|
jytou
|
 |
January 12, 2014, 08:08:36 PM |
|
Hi everybody, I'm getting strange outputs from the modified cgminer here: [2014-01-12 21:02:48] AVA looking for AVA 0403:6001 but found 1d6b:0002 instead
[2014-01-12 21:02:48] AVA looking for BTB 0403:6001 but found 1d6b:0003 instead
[2014-01-12 21:02:48] AVA looking for BBF 0403:6001 but found 1d6b:0003 instead
...
[2014-01-12 21:04:55] KnC spi: Can not open SPI device /dev/spidev1.0: No such file or directory
[2014-01-12 21:04:55] USB scan devices: checking for AVA devices
[2014-01-12 21:04:55] AVA looking for BTB 0403:6001 but found 1d6b:0002 instead
...
[2014-01-12 21:04:54] BAS looking for BAS 0403:6014 but found 1d6b:0002 instead
[2014-01-12 21:04:54] USB scan devices: checking for BF1 devices
[2014-01-12 21:04:54] BF1 looking for BF1 03eb:204b but found 1d6b:0002 instead
and then [2014-01-12 21:03:36] Proof: 00000000d4e34e27748e4fc00cbba08ce025935277ea27fda2be593c8e8d2988
Target: 00000000002ae134000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
TrgVal? no (false positive; hash > target)
[2014-01-12 21:03:36] Share above target
[2014-01-12 21:03:36] AMU0: nonce = 0x112ce92c = 0x112CE92D hashes (0.863070s)
[2014-01-12 21:03:36] [thread 0: 288155949 hashes, 332757.1 khash/sec]
[2014-01-12 21:03:36] Popping work from get queue to get work
[2014-01-12 21:03:36] Got work from get queue to get work for thread 0
[2014-01-12 21:03:36] Selecting pool 0 for work
[2014-01-12 21:03:36] DBG: sending http://localhost:8080 get RPC call: {"method": "getwork", "params": [], "id":0}
On the other hand I do get this sometimes: (5s):241.7M (avg):255.6Mh/s | A:0 R:0 HW:0 WU:5.0/m Is this normal? Doesn't seem to me... Thanks! |
|
|
|
|
|
smallplatf (OP)
|
|
January 12, 2014, 08:32:46 PM |
|
Hi everybody, I'm getting strange outputs from the modified cgminer here: [2014-01-12 21:02:48] AVA looking for AVA 0403:6001 but found 1d6b:0002 instead
[2014-01-12 21:02:48] AVA looking for BTB 0403:6001 but found 1d6b:0003 instead
[2014-01-12 21:02:48] AVA looking for BBF 0403:6001 but found 1d6b:0003 instead
...
[2014-01-12 21:04:55] KnC spi: Can not open SPI device /dev/spidev1.0: No such file or directory
[2014-01-12 21:04:55] USB scan devices: checking for AVA devices
[2014-01-12 21:04:55] AVA looking for BTB 0403:6001 but found 1d6b:0002 instead
...
[2014-01-12 21:04:54] BAS looking for BAS 0403:6014 but found 1d6b:0002 instead
[2014-01-12 21:04:54] USB scan devices: checking for BF1 devices
[2014-01-12 21:04:54] BF1 looking for BF1 03eb:204b but found 1d6b:0002 instead
and then [2014-01-12 21:03:36] Proof: 00000000d4e34e27748e4fc00cbba08ce025935277ea27fda2be593c8e8d2988
Target: 00000000002ae134000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
TrgVal? no (false positive; hash > target)
[2014-01-12 21:03:36] Share above target
[2014-01-12 21:03:36] AMU0: nonce = 0x112ce92c = 0x112CE92D hashes (0.863070s)
[2014-01-12 21:03:36] [thread 0: 288155949 hashes, 332757.1 khash/sec]
[2014-01-12 21:03:36] Popping work from get queue to get work
[2014-01-12 21:03:36] Got work from get queue to get work for thread 0
[2014-01-12 21:03:36] Selecting pool 0 for work
[2014-01-12 21:03:36] DBG: sending http://localhost:8080 get RPC call: {"method": "getwork", "params": [], "id":0}
On the other hand I do get this sometimes: (5s):241.7M (avg):255.6Mh/s | A:0 R:0 HW:0 WU:5.0/m Is this normal? Doesn't seem to me... Thanks! yes, it seems to work: the "Proof: 00000000d4e34e27748e4fc00cbba08ce025935277ea27fda2be593c8e8d2988 Target: 00000000002ae134000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000" was produced by AMU0 but it was a false positive; so at least there is an ASIC working (do you have only one ASIC?). 0 blocks accepted, 0 blocks rejected, no hardware errors. Seems ok. The first lines ("AVA looking for ...." etc) is the autodetection thread, which periodically looks for hotplug devices. |
|
|
|
|
jytou
|
|
January 12, 2014, 08:49:00 PM |
|
Ok thanks. It did find one block that just got accepted. Thanks!  |
|
|
|
|
|
smallplatf (OP)
|
|
January 12, 2014, 08:57:52 PM |
|
Ok thanks. It did find one block that just got accepted. Thanks! remember to add this to your mediterraneancoin.conf: addnode=node1.mediterraneancoin.org addnode=node2.mediterraneancoin.org addnode=node3.mediterraneancoin.org addnode=node4.mediterraneancoin.org |
|
|
|
|
jytou
|
|
January 13, 2014, 10:23:42 AM |
|
"difficulty" : 1349.74829054 Isn't this high already? |
|
|
|
|
|
battsali
|
|
January 13, 2014, 10:45:01 AM |
|
is time already for MED pool
smallplatf ?
|
|
|
|
|
|
eestimees
|
|
January 13, 2014, 10:59:47 AM |
|
is time already for MED pool
smallplatf ?
work in progress |
—
eestimees
|
|
|
|
smallplatf (OP)
|
|
January 13, 2014, 02:20:08 PM |
|
is time already for MED pool
smallplatf ?
work in progress correct! work in progress. for you software developers outhere: If you have a look at https://github.com/mrtexaznl?tab=repositories: we have completed and tested the php and python extension modules which implement HybridScryptHash256, the new PoW algorithm. These extensions are necessary for php-mpos (which will be used for the mining pool). Php-mpos is at a good point in the port, a couple of days are estimated for starting testing. p2pool can be used by beta-testers ( https://github.com/mrtexaznl/p2pool), but requires some work to setup your node, i.e. it should be used by advanced users. other interesting news should arrive quite soon and will be posted here in the forum.... |
|
|
|
|
smallplatf (OP)
|
|
January 13, 2014, 02:48:57 PM |
|
"difficulty" : 1349.74829054 Isn't this high already? with 10 block erupters, we have mined 5 blocks in the last 24 hours; in our opinion, the situation it is still good for solo mining. Anyway, we are preparing the tools for pool mining, so that when/if difficulty increases, miners can switch to pool mining, if they prefer. |
|
|
|
|
AbiTxGroup
|
|
January 14, 2014, 11:21:25 PM |
|
Be careful with the 8.5.2 wallet (mediterraneancoin-qt.exe). I checked it against virustotal and it showed that it had been previously scanned 0/49. I went ahead and recanned the file and it showed one infection, Virus.Win32.Xpaj.1!O. Did a google search, does not look good. Its a botnet virus, if it is a true infection. This file was from a fresh unzip of the tar file downloaded from here. It had not been executed yet. I am running other checks to insure the "infection" was done before it was zipped up, meaning, checking my own workstation, but since I never executed the file, it should not have come from my machine, but I have to check. I will redownload the file on a linux test station to see what a new scan shows. CMC was the only antivirus that found it, I am checking more on this. I will set up a test machine to see if the infection is true or false, at this point I am not sure. Hopefully by monitoring the outbound/inbound traffic to the test machine I will see what is happening, if anything other than the wallet running. Please be careful. Make sure your GPU mining machines do not have network file sharing active and block all incoming ports. I will post back after I verify the infection either false or positive. |
|
|
|
|
|
smallplatf (OP)
|
|
January 14, 2014, 11:57:45 PM |
|
Be careful with the 8.5.2 wallet (mediterraneancoin-qt.exe). I checked it against virustotal and it showed that it had been previously scanned 0/49. I went ahead and recanned the file and it showed one infection, Virus.Win32.Xpaj.1!O. Did a google search, does not look good. Its a botnet virus, if it is a true infection. This file was from a fresh unzip of the tar file downloaded from here. It had not been executed yet. I am running other checks to insure the "infection" was done before it was zipped up, meaning, checking my own workstation, but since I never executed the file, it should not have come from my machine, but I have to check. I will redownload the file on a linux test station to see what a new scan shows. CMC was the only antivirus that found it, I am checking more on this. I will set up a test machine to see if the infection is true or false, at this point I am not sure. Hopefully by monitoring the outbound/inbound traffic to the test machine I will see what is happening, if anything other than the wallet running. Please be careful. Make sure your GPU mining machines do not have network file sharing active and block all incoming ports. I will post back after I verify the infection either false or positive. before posting binaries, we always check them with a very good antivirus. Just rescanned all the files and mediterraneancoin-qt.exe in particular, TREND MICRO OfficeScan reports:
Scanning is complete, no security risk was found.
Virus Scan Engine 9.700.1001
Virus Pattern 10.539.00 (13/01/2014)
Spyware Scan Engine 6.2.3021
Spyware Pattern 14.73 (08/01/2014)Also all the win32 builds of wallet and daemon are gitian builds under linux, for additional safety. |
|
|
|
|
AbiTxGroup
|
|
January 15, 2014, 12:02:15 AM |
|
Be careful with the 8.5.2 wallet (mediterraneancoin-qt.exe). I checked it against virustotal and it showed that it had been previously scanned 0/49. I went ahead and recanned the file and it showed one infection, Virus.Win32.Xpaj.1!O. Did a google search, does not look good. Its a botnet virus, if it is a true infection. This file was from a fresh unzip of the tar file downloaded from here. It had not been executed yet. I am running other checks to insure the "infection" was done before it was zipped up, meaning, checking my own workstation, but since I never executed the file, it should not have come from my machine, but I have to check. I will redownload the file on a linux test station to see what a new scan shows. CMC was the only antivirus that found it, I am checking more on this. I will set up a test machine to see if the infection is true or false, at this point I am not sure. Hopefully by monitoring the outbound/inbound traffic to the test machine I will see what is happening, if anything other than the wallet running. Please be careful. Make sure your GPU mining machines do not have network file sharing active and block all incoming ports. I will post back after I verify the infection either false or positive. before posting binaries, we always check them with a very good antivirus. Just rescanned all the files and mediterraneancoin-qt.exe in particular, TREND MICRO OfficeScan reports:
Scanning is complete, no security risk was found.
Virus Scan Engine 9.700.1001
Virus Pattern 10.539.00 (13/01/2014)
Spyware Scan Engine 6.2.3021
Spyware Pattern 14.73 (08/01/2014)Also all the win32 builds of wallet and daemon are gitian builds under linux, for additional safety. Good. That is the correct thing to do, but always use a few different scanners as well. So far, it looks like a false positive. I checked a bunch of other coins with files from their sources, and the bitcoin-qt also shows the same info. Litecoin and namecoin do not show it. I then found another link to wallets and false virus hits here. I sent an email to CMC Antivirus to see if they will check their virus dat files, but I had to translate to and from Vietnamese, which I do not speak nor write. I have not completed the isolated workstation setup yet. The past few months I have expanded my network with mining machines and I am having to reconfigure my network setup to completely isolate the workstation from the rest of the network while still having internet access to the test machine. I already have the miners network seperated from the general use network, now I need to add the third testing network. Even though this is probably a false virus hit, always check your files. |
|
|
|
|
|
Snard
|
|
January 15, 2014, 12:27:56 AM |
|
I tested it under a virtual machine. Nothing funny. No extra folders/files/registry keys created. Looks like a FP.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
rmindel
Member
 Offline
Activity: 73
Merit: 10
|
|
January 15, 2014, 12:18:22 PM |
|
Hi all, like most i have a few BEs wasting energy on bitcoin so i started solo mining MEDs now I was wondering - what is keeping people with larger ASICs to mine this coin too? The larger ASICs are connected to the computer too and use cgminer too, what's keeping them from just running the altered cgminer? Plus - are there pools running? it takes forever to find a block at 1.5k diff... and is anyone working on getting the coin into exchanges? |
|
|
|
|
|
battsali
|
|
January 15, 2014, 01:03:11 PM |
|
hi there
i try to mine whith Blade --http-port option
but bfgminer show 5-6 Gh maximum
can you fix? -> for win32
Your sha256 asic speed is proportional to CPU Power of Java mcProxy  I have a BFL 30ghs. With bitcoin work at 33ghs, here at 28ghs with 64bit java/15ghs with 32bit java. mcproxy cap at 100% 1 core of my cpu. I think that it prepare scrypt part of MED proof of work. Your sha256 asic speed is proportional to CPU Power of Java mcProxy And i'm sure - just connect yours BEs and you will find some blocks |
|
|
|
|
|
smallplatf (OP)
|
|
January 15, 2014, 01:15:14 PM |
|
Hi all, like most i have a few BEs wasting energy on bitcoin so i started solo mining MEDs now I was wondering - what is keeping people with larger ASICs to mine this coin too? The larger ASICs are connected to the computer too and use cgminer too, what's keeping them from just running the altered cgminer? Plus - are there pools running? it takes forever to find a block at 1.5k diff... and is anyone working on getting the coin into exchanges? - the PoW algorithm is designed to limit ASICs by requiring a corresponding CPU power - the the pool software is in the works (port of php-mops); a couple of mining pools should appear soon, - we are also talking with exchanges, of course .... aaaand for advanced users (this was told in previous posts), p2pool is already available, see the source code here: https://github.com/mrtexaznl/p2pool. |
|
|
|
|
cr1st0f
|
|
January 15, 2014, 08:02:52 PM |
|
When u add support to multi threading on mcproxy? Now use only 1 cpu core |
|
|
|
|
smallplatf (OP)
|
|
January 16, 2014, 12:12:20 AM |
|
When u add support to multi threading on mcproxy? Now use only 1 cpu core multi threading support in mcproxy is under heavy-duty test right now. will post here when it is ok for production. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
