Aahzman
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
October 24, 2012, 12:56:19 AM |
|
dangit. that'll break my share streak.. it's over 30k now.
|
|
|
|
digital
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
October 24, 2012, 01:17:24 AM |
|
dangit. that'll break my share streak.. it's over 30k now.
lol
|
If I help you out: 17QatvSdciyv2zsdAbphDEUzST1S6x46c3 References (bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=): 50051.20 50051.100 53668.0 53788.0 53571.0 53571.0 52212.0 50729.0 114804.0 115468 78106 69061 58572 54747
|
|
|
|
Thralen
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
October 24, 2012, 06:05:27 AM |
|
Woohoo!
I knew I kept that old 5670 in the BAMT rig with the faster cards for a reason. It just found my first block (after mining for well over a year), block number 204492. About time...
Thralen
|
Supporting bitcoin as best I can with 1. mining, 2. buying with bitcoin, 3. selling (or trying to) for bitcoin. If you make a donation to: 1MahzUUEYJrZ4VbPRm2h5itGZKEguGVZK1 I'll get it into circulation.
|
|
|
digital
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
October 28, 2012, 03:12:29 PM |
|
Zero namecoin rewards in the last 4 rounds?
That seems extremely odd.
|
If I help you out: 17QatvSdciyv2zsdAbphDEUzST1S6x46c3 References (bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=): 50051.20 50051.100 53668.0 53788.0 53571.0 53571.0 52212.0 50729.0 114804.0 115468 78106 69061 58572 54747
|
|
|
VeeMiner
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
October 28, 2012, 06:12:48 PM |
|
Zero namecoin rewards in the last 4 rounds?
That seems extremely odd.
namecoins are pretty useless anyway so I wouldn't make a big deal out of it ![Smiley](https://bitcointalk.org/Smileys/default/smiley.gif)
|
|
|
|
digital
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
October 28, 2012, 07:04:21 PM |
|
Zero namecoin rewards in the last 4 rounds?
That seems extremely odd.
namecoins are pretty useless anyway so I wouldn't make a big deal out of it ![Smiley](https://bitcointalk.org/Smileys/default/smiley.gif) Not helpful, but hey, at least you got your opinion out there right?
|
If I help you out: 17QatvSdciyv2zsdAbphDEUzST1S6x46c3 References (bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=): 50051.20 50051.100 53668.0 53788.0 53571.0 53571.0 52212.0 50729.0 114804.0 115468 78106 69061 58572 54747
|
|
|
xhoud01
Newbie
Offline
Activity: 56
Merit: 0
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
October 28, 2012, 09:28:01 PM |
|
Hi Slush, I am running cluster at about 21177 Mhash/s over Stratum 24/hours a day. I am experiencing weird results:
In rounds that take less than 10 min, I am getting in everage aprox 25% less BTC reward than in longer rounds. Do you have an explanation for that?
14499 2012-10-28 21:04:57 3:19:28 6225948 0.47559232 205457 99 confirmations left 14498 2012-10-28 17:45:29 0:08:20 329669 0.36785404 205435 77 confirmations left 14497 2012-10-28 17:37:04 0:24:19 861367 0.46408428 205432 74 confirmations left 14496 2012-10-28 17:12:38 1:03:37 2085276 0.44666061 205429 71 confirmations left 14495 2012-10-28 16:08:52 2:39:19 5026981 0.47298015 205422 64 confirmations left 14494 2012-10-28 13:29:33 2:09:20 4109653 0.46649767 205398 40 confirmations left 14493 2012-10-28 11:20:13 1:04:48 2102209 0.46776012 205377 19 confirmations left 14492 2012-10-28 10:15:25 0:05:52 221440 0.37440259 205368 10 confirmations left 14491 2012-10-28 10:09:33 1:32:52 2902404 0.46973427 205366 8 confirmations left 14490 2012-10-28 08:36:35 0:08:10 309157 0.38314444 205353 confirmed 14489 2012-10-28 08:28:18 0:17:34 632768 0.44944079 205351 confirmed 14488 2012-10-28 08:10:38 1:10:27 2265815 0.45915052 205350 confirmed 14487 2012-10-28 07:00:05 0:10:25 390258 0.37391746 205343 confirmed 14486 2012-10-28 06:49:35 0:50:15 1631890 0.47672695 205342 confirmed 14485 2012-10-28 05:59:20 0:19:20 660704 0.46180293 205339 confirmed 14484 2012-10-28 05:39:52 4:10:25 7779746 0.48759257 205338 confirmed 14483 2012-10-28 01:29:21 0:08:08 309159 0.39049572 205318 confirmed
Dan
|
|
|
|
digital
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
October 28, 2012, 09:52:06 PM |
|
Old news man...
The short answer, is it's basically a result of pool hoppers. they come in at the beginning of rounds hoping to capitalize on short rounds. And on short rounds they do capitalize as you can see by the lower numbers.
Slush is currently working on a different scoring algorithm (double gemoetric or dgm) that is hopping proof. Not sure of where he's as far as progress, he'll have to let you know on that end.
|
If I help you out: 17QatvSdciyv2zsdAbphDEUzST1S6x46c3 References (bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=): 50051.20 50051.100 53668.0 53788.0 53571.0 53571.0 52212.0 50729.0 114804.0 115468 78106 69061 58572 54747
|
|
|
xhoud01
Newbie
Offline
Activity: 56
Merit: 0
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
October 29, 2012, 08:32:30 PM |
|
Old news man...
The short answer, is it's basically a result of pool hoppers. they come in at the beginning of rounds hoping to capitalize on short rounds. And on short rounds they do capitalize as you can see by the lower numbers.
Slush is currently working on a different scoring algorithm (double gemoetric or dgm) that is hopping proof. Not sure of where he's as far as progress, he'll have to let you know on that end.
Hello Slush, do you plan to implement some hopping proof method + will you share Bitcoin fees with pool miners once the BTC reward drop to 25BTC/block?
|
|
|
|
slush (OP)
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1386
Merit: 1097
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
October 30, 2012, 07:59:58 AM |
|
Hello Slush, do you plan to implement some hopping proof method + will you share Bitcoin fees with pool miners once the BTC reward drop to 25BTC/block?
Yes and yes.
|
|
|
|
slush (OP)
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1386
Merit: 1097
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
October 30, 2012, 08:03:54 AM |
|
Zero namecoin rewards in the last 4 rounds? That seems extremely odd.
Stratum pool don't have support for Namecoin (yet), so around 30% of hashpower isn't mining for Namecoin. Still you should have higher namecoin income than on other pools, because quite a lot people didn't filled NMC address... I'm considering to drop of NMC support, because this project is basically dead and current merged mining sources are incompatible with latest bitcoin development (no support for merged mining over getblocktemplate etc). There's no project development since merged mining has been introduced in last October...
|
|
|
|
VeeMiner
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
October 30, 2012, 08:08:53 AM |
|
Zero namecoin rewards in the last 4 rounds?
That seems extremely odd.
namecoins are pretty useless anyway so I wouldn't make a big deal out of it ![Smiley](https://bitcointalk.org/Smileys/default/smiley.gif) Not helpful, but hey, at least you got your opinion out there right? right ![Smiley](https://bitcointalk.org/Smileys/default/smiley.gif)
|
|
|
|
DrHaribo
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2730
Merit: 1034
Needs more jiggawatts
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
October 30, 2012, 06:39:28 PM |
|
I'm considering to drop of NMC support, because this project is basically dead and current merged mining sources are incompatible with latest bitcoin development (no support for merged mining over getblocktemplate etc). There's no project development since merged mining has been introduced in last October...
What's the problem with using getblocktemplate for merged mining? I think that should work. I agree namecoin seems dead, though. I wish they would at least fix the bugs they have that were fixed in bitcoin long ago.
|
|
|
|
eleuthria
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1750
Merit: 1007
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
October 30, 2012, 09:40:07 PM |
|
I'm considering to drop of NMC support, because this project is basically dead and current merged mining sources are incompatible with latest bitcoin development (no support for merged mining over getblocktemplate etc). There's no project development since merged mining has been introduced in last October...
What's the problem with using getblocktemplate for merged mining? I think that should work. I agree namecoin seems dead, though. I wish they would at least fix the bugs they have that were fixed in bitcoin long ago. As far as I'm aware there is no problem with doing so, you just have to implement the merged mining process into your pool software rather than some of the older (less efficient) methods that were done when merged mining was first being pushed. Like slush, I'm considering dropping NMC support as well. The project really does seem dead. It was a great concept, but it feels like it should have been a fresh project rather than a fork off bitcoin. There is simply far too little innovation compared to how much garbage has been dragged along for the ride.
|
RIP BTC Guild, April 2011 - June 2015
|
|
|
slush (OP)
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1386
Merit: 1097
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
October 30, 2012, 11:40:08 PM |
|
As far as I'm aware there is no problem with doing so, you just have to implement the merged mining process into your pool software rather than some of the older (less efficient) methods that were done when merged mining was first being pushed.
Yes, it is clearly possible, although there's no docs for merged mining process and existing software and patch to older bitcoind is mostly hack to "get it work" instead of "get it work properly". I'll discuss this in #namecoin anyway. If there'll be somebody willing to help me with re-implementation of MM and removing dependency to bitcoind patches, I'll try to do it...
|
|
|
|
-ck
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 4214
Merit: 1644
Ruu \o/
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
October 31, 2012, 12:54:25 AM |
|
I'd rather see merged mining go.
|
Developer/maintainer for cgminer, ckpool/ckproxy, and the -ck kernel 2% Fee Solo mining at solo.ckpool.org -ck
|
|
|
Portnoy
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2030
Merit: 1000
My money; Our Bitcoin.
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
October 31, 2012, 12:59:57 AM |
|
As far as I'm aware there is no problem with doing so, you just have to implement the merged mining process into your pool software rather than some of the older (less efficient) methods that were done when merged mining was first being pushed.
Yes, it is clearly possible, although there's no docs for merged mining process and existing software and patch to older bitcoind is mostly hack to "get it work" instead of "get it work properly". I'll discuss this in #namecoin anyway. If there'll be somebody willing to help me with re-implementation of MM and removing dependency to bitcoind patches, I'll try to do it...Thanks. I feel there is much promise there, but perhaps not much need for it... yet. And, as they say, it is better to have it and not need it than to need it and not have it. Like slush, I'm considering dropping NMC support as well. The project really does seem dead...
Whoever speaketh of Cthulhu shall remember that he but seemeth dead, he sleeps, and yet he does not sleep, he has died and yet he is not dead, asleep and dead though he is, he shall rise again. Again it should be shown that
That is not dead which can eternal lie, and with strange aeons even death may die.
![Grin](https://bitcointalk.org/Smileys/default/grin.gif)
|
|
|
|
eleuthria
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1750
Merit: 1007
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
October 31, 2012, 02:38:28 AM |
|
As far as I'm aware there is no problem with doing so, you just have to implement the merged mining process into your pool software rather than some of the older (less efficient) methods that were done when merged mining was first being pushed.
Yes, it is clearly possible, although there's no docs for merged mining process and existing software and patch to older bitcoind is mostly hack to "get it work" instead of "get it work properly". I'll discuss this in #namecoin anyway. If there'll be somebody willing to help me with re-implementation of MM and removing dependency to bitcoind patches, I'll try to do it...Thanks. I feel there is much promise there, but perhaps not much need for it... yet. And, as they say, it is better to have it and not need it than to need it and not have it. Honestly I think there is no need for namecoin. It won't route around government/ISP censorship like TOR can. The only thing I see going for it is it's a lot easier to tell somebody a .bit address than a .onion.
|
RIP BTC Guild, April 2011 - June 2015
|
|
|
slush (OP)
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1386
Merit: 1097
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
October 31, 2012, 11:10:55 AM |
|
I do think there's a space for some generic key->value distributed storage like namecoin, although current namecoin implementation is alpha-quality hack of original bitcoin sources and I expected some serious development when it had been obvious that there's some interest. Unfortunately nothing happen in last year. As I said, I'll try to ask somebody for help with generic NMC MM interface with GBT and without bitcoind patches and I'll decide then...
|
|
|
|
|