[∞ YH] US/EU/AU solo.ckpool.org 2% fee solo mining 311 blocks solved!

[joseseascripto]

Dear Con Kolivas (-ck),
I am writing to you regarding a block I successfully mined on the Bitcoin Cash (BCH) network using ckpool-solo.
Due to a configuration error on my part, the block reward was redirected to a fallback/donation address. I am reaching out to see if there is any possibility of recovering these funds.
Technical details of the event:

    Block Height: 940600
    Block Hash: 0000000000000000004e7e98b9408d41e0f740abf31d343c03a20d0a48629c14
    Transaction ID (Coinbase): b3fa2f2f9391541a129337726dbed1464a473f3dd6f9f7060d904d21f00400f7
    Mined Date: 2026-03-02 15:14:13 UTC
    Coinbase Signature: /minado-con-bchn/ (This matches my btcsig configuration).
    Reward Amount: 3.12747725 BCH
    Destination (Donation) Address: qrphqm2s6gy2uya4uvh5ma357x36al085ymj8u32nd

Technical Analysis:
In my ckpool.conf, I provided my Electron Cash address (qzr0smunlpd4dtf4q74tw6j6czec7jyjxqt0v5rc2j) but omitted the required "bitcoincash:" prefix. After checking the source code in generator.c, I noticed the logic regarding "donation addresses from mainnet for coinbase validation". It appears that because my address format was rejected during validation, the software triggered this fallback.
A Personal Note:
This was my very first block ever mined. I have put an immense amount of effort, time, and resources into setting up my node and hardware. Finding this block was a dream come true, but seeing the reward go to a donation address due to a simple syntax mistake has been devastating. As a solo miner, this reward is very significant to me and my family.
My intended address (CashAddr):
bitcoincash:qzr0smunlpd4dtf4q74tw6j6czec7jyjxqt0v5rc2j
As the solo miner who found this block (as proven by the custom signature), I kindly ask if you could return the reward. I would be more than happy to leave a generous donation for your incredible work as a token of my gratitude.
Thank you very much for your time and understanding.
Best regards,
Jose (joseseascripto)

[-ck]

I don't recognise that address type, have never set any donation address for any shitcoins, and don't intend to set up a wallet. Whoever maintains that shitcoin fork of ckpool set the address and you should contact them.

[NotFuzzyWarm]

Dear Con Kolivas and Andrew Smith,
I am writing to you regarding Block 940600 which I successfully mined on the Bitcoin Cash (BCH) network using ckpool-solo. This was my very first block ever mined, achieved after an immense amount of effort, time, and personal resources. <Snip>

BCH has nothing to do with BTC
They are two entirely different coins and are not interchangable. -ck and Kano want nothing to do with BCH. Sorry you screwed up but there is nothing that can be done about it.

[Nexus9090]

Dear Con Kolivas (-ck),
I am writing to you regarding a block I successfully mined on the Bitcoin Cash (BCH) network using ckpool-solo.
Due to a configuration error on my part, the block reward was redirected to a fallback/donation address. I am reaching out to see if there is any possibility of recovering these funds.
-SNIP-

First, where did you clone your ckpool-solo code from?

Because whoever you've cloned it from probably holds that donation address. As CK said, ckpool doesnt support shitcoin. The main ckpool code does not handle BCH it is for Bitcoin BTC only.

So the code-base would have had to have been modified and you must have cloned it from an unsupported source.

Contact the owner of the source you cloned.

The chances of you getting back the BCH you mined is literally zero unless the owner of the cloned code is kind enough to send it to you.

Bottom line as NotFuzzyWarm said, you've screwed up.

Sorry but there's nothing any of us here can do about it. Go back to where you got your source code from.

[blockhilltop]

Day 86 without a Block
US Pool 253% luck; 366.5T shares submitted - nothing
EU Pool 76% luck; 110T shares submitted - zero
AU Pool 13% luck; 19T shares submitted - zilch

Meanwhile BTC down over 30% since the last Block found here.. PoW Gods, I'm begging you! Please make it happen!

[caijh369]

Day 86 without a Block
US Pool 253% luck; 366.5T shares submitted - nothing
EU Pool 76% luck; 110T shares submitted - zero
AU Pool 13% luck; 19T shares submitted - zilch

Meanwhile BTC down over 30% since the last Block found here.. PoW Gods, I'm begging you! Please make it happen!

https://media2.giphy.com/media/v1.Y2lkPTc5MGI3NjExc3Vzc2toNTFzY3d0Z2pkcHc3MDRsNTYwdXc0cTh5cnkzMmh6bzR1ciZlcD12MV9pbnRlcm5hbF9naWZfYnlfaWQmY3Q9Zw/xT5LMqhaaz8WkfVcI0/giphy.gif

I have 6T computing power. Will it be me in the next round?

[ethanhunt2023]

I have 6T computing power. Will it be me in the next round?
[/quote]

It can be you but it would be better if it was me because I would donate at least 10% of the block to the community here

[Real-Duke]

I have 6T computing power. Will it be me in the next round?

Everything is possible at any time -> in the end it’s just a matter of luck to solve a block.
Fingers crossed for you, but even more for our group in Willi’s solo pool… why not join us with your 6T @ https://solorun.lima.zone

I would donate at least 10% of the block to the community here

That’s really generous of you
Could you share your mining address here so we can all keep our fingers crossed for you and monitor the address together?

[itrider]

Hi CK

I'm running a solo mining setup with CKPool and I'm trying to implement something similar to the architecture used on solo.ckpool.org.

The idea would be to have:
- one standard instance with a low vardiff for regular miners
- another instance with a much higher vardiff intended for hashpower rentals

Both would ultimately point to the same upstream pool instance that generates the block templates.

My question is the following: 
Would it be possible to keep a single upstream (the low vardiff instance) and run the high vardiff endpoint as a passthrough?

In other words, the upstream instance would still handle the block templates and work generation, while the passthrough would only enforce a higher difficulty for the connected miners.

So the template/work would always come from the upstream, and the passthrough would only modify the expected share difficulty.

Is this a valid approach with ckpool/ckproxy, or would this require a separate pool instance for the high vardiff endpoint?

Thanks for your work on CKPool.

[-ck]

Hi CK

I'm running a solo mining setup with CKPool and I'm trying to implement something similar to the architecture used on solo.ckpool.org.

The idea would be to have:
- one standard instance with a low vardiff for regular miners
- another instance with a much higher vardiff intended for hashpower rentals

Both would ultimately point to the same upstream pool instance that generates the block templates.

My question is the following: 
Would it be possible to keep a single upstream (the low vardiff instance) and run the high vardiff endpoint as a passthrough?

In other words, the upstream instance would still handle the block templates and work generation, while the passthrough would only enforce a higher difficulty for the connected miners.

So the template/work would always come from the upstream, and the passthrough would only modify the expected share difficulty.

Is this a valid approach with ckpool/ckproxy, or would this require a separate pool instance for the high vardiff endpoint?

Thanks for your work on CKPool.

That's complicated. The original ckpool had a cknode mode that did this, but it is NOT compatible with running it in solo mode. However, any port you specify above 4000 instantly makes it a high diff port (1 million min), so just specify two ports, one for regular vardiff and one for high. That's how the public pool currently operates.

[itrider]

That's complicated. The original ckpool had a cknode mode that did this, but it is NOT compatible with running it in solo mode. However, any port you specify above 4000 instantly makes it a high diff port (1 million min), so just specify two ports, one for regular vardiff and one for high. That's how the public pool currently operates.

Hi CK,

I tried it with a port above 4000 for the high diff and it works perfectly.

I also noticed in the logs that the config seems to support a highdiff field to set the difficulty for the high diff port, but I didn’t see it mentioned in the README documentation.

Thanks for the tip!