How many hashes does it take to find a share?

Now about these 6 algorithms : blake, bmw, groestl, jh, keccak, skein... I wonder which one is the most secure ? Some of them must have their drawbacks ?

OK thanks for your answer georgem. So if one of the hashing functions was compromised, then the others would do the job anyway...

Now that's interesting. That would make Quark the most secure of all the alt-cryptos out there ?

What are "Transaction Fees" and why are they important to Bitcoin and Litcoin ; Why and how does Quark have no Transaction fees ?

[...]

in contrast:

Quark provides its users and investors with a Fee FREE environment this is because of the EQ reward , this means that if you are a SME or small business ,or a home business ; www.keepitwooden.com/ < (i'm buying some : D) you have no fees to worry about what so ever -

Interesting that Bill said Quark was made after the NSA Snowden story. So the developer made it more secure to protect the people who using it. Very well thought

The 51% attack ---snip---

But the psychological effect is more dangerous that the actual attack.
FTC survived two of those. Others did not.

No he can't! You are really out in left field on how transactions and the block chain work.

An attacker that controls more than 50% of the network's computing power can, for the time that he is in control, exclude and modify the ordering of transactions. This allows him to:

    Reverse transactions that he sends while he's in control. This has the potential to double-spend transactions that previously had already been seen in the block chain.
    Prevent some or all transactions from gaining any confirmations
    Prevent some or all other miners from mining any valid blocks

The attacker can't:

    Reverse other people's transactions
    Prevent transactions from being sent at all (they'll show as 0/unconfirmed)
    Change the number of coins generated per block
    Create coins out of thin air
    Send coins that never belonged to him

Go for a win-win: team-up with him and double (triple, quadruple, n-uple...) spend at will

It still requires clever engineering to actually profit from double spend attacks, even with 90% hashrate under control, you can't force every node on the network (thinking of the exchanges) to think and accept whatever you would like them to.

No I don't think you understand the 51% attack. Feeleep doesn't control all the coins, once he pays them for example to me and I put them in my wallet he can't do anything with those coins.

The >51% situation is the same for many alts (think of "rare" MM coins like DVC or IXC and BitParking, they also have >90%).

Of course it's suboptimal, but it doesn't make the coin worthless. It merely means that miners have decided to trust a single entity to pool their efforts. Nothing more, and, granted, nothing less: trusting a central entity is not the aim of crypto coins IMO, at least not the original Bitcoin.

Miners could, theoretically, at any time, move away from CoinMine.pl and solo mine and/or switch pools, if they no longer trust them, or if they are no longer pleased by their policy.

What you say could only be true if he never paid out to the pool members. He has paid so he has very few coins.

Except he pays out to each pool member. You can see that in the transaction history.

talk to Feeleep he is a member here and runs the pools.

pools hashrates are notorious for being wrong.

Hi guys.

I'm not sure where is the "support" thread or forum for QRK, but it seems there is a bug it should be handled sooner than later.

The problem is sometimes transactions are not sent to the network, but for your local client seems they've been. So you spent some QRKs and you "lost" them from your wallet, but the transaction is never propagated thought the network nor included in any block.

If you try to check the transaction in a blockexplorer or using getrawtransaction (in a client properly configured to get and store all that information from blockchain) the transaction doesn't exist at all. If you check in your own client, you can see the transaction properly having 0 confirmations.

As there is no way to force the resend of the transaction, there is a huge problem when you want to deal with payments in an automatic mood... and a big problem when you're doing those by yourself, because to recover your funds, you need to: Dump your private keys, reinstall a fresh client, import private keys there, and redownload/rescan the blockchain in order to get your money available again.

Can anybody tell me who can be contacted about this issue in order to provide more information if needed?

TXID is ba07e12c1c58b57f26d1c983d564d448eb90cc8810d10c4e25aafe569ff332fd, but you won't be able to find it in the blockchain.

It was created with createrawtransaction [{"txid":"a305c35df688cfd15d8c1d78c6d679c3ba37883944755c35f2f7985b54dd7bf5","vout":1}] {"QhrNXCEN8iwhpzSkMy7J99BiqjKXPUTy83": 0.002, "QXoUVrqAitgrcTYvCZihjSCxE8gBfYSaSH": 0.9979}, properly signed and sended to the network.

Thanks in advance.

Does anyone happen to know a formula to calculate how long it would take on average to find a block at the difficulty X with hashingpower Y?

...  the actual rate is the 8.22MH/s, but it just reports the 528kH/s (well, in this case since there are two pools operating, it'd be like 7mh/s on pool 1 and 1.2mh/s on pool 2... but the local rates still don't add up to the pool rate).  i installed the https://github.com/Neisklar/quarkcoin-hash-python  but that only fixes my own miner, not what the pool reports?     re: if I start mining with one of my servers, the local rate goes up a ton

For scrypt mining (and scrypt-jane) it takes 65536 hashes to get a share of diff 1. It also takes 65536 shares (diff 1) for every point of difficulty to find a block. This doesn't seem to be the case for QRK. Does anyone know these values for QRK?

Sounds like someone switched off a botnet (or his boss found out). The hashrate on the few p2pools I checked, including mine, is rather stable. Also, was the diff really above 950? I don't look for the diff often, didn't notice that.

What i'm really wondering right now is what is with that guy that said we all need to patch our miners a few pages back ?
He was saying something about it fixing reporting to P2Pools ? something to do with pseudo-share settings ?

0% fee, 0% donation (does that address even go to someone?)....  

That address is somewhat special, in one of the posts in the Quarkcoin thead here i mentioned that stuff already.
I noted my (hopeful correct) findings of it in the source: p2pool/data.py:

starting around line 54

So thats an address of me ( Wink), if someone wants to do it (i don't know why) he could run the node with --donate-to-author or somewhat to give that address some share. That param was in the original code even defaulted to 1 percent, i did zero it hopefully in the source.

Another important thing is when you look at the stats page under rewards of my pool you see the following:
Qe91rA2W8fQ3b19cknuVuxVhxgqdbkvL4m   0.0002
EVEN as donations to author are set to 0.
This is all what is left after payoutprocessing which has some rounding in it. So with current reward of 1024 thats not so much, but when the reward gows down, that will be much more.

So if you want to change that, no problem, you need an uncompressed public key (should be 65 bytes long) and put them between the 4104 and the ac. (It may also that that uncompressed pubkey is already prefixed with 04, then don't double the 04).

If we later establish a p2pool network, then this value MUST be the same on all nodes, if not it will not work (clever or not of the original p2pool author?).
If the time arrives, lets discuss that together with Max the developer of Quark and then maybe use as Network-Donantion address an address of Max, or some other address which is used for special stuff.

Yeah i saw that, maybe too many connections or quarkcoind used too much cpu? Or the too many files open error, I have that on my yacpool sometimes if I forget ulimit -n 1000000.
Have you seen what p2pool reports during those times, if anything? My yacpool sometimes is not reachable for a short time (~5 min) from browsers, but p2pool keeps running fine and miners submit work if i go check, I think that happens when yacoind uses a lot of CPU.

When I searched the error it seems to relate to network reviewing blocks or of order or orphans confusing Abe.  Was supposedly fixed 7 months ago on bitcoin Abe are you perhaps using an outdated fork?