I can't get any coins

[HostFat]

Win 7 x64 ultimate
4 GB ram
Intel i7 2.80 GHz

833 port is open

[1714615299]

1714615299

[BitcoinFX]

Joozero, 'Generated (50.00 matures in 49 more blocks)' means that you have generated 50 bitcoins. They will show as your 'balance' when the total block count reaches 56,503 blocks.

I notice also that you only have 15 connections, this is currently the max. if you are not port forwarding correctly. Which of course you don't have to, but if you can afford some more bandwidth / connectivity remember the port is 8333 not 833 as you typed above.

Welcome to the forum ! 

[HostFat]

Ah ok, now I understood many things. Thanx
Anyway, I wrote the wrong port ... I opened the 8333

[laszlo]

If it only has 15 connections and you say you've opened the port, it doesn't sound like you did it right.

If you are using a NAT router and are not directly connected to the internet you need to set up your router to 'destination NAT' that port to your bitcoin computer.  You are using a NAT router if your computer's internet address is 192.168.x.x, 10.x.x.x or 172.16.x.x.

On the other hand, you aren't losing out on anything by not having the port open.  It will work fine even with just 1 connection.

From your screen shot it looks like everything is working correctly and you are generating coins, you just need to wait about a day for it to 'grow' before you can spend it.

[asdfman]

Ive been running bitcoind for a week straight now.. I still have 0 coins..

[EricJ2190]

Coin generation has significantly slowed down, it seems. The night I started, I managed to generate two blocks of 50. Now, it has been four days since I generated anything, and I get around 1800 khash/sec.

[Babylon]

bitcoin has become more popular, which means more people generating, which means less generation per person.  Also, apparently, Nenelod is hogging the generation currently.

[asdfman]

Interesting...
well.. Ive been running bitcoind since 7/12 :
1 99 Jul12 pts/5    19-17:35:57 bitcoind -gen -daemon

And I still have 0.00000 bitcoins... my linux machine is weak, its only a dual core 2.8ghz Pentium D, but not much other CPU intensive things are running on it, and I figure that the average person participating doesn't necessarily have the latest fancy hardware to dedicate to bitcoin, I shouldn't be that far out of the target audience..  should I just accept that my machine is too slow to have any value in running bitcoins 24/7 ?

thanks

[jgarzik]

And I still have 0.00000 bitcoins... my linux machine is weak, its only a dual core 2.8ghz Pentium D, but not much other CPU intensive things are running on it, and I figure that the average person participating doesn't necessarily have the latest fancy hardware to dedicate to bitcoin, I shouldn't be that far out of the target audience..  should I just accept that my machine is too slow to have any value in running bitcoins 24/7 ?

There is always value in running a bitcoin node, if you want to help support the integrity of the currency.  The more "honest" nodes on the network, the more likely the currency will succeed.

Once the difficulty comes down, it seems likely you will start earning a few bitcoins here and there.  It's definitely random, though, with no guarantee you'll make a block.

[NewLibertyStandard]

And I still have 0.00000 bitcoins... my linux machine is weak, its only a dual core 2.8ghz Pentium D, but not much other CPU intensive things are running on it, and I figure that the average person participating doesn't necessarily have the latest fancy hardware to dedicate to bitcoin, I shouldn't be that far out of the target audience..  should I just accept that my machine is too slow to have any value in running bitcoins 24/7 ?

There is always value in running a bitcoin node, if you want to help support the integrity of the currency.  The more "honest" nodes on the network, the more likely the currency will succeed.

Once the difficulty comes down, it seems likely you will start earning a few bitcoins here and there.  It's definitely random, though, with no guarantee you'll make a block.

If you haven't generated any blocks, then in hindsight it really didn't add anything to the network. Value is only added each time a block is verified. Unfortunately we can't know ahead of time exactly how long it will take to verify a block before anyone else.

[FreeMoney]

And I still have 0.00000 bitcoins... my linux machine is weak, its only a dual core 2.8ghz Pentium D, but not much other CPU intensive things are running on it, and I figure that the average person participating doesn't necessarily have the latest fancy hardware to dedicate to bitcoin, I shouldn't be that far out of the target audience..  should I just accept that my machine is too slow to have any value in running bitcoins 24/7 ?

There is always value in running a bitcoin node, if you want to help support the integrity of the currency.  The more "honest" nodes on the network, the more likely the currency will succeed.

Once the difficulty comes down, it seems likely you will start earning a few bitcoins here and there.  It's definitely random, though, with no guarantee you'll make a block.

If you haven't generated any blocks, then in hindsight it really didn't add anything to the network. Value is only added each time a block is verified. Unfortunately we can't know ahead of time exactly how long it will take to verify a block before anyone else.

He verified other's blocks and passed on transaction info, right?

[Quantumplation]

Likewise, if he TRIES to verify blocks, it adds just that much CPU to the system, and puts us one small step further away from a 51% CPU attack.  It's small, but it's the aggregate difficulty that matters.

[NewLibertyStandard]

He verified other's blocks and passed on transaction info, right?

Each client verifies the authenticity of hashed blocks itself, so he didn't do that for others. He did pass on transaction information and if his port was open he provide connectivity to a closed port client, but all of the above happens regardless of whether he's hashing.

Likewise, if he TRIES to verify blocks, it adds just that much CPU to the system, and puts us one small step further away from a 51% CPU attack.  It's small, but it's the aggregate difficulty that matters.

No, that's not true. Each time he SUCCEEDS at verifying a block, "it adds just that much CPU to the system, and puts us one small step further away from a 51% CPU attack."

[martin]

Likewise, if he TRIES to verify blocks, it adds just that much CPU to the system, and puts us one small step further away from a 51% CPU attack.  It's small, but it's the aggregate difficulty that matters.

No, that's not true. Each time he SUCCEEDS at verifying a block, "it adds just that much CPU to the system, and puts us one small step further away from a 51% CPU attack."

I have to agree with Quantumplation on this one, more honest nodes trying hashes makes the network secure because you need an equivalent amount of processing power to reach a reasonable probability of generating a dishonest block. More honest nodes trying to verify means a higher percentage chance an honest block will be generated

[Quantumplation]

He verified other's blocks and passed on transaction info, right?

Each client verifies the authenticity of hashed blocks itself, so he didn't do that for others. He did pass on transaction information and if his port was open he provide connectivity to a closed port client, but all of the above happens regardless of whether he's hashing.

Likewise, if he TRIES to verify blocks, it adds just that much CPU to the system, and puts us one small step further away from a 51% CPU attack.  It's small, but it's the aggregate difficulty that matters.

No, that's not true. Each time he SUCCEEDS at verifying a block, "it adds just that much CPU to the system, and puts us one small step further away from a 51% CPU attack."

No, even trying adds more CPU power to the system.  Even if someone never solves a block, they're still trying.  That means they have the potential to solve the block, and a potential attacker has to put more resources in order to make sure he solves it first.  Again, it's not much, but it's still a minor factor.

[NewLibertyStandard]

He verified other's blocks and passed on transaction info, right?

Each client verifies the authenticity of hashed blocks itself, so he didn't do that for others. He did pass on transaction information and if his port was open he provide connectivity to a closed port client, but all of the above happens regardless of whether he's hashing.

Likewise, if he TRIES to verify blocks, it adds just that much CPU to the system, and puts us one small step further away from a 51% CPU attack.  It's small, but it's the aggregate difficulty that matters.

No, that's not true. Each time he SUCCEEDS at verifying a block, "it adds just that much CPU to the system, and puts us one small step further away from a 51% CPU attack."

No, even trying adds more CPU power to the system.  Even if someone never solves a block, they're still trying.  That means they have the potential to solve the block, and a potential attacker has to put more resources in order to make sure he solves it first.  Again, it's not much, but it's still a minor factor.

Potential doesn't actually increase the difficulty of hashing or increase the speed of blocks being successfully hashed. It all just goes down the drain. It's only when that potential turns into success that it improve the networks. I agree that for practical purposes, running a node strengthens the network since you never know when it might generate a successful hash before everyone else, but technically it is not actually helping until it actually generates a successful hash before everyone else.

[Quantumplation]

I agree in that The largest benefit is obviously solving a block.  That adds X value to the system.  But simply running it (providing not only "potential solutions", making a hacker work harder to increase his possibility of getting the block, but also providing a stronger communication mesh for the distributed propagation of blocks/transactions/etc.) adds .001 * X to the system.  It's small, but it's SOMETHING.