|
zeca pagodinho
|
 |
October 23, 2014, 09:21:26 PM
Last edit: October 23, 2014, 09:39:02 PM by zeca pagodinho |
|
Has anybody traded on BETASHAREX,is it reliable?  i have 1000 SPR into Betasharex. 5 days trading We need a bigger exchange,no just for good price reason,but to let more miners and investors know this coin. Use this address and make the request:  https://www.poloniex.com/coinRequestOr vote for C-CEX: https://c-cex.com/?id=vote&v=314 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"You Asked For Change, We Gave You Coins" -- casascius
|
|
|
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction.
|
A-tM
Member
 Offline
Activity: 90
Merit: 10
|
|
October 23, 2014, 09:39:47 PM |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Pab
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1862
Merit: 1012
|
|
October 24, 2014, 01:49:08 AM |
|
Hi
i have been lucky tp receive 40 spr,in your giveaway,and now ,after wallet sync,in just one hour mining,i received 6,49 SRG, incredible,looks like you are geneous
Regards
P
will vote to add you on exchanges
|
|
|
|
|
Mr. Spread (OP)
|
|
October 24, 2014, 04:25:49 AM |
|
Didn't know that we are on the voting list on C-CEX, added it to OP and voted. There is also voting on bter: https://bter.com/votingWe already have 7 votes there |
|
|
|
|
sparkster
|
|
October 24, 2014, 03:54:23 PM
Last edit: October 24, 2014, 05:00:24 PM by sparkster |
|
What happened to the whitepaper? It's 404 now.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mr. Spread (OP)
|
|
October 24, 2014, 04:41:35 PM |
|
What happened to the whitepaper? It's 404 now.
Fixed |
|
|
|
Pab
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1862
Merit: 1012
|
|
October 24, 2014, 09:42:12 PM |
|
Be careful with BetaSharex,witdraw no working now,no confirmation email,no resend button,no cancel withdraw button
|
|
|
|
|
crypto_currency
|
|
October 25, 2014, 03:41:52 AM |
|
Be careful with BetaSharex,witdraw no working now,no confirmation email,no resend button,no cancel withdraw button
WTF,we really need a bigger exchange now,indeed.  |
|
|
|
|
|
crypto_currency
|
|
October 25, 2014, 03:43:58 AM |
|
The net hashrate is over 7000kh/s ,good sign~~~
|
|
|
|
|
SamuelN
Newbie
Offline
Activity: 238
Merit: 0
|
|
October 25, 2014, 02:39:27 PM |
|
64x windows version doesn't work for me, it stops running everytime
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mr. Spread (OP)
|
|
October 25, 2014, 02:57:10 PM |
|
64x windows version doesn't work for me, it stops running everytime
Does it show any error? It stops when you launch it or when you try to mine? |
|
|
|
SamuelN
Newbie
Offline
Activity: 238
Merit: 0
|
|
October 25, 2014, 02:59:31 PM |
|
when i launch it, and it doesnt give me any error just the windows thingy saying it stopped running
|
|
|
|
|
A-tM
Member
Offline
Activity: 90
Merit: 10
|
|
October 25, 2014, 06:25:28 PM |
|
I suspect there is something wrong with the last version.
Running Intel Ivy and Haswell.
I do not say that it isn't finding any blocks.
But sometimes even six hours without a block, and even when periods with hashrate lower than 5 Mh/s were present.
Average spacing between my found blocks should be around one hour.
(I understand, that I will not get the blocks regularly, but if there is say four-five hours gap, then next blocks should came faster, to make an average result equal to the computed average.)
Nothing for six hours on more computers at once, is not normal IMHO, especially if I have experienced this strange behaviour more times, and everytime on majority of my computers. (I run from three to five wallets.)
Everytime I stopped the new wallet and started the older one, it really begun to deliver found blocks "immediately".
By "immediately" I mean the average rate counted from say three or four hours period is really as expected.
Is this really normal?
Thank you in advance.
Regards,
Andy
|
|
|
|
|
A-tM
Member
Offline
Activity: 90
Merit: 10
|
|
October 25, 2014, 06:50:07 PM
Last edit: October 25, 2014, 07:01:34 PM by A-tM |
|
Example from one computer: wallet changed from the recent one to older version at about 20:00 look at more adjacent blocks, which came each after long more-hours period. Unfortunately I do not remember when I have changed from the older version to the latest in the past. Maybe three or four days ago. Similair behaviour. Date Came after
H:M:S Average
25.10.14 20:29 00:01:05 01:21:06
25.10.14 20:28 02:03:20
25.10.14 18:25 04:59:56
25.10.14 13:25 05:22:20
25.10.14 08:02 03:13:25
25.10.14 04:49 02:14:38
25.10.14 02:34 02:32:46
25.10.14 00:02 00:24:30
24.10.14 23:37 00:09:06
24.10.14 23:28 02:22:36
24.10.14 21:05 02:45:36
24.10.14 18:20 01:32:15
24.10.14 16:47 00:12:00
24.10.14 16:35 00:20:15
24.10.14 16:15 00:45:52
24.10.14 15:29 00:02:08
24.10.14 15:27 01:12:25
24.10.14 14:15 00:50:36
24.10.14 13:24 01:30:20
24.10.14 11:54 00:15:18
24.10.14 11:39 01:00:08
24.10.14 10:38 00:25:49
24.10.14 10:13 02:24:00
24.10.14 07:49 00:35:15
24.10.14 07:13 01:03:44
24.10.14 06:10 00:48:43
24.10.14 05:21 00:39:04
24.10.14 04:42 00:50:01
24.10.14 03:52 00:09:02
24.10.14 03:43 03:17:25
24.10.14 00:25 01:13:40
23.10.14 23:12 02:13:00
23.10.14 20:59 00:11:15
23.10.14 20:47 00:40:56
23.10.14 20:07 00:12:24
23.10.14 19:54 02:07:25
23.10.14 17:47 00:31:48
23.10.14 17:15 00:19:35
23.10.14 16:55 02:40:04
23.10.14 14:15 04:50:55
23.10.14 09:24 00:30:38
23.10.14 08:54 00:34:33
23.10.14 08:19 01:10:27
23.10.14 07:09 00:18:47
23.10.14 06:50 00:09:28
23.10.14 06:40 00:21:58
Ok I understand. It is not very "scientific" approach. So, I will run the older version on one PC, and the newer on the another one, for say 24 or better 48 hours, than compare the results (normalized according to hashpower, abeit similair). |
|
|
|
|
A-tM
Member
Offline
Activity: 90
Merit: 10
|
|
October 25, 2014, 07:06:06 PM |
|
Is sombody who owns two or more machines with reasonly similair processors,
willing to sacrifice a bit of hashrate (by downgrading one or more wallets) for backing up my tests, please?
For 24 or 48 hours...
Thank you in advance.
Andy
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mr. Spread (OP)
|
|
October 25, 2014, 08:59:41 PM |
|
if there is say four-five hours gap, then next blocks should came faster, to make an average result equal to the computed average.
How often you will find blocks in the future doesn't depend on how often you found them in the past. This misbelief is called gambler's fallacy. Nothing for six hours on more computers at once, is not normal IMHO, especially if I have experienced this strange behaviour more times, and everytime on majority of my computers. (I run from three to five wallets.) This is strange but not something improbable, probability is usually counter-intuitive. You find blocks and that means that miner works correctly, it would be very strange for it to work incorrectly for some periods of time but correctly for the others. You can search in the debug.log for the following messages "SpreadCoinMiner : generated block is stale" and "SpreadCoinMiner : ProcessBlock, block not accepted" (without quotes). Every such message will mean that mined block was not accepted. While the first one can happen the second one would indicate a bug. (debug.log is located in C:\Users\<username>\AppData\Roaming\SpreadCoin\ on Windows 7 and ~/.spreadcoin/ on Linux) |
|
|
|
|
Mr. Spread (OP)
|
|
October 25, 2014, 09:51:41 PM |
|
Example from one computer: Date Came after
H:M:S Average
25.10.14 20:29 00:01:05 01:21:06
25.10.14 20:28 02:03:20
25.10.14 18:25 04:59:56
25.10.14 13:25 05:22:20
25.10.14 08:02 03:13:25
25.10.14 04:49 02:14:38
25.10.14 02:34 02:32:46
25.10.14 00:02 00:24:30
24.10.14 23:37 00:09:06
24.10.14 23:28 02:22:36
24.10.14 21:05 02:45:36
24.10.14 18:20 01:32:15
24.10.14 16:47 00:12:00
24.10.14 16:35 00:20:15
24.10.14 16:15 00:45:52
24.10.14 15:29 00:02:08
24.10.14 15:27 01:12:25
24.10.14 14:15 00:50:36
24.10.14 13:24 01:30:20
24.10.14 11:54 00:15:18
24.10.14 11:39 01:00:08
24.10.14 10:38 00:25:49
24.10.14 10:13 02:24:00
24.10.14 07:49 00:35:15
24.10.14 07:13 01:03:44
24.10.14 06:10 00:48:43
24.10.14 05:21 00:39:04
24.10.14 04:42 00:50:01
24.10.14 03:52 00:09:02
24.10.14 03:43 03:17:25
24.10.14 00:25 01:13:40
23.10.14 23:12 02:13:00
23.10.14 20:59 00:11:15
23.10.14 20:47 00:40:56
23.10.14 20:07 00:12:24
23.10.14 19:54 02:07:25
23.10.14 17:47 00:31:48
23.10.14 17:15 00:19:35
23.10.14 16:55 02:40:04
23.10.14 14:15 04:50:55
23.10.14 09:24 00:30:38
23.10.14 08:54 00:34:33
23.10.14 08:19 01:10:27
23.10.14 07:09 00:18:47
23.10.14 06:50 00:09:28
23.10.14 06:40 00:21:58
Lets compare this with the truly random generation with the same average: 00:00:31
00:03:20
06:01:36
02:48:13
01:08:15
02:16:51
00:20:10
03:35:25
03:55:20
00:22:39
01:14:28
00:38:53
00:44:54
00:27:17
02:12:01
01:32:20
00:03:51
00:23:49
01:08:53
02:03:19
02:06:30
02:02:30
01:18:38
00:54:36
00:11:19
00:19:13
01:12:48
01:12:34
00:08:37
03:28:55
As you see, in the truly random case there are also long periods without blocks, so I think it's ok. You can generate random periods by yourself here. |
|
|
|
A-tM
Member
Offline
Activity: 90
Merit: 10
|
|
October 25, 2014, 10:20:12 PM |
|
How often you will find blocks in the future doesn't depend on how often you found them in the past. This misbelief is called gambler's fallacy. I understand, but every probability function has some "noise" characteristics, and can be described. Extremely long run without blocks should be less probable. Though, I know this is not pseudorandom, but true random. But still - if you statistically count these runs, the most extreme ones should be the rarest, shoudn't they? But now I see my length of runs without blocks is not yet extreme, in fact, it seems far from that extreme.  And these extremes should even "widen" with the net hashrate increase. Just my common sense is telling me. Am I right? Sigh. Thank you for clarification. I let the older wallet run for comparison anyway. Just for curiosity. Regards, Andy |
|
|
|
|
Atomicat
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 952
Merit: 1002
|
|
October 26, 2014, 03:41:32 AM |
|
How often you will find blocks in the future doesn't depend on how often you found them in the past. This misbelief is called gambler's fallacy. I understand, but every probability function has some "noise" characteristics, and can be described. Extremely long run without blocks should be less probable. Though, I know this is not pseudorandom, but true random. But still - if you statistically count these runs, the most extreme ones should be the rarest, shoudn't they? But now I see my length of runs without blocks is not yet extreme, in fact, it seems far from that extreme. And these extremes should even "widen" with the net hashrate increase. Just my common sense is telling me. Am I right? Sigh. Thank you for clarification. I let the older wallet run for comparison anyway. Just for curiosity. Regards, Andy Yep! I've done a lot of solo-mining under a lot of difficulty levels, from being almost all the network to 1% of it. It's those long blocks without and those quick 1-2-3's that tell you that it is truly random. It's kinda funny how randomness is generally misunderstood. I had four blocks in 40 minutes yesterday, followed by a void of two hours, followed by another of two hours. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
