Topic: [ANN] Pulsar | Transcendent Concepts | Open Competition Distribution - page 2. (Read 5343 times)

hey thanks for the pool but whats going on with payments?   didn't receive any for past 2 hours... and you didn't respond to pm.. (okay i got response, waiting...)

We are investingating issues in the backend. Your shares and hashrate are safe and we will fix things ASAP.

Payouts disabled, you will not receive any coins to your offline wallet for the time being

We should use the fork of the pool to be the most fair. Please update your wallet. Using a fork in the pool

no I want your coins  

WTB 10k pulsar will pay .075 BTC send PM

Scorpio -

There was no conspiracy to limit our node's connections to cause a fork in our own coin, there is absolutely no benefit for a coin dev team to intentionally cause a fork on our own coin.  We released the source code and windows wallet to the entire community at the same time.  If a fork happened at block 1, it is because the first pool to mine a block was not synced to our network when it started mining - that is also not a realistic course of action - what pool would intentionally decide to run off on its own chain at the launch of a coin?  The most likely scenario is that a fork happened at block 643 based on what we see on the block chain.  Not having the block0001.dat the fork was on makes it impossible for us to compare blockhashes to confirm/deny exactly when it happened.

Scorpio -

There was no conspiracy to limit our node's connections to cause a fork in our own coin, there is absolutely no benefit for a coin dev team to intentionally cause a fork on our own coin.  We released the source code and windows wallet to the entire community at the same time.  If a fork happened at block 1, it is because the first pool to mine a block was not synced to our network when it started mining - that is also not a realistic course of action - what pool would intentionally decide to run off on its own chain at the launch of a coin?  The most likely scenario is that a fork happened at block 643 based on what we see on the block chain.  Not having the block0001.dat the fork was on makes it impossible for us to compare blockhashes to confirm/deny exactly when it happened.

Dont try to hide that you mined like crazy 500 blocks on your "good fork" , why did you choose your fork and not the pools fork there was a big hash on the pools fork but no you have chosen your own fork because you did not wanted to lose your 500 blocks mined .

P.S: Please explain why your nodes was closing our connection , just 2 guys got connected to your nodes but the rest was getting this on debug log

send version message: version 60015, blocks=0, us=xxxxxxxx:43208, them=188.166.121.151:43208, peer=188.166.121.151:43208
ThreadDNSAddressSeed exited
socket closed
disconnecting node 188.166.121.151:43208
trying connection 188.166.121.151:43208 lastseen=371182.9hrs
connected 188.166.121.151:43208
send version message: version 60015, blocks=0, us=xxxxxxxx:43208, them=188.166.121.151:43208, peer=188.166.121.151:43208
socket closed
trying connection 45.55.249.167:43208 lastseen=74.0hrs
connect() failed after select(): Connection refused

P.S : There was not fkc fork at block 643 , when i resynced my wallet to your fork i lost all my coins same for ocminer.

Scorpio -

There was no conspiracy to limit our node's connections to cause a fork in our own coin, there is absolutely no benefit for a coin dev team to intentionally cause a fork on our own coin.  We released the source code and windows wallet to the entire community at the same time.  If a fork happened at block 1, it is because the first pool to mine a block was not synced to our network when it started mining - that is also not a realistic course of action - what pool would intentionally decide to run off on its own chain at the launch of a coin?  The most likely scenario is that a fork happened at block 643 based on what we see on the block chain.  Not having the block0001.dat the fork was on makes it impossible for us to compare blockhashes to confirm/deny exactly when it happened.

any more nodes?

instead rent rig  and mine at http://hashgoal.com/pool/PULS/

you can still mine it till POW end...

First off, apologies for taking so long to address this morning's posts.  I spent a much needed day with my family who I'd neglected quite a bit while we prepared for this launch (unfortunately, the wife and kid aren't coders!).

Our nodes were not down at any point as far as we can tell.  Looking through the history of the thread, there were several people that had no problems connecting to them.  We'd set up a node in the US and one in Europe with DigitalOcean to try to have a stable network, it wasn't sufficient.  I can't say why you, ocminer, or poolmn could not connect to them - it was an unfortunate circumstance.

Looking through the BE it seems more like the fork happened at block 643.  That ~40 minute block and immediate drop in diff tells me that a lot of hash left our network preceding that block.



poolmn can you check some of your blockhashes against the block explorer to confirm this?

http://cryptobe.com/chain/Pulsar?hi=675&count=50

Once we get this sorted out we plan to migrate our nodes to vultr to further stabilize the network.  This fork business sucked, there's no two ways about it.  Regardless of the difficulties we've encountered thus far, we will see this project through as far as the community wants us to.  I'll be on for quite some time this evening working and will be available to address any questions or concerns from the community.  Thanks.

WTB 10k pulsar will pay 0.065 BTC send PM

i dont understand what you all are taking about.. Hashgoal pool is connected to node from last 15 hours and user mining well. what problem you all are facing?

look at here.. http://hashgoal.com/pool/PULS/