Erm, orphans is when you submit a block, but it had already been solved. So essentially, having orphans means you hash slow, or have low connectivity.
Not getting orphans, and not getting any blocks either, means the difficulty is very high, and it will take some time.
Thanks, for that.
/sarcasm
diff was at something like .04 when I posted that after 30 - 40 mins of 129Kh/s I found nothing.
I was just trying to look on the brighter side...
I quit mining because it's a fork of a coin that doesn't report network size, which drives me crazy. Also I'm doing well mining another altcoin that has survived three days and still has an active dev. (inorite??)
We'll see if I regret it, but I don't think we're due for another bitbar yet. And I'm not sure if proof-of-stake ala PPCoin is the way to handle a high-scarcity (targeted at hoarders) *coin. (er, gem excuse me)
So, I'll probably just watch this one. And take donations...
gmP8KhkBmbDuazG4EzQw4gmWhrpBfw31i5
Besides scrypt PoW / PoS (the only one of last coins with PoS), BitGem embodies features according gems : semi-scarce, highly valuable and well-rewarded currencies. Besides, this coin enbodies last upadtes from upstream from parents coins and it is built enterely in linux by the last virtual tool-chain methods.
Another different question are subjective and sentimental preferences about a coin or another one.
.
About hashrate, I read some time ago int bitcoin.it a formula for calculating hashrate from difficulty, intial target and current target.
Sure, I wasn't knocking your gems I hope they do well. I have only so many hashes to spread around so, can't mine everything. I think that all of these altcoins provide value in the long term.
As far as monitoring the size/activity of the network, here's what I'm talking about:
If you explore the many forks of the original bitcoin code, you will find that most of them include a JSON-RPC request for "networkhashps" which returns the calculated hash rate for the network on the previous block (I think). I'm not exploring the *coin code yet so that's just extrapolation.
You happen to have selected one of the forks that removed this functionality. I think it's because the POS can affect the difficulty which would make the "average network hashes per second" more difficult to calculate.
I'm not 100% sure why it's removed, but that's my guess. The PPCoin white paper didn't say anything about it.
Do you know?
EDIT: Also there's a not-so fine line between a currency and a commodity. I'm not aware of any place in the world where gems are used as a currency. Granted, this is probably just semantics but it can be an important difference when discussing the pros or cons of a particular blockchain, for a particular purpose.
A scarce commodity is a good thing, a scarce currency is a failing currency - whether it's going out of circulation via hoarding (becoming a commodity) or by the market losing of faith in the backing issuer/commodity (losing market cap).
OK, I guess I'm done for now. Please understand, this isn't saying anything negative at all about bitgems. These are just the thoughts you have inspired in me this morning. I believe that discussing and clarifying these things while trying many different configurations will eventually lead to the "sweet spot" for a useful cryptocurrency.
I also suspect that because of the refusal of the bitcoin dev team to address the issues being discovered or adapt to these lessons learned while they have a (relatively) small market, bitcoin is destined to become a "crypto-commodity" (it will survive out of nostalgia and momentum if no government or regulators manage to kill it) as soon as a model is found that will support adoption and long-term development of a physical crypto-currency infrastructure.
Hmm, guess I wasn't done, after all. Carry On...
