That's good to hear.
I'll keep an eye out for that.

You aren't saving money on electricity when the cost of your product requires multiple years of use to show it's benefit.

Running 6 Mh/s at 2000 watts for 1 year results in 681 LTC at a power cost of $2100.
Running 3 Mh/s at 50 watts for 1 year results in 340 LTC at a power cost of $50

681 ltc @ $19 is about $13,000
340 ltc @ $19 is about $6,500

If we remove power costs and additional startup costs of $500 our 2 PCs earned $10,400 or $4,050 more than your ASICs provide.

In order for your asics to provide any real saving power would need to cost nealy 40 cents a KwH.

Your device needs to sell at around 60 cents per KH/S in order to be attractive from and earning stand point.

I think you misread the PC cost.

It's $1600.
or $3200 for 6 Mh/s
Or $500 for an additional 3 Mh/s

In other words even with the 13% lost profits from the additional power requirements 2 PC units would bring in about 40% more profit for a 15% base cost increase.
Not a good buy, and that's before considering non mining resale value.

A big part of the current concern is that the numbers just seem so far off.

Here is what I see today.

5379   DGC   00:23:51   4   60           0      0   0.000013 BTC
5378   ANC   01:06:05   31   156.42    0      0   0.000011 BTC

I had one of my rigs down for maintenance, so I was only seeing about 350 K/H, however there is no way I should have gotten less btc for my share of 156.42 ANC than I did for 60 DGC.

156.2 ANC is worth aprox 1.1 BTC
60 DGC is worth .045 BTC

I got .001% of the BTC value of the ANC while providing .02% of the pools hashrate.
I got .028% of the BTC value of the DGC while providing the same .02% of the pool hashrate.

The DGC payout seems about right, however the ANC amount is off by an order of magnitude x2.

network is up 10mh/s since eariler.



{
"blocks" : 1908,
"currentblocksize" : 1000,
"currentblocktx" : 0,
"difficulty" : 0.18150321,
"errors" : "",
"generate" : false,
"genproclimit" : -1,
"hashespersec" : 0,
"networkhashps" : 11960879,
"pooledtx" : 0,
"testnet" : false
}

{
"blocks" : 1999,
"currentblocksize" : 1000,
"currentblocktx" : 0,
"difficulty" : 0.32139179,
"errors" : "",
"generate" : false,
"genproclimit" : -1,
"hashespersec" : 0,
"networkhashps" : 23189705,
"pooledtx" : 0,
"testnet" : false
}

BsBzduufgHcacavizu3berVSth6qXPuKND
thanks

Cryptsy is down because of a DDos attack. You can't "professional" your way out of someone sending several times the traffic your website is designed to handle. FYI, they are already using a "professional" DDos mitigation service.

This looks promising, however I'm concerned that the low block time is going to cause considerable issues at launch. The last coin I saw with times that low had 80-90% stales/rejects.

There is a blockchain explorer linked on the front page, I just took a look and counted how many blocks between difficulty changes.

Still about 80 to go. Last change was on block 1352, it changes every 168.

hopefully working hard on something.

looks like the difficulty spike killed off interest. I think it has another 100 blocks to go before it will adjust back down. You may want to to change the difficultly to an average over 168 blocks every 42 blocks instead. that should help prevent sudden spikes in mining from killing the coin.
Reducing the reward to 5 and halving the block target time might help too.

I for one, am glad that it is not 500 per block.

ah wish i'd seen this last night.

FFRA39dBmYrtynqcvSRZ537bd9UB1RJDo8
Thanks for the franks!

Sounds like the miner is properly using the CPUs at least, that number means 90-100% usage across all 8 cpus. I think recompiling with the latest libgmp is your best route.

I'd hazard a guess that it's not properly threading the CPUs, as you get similar pps as my i7-920 @ stock. AKA it's running your 8 4 core CPUs as 1 8 core cpu.

It actually got up to 150 MH/s but that quickly jumped the difficulty. It's in a bit of a reprieve right now, it's at about 40 MH/s. Difficulty should shoot up again soon, as it's done about 150 blocks in the last hour, or about 15 times the target rate.

Very true, I had figured something like that was the reasoning. It just struck me that most in this field(mining clients) would be more familiar with Opencl than CUDA.

Why not Opencl?

woot! it's MeSsNymx7gy6hGzVugZDTCxyq9UyPH2gtU

Edit: received, thanks.