This is pointless, there's nothing to change in my code.
Since the zcoin dev was the one who threw the blame on my code without any evidence I feel compelled
to point out that the dev's credibility is already in the toilet with frequent bad business decisions and a near
fatal bug that resulted in a huge theft of coins. Someone in such a precarious position shouldn't be pointing fingers
at others.
Topic: [ANN] Zcoin (XZC) - Implementing ZKP privacy without trusted setup - page 213. (Read 663312 times)
March 29, 2017, 06:29:15 PM
March 29, 2017, 05:25:23 PM
For the rest bring that to dev attentions on the slack channel where they hang around... (please don't use @channel 
)
It is not my concern. Tried just to help.)Never said gpu miner did not..
Read the fucking code and tell me who the fuck did the trick with rpcmining
it seems like cpuminer solo was prevented in the early phase..
I Have my own work to do, porting code to greater core and POS 3.0.
Thanks..
So if it hadn't worked, many would have complained here or on slack...
and a testnet wallet was release well in advance to spot any problem...
ps: guess it was your day off in porting the core, since you trolled most of the day here
March 29, 2017, 05:12:06 PM
Guys, maybe you want to meet in a chatroom, or so ? 
I prefer it here?
No promotions.
data_size = 128 fixed to wallet works perfectly.
So? What we can tell?
Should wallet give false size or use none compatible code?
Why you look at neoscrypt?
It had 84 / 80 issue that was not related to this.
Also they did not tweak the getwork code like vertcoin did, they broke it.
and that datasize doesn't prevent it to mine it either... and being the one who asked vertcoin dev to fix their header, it was a lot more serious than here...(when they were still running lyra2)
The conclusion
Why not just ask Zcoin devs to use the old fashion getwork.
Guys, maybe you want to meet in a chatroom, or so ?
I prefer it here?
No promotions.
data_size = 128 fixed to wallet works perfectly.
So? What we can tell?
Should wallet give false size or use none compatible code?
Why you look at neoscrypt?
It had 84 / 80 issue that was not related to this.
Also they did not tweak the getwork code like vertcoin did, they broke it.
and that datasize doesn't prevent it to mine it either... and being the one who asked vertcoin dev to fix their header, it was a lot more serious than here...(when they were still running lyra2)
The conclusion
Why not just ask Zcoin devs to use the old fashion getwork.
For the rest bring that to dev attentions on the slack channel where they hang around... (please don't use @channel
)Never said gpu miner did not..
Read the fucking code and tell me who the fuck did the trick with rpcmining
it seems like cpuminer solo was prevented in the early phase..
I Have my own work to do, porting code to greater core and POS 3.0.
Thanks..
March 29, 2017, 05:03:10 PM
Guys, maybe you want to meet in a chatroom, or so ?
I prefer it here?
No promotions.
data_size = 128 fixed to wallet works perfectly.
So? What we can tell?
Should wallet give false size or use none compatible code?
Why you look at neoscrypt?
It had 84 / 80 issue that was not related to this.
Also they did not tweak the getwork code like vertcoin did, they broke it.
and that datasize doesn't prevent it to mine it either... and being the one who asked vertcoin dev to fix their header, it was a lot more serious than here...(when they were still running lyra2)
The conclusion
Why not just ask Zcoin devs to use the old fashion getwork.
Guys, maybe you want to meet in a chatroom, or so ?
I prefer it here?
No promotions.
data_size = 128 fixed to wallet works perfectly.
So? What we can tell?
Should wallet give false size or use none compatible code?
Why you look at neoscrypt?
It had 84 / 80 issue that was not related to this.
Also they did not tweak the getwork code like vertcoin did, they broke it.
and that datasize doesn't prevent it to mine it either... and being the one who asked vertcoin dev to fix their header, it was a lot more serious than here...(when they were still running lyra2)
The conclusion
Why not just ask Zcoin devs to use the old fashion getwork.
For the rest bring that to dev attentions on the slack channel where they hang around... (please don't use @channel
) March 29, 2017, 04:53:34 PM
Guys, maybe you want to meet in a chatroom, or so ?
I prefer it here?
No promotions.
data_size = 128 fixed to wallet works perfectly.
So? What we can tell?
Should wallet give false size or use none compatible code?
Why you look at neoscrypt?
It had 84 / 80 issue that was not related to this.
Also they did not tweak the getwork code like vertcoin did, they broke it.
and that datasize doesn't prevent it to mine it either... and being the one who asked vertcoin dev to fix their header, it was a lot more serious than here...(when they were still running lyra2)
The conclusion
Why not just ask Zcoin devs to use the old fashion getwork.
March 29, 2017, 04:50:24 PM
Guys, maybe you want to meet in a chatroom, or so ?
I prefer it here?
No promotions.
data_size = 128 fixed to wallet works perfectly.
So? What we can tell?
Should wallet give false size or use none compatible code?
Why you look at neoscrypt?
It had 84 / 80 issue that was not related to this.
Also they did not tweak the getwork code like vertcoin did, they broke it.
and that datasize doesn't prevent it to mine zcoin either... and being the one who asked vertcoin dev to fix their header, it was a lot more serious than here...(when they were still running lyra2)
March 29, 2017, 04:42:30 PM
Guys, maybe you want to meet in a chatroom, or so ?
I prefer it here?
No promotions.
data_size = 128 fixed to wallet, works perfectly.
So? What we can tell?
Should wallet give false size or use none compatible code?
Why you look at neoscrypt?
It had 84 / 80 issue that was not related to this.
Also they did not tweak the getwork code like vertcoin did, vertcoin broke it.
This code is a poor fork of vertcoin, all shit remains there.
- for(int i = 0; i < 4; i++)
- {
- vchData.insert(vchData.begin(), 0);
- }
Why on earth to break old working rules when not needed?
March 29, 2017, 04:35:10 PM
Guys, maybe you want to meet in a chatroom, or so ?
I prefer it here?
March 29, 2017, 04:34:28 PM
1. When you changed the size test from 128 to 132 you left the byte swap at 128.
2. Hexx getwork was broken testing for 132, fixed by testing for 128.
3. The stratum code for zcoin uses 128, why not getwork?
4. 128 is the size used by most algos, stratum and getwork.
If you're so convinced the cpuminer-opt is wrong show me a miner that works.
https://github.com/djm34/sgminer-msvc20152. Hexx getwork was broken testing for 132, fixed by testing for 128.
3. The stratum code for zcoin uses 128, why not getwork?
4. 128 is the size used by most algos, stratum and getwork.
If you're so convinced the cpuminer-opt is wrong show me a miner that works.
https://github.com/djm34/ccminer-msvc2015
enough ?
also getwork and stratum doesn't carry the same information
getwork produce a pre-arranged ascii line with the message for a miner
stratum: full header
No. It uses 128.
Code:
static bool getwork_decode(json_t *res_val, struct work *work)
{
size_t worklen = 128;
worklen = ((work->pool->algorithm.type == ALGO_CRE) ? sizeof(work->data) : worklen);
if (unlikely(!jobj_binary(res_val, "data", work->data, worklen, true))) {
if (opt_morenotices)
applog(LOG_ERR, "%s: JSON inval data", isnull(get_pool_name(work->pool), ""));
return false;
}
so don't know why you have a problem...
and actually why you are complaining...here how it is done in ccminer, as you can see we accomodate for the different wallet with what they ask...
Code:
switch (opt_algo) {
case ALGO_M7:
data_size = 122;
adata_sz = data_size / 4;
break;
case ALGO_DECRED:
data_size = 192;
adata_sz = 180/4;
break;
case ALGO_NEOSCRYPT:
case ALGO_ZR5:
data_size = 80;
adata_sz = data_size / 4;
break;
default:
data_size = 128;
adata_sz = data_size / 4;
}
March 29, 2017, 04:31:04 PM
Guys, maybe you want to meet in a chatroom, or so ?
I prefer it here?
March 29, 2017, 04:28:23 PM
Im too tired..
Joblo, right answer!
djm, this time you and zcoin devs cant see what is wrong..
Next episode tomorrow!
Joblo, right answer!
djm, this time you and zcoin devs cant see what is wrong..
Next episode tomorrow!
March 29, 2017, 04:18:54 PM
1. When you changed the size test from 128 to 132 you left the byte swap at 128.
2. Hexx getwork was broken testing for 132, fixed by testing for 128.
3. The stratum code for zcoin uses 128, why not getwork?
4. 128 is the size used by most algos, stratum and getwork.
If you're so convinced the cpuminer-opt is wrong show me a miner that works.
https://github.com/djm34/sgminer-msvc20152. Hexx getwork was broken testing for 132, fixed by testing for 128.
3. The stratum code for zcoin uses 128, why not getwork?
4. 128 is the size used by most algos, stratum and getwork.
If you're so convinced the cpuminer-opt is wrong show me a miner that works.
https://github.com/djm34/ccminer-msvc2015
enough ?
also getwork and stratum doesn't carry the same information
getwork produce a pre-arranged ascii line with the message for a miner
stratum: full header
No. It uses 128.
Code:
static bool getwork_decode(json_t *res_val, struct work *work)
{
size_t worklen = 128;
worklen = ((work->pool->algorithm.type == ALGO_CRE) ? sizeof(work->data) : worklen);
if (unlikely(!jobj_binary(res_val, "data", work->data, worklen, true))) {
if (opt_morenotices)
applog(LOG_ERR, "%s: JSON inval data", isnull(get_pool_name(work->pool), ""));
return false;
}
March 29, 2017, 03:57:31 PM
1. When you changed the size test from 128 to 132 you left the byte swap at 128.
2. Hexx getwork was broken testing for 132, fixed by testing for 128.
3. The stratum code for zcoin uses 128, why not getwork?
4. 128 is the size used by most algos, stratum and getwork.
If you're so convinced the cpuminer-opt is wrong show me a miner that works.
https://github.com/djm34/sgminer-msvc20152. Hexx getwork was broken testing for 132, fixed by testing for 128.
3. The stratum code for zcoin uses 128, why not getwork?
4. 128 is the size used by most algos, stratum and getwork.
If you're so convinced the cpuminer-opt is wrong show me a miner that works.
https://github.com/djm34/ccminer-msvc2015
enough ?
also getwork and stratum doesn't carry the same information
getwork produce a pre-arranged ascii line with the message for a miner
stratum: full header
March 29, 2017, 03:57:08 PM
I see zcoin near zcash on coinmarketcap in near future!
March 29, 2017, 03:51:05 PM
1. When you changed the size test from 128 to 132 you left the byte swap at 128.
2. Hexx getwork was broken testing for 132, fixed by testing for 128.
3. The stratum code for zcoin uses 128, why not getwork?
4. 128 is the size used by most algos, stratum and getwork.
If you're so convinced the cpuminer-opt is wrong show me a miner that works.
2. Hexx getwork was broken testing for 132, fixed by testing for 128.
3. The stratum code for zcoin uses 128, why not getwork?
4. 128 is the size used by most algos, stratum and getwork.
If you're so convinced the cpuminer-opt is wrong show me a miner that works.
March 29, 2017, 03:35:39 PM
Guys, maybe you want to meet in a chatroom, or so ?
(yeah not sure why he isn't doing this on slack) 
March 29, 2017, 03:31:40 PM
Guys, maybe you want to meet in a chatroom, or so ?
March 29, 2017, 03:28:35 PM
Dont waste your time using Getwork, it will show as it would hash but it will not ever find a block.
All shares willbe rejected.
Devs should fix the wallet.
All shares willbe rejected.
Devs should fix the wallet.
We are mining with getwork on our testnet though? Will look into it. You fixed it on yours?
Getwork size is 128 if you did not change the size to lyra2z.
HexxCoin has it fixed, atlest when using cpuminer wallet needs the fix.
cpuminer-opt v3.6.0 works with fixed Zcoin wallet solo/Getwork.
Gpu miners not tested by myself because HexxCoin has none.
User felixbrucker has done more testing with the issue with cpuminer.
- for(int i = 0; i < 4; i++)
- {
- vchData.insert(vchData.begin(), 0);
- }
- if (vchData.size() != 132)
+ if (vchData.size() != 128)
I have compiled Zcoin windows 64bit wallet with the fix if you need with testing..
https://github.com/zcoinofficial/zcoin/commit/feb30a4dec722d5bce989e0840b9c50ed4affec5
Was fixed on 5 Feb I believe.
No..
That broke it!
It was working before that commit..
So I can confirm the wallet is working for both miners.
This has been tested and validated. (now in view of the size of the hashrate, it will take some time before you get a block)
Wrong!
Ask joblo for help.
Or Pm me.
Im not telling that your miner would not accept current getwork code, cpuminer will not.
Wallet source is coded wrong.
Validate drops after tesing 132 size. Gpu miner allows greater.??
Also the code above not valid for cpuminer.
Why none cant see it?
Don't reverse the problem.
Fix your miner and be done with it, don't ask everybody (else) to fix their code
ps: and don't say "wrong" you weren't be there...
Why fix MY miner when it is not mine?
miners (gpu) are only reading 80 like for most coins
explain this for cpuminer
- for(int i = 0; i < 4; i++)
- {
- vchData.insert(vchData.begin(), 0);
- }
how it could validate data size?
Lets just give time to dev fix the wallet and we move on.
(validation is required for some coin (not zcoin) and takes place when the data are requested or uploaded to the server through getwork
(example FTC/neoscrypt)
March 29, 2017, 03:13:58 PM
Dont waste your time using Getwork, it will show as it would hash but it will not ever find a block.
All shares willbe rejected.
Devs should fix the wallet.
All shares willbe rejected.
Devs should fix the wallet.
We are mining with getwork on our testnet though? Will look into it. You fixed it on yours?
Getwork size is 128 if you did not change the size to lyra2z.
HexxCoin has it fixed, atlest when using cpuminer wallet needs the fix.
cpuminer-opt v3.6.0 works with fixed Zcoin wallet solo/Getwork.
Gpu miners not tested by myself because HexxCoin has none.
User felixbrucker has done more testing with the issue with cpuminer.
- for(int i = 0; i < 4; i++)
- {
- vchData.insert(vchData.begin(), 0);
- }
- if (vchData.size() != 132)
+ if (vchData.size() != 128)
I have compiled Zcoin windows 64bit wallet with the fix if you need with testing..
https://github.com/zcoinofficial/zcoin/commit/feb30a4dec722d5bce989e0840b9c50ed4affec5
Was fixed on 5 Feb I believe.
No..
That broke it!
It was working before that commit..
So I can confirm the wallet is working for both miners.
This has been tested and validated. (now in view of the size of the hashrate, it will take some time before you get a block)
Wrong!
Ask joblo for help.
Or Pm me.
Im not telling that your miner would not accept current getwork code, cpuminer will not.
Wallet source is coded wrong.
Validate drops after tesing 132 size. Gpu miner allows greater.??
Also the code above not valid for cpuminer.
Why none cant see it?
Don't reverse the problem.
Fix your miner and be done with it, don't ask everybody (else) to fix their code
ps: and don't say "wrong" you weren't be there...
Why fix MY miner when it is not mine?
miners (gpu) are only reading 80 like for most coins
explain this for cpuminer
- for(int i = 0; i < 4; i++)
- {
- vchData.insert(vchData.begin(), 0);
- }
how it could validate data size?
Lets just give time to dev fix the wallet and we move on.
March 29, 2017, 03:11:48 PM
Dont waste your time using Getwork, it will show as it would hash but it will not ever find a block.
All shares willbe rejected.
Devs should fix the wallet.
All shares willbe rejected.
Devs should fix the wallet.
We are mining with getwork on our testnet though? Will look into it. You fixed it on yours?
Getwork size is 128 if you did not change the size to lyra2z.
HexxCoin has it fixed, atlest when using cpuminer wallet needs the fix.
cpuminer-opt v3.6.0 works with fixed Zcoin wallet solo/Getwork.
Gpu miners not tested by myself because HexxCoin has none.
User felixbrucker has done more testing with the issue with cpuminer.
- for(int i = 0; i < 4; i++)
- {
- vchData.insert(vchData.begin(), 0);
- }
- if (vchData.size() != 132)
+ if (vchData.size() != 128)
I have compiled Zcoin windows 64bit wallet with the fix if you need with testing..
https://github.com/zcoinofficial/zcoin/commit/feb30a4dec722d5bce989e0840b9c50ed4affec5
Was fixed on 5 Feb I believe.
No..
That broke it!
It was working before that commit..
So I can confirm the wallet is working for both miners.
This has been tested and validated. (now in view of the size of the hashrate, it will take some time before you get a block)
Wrong!
Ask joblo for help.
Or Pm me.
Im not telling that your miner would not accept current getwork code, cpuminer will not.
Wallet source is coded wrong.
Validate drops after tesing 132 size. Gpu miner allows greater.??
Also the code above not valid for cpuminer.
Why none cant see it?
Don't reverse the problem.
Fix your miner and be done with it, don't ask everybody (else) to fix their code
ps: and don't say "wrong" you weren't be there...
Why fix MY miner when it is not mine?
miners (gpu) are only reading 80 like for most coins
Jump to: