Bitcoin Forum
September 24, 2017, 05:13:45 AM *
News: Latest stable version of Bitcoin Core: 0.15.0.1  [Torrent]. (New!)
 
   Home   Help Search Donate Login Register  
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 [24] 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 »
  Print  
Author Topic: Large Bitcoin Collider (Collision Finders Pool)  (Read 139328 times)
rico666
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 728


฿ → ∞


View Profile WWW
February 16, 2017, 01:19:02 PM
 #461


economic considerations:

Really? You've finally decided this "project" needs some economic considerations after 23 pages of enthusiastic code churning?

becoin - as always... It's not the "project" that needs economic considerations, but anyone who wants to get in the top30 for getting a GPU client and not forking out 0.1 BTC (or 0.5 BTC if he's becoin).

Right now, you can still get in the top30 for around $11 (~28 hours) with a m4.x16 AWS spot instance. To achieve the same with the p2.xlarge would cost you $33.


Apropos churning:

I made a workaround in the LBC client to stop the generator when it is churning bad hashes:

Code:
Ask for work... got blocks [405316777-405317288] (536 Mkeys)
oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo (6.68 Mkeys/s)
Ask for work... got blocks [405317817-405318328] (536 Mkeys)
oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo (6.51 Mkeys/s)
Ask for work... got blocks [405318361-405318872] (536 Mkeys)
ooooooooooooooooooGenerator churning bad hits! Abort.
20 just got out of the pool with exit code: 255 and data:
ooooooooooooomalformed JSON string, neither array, object, number, string or atom, at character offset 0 (before "HASH(0x3e5cca8)") at ./LBC line 1176.

It's not nice, but until I find a real fix, this at least prevents flawed PoW proliferating into the done blocks.


Rico

all non self-referential signatures except mine are lame ... oh wait ...   ·  LBC Thread (News)  ·  BURST Pool
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1506230025
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1506230025

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1506230025
Reply with quote  #2

1506230025
Report to moderator
1506230025
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1506230025

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1506230025
Reply with quote  #2

1506230025
Report to moderator
1506230025
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1506230025

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1506230025
Reply with quote  #2

1506230025
Report to moderator
rico666
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 728


฿ → ∞


View Profile WWW
February 16, 2017, 03:13:10 PM
 #462

As estimated, 10 cores can saturate 1 K80

Code:
+-------------------------------+----------------------+----------------------+
|   7  Tesla K80           On   | 0000:00:1E.0     Off |                    0 |
| N/A   48C    P0   104W / 149W |    641MiB / 11439MiB |     93%      Default |
+-------------------------------+----------------------+----------------------+
                                                                               
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Processes:                                                       GPU Memory |
|  GPU       PID  Type  Process name                               Usage      |
|=============================================================================|
|    7      2219    C   ./gen-hrdcore-avx2-linux64                      64MiB |
|    7      2221    C   ./gen-hrdcore-avx2-linux64                      64MiB |
|    7      2223    C   ./gen-hrdcore-avx2-linux64                      64MiB |
|    7      2225    C   ./gen-hrdcore-avx2-linux64                      64MiB |
|    7      2228    C   ./gen-hrdcore-avx2-linux64                      64MiB |
|    7      2229    C   ./gen-hrdcore-avx2-linux64                      64MiB |
|    7      2230    C   ./gen-hrdcore-avx2-linux64                      64MiB |
|    7      2232    C   ./gen-hrdcore-avx2-linux64                      64MiB |
|    7      2233    C   ./gen-hrdcore-avx2-linux64                      64MiB |
|    7      2234    C   ./gen-hrdcore-avx2-linux64                      64MiB |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

resulting in about 12 Mkeys/s

Code:
ubuntu@ip-172-31-32-72:~/collider$ ./LBC -c 10 -t 1 -l 0
Ask for work... got blocks [405667481-405668440] (1006 Mkeys)
oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo (12.07 Mkeys/s)

So a p2.8xlarge will give you around 8 times the keyrate of the p2.xlarge for - at least - 8 times the price of the p2.xlarge.
So not entirely satisfied...

Rico


all non self-referential signatures except mine are lame ... oh wait ...   ·  LBC Thread (News)  ·  BURST Pool
rico666
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 728


฿ → ∞


View Profile WWW
February 16, 2017, 04:48:23 PM
 #463

So it seems I finally managed to eliminate the race condition (clFlush and clFinish are the OpenCL programmer friends)
LBC is as stable as never before!  Smiley

Then I thought: "Hey! Why not make the GPU device choice a CLI parameter?" So I managed to
start 4 LBC instances, each taking 8 CPUs and a different GPU on p2.8xlarge.

Code:
ubuntu@ip-172-31-32-72:~/collider$ ./LBC -c 8 -t 1 -gdev 1
Ask for work... got blocks [406251993-406252760] (805 Mkeys)
...next window...
ubuntu@ip-172-31-32-72:~/collider$ ./LBC -c 8 -t 1 -gdev 2
Ask for work... got blocks [406253049-406253816] (805 Mkeys)
...next window...
ubuntu@ip-172-31-32-72:~/collider$ ./LBC -c 8 -t 1 -gdev 3
Ask for work... got blocks [406253817-406254584] (805 Mkeys)
...next window...
ubuntu@ip-172-31-32-72:~/collider$ ./LBC -c 8 -t 1 -gdev 4
Ask for work... got blocks [406254585-406255352] (805 Mkeys)

Theoretically, this should give me 32 Mkeys/s (edit: actually a p2.x8large gives right now 22 Mkeys/s) but after 20 seconds:



LBC vs. AWS 1:0
ok, reboot and 2nd try



LBC vs. AWS 2:0

Code:
top - 16:34:57 up 5 min,  5 users,  load average: 924.34, 384.11, 144.98

At the moment I have no evidence this would be some software fault on LBCs' side.

Yeah - if you give the instance time (slowly ramp up work), and install LBC in the ramdisk(!), then you can manage to have a working multi-GPU instance.

Code:
ubuntu@ip-172-31-32-72:~/collider$ nvidia-smi
Thu Feb 16 17:54:20 2017       
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| NVIDIA-SMI 367.57                 Driver Version: 367.57                    |
|-------------------------------+----------------------+----------------------+
| GPU  Name        Persistence-M| Bus-Id        Disp.A | Volatile Uncorr. ECC |
| Fan  Temp  Perf  Pwr:Usage/Cap|         Memory-Usage | GPU-Util  Compute M. |
|===============================+======================+======================|
|   0  Tesla K80           Off  | 0000:00:17.0     Off |                    0 |
| N/A   68C    P0    84W / 149W |    513MiB / 11439MiB |     42%      Default |
+-------------------------------+----------------------+----------------------+
|   1  Tesla K80           Off  | 0000:00:18.0     Off |                    0 |
| N/A   55C    P0    92W / 149W |    513MiB / 11439MiB |     40%      Default |
+-------------------------------+----------------------+----------------------+
|   2  Tesla K80           Off  | 0000:00:19.0     Off |                    0 |
| N/A   71C    P0    78W / 149W |    513MiB / 11439MiB |     42%      Default |
+-------------------------------+----------------------+----------------------+
|   3  Tesla K80           Off  | 0000:00:1A.0     Off |                    0 |
| N/A   55C    P0    87W / 149W |    513MiB / 11439MiB |     43%      Default |
+-------------------------------+----------------------+----------------------+
|   4  Tesla K80           Off  | 0000:00:1B.0     Off |                    0 |
| N/A   42C    P8    26W / 149W |      0MiB / 11439MiB |      0%      Default |
+-------------------------------+----------------------+----------------------+
|   5  Tesla K80           Off  | 0000:00:1C.0     Off |                    0 |
| N/A   36C    P8    31W / 149W |      0MiB / 11439MiB |      0%      Default |
+-------------------------------+----------------------+----------------------+
|   6  Tesla K80           Off  | 0000:00:1D.0     Off |                    0 |
| N/A   40C    P8    26W / 149W |      0MiB / 11439MiB |      0%      Default |
+-------------------------------+----------------------+----------------------+
|   7  Tesla K80           Off  | 0000:00:1E.0     Off |                    0 |
| N/A   34C    P8    30W / 149W |      0MiB / 11439MiB |      0%      Default |
+-------------------------------+----------------------+----------------------+
                                                                               
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Processes:                                                       GPU Memory |
|  GPU       PID  Type  Process name                               Usage      |
|=============================================================================|
|    0     26712    C   ./gen-hrdcore-avx2-linux64                      64MiB |
|    0     26713    C   ./gen-hrdcore-avx2-linux64                      64MiB |
|    0     26730    C   ./gen-hrdcore-avx2-linux64                      64MiB |
|    0     26732    C   ./gen-hrdcore-avx2-linux64                      64MiB |
|    0     26733    C   ./gen-hrdcore-avx2-linux64                      64MiB |
|    0     26734    C   ./gen-hrdcore-avx2-linux64                      64MiB |
|    0     26735    C   ./gen-hrdcore-avx2-linux64                      64MiB |
|    0     26746    C   ./gen-hrdcore-avx2-linux64                      64MiB |
|    1     26738    C   ./gen-hrdcore-avx2-linux64                      64MiB |
|    1     26739    C   ./gen-hrdcore-avx2-linux64                      64MiB |
|    1     26749    C   ./gen-hrdcore-avx2-linux64                      64MiB |
|    1     26750    C   ./gen-hrdcore-avx2-linux64                      64MiB |
|    1     26807    C   ./gen-hrdcore-avx2-linux64                      64MiB |
|    1     26815    C   ./gen-hrdcore-avx2-linux64                      64MiB |
|    1     26823    C   ./gen-hrdcore-avx2-linux64                      64MiB |
|    1     26831    C   ./gen-hrdcore-avx2-linux64                      64MiB |
|    2     26586    C   ./gen-hrdcore-avx2-linux64                      64MiB |
|    2     26588    C   ./gen-hrdcore-avx2-linux64                      64MiB |
|    2     26589    C   ./gen-hrdcore-avx2-linux64                      64MiB |
|    2     26590    C   ./gen-hrdcore-avx2-linux64                      64MiB |
|    2     26591    C   ./gen-hrdcore-avx2-linux64                      64MiB |
|    2     26616    C   ./gen-hrdcore-avx2-linux64                      64MiB |
|    2     26617    C   ./gen-hrdcore-avx2-linux64                      64MiB |
|    2     26618    C   ./gen-hrdcore-avx2-linux64                      64MiB |
|    3     26599    C   ./gen-hrdcore-avx2-linux64                      64MiB |
|    3     26601    C   ./gen-hrdcore-avx2-linux64                      64MiB |
|    3     26603    C   ./gen-hrdcore-avx2-linux64                      64MiB |
|    3     26606    C   ./gen-hrdcore-avx2-linux64                      64MiB |
|    3     26607    C   ./gen-hrdcore-avx2-linux64                      64MiB |
|    3     26608    C   ./gen-hrdcore-avx2-linux64                      64MiB |
|    3     26609    C   ./gen-hrdcore-avx2-linux64                      64MiB |
|    3     26610    C   ./gen-hrdcore-avx2-linux64                      64MiB |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

I'm seriously thinking about offering pre-installed LBC clients. This AWS crap is unbearable.  Wink

Rico

all non self-referential signatures except mine are lame ... oh wait ...   ·  LBC Thread (News)  ·  BURST Pool
unknownhostname
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 61


View Profile
February 16, 2017, 09:43:08 PM
 #464

whats the Key rate for a p2.16xlarge ?

As well for :

 Dual Intel Xeon E5-2690 v3 (2.60GHz)
24 Cores
64GB RAM
NVIDIA Tesla K80
GPU: 2 x Kepler GK210
Memory: 24GB GDDR5
Clock Speed: 2.5 GHz
NVIDIA CUDA Cores: 2 x 2496
Memory Bandwidth:
 2 x 240GB/sec


and same with


NVIDIA Tesla M60
GPU: 2 x Maxwell GM204
Memory: 16GB GDDR5
Clock Speed: 2.5 GHz
NVIDIA CUDA Cores: 2 x 2048
Memory Bandwidth:
 2 x 160GB/sec
CjMapope
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 854



View Profile
February 16, 2017, 09:54:20 PM
 #465

ASK FOR WORK.... DEATH KISS

?? Cheesy

(Searched the thread and site couldn't find a previous example of this)

edit:  it ran for a while then said  " so you want to play hard, sucker? yes, ok .. bye" and died.  man i love this server hahaha.
error must be on my end i think ;p maybe an update
edit 2: i fixed it, apparently the client self destructed (due to my "death wish"?) so i just remade the whole thing, im back colliding! Smiley

SlarkBoy
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 91


View Profile
February 17, 2017, 01:31:23 AM
 #466

OpenCL diagnostics written.
GPU authorized: yes
Will use 4 CPUs.
Best generator chosen: gen-hrdcore-gpu-linux64
New generator found. (DL-size: 0.72MB)
Benchmark info not found - benchmarking... ./gen-hrdcore-gpu-linux64: /usr/local/cuda-8.0/targets/x86_64-linux/lib/libOpenCL.so.1: no version information available (required by ./gen-hrdcore-gpu-linux64)
Couldn't find the program file: No such file or directory
done.
Your maximum speed is 89335072 keys/s per CPU core.
Ask for work... Server doesn't like us. Answer: toofast.


next run:
OpenCL diagnostics written.
GPU authorized: yes
Will use 4 CPUs.
Best generator chosen: gen-hrdcore-gpu-linux64
Ask for work... Server doesn't like us. Answer: toofast.


wow 80 Mkeys/s ?  Grin
rico666
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 728


฿ → ∞


View Profile WWW
February 17, 2017, 08:14:55 AM
 #467

Good morning.

Yesterday the LBC project moved quite a bit forward. I worked hard all day to test and code and so finally there is a GPU client which will be available to eligible users soon. Very soon.

@SlarkBoy
Quote
OpenCL diagnostics written.
GPU authorized: yes
Will use 4 CPUs.
Best generator chosen: gen-hrdcore-gpu-linux64
New generator found. (DL-size: 0.72MB)
Benchmark info not found - benchmarking... ./gen-hrdcore-gpu-linux64: /usr/local/cuda-8.0/targets/x86_64-linux/lib/libOpenCL.so.1: no version information available (required by ./gen-hrdcore-gpu-linux64)
Couldn't find the program file: No such file or directory
done.
Your maximum speed is 89335072 keys/s per CPU core.
Ask for work... Server doesn't like us. Answer: toofast.

Your client probably updated already to 1.015 - this is the 1st version to choose a GPU-assisted generator if all the prerequisites for it are met:

  • You put the --gpu flag on command line (if you don't it will still use the regular CPU generator)
  • You are in the top30 or have the GPU-eligible flag set
  • You have an AVX2 capable CPU
  • Your OpenCL environment is installed

There are still some things missing (like the OpenCL source code - that's why you see that error). After working almost 16 hours straight yesterday, I had to stop at some point.
I intend to have it all working this weekend.

Good news for the client is, the race condition is gone and it can now handle multiple GPUs in a system.

Bad news for those using AMD GPUs is: The client will only look out for Nvidia hardware. There is no technical reason for this. It's just that nobody with AMD hardware sent me a diagnostics file and I will not enable AMD support if untested. I have an AMD GPU machine here myself, but it's windows only and I have to install Linux on it 1st. After I have done and tested that, I will enable it.

@CjMapope
Quote
edit:  it ran for a while then said  " so you want to play hard, sucker? yes, ok .. bye" and died.  man i love this server hahaha.
error must be on my end i think ;p maybe an update

What you observed is the 2nd line of defense the client has in place to cope with code tampering. Normally it computes a checksum of its source code and sends that to the server which has a database entry which version has which checksum. If you tamper with the code, it will simply say so and block communication. Now if you dig deeper and change the code providing that checksum, you have tampered with the code and the client sends the "correct" checksum to the server. There is a 2nd mechanism in place to prevent that and that's what you have seen. Please do not change the code of the client - it's really not worth it.


@unknownhostname
Quote
whats the Key rate for a p2.16xlarge ?

I managed to get 22 Mkeys/s from a p2.8xlarge - for a while, after having worked hard to put the p2.8xlarge on life support. And it crashed eventually again.  Really - these machines are utter shit. And it crashed eventually again. $2 per hour? Bah. And for the regions I have looked up, Amazon wants $144 per hour for the ps.16xlarge. Srsly? In a perfect world you should get 44 Mkeys/s from a p2.16xlarge.
As I said, the best AWS machine for LBC is currently still the m4.16xlarge which gives you 18 Mkeys/s for $0.4 per hour.

Quote
As well for :
Dual Intel Xeon E5-2690 v3 (2.60GHz) 24 Cores
64GB RAM
NVIDIA Tesla K80
GPU: 2 x Kepler GK210

That looks way better.  My estimate is 2.5 to 3 times the speed you get from the CPU client on that machine. Should be 25 to 30 Mkeys/s.

Quote
..24 Haswell cores +
NVIDIA Tesla M60
GPU: 2 x Maxwell GM204

About the same speed, maybe slightly faster, but the GPUs being less under load. The CPUs are still a limiting factor here.



Rico

all non self-referential signatures except mine are lame ... oh wait ...   ·  LBC Thread (News)  ·  BURST Pool
unknownhostname
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 61


View Profile
February 17, 2017, 10:10:25 AM
 #468

from this

Dual Intel Xeon E5-2690 v3 (2.60GHz) 24 Cores
64GB RAM
NVIDIA Tesla K80
GPU: 2 x Kepler GK210

with vanitygen I was getting around 150Mkeys ...
rico666
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 728


฿ → ∞


View Profile WWW
February 17, 2017, 11:15:34 AM
 #469

So you're saying we are too slow? You are right, but it's not very motivational.

from this

Dual Intel Xeon E5-2690 v3 (2.60GHz) 24 Cores
64GB RAM
NVIDIA Tesla K80
GPU: 2 x Kepler GK210

with vanitygen I was getting around 150Mkeys ...

Which were only hashed to compressed addresses. Plus it does not check 9 M addresses for each generated key(!).
We're doing both uncompressed and compressed, so to be fair, when LBC will show 75Mkeys on this configuration, it will be technically as fast as oclvanitygen, but doing more work.

Our problem is still the ECC which happens on the CPU. Right now, we have a CPU/GPU hybrid. That is

  • The CPU computes 4096 uncompressed public keys and moves them to GPU
  • The GPU computes 4096 hash160 of this and 4096 hash160 of the compressed equivalents
  • The 8192 hashes are moved back to the CPU which performs a bloom filter search on them.

This process is done 4096 times before you see a 'o' on your screen. The bloom checking is negligible and the CPU could easily follow the GPU here.
The ECC is the problem. Of the 7.5 seconds for the 16Mkeys on my computer, 6.2 seconds are ECC.

I'm working on it, and we will see again (tremendous) speedups in the future. Until then the best motivation to make it happen is basically

"Yay! We are faster! Cheers!"  - after a 300% speedup (of Go generator, which was some 1000 times faster than wget/100x faster than vanitygen parsing
"Yay! We are faster! Cheers!"  - after a 1300% speedup (by using brainflayer)
"Yay! We are faster! Cheers!"  - after a 50% speedup by optimizing/rewriting the brainflayer code for almost 3 months.
"Yay! We are faster! Cheers!"  - after a 250% speedup by using the GPU as hash160 coprocessor
"Yay! We are faster! Cheers!"  - after a 20% speedup by optimizing the CPU/GPU hybrid more

=> We are today about 150x faster than the 1st LBC generator in July 2016, My notebook alone delivers 25x the keyrate than the whole pool upon inception.
=> We are on our way to a GPU generator only or something well balanced using 100% of the GPU (and efficiently)

So if we get ECC from 6.2s to - say - 1s, the configuration above will make around 90 Mkeys/s
I'm quite confident, that based on arulberos work and research, we can move quite a bit towards this goal.
Until then, what we've got is the best we've got.


Rico

all non self-referential signatures except mine are lame ... oh wait ...   ·  LBC Thread (News)  ·  BURST Pool
shifty252
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 137


View Profile
February 17, 2017, 01:39:15 PM
 #470

Before i go nuts and try to reach top30, is there a guesstimate for how a GTX 750TI will perform with LBC ?

Will it make sense to try and enter top30, or to shell out 0.1 BTC ?

My current setup is a i7-4770, 16GB RAM and a Palit GTX 750TI.

thanks
rico666
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 728


฿ → ∞


View Profile WWW
February 17, 2017, 02:09:09 PM
 #471

Before i go nuts and try to reach top30, is there a guesstimate for how a GTX 750TI will perform with LBC ?

Will it make sense to try and enter top30, or to shell out 0.1 BTC ?

My current setup is a i7-4770, 16GB RAM and a Palit GTX 750TI.

At the moment this configuration will give you ~ 3 times the performance compared what you get now with the CPU-only generator.

My suggestion would be to shell out 0.01 BTC for some AWS code ($20 or more) and to throw some AWS compute instance on the "top30 problem".
As of now, this is still possible. If 10 people do it, it may not.

Oh and because the question has come up: Once in top30 - always GPU-authorized=yes, the authorization will not go away should you fall out of the top30 again.

Rico

all non self-referential signatures except mine are lame ... oh wait ...   ·  LBC Thread (News)  ·  BURST Pool
shifty252
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 137


View Profile
February 17, 2017, 02:22:05 PM
 #472

Before i go nuts and try to reach top30, is there a guesstimate for how a GTX 750TI will perform with LBC ?

Will it make sense to try and enter top30, or to shell out 0.1 BTC ?

My current setup is a i7-4770, 16GB RAM and a Palit GTX 750TI.

At the moment this configuration will give you ~ 3 times the performance compared what you get now with the CPU-only generator.

My suggestion would be to shell out 0.01 BTC for some AWS code ($20 or more) and to throw some AWS compute instance on the "top30 problem".
As of now, this is still possible. If 10 people do it, it may not.

Oh and because the question has come up: Once in top30 - always GPU-authorized=yes, the authorization will not go away should you fall out of the top30 again.

Rico


Thanks for answering, but i'll stick to CPU-only for now. Not willing to spend any $ or BTC for less than 10x speed gain.

CPU-only performance is quite awesome, one core on i7-4770 does 720000 keys/second.
rico666
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 728


฿ → ∞


View Profile WWW
February 17, 2017, 02:33:34 PM
 #473

Thanks for answering, but i'll stick to CPU-only for now. Not willing to spend any $ or BTC for less than 10x speed gain.

CPU-only performance is quite awesome, one core on i7-4770 does 720000 keys/second.

I understand that, but you may want to reconsider (strategically). I will certainly not stop at 3x, but by the time I have a 10x client, the value of getting the perks of a top30 member may not be achievable below 0.1 BTC and 0.1 BTC may have a higher value than it has today...

What you are saying right now is: "I know you offer early adopters great benefits, but I prefer to wait."
It's ok. Like not having bought BTC @ $2.  Wink

Rico

all non self-referential signatures except mine are lame ... oh wait ...   ·  LBC Thread (News)  ·  BURST Pool
becoin
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1722



View Profile
February 17, 2017, 02:53:28 PM
 #474

What you are saying right now is: "I know you offer early adopters great benefits, but I prefer to wait."
It's ok. Like not having bought BTC @ $2.  Wink

Rico


What you're actually offering isn't to buy but to sell his BTC. So, it is more like not having sold BTC @ $10... That is why he is right in his preference to wait!
rico666
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 728


฿ → ∞


View Profile WWW
February 17, 2017, 03:15:56 PM
 #475

What you're actually offering isn't to buy but to sell his BTC. So, it is more like not having sold BTC @ $10... That is why he is right in his preference to wait!

If you say so...

AWS codes can be bought for $ too. If you're saying the value of a top30 account in LBC will be less and less.. Yeah sure - why not?  Cheesy


Rico

all non self-referential signatures except mine are lame ... oh wait ...   ·  LBC Thread (News)  ·  BURST Pool
becoin
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1722



View Profile
February 17, 2017, 03:36:47 PM
 #476

AWS codes can be bought for $ too.

I'd better buy bitcoins with those $. Or, are you saying AWS codes are more valuable than bitcoins?

If you're saying the value of a top30 account in LBC will be less and less..

Yes, definitely!... If measured in bitcoins!
rico666
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 728


฿ → ∞


View Profile WWW
February 17, 2017, 04:39:09 PM
 #477

I'd better buy bitcoins with those $. Or, are you saying AWS codes are more valuable than bitcoins?

I'd say everything is more valuable than bitcoins if you never buy anything for bitcoins.
If you're a hardcore hodler, it's fine with me.

Quote
Yes, definitely!... If measured in bitcoins!

I see you have a very exciting life ahead. Buy bitcoins -> hodl them for 50 years -> profit!


Rico

all non self-referential signatures except mine are lame ... oh wait ...   ·  LBC Thread (News)  ·  BURST Pool
shorena
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1358


ALL escrow is signed! https://keybase.io/verify


View Profile WWW
February 17, 2017, 05:53:14 PM
 #478

-snip-
@CjMapope
Quote
edit:  it ran for a while then said  " so you want to play hard, sucker? yes, ok .. bye" and died.  man i love this server hahaha.
error must be on my end i think ;p maybe an update

What you observed is the 2nd line of defense the client has in place to cope with code tampering. Normally it computes a checksum of its source code and sends that to the server which has a database entry which version has which checksum. If you tamper with the code, it will simply say so and block communication. Now if you dig deeper and change the code providing that checksum, you have tampered with the code and the client sends the "correct" checksum to the server. There is a 2nd mechanism in place to prevent that and that's what you have seen. Please do not change the code of the client - it's really not worth it.

Had a similar experience after waking up my VM today.

Code:
./LBC
New client ´1.015-LBC.bz2´ found.
Best generator chosen. gen-hrdcore-avx2-linux64
Ask for work... DEATH KISS
got block [xx-xx] (xx MKeys)
oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooDEATH KISS

So you sucker want to play it hard - yes? Ok... Goodbye
Server doesn´t like us. Answer: gen checksum.

Should probably just abort when a new version is found and not start working.

New version seems to work, Ill complain later in case it doesnt Wink

rico666
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 728


฿ → ∞


View Profile WWW
February 17, 2017, 08:46:18 PM
 #479

Should probably just abort when a new version is found and not start working.

New version seems to work, Ill complain later in case it doesnt Wink

I have checked it in the logs. Something is triggering this behavior in a regular update.
Currently it seems to keep the checksum of the older version, but sending the newer version
to the server


Code:
178cbfaa074273b584fd4f8ed220aaf6 <-> d9f2697140fbf1e5c919a01630bce63b

(178cbfaa074273b584fd4f8ed220aaf6 is 1.010 and d9f2697140fbf1e5c919a01630bce63b is 1.015)


Not sure yet what's going on, so for now it's safe to say if you encounter this, have a laugh and
ignore it - you're most probably not doing anything wrong. Just downloading 1.015 should fix things.
I will of course look into it and fix this.


Rico

all non self-referential signatures except mine are lame ... oh wait ...   ·  LBC Thread (News)  ·  BURST Pool
becoin
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1722



View Profile
February 17, 2017, 09:12:14 PM
 #480

I'd say everything is more valuable than bitcoins if you never buy anything for bitcoins.

Sure. I just find your logic quite amusing.

Use my bitcoins => buy AWS => find some of the early Satoshi keys => cause bitcoin price drop

Any idea why should I use some of my bitcoins to ruin the rest of my bitcoins?!

How is that valuable?

Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 [24] 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 »
  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!