also, i know someone is working on porting GUIminer to blakecoin for windows, although im not sure which version of cgminer they are using under the hood. i know perhaps thats not the answer you were looking for but hopefully it was still helpful 
Topic: [ANN][BLC] Blakecoin Blake-256 for GPU/FPGA With Merged Mined Pools Stable Net - page 106. (Read 409641 times)
May 07, 2014, 05:44:24 PM
oinquer, wish i could help you but i dont use windows much. however, from what i understand, cgminer 3.1.1 is considered very stable and there isnt much reason to use 3.7. if i remember right, most of the changes between those versions were for sha256d asic miners. if you really want cgminer 3.7 on windows, perhaps someone can help you with that; or you could try compiling it yourself and share it with the community also, i know someone is working on porting GUIminer to blakecoin for windows, although im not sure which version of cgminer they are using under the hood. i know perhaps thats not the answer you were looking for but hopefully it was still helpful
also, i know someone is working on porting GUIminer to blakecoin for windows, although im not sure which version of cgminer they are using under the hood. i know perhaps thats not the answer you were looking for but hopefully it was still helpful May 07, 2014, 06:48:36 AM
hmm checking the coin and there's cgminer 3.1.1 and 3.7 but no windows compile for 3.7? anyone already did it?
if yes please give a link.
thanks.
if yes please give a link.
thanks.
May 06, 2014, 02:41:37 PM
@BlueDragon747
Maybe you could update thread's topic and mention merge mining?
Maybe you could update thread's topic and mention merge mining?
Updated hope thats ok
Edit:
Updated site replaced unused forum with information about merged mining and supported coins
May 06, 2014, 01:34:26 PM
@BlueDragon747
Maybe you could update thread's topic and mention merge mining?
Maybe you could update thread's topic and mention merge mining?
May 06, 2014, 03:41:38 AM
A fast blockchain is secure , as we see the scrypt 1024 switching pools diminish in profit many individuals will abandon mining however those of us who understand how important these networks are to the future will still mine. Some rather than abandon mining will join the Blake Coin blockchain.
It is still very very young and just now evolving to show the world it's true potential.
I see miners from every corner of the world waiting for true alternatives --- each one who joins will make the Blake Coin (and child coin) blockchains stronger. It may take some time.
True not artificial value will be born from the strength of the network as it experiences steady growth.
We have all read the details and can see the technology advantages of blake 256.
We will all find out soon as the genie is out of the bottle now
It is still very very young and just now evolving to show the world it's true potential.
I see miners from every corner of the world waiting for true alternatives --- each one who joins will make the Blake Coin (and child coin) blockchains stronger. It may take some time.
True not artificial value will be born from the strength of the network as it experiences steady growth.
We have all read the details and can see the technology advantages of blake 256.
Who here thinks Merge Mining is the future and this will make Blakecoin rise in value ALOT?
We will all find out soon as the genie is out of the bottle now
May 06, 2014, 03:22:10 AM
Who here thinks Merge Mining is the future and this will make Blakecoin rise in value ALOT?
We will all find out soon as the genie is out of the bottle now
May 06, 2014, 01:54:48 AM
Who here thinks Merge Mining is the future and this will make Blakecoin rise in value ALOT?
May 05, 2014, 01:04:25 PM
Since NY2 and EU3 are merged already we won't have to change pools again when you add more coins? (will Dirac burn a hole in my wallet? 
)
)Thats right NY2 and EU3 will remain the db has already been extended for 10 aux coins so its ready for me to add more, MPOS is only modded to 4 coins atm but its a drop in replacement for current MPOS on merged pools so I hope down time will be 30-45 minutes when the new coins are added
Still waiting on news from Bryce about Dirac
May 05, 2014, 12:54:15 PM
Since NY2 and EU3 are merged already we won't have to change pools again when you add more coins? (will Dirac burn a hole in my wallet? )
) May 05, 2014, 03:58:09 AM
Aha, ok thanks for the info. So eu1 is going to be PPLNS too soon?
no sorry eu1 will be closed its buggy and creates lots of maintenance for me backend here
on eu2 some people get issues with email so that will be closed, same for photon1
ny1 works well I dont get any issues with it so this might be open longer, ocminer also runs a pool you could try that
Edit:
Upgrading the server is a total PITA and I made quite a few changes to db plus some of the dependencies have been changed to more stable(older) versions
May 05, 2014, 03:44:08 AM
Aha, ok thanks for the info. So eu1 is going to be PPLNS too soon?
May 05, 2014, 03:11:30 AM
But then something is wrong, the payout on eu1 was ~20 BLC for like a couple of hours and on eu3 I got ~10 BLC after the whole night.
nope you are paid per share on eu1 and paid per last n share on eu3 you will see the PPLNS target for your account for each round on each chain will be a large number if you just joined (in days/shares/rounds)
Info on PPLNS:
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/pplns-39832
Edit:
e.g with eu1 if a larger miner joins the round they will get the biggest share with PPS and this may push up the difficulty then leave with other miners having to solve long rounds but with PPLNS they would need to build their loyalty up before they get a fair share of the total reward so a long term (possibly smaller hashing) miner would get more and not miss out, this reduces incentive to large p&d/farm/pool hoping miners and rewards the miner who mines long term (days/weeks/months)
May 05, 2014, 03:03:38 AM
But then something is wrong, the payout on eu1 was ~20 BLC for like a couple of hours and on eu3 I got ~10 BLC after the whole night.
May 05, 2014, 02:52:56 AM
Ok, should the merged mining generate 100% BLC AND 100% PHO or is it 50%/50%?
I definetly get less BLC on eu3, I agree with Gavin, alt currencies are just inflation, merged mining would be really inflationary (and counter productive really) if it was 100% extra for each merged coin.
I just mine BLC as hedge for SHA-256 because it can use the FPGA's, I don't really care which Blake-coin I mine.
Back to eu1!
I definetly get less BLC on eu3, I agree with Gavin, alt currencies are just inflation, merged mining would be really inflationary (and counter productive really) if it was 100% extra for each merged coin.
I just mine BLC as hedge for SHA-256 because it can use the FPGA's, I don't really care which Blake-coin I mine.
Back to eu1!
the diff is lower on PHO atm so its more like 100% + 300% e.g 1 BLC and 3 PHO blocks with same hashing power
(solves could be for all chains in merge or just 1 it depends on the chains difficulty and the share difficulty)the pools are a true merge if someone on the pool submits a share that solves a block on any of the chains the reward is shared in PPLNS -fees
PPLNS is less per round if you just joined but best for long term miner on the pool also atm the merge pools have more hashing so the rewards is reflected but the speed of round should be shorter!
I think also you miss the point with Blakecoin its got built in inflation for difficulty and block height e.g the reward gets more per block over time and with increasing difficulty
I will be phasing out the following pools eu1, eu2, ny1, photon1
Note:
50%/50% this would be a multipool that switches the main chain 50% of the time and not a true merge!
May 05, 2014, 02:24:01 AM
Ok, should the merged mining generate 100% BLC AND 100% PHO or is it 50%/50%?
I definetly get less BLC on eu3, I agree with Gavin, alt currencies are just inflation, merged mining would be really inflationary (and counter productive really) if it was 100% extra for each merged coin.
I just mine BLC as hedge for SHA-256 because it can use the FPGA's, I don't really care which Blake-coin I mine.
Back to eu1!
I definetly get less BLC on eu3, I agree with Gavin, alt currencies are just inflation, merged mining would be really inflationary (and counter productive really) if it was 100% extra for each merged coin.
I just mine BLC as hedge for SHA-256 because it can use the FPGA's, I don't really care which Blake-coin I mine.
Back to eu1!
May 04, 2014, 09:57:18 PM
I have 16 wallets open on my desktop ATM, So I don't have a prob with it. I consider coins in exchange or pool at higher risk. Have adjusted PHO payout higher to reduce load on pool
Having pool payout to a exchange directly can be a problem. Pool uses same 'from' address for multiple users. So you should not just have autopayout go to exchange. Atomic trade has both BLC and PHO and Blue is working with AT owner on new coins for merged mining.
There is at least one pool that is using cryptsy API for payout. Atomic is working on API and that might be solution.
The only issue with direct to exchange is many small transactions put extra unneeded load on the coin server of the exchange (mainly due to user setting low payout amount from pool)
The problem with website wallets and having your coins hosted etc is the security risk e.g Mt Gox, Inputs.io etc..
Byron runs a secure service with his exchange but it would still centralize the risk
The safest way to store any coin is to have control yourself and Private keys should be kept Private
If so, we need to look at storage, nobody is going to want to manage four+ wallets... we need an exchange or storage with "static" addresses!
Having pool payout to a exchange directly can be a problem. Pool uses same 'from' address for multiple users. So you should not just have autopayout go to exchange. Atomic trade has both BLC and PHO and Blue is working with AT owner on new coins for merged mining.
There is at least one pool that is using cryptsy API for payout. Atomic is working on API and that might be solution.
The only issue with direct to exchange is many small transactions put extra unneeded load on the coin server of the exchange (mainly due to user setting low payout amount from pool)
The problem with website wallets and having your coins hosted etc is the security risk e.g Mt Gox, Inputs.io etc..
Byron runs a secure service with his exchange but it would still centralize the risk
The safest way to store any coin is to have control yourself and Private keys should be kept Private
May 04, 2014, 04:52:14 PM
If so, we need to look at storage, nobody is going to want to manage four+ wallets... we need an exchange or storage with "static" addresses!
Having pool payout to a exchange directly can be a problem. Pool uses same 'from' address for multiple users. So you should not just have autopayout go to exchange. Atomic trade has both BLC and PHO and Blue is working with AT owner on new coins for merged mining.
There is at least one pool that is using cryptsy API for payout. Atomic is working on API and that might be solution.
The only issue with direct to exchange is many small transactions put extra unneeded load on the coin server of the exchange (mainly due to user setting low payout amount from pool)
The problem with website wallets and having your coins hosted etc is the security risk e.g Mt Gox, Inputs.io etc..
Byron runs a secure service with his exchange but it would still centralize the risk
The safest way to store any coin is to have control yourself and Private keys should be kept Private
May 04, 2014, 04:44:53 PM
If so, we need to look at storage, nobody is going to want to manage four+ wallets... we need an exchange or storage with "static" addresses!
I currently run more than four wallets on my machine I dont see the issue
you dont even need to have them running live as once you have an address and the private key for it all the data e.g your coins are stored in the blockchain!
Also note resource usage is not the same
Bitcoin-qt uses almost 500MB of ram yet Blakecoin-qt is using 93MB and Photon-qt 64MB so it is still very lightweight compared to other wallets
May 04, 2014, 04:42:31 PM
If so, we need to look at storage, nobody is going to want to manage four+ wallets... we need an exchange or storage with "static" addresses!
Having pool payout to a exchange directly can be a problem. Pool uses same 'from' address for multiple users. So you should not just have autopayout go to exchange. Atomic trade has both BLC and PHO and Blue is working with AT owner on new coins for merged mining.
There is at least one pool that is using cryptsy API for payout. Atomic is working on API and that might be solution.
May 04, 2014, 04:17:34 PM
If so, we need to look at storage, nobody is going to want to manage four+ wallets... we need an exchange or storage with "static" addresses!
Jump to: