The new beta version is ready. It is mostly a bugfix release, the more significant upgrades are coming next month. You can download PhoenixMiner 6.3b from here:

PhoenixMiner_6.3b_Windows.zip
PhoenixMiner_6.3b_Linux.tar.gz

The new features in this release are:

• Full LHR disable mode -lhrdis <n>  1 - yes (default), 0 - no

• RTX 3060 LHR       ~ 50 MH/s
• RTX 3060 Ti LHR       ~ 60 MH/s
• RTX 3070 LHR       ~ 60 MH/s
• RTX 3070 Ti LHR       ~ 81 MH/s
• RTX 3080 10GB LHR   ~ 98 MH/s
• RTX 3080 Ti LHR       ~ 120 MH/s

• Dual mining TON
• Fixed an issue with expired SSL certificate that led to "certificate verify failed" errors when connecting to some pools (notably Ethermine) when using SSL connections
• Show the GPU vendor name in the list of GPUs to make it easier to identify the GPUs
• Added support for the latest AMD Linux drivers 21.40.1. There are some bugs in these drivers, particularly the clocks and voltages can't be set properly with older
  cards (RX4x0/RX5x0/Vega/RadeonVII)
• Validated support for the latest AMD Windows drivers up to 21.11.2
• Fixed issues with AMD RX6700XT cards with the latest AMD and Linux drivers
• Fixed issues with AMD Vega and Radeon VII cards on latest Windows and Linux drivers
• Fixed crash with very old Nvidia drivers (3xx.x)
• Other fixes and small improvements

Known issues (driver incompatibilities, etc.) and workarounds:

If you are using Linux drivers 21.40.1 with Radeon VII cards, you need to add the option -fpwm 1 in order to have proper fan control.
AMD Linux drivers 21.40.1 has finally removed the requirement of PCIe atomics but there are problems when you try to mix Polaris (RX4x0/5x0) cards and Vega or newer cards on the same rig.
Some Nvidia cards will report a lot of stale shares under Windows 11. Using the same driver version under Windows 10 resolves the issue.[/list][/list]

How prescient!

I'm skeptical if this is actually a problem because of higher orphans rates for larger blocks. The idea is this: What if a miner was guaranteed block after block after block ? What transactions would they include? In theory they would find an optimal minimum fee to include in their blocks. People who guessed below this fee would not be included in the block. In the next block, since their demand for their transaction still exists.. they would raise their fee in theory. This may then meet the minimum threshold to be included.

The point is this: Since a miner is not guaranteed block after block an individual miner may undercut his fellow miner by including every transaction that had a fee for maximum profit by making his block large as possible. What incentive is there for him to create a minimum fee if there is no guarantee that the next miner will not follow it?


solution: if a miner detects that a transaction is under the minimum he can not include the transaction. The next block, if the transaction is an RBF transaction then a part of the fee for that transaction (which would be higher) would be split between the miner of the last block and the current miner.

problem: this wouldn't work for non RBF transactions. Is the fee enough to be split and make it economically incentivized?. Is this possible to split an RBF fee in this manner through a soft fork or only hard? would you have to incentivize RBF transactions somehow since it doesn't work for non RBF ones? Can the coinbase transaction pay out to the old miner as well using the last payout address or would that be too complicated?

technically there was a guy that was willing to pay over 1.1 btc for each coin in the first one but he didn't because the bidding didn't have the same format as here. that is why we all sat around for 45 minutes . at the time I think 1.1 was worth over 300 dollars for just once coin so we paid a little less than that guy was willing in terms of dollars. But those were lower number coins

do we get sent an invoice number for that bitpay page?

2 @ 0.52

2 @ 0.48

2 @ 0.44

2 @ 0.41

notig @ 0.41
notig @ 0.41

out of curiosity are these coins considered worth less than the previous batch because they are "higher number" or whatever?

2 @ 0.34

notig @ 0.34
notig @ 0.34

Don't mean to derail the thread i'm just wondering something... if the trustless coin uses 2 of 2 that means a private key is on the coin and you also have a private key. You need both to spend the funds. But how do you get hold of the public address so you can load the coin properly without knowing both of the keys? Can you derive a public address from just half the key?

mark my words the price won't significantly rise again until a couple of things are fixed: scalabilty (at least a bandaid) and the bitcoin winklevii ETF

For the record i'm interested in the trustless 2/2 one

notig 2 @ 0.3

I have a couple of questions... I have a friend in Romania that I will be visiting in February. Is it possible to ship a coin to them and pick it up from them with their permission?
If I get a coin that is pre loaded would I have any problems going through customs back to the USA? Is it better to carry such a coin on your person, with a carryon item, or with your large luggage?
theoretically speaking... what is the opinion of having a coin with a time locked transaction making the funds on the coin unavailable until some point in the future?

I tried to create two transactions tonight and each one was rejected. As soon as I tried to broadcast it the bitcoinqt said it disconnected and then I got a message from armory saying that it failed somehow. Help?
I could try installing the newest armory software but I don't want to redownload the whole blockchain again. Is it possible to update armory separately? Is that what I should do here? I am a bit worried.

I am just going to add on to the speculation a bit here. There has been a confirmed leak of audio from January with Mark and a bank of theirs in Japan. This bank was going to shut them down. Without a bank mt gox would have to stop operations and there would be withdrawals in mass. The shit would hit the fan if they were operating under fractional reserve. Is it just a coincidence then that shortly after mark finds out his bank is shutting him down that they lose several hundred thousand bitcoins due to "malleability" ?  I don't think so. Mark is using the malleability as a scapegoat. I think he was operating under fractional reserve and I also think he tucked away many bitcoins for himself since his exchange was going down anyway.

To anyone concerned

Mark Karpeles
Representative Director
MtGox Co., Ltd.
Shibuya 2-11-5

Shibuya-ku, Tokyo

ANNOUNCEMENT REGARDING AN APPLICATION FOR COMMENCEMENT OF A PROCEDURE OF CIVIL REHABILITATION

An overview of the situation should be published here shortly (probably on March 3, 2014 (Japan time)).

Contact information

A call center has been established to respond to all inquiries. The call center is planned to start on March 3, 2014. All inquiries to MtGox Co., Ltd. should be made to the following telephone number:

Telephone number   +81 3-4588-3921
Working hours    Monday to Friday 10am to 5pm (Japan time)

Please refrain from contacting the office of the supervisor/investigator.

A hundred currencies with small worth aren't as useful as a single currency with large worth because of market depth and volume and stability

but this would be the worst case scenario for bitcoin. If Mark stole the bitcoins...... that is bad. If he gave them away because of poor programming that is also bad. But if the government of the US can come and confiscate cold wallets of exchanges because some funds sent to that exchange were from crime........ then it sets a precedent for bitcoin that is terrible. It means that exchanges could no longer trust funds sent to them and they would voluntarily start going on "coin validation" schemes which would destroy fungibility.  If it is true it is also terribly unfair because cash goes into banks all the time that is from crime in some form or another and they never go into banks and confiscate everyones money because of it.