Amoveo ♥🧿
Previous messages
Next messages
21 March 2018
MF
09:40
Mr Flintstone
are ppl gaming the block timestamps?
I
09:45
Iridescence
Last block was 45 minutes ago?
09:45
Or is Amoveopool just being wonky?
09:49
No, it's real. Block 10170 is the most recent block, and has been for the past 50 minutes
09:49
Looks like we just lost a lot of hashpower
09:49
Let's hope it's temporary
09:50
Deleted Account
current height is 10179
I
09:51
Iridescence
Hmm
09:51
Amoveopool seems to be stuck at 10170 then
MF
09:53
Mr Flintstone
something feels weird about the realized frequency of the blocks and the implied hash rate function on the light wallet
09:53
maybe it’s just me
I
09:56
Iridescence
The implied hash rate is just an estimate
09:56
Real hashrate is hard to estimate
OK
09:57
O K
50 minutes, that's way too long
I
09:57
Iridescence
Amoveopool is behind
MF
09:57
Mr Flintstone
yeah but it still should be a function of the actual block times
I
09:57
Iridescence
Perhaps a node restart is in order
MF
09:57
Mr Flintstone
as long as the timestamps are faithful
OK
09:57
O K
That's strange, the node shows the right height
09:57
sec
09:58
yup, headers and blocks both
I
09:59
Iridescence
So it must be a pool bug 🙊
OK
09:59
O K
Checking
I
09:59
Iridescence
Hmm
09:59
Now it shows correct height
09:59
But not on "recent blocks" list
OK
10:03
O K
Okay, I see:
10:05
Zack http://159.65.120.84:8080 needs sync I think?
10:06
The pool uses various nodes from the network to produce those statistics, so everything is mining fine, and the pool's node is synced
10:06
but it picked up the data to display from a different node
I
10:06
Iridescence
Ah, I see
OK
10:07
O K
I think I will add to my list to display the node that it's pulling from, that will make it less confusing in the future
10:09
Deleted Account
hello
10:09
mining stuff working?
OK
10:09
O K
Which mining stuff?
10:10
Deleted Account
dunno any changes to algo or anything?
OK
10:10
O K
D:
10:11
Algo change, at block 9000, that was some time ago
10:11
Deleted Account
any plans to increase block rward ?
OK
10:12
O K
I don't think anyone can answer that, and Zack would say "I can't predict what the community will decide"
10:13
How does http://185.117.73.74/amoveo-network-status get data?
10:14
It's interesting to watch, but is it real time, do they all poll at the same time?
MF
10:15
Deleted Account
Yes, only 3 minutes update interval.
10:15
Deleted Account
have no idea whats going on bro
OK
10:15
Because I'm starting to wonder how long those 0 height nodes have been online xD
10:16
Deleted Account
does anyone have the accurate hashrate chart?
10:16
is this still minable with gpu?
10:16
Deleted Account
Yeah I've been thinking about it
10:16
Deleted Account
how much amoveo per gpu currently
10:16
what is ne thashrate
OK
10:16
O K
Have you been mining hard shibe?
10:16
Deleted Account
amoveopool down?
10:16
Deleted Account
nope
10:16
but want ot see if its worth it
OK
10:16
O K
It's definitely worth it, stop theorizing
10:17
Bo, I don't think so...?
10:17
My cards are getting work, site is up ?
10:17
What's the problem?
10:19
Deleted Account
Accumulating 'number of active nodes' might be also interesting. It will show network growth and node stability.
OK
10:20
O K
👍
10:20
Deleted Account
will do. thanks for suggestion.
OK
10:21
O K
Thanks for making the stats, pretty cool :D
10:21
And helpful
10:21
Deleted Account
😄
Kale joined group by link from Group
MF
10:31
Mr Flintstone
dogecoin fork
10:44
Deleted Account
what is amoveopool2?
10:55
seem like pools are offline??
11:09
can anyone help me debug my miner?
11:09
getting the following: Starting correctness test for 10 seconds.
Wrong correctness! Something is wrong.
Wrong correctness! Something is wrong.
11:29
Deleted Account
11:29
hi @potat_o ，the pool has the same problem like yestoday?
I
12:30
What are your gpuparams?
12:40
Deleted Account
Hey all - I’m sure it’s been covered but any idea why I would get difficulty too low errors?
I
12:42
Iridescence
Whose miner are you using?
12:42
Deleted Account
All the sudden my miners are all getting them...
12:42
Mandel Goff
12:42
Mandelhoff
I
12:43
Iridescence
Maybe mining pool error?
12:43
Or some synchronization issue
12:43
Deleted Account
Is amoveopool2 down?
I
12:43
Iridescence
I've seen that happen when a miner found a block that another miner had already found and submitted to the pool
12:44
It's up for me
12:44
Deleted Account
Hmm... yea, just getting tons of difficulty too low errors
12:44
Have tried restarting several times
12:44
And my hash on the pool is wayyy down
I
12:45
Iridescence
All miners are showing that?
12:58
Deleted Account
Yea all miners
12:59
Deleted Account
yeah difficulty too low error
12:59
happening on zacks pool too
12:59
happening only on fast gpus
13:00
slow gpu is doing fine
13:01
Deleted Account
Wonder if we can adjust settings to get rid of the error
13:02
Deleted Account
its a 1050, i am using the recommended settings
13:02
one sec
13:02
64 & 90
13:02
Deleted Account
Wonder if I should just use that with my 1070ti
13:03
Deleted Account
ok error is happening less on zacks pool now
13:03
i tried restarting, but it didnt help
13:05
ok error back now on fast gpu
13:06
Deleted Account
Yup... me too
MF
13:08
Block height is off
13:30
Deleted Account
These errors are brutal
13:35
Deleted Account
yes 50% hash going waste
13:35
i am going to pause
13:35
good time to test another testnet
N
13:36
NM$L
what's problem
13:37
I'm mining air.
13:38
Deleted Account
air?
N
13:41
Deleted Account
Wonder if it’s worth keeping the miners going at this point...
13:47
Deleted Account
yeah i am just leaving the slow gpu on
13:47
the tortoise wins
lw
13:56
lijun wang
what's problem?
K
15:02
Kale
How to sell amoveo？
K
15:23
Kale
Where?
16:02
Zack it seems like any block I find is initially accepted by other nodes, but then amoveopool2 comes along and claims it... makes me wonder if it publishes blocks but does not accept them (effectively a 51% attack maybe just by being behind behind a firewall with most of the nethash)... or just really, really bad luck? has happened 10+ times
I
16:02
Check out the spot instance pricing for Amazon AWS V100s
16:03
Deleted Account
can you even get any? lol
I
16:03
Iridescence
I wonder what started on March 13 to start an increase in the bid price 😏
16:03
If you ask Amazon nicely I guess
16:03
Deleted Account
I can sometimes get a single, rarely a 16x at less than full price
I
16:04
Iridescence
so is the price chart incorrect?
16:04
It's for us-west
16:04
Deleted Account
it is correct
16:04
but it doesn't mean there is capacity you can buy at that price
I
16:04
Iridescence
I see, makes sense
16:04
Deleted Account
it is the price you would pay, if they weren't all being used at full price (!!)
I
16:04
Iridescence
I'm new to AWS spot request stuff
16:04
Deleted Account
great savings to be had
I
16:05
Iridescence
so why does AWS show it to be lower then
16:05
Deleted Account
full price meaning "on demand" not spot market
16:05
you often find you can get as many as you want at full price (on demand) but none at spot
I
16:06
Iridescence
so what is the red, blue and yellow price lines shown?
16:06
Deleted Account
regions
I
16:06
Iridescence
is it prices that spot instances are available at?
16:06
Deleted Account
it is the current bid price you would have to pay to get spot capacity
16:06
however, there may not be any capacity
I
16:07
Iridescence
does spot capacity translate to me being able run code on a machine at that bid price?
16:07
Deleted Account
so there may be a ton of people waiting for capacity to become available at the price shown... and you can skip the queue by bidding more... but you're all still waiting for mr full price to shutdown :)
I
16:07
Iridescence
oh ok
16:07
I think I get it
16:08
so it's like
16:08
you are bidding, but nobody is "selling" their instances at that low a price since they are all paying full price for the instances
Z
I
16:09
Iridescence
and I assume AWS always gives preference to people who pay the on-demand price
16:10
Deleted Account
Zack - any way to fix the difficulty too low errors I’m getting?
16:10
Deleted Account
@Iridescence yep, if you start an on demand instance it is always instant, right? I think they have a small pool ready to go plus the 1 or 2 minute warning before any spot instances are terminated
Z
16:11
Deleted Account
@Iridescence the weird thing is, you can pay more than the on demand price for spot capacity... weird stuff
Z
16:13
Zack
In reply to this message
Maybe a block propagation issue, or maybe an attack. I will look into it.
16:14
Deleted Account
Zack tx... I can look up the block and see the mined address on other nodes... but that changes after I guess the fork is resolved in amoveonode's favour
16:14
I didn't mean to imply @potat_o is deliberately doing it just that it seems odd blocks propagate and are visible on other nodes only to later disappear - orphan blocks are to be expected but this seems extreme
Z
16:16
Deleted Account
Amoveopool2
16:16
Getting paid, but hash is like 50% of what it was
Z
16:18
Zack
In reply to this message
Right. He probably isn't doing it deliberately.
But since his pool is closed source, he might be doing it accidentally, and there is no way for me to check.
But since his pool is closed source, he might be doing it accidentally, and there is no way for me to check.
16:19
Deleted Account
do you know if the node(s) the pool uses are open to the world?
16:19
I looked at a lot of the nodes and they all seemed to get behind at different times, suggesting none of them are the amoveopool node(s)
16:21
I think @potat_o and @Mandelhoff definitely have some work to do on their closed source pool... it seems mining solo should yield more than mining on amoveopool does... usually I find the opposite (because you get paid partial block rewards - so often ahead in the short term) but unfortunately solo mining is not working very well 😉
Z
16:23
Zack
In reply to this message
This is concerning.
I used the same technique to try and identify their node, but it sounds like it doesn't work.
I used the same technique to try and identify their node, but it sounds like it doesn't work.
16:24
Deleted Account
which lead me to wonder if it was behind the firewall (fair enough for security reasons I guess)... and I remebered how you pointed out that my node being behind a firewall could not receive headers automatically from peers?
Z
16:24
Zack
Right. So maybe they are accidentally attacking us.
16:24
Deleted Account
seems that way, or I just had really bad luck, but it seems too consistent
16:25
I'm 99% certain my node was functioning correctly though; as I could look up balances of the pool address, the fee address and the miner addresses on other nodes
16:25
but I have made many mistakes so far so never ruling that out :D
Z
16:26
Zack
@silver815 looks like you are finding shares. So maybe it is working normally.
It isn't a mining pool that I am running. So I can't help you.
It isn't a mining pool that I am running. So I can't help you.
16:27
Deleted Account
I found a couple
16:27
Deleted Account
In reply to this message
Sometimes found, but tons of difficulty too low... oh well hopefully will correct. Seemed like others were having the same issue...
16:27
Deleted Account
maybe 5-10% sucess rate
Z
16:28
Zack
So then, they aren't behind a fire wall.
16:28
Hey could be doing an attack just 90% of the time to confuse us, but it seems unlikely
16:28
Deleted Account
but it is possible to receive headers/blocks without having port 8080 open, right?
Z
16:29
Zack
In reply to this message
I think you won't get new headers if that port is closed. If you don't get headers then you won't try downloading blocks
16:30
Deleted Account
right, I have to manually issue get_headers commands on my laptop for that reason
16:30
so if their pool was finding 100% of blocks it would be a possibility
16:30
but there are a handful of others
16:30
it is effectively 100% tho :)
Z
16:30
Zack
Maybe they are using dynamic IP. So every time their IP changes the attack happens for a while
16:32
Deleted Account
I suppose it is in their interest to continue, intentionally or otherwise, is there some way the network can protect itself against this kind of scenario?
Z
16:33
Zack
We can do a hard fork to erase the rewards they get whenever they have more than 90% hash power
16:34
They said they would split the mining pool into 2, but talk is cheap.
16:35
Deleted Account
true, although I think that sets a dangerous precedent :)
Z
16:36
Zack
Why do you think that?
It is a good thing if the community can organize to stop attacks.
It is a good thing if the community can organize to stop attacks.
16:36
Deleted Account
well, it makes me nervous that my coins could be taken away too
Z
16:37
Zack
Are you attacking the network?
16:37
Deleted Account
not at the moment, it won't accept my blocks! :P
16:38
I don't see one big pool having (effectively) 100% of the nethash as an "attack" - although I think you do?
16:38
however if they use that power at the expense of the rest of us, then it becomes an attack
16:38
but of course, ideally, there would be at least 2 pools
16:38
not run by the same entity of course
16:39
but maybe they are attacking by accident, which is a problem, but again the solution is spreading the hashpower, is it not?
Z
16:39
Zack
In reply to this message
one pool having 100% isn't an attack.
It only becomes an attack if they refuse to accept anyone else's blocks.
It only becomes an attack if they refuse to accept anyone else's blocks.
16:40
Deleted Account
nod, by accident or otherwise :D
16:40
is your pool down?
Z
16:41
Zack
I don't think intentions matter at all.
Whether it is "on purpose" or "an accident" does not matter.
Whether it is "on purpose" or "an accident" does not matter.
16:41
Deleted Account
agreed, although spreading the hashpower is a hard problem when the obvious choice as a miner is to use the biggest pool
16:42
even if the community threatened to steal their VEO back, what can the pool do to stop its monopoly?
16:42
raise fees, I suppose...
16:42
limit # of miners...
Z
16:42
Zack
if we keep taking away their rewards while they are attacking, then any miners on their pool would not be getting paid.
16:43
Deleted Account
that is a good point, and I think it highlights the problem - you are effectively penalising the miners who are supporting the network
Z
16:43
Zack
the attack is not caused by having too many miners.
But if they had less than 50% of miners, the attack would fail.
But if they had less than 50% of miners, the attack would fail.
16:44
I just write the software. You guys choose what to run.
16:45
Deleted Account
nod, I mean "you" in the royal sense :)
Z
16:45
Zack
mining on a pool that is committing an attack is not "supporting the network"
16:50
Deleted Account
true indeed, unfortunately if the alternative is not mining... miners will go elsewhere or stick with the practical option (helping with the attack unwillingly)
Z
16:51
Zack
unless they weren't being paid while attacking.
16:52
Deleted Account
TBH if that happened, I think you would find miners go to another coin, unless an alternative pool is available...
16:52
chicken/egg at the moment, your pool has very little of the total nethash, so hard to attract miners
Z
16:53
Zack
Better that we temporarily lose hash power instead of sustaining an attack
17:02
@potat_o If you don't want the community to do a hard fork and erase your tokens from your pool, then I recommend you publish the IP address of your pool somewhere so we can look it up at any time.
17:08
BOSwcu7JBf9xfGDTFYG3A4OaTv15+V8NVmCcjqliuq4qb4ZJDGda6qlcSOeU0i2ffiDXL4fnyvfUt5dsddEIQUo=
17:08
about 0.7 veo.
G
17:11
Deleted Account
Gonzalo but is that the amoveopool node? I thought it was behind a few times when I was trying to find out which node had the longest chain
G
17:14
Deleted Account
17:14
the same problem @potat_o
Z
17:17
How could I get the block first if I didn't mine it?
G
17:32
now 10252
17:35
Z
17:36
This is strong evidence that amoveopool2.com was doing a 51% attack.
G
17:38
Gonzalo
In reply to this message
this could be because there's a delay between updates on that page.. so he (catweed?) first asks amoveopool and its at height X, at the same second amoveopool finds a block and then the page asks your height and its X+1
17:38
Deleted Account
are they
Z
17:38
Zack
They are almost certainly unaware. This isn't in anyone's best interest.
17:39
In reply to this message
no, because I can use the explorer from OK pool to see who mined the blocks they are accepting.
17:39
Deleted Account
anyone can biuld a pool which has a window mining tools?
Z
17:40
and my pool is open source, so you can run one too
17:40
but i am not a programer
Z
G
17:42
Gonzalo
In reply to this message
Zack I was talking about your question "How could I get the block first if I didn't mine it?" Height propagation could be faster than catweeds "amoveo network status" page asking the height, that may be an explanation.
17:43
Deleted Account
G
17:43
Gonzalo
point the miner, not the browser
Z
Z
17:44
Zack
yes, it should work fine.
17:44
Deleted Account
ok i am trying
G
17:45
Gonzalo
yes, it works with Mandels miner. You have to write ALL the parameters and the last one put the pool http://159.65.120.84:8085
Z
17:47
Zack
I am writing an upgrade to this miner so that it will look at all the available pools, and automatically select the best one. So if the one you are working on crashes, it will automatically switch to a working pool.
17:50
But will it make samller pool ddos the bigger one?
17:51
Deleted Account
i think you can make a fine UI like amoveopool,i can not find pool stats any mining stats
K
17:52
Kale
The miner have many bug
Z
N
18:14
NM$L
why difficulty too low
Z
18:19
block production from Amoveopool2 stopped.
18:20
I wonder what is going on.
Maybe this means they were not on a fork, and they just happened to crash at the same moment @penfold helped to run a test to see if they were on a fork?
Maybe this means they were not on a fork, and they just happened to crash at the same moment @penfold helped to run a test to see if they were on a fork?
18:21
Deleted Account
take note of which blocks your pool mined
18:21
and see if they are still yours in another hour
N
18:22
NM$L
I get the low difficulty error
18:22
Deleted Account
what I saw was blocks being won by a fork (longer chain I guess)... maybe that is happening now?
N
Z
18:23
In reply to this message
I don't see a fork being built on any of the nodes. It seems like amoveopool2 crashed.
N
18:23
NM$L
amoveo2
Z
18:24
Deleted Account
Zack maybe so, although this is consistent with what I observed earlier... other nodes reported my block as being the highest but later on it was all reversed when amoveopool came back
N
18:25
NM$L
just to change pool url to this .？
18:25
Z
18:25
Zack
In reply to this message
it is possible that both things are happening. that they crashed and they were doing this attack.
Z
18:25
Zack
I can't tell which is amoveopool
18:25
Deleted Account
I wouldn't be surprised if it was not intentional, but yes "attack" :)
Z
18:26
Zack
In reply to this message
yes. this is the pool url for the mining pool I maintain. http://159.65.120.84:8085/
18:37
I am turning off the market on http://159.65.120.84:8080/wallet.html
I will move the market stuff to this server http://159.89.106.253:8080/explorer.html
I will turn off the mining stuff on the market server.
I will move the market stuff to this server http://159.89.106.253:8080/explorer.html
I will turn off the mining stuff on the market server.
G
18:42
Gonzalo
quite weird that OK node shows block 10253 was found by amoveopool2, but amoveopool2 shows was Zacks pool 😳
18:42
Z
18:42
Zack
Looks like OK found another block. So he is not crashed.
And his new block is being built on a shorter fork.
It seems like they are doing a 51% attack.
I wonder why it is going so slow now?
And his new block is being built on a shorter fork.
It seems like they are doing a 51% attack.
I wonder why it is going so slow now?
18:43
In reply to this message
so amoveopool2 is probably it's height from OK's node, and it is getting blocks from my node.
Very odd.
We can only guess what this closed source software is doing.
Very odd.
We can only guess what this closed source software is doing.
18:46
I make a fork that connects to my pool by default, but it isn't compiled into a release https://github.com/zack-bitcoin/AmoveoMinerGpuCuda
18:52
Deleted Account
Any place in your pool where see the miner hs?
Z
18:55
Zack
no
18:56
Maybe we should do a hard for now before their side becomes longer
19:11
Looks like Amoveopool2 won the fork, the 51% attack continues.
19:13
Deleted Account
it is curious that the web UI is out of date until it wins
19:13
it must be looking at a different node to the mining pool
Z
19:13
Zack
Almost like they wanted to hide their attack.
G
19:13
Gonzalo
amoveopool2 says Zacks pool won the last blocks, but OK node says amoveopool2 won the blocks
19:13
Z
19:13
Zack
Yes.
19:15
Deleted Account
I think the amoveopool2 frontend is using a different node for display - @potat_o mentioned something about that earlier today
Z
19:16
Zack
DO NOT USE AMOVEOPOOL2 which is the default pool for the miner.
They are doing a 51% attack.
They are doing a 51% attack.
Zack pinned this message
19:17
Deleted Account
wtf is going on?
O
19:17
Oliver
?
19:18
Deleted Account
Z
Zack 21.03.2018 19:16:23
DO NOT USE AMOVEOPOOL2 which is the default pool for the miner.
They are doing a 51% attack.
They are doing a 51% attack.
O
19:18
Oliver
Aeternity is attacking?
Z
G
19:19
Gonzalo
ts
19:19
thomas s
havent followed for a few days, can I get some cliffnotes on what's going on
19:19
Deleted Account
So I guess I'm not quite sure what this 'attack' is and why it's necessary
Z
19:20
Zack
Amoveopool2 is ignoring any blocks made by anyone else, and building it's own longest fork. Since it has 51% hashpower currently, it can get away with it.
MH
19:21
Mandel Hoff
Fix your node code Zack so it doesn't have a 51% attack DEFAULT BEHAVIOR! The nodes behaved like this when Batman got all the blocks. The nodes behaved like this when kassel got all the blocks on your node. The nodes behaved like this when the old pool got most of the block. The node behaves like this on the new pool. That's 4 separate operators on the same default node code with the same problem
Z
19:22
Zack
In reply to this message
It was a default behaviour at one point, but that was fixed aleady. The day when I figured out that the mining pool was waiting 40 seconds before updating the data that way being worked on.
MH
19:22
Mandel Hoff
The only intentional attack happening by anyone here by Zack on the good will over the community. You can't hard fork to get that back. It's lost.
G
19:23
Gonzalo
In reply to this message
I was thinking something like this... More than an attack it seems to me like a "feature"
MH
19:23
Mandel Hoff
OK reported to you that it still exists yesterday - when we migrated users to the new pool, the old pool submitted 17 blocks in 2 hours and none of them were accepted. We reported that and wanted you aware that the node was still ignoring blocks, because we are not looking to do 51% attacks.
Z
19:24
Zack
None of the other nodes are ignoring blocks. they all sync properly.
19:25
Deleted Account
@Mandelhoff do the amoveopool/amovepool2 node(s) have port 8080 open to the world? they seem to be hidden away
Z
19:26
Zack
Yes. it is not clear which if any of the nodes are running your mining pool.
Maybe your node is behind a fire wall, so we can't send it headers, so it refuses to download our blocks.
Maybe your node is behind a fire wall, so we can't send it headers, so it refuses to download our blocks.
19:27
Deleted Account
Zack if that is the case, and it is not possible to change the design to not require incoming connections, maybe nodes could refuse to accept blocks from peers they cannot connect back to and acknowledge the new block?
Z
19:27
Zack
we can't make 51% attacks impossible.
So long as more than 51% of people give their hash power to a single pool, it will be easy for that pool to do this attack.
So long as more than 51% of people give their hash power to a single pool, it will be easy for that pool to do this attack.
G
19:28
Gonzalo
Anyway I think there should be at least 3 pools, none of them accepting more than 1/3 of the network's hash power
19:28
Deleted Account
agreed, distributed has is ideal, but that will not happen if it is not possible for other pools to submit blocks to the network...
G
MH
19:29
Mandel Hoff
In reply to this message
Yes, they use port 8080 and 8085. The amoveopool2.com pool runs on a separate IP address as the erlang node and pool. The amoveopool2.com is just a wrapper to the erlang pool that tracks miner work and passes out shares and manages payments.
19:29
Deleted Account
if the 51% attack was intentional, then we are at the mercy of the attackers... however if it is an emergent behavoiur of the current design, perhaps it can be changed?
Z
19:29
Zack
In reply to this message
so what is the url where I should send headers when my pool finds a block?
MH
19:30
Mandel Hoff
I think it's on the network explorer page as "OK''s node.
Z
19:31
Deleted Account
Zack are you not willing to consider the possibility that there is a bug triggered during forks that causes nodes to (effectively) ignore valid blocks from peers?
MH
19:31
Mandel Hoff
It probably crashed then. I saw several payments backed up complaints earlier. You suspected it crashed and that's likely why it's not accepting.
19:31
Deleted Account
that is what I mean by intentional vs unintentional 51% attack
G
19:32
Gonzalo
nodes get out of sync quite easy, so maybe amoveopool outsynced and then forked, nothing intentional
19:33
Deleted Account
@Mandelhoff if it crashed, then why does it come back a bit later with a long chain?
Z
19:33
Zack
if a node isn't accepting blocks, then it woulnd't be possible to mine them either.
19:35
Deleted Account
Zack why not? can't the network, in theory, just be a single node that mines a block chain without any outside transactions?
G
19:37
Gonzalo
In reply to this message
Idea: could you also add who found the latest block on every node?
Z
19:40
Zack
In reply to this message
you can see who found each block according to a node on explorer.html
19:42
Maybe this is because we didn't fork to destroy batman's coins.
Now people think that they can run bad code, and we will honor their profits anyway.
Now people think that they can run bad code, and we will honor their profits anyway.
Z
19:45
Zack
Only Mandel and OK can know the answer to that.
But it is in their interest to not find out.
But it is in their interest to not find out.
G
S
19:48
Sy
Such Paranoia...wow
G
19:48
Gonzalo
so fun
S
19:48
Sy
True
G
19:49
Gonzalo
come on people, we need 2 more pools here!
Z
19:49
Zack
Here is what we can know:
Amoveo's tests for forking are all passing.
The blockchain had a period of time for thousands of blocks when blocks were being accepted from any node. It worked even for 1 minute blocks. There were 3 mining pools, and Mandel even said that when he finds a block it gets included over 90% of the time.
Given all this, it seems unlikely that the node is ignoring blocks
Amoveo's tests for forking are all passing.
The blockchain had a period of time for thousands of blocks when blocks were being accepted from any node. It worked even for 1 minute blocks. There were 3 mining pools, and Mandel even said that when he finds a block it gets included over 90% of the time.
Given all this, it seems unlikely that the node is ignoring blocks
P|
G
Z
19:50
Zack
Stop mining on amoveopool2 launch more pools. Use different pools.
G
19:51
Gonzalo
Zack your pool is broken now
P|
19:51
Paul N. | BAND (🅑) - I'll never DM you
Can we get someone to develop an open source pool UI?
19:51
because that's why people don't use your pool
G
19:51
Gonzalo
true
19:52
Deleted Account
I think that not receiving payouts is a bigger reason Paul ... because they're being reversed when amoveopool2 wins the fork
19:52
I mined almost 3 VEO on Zack's pool, it was paid out to me, now it is gone
G
19:52
Gonzalo
I'm using it since 3 days ago for just for testing, trying to help a little, but obviously I prefer some fancy UI
MF
19:53
Mr Flintstone
I seriously doubt amoveopool2 is intentionally 51% attacking
19:53
but it definitely sucks if there is reversion...
G
19:53
Greg
In reply to this message
I think people are lazy, they want a Windows miner with a web GUI because this is what they are used to.
Z
19:54
Zack
I am pretty sure people only use AmoveoPool2 because the payments get reverted on any other pool, because of the 51% attack.
MH
19:54
Mandel Hoff
In reply to this message
Yesterday, OK and I reported 0 of 17 blocks across 2 hours were not propagating properly. Fix your node code.
P|
Z
19:55
Zack
Also, it is a lot of effort to type in all the different things to make the miner join any pool besides amoveopool2.
P|
19:57
Paul N. | BAND (🅑) - I'll never DM you
Again, what are the concrete steps we can helps? As a small, or non-miner of course.
19:57
If the problem is in the protocol level, we can't help.
S
19:57
Sy
We use amoveopool because it has a nice interface and works most of the time
Z
19:57
Zack
It is really hard to fix, because you can't earn any money mining anywhere besides amoveopool2.
S
19:58
Sy
Concentrate your time on stabilizing the node and more ppl would probably run a pool themselves, me included but it's pointless if it looses sync as often as it does now...
G
19:58
Gonzalo
In reply to this message
Im pretty sure they are not intentional attacking the network. I think we have to calm down a little...
P|
19:58
Paul N. | BAND (🅑) - I'll never DM you
@Mandelhoff what about we all halt the minings and let Zack make the network more bulle tproof?
19:58
I think we should all come to some compromises
S
19:59
Was meant to "all stop mining"
P|
19:59
Paul N. | BAND (🅑) - I'll never DM you
In reply to this message
It will if Zack says he'll stop everything right here and now
S
19:59
Sy
Unlikely...
P|
19:59
Paul N. | BAND (🅑) - I'll never DM you
All money spent mining will be gone
19:59
nobody wants that
S
20:00
Sy
But would still not happen, thanks for the reduced hashrate
20:00
All 20% Zack earned will be gone as well, that's over 2k veo...
P|
20:00
Paul N. | BAND (🅑) - I'll never DM you
He can always startover
20:00
lol
S
20:00
Sy
Be realistic, examine, improve, work it out
20:01
All those stopping, hardfork get or any other coin balance manipulation is madness
MF
20:01
Mr Flintstone
why would we restart the chain cuz the biggest pool’s node is inadvertently ignoring everyone else’s blocks
20:01
seems like we should just fix that problem
P|
20:01
Paul N. | BAND (🅑) - I'll never DM you
Zack said at the beginning that the coin has 15% chance of surviving a month, remember?
S
20:01
Sy
Amoveopool is accepting txs, I send out several yesterday over my node
20:02
Examine the block problem and work it out, it's in mandels interest to keep the pool running long term
20:02
Stop going full retard panic mode
MF
20:02
Mr Flintstone
things will become more clear when OK is online
G
MF
20:02
Mr Flintstone
In reply to this message
yeah this is not that big of a deal and panicking just turns it into one
S
20:03
Sy
It's stuff that happens in most coin projects, mostly since something in the node was wrong after all
P|
20:03
Paul N. | BAND (🅑) - I'll never DM you
I'm suggesting a solution. If you dislike it, you dislike it.
S
20:03
Sy
I mined fine next to mandels pool up to block 7000 I think
G
20:03
Gonzalo
tell us
S
20:03
Sy
So did many others
20:04
Like Zack said, might be a timing problem, which can be fixed in the node
MF
20:04
Mr Flintstone
In reply to this message
the reasonable solution is to get all involved parties together before making rash decisions
S
20:04
Sy
Yeah
MF
20:04
Mr Flintstone
OK isn’t even online
S
20:04
Sy
Make the node more stable, more pools will be run, easy
Z
P|
S
20:04
Sy
Mandel will loose 50% majority
Z
20:05
Zack
I think we need to make a release of the GPU miner that doesn't have any mining pool encoded in by default.
20:05
So you have to type in the location of a mining pool
P|
20:06
Paul N. | BAND (🅑) - I'll never DM you
There's a problem in protocol level, and the parties that can solve the problem are 1) Developer and 2) Pool Operator. Not miners.
MF
G
Z
20:07
Zack
If 90% of miners are in one pool, then it is in the interest of the pool operator to do the 51% attack, and there is nothing I can do about it.
G
20:07
Gonzalo
miners are just miners, they point their power wherever they get more money, simple as that
MF
20:07
Mr Flintstone
In reply to this message
Not if the pool operator is concerned about long term health of amoveo
P|
20:08
Paul N. | BAND (🅑) - I'll never DM you
In reply to this message
Wrong, you can say it's over, and restart the whole thing. That way pool operator will stop and cooperate.
20:08
Nobody wants to loose money.
G
MF
20:08
Mr Flintstone
this is literally only in the case of a malicious pool operator
Z
20:08
Zack
In reply to this message
this sounds like a potential solution.
If we restart now, then people will know not to do things like this in the future.
If we restart now, then people will know not to do things like this in the future.
P|
20:08
Paul N. | BAND (🅑) - I'll never DM you
Yep
20:08
That's more like you
20:09
A little retarded, but solve the problem
20:09
no offence 😂
Z
20:09
Zack
But which point in history would we restart at?
MF
20:09
Mr Flintstone
In reply to this message
what if this is because of faulty node code and not malicious intent? What is the point of restarting then?
G
Z
20:10
Zack
In reply to this message
There was a long period of history where multiple mining pools were correctly downloading blocks from each other
20:11
In reply to this message
the only way to get the miners to spread out into more than 1 pool is if we punish miners who join pools that are too big.
G
P|
20:11
Paul N. | BAND (🅑) - I'll never DM you
but we still have the real problem though
MF
20:11
Mr Flintstone
In reply to this message
didn’t the 51% attack start happening in the last 10 hours?
P|
20:11
Paul N. | BAND (🅑) - I'll never DM you
all this may happen again
Z
20:11
Zack
I guess we should try identify the most recent block that wasn't mined by amoveopool2, and consider restarting there.
P|
20:11
Paul N. | BAND (🅑) - I'll never DM you
if nothing in the code is fixed
Z
S
20:12
Sy
I'm out again, no point anyway and no time, there were several trades done on this coin before, Zack included. Resetting will seriously hurt everyone
20:12
And the hashlower will just return, more than earlier because it's already waiting
20:12
Power
20:13
It will just happen again
P|
20:13
Paul N. | BAND (🅑) - I'll never DM you
Have we identified what's wrong in the protocol level yet?
20:13
And what's the fix?
G
20:13
Gonzalo
I'll first try to find out why nodes lose sync every day...
*I'd
*I'd
P|
20:13
Paul N. | BAND (🅑) - I'll never DM you
If it's not fixed, then no point in resetting anything Zack
MF
20:13
Mr Flintstone
I would assume that the node is not stable, O K went to sleep, something broke, and the node is not accepting outside blocks
20:14
the nodes work fine if you can manually maintain them every few hours
G
MH
MF
20:16
Mr Flintstone
In reply to this message
in no way does this situation call for a social layer chain reversion
Z
20:17
Zack
I notice that once amoveopool's fork became longest, my node switched to amoveopool's fork.
It seems that we do correctly recover from forks, even ones that are 9 blocks big.
It seems that we do correctly recover from forks, even ones that are 9 blocks big.
20:17
Only Amoveopool2 is refusing to download anyone else's blocks.
MF
20:18
Mr Flintstone
the only reason why this is a 51% attack is because amoveopool2 just so happened to have majority hash rate
MH
20:18
Mandel Hoff
Yes, otherwise amoveopool2 would just be on a fork due to the crash. Fix the node crashes please.
20:21
Deleted Account
Zack is the winning fork chosen based on total work or just total height? I'm only vaguely familiar with it but I think BTC looks at the difficulty of each block in the chain when deciding which is "longer"
20:21
a "tie breaker" if you will
MF
Z
20:21
Zack
In reply to this message
so you admit that you are refusing to download blocks, and the reason you do this is to avoid crashing? or do I misunderstand?
20:22
In reply to this message
total work. but in every period of 2000 blocks, each block has the same amount of work.
20:23
Deleted Account
Am I the only miner here that just wants shit to work and for people to get off their soap boxes? lol
OK
20:23
O K
It is not the pool it is Zack's nodes
Z
20:23
Zack
All the other nodes are syncing blocks correctly.
MF
20:24
Mr Flintstone
In reply to this message
this is only true if you are able to constantly make sure the node is operating correctly because they crash so frequently
MH
20:25
Mandel Hoff
In reply to this message
I'm pretty certain all node operators are running your github master branch code with no modifications, and the node is behaving exactly as you coded it to behave.
Z
20:26
Zack
@potat_o what is the url to send headers so that your node will download blocks found by other pools?
G
OK
20:32
O K
Sorry guys, I just woke up and I sleep with a laptop ssh'd to the node next to my bed. Right now i'm getting caught up, and working on resolving
G
20:32
Gonzalo
Zack maybe Im wrong but for me there's no point that a pool that has way more than 51% power, say 99%, wants to attack the network to win 100% of the blocks. This will for sure devalue VEO's price more than this 1% they will eventually get... so...
Z
20:33
Zack
In reply to this message
yes obviously they wouldn't do it on purpose. I don't think anyone has suggested otherwise.
OK
20:34
O K
Is there a command to clear the tx pool zack?
Z
20:35
Zack
tx_pool:dump().
OK
20:35
O K
Thank you
20:35
Before I resync the node is there any troubleshooting information to be gained?
20:36
I believe it's corrupted again like happened the other day
Z
20:37
Zack
I want to know what is the url where I should send headers so that your pool will accept them?
OK
20:38
O K
What does your tx pool look like, I'm afraid the pool has many duplicate transactions
20:38
I don't understand the question, I haven't had my coffee yet
20:38
What URL do you want, the node?
Z
20:38
Zack
who's tx? who are you talking to?
20:39
Sometimes my pool finds blocks. And it needs to send headers to your pool so that you will know to download those blocks.
Right now your pool doesn't accept my headers no matter who I send them to.
Right now your pool doesn't accept my headers no matter who I send them to.
20:39
So I am wondering, which url should I use to make sure that your node will accept the header
OK
20:40
O K
What's up with the pinned message Zack?
20:40
I don't like waking up to bullshit like this
Z
20:40
Zack
If you fix the problem, then I can get rid of the message
OK
20:40
O K
You want my nodes URL?
Z
20:40
Zack
but right now you are not answering questions, so we can't get to a solution.
OK
20:40
O K
Yeah I haven't had my fucking coffee and you're being a bit rude
Z
20:40
Zack
I have to leave to meet with my immigration person
20:41
Since I am giving up my nationality to be able to support Amoveo better.
OK
20:41
O K
I support you
20:41
Answer me simply
20:41
What URL do you want
Z
20:41
Zack
the one for the node that your mining pool uses to know what block to mine on
OK
20:41
O K
Yes, here:
Z
20:42
Zack
?
OK
20:42
It's on the public record
20:42
20:42
I'm surprised no one else was able to answer this for you
Z
20:43
Zack
yes, I have tried sending headers there, but it does not accept
OK
20:43
O K
Yes, the node is corrupted like happened the other day, it needs to be cleaned and resynced
20:44
Right now I'm concerned about duplicate payments to miners
20:44
If my tx pool is empty, and I resync now
20:44
Is there any possibility of duplicate payments being on another node's txpool
20:46
Do other node's txpool look massive?
Z
20:48
Zack
I don't understand the potential problem you are trying to describe. my tx pool is empty.
OK
20:49
O K
Okay, thank you
20:49
Is there any troubleshooting information to be grabbed from my node before I take it down and clean, restart?
Z
20:49
Zack
if you send me the crash log, it might help
OK
20:50
O K
Okay, but I'm not sure it crashed. Working on it now
Z
20:50
Zack
one of the gen_servers crashes every few minutes at least.
MH
20:51
Mandel Hoff
Is this still the log file location that is most helpful for the node?
_build/prod/rel/amoveo_core/log/crash.log
_build/prod/rel/amoveo_core/log/crash.log
Z
20:51
Zack
right
OK
20:52
O K
Brining it back up now
20:52
I'm going to set up some way that key people can reach me at night
20:53
I can't leave telegram up I'd never sleep at all
20:53
Any suggestions welcome
20:53
I'm happy to be on call for emergencies, but want to avoid questions like "pool up" from people who don't have an F5 key on their keyboard
Z
20:54
Zack
if you give me an email address or whatsapp number, I can contact you for emergencies
OK
20:54
O K
I'll make one that will get past do not disturb, and give it to you
20:57
halfway synced
B
20:58
BG5EHI
Does amoveopool2 work now?
OK
20:58
O K
Do we have an estimate when this problem began
20:58
It will in just a moment BG5, syncing the node
21:03
Should be good ⛵️
Z
21:03
Zack
The attack wasn't as bad as I had thought. someone different got a block at 10190
B
21:04
BG5EHI
i have 200 GPUS,i need config the cmd for each GPU.😓😭
Z
21:05
Zack
Lots of information about Amoveo here:
https://github.com/zack-bitcoin/amoveo/blob/master/docs/design/hard_drive_consumption.md
Here is the mining pool I am running: http://159.65.120.84:8085/
https://github.com/zack-bitcoin/amoveo/blob/master/docs/design/hard_drive_consumption.md
Here is the mining pool I am running: http://159.65.120.84:8085/
Zack pinned this message
G
21:07
Greg
In reply to this message
I don't think this is so easy. It could result in two chain and a community split. "Amoveo Classic"
Z
G
P|
21:09
Paul N. | BAND (🅑) - I'll never DM you
@Zack can you use domain name instead of IP for the pool? Say, pool.amoveo.io
21:09
that'll be muc heasier to type and remember, plus it looks super legit
B
21:09
BG5EHI
use zack's pool,get work fail😓
OK
21:10
O K
In reply to this message
You don't have to stop the GPUs if the pool goes offline briefly, also you should learn scripting!
Z
G
21:11
Gonzalo
not me, I told you long ago that your pool is down
21:11
Z
G
Z
21:12
Zack
that node is going to be used for market and channels now, no more mining
G
21:13
Gonzalo
?
Z
N
Z
G
N
21:20
NM$L
I have many 1080ti*6 card . But Get 2g with 6 card compared 3.5g with 1card
21:21
annoying me
G
21:27
Deleted Account
I'm running into that issue with 5 cards right now
21:28
Wish I could replace the celeron with an i5, but the cost difference almost isn't worth it
I?
21:28
IMPLENIA - Crypto Fund 🇸🇨 🇨🇭
Hi, who can install the Amoveo mining software on Amazon (aws.amazon.com)? Pay in BTC, ETH or LTC.
N
21:38
I don't want to change my cpu. a little wasteful
21:41
Zack why my shares only 1?
21:43
Deleted Account
what's the shares mean?
N
21:44
NM$L
Info：not valid share. Diffuculty too low.
21:44
what's the problem.. Guys
Z
MH
21:47
Mandel Hoff
In reply to this message
When the block hash puzzle changes, a solution you find may no longer be appropriate for the current bhash.
Z
21:47
Zack
In reply to this message
I can't control the messages made by the miner. maybe nothing is wrong.
21:48
Deleted Account
Z
21:51
Zack
looks good. you have 4039 shares
21:51
over time the shares will be converted to veo
21:52
Deleted Account
ok tks
Z
21:54
Zack
our pool should find 1 block for every 2000 shares or so.
Since you have 0 veo, this means that the 51% attack is probably ongoing.
Since you have 0 veo, this means that the 51% attack is probably ongoing.
OK
21:55
O K
(in other words, the stock nodes are still not cooperating with each other as would be expected on a typical blockchain)
Z
21:58
Zack
10277 was mined by someone other than amoveopool, so it looks like the 51% attack is not ongoing
21:58
amoveopool correctly downloaded this block
G
21:59
Gonzalo
great
22:00
Zack did your old pool pay the balances left?
Z
22:02
Zack
One instance paid too much, and I lost some Veo.
Making it work with shares is a little complicated, sorry the new pool is not perfect yet.
Making it work with shares is a little complicated, sorry the new pool is not perfect yet.
22:03
http://159.65.120.84:8085/main.html
Now there is a button to look up how many shares are in the pool.
Now there is a button to look up how many shares are in the pool.
G
Z
22:14
Zack
Right, there is a little back pay I still need to give you.
Right now I am leaving for immigration stuff. I'll probably be back in a couple hours.
Right now I am leaving for immigration stuff. I'll probably be back in a couple hours.
G
22:15
Gonzalo
dont worry, this is way more important right now
22:15
👍
22:31
you owned a farm?
I
23:10
Iridescence
Wow much drama
23:11
GPU whale
Z
23:13
Zack
Once again, someone other than Amoveopool2 found a block, and amoveopool2 built on top.
This is a second confirmation that the network is working properly again.
This is a second confirmation that the network is working properly again.
23:16
Deleted Account
23:16
Now Does mine work well?
23:16
Just start
OK
23:16
O K
👍
23:17
Looks good
23:17
first
OK
23:17
O K
Congrats :)
23:17
Deleted Account
lol
OK
23:18
O K
Mining is fun
23:18
Deleted Account
Interesting ;) I need more gpus
IP
23:19
I P
hew guys wanted to hop onto amoveo mining with my pc as it has 2x1070 but i saw that 'drama' on telegram and got confused
23:19
can i start mining on amoveopool2?
23:19
Deleted Account
yes
IP
23:20
I P
thank you, i'm a total noob in this will try to figure out how to start
23:20
Deleted Account
Im starting right now
23:21
install cuda 9.1 & visual studio 2015
23:22
Me 2 noob
Z
S
23:29
Sy
So it was a node error...
23:29
Like I said, concentrate on the nodes, it will fix everything else
Z
23:29
Zack
Upon further reflection, I realize that I was over reacting about the 51% attack.
I should have done things more quietly and calmly to not upset the users so much.
I should have said things differently to not be so accusatory towards @potat_o and @Mandelhoff .
Sorry for my poor behavior, I will do better going forward.
I should have done things more quietly and calmly to not upset the users so much.
I should have said things differently to not be so accusatory towards @potat_o and @Mandelhoff .
Sorry for my poor behavior, I will do better going forward.
S
23:30
Sy
There are plenty with enough hashpower to solo mine but why bother watching your node 24/7 if we got pools that do so
Z
MH
23:30
Mandel Hoff
In reply to this message
Thank you for this. I greatly appreciate your statements.
S
23:31
Sy
👍
IP
23:32
I P
wow great i'm glad it all worked out ok
I
IP
23:32
I P
i mean the fun part is several days ago i wanted to start but my pc got broken. i fixed it, wanted to start now and saw that warning and got confused. and now at last i started, yay!
23:35
Deleted Account
How often does it mine? 1080
OK
23:39
Deleted Account
👍
OK
23:40
O K
Has anyone compiled a list of useful links re: Amoveo (say, statistics, the github, recommended reading)
23:42
I think I'll try to do this today if maybe the day continues quietly like yesterday
23:42
🤞
Z
OK
23:45
O K
Feel free to use what I compile
Z
23:47
Zack
ok, I just updated the readme to include the statistics page, and got rid of some old links.
G
23:49
Gonzalo
In reply to this message
Great! this reflection alongside the birth of my fourth nephew a few minutes ago are the best of the day 😍👍
Z
OK
23:50
O K
Wow! congratulations Gonzalo
G
23:50
Gonzalo
thanks 👍
MH
G
23:55
Gonzalo
thank you! The first one was great... now the fourth is more like routine. People do kids like... 😁
23:56
plop! look, another one... haha
22 March 2018
00:08
Deleted Account
Im mining anything for 1 hour with one 1080. Is it ok?
00:09
Deleted Account
so is there little chance to be relaunched. seems like i need more 1080ti
OK
00:09
O K
It's going to take some time for 1 GPU to accumulate a significant balance, don't "watch paint dry"
00:10
Deleted Account
any chance of building a miner for AMD gpu
00:11
Deleted Account
😭
IP
00:33
I P
how long does it take to earn unpaid balance with such a low hashrate like mine?
MH
00:36
Mandel Hoff
I have 3 GPU (750, 1050, 1060) that run 24/7, and on the current difficulty they are earning somewhere around 0.3 to 0.4 veo per day.
OK
00:36
O K
How long have you been mining, and what is the hashrate reported by the console on your computer?
IP
01:00
I P
In reply to this message
well i don't know, i've started mining on several of my computers more than an hour ago (i'm a nerd lol), this is the link to dashbord http://amoveopool2.com/miner?address=BOb%2FV41YniIpx2%2BSEonqlmSH6IKpBQVDd3h%2FmXkNckd4Gh%2BRarv%2Bj8yMMWvBxt2kw82LK0G9L%2BKzaLdibDfD9nQ%3D for some reason all balances are 0, am i doing something wrong?
OK
01:01
O K
For one thing only GPU are worth using, not CPU
IP
01:01
I P
yeah i run cudaminer
MH
01:02
Mandel Hoff
Unpaid Balance is credited with a 10 block delay to avoid orphaned-forks so blocks you have participated on likely have just not yet been Confirmed.
IP
01:02
I P
ah, thanks for the info, i get it now
02:29
Deleted Account
02:29
Who is this and how many freakin' GPU's do you have
02:59
Deleted Account
03:00
hi Zack ,is it seems right?
I
03:00
Iridescence
In reply to this message
The website hashrate fluctuates a lot and isn't super reliable
03:25
Deleted Account
Zack, is work received from port 3011 after the fork, or does 8081 still work? In your code it says you are using 3011.
03:25
*in your pool code
03:53
Deleted Account
I have to call sync:get_headers/1 all the time to get new headers, it does not seem like it's syncing by itself, is this a bug?
04:54
Deleted Account
Would anyone happen to have the optimal tesla v100 settings? I tried Mandels listed in his gpu setup, and it has a wicked high hash rate, but no shares found.
I
04:55
Iridescence
At all?
OK
04:56
O K
How high is wicked high?
JM
04:57
J M
i noticed sometimes the hashrate is suspiciously high for some values, like 100x what seems reasonable and doesn't seem to get any shares
04:58
i wanna say around 4000 Mh/s was as high as I could get
I
04:58
Iridescence
When that happens, it means that the GPU kernel isn't running correctly and is exiting too early
JM
04:59
J M
interesting
I
04:59
Iridescence
I have seen it on my miner too
04:59
Usually caused by bad GPU parameters
05:00
Deleted Account
05:00
Like that wicked high
I
05:01
Iridescence
Try increasing numblocks
05:02
Deleted Account
Right now I'm set to 192/168
05:03
blocksize/numblocks
05:03
Would you have a better suggestion on the numbers?
05:03
Deleted Account
my best experience with V100 was 128 / 2048
05:04
Deleted Account
05:04
What I"m getting with those current numbers
05:04
So 128 blocksize 2048 numblocks?
05:04
Deleted Account
yes
I
05:04
Iridescence
4 GH seems reasonable
05:04
Deleted Account
^that's what I was thinking as well
05:05
I'll give it a shot @kransekake
05:05
Deleted Account
sure, if you find something better, please let me know :)
05:05
Deleted Account
Will do, thanks!
05:06
Looks like that's pushing out 6Gh
05:06
We'll see how it does with finding shares
Z
05:33
In reply to this message
The full node gets work on 8081. The mining pool gets work on 8085.
Where do you see 3011?
Where do you see 3011?
Z
05:39
Zack
In reply to this message
That is an old commit from 10 days ago.
His is the current master branch code: https://github.com/zack-bitcoin/amoveo-mining-pool/blob/master/apps/amoveo_mining_pool/src/mining_pool_server.erl#L5
His is the current master branch code: https://github.com/zack-bitcoin/amoveo-mining-pool/blob/master/apps/amoveo_mining_pool/src/mining_pool_server.erl#L5
05:41
https://github.com/zack-bitcoin/amoveo-mining-pool/blob/shares/apps/amoveo_mining_pool/src/config.erl#L5
Here is current shares branch code. It moves the url into a configuration file
Here is current shares branch code. It moves the url into a configuration file
05:43
Deleted Account
cheers :)
07:35
Deleted Account
Zack something strange! I can see my mining balance 0 in mobile phone but 17.32 in PC
07:35
Why they different?
Z
07:36
Zack
Please give more details.
Where are you looking this up?
Where are you looking this up?
07:37
07:37
Z
07:37
Zack
That is a closed source pool. I can't look at the code.
I am guessing that you entered the wrong key on your phone.
I am guessing that you entered the wrong key on your phone.
07:38
Deleted Account
samething
Z
07:38
Zack
Anyways, I am the wrong person to ask.
OK
07:38
O K
The pool uses various nodes from the Amoveo network for statistics
07:39
Some of the nodes are not synced
07:39
This causes your problem
07:39
Deleted Account
How can I see exact balance?
OK
07:39
O K
Choos your favorite node, probably Zack's
07:39
and check it in the light wallet or explorer
07:39
Deleted Account
Where can I choose?
Z
07:40
You can see which are synced properly
OK
07:40
O K
That's what I was looking for
07:41
Deleted Account
I check at explorer, Thx : )
OK
07:59
O K
I added a disclaimer, hopefully that will reduce the frequency of that question
J
08:04
BTW, it would be good to get a redirect from a subdirectory or subdomain of amoveo.io to the stats page. I'll keep it there for the forseeable future.
Z
08:23
Deleted Account
08:24
last about 10 hours
Z
08:26
Zack
In reply to this message
at height 10338 it is paying a reward to someone
It pays out once you have >0.5 Veo
It pays out once you have >0.5 Veo
Z
08:29
Zack
It takes about 10 blocks for the shares to get converted to veo to get all your payments.
How much have you been paid? what is your address?
How much have you been paid? what is your address?
08:29
Deleted Account
BBX9SCEkXGydrhgfD37RfMORvcdn4D/TywJafXIrWvBjeqPQDLlzWg4l7fh7CGiI10rW1/UR2W10f38Jl5w/kfc=
08:30
where can i find the pool pay?
Z
08:31
Deleted Account
your pool paid
Z
08:36
Zack
In reply to this message
amoveo_utils:address_history("BBX9SCEkXGydrhgfD37RfMORvcdn4D/TywJafXIrWvBjeqPQDLlzWg4l7fh7CGiI10rW1/UR2W10f38Jl5w/kfc=").
received 50406199 from BPWNDtqSxVx5z1LLHKf39ks6M0uRMIWYVIWd5PPgRofi+mB1xuPyplCYEPRwqLDHbdpFaKPhJ07IB+bGFqbGlfs= at 10338
received 163126366 from BKdkHXUeBIgzqyQ0morfNcw2AKIc/n1NAt0pK34ESnaC62mpSSMAqMsArWIqcyWWACdIL9r82UhnuUJIbueRH04= at 10286
received 163235096 from BKdkHXUeBIgzqyQ0morfNcw2AKIc/n1NAt0pK34ESnaC62mpSSMAqMsArWIqcyWWACdIL9r82UhnuUJIbueRH04= at 10286
received 128714796 from BKdkHXUeBIgzqyQ0morfNcw2AKIc/n1NAt0pK34ESnaC62mpSSMAqMsArWIqcyWWACdIL9r82UhnuUJIbueRH04= at 10284
received 128996994 from BKdkHXUeBIgzqyQ0morfNcw2AKIc/n1NAt0pK34ESnaC62mpSSMAqMsArWIqcyWWACdIL9r82UhnuUJIbueRH04= at 10284
received 145315534 from BKdkHXUeBIgzqyQ0morfNcw2AKIc/n1NAt0pK34ESnaC62mpSSMAqMsArWIqcyWWACdIL9r82UhnuUJIbueRH04= at 10284
received 107509651 from BKdkHXUeBIgzqyQ0morfNcw2AKIc/n1NAt0pK34ESnaC62mpSSMAqMsArWIqcyWWACdIL9r82UhnuUJIbueRH04= at 10284
received 282250497 from BKdkHXUeBIgzqyQ0morfNcw2AKIc/n1NAt0pK34ESnaC62mpSSMAqMsArWIqcyWWACdIL9r82UhnuUJIbueRH04= at 10282
received 121023416 from BKdkHXUeBIgzqyQ0morfNcw2AKIc/n1NAt0pK34ESnaC62mpSSMAqMsArWIqcyWWACdIL9r82UhnuUJIbueRH04= at 10282
received 107874143 from BKdkHXUeBIgzqyQ0morfNcw2AKIc/n1NAt0pK34ESnaC62mpSSMAqMsArWIqcyWWACdIL9r82UhnuUJIbueRH04= at 10282
received 105801021 from BKdkHXUeBIgzqyQ0morfNcw2AKIc/n1NAt0pK34ESnaC62mpSSMAqMsArWIqcyWWACdIL9r82UhnuUJIbueRH04= at 10282
received 113320205 from BKdkHXUeBIgzqyQ0morfNcw2AKIc/n1NAt0pK34ESnaC62mpSSMAqMsArWIqcyWWACdIL9r82UhnuUJIbueRH04= at 10282
received 158666931 from BKdkHXUeBIgzqyQ0morfNcw2AKIc/n1NAt0pK34ESnaC62mpSSMAqMsArWIqcyWWACdIL9r82UhnuUJIbueRH04= at 10282
received 108379136 from BKdkHXUeBIgzqyQ0morfNcw2AKIc/n1NAt0pK34ESnaC62mpSSMAqMsArWIqcyWWACdIL9r82UhnuUJIbueRH04= at 10282
received 113513587 from BKdkHXUeBIgzqyQ0morfNcw2AKIc/n1NAt0pK34ESnaC62mpSSMAqMsArWIqcyWWACdIL9r82UhnuUJIbueRH04= at 10282
received 124178703 from BKdkHXUeBIgzqyQ0morfNcw2AKIc/n1NAt0pK34ESnaC62mpSSMAqMsArWIqcyWWACdIL9r82UhnuUJIbueRH04= at 10282
gave 4200000000 to BLTzJQfChBuTGeQa4wiNeNsp/P/oTurMN5d/1JR1dGtqWJb6vTTWzfnlEZwsRoxLkA8lrSDeywGMhr7iH9mrEnw= at 10271
08:43
Deleted Account
08:43
13 hours ago i have 16 veo in amoveo2 pending confirm
OK
08:43
O K
Hi Pilly, I'm sure you have received that by now
08:44
Deleted Account
Z
08:45
Zack
Yes, I confirm that my pool is failing to pay you. I am working on a solution now.
08:45
Deleted Account
now pending confirm is 0.48 balance is 21.66
Z
09:24
Zack
In reply to this message
Thank you for helping to identify bugs in the pool.
Some of your money is already paid to you, and the rest is sitting in the mempool.
Some of your money is already paid to you, and the rest is sitting in the mempool.
09:25
I pushed a fix of the shares pool. It should be paying out the correct amount automatically now, so I wont have to manually do it this time.
09:26
It looks like there is a 3rd pool now. BHqS
This is good news
This is good news
09:26
All 3 pools appear to be playing together nicely
G
09:41
Gonzalo
great news 👍
Z
10:49
Zack
It looks like it is working to me
10:51
Deleted Account
My balance "Nan"
Z
10:52
Zack
In reply to this message
Why do you think you have a positive balance?
Is it positive on some other node? https://jimhsu.github.io/amoveo-stats/
Is it positive on some other node? https://jimhsu.github.io/amoveo-stats/
10:53
Deleted Account
3hours ago my balance
OK
10:54
O K
what's your address?
10:55
But the address in the picture ends with w0=
10:56
Deleted Account
oh....some mistake!
Z
11:02
Zack
In reply to this message
Ok. I will be back to my computer soon, and I will look into this.
I did manually send about 14 Veo that had failed to go before
I did manually send about 14 Veo that had failed to go before
OK
11:14
O K
Zack are your nodes okay?
Z
11:15
Zack
In reply to this message
After doing manual payments, I had to restart the mining pool fresh.
The first 10 blocks we mine your profit is a little less.
And after you stop mining, for about 10 blocks we find you will continue being paid.
currently you have about 2/5ths of the shares in the pool, so if we find a block, 2/5ths of the reward will go to you.
The first 10 blocks we mine your profit is a little less.
And after you stop mining, for about 10 blocks we find you will continue being paid.
currently you have about 2/5ths of the shares in the pool, so if we find a block, 2/5ths of the reward will go to you.
OK
Z
OK
11:15
O K
It happened very fast
11:23
I'm suspending payments overnight for amoveopool2.com , payments resume in the morning
MF
11:25
Mr Flintstone
Zack, I think your node still needs to re-sync. Sorry if you’re already working on it per OKs comment
Z
11:26
actually, I think the second will stay broken a little longer so that I can try and find out why it crashed.
The mining pool is working.
The mining pool is working.
Z
11:27
Zack
yes, I can see your number of shares increasing right now
11:29
Deleted Account
11:29
it seems some problems a moment ago
Z
11:29
Zack
yes, a moment ago the node was crashed. I had to restart it. It is working now.
Z
11:55
Zack
I noticed that after crashing, sometimes your headers gen_server thinks that there are more blocks than actually exist.
I think this is part of the reason that you cannot recover from the crash.
So I did an upgrade to how blocks are verified. Now you don't tell the headers gen_server about the new block until you are sure it is a valid block.
Maybe this will reduce how often the nodes crash.
I think this is part of the reason that you cannot recover from the crash.
So I did an upgrade to how blocks are verified. Now you don't tell the headers gen_server about the new block until you are sure it is a valid block.
Maybe this will reduce how often the nodes crash.
M
14:09
Mike
Is there an AMD miner?
15:14
Less than 2 minutes block intervals. Huge hashrate increase...
G
15:44
Gonzalo
ops, my nodes are broken as well
15:45
Z
Z
17:08
Zack
It is so weird how they both died at the same height. usually it doesn't happen that way
Deleted invited Deleted Account
18:43
Deleted Account
I'm having a crash when starting the node on my machine after the latest commits, seems there is a gen_server that won't start, giving me a message like:
"{"Kernel pid terminated",application_controller,"{application_start_failure,trie,{{shutdown,{failed_to_start_child,trie01_leaf,{shutdown,{failed_to_start_child,trie01_leaf_bits,{undef,[{hipe_bifs,bitarray,[1000000,false],[]},{bits,init,1..."
"{"Kernel pid terminated",application_controller,"{application_start_failure,trie,{{shutdown,{failed_to_start_child,trie01_leaf,{shutdown,{failed_to_start_child,trie01_leaf_bits,{undef,[{hipe_bifs,bitarray,[1000000,false],[]},{bits,init,1..."
Z
18:43
Zack
this says that you don't have erlang hipe installed.
18:44
sudo apt-get install erlang-base-hipe
18:47
Deleted Account
Ohh thanks, that was it
Z
18:47
Zack
did you reinstall ubuntu? or do an ubuntu update?
18:48
Deleted Account
it was a new server and I thought I had all depdencies
G
19:05
Gonzalo
In reply to this message
same happened to both my nodes, check the screen capture above
Z
19:15
Zack
73 seconds per block now.
And we had just increased the difficulty.
And we had just increased the difficulty.
S
19:36
Sy
Wow
20:02
Deleted Account
mining become so hard now
OK
20:04
O K
🎵 make good money five dollars a day 🎵 make anymore and I'd move away ay 🎵
20:07
Deleted Account
G
20:16
OK
20:16
O K
Doesn't that update on 3 min intervals?
G
20:18
Gonzalo
Maybe its because block are faster than site's update time?
N
20:18
NM$L
now how many G hashrate could mine 1 veo per day?
20:19
Deleted Account
Basically 3 min. And when my node is synced, it checks every 10 sec. When new block is found it fetches data from all peers.
G
20:20
Gonzalo
so yes, blocks are being found faster than 3 minutes
20:20
wow
20:20
Deleted Account
Yes, like two minutes.
G
20:21
Gonzalo
and propagation seems to be slower
20:23
Deleted Account
It seems that my node is out of sync again...3 times a day
Z
20:23
Zack
In reply to this message
yes, it was crashed for about that long. I recently turned it back on.
You kept getting shares while it was crashed, so now you will earn bigger rewards when more blocks are found.
Additionally, I think you missed out on one reward because there was a small fork and a block was undone. So I will send you this reward manually, and soon I will fix the code to handle forks better.
You kept getting shares while it was crashed, so now you will earn bigger rewards when more blocks are found.
Additionally, I think you missed out on one reward because there was a small fork and a block was undone. So I will send you this reward manually, and soon I will fix the code to handle forks better.
20:31
In reply to this message
Thank you for your support in helping to test and refine the open source mining pool. Open source tools like this help support the value of Veo.
20:43
Deleted Account
No server side push-thing is implemented in my stats page.
The webpage only automatically reloads every 2 min (from my server, not from peers directly).
Though the data on my server might be updated quicker.
Will try to use websocket or something when I have time for realtime update.
I'm also wondering what is the appropriate inteval to fetch data from other peers.
If too frequent it's bad for other nodes...?
The webpage only automatically reloads every 2 min (from my server, not from peers directly).
Though the data on my server might be updated quicker.
Will try to use websocket or something when I have time for realtime update.
I'm also wondering what is the appropriate inteval to fetch data from other peers.
If too frequent it's bad for other nodes...?
Z
20:46
Zack
In reply to this message
Requesting data from your own computer, it should be fine to do dozens of requests per second. Possibly hundreds would be fine too.
20:47
Requesting from a different node is much more expensive. The miner I think is programmed to update every 3 seconds.
20:47
If you do more than 10 requests per second to a different node from a single IP address, it will refuse to answer some of the requests.
20:49
Deleted Account
Thank you Zack for suggestion.
K
MF
21:03
Mr Flintstone
anyone betting on zack’s block 12k difficulty market?
OK
21:06
O K
Amoveopool2 fixing node now
N
OK
21:11
O K
Just a couple minutes, not long
Z
21:21
Zack
In reply to this message
the market is down now. I will fix it soon.
You can look at it here: http://159.65.120.84:8080/explorer.html
You can look at it here: http://159.65.120.84:8080/explorer.html
OK
Z
21:22
Zack
In reply to this message
the market accepts bets before during and after the new difficulty is known.
MF
21:23
Mr Flintstone
In reply to this message
yeah I think so. EMH would imply the outcome share prices would be reasonable tho
Z
21:24
Zack
only me so far.
MF
21:24
Mr Flintstone
time has passed but the price has not changed => alpha opportunity
PS
21:48
Patrick Sum
I got nothing from amoveopool2 in the last 208 blocks. Not even any unpaid!
Z
21:59
Zack
In reply to this message
OK temporarily turned off payments while he slept.
There is a lot of risk right now, with the new 3rd mining pool being so big and not talking to us.
OK has a lot of risk that blocks could get undone.
Once he wakes up, he will do a review to make sure the payments are correct, and then he will release the payments.
There is a lot of risk right now, with the new 3rd mining pool being so big and not talking to us.
OK has a lot of risk that blocks could get undone.
Once he wakes up, he will do a review to make sure the payments are correct, and then he will release the payments.
MH
22:00
Mandel Hoff
You can pm me your address, and I can take a quick look at the pool side of things for you.
PS
22:07
So, no one knows who is that BHqSb...?
Z
22:08
Zack
We do not know who it is.
22:09
It is concerning that some unknown pool is getting so many of the blocks. I wonder if they will shut off their node when the difficulty retargets?
22:09
Is someone running a pool in a different language?
22:12
my pool just mined a block. lets see if they build on top of it.
22:13
10747
22:14
Looks like they ignored my block.
This is a bad situation.
This is a bad situation.
22:16
Well, the time stamps on the 2 blocks were about the same, so maybe it is not a 51% attack. Lets wait to see if they keep ignoring blocks from other pools.
IP
22:18
I P
In reply to this message
could you please share the full info? i kind of missed the whole thing
Z
22:18
they got all of the last 30 blocks.
PS
MF
22:23
Mr Flintstone
In reply to this message
I’ve seen them build on top of other blocks before I think
22:23
like last night, they were building on top of amoveopool2’s blocks
IP
22:24
I P
well i'm at that pool, i guess just many people mine at that pool because it is a default pool for cuda miner
Z
22:24
Zack
they built on my 10751. so they are not committing any 51% attack. it was just a random fork before.
MF
22:24
Mr Flintstone
there is a chance their node in encountering similar issues to O K yesterday
22:24
oh, that’s good
Z
IP
22:26
I P
isn't that like the only cuda miner there available? https://github.com/Mandelhoff/AmoveoMinerGpuCuda/releases
Z
22:26
Zack
I think that one connects to amoveopool2 doesn't it?
IP
22:26
I P
yep
22:26
i thought you were talking about amoveopool2
Z
22:26
Zack
oh, my mistake. I thought you were connected to the new pool with an unknown owner
OK
22:32
Deleted Account
mining is too hard for me now
22:33
probably 500 1080ti GPU in the amoveopool
OK
22:33
O K
In reply to this message
Yes, amoveopool2 is the pool I'm running, but we're talking about an even bigger pool, that seems to be private. We don't know who they are
IP
22:34
or an FPGA
Z
22:34
Zack
The first couple times I got nervous when this happened. This time I am not so worried.
IP
22:35
I P
i guess it is not hard to configure an fpga for sha256
22:35
Deleted Account
one block mined by amoveopool, i got 0.002 with my 1080ti
Z
22:35
Zack
if we survived it twice before, I think we can survive again
OK
22:35
O K
👍
Z
22:36
Deleted Account
How can we get FPGA now
22:37
The cost is huge?
Z
22:37
Zack
https://github.com/progranism/Open-Source-FPGA-Bitcoin-Miner
This seems like a good starting point
This seems like a good starting point
22:40
Deleted Account
The board mentioned DE2-115 is about 500 USD
Z
22:41
Zack
Do you think this would be much faster than gpu?
22:42
Deleted Account
probably not
22:43
IP
22:47
I P
it depends upon what fpga
22:47
there are big arrays of fpga chips
22:49
you can have multiple chips on 1 board and a lot of board mounted in 2U and several 2U racks=))
22:49
but i guess those guys are just big on gpu
Z
22:49
Zack
should I try to learn verilog?
IP
22:50
I P
you should focus on amoveo developement=))
MH
22:50
Mandel Hoff
The new miner has their node in VA, USA in Google Cloud. That would be an odd choice for an Asian farm.
Z
G
OK
22:51
O K
GPU instances
G
MH
22:53
Mandel Hoff
Yes, the most likely scenario would be Google cloud GPU instances. Agreed - the scale of their operation is very large.
G
22:54
Gonzalo
if they are really mining from google cloud I expect them to shut down on the next diff increase
OK
22:55
O K
I think that's a very real possibility. We have seen that happen before, and still within a short timeframe block time was back down below target
Z
22:55
Zack
Even if we had 2-hour long blocks, I think it isn't a big deal. It is just more pressure for us to start using the channels.
I
22:56
Iridescence
Blocks definitely aren't 2 hours now
MH
22:56
Mandel Hoff
Previously, there was a very serious mining tool software differential. I don't expect that to be the current scenario.
I
22:56
Iridescence
What's the estimated hashpower of his guy
G
22:57
Gonzalo
yes, this looks like pure brute force
I
22:57
Iridescence
Now difficulty is 12538
22:58
That's about 49 zeros
Z
JW
IP
23:01
I P
actually if that guy mines with rented hashpower we are screwed with current diff algo
OK
Z
MF
IP
23:01
I P
he will jump, take blocks, turn off and we are left at low hashpower and high diff
23:01
diff drops he will return
OK
23:01
O K
I will re-open that domain after the domain name people allow transfer
23:01
amoveopool2.com is functional
IP
23:02
I P
isn't there a better diff algo available?
MF
23:02
Mr Flintstone
I doubt he abandons ship but we will see
OK
23:02
O K
In reply to this message
Yeah, this happened once, we were back below 10 minutes in no time
I
23:02
Iridescence
Finding a block every 3 minutes would take about 3 TH/s
Z
23:03
Zack
In reply to this message
you mean a retargeting algorithm?
There are several ways to attack this part. if we make it more secure against one type of attack, it becomes weaker against other types.
An attacker can write the wrong timestamp on the block.
There are several ways to attack this part. if we make it more secure against one type of attack, it becomes weaker against other types.
An attacker can write the wrong timestamp on the block.
IP
23:03
I P
yep, sad story=(
MF
23:03
Mr Flintstone
it’ll be fine
OK
23:04
O K
👍
JW
MH
23:08
Mandel Hoff
The old pool made over 400 payments exceeding 120 (maybe 140+?) veo across blocks 10109 to 10112. The balance on that pool's wallet has been entirely paid out.
JW
23:10
JZ W
How can I check my address
23:11
My address show new
23:11
My balance show new
G
I
23:16
Iridescence
Maybe we can call this one Google
23:17
Deleted Account
😁
23:17
I wander why Google Cloud, not AWS...?
Z
23:18
Zack
Virginia
G
23:19
Gonzalo
well, running their node + pool at google cloud does not imply they are renting hash power there
23:19
Deleted Account
Ah I understand
OK
23:21
How can I be two blocks ahead
23:21
Is it just the delay?
23:23
Deleted Account
They switched IP?
OK
23:23
O K
Oh man...
23:24
I think
OK
23:25
fuck, we're on separate chains
G
23:27
Gonzalo
yes
OK
23:27
O K
may the longest chain win ⚔️
G
23:27
Gonzalo
haha
OK
23:27
O K
T_T
Z
23:33
Zack
how could 5 nodes get frozen at the same height?
F
23:33
Francesco @ Simply
Zack regarding the dominant assurance contract. is there any incentive for investors to participate in a private crowdfund through such a contract? For example in Eth people invest in ICOs in hopes that the token will rise or a dividend.
In your example you mention a public road with businesses funding its construction for themselves to benefit. What if this crowdfund is for a private business and investors want to get a return on their "donation"?
In your example you mention a public road with businesses funding its construction for themselves to benefit. What if this crowdfund is for a private business and investors want to get a return on their "donation"?
Z
23:34
Zack
In reply to this message
think of it like buying insurance.
Either the road gets built, or else you get your money back plus interest.
Either the road gets built, or else you get your money back plus interest.
OK
23:35
O K
Did Unk Miner shut down?
F
23:37
Francesco @ Simply
What about if a start up wants to raise funds through such a contract? Unrelated to public goods. Would the only way investors get their money back is if the company fails?
Z
23:39
Zack
In reply to this message
It doesn't make sense to use a dominant assurance contract for a company. Amoveo dominant assurance contracts can only depend on the outcome of an oracle, and oracles can only be a few months or a year in the future.
23:39
A startup could use multiple dominant assurance contracts for the different goals it wants to achieve
23:40
Like "We plan to publish software with properties A, B and C, by date D"
23:40
Deleted Account
when submitting ["work", nonce, 0] to the Amoveo node, is there a return message I can check to see if the block has been acceped as a solved block?
Z
23:40
Zack
a goal like this could have a dominant assurance contract
F
23:41
Francesco @ Simply
Okay thanks, that's what I was thinking
Z
23:42
Zack
In reply to this message
the different mining pools are programmed a little different. mine responds with the string "found block"
23:42
if you find a share it says "found work"
23:42
and if it isn't high enough difficulty to be a valid share, it says "invalid work"
23:45
Deleted Account
I see, but what will happen if I send a block to the Amoveo node running locally? Could there be any race conditions where for example another miner finds a solution for the same block at the same time as me and mine is not accepted
Z
23:45
then one side of the fork eventually wins.
F
23:46
Francesco @ Simply
I think that many tokens on eth are redundant and could just be replaced with using eth as the payment. However there are some which are used for example to distribute dividends to holders, like some of the gambling coins. I was trying to figure out whether such a thing can be done for investors on amoeo, rewarding investors once a contract is completed
Z
23:48
Zack
In reply to this message
Yes, maybe there are things that Ethereum can do that Amoveo cannot.
Ethereum is a very generalized tool, it can be programmed to do anything.
Amoveo is completely optimized for one goal: scalable markets for derivatives.
Ethereum is a very generalized tool, it can be programmed to do anything.
Amoveo is completely optimized for one goal: scalable markets for derivatives.
23:49
It seems to me that this is going to be the most important application of blockchain. So it is best to win here.
Eleven joined group by link from Group
F
23:51
Francesco @ Simply
Right, the betting markets are very interesting
23:51
I miss the testnet where I had a bunch of veo to test around with.... Maybe I'll set one up myself
OK
23:52
O K
I have some interest in a testnet too Fran
23:53
I'd be willing to set up a node
Z
23:54
Zack
You can launch a test net with 3 nodes on your computer. It is how integration testing works.
OK
23:55
O K
Good point, but it might be more fun with other people 🙂
Z
23:57
Zack
If you both launch these test nets on nodes with external IP, I think they will connect together.
The difficulty starts lower, it starts with all the forks having already happened. The block time is targeted to like 2 seconds.
The difficulty starts lower, it starts with all the forks having already happened. The block time is targeted to like 2 seconds.
23:57
It already uses a non conflicting port
23:58
I guess I should make a command to only launch 1 instead of 3.
IP
23:59
and dapps are cryptokitties=)
23:59
i can't see bright future (at least short term) for eth
23 March 2018
IP
OK
00:00
O K
Amoveo is the one to replace ETH at #2 marketcap,
IP
00:00
I P
it is like launch new currency and say it replaces btc
OK
00:00
O K
right before it moves to #1 XD
00:01
Lots of hardworking people working on ETH, and lots of hardworking people in ICO territory too
IP
00:01
I P
In reply to this message
do you agree that only 1% of ico are really success? 90% are just to steal money and 9% are just bad
OK
00:02
O K
I wouldn't try to quantify it like that, but I agree there is a large number of scams, a large number of bad ... but I think the reason they were pumped is because globally people were limited from being investors
00:02
Deleted Account
if amoveo cannot replace eth or becoming top 10 currency. what makes me mining here? I don't wanna coins just like Aug or dogr
OK
00:03
Deleted Account
ok
00:03
let's make amoveo popular and get rich
00:04
lol
Z
00:06
Zack
It doesn't matter what the original intentions are when people do an ico.
The nature of the ico game is not set up to incentivize the creation of a product.
They invest all their time and money into looking professional, because that is how you win the ico game.
The nature of the ico game is not set up to incentivize the creation of a product.
They invest all their time and money into looking professional, because that is how you win the ico game.
IP
MF
00:22
Mr Flintstone
In reply to this message
if amoveo even becomes a top 100 coin you will be handsomely rewarded for your mining , no matter how difficult you think it currently is
MH
00:22
Mandel Hoff
It strongly looks like that new miner stopped accepting any blocks and is on another fork. This appears very similar to when OK's node crashed ~28 hours ago and failed to accept. The unintentional 51%-attack appears to be happening again.
MF
00:23
Mr Flintstone
it would be nice if that miner could reach out to us on telegram
MH
00:24
Mandel Hoff
Their node is currently 2 blocks behind, but I think they will catch up. We recovered a ~9 block fork a while ago, but it still threw away all of our blocks.
MH
00:27
Mandel Hoff
They are on a 9 block fork now again.
MF
00:28
Mr Flintstone
In reply to this message
did it cost you more than 2000 usd to mine each one? Because if amoveo is top 100, this means a market cap of 100mn. If we assume 50k veo in float when this happens, that is 2k usd per veo
00:29
please explain to me in what world this is not an acceptable ROI
00:35
Deleted Account
Does anyone have a link to the difficulty chart handy? My mining has slowed to a crawl
MH
00:37
Mandel Hoff
12 block fork with 2 block lead.
00:39
Zack is there a maximum fork length where our nodes will not throw away if they jump ahead?
00:46
14 block fork with 2 block lead.
OK
00:52
O K
3 block lead now?
MH
00:53
Mandel Hoff
Yes. I still they are faster and can easily catch up though.