NastyFans: The Bitcoin Enthusiast Fan Club (est. 2012)

[nonnakip]

the DNS server run by our hosting provider went down again.

Clarification. The DNS servers are not run by our hosting provider. The domain nastyfans.org and the domain name servers are managed by a totally separate company.

All nastyfans servers did not have any outage. I am very happy with our hosting provider.

[1500911031]

1500911031

[1500911031]

1500911031

[1500911031]

1500911031

[1500911031]

1500911031

[OgNasty]

the DNS server run by our hosting provider went down again.

Clarification. The DNS servers are not run by our hosting provider. The domain nastyfans.org and the domain name servers are managed by a totally separate company.

All nastyfans servers did not have any outage. I am very happy with our hosting provider.

Yes, domain provider. (domains4bitcoins.com)

[Squirrel Dearing]

Nobody seemed to comment, but the DNS server run by our hosting provider went down again.  We are exploring options to resolve this issue going forward, as it appears our host is unable to provide this basic service reliably.  Everything is fixed for the moment, but hopefully an independent long term solution will be reached soon.  I apologize for any miners or fans who were negatively effected by this outage.

I saw that but have been SO crazy busy lately that I haven't had the chance to PM anyone!  Glad you've gotten it resolved for now.

[OgNasty]

ANTMINER S5+ 7.722TH/S

 
Specifications:

• Hash Rate: 7722 GH/s ±5%
• Power Consumption: 3436W (at the wall, with AC/DC 93% efficiency, 25℃ ambient temp)
• Power Efficiency: 0.445W/GH (at the wall, with AC/DC 93% efficiency, 25℃ ambient temp)
• Rated Voltage: 12V
• Chip Process: 28nm
• Chip quantity per unit: 432x BM1384
• Dimensions: 275 mm x 372 mm x 155 mm
• Cooling: 6x 12038 fan
• Operating Conditions: 0 °C to 40 °C
• Network Connection: Ethernet

I sold an S5 in order to purchase a new S5+ from Bitmain for NastyMining.  It should ship on Monday.

[valkir]

Awesome! Nice news for nasty mining. 

[nonnakip]

Distribution 369877 is complete. nastyfans thanks the donators.

Last 4 weeks distribution NastyPoP payout rates (vs. expected):
window35 0.00011499 BTC per GH/s (166.8%)
window36 0.00010225 BTC per GH/s (151.5%)
window37 0.00003583 BTC per GH/s (53.2%)
window38 0.00016487 BTC per GH/s (246.7%)

[naypalm]

Very cool, thank you nonnakip!

[snarlpill]

Looking to sell 6 NastyFans seats for below market value (aka a quick sale, looking to use the extra funds towards a graded Chinese Panda coin purchase!)
PM if interested


UPDATE: I have sold the 6 seats to a fellow NastyFan in a private sale for BTC, and have asked nonnakip to transfer the seats to his account.

[OgNasty]

The S5+ is up and running.  I currently have it mining on NiceHash to see some individual stats on it.

You can see it running here:
https://www.nicehash.com/?p=miners&addr=1NastyFRkeUTmMdbMmzggDVTQA6r3ibUoX&a=1&l=1

[kroneko]

The S5+ is up and running.  I currently have it mining on NiceHash to see some individual stats on it.

You can see it running here:
https://www.nicehash.com/?p=miners&addr=1NastyFRkeUTmMdbMmzggDVTQA6r3ibUoX&a=1&l=1

Awesome!  Happy hashing!!!

[valkir]

This is huge!  Good job OgNasty!

[plasticAiredale]

Awesome. Great to see the continuing improvement of Nasty Mining.

[nonnakip]

Distribution 370902 is complete. nastyfans appreciates the donations.

Last 4 weeks distribution NastyPoP payout rates (vs. expected):
window36 0.00010225 BTC per GH/s (151.5%)
window37 0.00003583 BTC per GH/s (53.2%)
window38 0.00016487 BTC per GH/s (246.7%)
window39 0.00008761 BTC per GH/s (131.2%)

[okimzti]

Love the coins.  Thanks for everything NF!

[plasticAiredale]

What is Nasty Mining's stance on the whole XT versus Core debate?

Will it continue to mine under Core?

Will it switch if XT reaches its 75% threshold?

Will moving to XT be a poll option, or is this ultimately an OgNasty decision?

I really don't want to bring the nastiness (no pun intended) of the overall core vs XT debate to this thread, but was wondering what the plan if any is at the moment.

[OgNasty]

What is Nasty Mining's stance on the whole XT versus Core debate?

XT is not something I could be passionate about.  The block size debate will not be solved with an altcoin.  I am for increasing the block size to 8mb when it is appropriate to do so.

Will it continue to mine under Core?

My desire is to continue supporting NastyPool, which I hope will be mining "under Core."

Will it switch if XT reaches its 75% threshold?

I don't believe this will happen.

Will moving to XT be a poll option, or is this ultimately an OgNasty decision?

I am always curious about the opinion of NastyFans.  This could be a fun poll to have now.  Maybe 2 polls to gauge support (Core vs XT & 1mb vs 8mb).

I really don't want to bring the nastiness (no pun intended) of the overall core vs XT debate to this thread, but was wondering what the plan if any is at the moment.

My plan is to continue encouraging and participating in the Bitcoin world.  I don't think the Bitcoin block size debate should be viewed as core vs XT.

[nonnakip]

Will it continue to mine under Core?

My desire is to continue supporting NastyPool, which I hope will be mining "under Core."

Although I am not a fan of many Bitcoin Core developers and their decisions NastyPool will continue to mine using software that is protocol compatible to Bitcoin Core.

Will moving to XT be a poll option, or is this ultimately an OgNasty decision?

I am always curious about the opinion of NastyFans.  This could be a fun poll to have now.  Maybe 2 polls to gauge support (Core vs XT & 1mb vs 8mb).

I do not understand the point of 1MB vs. 8MB. Or should we start our own fork called NastyBitcoin with 8MB blocks?

I can do a opinion poll for Core vs. XT.

[OgNasty]

I do not understand the point of 1MB vs. 8MB. Or should we start our own fork called NastyBitcoin with 8MB blocks?

There are many who feel the block size should be increased to 8mb that do not support XT.  They don't want XT's "features" and they don't want restrictive 1mb blocks that force us to depend on 3rd party payment networks in the future.  Core vs XT might as well be simplified as greed vs ego.  I think BlockStream & XT are both evil and it would be a shame if either was incorporated into Bitcoin.  While both teams would like you to believe it is a black and white scenario, as that gives each team hope to hijack the Bitcoin network, I think it is irresponsible to view things that way. 

In response to your rhetorical question, I would be disappointed by the creation of a Nastycoin through a Bitcoin fork.

[TheAnalogKid]

I do not understand the point of 1MB vs. 8MB. Or should we start our own fork called NastyBitcoin with 8MB blocks?

There are many who feel the block size should be increased to 8mb that do not support XT.  They don't want XT's "features" and they don't want restrictive 1mb blocks that force us to depend on 3rd party payment networks in the future.  Core vs XT might as well be simplified as greed vs ego.  I think BlockStream & XT are both evil and it would be a shame if either was incorporated into Bitcoin.  While both teams would like you to believe it is a black and white scenario, as that gives each team hope to hijack the Bitcoin network, I think it is irresponsible to view things that way. 

In response to your rhetorical question, I would be disappointed by the creation of a Nastycoin through a Bitcoin fork.

This being the case, I'd recommend adding Jeff's BIP100 proposal to your poll...   (http://gtf.org/garzik/bitcoin/BIP100-blocksizechangeproposal.pdf)

So far I think this is the most sound proposal for block size increase I've seen.  Allows Core to dynamically expand - and more importantly, contract - allowing pools/miners to vote for adjusting the blocksize limits based on what they see with market pressure and existing backlog, as well as their own infrastructure capacities.  Pretty smart.  And, free of all other baggage.

[OgNasty]

This being the case, I'd recommend adding Jeff's BIP100 proposal to your poll...   (http://gtf.org/garzik/bitcoin/BIP100-blocksizechangeproposal.pdf)

So far I think this is the most sound proposal for block size increase I've seen.  Allows Core to dynamically expand - and more importantly, contract - allowing pools/miners to vote for adjusting the blocksize limits based on what they see with market pressure and existing backlog, as well as their own infrastructure capacities.  Pretty smart.  And, free of all other baggage.

Jeff has been the most reasonable of all developers if what I've read is to be believed.  I hope they can all agree on a proposal before the end of the year.  I think a little healthy animosity among developers is good for Bitcoin but they shouldn't set a precedent of taking their ball and going home every time an argument arises. 

The current situation strikes me as parents divorcing over disagreements on how to best raise the kids...