Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - liberman

Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6
61
can you please reduce the payout to 0.20 or less?
With current difficulties we can't reach 1.0 or 0.5 so easily.

62
General Discussion / Re: Invictus Innovations - Help Wanted!
« on: November 17, 2013, 08:02:56 pm »
Several other people have been reporting this compile error and yet I have never seen it on any OS (Linux, Mac or Windows).    What version of gcc are you using?  I compile using gcc-4.8 on OS X and 4.7 on Linux.

gcc 4.8.2 and boost 1.55 as you can see (it doesn't even start to compile with boost libraries included in my distro Arch).

63
General Discussion / Re: Invictus Innovations - Help Wanted!
« on: November 17, 2013, 07:22:02 pm »
I don't know where you do discuss issues, I don't want to fill the thread about them, but here is the error I'm getting:

Code: [Select]
[ 19%] Building CXX object bitshares/fc/CMakeFiles/fc.dir/src/thread/thread.cpp.o
In file included from /home/javi/opt/src/boost_1_55_0/boost/atomic/detail/platform.hpp:22:0,
                 from /home/javi/opt/src/boost_1_55_0/boost/atomic/atomic.hpp:17,
                 from /home/javi/opt/src/boost_1_55_0/boost/atomic.hpp:12,
                 from /home/javi/opt/src/boost_1_55_0/boost/thread/pthread/once_atomic.hpp:20,
                 from /home/javi/opt/src/boost_1_55_0/boost/thread/once.hpp:20,
                 from /home/javi/opt/src/boost_1_55_0/boost/thread.hpp:17,
                 from /home/javi/opt/src/keyhotee/bitshares/fc/src/thread/thread_d.hpp:4,
                 from /home/javi/opt/src/keyhotee/bitshares/fc/src/thread/thread.cpp:5:
/home/javi/opt/src/boost_1_55_0/boost/atomic/detail/gcc-atomic.hpp: In member function 'void fc::thread_d::process_tasks()':
/home/javi/opt/src/boost_1_55_0/boost/atomic/detail/gcc-atomic.hpp:1081:95: error: invalid memory model for '__atomic_exchange'
         return __atomic_exchange_n(&v_, v, atomics::detail::convert_memory_order_to_gcc(order));


64
General Discussion / Re: Why I am no longer supporting Invictus-Innovations
« on: November 17, 2013, 12:57:41 pm »
it doesn't matter who mines them it matters who holds them while they appreciate.  Most of the major miners out there must turn around and sell their PTS to cover their expense

That's where you're wrong. It DOES matter who mines them. Because if you get 10,000 small guys mining a bit and making some coin they'll stick around and support your project. If you get 10 guys sucking up all the resources with vast cloud mining pools you'll have nobody to support you. As soon as the financial opportunity dries up those 10 guys will dump their PTS and move on. You'll end up being the leader of a broken down crypto experiment that nobody cares about any more.

If you don't get the wide base of supporters in the beginning your project is doomed. I hope you figure out some way to make it work. Maybe on the next DAC you should focus all your efforts on trying to make it accessible to the millions of CPU miners at home who don't want to compete with botnets. Figure out a way to block cloud miners and botnets and you'll become the king of cryptos.

Amen.  ;)

65
Again 40% rejection rate, and even more, payout is frozen.

66
Mining is working, web frontend...not so much.

Auto payout is set to 5 PTS, web will be available somewhere within 12-24h.

Can you reduce the payout to 2 PTS or 1 PTS?
With current difficulties it would take days to achieve 5 PTS.

67
I'm using the new version and yet I get around 25% rejections. Is there any bug?

68
General Discussion / Re: Invictus Innovations - Help Wanted!
« on: November 15, 2013, 10:07:30 am »
I'm having some problems compiling the sources on Linux (arch). I managed to install a static version of Boost, but I'm getting an error from bitshares/fc/CMakeFiles/fc.dir/src/thread/thread.cpp concerning memory models for "__atomic_exchange".
Where do you talk about this?

69
General Discussion / Re: Please treat your supporters better
« on: November 15, 2013, 10:01:21 am »
I was hoping to help the project with my programming skills, but at the actual rate I'm getting almost nothing, so I'm thinking about just giving up just because I don't like to work for free in this kind of programs.
I entered too late, after the mining difficulty was artificially increased by 32x, so I lost the train.

Good luck in your adventure, but don't expect much more people to enter your project right now. What you have now is what you'll get. And I suspect most of the people into your project are more motivated by greed than actually understanding of the good points of your ideas.

70
General Discussion / Re: Invictus Innovations - Help Wanted!
« on: November 14, 2013, 07:33:06 pm »
I don't know if I am talented, but I know a bit (25 years programming, although not much the last 5). I have time, so perhaps I can help.

Anyone interested in helping should get Keyhotee building on your local system.   Then I can give you some tasks.  If you are able to perform them well you may have a job :)

Where is the source?
This? https://github.com/InvictusInnovations/keyhotee

71
General Discussion / Re: Please treat your supporters better
« on: November 14, 2013, 07:30:29 pm »
We tried to make it available for all with the initial difficulty set at about 1 block per day per user... that didn't last long :(

Would you consider returning to less difficulty?

72
General Discussion / Please treat your supporters better
« on: November 14, 2013, 10:33:33 am »
Recent increases in PTS mining difficulties means bassically that many of the supporters of this project are going to get practically nothing.
With a modern CPU (i7) we can now get around 2-5 PTS a day. That is NOTHING.
Now tell me how we could operate on bitshares or keyhotee if even to acquire a simple name you need 100PTS?
And if we have to exchange or buying anything using Bitcoin, oh boy, this is the most expensive service ever created. 0.25BTC for a single name or 0.01BTC for 1PTS?

There is no way this can work, and you're now starting to lose supporters because of your greed.

73
Payout treshold was set to 10 so, then changed to 5 when i dialed down the power - always paying fine within 30-60 mins of passing the treshold.

NO, payout treshold wast set to 2 in the page. If it was set to 10 in their scripts, then they were scamming.

74
As far as I know it's not a payout bug, it's 30k+ workers requesting payout, which leads to an incredible huge queue.

Oh really? It sounds to me like another excuse.
ptsminer is paying at 1 PTS and works pretty well.

75
He updated payout on PTS to minimum 5 PTS

And I think this pool is a scam.
Yesterday I was waiting for the payment after I got 2.1 PTS for hours. And now they change the limit but still havent recieved my payment.

Bad practices, very insegure, many of the time down, I don't recommend this pool anymore and I advice you guys to take care of this guy, he is stealing our money.

Pool paid me around 100 PTS yesterday so no - its not a scam.

Anyone knows the pay per share value? Would make miner calculations much easier...

If I have to wait to have 100 PTS, I will never going to get paid.
Really bad practices is to say something, like that you are going to get paid at 2 PTS, and then wait for hours and hours and hours and no payment done. And then, the next day you see the limit aumented to 5 PTS, which makes me think that the guy running this pool is an scammer.
"The payout bug", but with this excuse, this guy is getting a lot of money FROM US.

Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6