|
redditorrex
|
 |
June 24, 2011, 03:19:30 AM |
|
Gotta love that Lady Luck
|
Reddit Mining Team - MtRed.com = Pure PPS + #00GH/s + LP(+) + AutoPay&InstaPay + Audio Notifications
Find us in #mtred @ irc.freenode.net
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
According to NIST and ECRYPT II, the cryptographic algorithms used in
Bitcoin are expected to be strong until at least 2030. (After that, it
will not be too difficult to transition to different algorithms.)
|
|
|
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction.
|
|
|
|
Wuked (OP)
|
|
June 24, 2011, 03:48:00 AM |
|
Wow... incredibely hard block. Meh... who knows, maybe the next one will be 20 minutes  You weren't far wrong  |
|
|
|
|
Grouver (BtcBalance)
|
|
June 24, 2011, 05:45:47 AM
Last edit: June 24, 2011, 11:15:04 AM by Grouver |
|
Finnaly...
Btw... what the hell.
I changed my payout to 0.3.
Yesterday it changed to it.
And now its 1.0 again.
I change it to 0.3 fill in my password to confirm, hit submit and then it says i updated my account succesfully.
I logout, login and I switch to Edit details.
And then again its still set to 1.0
Yes, something is wrong.
EDIT:
Now again its set to: 0.10000000 without me filling this in.
I have a 0.3 reward in my mineco account but nothing is happening?
While you said that if you recceive a reward it will automaticly payout based on the amount you have set in your mineco account.
Its set to 0.1 now.. but why nothing is happening?
I just feel something is wrong.
So yeah...
How can i get my bitcoins to my wallet?
|
|
|
|
|
PandaMiner
|
|
June 24, 2011, 11:44:26 AM
Last edit: June 25, 2011, 07:34:39 AM by PandaMarketer |
|
what is wrong with this formula?
BlockReward (50BTC+fees)) * (Shares found by you / total shares for this round)
Its syntax and "+" is wrong. But that's it.  It should be: [added spaces for readability] (50 BTC - fees) * (Your Shares / Total Shares Per Round) |
|
|
|
ottodv
Newbie
 Offline
Activity: 59
Merit: 0
|
|
June 24, 2011, 07:31:33 PM |
|
I did some low hashrate testing of Mineco.in comparing it against Deepbit (with all things being equal except the pool).
These are the results in the order in which I tried running against both pools:
Deepbit: [50 Accepted] [0 Rejected]
Mineco.in: [27 Accepted] [13 Rejected]
Deepbit: [39 Accepted] [0 Rejected]
Mineco.in: [18 Accepted] [12 Rejected]
Deepbit: [13 Accepted] [0 Rejected]
Something is causing a very high number of rejects on Mineco.in.
|
|
|
|
|
|
klaaster
|
|
June 24, 2011, 07:47:13 PM |
|
Could you post the pings to both?
|
|
|
|
|
ottodv
Newbie
Offline
Activity: 59
Merit: 0
|
|
June 24, 2011, 08:16:00 PM |
|
Could you post the pings to both? $ ping -c 5 mineco.in PING mineco.in (77.72.0.50) 56(84) bytes of data. 64 bytes from server.wuked.co.uk (77.72.0.50): icmp_req=1 ttl=47 time=60.7 ms 64 bytes from server.wuked.co.uk (77.72.0.50): icmp_req=2 ttl=47 time=63.8 ms 64 bytes from server.wuked.co.uk (77.72.0.50): icmp_req=3 ttl=47 time=72.4 ms 64 bytes from server.wuked.co.uk (77.72.0.50): icmp_req=4 ttl=47 time=60.4 ms 64 bytes from server.wuked.co.uk (77.72.0.50): icmp_req=5 ttl=47 time=56.3 ms --- mineco.in ping statistics --- 5 packets transmitted, 5 received, 0% packet loss, time 4005ms rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 56.399/62.772/72.445/5.387 ms $ ping -c 5 deepbit.net PING deepbit.net (46.4.121.118) 56(84) bytes of data. 64 bytes from static.118.121.4.46.clients.your-server.de (46.4.121.118): icmp_req=1 ttl=51 time=60.1 ms 64 bytes from static.118.121.4.46.clients.your-server.de (46.4.121.118): icmp_req=2 ttl=51 time=74.9 ms 64 bytes from static.118.121.4.46.clients.your-server.de (46.4.121.118): icmp_req=3 ttl=51 time=63.6 ms 64 bytes from static.118.121.4.46.clients.your-server.de (46.4.121.118): icmp_req=4 ttl=51 time=58.0 ms 64 bytes from static.118.121.4.46.clients.your-server.de (46.4.121.118): icmp_req=5 ttl=51 time=70.8 ms --- deepbit.net ping statistics --- 5 packets transmitted, 5 received, 0% packet loss, time 4005ms rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 58.033/65.516/74.918/6.405 ms |
|
|
|
|
|
klaaster
|
|
June 24, 2011, 08:40:55 PM |
|
Strange, I expected your ping would be higher to mineco.in.
Then however it maybe is related directly to the pool.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Wuked (OP)
|
|
June 24, 2011, 09:18:40 PM |
|
No one else is reporting the same problem as you are.
1) What's your location
2) What's your hash speed ?
3) What mining software are you using?
|
|
|
|
ottodv
Newbie
Offline
Activity: 59
Merit: 0
|
|
June 24, 2011, 09:27:01 PM |
|
Answers to your questions:
1. Estonia
2. 56 MH/s
3. Phoenix
|
|
|
|
|
|
PandaMiner
|
|
June 24, 2011, 11:29:30 PM |
|
Hey Wuked, try and put a password recovery script on the site. My browser knows it, but when I want to make a change, I need to type it in manually, and I have forgotten it. I have changed a lot of passwords this past week and I didn't keep track of them all. Sigh.
Also, it would be cool if you could link your logo to the "dashboard" or "home" page.
dave
|
|
|
|
|
Wuked (OP)
|
|
June 25, 2011, 05:35:55 AM |
|
|
|
|
|
|
PandaMiner
|
|
June 25, 2011, 06:58:54 AM
Last edit: June 25, 2011, 07:35:47 AM by PandaMarketer |
|
Nevermind... I was able to hack my firefox to get my password.
Thanks for the reply.
EDIT: YES!!! We solved another block. I think it was lucky, because it was LESS shares than the difficulty rating of 1.3MM.
|
|
|
|
|
Wuked (OP)
|
|
June 25, 2011, 10:50:57 AM |
|
Answers to your questions:
1. Estonia
2. 56 MH/s
3. Phoenix
Can I ask, did you try a different miner to see if there was a problem with them too ? |
|
|
|
spiccioli
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1378
Merit: 1003
nec sine labore
|
|
June 25, 2011, 12:09:59 PM |
|
Wuked,
I'm testing mineco.in since last night, I have two miners on it, looking at my miners I have submitted more or less 3600 shares, but my account statistics show a lot less of them
# Current rate: 49 GH/s
# Time: 0 days 08:34:05
# Total Shares: 339234
# Difficulty: 1379192
# Server Load: Low
# Your Shares 2362 (0.6963 %)
# Your Reward: 0.34835371 BTC
I'm subtracting stale shares, of course.
Is this page updated seldomly or what?
Regards.
spiccioli.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Wuked (OP)
|
|
June 25, 2011, 12:32:46 PM |
|
That count is your shares for this round only, not your total shares ever.
Since we found a block around 7 hours ago, your local count will contain shares from the old block as well as the new block, whereas the count on the site is only since 3:30am this morning!
|
|
|
|
spiccioli
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1378
Merit: 1003
nec sine labore
|
|
June 25, 2011, 01:03:30 PM |
|
That count is your shares for this round only, not your total shares ever.
Since we found a block around 7 hours ago, your local count will contain shares from the old block as well as the new block, whereas the count on the site is only since 3:30am this morning!
Thanks, I did not realize this simple issue... time to take a sleep spiccioli. |
|
|
|
|
|
iopq
|
|
June 25, 2011, 02:37:24 PM |
|
what is wrong with this formula?
BlockReward (50BTC+fees)) * (Shares found by you / total shares for this round)
Its syntax and "+" is wrong. But that's it. It should be: [added spaces for readability] (50 BTC - fees) * (Your Shares / Total Shares Per Round)as I understand it, transaction fees are actually being distributed in this pool when bitcoins will start being mined at 25, then 12.5, then 6.25 this will become even more important as they will be a larger percentage of the earnings of miners and eventually, that's all that miners will be able to gain |
|
|
|
|
ottodv
Newbie
Offline
Activity: 59
Merit: 0
|
|
June 25, 2011, 04:52:29 PM
Last edit: June 25, 2011, 05:38:11 PM by ottodv |
|
Can I ask, did you try a different miner to see if there was a problem with them too ? No I haven't tried another miner with your pool. I am past the stage of selecting a miner, phoenix worked best on my hardware (both my test miner and mining rig). You should be able to see what happened on your side, I was mining with the same userid as here. Here's the output of a new test run on Mineco: [25/06/2011 19:55:32] Phoenix 1.50 starting...
[25/06/2011 19:55:32] Connected to server
[25/06/2011 19:57:02] Result: 62c6f925 accepted
[25/06/2011 19:57:54] Result: 30684065 rejected
[25/06/2011 19:58:24] Result: 13cdb784 accepted
[25/06/2011 19:59:46] Result: 976a1610 accepted
[25/06/2011 19:59:54] LP: New work pushed
[25/06/2011 20:01:16] Result: 8689744b accepted
[25/06/2011 20:01:27] LP: New work pushed
[25/06/2011 20:02:41] Result: 5914ff59 rejected
[25/06/2011 20:04:57] Result: cb3fea61 rejected
[25/06/2011 20:05:12] Result: 164095d5 rejected
[25/06/2011 20:05:51] Result: cd6abaae accepted
[25/06/2011 20:07:35] Result: 198865d6 rejected
[25/06/2011 20:08:24] LP: New work pushed
[25/06/2011 20:09:07] Result: fb5b1a31 accepted
[25/06/2011 20:09:33] Result: c39b0007 accepted
[25/06/2011 20:10:19] Result: 2f02d9d0 accepted
[25/06/2011 20:10:20] Result: e96fc0a6 accepted
[25/06/2011 20:11:04] Result: 8d1a4382 accepted
[25/06/2011 20:11:07] Result: eacb3665 accepted
[25/06/2011 20:11:58] Result: 26954655 rejected
[25/06/2011 20:12:27] Result: 30f374bd accepted
[25/06/2011 20:14:07] Result: 4c8cd1b9 accepted
[25/06/2011 20:17:02] Result: dac52cce rejected
[25/06/2011 20:19:35] Result: 32c9f5b9 rejected
[25/06/2011 20:20:01] Result: 2c64d9dc accepted
[25/06/2011 20:20:29] LP: New work pushed
[25/06/2011 20:21:40] Result: 1c17fbf1 accepted
[25/06/2011 20:22:16] Result: 82f1de3f accepted
[25/06/2011 20:23:15] Result: 0ed195e9 accepted
[25/06/2011 20:24:32] LP: New work pushed
[25/06/2011 20:25:00] Result: 1fbb1829 accepted
[25/06/2011 20:26:51] Result: f752da45 rejected
[25/06/2011 20:27:07] Result: d45f3c48 accepted
[25/06/2011 20:27:57] Result: 91c5a84b rejected
[25/06/2011 20:28:13] Result: 852d4ca6 rejected
[25/06/2011 20:30:39] Result: 2ca456e2 rejected
[25/06/2011 20:31:10] Result: 386dfe17 rejected
[25/06/2011 20:33:22] LP: New work pushed
[25/06/2011 20:33:48] Result: 621ffc6a accepted
[25/06/2011 20:35:15] Result: cc6e21ac accepted
[25/06/2011 20:35:35] Result: 7df9b8c8 rejected
[25/06/2011 20:36:07] LP: New work pushed
[25/06/2011 20:36:43] Result: dd6e14a7 accepted
[56.47 Mhash/sec] [22 Accepted] [14 Rejected] [RPC (+LP)]
|
|
|
|
|
figvam
Newbie
Offline
Activity: 42
Merit: 0
|
|
June 25, 2011, 05:42:41 PM |
|
I can confirm Diablo miner has a problem with the pool. Here's a part of the log to give an idea: [6/25/11 7:07:00 PM] Accepted block 131 found on ATI RV730 (#1)
[6/25/11 7:08:49 PM] Accepted block 132 found on ATI RV730 (#1)
[6/25/11 7:09:55 PM] Accepted block 133 found on ATI RV730 (#1)
[6/25/11 7:18:11 PM] Accepted block 134 found on ATI RV730 (#1)
[6/25/11 7:19:49 PM] Rejected block 87 found on ATI RV730 (#1)
[6/25/11 7:23:08 PM] Rejected block 88 found on ATI RV730 (#1)
[6/25/11 7:31:47 PM] Rejected block 89 found on ATI RV730 (#1)
[6/25/11 7:33:31 PM] Rejected block 90 found on ATI RV730 (#1)
[6/25/11 7:37:07 PM] Rejected block 91 found on ATI RV730 (#1)
[6/25/11 7:38:18 PM] Rejected block 92 found on ATI RV730 (#1)
[6/25/11 7:38:45 PM] Rejected block 93 found on ATI RV730 (#1)
[6/25/11 7:39:34 PM] Accepted block 135 found on ATI RV730 (#1)
[6/25/11 7:45:34 PM] Accepted block 136 found on ATI RV730 (#1)
[6/25/11 7:47:37 PM] Accepted block 137 found on ATI RV730 (#1)
[6/25/11 7:49:01 PM] Rejected block 94 found on ATI RV730 (#1)
[6/25/11 7:49:40 PM] Rejected block 95 found on ATI RV730 (#1)
[6/25/11 8:05:10 PM] Rejected block 96 found on ATI RV730 (#1)
with the total stats: mhash 30.1/30.3 | accept: 145 | reject: 108 | hw error: 0 Phoenix, poclbm and friends work good. Maybe it's Diablo software problem... |
|
|
|
|
|
