old thread - deleted

[mercSuey]

@Mullick you're working on both CGB and CAP at the same time?

No, Mullick is being Mullick...that is, helpful

If devs (both project and network) helped each other out instead of competed, altcoins would fucking rock the world...

[sheinsha]

And 0 men on this pool.  

Yes.. It would be nice if at least someone tried the pool..

I switch my rigs to Your pool for your hapiness.
I will waiting couple blocks.

edit: My CGminer can't connect to the pool. I don't know why, but it's a server side issue.  (don't recognize the username, etc-etc...ohh, and I can't ping the server too)

Hi are you using the correct settings ?
Start your miner using the following parameters:

URL:	stratum+tcp://cgb.minar.cc
PORT:	3337
USER:	username.worker
PASS:	workerPass

Sample command-line:
   ./cgminer -o stratum+tcp://cgb.minar.cc:3337 --scrypt -u username.worker -p workerPass


Can you try again, please?

I use same .bat file for every coin and pools. I change only the address, and save as.
I tried connect again and it's perfect.

How was your experience at cgb.minar.cc? No one is there at the moment...

[Lauda]

@Mullick you're working on both CGB and CAP at the same time?

No, Mullick is being Mullick...that is, helpful

If devs (both project and network) helped each other out instead of competed, altcoins would fucking rock the world...

Ah I was just wondering if he was helping along. Yup you're right, cap has enough problems as it is, and i'm sure cgb would benefit from this aswell 

[elambert]

Follow the bull on twitter https://twitter.com/CryptogenicBull

Like us on Facebook https://www.facebook.com/pages/Cryptogenic-Bullion/134177020124803

[mullick]

@Mullick you're working on both CGB and CAP at the same time?

No Elambert and satishi are doing a great job. I just like CGB and wanted to let users know why rewards are sometimes 0

[cywz]

5iqN125qEaGG7S2xJHK2souAN8MRdEH5kk

 

[elambert]

About 5 hrs till subsidy halves. This should have the effect of finally dropping CGB from the top 5 most profitable to mine (where it has been since it hit an exchange) or cause the price to double or most likely something between these 2 extremes! Stay tuned!

[miffman]

About 5 hrs till subsidy halves. This should have the effect of finally dropping CGB from the top 5 most profitable to mine (where it has been since it hit an exchange) or cause the price to double or most likely something between these 2 extremes! Stay tuned!

Exciting!! 

[elements]

BEWARE OF CRYPTO BACKJACK

BIG FAIL AGAIN!

=> https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=254482.0 (read entry #05)

I recommend op to take the link to Crypto Black Jack from this thread (at least until all bugs are fixed)

[DimaziK]

blok 50001 - 10 coins
blok 50002 - 10 coins
Why?

[diatonic]

It appears reward did not halve after block 50,000.

[Petr1fied]

BEWARE OF CRYPTO BACKJACK

BIG FAIL AGAIN!

=> https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=254482.0 (read entry #05)

I recommend op to take the link to Crypto Black Jack from this thread (at least until all bugs are fixed)

I think my response in around 30 minutes of your initial post is pretty damned good. Perhaps you should learn to exercise a little patience before essentially labelling the site a scam everywhere you can. 

[Ghepetto]

So at this rate all coins will be mined in the next 50k blocks.

[elements]

BEWARE OF CRYPTO BACKJACK

BIG FAIL AGAIN!

=> https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=254482.0 (read entry #05)

I recommend op to take the link to Crypto Black Jack from this thread (at least until all bugs are fixed)

I think my response in around 30 minutes of your initial post is pretty damned good. Perhaps you should learn to exercise a little patience before essentially labelling the site a scam everywhere you can. 

I am simply warning people. Read my last post on the thread linked.
Don't roll your eyes at me. It is not my fault that you start a gambling site without testing the withdrawal scripts!

Your quick response however is something to be praised!

[diatonic]

So at this rate all coins will be mined in the next 50k blocks.

Unless we fork it again and:

a) modify total coins
b) drop reward/block speed
c) some combination of the above options

[Ghepetto]

So at this rate all coins will be mined in the next 50k blocks.

Unless we fork it again and:

a) modify total coins
b) drop reward/block speed
c) some combination of the above options

hopefully not "a" I like the one mil cap.

[Lauda]

CGB bugged 

[datguyian]

So at this rate all coins will be mined in the next 50k blocks.

Unless we fork it again and:

a) modify total coins
b) drop reward/block speed
c) some combination of the above options

I vote B.

EDIT: Not sure if there would actually be a vote, just voicing my (likely insignificant) opinion. 

[Petr1fied]

Code:

// miner's coin base reward based on nBits
int64 GetProofOfWorkReward(unsigned int nHeight)
{
		int64 nSubsidy = 0 * COIN;

		if (nHeight > 0)
		{
			nSubsidy = 10 * COIN; // 500,000 coins
		}
    	else if (nHeight > 50000)
    	{
			nSubsidy = 5 * COIN; // 250,000 coins
		}
		else if (nHeight > 100000)
		{
			nSubsidy = 2.5 * COIN; // 125,000 coins
		}
		else if (nHeight > 150000)
		{
			nSubsidy = 1.25 * COIN; // 62,500 coins
		}
		else if (nHeight > 200000)
		{
			nSubsidy = 0.75 * COIN; // 37,500 coins
		}
		else if (nHeight > 250000)
		{
			nSubsidy = 0.375 * COIN; // 18,750 coins
		}
		else if (nHeight > 300000)
		{
			nSubsidy = 0.1875 * COIN; // 9,375 coins
		}
		else if (nHeight > 333334)
		{
			nSubsidy = 0.01 * COIN; // 5256 coins per year roughly 0.053% yearly inflation
		}

    	return nSubsidy;
}

That should have been more like:

Code:

// miner's coin base reward based on nBits
int64 GetProofOfWorkReward(unsigned int nHeight)
{
		int64 nSubsidy = 0 * COIN;

		if (nHeight > 0)
		{
			nSubsidy = 10 * COIN; // 500,000 coins
		}
    	        if (nHeight > 50000)
    	        {
			nSubsidy = 5 * COIN; // 250,000 coins
		}
		if (nHeight > 100000)
		{
			nSubsidy = 2.5 * COIN; // 125,000 coins
		}
		if (nHeight > 150000)
		{
			nSubsidy = 1.25 * COIN; // 62,500 coins
		}
		if (nHeight > 200000)
		{
			nSubsidy = 0.75 * COIN; // 37,500 coins
		}
		if (nHeight > 250000)
		{
			nSubsidy = 0.375 * COIN; // 18,750 coins
		}
		if (nHeight > 300000)
		{
			nSubsidy = 0.1875 * COIN; // 9,375 coins
		}
		if (nHeight > 333334)
		{
			nSubsidy = 0.01 * COIN; // 5256 coins per year roughly 0.053% yearly inflation
		}

    	return nSubsidy;
}

Using else if is what caused it not to hard fork because the first condition is always going to be true so there is never going to be an else. In fact if I'm being picky it should probably also use >= because > 50000 is actually block 50,001 and above (not that it would make all that much difference on the grand scale).

[mercSuey]

I did a quick look and found the bug...it's a quick and easy fix.  The dev is updating client right now.  It's looking like block reward will half at 55,000 then again at 95,000.

summary of old and new block rewards:

old:
50K blocks @ 10 = 500,000 (up to block 50,000)
50K blocks @ 5 = 250,000 (up to block 100,000)
750K coins

New fix:
55K blocks @ 10 = 550,000 (up to block 55,000)
40k blocks @ 5 = 200,000 (up to block 95,000)
750K coins