He is an old fart paid by the Mossad to spread Israeli propaganda and to justify the war crimers commited by the zionist occupation, the only rational way to deal with him is to put him on ignore.

A friendly reminder; the troll who goes by name Franky1 is a paid troll, he thinks it is okay for Israel to kill women and children just because he thinks Palestinians are less of human beings than anyone else, you can't reason with someone that evil, putting on him on ignore is the only way to deal with him.

The link is taking you exactly where it has to take you. you are trying to access msg65097554, which doesn't exist in that particular topic, however, that is where SMF thinks that post "would have been" because the post above it by suchmoon has this id 64990685 and the one below it by Tryninja has this id 65127330 if 65097554 existed, it would be between these two.

An example in this topic would be https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5557308.msg65746788;boardseen#new. While post ID 65746788 doesn't exist, it falls between LoyceV post and hosemary so the forum assumes that post is "there."

Now why on earth the forum link msg65097554 to that post is beyond me. Are you sure that is the exact link you got?

No, mining doesn't work like that; no pool waits for their mempool to fill up. While this is off-topic, here is how it works.

Type 1 pools:

They start mining before downloading and verifying the block (just the block header is enough); they save a little bit of time (a few milliseconds or maybe a whole second!) and these are subject to mining empty blocks not because their mempool is empty, but because they do not know which transactions were included in the last block, if they happen to include any of the already included transactions in their newly mined block, the block will be rejected by the entire network since it contains an output that has already been spent.

Type 2 pools:

They download the entire block, get all the transactions in it, remove them from their mempool and start mining the new block. These pools will never mine an empty block unless their mempool is actually empty (extremely unlikely to be the case).

All of the above is unrelated to this topic, by the way. you could read my previous reply for more info.

A multisig is certainly the only way where distribution is cryptographically enforced unless CK is willing to alter the pool code so that both addresses (yours and ours) are included in the coinbase and the rewards are distributed based on work.

And for the record, I did talk to Heather (one of Rigly founders), and she does approve that Evan, aka eb66 is her partner. I can't see beyond my PC screen, but I do think these folks are genuine; the amount of work they put in doesn't suggest that they are planning a scam. Obviously, "Never trust, always verify," but I am saying this so that Willi and the rest of the forum members take eb66 seriously and engage in conversation.

As for rigly folks, obviously, the first step would be to verify that Willi's account is still operated by the same person (ask him to sign a message from one of his known/stacked addresses); if that checks out, rest assured that Willi is to be trusted given his history on the forum.

Another member I would recommend to be part of the multisig would be philipma1957.

BTW, Willi hasn't visited the thread for so long, maybe reach out to him via PM?

It's Vnish.com, and don't expect to receive any lower rates just because you downloaded from the "official website" you are going to get the same rate.



I doubt the 2.4%, though; the fee is more so variable depending on a few things, but it's anywhere between 2.2% and 2.8%. The agreement says so, and obviously you are more likely to be paying the 2.8% than the 2.2%.

If you want to go Vnish, you may as well just get the AwesomeMiner distribution. I don't know if that changed or not, but in the past, if you used their distribution, you could use the software for free. Awesome Miner is a perfect all-in-one monitoring and management tool, which I personally use.

It's 2048; in other words, it's 2 valid shares at diff 1024 diff, which would result in 2048 difficulty units or work units. it's up to the pool code and database whether they store just 1 column that says "difficulty units," which in this is going to be 2048, or assign a different row for every share and store difficulty in another column, or override the same exact cell every time your miner submits a share, but all of that is irrelevant; by the end of the day, you are getting rewards based on the number of shares you submitted at x difficulty, which is the total difficulty units you contributed in that round or period.

Obviously, this is not related to the Bitcoin protocol or consensus; any pool can still reward you for "over-delivering," which in your case would be 4,083.3 work units, but I am not aware of any pool that does that.

That's ~2 hours difference. You may want to check block 74638, nearly 7 hours.

You can use (CDF) - exponential distribution to determine the time between blocks (don't use Poisson distribution for this purpose). below is a simple pyton code that does that for you


A random example > 0.248% of blocks are separated by more than 60 mins.

---

Nah, they are not; maximizing profitability is the only "natural consequences of competitive mining" and you can't make more profit by forking the network and rendering it worthless, as opposed to just play fair,  a 51% attack on btc for profit is never going to happen, owning 50% or even half of that means you have tens of billions of dollars at stake, nobody with that amount of money is going to attempt to damage the network, the only thread would be goverments doing it just to damage BTC, but those don't have to go that far, just ban BTC and threaten to send everyone who uses it to jail. My take on this is that BTC has grown too large that everyone, including governments, has only two ways to deal with it.

1- Be part of the game and attempt to profit.
2- Regulate the market to keep it under control.

I don't think it implies that. I think it only implies that as a merit source, you can't sell merit. It doesn't even say, "Other members are not allowed to buy those merits." It's complicated.

How many people have we (the community) helped? A few thousand, maybe? How many came back to say thanks or even "fudge you" for helping? I'd say below 1% of them did, so yeah, worth every single merit in my honest opinion.

Good to hear that you are back on track OP, and ya nothing much has changed in the last 10 years, you still get a Chinese-made miner that you may need to fix before you even start using it.

You raised a good question, and this topic is a bit more complicated than it seems.

The first thing you need to understand is that most pools use a Branch n bound (bnb), knapsack, and Single Random Draw (SRD) algorithms to fill blocks with transactions, all of which fall under one term, which is "Coin selection." Now, obviously, this coin selection faces the unsolvable knapsack problem. However, the default behavior is "greedy highest-fee-rate packages"; the end goal is to get the most total fees available even if that means ditching the highest-paying transactions.

In your example the protocol would ditch the 1.99 sat in favor of the two 1.98 sat transactions.

However, there is another piece of information that you need to know: the default core settings that deal with fee rate play a massive role in the propagation and inclusion of transactions. There are two of them: minrelaytxfee and blockmintxfee. The former sets the minimum fee for transactions to be accepted into its mempool and to relay them while the latter sets the minimum for transactions that it would pass to getblocktemplate.

It's safe to assume that most pools had their settings to the default, so not only were they not including transactions, they are not "seeing" them in the first  Obviously, most  some 'greedy' pools started to relax that limit and based on my observation, here is the current status as of now

Pools that dropped the limits:

Antpool
Foundry
spiderPool
F2pool
Luxor
Secpool
MiningSquared

Still running the default:

SBI
Innopolis Tech
ViaBTC
Mara pool
 

If the question is, Should pools stick to the default 1 sat policy or not?, then that would require a whole different topic and endless discussion, just like the ordinals debate that we have been having forever.

Bitmain gears have always been more efficient than Whatsminers but the latter sells very well due to the quality built, 1 or 2 watts isn't going to be a deal breaker, however, this thing looks very expensive, I do not see how would it compare with the Chinese made gears, probably 50% more expensive.

It's possible that with the U.S tax these will complete in U.S market but nothing much elsewhere.

oh ya, with 9 hashboard that's 50kg heavy, most people can't carry much weight 

Indeed, 333,333/50 = 6,666.66 say 6,667 blocks, block was mined on 2009-03-07, so long before march 2010 there was that much, in march 2010.

The first block that was mined in march of 2010 was block 43085, there was already 2,154,200 BTC in circulation right before march 2010 started.

I don't think you can unless the service you use for rent allows that, but you can judge by hashrate; if it's identical or close, then you are probably doing well,  stale shares are a better indication if you can view that.


They seem legit, I did talk to the founder of that website, and she does seem legit. I did suggest to them to reach out to someone trusted here to do some sort of escrow so that forum members and they can collaborate in block parties. I think CK is a good option (not sure if he's willing to do that), Willi is a perfect candidate for that (will be hard for them to trust him since they don't know much about the forum)

The idea I had in mind is that there could be some way to share hashrate to one address while payouts are managed by the pool itself. Not to make the suggestion too complicated on the code level, the rewards can then be shared between their main address and bitcointalk address (could be controlled by 3 forum members like Willi, Phill and someone else maybe NFW).

Something like this

BTCaddress.workername (their own)
BTCaddress.workername (bitcointalk address)

Payment is split between those based on hashrate, they do their own distribution, and the forum folks do their own.

I did not say it's make or break, I even explain the risk %, and most importantly -- it is not really an opinion, you are not in disagreement with an opinion but rather various scientific research papers.

With that said, disagreements are good in general, people can read both views and make up their own minds, imagine you just agreed or ignored my post!! where is the fun in that?

enjoy, hope you hit a block on your local node.

Prove what exactly? that your local node has an order of magnitude more chances to lose the orphan race compared to a well-set-up pool node? The studies are there for you to read. The burden of proof is on you now; make your own studies that show how you propagate blocks to mining nodes faster than a well-established pool.

I have literally told you that large pools exchange compact block header data that is a few KBs over gigabit connections, while your node needs to propagate an entire block that could be as large as 4 MB. How exactly do the two of you have the same propagation speed?

In fact, even without any relay services, having geographically distributed nodes alone beats any single home node; you need to have nodes that are very close to other mining nodes. Relying on a P2P network alone to send a block from your house in LA to a miner node in Kazakhstan is bizarre; another miner that finds a block in Australia but has well-geographically distributed nodes will likely reach other nodes inside the U.S. faster than you.

There exist many tools and projects on GitHub for this particular topic; thousands of lines of code are written just to test and improve propagation time, and millions in infrastructure and research are spent to achieve the best propagation results. You can deny all of it -- it doesn't mean it's not real.


As for the above test, it's rather useless ; it doesn't matter if your ping results to all peers are 1 ms. Those nodes could very well be just home nodes far away from the nodes that matter (miners' nodes). Block propagation time is what matters, you need to compare the time your node received a block vs. when another well-established node received it. Use UpdateTip on your node to see the timestamp of when you received a block, and compare that to when a large explorer like mempool first saw that block. Run this against a large sample of blocks to get a somewhat accurate result, and mind you, other pools must have seen that block even earlier than mempool.

With that said, it doesn't mean your node will lose every block; it simply means it's at a higher risk, if we were to assume that other pools have a 10-second advantage in propagation time, you can run a simple Poisson process of :

1-exp(-10/600)  ~= 1.6653%  > chance of a block being found in the next 10 seconds or less, if Foundry finds a block within that timestamp and you both start racing, they will still likely beat you

You may think 1% is low, but it does happen. I haven't even touched on the other potential issues, like your PC or router failing you right about that second. Large corps buy 10k routers not because they want to waste money but because they can't afford the slightest delay or packet loss. While you could have a 100% uptime with your $200 laptop and $30 router, it's just not as guaranteed as the other setup. It's not as bad as some people might explain it, but there indeed exists a higher level of risk when you count on your local node to mine blocks.

This is obviously false. A local node running on a $30 router and $50 internet connection has nothing close to the same network delays as a pool node hosted in a specialized data center. Nodes in well-connected data centers have a much better chance of landing in more favorable peer topologies due to their uptime, reliability, and often higher bandwidth capabilities. Your node talks to a few peers, but the speed at which those peers then distribute your block to their peers and how many connections your node has -- creates a propagation tree. Your local node’s block will propagate slower globally compared to other nodes with single-digit millisecond latency to other mining nodes.

Also, pools use dedicated interconnections and relay networks (like FIBRE or Falcon), plus geographically distributed nodes. For example, FIBRE can announce the block header to peers (a few KBs) even before the full block is propagated. This tells other miners to start mining the next block on top of this one, so all major pools are already mining on top of that new block while your node is still mining on top of the previous block. The time it takes for the slow peer-to-peer network to globally propagate that block to your node is huge (5–10 seconds) compared to the sub-1-second UDP-based relay technology those pools use.

By the way, I encourage you to read studies such as "Effects of a Simple Relay Network on the Bitcoin Network," and I will quote a part of the abstract for you:

Results show that the propagation time decreases to approximately 77% of the original value if the utilization rate is set to 3%. This rate is close to the actual utilization rate of relay network "Falcon". We also found that the probability of blocks created by utilizing nodes to become orphan blocks is surprisingly smaller than that of the non-utilizing nodes. Even in the worst case, the value of utilizing nodes is 15% of the value of non-utilizing nodes.

You can also read "Bitcoin Blockchain Dynamics: the Selfish-Mine Strategy in the Presence of Propagation Delay."

There exist many studies that show how well-connected pools beat the average home nodes in orphan races. And even without those studies, it’s first-year IT school knowledge that shows the difference between propagating a few KB of data between high-end servers with gigabit-speed internet vs. a $300 laptop connected to a 100 Mbps line trying to propagate a 2–4 MB block.

11kv is meduim voltage not high, and as I said, it is very common to perform live-line work on medium voltage lines, not sure why is that not done that in Russia, have you confirmed that?

السلام عليكم، هل يعرف احدكم طريقة مضمونة لايصال اموال مثل البتكوين او غيرها او مساعدات لغزة؟

نرا الكثير من المنشورات والاعلانات ولكن نخشى ان تكون كلها محاولات نصب بأسم شعب غزة العظيم، لذلك من لذيه تجربة شخصية ارجو ان يشاركها معنا.

You do realize that it's safer to rely on a stable external service than to run your own when it comes to mining? And by safer I am talking about your ability to actually win a block.

People often talk about bitcoin mining as if it's a race, which isn't entirely true. in reality, up to the point of when you find a valid hash, you are not racing against anyone, and your chances of hitting a block are independent from other miners hitting a block; however, once you do hit a block, the race starts. You need to make sure you propagate the block in a fraction of a second, mainly to other miners' nodes to let them know that you have already solved a block and that they need to start working on the next one. Other than that, it's possible that your block will be orphaned by another miner that has better connectivity to other nodes.

Add to it all the technical issues that your infrastructure can run into, like a small delay in downloading new blocks and clearning your mempool, and your getblocktemplate creates an invalid block. It takes a few components working together to ensure that your final constructed block is valid and propagated well and fast. everything must have 99.99% uptime, or else you are adding more risk for potentially no reward. You can't meaningfully have well-set-up mining infrastructure at home where your cat or kid may unplug the router power cable.

With that said, I do encourage everyone to test local mining for fun and educational purposes -- it's interesting to say the least, so good work you did there.