I've been trying to run it on EC2 with limited success. I am a EC2 newbie. I just used the Windows version (even though I am mining on Linux at home) as it would be easier to install the binaries and get up and running faster. It does mine but the hash rate is pretty slow and about half what I am getting at home. I picked a fairly low end configuration though and have only tried 2 threads so far.
The application does start and get connections and downloads blocks but the window seems to lock up and go all transparent.
If I actually knew what I was doing and my synapses made awesome connections much faster I may have tried to get this going last night (instead
of setting it up on my Linux box) and then used EC2 to cluster mine the crap out of this baby.
My assumption though is that if this works other people are already doing it and that may explain why my block rate decreased quite a lot since last night when I first started mining.
Occasional windows "transparent and unresponsive" appear to be a glitch (strongly related to processor load tho). Click on the icon in the tray to un-freeze the thing.
I wonder how EC would do, lol
sorry, did not mean to upset you. or are you only playing the role of the mad professor?
A little bit from colon A, a little bit from B
While partially my response is in jest, you are thirty first person who bothered to inform me that Geist and / or Tenebrix have an "inflation" issue and that it's bad, and that cutting miner subsidy is teh ossom
At first it leads to interesting discussion about what inflation and deflation are, and whether it is likely that there will be a miner freak-out at first or second "subsidy kink".
At thirty-first it starts getting mildly weird. I do think about writing a large entry for the FAQ i can link people to, because honestly, there's only so many times I can run through same arguments, I'm not an argument-based PoW cruncher
And now that I think of it, I do have a distinct idea as to how to implement an additional "quasi deflationary" influence without cutting subsidies or implementing demurrage.
I thought about it and now agree with you it is more of a psychological problem.
How is divisibility of a thing related to it being able to inflate/deflate? Gold is pretty divisible.[inflation]
As far as physical commodities (and to a lesser extent, physical money) go, divisibility does affect the behavior of a system strongly dependent upon said physical construct as a form of money for transaction.
While gold is pretty divisible (compared to diamonds it indeed is
), I think you would agree that paying people in little pieces of gold 0.00001 grams each would be troublesome and incur additional cost of precision equipment needed.
Also, you should bear in mind that so far, we are conflating (woefully so) growth of money mass (monetary inflation) and inflation proper (which only deals with prices, not amount of money in a system).
Inflation / deflation as typically described in the context of Keynesian and Austrian arguments typically assume artifacts that can't just move a decimal point in arbitrary direction at a drop of a hat, which x-coins are capable of without much trouble (not to mention both assume a nation-state economy of some sort, which is a whole can o' worms that is completely inapplicable to coin...until USA embraces Tenebrix as legal tender, that is
I would not call gold it deflationary.
Well, that's a question of definitions
It's not deflationary in the sense that is usually peddled in x-coin talks, but it *can* be deflationary for some very specific economic context
Don't you think losses can be neglected for discussion?
No, especially since in a system with a static monetary output of x units per y of time spent, losses and currency introduction scale differently (losses will scale with userbase and to a lesser extent overall monetary mass, the output remains nominally static while, quite obviously, shrinking relatively)
Maybe orphaned was the wrong word. But namecoin has been going very slow for quite a while now. Could something this happen to Tenebrix any less than to Bitcoin?
Tenebrix would suffer less due to faster blocks and faster retargets (two weeks of retarget time is well, pretty damn slooow)
Also, by not having the "must have a card this ossom to really mine" effect it has different adoption dynamics
My suggestion to this problem was to use the bitcoin block height for retarget timing.
Actually, that's pretty nifty on the top of it, that I have to agree with.
Do tell more.
will be dominated by FPGAs (Why would ArtForz design such a thing... hmmm....)
Do you have any shred
of an idea just how
much a good FPGA (just the raw hardware, not R&D costs and shenanigans) costs ?
Dunno, but your suggestion that someone (ArtForz or anyone else) will throw FPGAs to become a prominent Tenebrix mining suggests either peculiar opinion of costs involved or very large optimism as to Tenebrix price in the immediate future.
maybe I read too much between the lines here...
Point is, you need something like LX130T to make a decent scrypt-cruncher, and it isn't particularly cheap and it is still questionable whether it will be that much better than 2-4 cpu-cetnric boxen you could get for that money (and mind you we're not counting R&D needed to get FPGA rolling)
If someone even bothers to try jumping through those hoops, that means that Tenebrix has got pretty damn expensive
this means that if tenebrix would become a big success it might be dominated by fpgas because they are much more power efficient?
That depends on whole bunch of stuff, on how CPU/FPGA performances will compare "in field", how many CPUs are available (obviously, CPUs will massively outnumber FPGAs), how far one can upgrade Tenebrix PoW without some huge radical effort and so on.
So far, there is no indication that FPGA and / or APU (which seem, by far, the most interesting Tenebrix hardware candidates) will be as superior in TBX mining as GPUs are compared to CPUs.
Power costs are of course an issue, but that again depends largely on context
Besides, it's not like PoW can't be upgraded, lol
Are you sure about that? would it not be much more lucrative to run a botnet?.
A tenebrix swarm is better than a DDoS bot swarm hammering your site, or a swarm that hosts/trades/transfers "materials" that may get the owner of the infected machine arrested, methinks.
Especially since you can steal only so many cycles before the user notices that the box is grinding slower and slower and takes measures.
don't get me wrong, I think Tenebrix is a good idea. also i think it will become successful simply because pretty much everybody has a CPU. also it is very easy for miners to add to rigs.
Actually I am thinking about setting up a stats page. Hope there will be an exchange soon.
Exchange is on the way (working on a daemon for them)
@ bigchip (qick add)
If you go custom hardware way and have infinite moneys, you can "just"
design one hell of a beefy custom design and "simply" mass-produce it.
But that implies that mining tenebrix would cover the R&D, implementation and operation costs of a huge pile of hardware that can only mine Tenebrix (maybe also brute scrypt-protected passwords, lol)
GPUs can at least run crysis and industrially-useful computations.
Custom-built hardware will likely pretty much crunch scrypt (or whatever PoW is used in TBX at that remote future) real good and...crunch scrypt (or whatever PoW is used in TBX at that remote future) real good
bitcoin-qt: src/main.cpp:1754: bool LoadBlockIndex(bool): Assertion `block.hashMerkleRoot == uint256("0x4e77ffdc1baa20ffffab9d901f418f7496b2a710e462ac4047accdb8b3b774f9")' failed.
Anyone know what's up? The Windows binary runs great on Vista & 7, but I'm curious as to what my ailing netbook running Ubuntu can do.
That error only occurs when people fail to place config right.
then place the config in .tenebrix and run again.
after copying the conf file over i still get error messages
<unknown>: Fatal IO error 11 (Resource temporarily unavailable) on X server :0.0.
bitcoin in ThreadSocketHandler()
terminate called after throwing an instance of 'boost::interprocess::lock_exception'
Try setting daemon=0 in the config.