internetfloozy
Member
 Offline
Activity: 108
Merit: 10
|
 |
February 06, 2018, 03:56:26 PM |
|
Just started mining here.
Intel Xeon E5-2670 @2.30 (using 24 of 48 threads) - 4.29 KH/s
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Each block is stacked on top of the previous one. Adding another block to the top makes all lower blocks more difficult to remove: there is more "weight" above each block. A transaction in a block 6 blocks deep (6 confirmations) will be very difficult to remove.
|
|
|
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
D_D_S
Newbie
Offline
Activity: 8
Merit: 0
|
|
February 06, 2018, 04:14:44 PM |
|
vote for 400k Hello guys,
we have to implement code fork to prevent low difficulty attacks.
The problem is all nodes must be update before hour X.
So - when to start fork - at block 400R or earlier, at 375K???
|
|
|
|
|
|
httpb
|
|
February 06, 2018, 06:29:46 PM |
|
How would people know about the fork? Will the daemon complain or not work after the hard fork?
|
|
|
|
|
Jayjay04
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1364
Merit: 1000
|
|
February 06, 2018, 09:01:12 PM |
|
when is the new version gonna be available ?!
|
|
|
|
|
eeX (OP)
|
|
February 07, 2018, 10:40:29 AM |
|
How would people know about the fork? Will the daemon complain or not work after the hard fork?
Can't tell you really. Most of the people will not see any changes. But guys who will try to attack soldo network will have their block unconfirmed. |
Soldo [SLD] @ Soldo.IN
|
|
|
|
eeX (OP)
|
|
February 07, 2018, 10:41:55 AM |
|
when is the new version gonna be available ?!
As soon as we choose Fork starting block. This value will be hardcoded in the next build of Soldo............... |
Soldo [SLD] @ Soldo.IN
|
|
|
|
eeX (OP)
|
|
February 07, 2018, 12:14:56 PM |
|
BUILD #39 already released and now in test phase.
|
Soldo [SLD] @ Soldo.IN
|
|
|
Fury Road
Jr. Member
Offline
Activity: 86
Merit: 1
|
|
February 07, 2018, 12:23:13 PM |
|
are VCs firms invested ?
|
|
|
|
|
|
eeX (OP)
|
|
February 07, 2018, 01:06:38 PM
Last edit: February 07, 2018, 01:49:06 PM by eeX |
|
|
Soldo [SLD] @ Soldo.IN
|
|
|
vanhellzing
Newbie
Offline
Activity: 2
Merit: 0
|
|
February 07, 2018, 03:05:14 PM |
|
Compiling on Linux...got error: "...src/CryptoNoteCore/SwappedMap.h:186:3: error: «cout» is not a member of «std»" Adding "#include <iostream>" into SwappedMap.h solved the problem |
|
|
|
|
cranefist
Newbie
Offline
Activity: 205
Merit: 0
|
|
February 07, 2018, 03:33:51 PM
Last edit: February 07, 2018, 03:44:43 PM by cranefist |
|
Just started mining here.
Intel Xeon E5-2670 @2.30 (using 24 of 48 threads) - 4.29 KH/s
Is this correct? E5-2670 only has 8 cores and 16 threads. i7-2600 with 4 threads affined to 4 physical cores gives 0.78kh/s |
|
|
|
|
|
eeX (OP)
|
|
February 07, 2018, 05:27:39 PM |
|
Compiling on Linux...got error: "...src/CryptoNoteCore/SwappedMap.h:186:3: error: «cout» is not a member of «std»"
Adding "#include <iostream>" into SwappedMap.h solved the problem
Thanks!! What linux version exactly? |
Soldo [SLD] @ Soldo.IN
|
|
|
internetfloozy
Member
Offline
Activity: 108
Merit: 10
|
|
February 07, 2018, 05:36:37 PM |
|
Just started mining here.
Intel Xeon E5-2670 @2.30 (using 24 of 48 threads) - 4.29 KH/s
Is this correct? E5-2670 only has 8 cores and 16 threads. i7-2600 with 4 threads affined to 4 physical cores gives 0.78kh/s I am running windows server 2012 R2 and it states: Sockets: 2 Cores: 24 Logical Processors: 48 L3 Cache is 60mb, with that recommended is 30 threads but cut back to 24. |
|
|
|
|
vanhellzing
Newbie
Offline
Activity: 2
Merit: 0
|
|
February 07, 2018, 07:56:26 PM |
|
Compiling on Linux...got error: "...src/CryptoNoteCore/SwappedMap.h:186:3: error: «cout» is not a member of «std»"
Adding "#include <iostream>" into SwappedMap.h solved the problem
Thanks!! What linux version exactly? 4.15.1-gentoo |
|
|
|
|
Jayjay04
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1364
Merit: 1000
|
|
February 08, 2018, 10:17:12 AM |
|
Deamon updated ! good job !
|
|
|
|
cranefist
Newbie
Offline
Activity: 205
Merit: 0
|
|
February 08, 2018, 09:16:27 PM |
|
Just started mining here.
Intel Xeon E5-2670 @2.30 (using 24 of 48 threads) - 4.29 KH/s
Is this correct? E5-2670 only has 8 cores and 16 threads. i7-2600 with 4 threads affined to 4 physical cores gives 0.78kh/s I am running windows server 2012 R2 and it states: Sockets: 2 Cores: 24 Logical Processors: 48 L3 Cache is 60mb, with that recommended is 30 threads but cut back to 24. So you most like have two E5-2670v3 cpus. Both have 12 cores. The V3 is completely different cpu than the 8 core E5-2670. https://ark.intel.com/products/81709/Intel-Xeon-Processor-E5-2670-v3-30M-Cache-2_30-GHzSo you have 30mb l3 per cpu, you can run 15 threads per CPU node. |
|
|
|
|
duckhead
Newbie
Offline
Activity: 20
Merit: 0
|
|
February 09, 2018, 07:39:16 AM |
|
Maybe you need update on "Whats New" post, about the newer daemon version. Hash rate is very low now. |
|
|
|
|
Perog2
Member
Offline
Activity: 111
Merit: 11
Branding and graphic design on the blockchain.
|
|
February 09, 2018, 07:55:32 AM |
|
Maybe you need update on "Whats New" post, about the newer daemon version. Hash rate is very low now. The algorithm incorrectly calculates a hash because of a very powerful attack before hardfork. Terrorists lasted a spectacular show, but the blockchain lives)) |
|
|
|
grendel25
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2282
Merit: 1031
|
|
February 09, 2018, 08:09:13 AM |
|
I updated to the version 39 and I get all this weirdness 23:06:44.803291 INFO ;-) Found block for difficulty: 36610
23:06:44.805293 INFO Timestamp of block with id: <2a61922aac966c30965beaedb90c00
09c79c9fd69086190b1140a9072115a463>, 1518163604, less than median of last 30 blo
cks, 1518167007
23:06:44.808295 INFO Block <2a61922aac966c30965beaedb90c0009c79c9fd69086190b1140
a9072115a463> has invalid timestamp: 1518163604
23:06:44.812299 ERROR mined block failed verification
23:06:45.217688 INFO ;-) Found block for difficulty: 36610
23:06:45.219691 INFO Timestamp of block with id: <a262d8ca1c6e06d771b956509eed71
b01473708251ddd2782324ccec9639a431>, 1518163604, less than median of last 30 blo
cks, 1518167007
23:06:45.223693 INFO Block <a262d8ca1c6e06d771b956509eed71b01473708251ddd2782324
ccec9639a431> has invalid timestamp: 1518163604
23:06:45.226696 ERROR mined block failed verification
|
|
|
|
teedeexyz
Jr. Member
Offline
Activity: 74
Merit: 1
|
|
February 09, 2018, 08:10:20 AM |
|
I updated to the version 39 and I get all this weirdness 23:06:44.803291 INFO ;-) Found block for difficulty: 36610
23:06:44.805293 INFO Timestamp of block with id: <2a61922aac966c30965beaedb90c00
09c79c9fd69086190b1140a9072115a463>, 1518163604, less than median of last 30 blo
cks, 1518167007
23:06:44.808295 INFO Block <2a61922aac966c30965beaedb90c0009c79c9fd69086190b1140
a9072115a463> has invalid timestamp: 1518163604
23:06:44.812299 ERROR mined block failed verification
23:06:45.217688 INFO ;-) Found block for difficulty: 36610
23:06:45.219691 INFO Timestamp of block with id: <a262d8ca1c6e06d771b956509eed71
b01473708251ddd2782324ccec9639a431>, 1518163604, less than median of last 30 blo
cks, 1518167007
23:06:45.223693 INFO Block <a262d8ca1c6e06d771b956509eed71b01473708251ddd2782324
ccec9639a431> has invalid timestamp: 1518163604
23:06:45.226696 ERROR mined block failed verification
It's because the SLD chain is under attack right before the hardfork. Things should get normal again after block 375000. |
|
|
|
|
|
Poll
