[ANN] SpreadCoin | True Decentralization (No Pools) | Testing New Masternodes - page 413.

Mr. Spread

full member

Activity: 210

Merit: 100

Quote from: BetaShareX on October 26, 2014, 08:57:34 AM

Hello,
our collaborators reported that in this thread there are some misleading informations about BetaShareX Exchange.
Could you explain why you state that there are some voices about BetaShareX.com Exchange being untrustworthy?

We are the first Exchange to add SPREAD cause we were interested in this nice looking project. Whith which proof are you writing :

Quote

(Note that these are 3rd party exchanges, there are several reports that betasharex in unreliable)

under our logo in your OP. This is a really unprofessional behaviour. If you think that our Excahnge is not trustable, and your coin do not deserve our services,we will be glad to remove your markets immediately.

Thanks.

Best Regards.

Quote from: Pab on October 24, 2014, 05:42:12 PM

Be careful with BetaSharex,witdraw no working now,no confirmation email,no resend button,no cancel withdraw button

The other report is from this thread. It says that coins which were not on orders disappeared.

I didn't trade on BetaShareX and cannot confirm these claims, the only thing that I noted by myself is that volume is calculated incorrectly.

I removed this statement from OP.

BetaShareX

newbie

Activity: 6

Merit: 0

Hello,
our collaborators reported that in this thread there are some misleading informations about BetaShareX Exchange.
Could you explain why you state that there are some voices about BetaShareX.com Exchange being untrustworthy?

We've been the first Exchange to add SPREAD cause we were interested in this nice looking project. Whith which proof are you writing :

Quote

(Note that these are 3rd party exchanges, there are several reports that betasharex in unreliable)

under our logo in your OP. This is a really unprofessional behaviour. If you think that our Excahnge is not trustable, and your coin do not deserve our services,we will be glad to remove your markets immediately.

Thanks.

Best Regards.

crypto_currency

full member

Activity: 195

Merit: 100

Dev ,We need GPU miner now.

SamuelN

newbie

Activity: 238

Merit: 0

No this is the only one doing so and ive tried closing the antivirus

Mr. Spread

full member

Activity: 210

Merit: 100

Quote from: SamuelN on October 26, 2014, 08:12:28 AM

Am I the only one having issues with the 64x version?

No one else has reported similar issues.
Do you have issues with 64-bit versions of other cryptocurrencies wallets? Are you using any antivirus software?

SamuelN

newbie

Activity: 238

Merit: 0

Am I the only one having issues with the 64x version?

sofmu

newbie

Activity: 10

Merit: 0

Quote from: A-tM on October 25, 2014, 06:20:12 PM

I understand, but every probability function has some "noise" characteristics, and can be described. Extremely long run without blocks should be less probable.
Though, I know this is not pseudorandom, but true random. But still - if you statistically count these runs, the most extreme ones should be the rarest, shoudn't they?

Statistics undergrad here.
I've pasted your figures into R, and here's the resulting P-P plot, showing no significant deviation from exponential distribution.
http://www.pixentral.com/pics/1siXeqeLltBWny5zoatjq4BM2A0xwV1.png

Mr. Spread

full member

Activity: 210

Merit: 100

Atomicat

legendary

Activity: 952

Merit: 1002

Quote from: A-tM on October 25, 2014, 06:20:12 PM

Quote from: Mr. Spread on October 25, 2014, 04:59:41 PM

How often you will find blocks in the future doesn't depend on how often you found them in the past. This misbelief is called gambler's fallacy.

I understand, but every probability function has some "noise" characteristics, and can be described. Extremely long run without blocks should be less probable.
Though, I know this is not pseudorandom, but true random. But still - if you statistically count these runs, the most extreme ones should be the rarest, shoudn't they?

But now I see my length of runs without blocks is not yet extreme, in fact, it seems far from that extreme.

And these extremes should even "widen" with the net hashrate increase. Just my common sense is telling me. Am I right? Sigh.

Thank you for clarification.
I let the older wallet run for comparison anyway. Just for curiosity.

Regards,
Andy

Yep! I've done a lot of solo-mining under a lot of difficulty levels, from being almost all the network to 1% of it. It's those long blocks without and those quick 1-2-3's that tell you that it is truly random. It's kinda funny how randomness is generally misunderstood. I had four blocks in 40 minutes yesterday, followed by a void of two hours, followed by another of two hours.

A-tM

member

Activity: 90

Merit: 10

Quote from: Mr. Spread on October 25, 2014, 04:59:41 PM

How often you will find blocks in the future doesn't depend on how often you found them in the past. This misbelief is called gambler's fallacy.

I understand, but every probability function has some "noise" characteristics, and can be described. Extremely long run without blocks should be less probable.
Though, I know this is not pseudorandom, but true random. But still - if you statistically count these runs, the most extreme ones should be the rarest, shoudn't they?

But now I see my length of runs without blocks is not yet extreme, in fact, it seems far from that extreme.

And these extremes should even "widen" with the net hashrate increase. Just my common sense is telling me. Am I right? Sigh.

Thank you for clarification.
I let the older wallet run for comparison anyway. Just for curiosity.

Regards,
Andy

Mr. Spread

full member

Activity: 210

Merit: 100

Quote from: A-tM on October 25, 2014, 02:50:07 PM

Example from one computer:

Code:

Date Came after
H:M:S Average
25.10.14 20:29 00:01:05 01:21:06
25.10.14 20:28 02:03:20
25.10.14 18:25 04:59:56
25.10.14 13:25 05:22:20
25.10.14 08:02 03:13:25
25.10.14 04:49 02:14:38
25.10.14 02:34 02:32:46
25.10.14 00:02 00:24:30
24.10.14 23:37 00:09:06
24.10.14 23:28 02:22:36
24.10.14 21:05 02:45:36
24.10.14 18:20 01:32:15
24.10.14 16:47 00:12:00
24.10.14 16:35 00:20:15
24.10.14 16:15 00:45:52
24.10.14 15:29 00:02:08
24.10.14 15:27 01:12:25
24.10.14 14:15 00:50:36
24.10.14 13:24 01:30:20
24.10.14 11:54 00:15:18
24.10.14 11:39 01:00:08
24.10.14 10:38 00:25:49
24.10.14 10:13 02:24:00
24.10.14 07:49 00:35:15
24.10.14 07:13 01:03:44
24.10.14 06:10 00:48:43
24.10.14 05:21 00:39:04
24.10.14 04:42 00:50:01
24.10.14 03:52 00:09:02
24.10.14 03:43 03:17:25
24.10.14 00:25 01:13:40
23.10.14 23:12 02:13:00
23.10.14 20:59 00:11:15
23.10.14 20:47 00:40:56
23.10.14 20:07 00:12:24
23.10.14 19:54 02:07:25
23.10.14 17:47 00:31:48
23.10.14 17:15 00:19:35
23.10.14 16:55 02:40:04
23.10.14 14:15 04:50:55
23.10.14 09:24 00:30:38
23.10.14 08:54 00:34:33
23.10.14 08:19 01:10:27
23.10.14 07:09 00:18:47
23.10.14 06:50 00:09:28
23.10.14 06:40 00:21:58

Lets compare this with the truly random generation with the same average:

Code:

00:00:31
00:03:20
06:01:36
02:48:13
01:08:15
02:16:51
00:20:10
03:35:25
03:55:20
00:22:39
01:14:28
00:38:53
00:44:54
00:27:17
02:12:01
01:32:20
00:03:51
00:23:49
01:08:53
02:03:19
02:06:30
02:02:30
01:18:38
00:54:36
00:11:19
00:19:13
01:12:48
01:12:34
00:08:37
03:28:55

As you see, in the truly random case there are also long periods without blocks, so I think it's ok. You can generate random periods by yourself here.

Mr. Spread

full member

Activity: 210

Merit: 100

Quote from: A-tM on October 25, 2014, 02:25:28 PM

if there is say four-five hours gap, then next blocks should came faster, to make an average result equal to the computed average.

How often you will find blocks in the future doesn't depend on how often you found them in the past. This misbelief is called gambler's fallacy.

Quote from: A-tM on October 25, 2014, 02:25:28 PM

Nothing for six hours on more computers at once, is not normal IMHO, especially if I have experienced this strange behaviour more times, and everytime on majority of my computers. (I run from three to five wallets.)

This is strange but not something improbable, probability is usually counter-intuitive.

You find blocks and that means that miner works correctly, it would be very strange for it to work incorrectly for some periods of time but correctly for the others.

You can search in the debug.log for the following messages "SpreadCoinMiner : generated block is stale" and "SpreadCoinMiner : ProcessBlock, block not accepted" (without quotes). Every such message will mean that mined block was not accepted. While the first one can happen the second one would indicate a bug.
(debug.log is located in C:\Users\\AppData\Roaming\SpreadCoin\ on Windows 7 and ~/.spreadcoin/ on Linux)

A-tM

member

Activity: 90

Merit: 10

Is sombody who owns two or more machines with reasonly similair processors,
willing to sacrifice a bit of hashrate (by downgrading one or more wallets) for backing up my tests, please?
For 24 or 48 hours...

Thank you in advance.

Andy

A-tM

member

Activity: 90

Merit: 10

Example from one computer:

wallet changed from the recent one to older version at about 20:00
look at more adjacent blocks, which came each after long more-hours period.
Unfortunately I do not remember when I have changed from the older version to the latest in the past. Maybe three or four days ago. Similair behaviour.

Code:

Date Came after
H:M:S Average
25.10.14 20:29 00:01:05 01:21:06
25.10.14 20:28 02:03:20
25.10.14 18:25 04:59:56
25.10.14 13:25 05:22:20
25.10.14 08:02 03:13:25
25.10.14 04:49 02:14:38
25.10.14 02:34 02:32:46
25.10.14 00:02 00:24:30
24.10.14 23:37 00:09:06
24.10.14 23:28 02:22:36
24.10.14 21:05 02:45:36
24.10.14 18:20 01:32:15
24.10.14 16:47 00:12:00
24.10.14 16:35 00:20:15
24.10.14 16:15 00:45:52
24.10.14 15:29 00:02:08
24.10.14 15:27 01:12:25
24.10.14 14:15 00:50:36
24.10.14 13:24 01:30:20
24.10.14 11:54 00:15:18
24.10.14 11:39 01:00:08
24.10.14 10:38 00:25:49
24.10.14 10:13 02:24:00
24.10.14 07:49 00:35:15
24.10.14 07:13 01:03:44
24.10.14 06:10 00:48:43
24.10.14 05:21 00:39:04
24.10.14 04:42 00:50:01
24.10.14 03:52 00:09:02
24.10.14 03:43 03:17:25
24.10.14 00:25 01:13:40
23.10.14 23:12 02:13:00
23.10.14 20:59 00:11:15
23.10.14 20:47 00:40:56
23.10.14 20:07 00:12:24
23.10.14 19:54 02:07:25
23.10.14 17:47 00:31:48
23.10.14 17:15 00:19:35
23.10.14 16:55 02:40:04
23.10.14 14:15 04:50:55
23.10.14 09:24 00:30:38
23.10.14 08:54 00:34:33
23.10.14 08:19 01:10:27
23.10.14 07:09 00:18:47
23.10.14 06:50 00:09:28
23.10.14 06:40 00:21:58

Ok I understand. It is not very "scientific" approach.
So, I will run the older version on one PC, and the newer on the another one, for say 24 or better 48 hours,
than compare the results (normalized according to hashpower, abeit similair).

A-tM

member

Activity: 90

Merit: 10

I suspect there is something wrong with the last version.
Running Intel Ivy and Haswell.

I do not say that it isn't finding any blocks.
But sometimes even six hours without a block, and even when periods with hashrate lower than 5 Mh/s were present.
Average spacing between my found blocks should be around one hour.
(I understand, that I will not get the blocks regularly, but if there is say four-five hours gap, then next blocks should came faster, to make an average result equal to the computed average.)

Nothing for six hours on more computers at once, is not normal IMHO, especially if I have experienced this strange behaviour more times, and everytime on majority of my computers. (I run from three to five wallets.)

Everytime I stopped the new wallet and started the older one, it really begun to deliver found blocks "immediately".
By "immediately" I mean the average rate counted from say three or four hours period is really as expected.

Is this really normal?

Thank you in advance.

Regards,
Andy

SamuelN

newbie

Activity: 238

Merit: 0

when i launch it, and it doesnt give me any error just the windows thingy saying it stopped running

Mr. Spread

full member

Activity: 210

Merit: 100

Quote from: SamuelN on October 25, 2014, 10:39:27 AM

64x windows version doesn't work for me, it stops running everytime

Does it show any error? It stops when you launch it or when you try to mine?

SamuelN

newbie

Activity: 238

Merit: 0

64x windows version doesn't work for me, it stops running everytime

crypto_currency

full member

Activity: 195

Merit: 100

The net hashrate is over 7000kh/s ,good sign~~~

crypto_currency

full member

Activity: 195

Merit: 100

Quote from: Pab on October 24, 2014, 05:42:12 PM

Be careful with BetaSharex,witdraw no working now,no confirmation email,no resend button,no cancel withdraw button

WTF,we really need a bigger exchange now,indeed. Grin

Topic: [ANN] SpreadCoin | True Decentralization (No Pools) | Testing New Masternodes - page 413. (Read 810079 times)