Bitcoin Forum
December 04, 2016, 02:22:37 PM *
News: Latest stable version of Bitcoin Core: 0.13.1  [Torrent].
 
   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 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 ... 201 »
  Print  
Author Topic: [OLD] Eligius: ASIC, no registration, no fee CPPSRB BTC + 105% PPS NMC, 877 #  (Read 417587 times)
The00Dustin
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 806


View Profile
March 22, 2012, 11:08:24 PM
 #961

I just spent coins from a generate and was charged a fee.  The generate was for .6793514 and since 120 confirmations were required before they could be spent, and since I was trying ot send exactly .6793514, I expected to be able to send the transaction for free.  Instead, a fee of .0005 was required and I had to spend .6788514 instead to afford the fee.  I know that ultimately fees will be necessary to support mining, but I believe right now fees are only required for transactions that fall outside of a certain scope.  My expectation did involve some assumption, but was based on this (from FAQ):
Quote
Why is there a minimum payout?
This feature was added to help miners avoid transaction fees.
Just out of curiosity, was the minimum payout's intent to be able to spend without a fee (in which case maybe it is currently too low, whether it was when implemented or not) or just to minimize fees (100 .00678851 inputs would have presumably required a larger fee)?
1480861357
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1480861357

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1480861357
Reply with quote  #2

1480861357
Report to moderator
You can see the statistics of your reports to moderators on the "Report to moderator" pages.
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1480861357
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1480861357

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1480861357
Reply with quote  #2

1480861357
Report to moderator
1480861357
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1480861357

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1480861357
Reply with quote  #2

1480861357
Report to moderator
Red Emerald
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 742



View Profile WWW
March 22, 2012, 11:26:43 PM
 #962

I just spent coins from a generate and was charged a fee.  The generate was for .6793514 and since 120 confirmations were required before they could be spent, and since I was trying ot send exactly .6793514, I expected to be able to send the transaction for free.  Instead, a fee of .0005 was required and I had to spend .6788514 instead to afford the fee.  I know that ultimately fees will be necessary to support mining, but I believe right now fees are only required for transactions that fall outside of a certain scope.  My expectation did involve some assumption, but was based on this (from FAQ):
Quote
Why is there a minimum payout?
This feature was added to help miners avoid transaction fees.
Just out of curiosity, was the minimum payout's intent to be able to spend without a fee (in which case maybe it is currently too low, whether it was when implemented or not) or just to minimize fees (100 .00678851 inputs would have presumably required a larger fee)?
IIRC once the coins are 120 generations in, they count as new coins. Since they are new coins, they don't get to be spent for free.  I think you could have waited for the coins to mature more and saved yourself about 2 cents.

priority = sum(input_value_in_base_units * input_age)/size_in_bytes
No clue what your size_in_bytes is or how to tell though.

Luke-Jr
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2086



View Profile
March 22, 2012, 11:32:59 PM
 #963

I just spent coins from a generate and was charged a fee.  The generate was for .6793514 and since 120 confirmations were required before they could be spent, and since I was trying ot send exactly .6793514, I expected to be able to send the transaction for free.  Instead, a fee of .0005 was required and I had to spend .6788514 instead to afford the fee.  I know that ultimately fees will be necessary to support mining, but I believe right now fees are only required for transactions that fall outside of a certain scope.  My expectation did involve some assumption, but was based on this (from FAQ):
Quote
Why is there a minimum payout?
This feature was added to help miners avoid transaction fees.
Just out of curiosity, was the minimum payout's intent to be able to spend without a fee (in which case maybe it is currently too low, whether it was when implemented or not) or just to minimize fees (100 .00678851 inputs would have presumably required a larger fee)?
The intent is to avoid 1000x .001 BTC inputs for a 1 BTC payment. Odd that you were charged a fee like that; I wonder why.

The00Dustin
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 806


View Profile
March 22, 2012, 11:40:44 PM
 #964

Odd that you were charged a fee like that; I wonder why.
I think Red Emerald is right, it probably hadn't even been 126 confirmations.  Like I said, I assumed that the 120 required before they could be spent made them old enough.  It's also possible that the minimum BTC amount to not require a fee is higher, but I think that depends on age, seems like I saw the formula about what causes a fee to be required once, just kinda forgot about it.
Red Emerald
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 742



View Profile WWW
March 22, 2012, 11:42:42 PM
 #965

Odd that you were charged a fee like that; I wonder why.
I think Red Emerald is right, it probably hadn't even been 126 confirmations.  Like I said, I assumed that the 120 required before they could be spent made them old enough.  It's also possible that the minimum BTC amount to not require a fee is higher, but I think that depends on age, seems like I saw the formula about what causes a fee to be required once, just kinda forgot about it.
https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Transaction_fees

The00Dustin
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 806


View Profile
March 22, 2012, 11:48:31 PM
 #966

Quote
Quote
priority = sum(input_value_in_base_units * input_age)/size_in_bytes
Transactions need to have a priority above 57,600,000 to avoid the enforced limit (as of client version 0.3.21).
That's exactly what I saw (and probably exactly where I saw it).

ETA:
(67935140 * 126) / 225 = 38,043,678.4
38,043,678.4 < 57,600,000, so I don't even know if the 120 generate confirmations counted in the formula or not.
Luke-Jr
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2086



View Profile
March 26, 2012, 03:57:35 AM
 #967

FWIW, BitVPS.com is offering Eligius miners 20% off with coupon code 'ELIGIUS'

JayCoin
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 406


Crypt'n Since 2011


View Profile WWW
March 27, 2012, 04:20:32 AM
 #968

How do you pay for this if you have no fees?  You don't include transactions in your blocks so you don't get any transactions fees. Even if you did, they wouldn't pay for the server you must need.  What is your motivation? World Peace?  Huh

Hello There!
Red Emerald
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 742



View Profile WWW
March 27, 2012, 04:32:05 AM
 #969

How do you pay for this if you have no fees?  You don't include transactions in your blocks so you don't get any transactions fees. Even if you did, they wouldn't pay for the server you must need.  What is your motivation? World Peace?  Huh
Where did you read he doesn't include transactions?  Also, there is still a 50BTC block subsidy.

Luke-jr does have lower variance by having people mine with him, but theres plenty of pools that are run for the benefit of Bitcoin over profit.

JayCoin
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 406


Crypt'n Since 2011


View Profile WWW
March 27, 2012, 04:44:43 AM
 #970

How do you pay for this if you have no fees?  You don't include transactions in your blocks so you don't get any transactions fees. Even if you did, they wouldn't pay for the server you must need.  What is your motivation? World Peace?  Huh
Where did you read he doesn't include transactions?  Also, there is still a 50BTC block subsidy.

Luke-jr does have lower variance by having people mine with him, but theres plenty of pools that are run for the benefit of Bitcoin over profit.

If you look at recent blocks found by Eligius http://blockchain.info/blocks/Eligius every block only contains the one generation transaction.

Hello There!
Luke-Jr
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2086



View Profile
March 27, 2012, 05:22:15 AM
 #971

How do you pay for this if you have no fees?  You don't include transactions in your blocks so you don't get any transactions fees. Even if you did, they wouldn't pay for the server you must need.  What is your motivation? World Peace?  Huh
Where did you read he doesn't include transactions?  Also, there is still a 50BTC block subsidy.

Luke-jr does have lower variance by having people mine with him, but theres plenty of pools that are run for the benefit of Bitcoin over profit.

If you look at recent blocks found by Eligius http://blockchain.info/blocks/Eligius every block only contains the one generation transaction.
Those aren't found by Eligius, it's just blockchain.info screwing up. See http://eligius.st/~artefact2/blocks/ for our real blocks.

gr0bi42
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 158


View Profile WWW
April 05, 2012, 09:02:21 AM
 #972

Hi Luke-Jr,

something is wrong with the stats at Eligius. Since Apr 2 it's completely wired.

Also the "submitted shares" count looks wrong. Does Eligius loose shares, or it's just a problem with the stats?

Donations are welcome: 1Btf3BqUegfe5iFdWsgfBf1Ew3YsAvsrLT
Luke-Jr
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2086



View Profile
April 05, 2012, 06:43:23 PM
 #973

Hi Luke-Jr,

something is wrong with the stats at Eligius. Since Apr 2 it's completely wired.

Also the "submitted shares" count looks wrong. Does Eligius loose shares, or it's just a problem with the stats?
Everything looks fine to me...

Luke-Jr
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2086



View Profile
April 06, 2012, 04:01:02 PM
 #974

FWIW, I just published an old copy of Eligius's coinbaser script.

organofcorti
Donator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1946


Poor impulse control.


View Profile WWW
April 12, 2012, 02:43:20 PM
 #975

Luke-jr, shouldn't the pool be in a negative buffer at the moment? Your stats page is showing a positive buffer. Come to think of it, it shows that you've never had a negative buffer. Bug?

Bitcoin network and pool analysis 12QxPHEuxDrs7mCyGSx1iVSozTwtquDB3r
follow @oocBlog for new post notifications
Luke-Jr
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2086



View Profile
April 12, 2012, 02:47:39 PM
 #976

Luke-jr, shouldn't the pool be in a negative buffer at the moment? Your stats page is showing a positive buffer. Come to think of it, it shows that you've never had a negative buffer. Bug?
There is no such thing as a negative buffer. How do you have a negative balance?

organofcorti
Donator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1946


Poor impulse control.


View Profile WWW
April 12, 2012, 02:52:00 PM
 #977

Are we talking about the same thing? The SMPPS buffer? Which can be negative, and unless you're using a different definition of 'balance' is as likely to be negative as positive?

How do you have a negative balance?

You should talk to my bank manager some day. He has much to say on the topic Smiley

Bitcoin network and pool analysis 12QxPHEuxDrs7mCyGSx1iVSozTwtquDB3r
follow @oocBlog for new post notifications
Luke-Jr
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2086



View Profile
April 12, 2012, 03:11:37 PM
 #978

Are we talking about the same thing? The SMPPS buffer? Which can be negative, and unless you're using a different definition of 'balance' is as likely to be negative as positive?
Yes, and as the creator of SMPPS, I know that the buffer in fact cannot be negative by definition... Either there are funds in it, or not. There can't be anti-funds in the pool's wallet any more than there can be anti-funds in your own.

DeathAndTaxes
Donator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1218


Gerald Davis


View Profile
April 12, 2012, 08:02:50 PM
 #979

If 1 bitcent and 1 anti-bitcent are destroyed in mutual annihilation how much energy is produced?
The00Dustin
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 806


View Profile
April 12, 2012, 08:13:46 PM
 #980

I'm surprised I'm the only one who wants to know, but what caused the charts to mess up yesterday?  I happened to be looking when the lines were down really low (perhaps because all previous payout information was missing?), and the charts pretty much didn't show anything.  Even now it's hard to see detail on them and presumably will be for the rest of a week until the messed up part scrolls off the left side.  I'm just as curious regarding whether or not data is missing and/or accurate as I am regarding whether or not the charts will be fixed/normal before that part scrolls off.

ETA: I forgot the charts could be zoomed on.  I'm now far more concerned about the integrity of the stats than the issue in the charts.  Not that I'm even that concerned about the stats (mostly curious).
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 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 ... 201 »
  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!