Bitcoin Forum
December 16, 2017, 12:09:08 AM *
News: Latest stable version of Bitcoin Core: 0.15.1  [Torrent].
 
   Home   Help Search Donate Login Register  
Pages: « 1 ... 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 [194] 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 »
  Print  
Author Topic: [ANN]CureCoin - CURECOIN TEAM HAS TAKEN RANK 1 ON FOLDING@HOME!!!  (Read 668208 times)
QuintLeo
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 910


View Profile
January 30, 2017, 09:16:48 PM
 #3861

By your own figures, you've spent $3200 on the 1070s but $3600 on the 1080s.

 (the $400 and $600 are close enough I'm not going to quibble over the actual pricing, which is a very little less in both cases to go with the lowest-cost cards on Newegg on any given day).

 *HOWEVER* your figure of 800K PPD for a 1080 appears to be HIGHLY optimistic based on the database at https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1vcVoSVtamcoGj5sFfvKF_XlvuviWWveJIg_iZ8U2bf0/pub?output=html# (I don't have any 1080s so I can't compare based on my own figures), while that 600k figure is in line with my 1070 farm of VERY MILDLY overclocked 1070 cards but very PESSAMISTIC vs the database.

 I think you're trying to make a case here based on BAD DATA.
  • The pricing in that comment is using is his figures, not mine

Actually those were your figures. My figures were $550 and $800 CAD respectively (even though it's actually more like $510 vs. $780 for the cheapest dual or triple fan design but I was being conservative). I knew if I used my own figures you would nitpick everything.

@QuintLeo, the difference comes from the fact that you need an extra $400 for the rest of the components of each rig (One really good PSU like an EVGA 1300W G2 and then cheap/used everything else, milk crate or self-built wood/aluminum or whatever for case/chassis etc.). You only need one rig for 6 cards and two rigs for 8. I wanted to use his own example of the worst case for the 1070s where you need to pay for an extra rig and only get 7 or 8 cards to show that even in that worst case and with his overly optimistic 1080 PPD numbers, the 1070s still come out ahead. But of course it's still wrong because FLDC only pays out once a month lol.

But you're completely ignoring the fact that the guy with lower per-rig income would have 50% more of those rigs lol
Now, I'm sure you're still stuck on the "more cards" end of your thought so, remember this...
Cards 7 & 8 will need another full set of hardware to run.

Ignoring the  electric difference (~$15.77 USD per year for *total system* @ $0.01 per kWh):

GTX 1070
Cost: ~$400 USD

PPD: 600,000
FLDC per month: 12,000 - ~$14.72 USD
CURE per month: 787 - ~$35.43 USD
Purchase ROI: ~8 months "raw cost" per card
Yearly Revenue: ~$599 USD

GTX 1080
Cost: ~$600 USD

PPD: 800,000
FLDC per month: 16,000 - ~$19.29 USD
CURE per month: 1050 - ~$47.25 USD
Purchase ROI: ~9 months "raw cost" per card
Yearly Revenue: ~$798 USD

...

 My figures weren't $400 and $600 - someone else came up with those, I just agreed that they were reasonable for comparison.
 I never stated any figures of my own.

 I wasn't looking at one WU - I was looking at the AVERAGES page - which points to your 800k PPD figure for a 1080 as being quite a bit on the high side of a FAIR estimate, and your 600k PPD probably being a bit on the low side, both cards being equally overclocked.

 $400 seems quite a bit on the high side for the "additional base system" to me, but that's likely due to the fact I don't build riser systems.

 Even if that figure is included, that would give you a second system that 3 cards could be added to before you need to do it again on the 1070 side, vs having to add a second base system on the 1080 side before you could add more cards - which would allow the 1070 based setup to pull away from the 1080 using reinvested profits.

 Let's look at $8000 - 2 full 1080 rigs, 12 cards at 9,600,000 PPD vs 3 full 1070 rigs 18 cards at 10,800,000 PPD.
 Interesting how a straight up FULL RIG comparison favors the 1070.

 You see this same result at all price points that do not compare a "optimal price point for exactly full systems" 1080 setup to a non-full-rigs 1070 setup.

 If the 1080 didn't carry a premium price compared to it's additional performance, it would win - but paying 50% more per card for 33% additional performance (or LESS using posted real world figures, probably due to the memory system not being all that much faster) overcomes the savings on non-GPU components in a FAIR comparison.


 It IS interesting that the $4000 point was chosen for the comparison though, since it seems to be THE most favorable point for the 1080 - and the 1080 STILL ends up losing past the first month or two.





Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1513382948
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1513382948

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1513382948
Reply with quote  #2

1513382948
Report to moderator
1513382948
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1513382948

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1513382948
Reply with quote  #2

1513382948
Report to moderator
1513382948
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1513382948

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1513382948
Reply with quote  #2

1513382948
Report to moderator
ComputerGenie
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 490


Retired IRCX God


View Profile
January 30, 2017, 10:03:11 PM
 #3862

... I wasn't looking at one WU - I was looking at the AVERAGES page...

Quote from: TheBlademaster01
This database was created to compare frame times with other users in order to see whether your PPD is where it should be or if there is something wrong with the system (instability, incorrect client configuration, throttling etc.)

The entire sheet is/was meant to be able to look at a given WU, and see how your results for that WU compare to someone else that had already submitted their info for that WU on the overclock.net forum.
The "averages" don't come out the same when you compare PRCG to PRCG.
When you look at the guys that have multiple rigs, the "average" answer you'll get is that the "average" 1070 will pump an "average" of about 600kPPD and the "average" 1080 will pump an "average" of about 800kPPD. This is their experience over time, not 1 time over 1 WU.
The "database" contains 17 numbers for a 1080, which is 17 single WUs; that is less than a single full day of folding for a single 1080.

If you have to ask why, you wouldn`t understand my answer.
bardacuda
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 402


View Profile
January 30, 2017, 11:43:12 PM
 #3863

My figures weren't $400 and $600 - someone else came up with those, I just agreed that they were reasonable for comparison.
 I never stated any figures of my own.

Right, I was talking to ComputerGenie when I said that, because he said they were MY figures.

  • The pricing in that comment is using is his figures, not mine

Actually those were your figures...


...


$400 seems quite a bit on the high side for the "additional base system" to me, but that's likely due to the fact I don't build riser systems.

Right, like I say I was being conservative with all of my numbers and erring in favor of the 1080s in order to do a comparison in the worst case scenario for the 1070s...and to not have to endure having everything I said being nitpicked to death and implications of me being mentally challenged. (To no avail concerning that latter part)

It IS interesting that the $4000 point was chosen for the comparison though, since it seems to be THE most favorable point for the 1080 - and the 1080 STILL ends up losing past the first month or two.

That's why I chose it  Grin (And presumably why Mr. Genie chose it to counter an earlier post of mine)

Now, I'm sure you're still stuck on the "more cards" end of your thought so, remember this...
Cards 7 & 8 will need another full set of hardware to run.
ryohazuki89
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 60


View Profile
January 31, 2017, 01:28:54 AM
 #3864

Just for fun speculation, it sure is unusual to see curecoin hold a price this high for this long, appears to be climbing too.

4 day chart: http://puu.sh/tHzgE/0cfd0578dd.png

It's flatlined now, I'm panic holding as usual but I expect a steady drop from here.. surprise me curecoin!
ComputerGenie
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 490


Retired IRCX God


View Profile
January 31, 2017, 11:17:04 AM
 #3865

$400 seems quite a bit on the high side for the "additional base system" to me, but that's likely due to the fact I don't build riser systems.
Where are you getting your motherboards? For the rest of us, $400 USD is cheap for a setup with a mb that has 6* x PCI Express 3.0 x16 Slots.





*less than PCI Express 3.0 x16 and both cards (1070 & 1080) suffer PPD loss from 2% to 50% depending on the slot type

If you have to ask why, you wouldn`t understand my answer.
QuintLeo
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 910


View Profile
January 31, 2017, 09:26:29 PM
 #3866

$400 seems quite a bit on the high side for the "additional base system" to me, but that's likely due to the fact I don't build riser systems.
Where are you getting your motherboards? For the rest of us, $400 USD is cheap for a setup with a mb that has 6* x PCI Express 3.0 x16 Slots.

*less than PCI Express 3.0 x16 and both cards (1070 & 1080) suffer PPD loss from 2% to 50% depending on the slot type

 AS I SAID, I don't build riser systems.
 I don't think I own a motherboard that has 6x PCI-E slots (I know some have 5), but I don't care enough to bother going to check.

 I also don't build "optimised specifically for Folding" systems - my recent builds have been 3x PCI-E slot AMD FM2 based systems, with an A10 APU that uses the CPU cores to support the folding GPUs and the APU's GPU to run Dnet RC5 via MooWrapper/BOINC and generating some Gridcoin on the side - I'm a VERY long term participant in the Distributed.net project, going back to DES days.

 My "base systems" probably run $250-$300 but that's with a much higher cost CPU than a "Folding-specific" system needs, could easily cut over $100 of the price by going with a bottom-end A4 or switching to an AM3+ solution with a Sempron CPU instead. Plenty of well-under $100 motherboards with 3x PCI-E 16-bit slots on the AMD side, and I tend to overkill some on the RAM too.

 The Seasonic X850 power supplies I use are mild overkill, but I wouldn't run a 6 card rig of 1070s on a X1250 (or an EVGA G2 1300) anyway.


Vorksholk
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1624



View Profile WWW
January 31, 2017, 09:46:36 PM
 #3867

Just thought I'd check in, project is still active. Someone mentioned SigmaX, that is still planned to launch along with cc2.0.

If you have any specific questions, please PM me, as I don't have time to read through this thread on a regular basis.

Fold Proteins, earn cryptos! CureCoin.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=603757.0
artoar_11
Jr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 40


View Profile
January 31, 2017, 10:01:04 PM
 #3868

Soon we will begin internal testing with Core_22. It's CUDA! It is expected that NVidia GPU's to get approximately 30% more performance. I participate in internal tests. For me it is a pleasure.

Quote
Postby JohnChodera » 30 Jan 2017, 21:56

> I hope so, but I'm not optimistic. It seems that EITHER the hot-fix or the V.18 FAHCore_21 eliminates the errors but, at the same time, performance is reduced.

I believe the driver hotfix is responsible for the performance degradation since it enforces greater thread synchronization than the workaround we have in 0.0.18. I expect you will see a slight uptick in performance, but once we get core 22 out in a few weeks, you should see a big increase in performance---especially with CUDA.

https://foldingforum.org/viewtopic.php?f=66&t=29618&start=15#p292677
ComputerGenie
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 490


Retired IRCX God


View Profile
January 31, 2017, 10:04:02 PM
 #3869

... I also don't build "optimised specifically for Folding" systems... My "base systems" probably run $250-$300 but that's with a much higher cost CPU than a "Folding-specific" system needs, could easily cut over $100 of the price by going with a bottom-end A4 or switching to an AM3+ solution with a Sempron CPU instead. Plenty of well-under $100 motherboards with 3x PCI-E 16-bit slots on the AMD side...
Then, perhaps, you shouldn't try to chime in on what is "better". You're building a system that's at a loss in bandwidth to start and you're pretending to have some valid response about production values?
Yes, I agree, there are boards with 3 slots; however, that option spends $300 to "save" $200... Huh

As you admit, folding isn't mining, and as such things are different. Do future folders a service and stop giving a technical opinion that is based on something that's non-relevant.

If you have to ask why, you wouldn`t understand my answer.
bardacuda
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 402


View Profile
February 01, 2017, 08:00:58 PM
 #3870

@QuintLeo
Is there any particular 1070 model that you recommend for longevity / price / cooling, etc.? I was thinking the EVGA ACX 3.0 08G-P4-5171. I know they had an issue with missing thermal pads but they'll send a free kit to fix that and honour their warranty. Seems to be one of the cheapest and also its EVGA with dual fans, so it seems like the one to go with but I wanted to get your opinion first.
QuintLeo
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 910


View Profile
February 01, 2017, 10:38:58 PM
 #3871

... I also don't build "optimised specifically for Folding" systems... My "base systems" probably run $250-$300 but that's with a much higher cost CPU than a "Folding-specific" system needs, could easily cut over $100 of the price by going with a bottom-end A4 or switching to an AM3+ solution with a Sempron CPU instead. Plenty of well-under $100 motherboards with 3x PCI-E 16-bit slots on the AMD side...
Then, perhaps, you shouldn't try to chime in on what is "better". You're building a system that's at a loss in bandwidth to start and you're pretending to have some valid response about production values?
Yes, I agree, there are boards with 3 slots; however, that option spends $300 to "save" $200... Huh

As you admit, folding isn't mining, and as such things are different. Do future folders a service and stop giving a technical opinion that is based on something that's non-relevant.

 Nope - I don't have a loss in bandwidth, the 6 card systems are the ones trying to shove twice the bandwidth through the SAME CPU bandwidth and usually same number of PCI-E lanes.
 I also didn't specify anything about "better" on the system build - I was just pointing out that the numbers on the "economics" for the 1070 vs. the 1080 were skewed and incorrect.
 I also don't "spend $300 to save $200" - I could match the total system cost PER CARD pretty much exactly with non-riser systems if I chose to do so in large part because I don't spend the INFLATED PRICING on super-high-end PS, plus I don't have to pay for the risers themselves, and I would end up with systems that are AT LEAST as reliable and stable and likely MORE reliable.

 Just because YOUR errors or outright lies have been exposed doesn't mean my points are invalid - just because I don't CHOOSE to build "optimised for folding" systems doesn't mean I don't know the ECONOMICS or HOW to do so.
QuintLeo
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 910


View Profile
February 01, 2017, 10:54:45 PM
 #3872

@QuintLeo
Is there any particular 1070 model that you recommend for longevity / price / cooling, etc.? I was thinking the EVGA ACX 3.0 08G-P4-5171. I know they had an issue with missing thermal pads but they'll send a free kit to fix that and honour their warranty. Seems to be one of the cheapest and also its EVGA with dual fans, so it seems like the one to go with but I wanted to get your opinion first.

 The EVGA cards I have are the "Black" 08G-P4-5173-KR model.
 Most of my Gigabytes are the GV-N1070WF2OC 2-fan "Windforce" model
 The rest of my Gigabytes are the GV-N1070IXOC "mini-ITX" model

 All are 8GB (but I think all 1070s released to date are 8GB)


 The Gigabyte 2-fan Windforce models I run seem to stay just as cool as the 2-fan EVGA cards I run, despite being a little higher "factory" clocked.
 The Gigabyte MiniITX stay cool as well but they have less obstruction in their airflow.

 Given a choice at the same price point I'd go with he Gigabytes due to the higher clocks.
 
 It's more about gettng ANY GPU set up with a SANE fan speed / curve than any other factor when it comes to keeping 1070s cool.

 I don't have a preference at all on reliability so far, haven't had issues with a 1070 failing yet.

 The Gigabytes seem to have a little more headroom on overclocking, despite their higher "factory" clock, at the cost of having a higher TDP (151 watts vs 180 watts using Nvidia-SMI to monitor with Afterburner set at the "+0 TDP" point).


bardacuda
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 402


View Profile
February 02, 2017, 01:13:01 AM
 #3873

Thanks for your input!
xandry
Staff
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1106



View Profile
February 02, 2017, 05:29:01 AM
 #3874

The EVGA cards I have are the "Black" 08G-P4-5173-KR model.
 Most of my Gigabytes are the GV-N1070WF2OC 2-fan "Windforce" model
 The rest of my Gigabytes are the GV-N1070IXOC "mini-ITX" model
Please share with us their PPD results.

     ╔═╗ ╦ ═╦═╔══╔══╗╔══╗╔══          OFFICIAL WEBSITE | TWITTER  | FACEBOOK
==== ╠═╝╗║  ║ ║  ║  ║╠═╔╝╠══ ====    OFFICIAL F.A.Q.  | TELEGRAM | TECHCHART     
     ╚══╝╩  ╩ ╚══╚══╝╚ ╚═╚══          10 MB, segwit, BTC -> BTX, airdrops +++
bardacuda
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 402


View Profile
February 03, 2017, 03:43:00 AM
 #3875

That should depend only on clocks and not the model (unless there was throttling due to poor cooler design). I think he said he was getting ~600K PPD with "mild" overclocks.
QuintLeo
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 910


View Profile
February 04, 2017, 10:51:39 PM
 #3876

The EVGA cards I have are the "Black" 08G-P4-5173-KR model.
 Most of my Gigabytes are the GV-N1070WF2OC 2-fan "Windforce" model
 The rest of my Gigabytes are the GV-N1070IXOC "mini-ITX" model
Please share with us their PPD results.

 I don't keep track by individual card - and it varies with the specific work unit anyway.

 My primary criteria is:
(1) reputable maker (EVGA tried to mess that up, but it was more about the TOO LOW FAN CURVE STOCK which I've never put up with)
(2) cost
(3) in the case of the mini-ITX cards, allowing for good cooling of the card next to it.
(4) "factory" clock rate.


 
AndreyNag
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 66


View Profile WWW
February 05, 2017, 05:52:30 PM
 #3877

Hi guys.
Please tell me why do not mining curecoin on my mpos pool? For a few hours working miners.  Shocked Even shows that are found blocks, but pool and blockchain not displayed. Are there any thoughts on this? Is it curecoin features?  Huh
UniversalCurrencurrency (UNIT) are mining perfectly at the same pool. Block of UNIT is every few minutes.
My pool happy.mine.nu.
Wellcome.

giodelgado
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 3


View Profile
February 07, 2017, 05:50:29 AM
 #3878

Hello everyone, just submitted the curecoin project to Product Hunt, vote up to reach the frontpage!

https://www.producthunt.com/posts/curecoin
AndreyNag
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 66


View Profile WWW
February 12, 2017, 01:22:53 PM
 #3879

Hi guys.
Please tell me why do not mining curecoin on my mpos pool? For a few hours working miners.  Shocked Even shows that are found blocks, but pool and blockchain not displayed. Are there any thoughts on this? Is it curecoin features?  Huh
UniversalCurrencurrency (UNIT) are mining perfectly at the same pool. Block of UNIT is every few minutes.
My pool happy.mine.nu.
Wellcome.

Hi. And again the miner has found a block, and a pool of absolute silence. How to understand this?
Address is valid. Whats wrong?
Thats end of currently daemon log:
Code:
Flushing wallet.dat
Flushed wallet.dat 3ms
ThreadRPCServer method=getaccount
Flushed 13069 addresses to peers.dat  26ms
Flushed 13069 addresses to peers.dat  19ms
Flushed 13069 addresses to peers.dat  27ms
ThreadRPCServer method=listaccounts
ThreadRPCServer method=help
Flushed 13069 addresses to peers.dat  18ms
ThreadRPCServer method=getaccountaddres
ThreadRPCServer method=getaccountaddress
ThreadRPCServer method=getbalance
ThreadRPCServer method=listtransactions
Flushed 13069 addresses to peers.dat  24ms
ThreadRPCServer method=listunspent
Flushed 13069 addresses to peers.dat  25ms
ThreadRPCServer method=listaccounts
ThreadRPCServer method=getaccount
Flushed 13069 addresses to peers.dat  26ms
ThreadRPCServer method=validateaddress
Flushed 13069 addresses to peers.dat  29ms
ResendWalletTransactions()
Flushed 13069 addresses to peers.dat  21ms
received block c93de993d50fe1924010
SetBestChain: new best=c93de993d50fe1924010  height=157274  trust=1249756869570318  date=02/12/17 12:48:04,block hash= c93de993d50fe19240101c0ceb51de83c07587c49d575e23475d6fdacfb14b94
ProcessBlock: ACCEPTED
getblocks -1 to 00000000000000000000 limit 500
getblocks -1 to 00000000000000000000 limit 500
getblocks -1 to 00000000000000000000 limit 500
getblocks -1 to 00000000000000000000 limit 500
Flushing wallet.dat
Flushed wallet.dat 4ms
getblocks -1 to 00000000000000000000 limit 500
Flushed 13069 addresses to peers.dat  23ms
Flushed 13069 addresses to peers.dat  25ms
received block 8328dab0114026a646d4
SetBestChain: new best=8328dab0114026a646d4  height=157275  trust=1249774582838834  date=02/12/17 12:51:57,block hash= 8328dab0114026a646d40b5addd884c636c5034d5082073eb1eb29f1604b5a03
ProcessBlock: ACCEPTED
getblocks -1 to 00000000000000000000 limit 500
getblocks -1 to 00000000000000000000 limit 500
Flushing wallet.dat
Flushed wallet.dat 4ms
Flushed 13069 addresses to peers.dat  25ms
ThreadRPCServer method=getaccount
Flushed 13069 addresses to peers.dat  26ms
Flushed 13069 addresses to peers.dat  30ms
Flushed 13069 addresses to peers.dat  29ms
Flushed 13069 addresses to peers.dat  27ms
Flushed 13069 addresses to peers.dat  25ms
Flushed 13069 addresses to peers.dat  17ms
ThreadRPCServer method=getaccount
Flushed 13069 addresses to peers.dat  21ms
Flushed 13069 addresses to peers.dat  30ms
Flushed 13069 addresses to peers.dat  28ms
Flushed 13069 addresses to peers.dat  24ms
This is part of stratum log:
Code:
[36m[2017-02-12 16:02:01.732] [DEBUG] [default] - .[39mPool curecoin Thread 4 No new blocks for 55 seconds - updating transactions & rebroadcasting work
[36m[2017-02-12 16:02:02.301] [DEBUG] [default] - .[39mPool curecoin Thread 3 Share accepted at diff 5638.35269304/14003.59961394 by BA9b77g4jde11gyRuqFswQ6KMKnvexxxxx [85.xx.xx.xx]
[36m[2017-02-12 16:02:03.355] [DEBUG] [default] - .[39mPool curecoin Thread 3 Share accepted at diff 17779.63144279/26633.34940914 by BA9b77g4jde11gyRuqFswQ6KMKnvezAi8R [85.173.186.233]
[36m[2017-02-12 16:02:03.992] [DEBUG] [default] - .[39mPool curecoin Thread 3 Share accepted at diff 5638.35269304/24750.81775761 by BA9b77g4jde11gyRuqFswQ6KMKnvexxxxx [85.xx.xx.xx]
[36m[2017-02-12 16:02:05.440] [DEBUG] [default] - .[39mPool curecoin Thread 3 Share accepted at diff 65536/66265.17037326 by BA9b77g4jde11gyRuqFswQ6KMKnvexxxxx [85.xx.xx.xx]
[36m[2017-02-12 16:02:10.927] [DEBUG] [default] - .[39mPool curecoin Thread 3 Share accepted at diff 5638.35269304/1093627.71313199 by BA9b77g4jde11gyRuqFswQ6KMKnvexxxxx [85.xx.xx.xx]
[36m[2017-02-12 16:02:19.339] [DEBUG] [default] - .[39mPool curecoin Thread 3 Share accepted at diff 5638.35269304/8400.65877858 by BA9b77g4jde11gyRuqFswQ6KMKnvexxxxx [85.xx.xx.xx]
[36m[2017-02-12 16:02:25.146] [DEBUG] [default] - .[39mPool curecoin Thread 3 Share accepted at diff 17779.63144279/25703.82246876 by BA9b77g4jde11gyRuqFswQ6KMKnvezAi8R [85.173.186.233]
[36m[2017-02-12 16:02:31.934] [DEBUG] [default] - .[39mPool curecoin Thread 3 Share accepted at diff 5638.35269304/20323.38162236 by BA9b77g4jde11gyRuqFswQ6KMKnvexxxxx [85.xx.xx.xx]
[36m[2017-02-12 16:02:37.374] [DEBUG] [default] - .[39mPool curecoin Thread 3 Share accepted at diff 5638.35269304/10059.75107718 by BA9b77g4jde11gyRuqFswQ6KMKnvexxxxx [85.xx.xx.xx]
[36m[2017-02-12 16:02:37.674] [DEBUG] [default] - .[39mPool curecoin Thread 3 Share accepted at diff 5638.35269304/12255.86013613 by BA9b77g4jde11gyRuqFswQ6KMKnvexxxxx [85.xx.xx.xx]
[36m[2017-02-12 16:02:37.805] [DEBUG] [default] - .[39mPool namecoin Thread 4 No new blocks for 55 seconds - updating transactions & rebroadcasting work
[36m[2017-02-12 16:02:37.815] [DEBUG] [default] - .[39mPool namecoin Thread 1 No new blocks for 55 seconds - updating transactions & rebroadcasting work
[36m[2017-02-12 16:02:37.816] [DEBUG] [default] - .[39mPool namecoin Thread 2 No new blocks for 55 seconds - updating transactions & rebroadcasting work
[36m[2017-02-12 16:02:37.871] [DEBUG] [default] - .[39mPool namecoin Thread 3 No new blocks for 55 seconds - updating transactions & rebroadcasting work
[36m[2017-02-12 16:02:38.167] [DEBUG] [default] - .[39mPool curecoin Thread 3 Share accepted at diff 5638.35269304/5724.35148776 by BA9b77g4jde11gyRuqFswQ6KMKnvexxxxx [85.xx.xx.xx]
[36m[2017-02-12 16:02:39.745] [DEBUG] [default] - .[39mPool curecoin Thread 3 Share accepted at diff 5638.35269304/10011.50360333 by BA9b77g4jde11gyRuqFswQ6KMKnvexxxxx [85.xx.xx.xx]
[36m[2017-02-12 16:02:41.965] [DEBUG] [default] - .[39mPool emercoin Thread 1 No new blocks for 55 seconds - updating transactions & rebroadcasting work
[36m[2017-02-12 16:02:41.968] [DEBUG] [default] - .[39mPool emercoin Thread 3 No new blocks for 55 seconds - updating transactions & rebroadcasting work
[36m[2017-02-12 16:02:41.973] [DEBUG] [default] - .[39mPool emercoin Thread 4 No new blocks for 55 seconds - updating transactions & rebroadcasting work
[36m[2017-02-12 16:02:42.034] [DEBUG] [default] - .[39mPool emercoin Thread 2 No new blocks for 55 seconds - updating transactions & rebroadcasting work
[36m[2017-02-12 16:02:44.505] [DEBUG] [default] - .[39mPool curecoin Thread 3 Share accepted at diff 5638.35269304/34291.76253007 by BA9b77g4jde11gyRuqFswQ6KMKnvexxxxx [85.xx.xx.xx]
[36m[2017-02-12 16:02:45.880] [DEBUG] [default] - .[39mPool bitcoin Thread 2 No new blocks for 55 seconds - updating transactions & rebroadcasting work
[36m[2017-02-12 16:02:45.970] [DEBUG] [default] - .[39mPool bitcoin Thread 3 No new blocks for 55 seconds - updating transactions & rebroadcasting work
[36m[2017-02-12 16:02:46.018] [DEBUG] [default] - .[39mPool bitcoin Thread 1 No new blocks for 55 seconds - updating transactions & rebroadcasting work
[36m[2017-02-12 16:02:46.108] [DEBUG] [default] - .[39mPool bitcoin Thread 4 No new blocks for 55 seconds - updating transactions & rebroadcasting work
[36m[2017-02-12 16:02:51.711] [DEBUG] [default] - .[39mPool universal currency Thread 3 No new blocks for 55 seconds - updating transactions & rebroadcasting work
[36m[2017-02-12 16:02:52.434] [DEBUG] [default] - .[39mPool universal currency Thread 1 No new blocks for 55 seconds - updating transactions & rebroadcasting work
[36m[2017-02-12 16:02:52.438] [DEBUG] [default] - .[39mPool universal currency Thread 4 No new blocks for 55 seconds - updating transactions & rebroadcasting work
[36m[2017-02-12 16:02:52.450] [DEBUG] [default] - .[39mPool universal currency Thread 2 No new blocks for 55 seconds - updating transactions & rebroadcasting work
[36m[2017-02-12 16:02:56.688] [DEBUG] [default] - .[39mPool curecoin Thread 2 No new blocks for 55 seconds - updating transactions & rebroadcasting work
[36m[2017-02-12 16:02:56.689] [DEBUG] [default] - .[39mPool curecoin Thread 3 No new blocks for 55 seconds - updating transactions & rebroadcasting work
[36m[2017-02-12 16:02:56.692] [DEBUG] [default] - .[39mPool curecoin Thread 1 No new blocks for 55 seconds - updating transactions & rebroadcasting work
[36m[2017-02-12 16:02:56.692] [DEBUG] [default] - .[39mPool curecoin Thread 3 Difficulty update to diff 42130.28571429 workerName="BA9b77g4jde11gyRuqFswQ6KMKnvezAi8R"
[36m[2017-02-12 16:02:56.733] [DEBUG] [default] - .[39mPool curecoin Thread 4 No new blocks for 55 seconds - updating transactions & rebroadcasting work
[36m[2017-02-12 16:03:03.800] [DEBUG] [default] - .[39mPool curecoin Thread 3 Share accepted at diff 5638.35269304/8128.05731749 by BA9b77g4jde11gyRuqFswQ6KMKnvexxxxx [85.xx.xx.xx]
[36m[2017-02-12 16:03:04.704] [DEBUG] [default] - .[39mPool universal currency Thread 2 getting block notification via RPC polling
[36m[2017-02-12 16:03:04.705] [DEBUG] [default] - .[39mPool universal currency Thread 1 getting block notification via RPC polling
[36m[2017-02-12 16:03:04.707] [DEBUG] [default] - .[39mPool universal currency Thread 4 getting block notification via RPC polling
[36m[2017-02-12 16:03:04.722] [DEBUG] [default] - .[39mPool universal currency Thread 3 getting block notification via RPC polling

ComputerGenie
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 490


Retired IRCX God


View Profile
February 12, 2017, 02:47:56 PM
 #3880

...
Address is valid. Whats wrong?
Thats end of currently daemon log:...
Other than your miner screenshot, there's nothing in what you've shown that shows that you've found a block or if you did, when.

Quote
ProcessBlock: ACCEPTED
means that the CureCoin client has accepted the information it was sent about a block being found on the network. You will also see this in the log for every block.


Edit: as for tracking down your issue of you not seeing information about CureCoin blocks, a 1 minute long multi-mining stratum log, from some random point in time, isn't enough information to give you any accurate advice.

If you have to ask why, you wouldn`t understand my answer.
Pages: « 1 ... 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 [194] 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 »
  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!