. Which is why the attempt to blame third parties for the issues confuses me. Full disclosure is the best policy and inspires the most confidence in the pool operator(s). |
|
|
|
So your answer is "shut up and pay me?" Given that Doc has said there were no issues when you mined there, I'd like to look at the bigger picture and see if we can determine what went wrong. Right now my position is that something is off and needs to be investigated. Could be that you're owed 2.4 BTC, could be that there was an issue on your side. I still think an objective analysis is the best approach.
Right now this is the best I can offer, and I'd like to think it's a bit better than random accusations.
But "eff you pay me" is certainly your call, I just can't do much with it.
I didn't say 'shut up'. Quite the opposite. What I said was, I'm not interested in behind closed doors conversations. This issue involves all of your miners, not just Multipool. If you have evidence that my share count is incorrect, then please present it. Get the share totals out of your database and post them. If you've lost the shares, then as an act of good faith you should pay what's owed as I've calculated it. Remember I am only asking for 100% PPS, I am not even asking for the advertised 12.5% bonus. If the bonus is included BAN actually owes us over 4 BTC. |
|
|
|
Would you want to do a smaller conversation with myself and DocHaribo to see if we can finally shed some light on this? He's openly said there were no issues when you mined there and that's a valid data point I'd like to follow up on.
I don't really see what there is to talk about. I've posted my share counts. If your share counts don't match mine, please go ahead and post them, and we can discuss it publicly. Rather than engaging in this distraction, you should be posting about how you're going to make everyone whole who was shorted over the 2-3 day period where s0br was not online. That is what a responsible pool operator would do. |
|
|
|
When the coin values fluctuate, MultiPool can actually make more than mining a single coin. I see the point of not being worth it any more. As-is, it's just charging 1.5% to mine BTC all day, every day.
Not much action in the SHA-256 alt world these days. That said we do spend time on alts almost every day even if the bulk of the time is spent on BTC. |
|
|
|
tldr' Go fix your own pools and stop blaming this one without having technical evidence this pool shorted you, or anyone else on purpose. Likely its your own problem from your own doing of shotty coding. If your pools are so beneficial to each other, allow the multipool into bitminter, and lets see your 2 pools work seamlessly, and profitably together. The rest will be history, people will worry about all the future 51% attacks from you 2, capable, well informed pool operators.
I've posted my share counts from my DB. No admin from BAN has stepped forward to say they're incorrect, and that back payments are in the works. Instead we get only silence and finger pointing from new accounts. Don't worry, I'll shut up and go away as soon as my miners receive the 2.4 BTC that we were shorted. |
|
|
|
Wow what a horrible day at multipool
Terrible luck yesterday, with a 19% litecoin block taking almost 20 hours to find and only 4 LTC blocks total. 19% means about 5x the average number of shares (i.e. 5 blocks worth of shares) were submitted for that block. Long blocks like that hurt when we spend a lot of time on LTC. But we did make up for it today, finding 10 LTC blocks, our best day for LTC in recent history  |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
