All, please compile the latest github source v1.4.1.1 and launch mining
My ubuntu fails on makefile from github source. Fails on bignum compile
Please make sure you are using openssl 1.0.* and not openssl 1.1.*
can you add my pool to your poolinfo?
Topic: [ANN] [XMG] MAGI | CPU mining | mPoW | mPoS | [MagiPay] - page 463. (Read 2375638 times)
My ubuntu fails on makefile from github source. Fails on bignum compile
Please make sure you are using openssl 1.0.* and not openssl 1.1.*
can you add my pool to your poolinfo?
Give a link to the finished wallet 1.4.1.1
All, please join pool mining ASAP
have some nodes we can add to get to the "proper" height?
All, please join pool mining ASAP
All, please compile the latest github source v1.4.1.1 and launch mining
My ubuntu fails on makefile from github source. Fails on bignum compile
worked for me. ubuntu 16.04
All, please compile the latest github source v1.4.1.1 and launch mining
My ubuntu fails on makefile from github source. Fails on bignum compile
Please make sure you are using openssl 1.0.* and not openssl 1.1.*
All, please compile the latest github source v1.4.1.1 and launch mining
My ubuntu fails on makefile from github source. Fails on bignum compile
Just want to let you know, minerclaim.net has found block #1446792 a few minutes ago.
Yes, as we spoken before, you were right this works
All, please compile the latest github source v1.4.1.1 and launch mining
Yes, as we spoken before, you were right this works
ok will update nodes now to 1.4.1.1
All, please compile the latest github source v1.4.1.1 and launch mining
more nodes need to be synced, just wait, it's in progress.
i see misbehaving and "socket closed" and "banned" between our own nodes. compiled latest src from github. only 1 node is @1446791 like poolinfo.systms.org
i see misbehaving and "socket closed" and "banned" between our own nodes. compiled latest src from github. only 1 node is @1446791 like poolinfo.systms.org
lost all connections once wallet got to 1446771
Same here, will not go past 1446771 block in new wallet.
Misunderstood. The "god" related only to a miner with more then 50% hashing power. This miner had to be error free.
Ok, thanks for the clarification.
If the largest instance with over 50% mining power is on version 1.3.1, without any malicious intentions, this is the "official chain", isn't it?
There is no single chain on v1.3.1 (remember people on v1.3.1 saying it had forked?), as there seems to be no hashing power whatsoever in any chain.
This is exactly the problem Joe is trying to solve. If it was just a matter of people selecting the right chain/peers, we wouldn't be stuck at this time.
So far, and to my perception, there is no official chain.
But believe what you will.
Misunderstood. The "god" related only to a miner with more then 50% hashing power. This miner had to be error free.
So the first chain (m-core 1.3.1, 98 clients, 61.6% network share) it the one.
That Network Share number is just the percentage of peers using given wallet version, not relative hashing power. Ideally, it would be 100% using latest (v1.4.1 as of now).Makes the sentence of xinwao any sense then?
If there is a too large hashing power, identy it, and seggregate it. To use a more than 50% hashing power is an attack for itself. (nobody is error free, do not make yourself a god)
Yes, it could be like you said.
But nobody is error free, do not make yourself a god. For sure people from m-core:1.3.1 are not on our new official chain.
God? I'm just explaining.
Me too.
Ok, but your explanation was not correct. That's why I tried to explain it to you and others who could be misled.
Either way, it doesn't make anyone a god nor there's intention of anyone (not me, for sure) to be considered one.
If you don't accept my explanation, that's also fine by me.
... For sure people from m-core:1.3.1 are not on our new official chain.
Was there an announcement of a Hardfork or Softfork, that I missed?
What rules makes a new chain an official chain?
If the largest instance with over 50% mining power is on version 1.3.1, without any malicious intentions, this is the "official chain", isn't it?
It is exactly what I am asking for too.
Thanks for your post.
... For sure people from m-core:1.3.1 are not on our new official chain.
Was there an announcement of a Hardfork or Softfork, that I missed?
What rules makes a new chain an official chain?
If the largest instance with over 50% mining power is on version 1.3.1, without any malicious intentions, this is the "official chain", isn't it?
So the first chain (m-core 1.3.1, 98 clients, 61.6% network share) it the one.
That Network Share number is just the percentage of peers using given wallet version, not relative hashing power. Ideally, it would be 100% using latest (v1.4.1 as of now).Makes the sentence of xinwao any sense then?
If there is a too large hashing power, identy it, and seggregate it. To use a more than 50% hashing power is an attack for itself. (nobody is error free, do not make yourself a god)
Yes, it could be like you said.
But nobody is error free, do not make yourself a god. For sure people from m-core:1.3.1 are not on our new official chain.
God? I'm just explaining.
Me too.
Does this help in figuring anything?
That peer 104.128.225.240 is using v1.4.1, same as me.
Code:
SetBestChain: new best=0000000053ec72e4ae08a7be6f67e101df04870965dfb068443b4bb1bf764b01 height=1446524 money supply=7908679 trust=65988060172142 date=08/16/17 09:43:59
Stake checkpoint: 8ebe4b50
ProcessBlock: ACCEPTED
getblocks 1446305 to 00000000000000000000 limit 500
getblocks 1446305 to 00000000000000000000 limit 500
received block 00000001f62058f520db
Misbehaving: 104.128.225.240:8233 (0 -> 100) DISCONNECTING
disconnecting node 104.128.225.240
disconnecting node 104.128.225.240
ERROR: ProcessBlock() : block with too little proof-of-work
getblocks -1 to 00000000000000000000 limit 500
getblocks -1 to 00000000000000000000 limit 500
That peer 104.128.225.240 is using v1.4.1, same as me.
Jump to: