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 - btc2084

Pages: [1] 2
1
MemoryCoin / Re: CSO / CMO / CHA positions (no longer) compromised
« on: January 11, 2014, 09:47:36 pm »
Quote
MemoryCoin 2.0 voting is proportional to the number of coins you own. So if you have 1 MMC that's one vote. If you have 25k MMC that's 25k votes.

Hello people?  Is this some sort of democratic "voting"?  No.

Isn't this the definition of a corrupt voting system?

So basically except for the "1-percenters" your vote is worthless.  So what's the point? 

The whole memorycoin2.0 "voting system" seems like a corrupt gambling system for the top owners of the coin.  Whoever can accumulate and vote enough on themselves will take the pot.  No leadership nor vision is required, only the desire for power and wealth and risk.

So many things about this coin are clever and so many seem idiotic and doomed.  Am I missing something or is this voting system just completely dumb?

2
MemoryCoin / Re: The Pre-Mine Questions FreeTrade Won't Answer (Ongoing)
« on: January 11, 2014, 09:28:02 pm »
There's seems to be a really bad vibe with MemoryCoin2.

Any interesting features are overshadowed by rumors of corruption. And the air isn't cleared.

Bad community = no interest for me.  I can go back to XPM or PTS.

Best luck!

3
BitShares PTS / Re: [ANN] ptsweb.beeeeer.org - Protoshares mining sub-pool
« on: January 08, 2014, 05:32:51 am »
I don't want Memorycoins instead of PTS. 

My understanding was that blocks of PTS 32000 and under "came with" Memorycoin when Memorycoin was released.

It is part of the incentive to mine PTS.

Quote from: donschoe on January 07, 2014, 09:15:49 pm
Quote from: btc2084 on January 07, 2014, 09:07:05 pm
@xolokram,

Aren't early shares of PTS supposed to yield memorycoin?

I already asked but seemed to be overlooked or ignored -- is there a way for us to get our memorycoin shares if we early-minted with beeeeer pool?

Uhm this pool does not store Protoshares and auto pays your shares at a threshold of 0.2 PTS.

...

You dont want to ask xolo to release the <0.2 PTS balances as MMC?

...

0.2 PTS yield 0.02 MMC.

...

0.02 MMC = 0.01 USD = 0.01 EUR = 0.00001 BTC = 0.00029 LTC.

...

I have a better idea: Get up to 2 free MMC here: https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=2065.0

4
BitShares PTS / Re: [ANN] ptsweb.beeeeer.org - Protoshares mining sub-pool
« on: January 07, 2014, 09:07:05 pm »
@xolokram,

Aren't early shares of PTS supposed to yield memorycoin?

I already asked but seemed to be overlooked or ignored -- is there a way for us to get our memorycoin shares if we early-minted with beeeeer pool?

5
BitShares PTS / Re: [ANN] ptsweb.beeeeer.org - Protoshares mining sub-pool
« on: December 28, 2013, 10:05:27 pm »
@xolokram -

Suggestions for claiming memorycoins for pts earlier than block 32001?

https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=1310.0

Any idea if you are going to start a MMC / Memorycoin pool also?

6
BitShares PTS / Re: [ANN] ptsweb.beeeeer.org - Protoshares mining sub-pool
« on: December 21, 2013, 09:18:20 pm »
My few days of mining for @xolokram for Christmas gift "thanks" is up.

But if anyone else wants to do it, his donation address is listed at the bottom of each of his posts:
  PTS: PbfspbvSWxYqrp3DpRH7bsrmEqzY3418Ap

Thanks again xolokram for all the updates. 

If you come up with a way to allow us to optionally submit feedback to the some system stats on our computer and mining speed I think it would be a wonderful addition.

I'd love to be able to opt in and provide computer model name / no / OS version / CPU & RAM along with average hashing speeds.  Because I'd love to see what comes back as best bang for the buck if somehow possible.

7
BitShares PTS / Re: [ANN] ptsweb.beeeeer.org - Protoshares mining sub-pool
« on: December 18, 2013, 09:38:24 am »
As a Christmas gift to xolokram and a very modest token of appreciation I'll switch my mining for a few days to his donation address:

PTS: PbfspbvSWxYqrp3DpRH7bsrmEqzY3418Ap

Thanks for staying on the boards and doing the bug and feature fixes xolokram.

Join me if you feel inclined!  Merry Christmas all.

8
BitShares PTS / Re: [ANN] ptsweb.beeeeer.org - Protoshares mining sub-pool
« on: December 17, 2013, 03:27:55 pm »
Is buying more RAM and using a greater RAM parameter actually supposed to help!??!

I bought 32GB -- dumb because I was running 8 threads and I can do that at 2GB per thread but not 4GB per thread b/c then there is no OS room left -- and my stupid computer system doesn't recognize the DD3-2400 Mhz (Pc3-19200) speed and drops down to 1333Mhz.  The older RAM was 1600 Mhz. 

At any rate, more RAM, slower speed -- it seems to be churning away at roughly the same 2.2 or now, 2.1, mh/s.

Is greater RAM actually supposed to make hashing PTS faster? Doesn't seem to make any difference.

9
BitShares PTS / Re: [ANN] ptsweb.beeeeer.org - Protoshares mining sub-pool
« on: December 11, 2013, 09:36:00 am »
@xolokram:  Might you be able to compile a "fat" binary and have the code just test to see what capabilities are available, and then have it run the right code?  That would be soooo much easier for users to get the best results, wouldn't it?

I have the same problem - I really have no idea what to use.

I found the wikipedia article that shows the following so I just assumed AVX is the best thing to run if my processor works with it. But it sure would be grand if the app would choose for us.

 "AVX (Advanced Vector Extensions) is an advanced version of SSE announced by Intel featuring a widened data path from 128 bits to 256 bits and 3-operand instructions (up from 2). Intel released processors in early 2011 with AVX support.[4] AVX requires support from the operating system. AVX cannot be used on older operating systems like Windows XP or Windows Vista, even if the CPU supports AVX." - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streaming_SIMD_Extensions

Quote from: Harvester on December 11, 2013, 08:54:37 am
... differences between the executables:
ptsminer_avx_intel.exe
ptsminer_intel.exe
ptsminer_sse4.exe

And the parameters:
-avx
-sse4
-sph
...
Thank you.

10
BitShares PTS / Re: [ANN] ptsweb.beeeeer.org - Protoshares mining sub-pool
« on: December 10, 2013, 06:49:21 am »
Only 20%? Seems like 95% of my machine's work gets COLLISION.  I'm giving up and switching back to xolominer / primecoin.

Quote from: aleiprecht on December 09, 2013, 11:55:45 pm
After having trust issues with pts.rpool.net, i decided to switch back to b(e-5)r.

Just coming home from dropping my girlfriend to the airport and I found the 3 computers that i had started to mine there where showing between 12% and 20% Rejected shares. WTF

I had the new Update #3 software that is on listed on their site running. Is there something I should know about? 20% of the work the computers are doing rejected?

If it is a client issues, I would love to hear about a solution or a hint what I could do to bring down the REJECTED% Rate...

Albi

11
BitShares PTS / Re: [ANN] ptsweb.beeeeer.org - Protoshares mining sub-pool
« on: December 08, 2013, 09:35:00 am »
@zvs: I guess my question is: Why do I get such noisy looking output?  For newbs like me, I just want stats coming out of the miner that are meaningful, numbers I can compare with others for performance tuning, and to let me know if there is something wrong with the system.  With so many constant "collisions" I have no idea if things are working. It doesn't inspire confidence. The word collision, speaking figuratively, just doesn't sound like a positive thing. So the only thing I know is "something might not be working well here because word "COLLISION" is repeatedly being thrown up on the screen, therefore, perhaps I should be mining something else.

I went back to XPM for a while but the beeeeer.org xpm miner hasn't been respond any more either. :(  It sucks but I am considering going back to ypool.

Quote from: zvs on December 08, 2013, 05:13:23 am
Quote from: Gilligan on December 08, 2013, 05:10:04 am
[...]

@BTC2084

Is this your question too?

Looks like 6417 shares to me.

12
BitShares PTS / Re: [ANN] ptsweb.beeeeer.org - Protoshares mining sub-pool
« on: December 08, 2013, 03:16:51 am »
@xolokram, is it expected that nearly every stats post should include a "collision found"?

If it is "normal" perhaps the message could be shortened and the unique non-collisions should be shown -?

[WORKER] collision found: 1242542 <-> 40513559 #1000 @ 1386472274 by 2
[MASTER] submitted share -> SHARE
[STATS] 2013-Dec-07 21:10:24 | 153.1 c/m | 5.7 sh/m | VL: 552 (97.5%), RJ: 14 (2.5%), ST: 0 (0.0%)
[WORKER] collision found: 30604881 <-> 19421341 #1018 @ 1386472288 by 0
[MASTER] submitted share -> SHARE
[STATS] 2013-Dec-07 21:10:32 | 152.7 c/m | 5.7 sh/m | VL: 553 (97.5%), RJ: 14 (2.5%), ST: 0 (0.0%)
[WORKER] collision found: 65629335 <-> 30914487 #1032 @ 1386472289 by 1
[MASTER] submitted share -> SHARE
[STATS] 2013-Dec-07 21:10:37 | 152.9 c/m | 5.8 sh/m | VL: 554 (97.5%), RJ: 14 (2.5%), ST: 0 (0.0%)
[WORKER] collision found: 50249271 <-> 53188474 #1054 @ 1386472304 by 0
[MASTER] submitted share -> SHARE
[STATS] 2013-Dec-07 21:10:45 | 153.1 c/m | 5.8 sh/m | VL: 555 (97.5%), RJ: 14 (2.5%), ST: 0 (0.0%)
[WORKER] collision found: 32570834 <-> 33910633 #1074 @ 1386472335 by 7
[MASTER] submitted share -> SHARE
[STATS] 2013-Dec-07 21:10:54 | 152.7 c/m | 5.8 sh/m | VL: 556 (97.5%), RJ: 14 (2.5%), ST: 0 (0.0%)
[WORKER] collision found: 38802225 <-> 61508252 #1088 @ 1386472328 by 0
[MASTER] submitted share -> SHARE
[STATS] 2013-Dec-07 21:10:57 | 153.6 c/m | 5.9 sh/m | VL: 557 (97.5%), RJ: 14 (2.5%), ST: 0 (0.0%)
[WORKER] collision found: 17402851 <-> 64986577 #1102 @ 1386472349 by 5
[MASTER] submitted share -> SHARE
[STATS] 2013-Dec-07 21:11:09 | 151.3 c/m | 5.9 sh/m | VL: 558 (97.6%), RJ: 14 (2.4%), ST: 0 (0.0%)
[WORKER] collision found: 1892214 <-> 3952790 #1126 @ 1386472380 by 4
[MASTER] submitted share -> SHARE
[STATS] 2013-Dec-07 21:11:20 | 150.8 c/m | 5.9 sh/m | VL: 559 (97.6%), RJ: 14 (2.4%), ST: 0 (0.0%)
[WORKER] collision found: 22628022 <-> 24608202 #1158 @ 1386472404 by 4
[MASTER] submitted share -> SHARE
[STATS] 2013-Dec-07 21:11:33 | 150.7 c/m | 5.9 sh/m | VL: 560 (97.6%), RJ: 14 (2.4%), ST: 0 (0.0%)
[WORKER] collision found: 8619426 <-> 5349253 #1172 @ 1386472418 by 2
[MASTER] submitted share -> SHARE
[STATS] 2013-Dec-07 21:11:41 | 149.9 c/m | 5.9 sh/m | VL: 561 (97.6%), RJ: 14 (2.4%), ST: 0 (0.0%)
[WORKER] collision found: 22290692 <-> 27419937 #1210 @ 1386472438 by 6
[MASTER] submitted share -> SHARE
[STATS] 2013-Dec-07 21:11:54 | 150.6 c/m | 5.9 sh/m | VL: 562 (97.6%), RJ: 14 (2.4%), ST: 0 (0.0%)
[MASTER] work received - sharetarget: 07ffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffbeefde4d
[WORKER] collision found: 26180219 <-> 54544671 #1256 @ 1386472346 by 2
[MASTER] submitted share -> SHARE
[STATS] 2013-Dec-07 21:12:19 | 148.6 c/m | 5.7 sh/m | VL: 563 (97.6%), RJ: 14 (2.4%), ST: 0 (0.0%)
[WORKER] collision found: 34070194 <-> 33872883 #1272 @ 1386472367 by 7
[MASTER] submitted share -> SHARE
[STATS] 2013-Dec-07 21:12:27 | 148.2 c/m | 5.7 sh/m | VL: 564 (97.6%), RJ: 14 (2.4%), ST: 0 (0.0%)
[WORKER] collision found: 36833859 <-> 51622397 #1286 @ 1386472365 by 5
[MASTER] submitted share -> SHARE
[STATS] 2013-Dec-07 21:12:30 | 149.0 c/m | 5.8 sh/m | VL: 565 (97.6%), RJ: 14 (2.4%), ST: 0 (0.0%)
[MASTER] work received - sharetarget: 07ffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffbeefde4d
[WORKER] collision found: 32326278 <-> 36101018 #1342 @ 1386472385 by 1
[MASTER] submitted share -> SHARE
[STATS] 2013-Dec-07 21:13:06 | 145.3 c/m | 5.5 sh/m | VL: 566 (97.6%), RJ: 14 (2.4%), ST: 0 (0.0%)
[WORKER] collision found: 35712283 <-> 5097742 #1374 @ 1386472407 by 7
[MASTER] submitted share -> SHARE
[STATS] 2013-Dec-07 21:13:16 | 146.2 c/m | 5.5 sh/m | VL: 567 (97.6%), RJ: 14 (2.4%), ST: 0 (0.0%)
[WORKER] collision found: 9198751 <-> 57142063 #1392 @ 1386472406 by 6
[MASTER] submitted share -> SHARE
[STATS] 2013-Dec-07 21:13:20 | 147.0 c/m | 5.6 sh/m | VL: 568 (97.6%), RJ: 14 (2.4%), ST: 0 (0.0%)
[WORKER] collision found: 34419075 <-> 49111167 #1512 @ 1386472480 by 0
[WORKER] collision found: 50367191 <-> 32523970 #1514 @ 1386472484 by 4
[MASTER] submitted share -> SHARE
[STATS] 2013-Dec-07 21:14:01 | 149.2 c/m | 5.4 sh/m | VL: 569 (97.6%), RJ: 14 (2.4%), ST: 0 (0.0%)
[MASTER] submitted share -> SHARE
[STATS] 2013-Dec-07 21:14:01 | 149.2 c/m | 5.4 sh/m | VL: 570 (97.6%), RJ: 14 (2.4%), ST: 0 (0.0%)
[WORKER] collision found: 5984402 <-> 58099286 #1520 @ 1386472480 by 0
[MASTER] submitted share -> SHARE
[STATS] 2013-Dec-07 21:14:03 | 149.3 c/m | 5.5 sh/m | VL: 571 (97.6%), RJ: 14 (2.4%), ST: 0 (0.0%)
[WORKER] collision found: 64570807 <-> 12618303 #1524 @ 1386472480 by 0
[MASTER] submitted share -> SHARE
[STATS] 2013-Dec-07 21:14:04 | 149.4 c/m | 5.6 sh/m | VL: 572 (97.6%), RJ: 14 (2.4%), ST: 0 (0.0%)

13
BitShares PTS / Re: [ANN] ptsweb.beeeeer.org - Protoshares mining sub-pool
« on: December 08, 2013, 02:23:18 am »
@Gilligan

Would be nice if we get credit for submitting even if we have collisions but still it seems like if it were possible to avoid them the pool would make more, right?  Thanks for sharing your perspective. I'm trying to understand it still.

I know I am being a bit paranoid when I suggest that so many collisions might be theft but it seems like they started suddenly and in the past not nearly as many occurred.

Quote from: Gilligan on December 08, 2013, 02:01:24 am
...

 - You get paid on multiple SHARE submissions in the same Block or Chain.  If I submit 40 SHAREs in the same Block/Chain I might get paid .00156 but if I submit 250 SHAREs in the same Block/Chain I might get paid .0146 for the work that my miners did on that particular Block/Chain.

I am just guessing that this is how it works ...

Gilligan~

14
BitShares PTS / Re: [ANN] ptsweb.beeeeer.org - Protoshares mining sub-pool
« on: December 08, 2013, 01:12:31 am »
@xolokram, thanks for the update. Here's the result on my Dell XPS 8700, Intel i7-4770 @ 3.40Ghz w/ 8GB RAM.

Note that I'm not sure the version number is correct for Hotfix#3.

I'm really clueless in the whole "Collision" thing but is it possible that someone is seeing the submission and somehow submitting to a different pool, "stealing" the submission and still somehow getting it in beforehand.  Does it seem right that so many are collisions?  If I am mining an not getting anything with PTS but collisions shouldn't I switch to another coin?

Thanks for the work Xolo. It does look like this fix corrected the REJECTION issues! :)


C:\Program Files\ptsminer_v0n_x64>ptsminer_avx_intel PtxgdYBcduwpkpcFb564NLKwmswJtcMQcP 8
********************************************
*** ptsminer - Pts Pool Miner v0.7 RC2 <experimental>
*** by xolokram/TB - www.beeeeer.org - glhf
***
*** press CTRL+C to exit
********************************************
using AVX
spawning 8 worker thread(s)
[WORKER[WORKER3] Hello, World!
[WORKER5] Hello, World!
[WORKER7] Hello, World!
[WORKER1] Hello, World!
0] Hello, World!
[WORKER2] Hello, World!
[WORKER3] GoGoGo!
[WORKER5] GoGoGo!
[WORKER6] Hello, World!
[WORKER0] GoGoGo!
[WORKER4] Hello, World!
[WORKER4] GoGoGo!
[WORKER2[WORKER1] GoGoGo!
] GoGoGo!
[WORKER6] GoGoGo!
[WORKER7] GoGoGo!
connecting to 54.201.26.128:1337
[MASTER] work received - sharetarget: 07ffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffbeefde4d
[WORKER] collision found: 37138841 <-> 55733640 #50 @ 1386464732 by 4
[MASTER] submitted share -> SHARE
[STATS] 2013-Dec-07 19:05:27 | 130.4 c/m | 2.6 sh/m | VL: 1 (100.0%), RJ: 0 (0.0%), ST: 0 (0.0%)
[WORKER] collision found: 23022064 <-> 29620132 #64 @ 1386464753 by 1
[MASTER] submitted share -> SHARE
[STATS] 2013-Dec-07 19:05:33 | 132.4 c/m | 4.1 sh/m | VL: 2 (100.0%), RJ: 0 (0.0%), ST: 0 (0.0%)
[WORKER] collision found: 44043751 <-> 40433732 #74 @ 1386464752 by 0
[MASTER] submitted share -> SHARE
[STATS] 2013-Dec-07 19:05:35 | 143.2 c/m | 5.8 sh/m | VL: 3 (100.0%), RJ: 0 (0.0%), ST: 0 (0.0%)
[WORKER] collision found: 46794233 <-> 45953484 #102 @ 1386464773 by 5
[MASTER] submitted share -> SHARE
[STATS] 2013-Dec-07 19:05:46 | 145.7 c/m | 5.7 sh/m | VL: 4 (100.0%), RJ: 0 (0.0%), ST: 0 (0.0%)
[WORKER] collision found: 60679311 <-> 21827609 #112 @ 1386464769 by 1
[MASTER] submitted share -> SHARE
[STATS] 2013-Dec-07 19:05:48 | 152.7 c/m | 6.8 sh/m | VL: 5 (100.0%), RJ: 0 (0.0%), ST: 0 (0.0%)
[WORKER] collision found: 11169502 <-> 44658328 #132 @ 1386464788 by 4
[MASTER] submitted share -> SHARE
[STATS] 2013-Dec-07 19:05:57 | 151.7 c/m | 6.8 sh/m | VL: 6 (100.0%), RJ: 0 (0.0%), ST: 0 (0.0%)
[WORKER] collision found: 30973006 <-> 9895520 #150 @ 1386464811 by 3
[MASTER] submitted share -> SHARE
[STATS] 2013-Dec-07 19:06:04 | 150.0 c/m | 7.0 sh/m | VL: 7 (100.0%), RJ: 0 (0.0%), ST: 0 (0.0%)
[WORKER] collision found: 36988808 <-> 11659484 #156 @ 1386464814 by 6
[MASTER] submitted share -> SHARE
[STATS] 2013-Dec-07 19:06:05 | 153.4 c/m | 7.9 sh/m | VL: 8 (100.0%), RJ: 0 (0.0%), ST: 0 (0.0%)
[WORKER] collision found: 53385407 <-> 50311390 #254 @ 1386464868 by 4
[MASTER] submitted share -> SHARE
[STATS] 2013-Dec-07 19:06:40 | 158.8 c/m | 5.6 sh/m | VL: 9 (100.0%), RJ: 0 (0.0%), ST: 0 (0.0%)
[WORKER] collision found: 65879588 <-> 63916448 #260 @ 1386464870 by 6
[MASTER] submitted share -> SHARE
[STATS] 2013-Dec-07 19:06:42 | 159.2 c/m | 6.1 sh/m | VL: 10 (100.0%), RJ: 0 (0.0%), ST: 0 (0.0%)
[WORKER] collision found: 7558581 <-> 15603233 #294 @ 1386464901 by 5
[MASTER] submitted share -> SHARE
[STATS] 2013-Dec-07 19:06:55 | 158.9 c/m | 5.9 sh/m | VL: 11 (100.0%), RJ: 0 (0.0%), ST: 0 (0.0%)
[WORKER] collision found: 22462866 <-> 34206375 #318 @ 1386464914 by 2
[MASTER] submitted share -> SHARE
[STATS] 2013-Dec-07 19:07:10 | 154.3 c/m | 5.7 sh/m | VL: 12 (100.0%), RJ: 0 (0.0%), ST: 0 (0.0%)
[MASTER] work received - sharetarget: 07ffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffbeefde4d
[WORKER] collision found: 41371619 <-> 8658999 #372 @ 1386464871 by 7

Quote from: xolokram on December 06, 2013, 06:04:18 pm
hi,
I'm sorry for the late reply. i'm compiling the windows binaries right now, i'll update this (and the first) post when they're uploaded to mediafire

here's the hotfix #3: *CLICK* (Windows 64Bit Binaries)
containing the 'rejections-on-a-block-workaround-by-reconnecting'-fix :)
...
- xolokram

15
BitShares PTS / Re: [ANN] ptsweb.beeeeer.org - Protoshares mining sub-pool
« on: December 05, 2013, 07:59:03 pm »
@xolokram:
please dirty-workaround the Windows version!  I switched back to your XPM pool until I can get an understanding if PTS mining is not just heating the room. :)

Quote from: xolokram on December 03, 2013, 06:43:39 pm
...

@btc2084:
as you see the rejects come in blockwise (ends on "work received"), there's a bug somewhere (in the miner i ---guess---)
this is a known issues, there's a dirty workaround in the latest github (not helpful for windows user i know)


Pages: [1] 2

Page created in 0.174 seconds with 20 queries.