Search content
Sort by
Showing 20 of 30 results by exyacminer
Yeah thanks, too tired last night to check obvious. I needed to use a fresh non-qt wallet to sync with the network, the old wallet on an old drive never seemed to make it, continually resetting to near zero blocks etc. So i copied over the old wallet.dat. Totally forgot it was encrypted! If anyone else needs to use the command :
./yacoind walletpassphrase "your pass phrase" 180
./yacoind sendtoaddress
The double quotes were necessary The command unlocks the wallet for 180 seconds in this example.
./yacoind walletpassphrase "your pass phrase" 180
./yacoind sendtoaddress
The double quotes were necessary The command unlocks the wallet for 180 seconds in this example.
@SEO_Account & bible_pay
So what your are saying is if i had, or hired a server with say 4KHs capabilty and put it on the pool as one worker of 4KHs it would get as many shares for its single instance as 25 workers of 160Hs each. I have to say
that is not my experience. I hired a 6KHs machine from GTHosts for 1 day. It got about twice the shares that 1 of my 750Hs got, but cost 30 times as much. No go there.
By integrity i understand you to mean that the system cannot be manipulated in the way i mean?
Thanks
Sorry i understand you're saying that the little miners would get more HPS2 but that this reflects their 'collective' performance as solo miners if they are not on the pool. But the difference seems to be very large in the pool.So what your are saying is if i had, or hired a server with say 4KHs capabilty and put it on the pool as one worker of 4KHs it would get as many shares for its single instance as 25 workers of 160Hs each. I have to say
that is not my experience. I hired a 6KHs machine from GTHosts for 1 day. It got about twice the shares that 1 of my 750Hs got, but cost 30 times as much. No go there.
By integrity i understand you to mean that the system cannot be manipulated in the way i mean?
Thanks
If it were truly a large advantage in actually finding a block to have many small miners, perhaps we should be advising people with decent sized machines to split them up into many smaller workers?
@SEO_Account & bible_pay
So what your are saying is if i had, or hired a server with say 4KHs capabilty and put it on the pool as one worker of 4KHs it would get as many shares for its single instance as 25 workers of 160Hs each. I have to say
that is not my experience. I hired a 6KHs machine from GTHosts for 1 day. It got about twice the shares that 1 of my 750Hs got, but cost 30 times as much. No go there.
By integrity i understand you to mean that the system cannot be manipulated in the way i mean?
Thanks
So what your are saying is if i had, or hired a server with say 4KHs capabilty and put it on the pool as one worker of 4KHs it would get as many shares for its single instance as 25 workers of 160Hs each. I have to say
that is not my experience. I hired a 6KHs machine from GTHosts for 1 day. It got about twice the shares that 1 of my 750Hs got, but cost 30 times as much. No go there.
By integrity i understand you to mean that the system cannot be manipulated in the way i mean?
Thanks
regarding the state of the pool I believe the only long running problem it has ever had is the subsidy system. this is now badly abused. all you have to do is double-click on a record in the 'block distribution' tab on the pool site. look at the top ten miners there. some are mining fairly with serious hash but many have split their (still considerable) hash into over a hundred very small workers to maximize their return. this has at least two serious effects.
1. it actually dilutes the benefit that genuine small miners receive
2. it is the largest disincentive to putting a decent amount of hash on the pool as a large percentage now simply enriches people with more hashpower than you yourself!
another effect is that no-one really knows how much their hash contribution is really worth. i have no idea whether i would be a net donator or a net receiver of subsidy, i suspect the latter. Either way i believe the current situation is both unfair and unjust.
ps no-one is mining 'against' the pool. people are just mining.
1. it actually dilutes the benefit that genuine small miners receive
2. it is the largest disincentive to putting a decent amount of hash on the pool as a large percentage now simply enriches people with more hashpower than you yourself!
another effect is that no-one really knows how much their hash contribution is really worth. i have no idea whether i would be a net donator or a net receiver of subsidy, i suspect the latter. Either way i believe the current situation is both unfair and unjust.
ps no-one is mining 'against' the pool. people are just mining.
You do realize us 'big' miners have invested heavily into hardware and have many monthly costs for electricity/datacenter bills? Sometimes it doesn't even cover the costs and/or initial investment. Not here to become millionaires, we are here for a good cause. Also I would like to have a MN someday and heavy mining is only option.
Also keeping up with this many machines is very time consuming, it is not 15min day job to keep everything running
regarding the state of the pool I believe the only long running problem it has ever had is the subsidy system. this is now badly abused. all you have to do is double-click on a record in the 'block distribution' tab on the pool site. look at the top ten miners there. some are mining fairly with serious hash but many have split their (still considerable) hash into over a hundred very small workers to maximize their return. this has at least two serious effects.
1. it actually dilutes the benefit that genuine small miners receive
2. it is the largest disincentive to putting a decent amount of hash on the pool as a large percentage now simply enriches people with more hashpower than you yourself!
another effect is that no-one really knows how much their hash contribution is really worth. i have no idea whether i would be a net donator or a net receiver of subsidy, i suspect the latter. Either way i believe the current situation is both unfair and unjust.
ps no-one is mining 'against' the pool. people are just mining.
1. it actually dilutes the benefit that genuine small miners receive
2. it is the largest disincentive to putting a decent amount of hash on the pool as a large percentage now simply enriches people with more hashpower than you yourself!
another effect is that no-one really knows how much their hash contribution is really worth. i have no idea whether i would be a net donator or a net receiver of subsidy, i suspect the latter. Either way i believe the current situation is both unfair and unjust.
ps no-one is mining 'against' the pool. people are just mining.
Its enjoyable when speaking to an individual who asserts oneself with authority on a subject, and quite another when one talks surely and appears to be incorrect about every facet.
Im sorry if I sound scathing, but, if the pool payout system was that crooked, I dont think anyone would pool mine. And the very first requirement to writing a pool is paying a distributed amount per contribution relative to others.
So you are saying that large miners have an advantage? Everyone else is saying small miners have an advantage.
The pool pays out in variable hardness shares. Clicking on a large miners row and seeing how many physical machines only tells us how many physical machines they decided to spend money on. It does not show any "advantage" - from what I can see. Where do you get that "guess"?
Uh, yes, all those guys are mining "against" the pool. They are not solo mining. Why do you "guess" that? PS they are against the pool because they are mining fractional shares. And getting rewarded for them.
How do you not know whether you are a donor or not when we have detailed pool reports? Donor sounds like a blood delivery system.
=-=-=-=
Slovakia, lets let SEO tell us his two day results compared to pool first.
whew! i didn't know i could be that misunderstood..but thanks for replying.
1. i did not say the system was crooked, i said it was being badly abused
2. i did not say large miners get an advantage, i said large miners get an advantage if they split their hash into many, really many, much smaller miners. this is obvious!
3. the top of the block distribution page contains examples of this
i don't understand the math of the subsidy system, so i dont know whether i, with 14*750 and 6*650 hashes would be subsidising others, or receiving a subsidy from others. I do not wish to receive a subsidy from anyone!
i wish this project nothing but good, it is the only witness to Christ in an ocean of wishful thinking.
Peace in Him
regarding the state of the pool I believe the only long running problem it has ever had is the subsidy system. this is now badly abused. all you have to do is double-click on a record in the 'block distribution' tab on the pool site. look at the top ten miners there. some are mining fairly with serious hash but many have split their (still considerable) hash into over a hundred very small workers to maximize their return. this has at least two serious effects.
1. it actually dilutes the benefit that genuine small miners receive
2. it is the largest disincentive to putting a decent amount of hash on the pool as a large percentage now simply enriches people with more hashpower than you yourself!
another effect is that no-one really knows how much their hash contribution is really worth. i have no idea whether i would be a net donator or a net receiver of subsidy, i suspect the latter. Either way i believe the current situation is both unfair and unjust.
ps no-one is mining 'against' the pool. people are just mining.
1. it actually dilutes the benefit that genuine small miners receive
2. it is the largest disincentive to putting a decent amount of hash on the pool as a large percentage now simply enriches people with more hashpower than you yourself!
another effect is that no-one really knows how much their hash contribution is really worth. i have no idea whether i would be a net donator or a net receiver of subsidy, i suspect the latter. Either way i believe the current situation is both unfair and unjust.
ps no-one is mining 'against' the pool. people are just mining.
@sharpshot
Echo that. I'm trying to sell some old coins (yac) but they aren't providing new addresses for it. But someone is buying up all the coins still being mined. Ticket got nowhere. The last btc i had went down with cryptsy. Any thoughts on the new style decentralised platforms, they may be more responsive?
Echo that. I'm trying to sell some old coins (yac) but they aren't providing new addresses for it. But someone is buying up all the coins still being mined. Ticket got nowhere. The last btc i had went down with cryptsy. Any thoughts on the new style decentralised platforms, they may be more responsive?
Hello bible_pay, my account in the pool does not access and I do not receive the email to recover, how do I proceed to withdraw my coins?
Just give up!
No any reason for banned ,it is not an open and aboveboard.
(Maybe I announced too much real data,Due to I need to calculate the cost of machine and I got analysis results)
biblepay responsed to you last days or he is still silentUnfortunately, the latter
I also was looking at the pool stats, hoping to make useful suggestion. I was banned without explanation or reply to my query about what was happening. An email would be appreciated.
A while back Rob posted that he had created 17 additional addresses for the pool. Are we supposed to use them in some way, or is their effect automatic?
I believe it is automatic to us, to help with creating unique work for pool miners to do
Thank you for prompt reply
I may have a suggestion for the pool, where should I post it it?
https://github.com/biblepay/BiblePayPool
Create new Issue
A while back Rob posted that he had created 17 additional addresses for the pool. Are we supposed to use them in some way, or is their effect automatic?
I believe it is automatic to us, to help with creating unique work for pool miners to do
Thank you for prompt reply
I may have a suggestion for the pool, where should I post it it?
I've been wondering if we can set something up for the pool collectively. The thinking is rewards are diverted from high hashps workers to low hashps. But workers could be put on with very high hashps for a small (depending on your pocket) amount of money. This would be a charitable act that benefits the pool and those with low hashps. But does it all even out in the end? I did a 1 day test with a hex-core xeon for $8 and got 6000hps. Note this is just an (expensive) test. If a bunch of us pitched into a fund, we should be able to get some cheapish hashps. Plenty of firms out there take BTC, ETH etc
So how does the update to 1.0.7.9 technically work? Since it is mandatory, I thought this would mean it has some effect on the blockchain. But you said there wouldn't be a certain block, so it hasn't? That is a bit confusing, how is it mandatory then? For example the botnet could just stay on the old version and keep on mining.
On another note: just as a tip to people with more powerful machines (Ryzen, DualXeon etc.): try going solo for some days and test your luck. I have one of my Dual-Xeons (actually my weakest one...) on solo mining for maybe 5 days now (just updated to 79) and it already found 2 blocks (overall more than 10k BBP per week). Of course this could be pure luck, but it definitely is worth a shot!
@dave_bbpOn another note: just as a tip to people with more powerful machines (Ryzen, DualXeon etc.): try going solo for some days and test your luck. I have one of my Dual-Xeons (actually my weakest one...) on solo mining for maybe 5 days now (just updated to 79) and it already found 2 blocks (overall more than 10k BBP per week). Of course this could be pure luck, but it definitely is worth a shot!
how many hashps does your weakest dual xeon get?