[ANN] Litecoin - a lite version of Bitcoin. Launched! - page 321.

pekv2

hero member

Activity: 770

Merit: 502

Quote from: dw_bc on July 29, 2012, 08:58:54 PM

I try to use Official Litecoin Wallet, but when I want to send LTC my transaction fee is 1.0 LTC !!

How can I get a lower fee? I already try to change in option, but remains the same.

Thanks

I believe it needs to mature or be under a certain size.

dw_bc

newbie

Activity: 34

Merit: 0

I try to use Official Litecoin Wallet, but when I want to send LTC my transaction fee is 1.0 LTC !!

How can I get a lower fee? I already try to change in option, but remains the same.

Thanks

burnside

legendary

Activity: 1106

Merit: 1006

Lead Blockchain Developer

If you want to mine with CPU, there's cpuminer: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.947746

If you want to mine with GPU, there's reaper: http://wiki.solidcoin.info/wiki/Reaper

Once you have the mining software setup, you can either solo mine or join a pool:

https://github.com/litecoin-project/litecoin/wiki/Comparison-of-mining-pools

(shamless plug) http://ltc.kattare.com/gettingstarted.php

Hope that helps!

Quote from: SebastianJu on July 28, 2012, 12:09:20 PM

Hello,

why is the Mining-Function of the Litecoin Wallet doesnt give any info? I first simply clicked on Start Mining and it says, Solo mining started. Stopping writes, Solo mining stopped. No more info. I checked Debug Logging but no logfile appears and no infos appear in the window. Then i started it as a server to check out Scryptminer and reached 6.3KHash/s with it. Then i switched back to the Wallet because i thought that maybe i have to input the Server, Port and so on to start mining. But nothing changes. The CPU is maxed out but no info about whats happening appears. I cant even tell how fast the Walletminer is.

How do i get this info?

What is the best miner for an Intel T7700 and a NVidia GeForce 9600M GT?

Thanks!
Sebastian

SebastianJu

legendary

Activity: 2674

Merit: 1083

Legendary Escrow Service - Tip Jar in Profile

Hello,

why is the Mining-Function of the Litecoin Wallet doesnt give any info? I first simply clicked on Start Mining and it says, Solo mining started. Stopping writes, Solo mining stopped. No more info. I checked Debug Logging but no logfile appears and no infos appear in the window. Then i started it as a server to check out Scryptminer and reached 6.3KHash/s with it. Then i switched back to the Wallet because i thought that maybe i have to input the Server, Port and so on to start mining. But nothing changes. The CPU is maxed out but no info about whats happening appears. I cant even tell how fast the Walletminer is.

How do i get this info?

What is the best miner for an Intel T7700 and a NVidia GeForce 9600M GT?

Thanks!
Sebastian

terrytibbs

hero member

Activity: 560

Merit: 501

My auction to sell liteco.in is nearing its end: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/litecoin-domain-93200

eckmar

legendary

Activity: 1878

Merit: 1038

Telegram: https://t.me/eckmar

Quote from: coblee on July 26, 2012, 03:00:26 AM

I added a new checkpoint to repel the potential 51% attack.
It is important for all pools and exchanges to use this new code.
For now, please grab the source and compile yourself. I will work on the binary release soon.
...

Ecki.net Poolserver updated...

Cu,
Ecki

jgarzik

legendary

Activity: 1596

Merit: 1100

Quote from: foo on July 27, 2012, 02:33:52 AM

Quote from: dishwara on July 27, 2012, 02:24:16 AM

The block chain database contains only one(single) block chain not all blocks from all forks.

The Wiki disagrees: https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Block_chain

Quote

Blocks in shorter chains (or invalid chains) are called "orphan blocks", and while they are stored, they are not used for anything.

Neither are true.

All connectable blocks are stored and connected, so that we may switch from the current chain to a new chain at any time.

doublec

legendary

Activity: 1078

Merit: 1005

Quote from: coblee on July 27, 2012, 02:09:44 AM

That was one of the ideas that I came up with previously. Upside is that it's quicker to release new checkpoints. Downside is that it could cause many different forks if people all have different checkpoints configured. At least with the current way, I know that if you are running 0.6.3c, you will be on the same chain as me.

I considered, and partially implemented, a similar idea with i0coin, dynamic checkpoints, where new checkpoints could be sent using the P2P protocol that are signed by the coin creator. Users could also use a command line argument to indicate who's checkpoints they trusted.

In the end I came to the same conclusion as you though, more hash power, not more checkpoints, is a better answer. Maybe something like the checkpointing could be done for new coins as a safeguard though. Code is in my github repository for i0coin if interested.

kano

legendary

Activity: 4592

Merit: 1851

Linux since 1997 RedHat 4

Quote from: coblee on July 27, 2012, 02:09:44 AM

Quote from: kano on July 27, 2012, 01:25:43 AM

Since the change is simply to just add a single extra checkpoint to the code (a single line of code) ...
Why not write some code to allow for a checkpoint to be specified in the config file?
That way you can just post a checkpoint and ask everyone to use it
(and it's easy to verify if it is valid)
Thus IF someone was actually going to attempt a 51% it's quicker to get people to add in a new checkpoint.

That was one of the ideas that I came up with previously. Upside is that it's quicker to release new checkpoints. Downside is that it could cause many different forks if people all have different checkpoints configured. At least with the current way, I know that if you are running 0.6.3c, you will be on the same chain as me.

In the end, I decided to not go through with this idea right now. The solution to a 51% attack is not checkpoints. It's more hashing power. It seems like the threat of an attack has actually galvanized our little community into working together to defend this attack. People have jumped to solo mining in case there was going to be a DDoS of pools. And we saw a lot of miners willing to jump in and help out. Our current network hashrate is at 315 mhash/s. That may be an all time high! So in the end, that's doing a lot more to defend this attack than the checkpoint I added.

I think the rise is most likely only due to ckolivas and cgminer

i.e. not only people now being able to (GPU) hash faster using cgminer (for those that didn't want to use reaper) but also those that didn't hash before but decided now with a reputable (and better in terms of everything else it does) program like cgminer to consider LTC also.

EskimoBob

legendary

Activity: 910

Merit: 1000

Quality Printing Services by Federal Reserve Bank

will this help, if pools stop sending out coins until this shit storm is over?

foo

sr. member

Activity: 409

Merit: 250

Quote from: dishwara on July 27, 2012, 02:24:16 AM

Quote from: foo on July 27, 2012, 02:15:15 AM

Quote from: pieppiep on July 27, 2012, 02:03:01 AM

That would only work if the attacker first announces his attack.

Couldn't you switch forks retroactively by placing a checkpoint on the fork you want? The blockchain database contains all blocks from all forks, right?

The block chain database contains only one(single) block chain not all blocks from all forks.

The Wiki disagrees: https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Block_chain

Quote

Blocks in shorter chains (or invalid chains) are called "orphan blocks", and while they are stored, they are not used for anything.

dishwara

legendary

Activity: 1855

Merit: 1016

Quote from: foo on July 27, 2012, 02:15:15 AM

Quote from: pieppiep on July 27, 2012, 02:03:01 AM

That would only work if the attacker first announces his attack.

Couldn't you switch forks retroactively by placing a checkpoint on the fork you want? The blockchain database contains all blocks from all forks, right?

The block chain database contains only one(single) block chain not all blocks from all forks.

foo

sr. member

Activity: 409

Merit: 250

Quote from: pieppiep on July 27, 2012, 02:03:01 AM

That would only work if the attacker first announces his attack.

Couldn't you switch forks retroactively by placing a checkpoint on the fork you want? The blockchain database contains all blocks from all forks, right?

coblee

donator

Activity: 1654

Merit: 1351

Creator of Litecoin. Cryptocurrency enthusiast.

Quote from: kano on July 27, 2012, 01:25:43 AM

Since the change is simply to just add a single extra checkpoint to the code (a single line of code) ...
Why not write some code to allow for a checkpoint to be specified in the config file?
That way you can just post a checkpoint and ask everyone to use it
(and it's easy to verify if it is valid)
Thus IF someone was actually going to attempt a 51% it's quicker to get people to add in a new checkpoint.

That was one of the ideas that I came up with previously. Upside is that it's quicker to release new checkpoints. Downside is that it could cause many different forks if people all have different checkpoints configured. At least with the current way, I know that if you are running 0.6.3c, you will be on the same chain as me.

In the end, I decided to not go through with this idea right now. The solution to a 51% attack is not checkpoints. It's more hashing power. It seems like the threat of an attack has actually galvanized our little community into working together to defend this attack. People have jumped to solo mining in case there was going to be a DDoS of pools. And we saw a lot of miners willing to jump in and help out. Our current network hashrate is at 315 mhash/s. That may be an all time high! So in the end, that's doing a lot more to defend this attack than the checkpoint I added.

pieppiep

hero member

Activity: 1596

Merit: 502

That would only work if the attacker first announces his attack.

kano

legendary

Activity: 4592

Merit: 1851

Linux since 1997 RedHat 4

Since the change is simply to just add a single extra checkpoint to the code (a single line of code) ...
Why not write some code to allow for a checkpoint to be specified in the config file?
That way you can just post a checkpoint and ask everyone to use it
(and it's easy to verify if it is valid)
Thus IF someone was actually going to attempt a 51% it's quicker to get people to add in a new checkpoint.

coblee

donator

Activity: 1654

Merit: 1351

Creator of Litecoin. Cryptocurrency enthusiast.

Quote from: foo on July 26, 2012, 11:17:36 PM

Coblee, I wish you would sign releases with PGP/GnuPG, like the Bitcoin team does. It would give more assurance that these binaries are really authentic.

Sure I will do that.

foo

sr. member

Activity: 409

Merit: 250

Coblee, I wish you would sign releases with PGP/GnuPG, like the Bitcoin team does. It would give more assurance that these binaries are really authentic.

DiCE1904

legendary

Activity: 1118

Merit: 1002

thanks for the update!

ThiagoCMC

legendary

Activity: 1204

Merit: 1000

฿itcoin: Currency of Resistance!

Updated!

Topic: [ANN] Litecoin - a lite version of Bitcoin. Launched! - page 321. (Read 1467253 times)