[OLD] Eligius: ASIC, no registration, no fee CPPSRB BTC + 105% PPS NMC, 877 #

[Luke-Jr]

Armory 0.89.99.14-testing supports Bitcoin-Qt-compatible message signing, so Armory users can use My Eligius and similar functionality

[Saedeleare]

Thx folks, it worked

[soy]

I notice my last payout from Eligius has a regular icon rather than the usual crossed hammers.  Anything?

[wizkid057]

I notice my last payout from Eligius has a regular icon rather than the usual crossed hammers.  Anything?

Manual payout to catch up the payout queue.  Happens occasionally.  Lately about once every few days, actually.

[soy]

I notice my last payout from Eligius has a regular icon rather than the usual crossed hammers.  Anything?

Manual payout to catch up the payout queue.  Happens occasionally.  Lately about once every few days, actually.

I saw that 10 block line ahead of my last payout as well as some strange effects last night, since explained, and wondered if the reward for those 10 blocks had gone astray.  Also wondered if the connect failures to mining.eligius.st:3334, now understood to be depreciated in favor of stratum.mining.eligius.st:3334 or getwork.mining.eligius.st:8337, could have reduced funds for payout.  But you say this happens every few days?

[wizkid057]

Greetings Eligius Miners,

Just wanted to make note here that Eligius is the first pool to tentatively adopt a patch to our mining node to help deter address reuse. Due to concerns about people promoting address whitelisting/blacklisting in Bitcoin we're trying out an experimental feature that prioritizes transactions which use fresh addresses, as Bitcoin was designed to expect from the start.

This is experimental, has no real effect on miners or earnings, etc, and will be adjusted as needed as the patches evolve from here on.

Happy mining!

-wk

https://bitcointalk.org/?topic=334316

Beyond encouraging behavior that improves privacy for everyone and making censorship more of a non-starter, this has a benefit of giving naturally more equitable access to the shared resource of the blockchain:  If someone is self-identifying as a single user by using an address over and over again, why not use that information to give other transactions (which may all be from independent users) more equal access?

[chadtn]

I'm kind of confused about what this means.  Are you saying every time the pool solves a block I should start mining with a new payment address?  Or are you saying that every time the pool solves a block the rewards will be sent out to miners from a unique address?

Chad

[tgerring]

I'm kind of confused about what this means.  Are you saying every time the pool solves a block I should start mining with a new payment address?  Or are you saying that every time the pool solves a block the rewards will be sent out to miners from a unique address?

Chad

If I read correctly, neither.

The pool would prefer transactions to addresses which have not been reused.

[chadtn]

I'm kind of confused about what this means.  Are you saying every time the pool solves a block I should start mining with a new payment address?  Or are you saying that every time the pool solves a block the rewards will be sent out to miners from a unique address?

Chad

If I read correctly, neither.

The pool would prefer transactions to addresses which have not been reused.

Are you saying it would prefer addresses that have no record of use in the current block chain?  If I'm understanding it correctly, it seems like this would be a tricky situation because of the payout method used on this pool.  I was operating under the assumption that I would continue to mine until my reward reached something around 0.16xxxxxx, at which time it would enter the payout queue.  If I wasn't at the computer to immediately switch to a new address I would continue to accrue a small amount of coins that would probably be lost after switching to a new address because they are under the minimum limit.  Please correct me if I'm wrong.

Thanks!

Chad

[cscape]

Just wanted to make note here that Eligius is the first pool to tentatively adopt a patch to our mining node to help deter address reuse.
...
This is experimental, has no real effect on miners or earnings, etc, and will be adjusted as needed as the patches evolve from here on.

If it has no real effect, what exactly is the deterrent ?

[wizkid057]

And the confusion begins... I'll just quote myself:

This is experimental, has no real effect on miners or earnings, etc

[xyzzy099]

And the confusion begins... I'll just quote myself:

This is experimental, has no real effect on miners or earnings, etc

Wow.

You make a confusing announcement almost devoid of real information, and then respond condescendingly when people unsurprisingly have questions.

Wow.  That is just not necessary dude.

A better response would be to just explain the change in more detail.

[wizkid057]

And the confusion begins... I'll just quote myself:

This is experimental, has no real effect on miners or earnings, etc

Wow.

You make a confusing announcement almost devoid of real information, and then respond condescendingly when people unsurprisingly have questions.

Wow.  That is just not necessary dude.

A better response would be to just explain the change in more detail.

Its not confusing.  The announcement was quite clear.  And I'm not being condescending. The specific questions posed were answered in the announcement already in the one line I reiterated.

There is also a link to the thread containing more detail in my initial post...

-wk

[xyzzy099]

And the confusion begins... I'll just quote myself:

This is experimental, has no real effect on miners or earnings, etc

Wow.

You make a confusing announcement almost devoid of real information, and then respond condescendingly when people unsurprisingly have questions.

Wow.  That is just not necessary dude.

A better response would be to just explain the change in more detail.

Its not confusing.  The announcement was quite clear.  And I'm not being condescending. The specific questions posed were answered in the announcement already in the one line I reiterated.

There is also a link to the thread containing more detail in my initial post...

-wk

I get that the announcement stated that there were no changes that affected miners, but people read these things quickly and it is certainly not surprising or unexpected that you would get such questions - and even those of us who were not confused would still like to know more detail about this change.

I don't know how you can say you were not being condescending.  Reread your response and think about how it reads to the people you were responding to.

[wizkid057]

And the confusion begins... I'll just quote myself:

This is experimental, has no real effect on miners or earnings, etc

Wow.

You make a confusing announcement almost devoid of real information, and then respond condescendingly when people unsurprisingly have questions.

Wow.  That is just not necessary dude.

A better response would be to just explain the change in more detail.

Its not confusing.  The announcement was quite clear.  And I'm not being condescending. The specific questions posed were answered in the announcement already in the one line I reiterated.

There is also a link to the thread containing more detail in my initial post...

-wk

I get that the announcement stated that there were no changes that affected miners, but people read these things quickly and it is certainly not surprising or unexpected that you would get such questions - and even those of us who were not confused would still like to know more detail about this change.

I don't know how you can say you were not being condescending.  Reread your response and think about how it reads to the people you were responding to.

It was more a joke really, mainly because I was just talking on IRC about how people were going to be confused.  I do apologize if it came off offensively, however, as that was not my intent.

In any case, full details about the patch are in fact in the thread I linked to, and that opening post includes details and a link to the actual source changes to bitcoind.

-wk

[fubly]

Namacoin hot wallet?!

Where can i get one?

Compiling namecoin on osx, have anyone an good how to, inside the src is one, but not exact step for step.

thx very much

[helmax]

why diff is always 255
before is arround 127 or 63

[LordTheron]

Hi,

How long it take for payouts to be confirmed? My one seems to be taking hours.

[tgerring]

Hi,

How long it take for payouts to be confirmed? My one seems to be taking hours.

Coinbase transactions generally take 120 blocks to confirm

[BitcoinApprentice]

Greetings Eligius Miners,

Just wanted to make note here that Eligius is the first pool to tentatively adopt a patch to our mining node to help deter address reuse. Due to concerns about people promoting address whitelisting/blacklisting in Bitcoin we're trying out an experimental feature that prioritizes transactions which use fresh addresses, as Bitcoin was designed to expect from the start.

This is experimental, has no real effect on miners or earnings, etc, and will be adjusted as needed as the patches evolve from here on.

Happy mining!

-wk


Yes, the network needs anti-bodies over this movement & then to scab over it like a pearl.  I'm all for it. It just needs MORE publicity.
On a related topic, I see in https://blockexplorer.com that it says no public key yet. So it appears until a New coin address is used for its first OUT-transaction, there is no hacking danger(except at the login level)?, Nor this blacklist danger? 

Edit:to clarify, I was responding to the WKs original post;  NOT agreeing to the theory of chain equality. LOL