|
mhps
|
 |
July 17, 2013, 12:56:36 AM |
|
I noticed same behaviour importing multiple keys in a row into the QT wallet. There must be a bug in the QT client.
You have to keep the timely order (according to "timereceived" in listtransactions) to get the correct coin generation timestamp shown in QT client, i.e. first import the key with the oldest coins, then the second oldest etc.
If you import a key with newer coins first and then one with older coins, the row with address of the older coins will show the timestamp of the newer coins, as it did in your screenshot.
I posted a question here https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=254226.0. I thought it was only related to immature coins, and since no many other coins have such a long maturity time, I guess not many people see this problem. Maybe it has nothing to do with whether the blocks being moved is mature or not? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"This isn't the kind of software where we can leave so many unresolved bugs that we need a tracker for them." -- Satoshi
|
|
|
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
RandyFolds
|
|
July 17, 2013, 01:42:24 AM |
|
If the initial code had been properly optimized then starting difficulty could have been nearly 9 and we wouldn't be seeing such a short block time. This is a lesson, if your going to release a new algorithm for CPU mining, optimize the CPU code or else you've get quasi-ASIC like behavior in which hash rates explode and the coins may end up monopolized by people who have access to the high potency mining ability even if this is by software rather then hardware.
Starting difficulty would have still been where Sunny set it, 7. I don't know what the distribution looks like, but I am still finding blocks on 5 micro instances and a laptop running while I am sleeping. If difficulty adjustments took two weeks, I would agree with you, but it's dynamic. If his starting difficulty was in any way chosen to reflect the mining rate of some target number of PCs (the method Satoshi used) then optimized code would certainly have lead him to choose a higher difficulty, do you think 7 was just a number he pulled out of his ass with no regard to the target block time? So not only does he have to code and promote the coin, now he has to divine the future? I imagine that he set it where it to wouldn't be jammed up with orphan chains initially when utilizing CPU mining and then allowed it to self regulate. There is no way to predict adoption or hashing power or optimization. You are just some tool upset about the first WEEK of mining. Entitlement is an ugly thing. Didn't get enough of those 200k coins, or what? Fuckin' a...some people will bitch about anything. Oh get off it you twit, I'm pointing out how Sunny King could have had a better initial release that meet HIS goals. From what I've read on the optimization threads the original client was doing really obviously un-optimized stuff like calling malloc repeatedly which any first year programmer knows is a performance killer. Optimization CAN be predicted and the factor of 100x we have seen so far would be considered quite easy and 'low hanging fruit' to most programmers. SK was clearly trying to avoid overly fast blocks per his own pre-release thread that advertised "Reasonably high starting difficulty to limit instamining" but that effort was defeated by lack of optimization to the mining code under which the initial difficulty was chosen. Its a lesson anyone working on a new hash algorithm in the future should take to heart, it is meant as a constructive postmortem of this coins release. Your statements are simply knee-jerk defensiveness and seem to be ignorant of SK stated intentions as well, I assure you he is capable of taking constructive criticism and learning from mistakes, I recommend you do likewise. Your claim that optimization is predictable are dubious, to say the least, and is a pretty moot point in the grand scheme of things. Big picture, my man. Does it matter now? Anyone who wants to can still get their piece of the pie. This was much less of an instagrab clusterfuck that most altcoin launches I've observed. Still doesn't address that there is absolutely no way to predict adoption. Maybe Sunny wasn't expecting tens of thousands of people to jump on board and open dozens of VPS instances. If people stuck to their physical equipment, and even their botnets, we'd probably have seen much less downward pressure on blocktime. Hell, maybe he has never messed with miners before and focused his creative efforts on the important foundation, knowing full well that the community would continue yielding optimizations even if he spent years dialing in his miner. Bitcointalk is full of brilliant people. It never ceases to amaze me. I am sure others are as confident as I am in the skills and fortitude of the crypto community. I just really don't get your original point. "Hey Sunny! Things would be different if you had done things differently, Let me point some mining fundamentals for you; a higher starting difficulty would have slowed down blocktimes." Pretty sure he's hip to it, just underestimated things. You somehow imply he lobbed the miner over the plate, and fucked up. I am pretty sure there was no insane moneygrab. I am still getting blocks on 5 micro DO instances and my laptop. I think you are just inventing conspiracy theories about robber barons taking your blocks. Variance, son! |
|
|
|
|
|
RustyShackleford1950
|
|
July 17, 2013, 02:02:19 AM |
|
If the initial code had been properly optimized then starting difficulty could have been nearly 9 and we wouldn't be seeing such a short block time. This is a lesson, if your going to release a new algorithm for CPU mining, optimize the CPU code or else you've get quasi-ASIC like behavior in which hash rates explode and the coins may end up monopolized by people who have access to the high potency mining ability even if this is by software rather then hardware.
Starting difficulty would have still been where Sunny set it, 7. I don't know what the distribution looks like, but I am still finding blocks on 5 micro instances and a laptop running while I am sleeping. If difficulty adjustments took two weeks, I would agree with you, but it's dynamic. If his starting difficulty was in any way chosen to reflect the mining rate of some target number of PCs (the method Satoshi used) then optimized code would certainly have lead him to choose a higher difficulty, do you think 7 was just a number he pulled out of his ass with no regard to the target block time? So not only does he have to code and promote the coin, now he has to divine the future? I imagine that he set it where it to wouldn't be jammed up with orphan chains initially when utilizing CPU mining and then allowed it to self regulate. There is no way to predict adoption or hashing power or optimization. You are just some tool upset about the first WEEK of mining. Entitlement is an ugly thing. Didn't get enough of those 200k coins, or what? Fuckin' a...some people will bitch about anything. Oh get off it you twit, I'm pointing out how Sunny King could have had a better initial release that meet HIS goals. From what I've read on the optimization threads the original client was doing really obviously un-optimized stuff like calling malloc repeatedly which any first year programmer knows is a performance killer. Optimization CAN be predicted and the factor of 100x we have seen so far would be considered quite easy and 'low hanging fruit' to most programmers. SK was clearly trying to avoid overly fast blocks per his own pre-release thread that advertised "Reasonably high starting difficulty to limit instamining" but that effort was defeated by lack of optimization to the mining code under which the initial difficulty was chosen. Its a lesson anyone working on a new hash algorithm in the future should take to heart, it is meant as a constructive postmortem of this coins release. Your statements are simply knee-jerk defensiveness and seem to be ignorant of SK stated intentions as well, I assure you he is capable of taking constructive criticism and learning from mistakes, I recommend you do likewise. Your claim that optimization is predictable are dubious, to say the least, and is a pretty moot point in the grand scheme of things. Big picture, my man. Does it matter now? Anyone who wants to can still get their piece of the pie. This was much less of an instagrab clusterfuck that most altcoin launches I've observed. Still doesn't address that there is absolutely no way to predict adoption. Maybe Sunny wasn't expecting tens of thousands of people to jump on board and open dozens of VPS instances. If people stuck to their physical equipment, and even their botnets, we'd probably have seen much less downward pressure on blocktime. Hell, maybe he has never messed with miners before and focused his creative efforts on the important foundation, knowing full well that the community would continue yielding optimizations even if he spent years dialing in his miner. Bitcointalk is full of brilliant people. It never ceases to amaze me. I am sure others are as confident as I am in the skills and fortitude of the crypto community. I just really don't get your original point. "Hey Sunny! Things would be different if you had done things differently, Let me point some mining fundamentals for you; a higher starting difficulty would have slowed down blocktimes." Pretty sure he's hip to it, just underestimated things. You somehow imply he lobbed the miner over the plate, and fucked up. I am pretty sure there was no insane moneygrab. I am still getting blocks on 5 micro DO instances and my laptop. I think you are just inventing conspiracy theories about robber barons taking your blocks. Variance, son! Something no one ever consideres either, is that, lets say difficulty was at 9 at launch, then no-one would've got blocks, most solo miners would've got nothing, and XPM would be dead on arrival. It's a poorly thought out suggestion to simply say "Higher starting difficulty!!!" |
On keyboard, the big d, rusty shackleford
|
|
|
markm
Legendary
 Offline
Activity: 2940
Merit: 1090
|
|
July 17, 2013, 02:05:52 AM |
|
It was about the best starting difficulty I recall noticing in a log time. Scammers typically don't care or make some trivially tiny increase so they can try to pretend they tried.
-MarkM-
|
|
|
|
Impaler
Sr. Member
Offline
Activity: 826
Merit: 250
CryptoTalk.Org - Get Paid for every Post!
|
|
July 17, 2013, 02:21:51 AM |
|
RandyFolds: Why must you constantly paint me as some conspiracy theorist, dose this allow you to reject what I am saying more easily? I have not once accused anyone of a conspiracy, though you as starting to sound like a fan-boy trying to shout-down anything which is not abject praise for SK, hardly a conspiracy but pathological none the less. I am just providing a critic and advise for anyone who may wish to try a new hash algorithm in the future. Likewise you are still utterly ignorant as to the obviousness of optimization and any programmer will tell you so, stop presenting your personal incredulity as a refutation of my informed assessments.
RustyShackleford1950: Read my original posts before commenting, I clearly stated that optimizing the mining code before release would have allowed a higher difficulty at launch and still allowed the SAME initial block rate when everyone was using the original code. What we would not have seen is the drop down in the <10 second block times when the optimized clients were released, but instead a stabilization at target block time would have begun sooner.
markm: Yes the overall launch has still been vastly better then any of the scam coins in which low (sometimes lower then LTC) were intentionally used to cause insta-mining. The unoptimized code turned what would have a been a perfect launch into one slightly marred by an over production of coins.
|
|
|
|
AgentME
Member
Offline
Activity: 84
Merit: 10
|
|
July 17, 2013, 03:11:04 AM |
|
Been running tests for 2 days on the test-net and it looks like primecoind is crippled in some way.
Ran primecoind 1 hour and I end up with 10 blocks (had the same result 3 times) with sieve @ 1 million. If I run primecoin-qt for an hour I usually get about 30-60 blocks @ 1 million sieve. Did this test about 3-4 times.
This is with the hp4 client and only using one core on windows 7.
What was the difficulty rate each time on testnet? |
|
|
|
|
|
RandyFolds
|
|
July 17, 2013, 03:14:38 AM |
|
RandyFolds: Why must you constantly paint me as some conspiracy theorist, dose this allow you to reject what I am saying more easily? I have not once accused anyone of a conspiracy, though you as starting to sound like a fan-boy trying to shout-down anything which is not abject praise for SK, hardly a conspiracy but pathological none the less. I am just providing a critic and advise for anyone who may wish to try a new hash algorithm in the future. Likewise you are still utterly ignorant as to the obviousness of optimization and any programmer will tell you so, stop presenting your personal incredulity as a refutation of my informed assessments.
Your 'critic' (critique) and 'advise' (advice) amount to telling people to predict the future. Really, really useful, champ. Your informed assessment is deluded and confused. You don't know what you are talking about. A stream of people seem to agree. |
|
|
|
|
|
forsetifox
|
|
July 17, 2013, 03:41:00 AM |
|
Been running tests for 2 days on the test-net and it looks like primecoind is crippled in some way.
Ran primecoind 1 hour and I end up with 10 blocks (had the same result 3 times) with sieve @ 1 million. If I run primecoin-qt for an hour I usually get about 30-60 blocks @ 1 million sieve. Did this test about 3-4 times.
This is with the hp4 client and only using one core on windows 7.
What was the difficulty rate each time on testnet? time sieve diff blocks 03:30-04:30 1000000 5.9584 43 <-- primecoin-qt 04:41-05:41 1000000 5.9593 10 <-- primecoind |
|
|
|
|
Jigsaw
Member
Offline
Activity: 65
Merit: 10
|
|
July 17, 2013, 03:53:20 AM |
|
Is there anywhere to check the total network hashrate? I'm mining at 500k PPS and the blocks aren't coming in at the rate I'd expect them to.
|
|
|
|
|
|
ReCat
|
|
July 17, 2013, 03:54:39 AM |
|
Someone's running a botnet.  |
BTC: 1recatirpHBjR9sxgabB3RDtM6TgntYUW
Hold onto what you love with all your might, Because you can never know when - Oh. What you love is now gone.
|
|
|
markm
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2940
Merit: 1090
|
|
July 17, 2013, 03:58:17 AM |
|
Maybe not the only botnet though to their chagrin, eh?
-MarkM-
|
|
|
|
|
rethaw
|
|
July 17, 2013, 04:00:08 AM |
|
Is there anywhere to check the total network hashrate? I'm mining at 500k PPS and the blocks aren't coming in at the rate I'd expect them to.
Some very rough anecdotal evidence says 5kpps will get around a block a day, so 500kpps should get around 100 blocks a day. What are you getting? |
|
|
|
|
nmersulypnem
|
|
July 17, 2013, 04:06:17 AM |
|
Looks like mining is winding down for me (and every regular person on here). I managed to gat about 800 XPM. It's less than I expected having started the exact minute Primecoin was released, but I suppose my resources are more limited than others on here...
|
|
|
|
|
|
FiiNALiZE
|
|
July 17, 2013, 04:07:42 AM |
|
Looks like mining is winding down for me (and every regular person on here). I managed to gat about 800 XPM. It's less than I expected having started the exact minute Primecoin was released, but I suppose my resources are more limited than others on here...
800 XPM is still a pretty good haul. That's about 4 BTC, give or take. I started 3 days late and managed to mine 300 XPM before the diff shot up. |
|
|
|
Jigsaw
Member
Offline
Activity: 65
Merit: 10
|
|
July 17, 2013, 04:11:45 AM |
|
Is there anywhere to check the total network hashrate? I'm mining at 500k PPS and the blocks aren't coming in at the rate I'd expect them to.
Some very rough anecdotal evidence says 5kpps will get around a block a day, so 500kpps should get around 100 blocks a day. What are you getting? Got 25 blocks in the last 24 hours. Granted, my mining power hasn't been 500k PPS 24 hours ago, but if it had been that 24 hours ago then the equivalent would be about 70 blocks. |
|
|
|
|
|
salfter
|
|
July 17, 2013, 04:12:39 AM |
|
Anyone tried ypool? It seems to function. Just wondering if anyone has withdrew from it yet?
I've not yet hit the minimum for auto-payout, and there's no manual payout option. I think I'll have 2 XPM tomorrow. |
|
|
|
|
rethaw
|
|
July 17, 2013, 04:13:29 AM |
|
Is there anywhere to check the total network hashrate? I'm mining at 500k PPS and the blocks aren't coming in at the rate I'd expect them to.
Some very rough anecdotal evidence says 5kpps will get around a block a day, so 500kpps should get around 100 blocks a day. What are you getting? Got 25 blocks in the last 24 hours. Granted, my mining power hasn't been 500k PPS 24 hours ago, but if it had been that 24 hours ago then the equivalent would be about 70 blocks. That doesn't seem too far off. |
|
|
|
|
FiiNALiZE
|
|
July 17, 2013, 04:21:31 AM |
|
Is there anywhere to check the total network hashrate? I'm mining at 500k PPS and the blocks aren't coming in at the rate I'd expect them to.
Some very rough anecdotal evidence says 5kpps will get around a block a day, so 500kpps should get around 100 blocks a day. What are you getting? Got 25 blocks in the last 24 hours. Granted, my mining power hasn't been 500k PPS 24 hours ago, but if it had been that 24 hours ago then the equivalent would be about 70 blocks. What was your mining power 24 hours ago? I've been mining at 12,000 PPS for 48 hours and haven't found anything yet. |
|
|
|
Aggrophobia
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1064
Merit: 1000
|
|
July 17, 2013, 04:22:48 AM |
|
It doesn't have any relevance, mfaktx is only for factoring for possible mersenneprimes, to prove that they are composite if you found a factor. CUDALucas is a program like mprime or prime95 whicht test a candidate with Lucas-Lehmer-Method (works only for Mprimes) written in CUDA |
|
|
|
|
Jigsaw
Member
Offline
Activity: 65
Merit: 10
|
|
July 17, 2013, 05:15:57 AM |
|
Is there anywhere to check the total network hashrate? I'm mining at 500k PPS and the blocks aren't coming in at the rate I'd expect them to.
Some very rough anecdotal evidence says 5kpps will get around a block a day, so 500kpps should get around 100 blocks a day. What are you getting? Got 25 blocks in the last 24 hours. Granted, my mining power hasn't been 500k PPS 24 hours ago, but if it had been that 24 hours ago then the equivalent would be about 70 blocks. What was your mining power 24 hours ago? I've been mining at 12,000 PPS for 48 hours and haven't found anything yet. My mining power was roughly 75k around 4am EST on July 16. Was getting around a block or two an hour. |
|
|
|
|
|
