Quote from: jorneyflair on January 15, 2014, 01:32:44 AM

Quote from: FreeTrade on January 14, 2014, 03:45:07 AM

Quote from: agran on January 13, 2014, 11:41:10 AM
With the new coin miner fully justifies its name.  :)

Yes! Thanks for bringing mining home to CPUs and Memory. 5000 MMC tip on its way to yvg1900 from MCF.

yvg1900 should be the CTO i think

Only if he open-sources his code!  As CTO he would be getting paid anyway.

Quote from: KillerByte on December 26, 2013, 02:07:52 AM

the hashes are not wasted.

Think bitcoin mining: your ASIC goes through billions of hashes a second. Does it submit every single hash? No, just the ones that meet the target set by the server.

Does that help? :)

Yes, thanks Killer, although it doesn't explain why one out of 16 hashes are taken, or is that a probability?

I'm now getting system:111 messages, this is my output for the previous block:

[MASTER] work received
connecting to 162.243.216.74:1339
system:111
connecting to 162.243.216.74:1339
system:111
connecting to 162.243.216.74:1339
system:111
connecting to 162.243.216.74:1339
system:111
connecting to 162.243.216.74:1339
system:111
hash generated - 15802 / 1968 / 1683025740
connecting to 162.243.216.74:1339
system:111
connecting to 162.243.216.74:1339
system:111
connecting to 162.243.216.74:1339
system:111
connecting to 162.243.216.74:1339
[MASTER] work received

Edit: those messages have stopped for now, they are intermittent.

Quote from: KillerByte on December 26, 2013, 12:14:04 AM

everyone has to follow this policy. It makes it so that all shares are equally valued.

why every 16? is possible that change work during mining

Sorry, this doesn't make sense to me.  Why isn't every hash submitted?  My 8-core machine only had 5 and 13 hashes between the last two "[MASTER] work received", are they wasted?  Sorry if these are slightly newbie questions, I have done pool mining before, I just want to know the meaning of these outputs, its a change from what xolokram's pts miner reports!

It was profitable for me, before the difficulty increase a few days ago.  It depends on your costs of course.

This pool needs some more mining support!  I've been mining on here for more than a month, it is a little curious why not as many people mine here as other sites.

• Very reliable, hasn't gone down in a month
• ypool got 14 out of the last 24 blocks, thats 58%!  This is risky for protoshares network, because if ypool get's hacked, a 51% attack can bring down the network?
• the miner is as fast as any others (correct me if I'm wrong), which means you make at least the same on beeeer as anywhere else.
• lower fees, ypool has 6% fee, beeer 3% actually it's 2.5%
• smaller automatic payout threshold, ypool's minimum is 1 PTS, beeeer's is 0.2, better for small miners.
• Better, more advanced user interface!  ;)

Quote from: gigamike on December 13, 2013, 08:43:55 PM
Guys,

anyone tried to mine using beeeer.org pool using this specs
Dual Quad Core Server Xeon E5620 2.4GHz
16GB RAM
500GB Storage
10TB Bandwidth

average PTS mine per day with the said specs?

TIA,

Mike

I was getting 0.186 PTS per day on one Xeon W3530 before the difficulty increase on the 22nd.  Now I'm getting 0.0516 PTS/day by my calculations :(

Might be time for the pool to change to 0.01 payout threshold?

'sup

Quote from: xolokram on November 22, 2013, 08:47:28 AM
can someone on a i7 with SSE4 but -NO- AVX check if replacing
-march=native
with
-march=corei7
in
makefile.unix

then compile, then run, helps?

- xolokram

ps. sorry, i'm currently not able to test is

I'm on a VPS that disables avx.  I also had to comment out the selection of the avx assembly code in sha512.c:

   if (pc->proc_type == PROC_X64_INTEL || pc->proc_type == PROC_X64_AMD) {
      /*if (pc->avx_level > 0) {
         sha512_update_func = sha512_avx;
      } else*/ if (pc->sse_level >= 4) {

As far as I understand, from below, the ypool miner isn't confirming any transactions.  Their blocks always have only 1 transaction! That's pretty harmful to the network, isn't it?  Are there any ways to counter this anti-social behaviour?

Quote from: jh00 on November 17, 2013, 08:18:32 PM

Quote from: Kyune on November 17, 2013, 07:37:56 PM
Ypool appears to have adopted a policy of including a maximum of one transaction per block, which appears to be slowing down transaction confirmations on the network.  Compare the ypool stats page to the list of 1-transaction blocks on

http://btsblock.com/chain/ProtoShares

Several people have noticed that transactions are getting held up with 0 confirmations (with or without transactions fees) as numerous blocks roll by until a different pool finds a block, at which a bunch of transactions finally get their first confirmation.

This seems harmful to the network as a whole.

See my post here
There is no evil intention, just a lack of time on my side.

Quote from: gnarl on November 17, 2013, 07:07:54 AM
Holy crap, "difficulty" : 0.00221064,
20min between blocks now, thats painfull...

It only went up by 4.3 times.  I was expecting more, given that it's supposed to be 5 minute blocks.

hmm, there seems to be some moderation going on in this thread.  The complaints have disappeared.

The rate only goes up to 0.008?  :)

The standard windows protoshares-qt available here is only 32 bit, and can only mine up to 3 threads due to memory constraints.  I'm surprised no-one has compiled a 64 bit wallet for windows.  A 64 bit exe would be faster, making use of bigger registers, etc.  Can anyone provide one?  :)

Thanks, that worked.  Maybe make a pull request for the fix on github?

Cheers!