Bitcoin Forum
December 11, 2017, 11:34:50 PM *
News: Latest stable version of Bitcoin Core: 0.15.1  [Torrent].
 
   Home   Help Search Donate Login Register  
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7]  All
  Print  
Author Topic: is Greg Maxwell wrong about the block increase?  (Read 4078 times)
RoadTrain
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1358


View Profile
September 03, 2015, 08:36:10 AM
 #121

By that logic, you're going to be multiples slower than with TOR vs non-TOR, regardless of the blocksize.
No. With higher blocksizes, disadvantage of TOR mining increases.

It is possible to run a mining rig over TOR to a node that can be a mining pool or solo mining pool.  The bandwidth required over TOR is minimal because of the design of the Stratum protocol.  The blocksize can be small or large, as determined by the full node and your mining rig(s).  The bandwidth required between your site and the mining pool is independent of block size and independent of your hash rate, or even number of mining rigs if you use a local stratum proxy.

Yes, that's a legitimate use-case. I honestly have been talking about solo-mining, which anyway seems to be marginal nowadays.
1513035290
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1513035290

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1513035290
Reply with quote  #2

1513035290
Report to moderator
1513035290
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1513035290

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1513035290
Reply with quote  #2

1513035290
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1513035290
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1513035290

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1513035290
Reply with quote  #2

1513035290
Report to moderator
1513035290
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1513035290

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1513035290
Reply with quote  #2

1513035290
Report to moderator
S4VV4S
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 658



View Profile
September 03, 2015, 09:18:21 AM
 #122

By that logic, you're going to be multiples slower than with TOR vs non-TOR, regardless of the blocksize.
No. With higher blocksizes, disadvantage of TOR mining increases.

It is possible to run a mining rig over TOR to a node that can be a mining pool or solo mining pool.  The bandwidth required over TOR is minimal because of the design of the Stratum protocol.  The blocksize can be small or large, as determined by the full node and your mining rig(s).  The bandwidth required between your site and the mining pool is independent of block size and independent of your hash rate, or even number of mining rigs if you use a local stratum proxy.

Yes, that's a legitimate use-case. I honestly have been talking about solo-mining, which anyway seems to be marginal nowadays.

Unless you 're an ASIC manufacturer, or a huge fan of the sport/hobbie (and can afford to of course),
then SOLO mining is a thing of the past of where we get to tell other people that: I remeber once I used to solo-mine....

It's like the internet (in my case).
One day I will be able to tell my grand kids that I am older than the internet.
That would blow their minds.... Shocked Shocked Shocked

███████████████████████████████████████████████████
██████████████████████████████████████████████████

     ▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄            █     ███           ███   ▄▄▄          █          ▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄
   ▄███████████▄         ███     ███         ███    ███         ███         ██████████████▄
 ▄███▀       ▀█▀        █████     ███       ███     ███        █████        ███        ▀▀███
▄██▀                   ███ ███     ███     ███      ███       ███ ███       ███          ███
███                   ███   ███     ███   ███       ███      ███   ███      ███        ▄▄███
███                  ███     ███     ███ ███        ███     ███     ███     ██████████████▀
▀██▄                ███       ███     █████         ███    ███       ███    ███▀▀▀▀▀███▄
 ▀███▄       ▄█▄   ███         ███     ███          ███   ███         ███   ███      ▀███▄
   ▀███████████▀  ███           ███     █           ███  ███           ███  ███        ▀███▄
     ▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀   ███
                ███
▌  .
brg444
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 644

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks


View Profile
September 03, 2015, 09:22:30 AM
 #123

By that logic, you're going to be multiples slower than with TOR vs non-TOR, regardless of the blocksize.
No. With higher blocksizes, disadvantage of TOR mining increases.

It is possible to run a mining rig over TOR to a node that can be a mining pool or solo mining pool.  The bandwidth required over TOR is minimal because of the design of the Stratum protocol.  The blocksize can be small or large, as determined by the full node and your mining rig(s).  The bandwidth required between your site and the mining pool is independent of block size and independent of your hash rate, or even number of mining rigs if you use a local stratum proxy.

Yes, that's a legitimate use-case. I honestly have been talking about solo-mining, which anyway seems to be marginal nowadays.

Unless you 're an ASIC manufacturer, or a huge fan of the sport/hobbie (and can afford to of course),
then SOLO mining is a thing of the past of where we get to tell other people that: I remeber once I used to solo-mine....

This I agree with

"I believe this will be the ultimate fate of Bitcoin, to be the "high-powered money" that serves as a reserve currency for banks that issue their own digital cash." Hal Finney, Dec. 2010
tl121
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 279


View Profile
September 04, 2015, 02:59:33 PM
 #124


Yes, that's a legitimate use-case. I honestly have been talking about solo-mining, which anyway seems to be marginal nowadays.

Marginal, yes.  However, easy and very profitable if you are lucky.  Thank you, solo.ckpool.com.     Smiley
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7]  All
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Sponsored by , a Bitcoin-accepting VPN.
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!