Bitcoin Forum
December 08, 2016, 02:28:33 PM *
News: Latest stable version of Bitcoin Core: 0.13.1  [Torrent].
 
   Home   Help Search Donate Login Register  
Pages: [1] 2 »  All
  Print  
Author Topic: CH caught lying about SC 2.0 hashrates  (Read 2962 times)
johnj
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 154


View Profile
October 22, 2011, 09:57:15 PM
 #1

Makomk pointed this out, but I believe it warrants it's own topic (and I really want to know the explaination)


CH says the 'beta' of SC 2.0 was wrongly reporting hashes



Now he is saying it's correct



What I want explained is how something goes from correct->incorrect->correct.

Further, I would like explained how people are supposed to trust your other claims about SC 2.0, given this flip-flop.

1AeW7QK59HvEJwiyMztFH1ubWPSLLKx5ym
TradeHill Referral TH-R120549
1481207313
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481207313

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481207313
Reply with quote  #2

1481207313
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1481207313
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481207313

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481207313
Reply with quote  #2

1481207313
Report to moderator
1481207313
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481207313

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481207313
Reply with quote  #2

1481207313
Report to moderator
1481207313
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481207313

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481207313
Reply with quote  #2

1481207313
Report to moderator
DeathAndTaxes
Donator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1218


Gerald Davis


View Profile
October 22, 2011, 10:05:14 PM
 #2

It made the network look larger than it really is.  

So in reality the network is much smaller than originally claimed.

allchains.info has hashrate @ 28.91 MH/s.  The reality is a 2600K gets about 150KH, not 45 as client originally indicated in the client.

28.91 / 0.15 = 192x 2600K CPUs (or other equivelent quad core CPU).  Yup.  The entire SC network is less than < 200 CPUs.
Moray
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 143


View Profile
October 23, 2011, 05:42:28 AM
 #3

It works !  Cheesy Ati5830@deff ~92 kh/s
Exactly:
100 shares@600 sec
+100 shares @1200 sec
+100 shares @1800 sec@0 stale
Kinda wierd... = delete  Roll Eyes
Spacy
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 168


View Profile
October 23, 2011, 06:43:46 PM
 #4

Whats the problem? The first hashrate had a bug, he tried to fix it, but introduced another bug. Now it hopefully is correct... But maybe you are right, this is a big conspiracy...
coblee
Donator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1078


firstbits.com/1ce5j


View Profile WWW
October 23, 2011, 07:09:23 PM
 #5

Whats the problem? The first hashrate had a bug, he tried to fix it, but introduced another bug. Now it hopefully is correct... But maybe you are right, this is a big conspiracy...

It may not be a conspiracy, but if he can introduce 2 bugs in something as simple as a hashrate measurement, who knows what kinds of security problems he's introduced? Add to the fact that this is closed source, you are just asking for trouble IMHO.

Spacy
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 168


View Profile
October 23, 2011, 07:15:04 PM
 #6

Whats the problem? The first hashrate had a bug, he tried to fix it, but introduced another bug. Now it hopefully is correct... But maybe you are right, this is a big conspiracy...

It may not be a conspiracy, but if he can introduce 2 bugs in something as simple as a hashrate measurement, who knows what kinds of security problems he's introduced? Add to the fact that this is closed source, you are just asking for trouble IMHO.

Still better to try to improve something, than just copying something else with zero innovation... But I still prefer LTC than TBX/FBX Smiley
johnj
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 154


View Profile
October 23, 2011, 07:47:54 PM
 #7

Whats the problem? The first hashrate had a bug, he tried to fix it, but introduced another bug. Now it hopefully is correct... But maybe you are right, this is a big conspiracy...

What's the problem?  The problem is this is MY fucking electricity that I'm spending to mine.  I pay for it dipshit - and being able to determine if my resources are competitive vs GPU mining is necessary.  Really, is a cost/benefit analysis over your head? The problem I had was his ability to correctly identify what's going on in his code, and his ability to communicate it with people using it. What I also don't understand is how working on an open-source GPU miner revealed a previously corrected bug in the closed-source CPU miner.  Also, the hashrate is critical to SC 2.0's 'CPU-only, anyone can mine, even grandma!' rhetoric. Also if CH is so negligent when finding and communicating 'bugs', the rest of his closed-source mystery becomes even more of a liability.

Right now, CH has a wonderful opportunity to come and explain, and -maybe- even restore some of his credibility.  I -genuinely- want to know the process of which his code in beta was accurate in beta, wrong in 2.0, back to accurate in 2.01, and how it was 'discovered' while someone else was working on a GPU miner.





1AeW7QK59HvEJwiyMztFH1ubWPSLLKx5ym
TradeHill Referral TH-R120549
Spacy
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 168


View Profile
October 23, 2011, 07:51:54 PM
 #8

Whats the problem? The first hashrate had a bug, he tried to fix it, but introduced another bug. Now it hopefully is correct... But maybe you are right, this is a big conspiracy...
What's the problem?  The problem is this is MY fucking electricity that I'm spending to mine.  I pay for it dipshit - and being able to determine if my resources are competitive vs GPU mining is necessary.  Really, is a cost/benefit analysis over your head? The problem I had was his ability to correctly identify what's going on in his code, and his ability to communicate it with people using it. What I also don't understand is how working on an open-source GPU miner revealed a previously corrected bug in the closed-source CPU miner.  Also, the hashrate is critical to SC 2.0's 'CPU-only, anyone can mine, even grandma!' rhetoric. Also if CH is so negligent when finding and communicating 'bugs', the rest of his closed-source mystery becomes even more of a liability.

Right now, CH has a wonderful opportunity to come and explain, and -maybe- even restore some of his credibility.  I -genuinely- want to know the process of which his code in beta was accurate in beta, wrong in 2.0, back to accurate in 2.01, and how it was 'discovered' while someone else was working on a GPU miner.

So what's the problem? Your miner worked correctly... Is you electricity wasted because the shown hashrate is not correct? You have shown multiple times that you don't like SC, why do you mine it?
johnj
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 154


View Profile
October 23, 2011, 07:56:12 PM
 #9

Whats the problem? The first hashrate had a bug, he tried to fix it, but introduced another bug. Now it hopefully is correct... But maybe you are right, this is a big conspiracy...
What's the problem?  The problem is this is MY fucking electricity that I'm spending to mine.  I pay for it dipshit - and being able to determine if my resources are competitive vs GPU mining is necessary.  Really, is a cost/benefit analysis over your head? The problem I had was his ability to correctly identify what's going on in his code, and his ability to communicate it with people using it. What I also don't understand is how working on an open-source GPU miner revealed a previously corrected bug in the closed-source CPU miner.  Also, the hashrate is critical to SC 2.0's 'CPU-only, anyone can mine, even grandma!' rhetoric. Also if CH is so negligent when finding and communicating 'bugs', the rest of his closed-source mystery becomes even more of a liability.

Right now, CH has a wonderful opportunity to come and explain, and -maybe- even restore some of his credibility.  I -genuinely- want to know the process of which his code in beta was accurate in beta, wrong in 2.0, back to accurate in 2.01, and how it was 'discovered' while someone else was working on a GPU miner.

So what's the problem? Your miner worked correctly... Is you electricity wasted because the shown hashrate is not correct? You have shown multiple times that you don't like SC, why do you mine it?

So cost/benefit does go over you head.  No, I don't mine SC - haven't even installed it.  But other poor saps do, so I'm making this information available to them.

1AeW7QK59HvEJwiyMztFH1ubWPSLLKx5ym
TradeHill Referral TH-R120549
Spacy
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 168


View Profile
October 23, 2011, 08:16:14 PM
 #10

So cost/benefit does go over you head.  No, I don't mine SC - haven't even installed it.  But other poor saps do, so I'm making this information available to them.

Fix was published shortly after the GPU miner release... So what's the problem? SC support is still high, just some clowns who hate it, but are not able to ignore it  Grin
Spacy
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 168


View Profile
October 23, 2011, 08:31:42 PM
 #11

Still the number 2 cryptochain after bitcoin... Why are you so worried about it if it is no danger?
johnj
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 154


View Profile
October 23, 2011, 08:33:32 PM
 #12

Still the number 2 cryptochain after bitcoin... Why are you so worried about it if it is no danger?

Erm, I'm pretty sure Namecoin has that slot, followed by LTC.

But I have another question:  Do -you- know the hashrates are now correct, or are you just parroting with CH has said?

1AeW7QK59HvEJwiyMztFH1ubWPSLLKx5ym
TradeHill Referral TH-R120549
Spacy
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 168


View Profile
October 23, 2011, 08:38:22 PM
 #13

There really is no way to know if hash rates are correct unless we can see the code.

Your puppies have disassembled the code, but you still can't figure it out?
coblee
Donator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1078


firstbits.com/1ce5j


View Profile WWW
October 23, 2011, 08:44:49 PM
 #14

There really is no way to know if hash rates are correct unless we can see the code.

Your puppies have disassembled the code, but you still can't figure it out?

Well, to be fair, the person who wrote the code also couldn't figure out if his hashrate is correct. Calculating the number of hashes you do every second is hard... you know.

Spacy
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 168


View Profile
October 23, 2011, 08:50:06 PM
 #15

@Spacy (Coinhunter)

Can you please stay on topic here which is how Coinhunter was caught lying about his hash rates.

He was not lying, the hashrate was buggy... Doesn't look like you understand the difference Grin
Ten98
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 201



View Profile
October 23, 2011, 08:59:28 PM
 #16

These threads really are comedy gold. Thanks BTCEX, without you nobody would even be talking about SolidCoin!

Thanks also for mentioning the new GPU mining feature of Solidcoin 2. Yes, we do expect to soak up some of the GPU power leaving Bitcoin in its droves. All are welcome to come and mine SolidCoins, even you Cheesy

You do raise a somewhat valid point though and a non-troll such as myself should take the time to explain the story so far in terms of the mining hashrate displayed in the client:

The SolidCoin 2.00 public beta showed a hashrate in the client, but Coinotron was showing a much lower rate in his stats. The "arrogant" Realsolid assumed that he was wrong and "corrected" the hash rate for 2.00 to more closely match what Coinotron was showing.

When mtrlt developed Reaper - the new SolidCoin GPU miner - using the now infamous SOURCE CODE given to him by Realsolid, OMG! Shocked - he had to create his own hashrate calc based on the SolidCoin source, which came out much higher than the rate shown in the official 2.00 client.

Realsolid knew they should be much closer, as he had designed his algo to be roughly equally effective on GPU and CPU, so he went back and examined 2.00 again in much closer detail. He found that the hashrate displayed was actually correct in the public beta, so changed it back for 2.01.

The issue is now corrected, you never lost any hashrate with your CPU mining, you have always been hashing at the higher rate.

So now you know.

Confusing, unfortunate and unnecessary, sure. But hey, nobody's perfect, not even our dear leader.
DeathAndTaxes
Donator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1218


Gerald Davis


View Profile
October 23, 2011, 09:13:00 PM
 #17

So cost/benefit does go over you head.  No, I don't mine SC - haven't even installed it.  But other poor saps do, so I'm making this information available to them.

Fix was published shortly after the GPU miner release... So what's the problem? SC support is still high, just some clowns who hate it, but are not able to ignore it  Grin

Support is at an all time low.  Hashing power is less than 300 quad core CPU.  When you consider most nodes are likely CPU+ GPu mining it is more like maybe 150 CPU + 150 GPU.  It is the smallest chain and shrinking.
Ten98
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 201



View Profile
October 23, 2011, 09:14:11 PM
 #18

Also should noted and probably posted in another thread is the fact that I picked off a link in IRC for the GPU miner just a few hours before they announced the release. It has timestamps of the first week in October clearly indicating they have been GPU mining all along since launch. I guess he wanted to make sure that his followers were rewarded and that majority of SC stayed in the hands of the faithful.

I uploaded to Rapidshare if you want to look at it.

https://rapidshare.com/files/4174919259/rminer.zip


Have no idea if it works or not, I just noticed the timestamps.

I have no intention of running anything linked by you, but I can assure you that this, whatever it is, was never given out by Realsolid.

If you actually had logs of RealSolid mentioning this app in IRC or any kind of "secret" hashing tool for special RealSolid Club Members, you would be pasting them for all to see just as you pasted the "evidence" screencaps from the Official SolidCoin Forum in your original post.

So um... logs or it didn't happen.

Those of us who actually hang out on IRC and talk rather than just troll with multiple identities (who could I be talking about here? You = DeathAndTaxes maybe? Roll Eyes) know that not even the closest supporters of the project get any kind of special treatment from RS, so you are simply making stuff up once again.
DeathAndTaxes
Donator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1218


Gerald Davis


View Profile
October 23, 2011, 09:18:48 PM
 #19

not even the closest supporters of the project get any kind of special treatment from RS, so you are simply making stuff up once again.

So where is the complete source code.  You have alluded that the GPU miner was built using access to source code.  So everyone has free and equal access to the source code?  The question is merely academic ScamCoin isn't going anywhere.
Ten98
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 201



View Profile
October 23, 2011, 09:30:12 PM
 #20

not even the closest supporters of the project get any kind of special treatment from RS, so you are simply making stuff up once again.

So where is the complete source code.  You have alluded that the GPU miner was built using access to source code.  So everyone has free and equal access to the source code?  The question is merely academic ScamCoin isn't going anywhere.

I guess you're right, the source isn't quite available to everyone yet but it is coming.

You can take a look at the reaper source code though to get a sneak peak at some of it! Yay!
Pages: [1] 2 »  All
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Sponsored by , a Bitcoin-accepting VPN.
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!