★★DigiByte|极特币★★[DGB]✔ Core v6.16.5.1 - DigiShield, DigiSpeed, Segwit

[halinyo]

I personally wonder if there is any legal issues with the project Jared is involve in for DigiByte?... And if there is, wondering how they are planning to solve it...
Best,

[1714675649]

1714675649

[1714675649]

1714675649

[HR]

Hi all, just wondering if someone can provide some input on issues we're seeing with mining on Digihash...

We've recently switched a couple of our mining rigs back to Digihash after running them on other pools without issue:

1st Rig: MinerEU Rig 90MH/s - I'm seeing a high number of rejects, far more than I see on P2Pools and other Stratum pools. I'm seeing about 3% rejects with this rig. Normal reject rate for this rig is usually around 0.1% on other pools. I'm running the 256 Network Difficulty option on Digihash (port 3257)

2nd Rig: Zues Lightning X6 44MH/s - I'm seeing a high number of rejects on this rig too, but I'm also seeing a very high number of hardware errors  compared to other pools. Again I'm running the 256 Network Difficulty option on Digihash (port 3257)

3rd Rig: I'm also running some lower hash rate blades on DigiHash, hardware errors are also unusually high on them, but reject rate is pretty good.

All devices are running an expiry = 120, queue = 0, and a scantime=30.

Are other people experiencing the same kind of stats on scrypt? Are we running too high of a network difficulty for the two larger rigs?

Cheers

Where are you located? Where were you mining before?

I suspect it's a latency issue, but your answers to those 2 questions are needed in order to confirm.

[digitaldoxy]

Hi all, just wondering if someone can provide some input on issues we're seeing with mining on Digihash...

We've recently switched a couple of our mining rigs back to Digihash after running them on other pools without issue:

1st Rig: MinerEU Rig 90MH/s - I'm seeing a high number of rejects, far more than I see on P2Pools and other Stratum pools. I'm seeing about 3% rejects with this rig. Normal reject rate for this rig is usually around 0.1% on other pools. I'm running the 256 Network Difficulty option on Digihash (port 3257)

2nd Rig: Zues Lightning X6 44MH/s - I'm seeing a high number of rejects on this rig too, but I'm also seeing a very high number of hardware errors  compared to other pools. Again I'm running the 256 Network Difficulty option on Digihash (port 3257)

3rd Rig: I'm also running some lower hash rate blades on DigiHash, hardware errors are also unusually high on them, but reject rate is pretty good.

All devices are running an expiry = 120, queue = 0, and a scantime=30.

Are other people experiencing the same kind of stats on scrypt? Are we running too high of a network difficulty for the two larger rigs?

Cheers

Where are you located? Where were you mining before?

I suspect it's a latency issue, but your answers to those 2 questions are needed in order to confirm.

Thanks for the response HR, I'm in Australia mate.

We are running the bigger rigs from our offices in Melbourne, the internet can slow down when we have offsite backups coming in, but otherwise it's pretty good (dedicated 100Mb pipe running to main infrastructure) The other units are running from my house over NBN (100Mb network).

I was mining to Coinmine.pw previously which was connecting to their US located servers... Also have some EC2 instances on Amazon AWS which I run a couple of P2Pools from. Several instances are located in the US and some here in Australia. All of these have run very reliably with low reject rates.

You raise a very good point though, just pinged Digihash.co from my house and got a 296ms ping time! If I ping coinmine.pw in the USA it's a 14ms round trip, and all Amazon instances are sub 10ms.... Where in gods name is Digihash located... The Arctic Circle?? lol

On another note, I tried Digihash sometime ago and found I wasn't getting payments for hours, am now experiencing the very same issue after getting a couple of payments, nothing for nearly two hours, is there still an issue with payments freezing up?

EDIT: Just remoted into a work PC and got 270ms to digihash, and then another ping to Digihash from an EC2 Amazon instance located in the USA, got 210ms... All other pools I tested were sub 10ms with most sub 5ms.

[Steal]

Hello, I'm using GOOGLE translation, so I'll keep it short.

I am contacting you because I have a problem with my wallet DigiByte 64bit Core v3.0.3.0
My available balance appears to be 3,000,000, but I can't send more than 1.1 million to my other address.

my two addresses:
- http://www.richlist.eu/digibyte/stats/DCS2wZvFPfDtKufUEpRQDmXt3GHEkE726J
- http://www.richlist.eu/digibyte/stats/DAAVsbhoprWeQ2b4y4QDoZNZPLZCqi5ND8

If required I can also send you the transaction statement

Here are some screenshots :

Thanks for your help !

I think I have the answer! HR Thanks for your forum: http://asistec-ti.com/

"It means that your transaction size in bytes is too larger (bytes, not DigiBytes). In a nutshell, it has to do with the number of inputs that are going into your output. If your inputs are very small, the total number of DGB that you will be able to send will also be very small. ~675 inputs would be the maximum you could currently combine for an output send, so if you're mining with a CPU and you've got inputs of, let's say an average of 5 DGB, the most DGB you could send would be 3,375, and you'd pay 2 DGB just like you'd pay 2 DGB if your inputs were 1,000 and you were sending a total of 675,000 DGB. It all comes down to the number of bytes in each input and is completely independent of the DGB amount.
"

do you think it is that ??

[Jumbley]

Hi all, just wondering if someone can provide some input on issues we're seeing with mining on Digihash...

We've recently switched a couple of our mining rigs back to Digihash after running them on other pools without issue:

1st Rig: MinerEU Rig 90MH/s - I'm seeing a high number of rejects, far more than I see on P2Pools and other Stratum pools. I'm seeing about 3% rejects with this rig. Normal reject rate for this rig is usually around 0.1% on other pools. I'm running the 256 Network Difficulty option on Digihash (port 3257)

2nd Rig: Zues Lightning X6 44MH/s - I'm seeing a high number of rejects on this rig too, but I'm also seeing a very high number of hardware errors  compared to other pools. Again I'm running the 256 Network Difficulty option on Digihash (port 3257)

3rd Rig: I'm also running some lower hash rate blades on DigiHash, hardware errors are also unusually high on them, but reject rate is pretty good.

All devices are running an expiry = 120, queue = 0, and a scantime=30.

Are other people experiencing the same kind of stats on scrypt? Are we running too high of a network difficulty for the two larger rigs?

Cheers

Where are you located? Where were you mining before?

I suspect it's a latency issue, but your answers to those 2 questions are needed in order to confirm.

Thanks for the response HR, I'm in Australia mate.

We are running the bigger rigs from our offices in Melbourne, the internet can slow down when we have offsite backups coming in, but otherwise it's pretty good (dedicated 100Mb pipe running to main infrastructure) The other units are running from my house over NBN (100Mb network).

I was mining to Coinmine.pw previously which was connecting to their US located servers... Also have some EC2 instances on Amazon AWS which I run a couple of P2Pools from. Several instances are located in the US and some here in Australia. All of these have run very reliably with low reject rates.

You raise a very good point though, just pinged Digihash.co from my house and got a 296ms ping time! If I ping coinmine.pw in the USA it's a 14ms round trip, and all Amazon instances are sub 10ms.... Where in gods name is Digihash located... The Arctic Circle?? lol

On another note, I tried Digihash sometime ago and found I wasn't getting payments for hours, am now experiencing the very same issue after getting a couple of payments, nothing for nearly two hours, is there still an issue with payments freezing up?

EDIT: Just remoted into a work PC and got 270ms to digihash, and then another ping to Digihash from an EC2 Amazon instance located in the USA, got 210ms... All other pools I tested were sub 10ms with most sub 5ms.

Does not look like there is a problem with payouts on the digihash pool to me, i received a payment around 15 mins ago but I am mining on sha. I do get a latency problem and never achieve 100% efficiency. I'm in the UK, so I was expecting a bit of latency, I thought it was possibly due to GCHQ piping traffic to CIA first.

[digitaldoxy]

Does not look like there is a problem with payouts on the digihash pool to me, i received a payment around 15 mins ago but I am mining on sha. I do get a latency problem and never achieve 100% efficiency. I'm in the UK, so I was expecting a bit of latency, I thought it was possibly due to GCHQ piping traffic to CIA first.

LOL! Well I did get a payment just after my last post as luck would have it, still a dismal ROI with difficulty bouncing around like a squirrel with rabies though.... I think DigiSpeed while being a good idea in theory, is actually doing more harm than good in some ways if I'm understanding how it works... Just my opinion though...

[Jumbley]

Hello, I'm using GOOGLE translation, so I'll keep it short.

I am contacting you because I have a problem with my wallet DigiByte 64bit Core v3.0.3.0
My available balance appears to be 3,000,000, but I can't send more than 1.1 million to my other address.

my two addresses:
- http://www.richlist.eu/digibyte/stats/DCS2wZvFPfDtKufUEpRQDmXt3GHEkE726J
- http://www.richlist.eu/digibyte/stats/DAAVsbhoprWeQ2b4y4QDoZNZPLZCqi5ND8

If required I can also send you the transaction statement

Here are some screenshots :

Thanks for your help !

I think I have the answer! HR Thanks for your forum: http://asistec-ti.com/

"It means that your transaction size in bytes is too larger (bytes, not DigiBytes). In a nutshell, it has to do with the number of inputs that are going into your output. If your inputs are very small, the total number of DGB that you will be able to send will also be very small. ~675 inputs would be the maximum you could currently combine for an output send, so if you're mining with a CPU and you've got inputs of, let's say an average of 5 DGB, the most DGB you could send would be 3,375, and you'd pay 2 DGB just like you'd pay 2 DGB if your inputs were 1,000 and you were sending a total of 675,000 DGB. It all comes down to the number of bytes in each input and is completely independent of the DGB amount.
"

do you think it is that ??

Could be, this is a current issue with Cryptsy and why I don't like that they allow such miniscule transactions to take place while DGB value is so low.
You should be able to prove this by moving the largest amount and then attempting to move the rest, I'm not sure which is the best way to merge the inputs in the wallet, HR?

[Jumbley]

Does not look like there is a problem with payouts on the digihash pool to me, i received a payment around 15 mins ago but I am mining on sha. I do get a latency problem and never achieve 100% efficiency. I'm in the UK, so I was expecting a bit of latency, I thought it was possibly due to GCHQ piping traffic to CIA first.

LOL! Well I did get a payment just after my last post as luck would have it, still a dismal ROI with difficulty bouncing around like a squirrel with rabies though.... I think DigiSpeed while being a good idea in theory, is actually doing more harm than good in some ways if I'm understanding how it works.

Best take this one up with Jared, himself i guess and see what can be done to improve the situation.  
Has DigiSpeed been implemented yet? i didn't think it had.

[digitaldoxy]

Does not look like there is a problem with payouts on the digihash pool to me, i received a payment around 15 mins ago but I am mining on sha. I do get a latency problem and never achieve 100% efficiency. I'm in the UK, so I was expecting a bit of latency, I thought it was possibly due to GCHQ piping traffic to CIA first.

LOL! Well I did get a payment just after my last post as luck would have it, still a dismal ROI with difficulty bouncing around like a squirrel with rabies though.... I think DigiSpeed while being a good idea in theory, is actually doing more harm than good in some ways if I'm understanding how it works.

Best take this one up with Jared, himself i guess and see what can be done to improve the situation.  
Has DigiSpeed been implemented yet? i didn't think it had.

Well if it hasn't something is seriously wrong, I saw difficulty go from 127 to nearly 500 and then back to 135 in the space of a couple hours on scrypt :/

[Jumbley]

OK daysi, I give in. What is it? It looks like a DigiByte sleeping on a cushion. This is not a criticism, I don't want to put you or anyone else off posting this kind of stuff, please keep doing it, I just can't seem to work out what it is. 

Nothing huge, Digibyte with an aura reflecting its power but if you see a cushion I totally missed my gif. 

Ah I see, thank you for putting me out of my misery.  

[Jumbley]

Does not look like there is a problem with payouts on the digihash pool to me, i received a payment around 15 mins ago but I am mining on sha. I do get a latency problem and never achieve 100% efficiency. I'm in the UK, so I was expecting a bit of latency, I thought it was possibly due to GCHQ piping traffic to CIA first.

LOL! Well I did get a payment just after my last post as luck would have it, still a dismal ROI with difficulty bouncing around like a squirrel with rabies though.... I think DigiSpeed while being a good idea in theory, is actually doing more harm than good in some ways if I'm understanding how it works.

Best take this one up with Jared, himself i guess and see what can be done to improve the situation.  
Has DigiSpeed been implemented yet? i didn't think it had.

Well if it hasn't something is seriously wrong, I saw difficulty go from 127 to nearly 500 and then back to 135 in the space of a couple hours :/

I think that is quite normal on this coin. The total  scrypt and sha network speeds jump about as people add and remove hardware, not all of them DigiByte friendly I'm sure.

[digitaldoxy]

Does not look like there is a problem with payouts on the digihash pool to me, i received a payment around 15 mins ago but I am mining on sha. I do get a latency problem and never achieve 100% efficiency. I'm in the UK, so I was expecting a bit of latency, I thought it was possibly due to GCHQ piping traffic to CIA first.

LOL! Well I did get a payment just after my last post as luck would have it, still a dismal ROI with difficulty bouncing around like a squirrel with rabies though.... I think DigiSpeed while being a good idea in theory, is actually doing more harm than good in some ways if I'm understanding how it works.

Best take this one up with Jared, himself i guess and see what can be done to improve the situation.  
Has DigiSpeed been implemented yet? i didn't think it had.

Well if it hasn't something is seriously wrong, I saw difficulty go from 127 to nearly 500 and then back to 135 in the space of a couple hours :/

I think that is quite normal on this coin. The total  scrypt and sha network speeds jump about as people add and remove hardware, not all of them DigiByte friendly I'm sure.

I hear you, but it's extremely unusual for difficulty to jump like that (aka DigiSpeed), you don't even see it ramp up slowly like one would expect as hash rates increase. That's why I mentioned Digispeed doing more harm than good, increasing difficulty like that only penalises people putting their hard earned and costly hash power on DGB IMO.

DDOS type traffic shouldn't affect coin difficulty, it may affect network availability of a particular pool, but only hash power should affect coin difficulty and jumps like I mention above mean hundreds of scrypt GH/s would theoretically have to appear and disappear just as quickly. That's a very expensive way to annoy a service.

[Jumbley]

Does not look like there is a problem with payouts on the digihash pool to me, i received a payment around 15 mins ago but I am mining on sha. I do get a latency problem and never achieve 100% efficiency. I'm in the UK, so I was expecting a bit of latency, I thought it was possibly due to GCHQ piping traffic to CIA first.

LOL! Well I did get a payment just after my last post as luck would have it, still a dismal ROI with difficulty bouncing around like a squirrel with rabies though.... I think DigiSpeed while being a good idea in theory, is actually doing more harm than good in some ways if I'm understanding how it works.

Best take this one up with Jared, himself i guess and see what can be done to improve the situation.  
Has DigiSpeed been implemented yet? i didn't think it had.

Well if it hasn't something is seriously wrong, I saw difficulty go from 127 to nearly 500 and then back to 135 in the space of a couple hours :/

I think that is quite normal on this coin. The total  scrypt and sha network speeds jump about as people add and remove hardware, not all of them DigiByte friendly I'm sure.

I hear you, but it's extremely unusual for difficulty to jump like that (aka DigiSpeed), you don't even see it ramp up slowly like one would expect as hash rates increase. That's why I mentioned Digispeed doing more harm than good, increasing difficulty like that only penalises people putting their hard earned and costly hash power on DGB IMO.

DDOS type traffic shouldn't affect coin difficulty, it may affect network availability of a particular pool, but only hash power should affect coin difficulty and jumps like I mention above mean hundreds of scrypt GH/s would theoretically have to appear and disappear just as quickly. That's a very expensive way to annoy a service.

That's DigiShield. It is an expensive way to annoy a service, I agree but I still susspect someone of doing just that. The good thing for us, is that when they pull their hardware back, difficulty drops quickly too so we don't suffer because of it.

[digitaldoxy]

That's DigiShield. It is an expensive way to annoy a service, I agree but I still susspect someone of doing just that. The good thing for us, is that when they pull their hardware back, difficulty drops quickly too so we don't suffer because of it.

Yep sorry, I was using the wrong term lol "digishield" is what I was referring to. And yep, your right, it does pull back quite quickly, that's why I can see how it looks like a good plan of attack to dissuade that kind of activity. The only winners are still the ones with huge hash power though. They still earn blocks at high difficulty while all of us well intentioned and globally distributed miners lose out.... Rock and a hard place for sure.... I'm still not convinced that kind of hash power is bothering with DGB at this early stage, even though I'm normally a stickler for a conspiracy theory

[Jumbley]

That's DigiShield. It is an expensive way to annoy a service, I agree but I still susspect someone of doing just that. The good thing for us, is that when they pull their hardware back, difficulty drops quickly too so we don't suffer because of it.

Yep sorry, I was using the wrong term lol "digishield" is what I was referring to. And yep, your right, it does pull back quite quickly, that's why I can see how it looks like a good plan of attack to dissuade that kind of activity. The only winners are still the ones with huge hash power though. They still earn blocks at high difficulty while all of us well intentioned and globally distributed miners lose out.... Rock and a hard place for sure.

This is why we need 'DigiKnights', people that understand this and keep their hardware, no matter how small, on our network permanently. People that believe in DigiByte and its future because the more of us there are, the more expensive it becomes to play with us like this. 

[The_Cashier]

That's DigiShield. It is an expensive way to annoy a service, I agree but I still susspect someone of doing just that. The good thing for us, is that when they pull their hardware back, difficulty drops quickly too so we don't suffer because of it.

Yep sorry, I was using the wrong term lol "digishield" is what I was referring to. And yep, your right, it does pull back quite quickly, that's why I can see how it looks like a good plan of attack to dissuade that kind of activity. The only winners are still the ones with huge hash power though. They still earn blocks at high difficulty while all of us well intentioned and globally distributed miners lose out.... Rock and a hard place for sure.

This is why we need 'DigiKnights', people that understand this and keep their hardware, no matter how small, on our network permanently. People that believe in DigiByte and its future because the more of us there are, the more expensive it becomes to play with us like this. 

There is a lot of DigiFans already

[digitaldoxy]

That's DigiShield. It is an expensive way to annoy a service, I agree but I still susspect someone of doing just that. The good thing for us, is that when they pull their hardware back, difficulty drops quickly too so we don't suffer because of it.

Yep sorry, I was using the wrong term lol "digishield" is what I was referring to. And yep, your right, it does pull back quite quickly, that's why I can see how it looks like a good plan of attack to dissuade that kind of activity. The only winners are still the ones with huge hash power though. They still earn blocks at high difficulty while all of us well intentioned and globally distributed miners lose out.... Rock and a hard place for sure.

This is why we need 'DigiKnights', people that understand this and keep their hardware, no matter how small, on our network permanently. People that believe in DigiByte and its future because the more of us there are, the more expensive it becomes to play with us like this.  

Oh no, not another DigiType (digiknights)!!.... I'm clearly already having trouble keeping up Anybody got a link to a DigiDictionary app??

[Jumbley]

That's DigiShield. It is an expensive way to annoy a service, I agree but I still susspect someone of doing just that. The good thing for us, is that when they pull their hardware back, difficulty drops quickly too so we don't suffer because of it.

Yep sorry, I was using the wrong term lol "digishield" is what I was referring to. And yep, your right, it does pull back quite quickly, that's why I can see how it looks like a good plan of attack to dissuade that kind of activity. The only winners are still the ones with huge hash power though. They still earn blocks at high difficulty while all of us well intentioned and globally distributed miners lose out.... Rock and a hard place for sure.

This is why we need 'DigiKnights', people that understand this and keep their hardware, no matter how small, on our network permanently. People that believe in DigiByte and its future because the more of us there are, the more expensive it becomes to play with us like this.  

Oh no, not another DigiType (digiknights)!!.... I'm clearly already having trouble keeping up Anybody got a link to a DigiDictionary app??

Don't worry, I made that one up myself.

but sure we have room for many many more @The cashier. I distinguish between knights and fans, knights mine in some form or another.

[HR]

Hello, I'm using GOOGLE translation, so I'll keep it short.

I am contacting you because I have a problem with my wallet DigiByte 64bit Core v3.0.3.0
My available balance appears to be 3,000,000, but I can't send more than 1.1 million to my other address.

my two addresses:
- http://www.richlist.eu/digibyte/stats/DCS2wZvFPfDtKufUEpRQDmXt3GHEkE726J
- http://www.richlist.eu/digibyte/stats/DAAVsbhoprWeQ2b4y4QDoZNZPLZCqi5ND8

If required I can also send you the transaction statement

Here are some screenshots :

Thanks for your help !

I think I have the answer! HR Thanks for your forum: http://asistec-ti.com/

"It means that your transaction size in bytes is too larger (bytes, not DigiBytes). In a nutshell, it has to do with the number of inputs that are going into your output. If your inputs are very small, the total number of DGB that you will be able to send will also be very small. ~675 inputs would be the maximum you could currently combine for an output send, so if you're mining with a CPU and you've got inputs of, let's say an average of 5 DGB, the most DGB you could send would be 3,375, and you'd pay 2 DGB just like you'd pay 2 DGB if your inputs were 1,000 and you were sending a total of 675,000 DGB. It all comes down to the number of bytes in each input and is completely independent of the DGB amount.
"

do you think it is that ??

That's right. You can use Coin Control to experiment on your own. It's a pretty neat tool. Ah, I see I have no HOW-TO for Coin Control.    I'll need to get that done the next chance I have . . . if anyone wants to post their pointers as well . . .

Glad to hear that the forum was a help. Thanks.


Add: I just started a Coin Control thread, but don't let that mislead you into thinking that I'll be able to do much more until Sunday maybe . . . or maybe the following weekend.   

[24hralttrade]

I personally wonder if there is any legal issues with the project Jared is involve in for DigiByte?... And if there is, wondering how they are planning to solve it...
Best,

I think Digibyte is taking the best steps possible.

We feel this accurately sums everything up. No digital currency company is fully compliant with every state in the US. To be compliant in the US as an exchange a company needs to comply not only with the US federal government but 47/50 States who each have their own set of rules and regulations.

It is a nightmare to wade through the regulations, bonding requirements and compliance requirements in 51 separate jurisdictions. Not to mention you don't know if they will change the rules regarding digital currency and separate them from other money transmitter services like New York has. This is driving a lot of companies to move oversees to places like Hong Kong to at least get off the ground and get started.

To attempt to become compliant in the US you are looking at a minimum net-worth requirement of $21 million with almost $400K (due annually) up front just to get the bond to even begin applying for state money transmitter licenses with no guarantee those will ever be approved. That does not include the attorney fees either which can easily run a few hundred thousand dollars.

This has resulted in a "winner take all" scenario where companies like Coinbase can virtually eliminate all competition.

Quote Coindesk: http://www.coindesk.com/digibyte-raises-250k-altcoin-retail-payments/
The funds will be used by the digibyte developers as part of a push to upgrade the core functionality of the project's code and develop new services on top of its infrastructure. The announcement coincides with the launch of two digibyte-focused startups: DigiPay LLC in California and DigiTrade International Limited Hong Kong.