[ANN] [ASIC-RESISTANT] UltraCoin (UTC) - Ultrafast 6 second transactions!!

[solarflareq]

Im holding and buying now.

starting to think i need to put more of what i have into selling and buying these ups and downs though could have easily more than quadrupled the amount i have if i rode a few of the waves that seemed sure to go down.

i just keep thinking if i dump on the highs i'm just adding to part of the problem so i don't.

my luck too id dump and the price would literally sky rocked 5 seconds later and id never see those utc again.. thats the kind of luck i have in things.

[1714549130]

1714549130

[1714549130]

1714549130

[1714549130]

1714549130

[1714549130]

1714549130

[jack80]

Anyone have a new nodes to boost connect the wallet ? Now is SLOWWW .

[Demontager]

Could someone please share working ultracoin-gt for Ubuntu ?
Downloaded one from start post, but when launching

Code:

./Ultracoin-qt 
./Ultracoin-qt: error while loading shared libraries: libminiupnpc.so.9: cannot open shared object file: No such file or directory

Already intsalled

Code:

apt-get install libminiupnpc-dev

Anyway produce same error.

[ozzy1926]

i am getting 177 kh/s with 1040/1250 with 290 WU:470 and getting 171 kh/s with 1000/1250 WU:560 
Getting more WU is better than getting more kh/s?

[azerbaidjan]

Bumface, is this normal that after more than 1 month bagholding in my wallet my stake is still 0 instead of what appeared over last month?

Also, no news about nitro2 pool and NITRO has got 1600-1700 miners by now, as well as 75% or more of the total hashrate.

Something does not compute here.

[wing_hk]

Could someone please share working ultracoin-gt for Ubuntu ?
Downloaded one from start post, but when launching

Code:

./Ultracoin-qt 
./Ultracoin-qt: error while loading shared libraries: libminiupnpc.so.9: cannot open shared object file: No such file or directory

Already intsalled

Code:

apt-get install libminiupnpc-dev

Anyway produce same error.

See if #6 works, maybe #3 and #5 are also helpful
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=192984.0

[bumface]

Bumface, is this normal that after more than 1 month bagholding in my wallet my stake is still 0 instead of what appeared over last month?

Also, no news about nitro2 pool and NITRO has got 1600-1700 miners by now, as well as 75% or more of the total hashrate.

Something does not compute here.

pos time is 1 year.

as far as i know nitro 2 is being built now

[TheStuhlman]

Bumface, is this normal that after more than 1 month bagholding in my wallet my stake is still 0 instead of what appeared over last month?

Also, no news about nitro2 pool and NITRO has got 1600-1700 miners by now, as well as 75% or more of the total hashrate.

Something does not compute here.

Another big pool is having problems in the last two days, so I delayed Nitro2 till they resolve their issues, releasing Nitro2 now will be counterproductive, we do not want to take miners from other pools, we are trying to spread the hash, not pile up more miners on Nitro.
If you guys do not mind I'd rather wait 2 more days for this after which we will release Nitro2 that should give everyone proper time to prepare.
Also some other pools are doing quite well marketing right now, so do not want to jump in quick on their growth. Our idea behind Nitro2 is to
move some of our miners from pool A to pool B and not get a rush from new miners. The latest increase in miners on Nitro is not caused by us.
It should be resolved soon.

[xwebnetwork]

Bumface, is this normal that after more than 1 month bagholding in my wallet my stake is still 0 instead of what appeared over last month?

Also, no news about nitro2 pool and NITRO has got 1600-1700 miners by now, as well as 75% or more of the total hashrate.

Something does not compute here.

Another big pool is having problems in the last two days, so I delayed Nitro2 till they resolve their issues, releasing Nitro2 now will be counterproductive, we do not want to take miners from other pools, we are trying to spread the hash, not pile up more miners on Nitro.
If you guys do not mind I'd rather wait 2 more days for this after which we will release Nitro2 that should give everyone proper time to prepare.
Also some other pools are doing quite well marketing right now, so do not want to jump in quick on their growth. Our idea behind Nitro2 is to
move some of our miners from pool A to pool B and not get a rush from new miners. The latest increase in miners on Nitro is not caused by us.
It should be resolved soon.

What if you open Nitro 2 with closed registrations at first, balance things out, and then open registrations? Trying to create balance with influx could become a difficult task.

[thefrog]

Important: UTC first p2pool down for maintenance

Thanks for all people who helped with the tests, I have to take down the p2pool now as i see some warnings and errors I don't like in the logs, so i prefer to take it down and go through these first so i don't waste your hashpower, no block was found so far. Thanks again for your support!

ohh,try to fix it!!

I will certainly fix it later today, most of it is working fine, I just want to make sure there are no errors whatsoever so everyone will be happy!

Thanks again for your help testing!

Just when I wanted to test
Keep up the good work, and once it works, share the code. Will put another two p2pool servers up, so we spread the infrastructure.

Any news on the p2pool ?
and/or code release ?

[TheStuhlman]

Bumface, is this normal that after more than 1 month bagholding in my wallet my stake is still 0 instead of what appeared over last month?

Also, no news about nitro2 pool and NITRO has got 1600-1700 miners by now, as well as 75% or more of the total hashrate.

Something does not compute here.

Another big pool is having problems in the last two days, so I delayed Nitro2 till they resolve their issues, releasing Nitro2 now will be counterproductive, we do not want to take miners from other pools, we are trying to spread the hash, not pile up more miners on Nitro.
If you guys do not mind I'd rather wait 2 more days for this after which we will release Nitro2 that should give everyone proper time to prepare.
Also some other pools are doing quite well marketing right now, so do not want to jump in quick on their growth. Our idea behind Nitro2 is to
move some of our miners from pool A to pool B and not get a rush from new miners. The latest increase in miners on Nitro is not caused by us.
It should be resolved soon.

What if you open Nitro 2 with closed registrations at first, balance things out, and then open registrations? Trying to create balance with influx could become a difficult task.

How would that work? miners need to signup to the new pool to be able to move?  We can not auto create accounts for people. Most of the info we have for them is encrypted. And even if we could, the person moving is the one who has the option to create his account or not, we have no such right.

[sakr]

Important: UTC first p2pool down for maintenance

Thanks for all people who helped with the tests, I have to take down the p2pool now as i see some warnings and errors I don't like in the logs, so i prefer to take it down and go through these first so i don't waste your hashpower, no block was found so far. Thanks again for your support!

ohh,try to fix it!!

I will certainly fix it later today, most of it is working fine, I just want to make sure there are no errors whatsoever so everyone will be happy!

Thanks again for your help testing!

Just when I wanted to test
Keep up the good work, and once it works, share the code. Will put another two p2pool servers up, so we spread the infrastructure.

Any news on the p2pool ?
and/or code release ?

I haven't had a chance to fix the issues yet, i will give it a shot tonight

[Mkfly]

hmmmmm, I'm not getting close those numbers with my current setup. The best I can manage is with my original setting of about 84Khs per card and a WU of:

GPU 0 = WU: 72.6
GPU 1 = WU: 84.6
GPU 2 = WU: 75.6
GPU 3 = WU: 72.6

I tried increasing TC to 191712 and adding --lookup-gap 3, however; that dropped my hash rate to the 60's and my WU to the 50's. My invalid % also went up on my mining pool.

Wirly, would you be willing to share your .conf or .bat file so I can give it a shot on my system?

 I have the hd7950 Boost edition stock oc is 925/1250
also my system memory is 8gb dram @ 1600mhz
Here my .bat settings:
--scrypt-jane --sj-nfmin 4 --sj-nfmax 30 --sj-time 1388361600 -w 256 -g 2 --thread-concurrency 16128 --no-submit-stale --lookup-gap 2 --gpu-reorder -I 12 --gpu-vddc 1.12 --auto-gpu --gpu-powertune 20 --gpu-engine 925-1100
--gpu-memclock 1250 --gpu-fan 65 --temp-overheat 80 --temp-cutoff 90 --queue 0 --scan-time 1 --expiry 10

this gave me hashrate 104 kh/s,

then changed win virtual memory set to "manual" at "22000mb" (64gb ssd drive) for programs- Not let windows decide and this increased hashrate by 10% to 114kh/s and a WU of 93 to 110 on 11 cards. This surprised me

Edit: now I am getting the occasional random hw error, not sure if this is related to pool difficulty or anything else but wu is still good so I will let it go for a bit and see what happens. Don't want to lower the "cha-ching" rate if don't have to!

Hey, thanks for posting your .bat . I have 4x Sapphire Dual-X (SKU 11196-19-20G) stock clock 850Mhz/925Mhz boost clock. Other than that, my setup looks identical to yours.   I tried this .bat and got my hash rate up to 90, WU rate also increased, which is awesome but...bad news bears - one card went *dead* after a few hours of mining.

I think this has to do with my cards not getting enough power. I see your vddc setting is 1.12(0?), I have mine flashed to 1.113 and I don't think cgminer was able to bump up the voltage through the .bat I'll try flashing to 1.125v and 1.131v and see what happens.

What does --gpu-reorder accomplish?

[thefrog]

Important: UTC first p2pool down for maintenance

Thanks for all people who helped with the tests, I have to take down the p2pool now as i see some warnings and errors I don't like in the logs, so i prefer to take it down and go through these first so i don't waste your hashpower, no block was found so far. Thanks again for your support!

ohh,try to fix it!!

I will certainly fix it later today, most of it is working fine, I just want to make sure there are no errors whatsoever so everyone will be happy!

Thanks again for your help testing!

Just when I wanted to test
Keep up the good work, and once it works, share the code. Will put another two p2pool servers up, so we spread the infrastructure.

Any news on the p2pool ?
and/or code release ?

I haven't had a chance to fix the issues yet, i will give it a shot tonight

Much appreciated. Think people will jump on p2pool when they are available. Don't want to rely on a centralized pool (which could grow 51%).

[xwebnetwork]

Bumface, is this normal that after more than 1 month bagholding in my wallet my stake is still 0 instead of what appeared over last month?

Also, no news about nitro2 pool and NITRO has got 1600-1700 miners by now, as well as 75% or more of the total hashrate.

Something does not compute here.

Another big pool is having problems in the last two days, so I delayed Nitro2 till they resolve their issues, releasing Nitro2 now will be counterproductive, we do not want to take miners from other pools, we are trying to spread the hash, not pile up more miners on Nitro.
If you guys do not mind I'd rather wait 2 more days for this after which we will release Nitro2 that should give everyone proper time to prepare.
Also some other pools are doing quite well marketing right now, so do not want to jump in quick on their growth. Our idea behind Nitro2 is to
move some of our miners from pool A to pool B and not get a rush from new miners. The latest increase in miners on Nitro is not caused by us.
It should be resolved soon.

What if you open Nitro 2 with closed registrations at first, balance things out, and then open registrations? Trying to create balance with influx could become a difficult task.

How would that work? miners need to signup to the new pool to be able to move?  We can not auto create accounts for people. Most of the info we have for them is encrypted. And even if we could, the person moving is the one who has the option to create his account or not, we have no such right.

I was unaware of the trouble involved of porting over user data. I simply figured you could provide invites to select miners on Nitro1 (to circumvent the closed public registrations), have them move over, and then allow public registration.

[sakr]

How would that work? miners need to signup to the new pool to be able to move?  We can not auto create accounts for people. Most of the info we have for them is encrypted. And even if we could, the person moving is the one who has the option to create his account or not, we have no such right.

I was unaware of the trouble involved of porting over user data. I simply figured you could provide invites to select miners on Nitro1 (to circumvent the closed public registrations), have them move over, and then allow public registration.

The accounts data can be moved even if it is encrypted, just need to keep the same salts in config files, and people can log in using their old account data if you want.

[Halofire]

Another big pool is having problems in the last two days, so I delayed Nitro2 till they resolve their issues, releasing Nitro2 now will be counterproductive, we do not want to take miners from other pools, we are trying to spread the hash, not pile up more miners on Nitro.
If you guys do not mind I'd rather wait 2 more days for this after which we will release Nitro2 that should give everyone proper time to prepare.
Also some other pools are doing quite well marketing right now, so do not want to jump in quick on their growth. Our idea behind Nitro2 is to
move some of our miners from pool A to pool B and not get a rush from new miners. The latest increase in miners on Nitro is not caused by us.
It should be resolved soon.

Nitro: We gotta wait 2 more days when it's been 2-3 weeks at least since I've known you've had the highest hashrate problem? N-factor is only 2 weeks away. Every day counts. Please reconsider.  By delaying Nitro 2, you are still enabling the problem. Even if you did 'steal' miners from other pools, you would be allowing the other pools to be mining correctly, no orphans. miners and pools both make more UTC by opening Nitro 2. So it's a win win.


I wanted to remain loyal to my pool and spread the hashes, but I've lost 50% of my minings in pointless hashing due to orphans at leet. 4-5 UTC in last 5 hours, calculated at least 600 UTC loss for a 30 day period, but since there are variables, I'd say I've lost at least 450 coins for the last 3 weeks. I receive 25 UTC/day. so that's approximately half. Am I a loyal fool? At .00022, I am just breaking even for electric.

Laterbreh: I appreciate all you've done and loyalty is a big deal for me, which is why I haven't left leet until now. I can't afford to lose anymore, I've hit the turning point. Maybe another coin, another time, or if nitro really reduces it's hashrate. Mining at your pool is 2x more expensive. Nfactor coming up, i need to make back some UTC before it's too late. The thing I don't understand is why lesser pools than leet have 0 orphans from what I've read in the past in this thread.


An idea for the future: since miners and pool owners can't come to an agreement or figure this problem out, in my opinion, this is a problem that can only be solved by encoding something in the coin. We need a "pool-resistant" or "pool difficulty specific" coin for lack of better term, where a coin can sense which nodes have more hashing power than others and raises difficulty for those nodes with higher hashes.  

[MasterCATZ]

So what are the nasty error logs ?
also any idea's on why reject rate is higher ?
even after falling over to backup pools rejects have dropped drastically

mining on the p2p reminds me of greek pool with their 10~20% orphans vs pickaxe's 1~3% per 100 blocks


p2p  went down just when I was going to toss more HASH at it
I was setting up 3x rigs (another 18x R9 290's )  for testing  I wanted to find that darn block

on another note I waisted my entire afternoon to only just realize now I forgotten to change the bios flash switch position on a rig I was trying to work out why it kept hanging after I 13 when i was wanting I 18 still tweaking an 64 bit OS for mining with,
 cryptoslax is doing the job , just need to change its partition type fat 32 way to slow .. but that's what the instructions said to use ... ext4 is still prototype stage so I guess ext3 will have to do   

There were a few errors in the logs, and some shares seemed to be lost, i will debug all the current issues later today and give it another test later today, but overall the result was positive as the work was sent right and addresses recognized with their shares and shares accepted, so that's a good thing.

Regarding the rejects, i noticed that too, but  p2p will need  a config tweak compared to regular pools, also i had 2 r9 290 cards (HIS) which had 1% or less rejects and another 2 sapphire ones which had 10% rejects using the same config so i guess the rejects issues can be solved.

Glad to know you had more power to help me test, just keep it in leash until later today

Also I use ext4 without any problems on most of my servers, works just perfect!

Thanks for your help in testing!

interesting

looking at the stats here I could almost verify that

I used 2x sets of sapphires
I used 1x that had H RAM the other had E RAM
also had an Gigabyte with E RAM

only 1 x set of saphires had low reject rate ( half of the rest ) I wonder if it had hynix RAM

pretty much all the cards hashed the same speed as normal just lower WU

[Ruckster2010]

Bumface, is this normal that after more than 1 month bagholding in my wallet my stake is still 0 instead of what appeared over last month?

Also, no news about nitro2 pool and NITRO has got 1600-1700 miners by now, as well as 75% or more of the total hashrate.

Something does not compute here.

Another big pool is having problems in the last two days, so I delayed Nitro2 till they resolve their issues, releasing Nitro2 now will be counterproductive, we do not want to take miners from other pools, we are trying to spread the hash, not pile up more miners on Nitro.
If you guys do not mind I'd rather wait 2 more days for this after which we will release Nitro2 that should give everyone proper time to prepare.
Also some other pools are doing quite well marketing right now, so do not want to jump in quick on their growth. Our idea behind Nitro2 is to
move some of our miners from pool A to pool B and not get a rush from new miners. The latest increase in miners on Nitro is not caused by us.
It should be resolved soon.

What if you open Nitro 2 with closed registrations at first, balance things out, and then open registrations? Trying to create balance with influx could become a difficult task.

How would that work? miners need to signup to the new pool to be able to move?  We can not auto create accounts for people. Most of the info we have for them is encrypted. And even if we could, the person moving is the one who has the option to create his account or not, we have no such right.

Why don't you send private invitations first, then open the pool after you have achieved what you want.  Send invitations only to those in Nitro 1 till it balances.

[ozzy1926]

just open nitro 2...