Topic: [ANN][BURST] Burst | Efficient HDD Mining | New 1.2.3 Fork block 92000 - page 453. (Read 2171057 times)
January 26, 2015, 07:06:43 AM
I tried searching and reading but with the current rate. How much BTC per day do I earn with a 1TB harddrive?
January 26, 2015, 07:03:03 AM
after having downloaded the right fork things worked for a while again, but right now, my wallets seem to post an error every 15 seconds, along the lines of :
i am working on block 60018 on all 3 wallets (all 3 showing above info message, with various intervals from seconds to minutes)
basetarget 2027904 height 60018 indicates i am on the right chain right now i would assume, but i fear we might have forked again around 60017 +/- as the last fork started with a similar error beginning to show on the bad fork.
Must admit that i *am* running a version i compiled myself, so i might have done something wrong in the build, in which case i should be the only one seeing above error. When i'm back from work tonight, i'll try to use the original 1.2.1 and see if that makes a difference.
Quote
2015-01-26 10:46:15 INFO: tx with id -1019205954960601549 found
2015-01-26 10:46:15 INFO: get timestamp for tx with id -1019205954960601549 found
nxt.at.AT_Exception: Calculated md5 and recieved md5 are not matching
at nxt.at.AT_Controller.validateATs(AT_Controller.java:404)
at nxt.BlockchainProcessorImpl.accept(BlockchainProcessorImpl.java:682)
at nxt.BlockchainProcessorImpl.pushBlock(BlockchainProcessorImpl.java:647)
at nxt.BlockchainProcessorImpl.access$400(BlockchainProcessorImpl.java:51)
at nxt.BlockchainProcessorImpl$1.run(BlockchainProcessorImpl.java:171)
at java.util.concurrent.Executors$RunnableAdapter.call(Unknown Source)
at java.util.concurrent.FutureTask.runAndReset(Unknown Source)
at java.util.concurrent.ScheduledThreadPoolExecutor$ScheduledFutureTask.access$301(Unknown Source)
at java.util.concurrent.ScheduledThreadPoolExecutor$ScheduledFutureTask.run(Unknown Source)
at java.util.concurrent.ThreadPoolExecutor.runWorker(Unknown Source)
at java.util.concurrent.ThreadPoolExecutor$Worker.run(Unknown Source)
at java.lang.Thread.run(Unknown Source)
2015-01-26 10:46:15 INFO: get timestamp for tx with id -1019205954960601549 found
nxt.at.AT_Exception: Calculated md5 and recieved md5 are not matching
at nxt.at.AT_Controller.validateATs(AT_Controller.java:404)
at nxt.BlockchainProcessorImpl.accept(BlockchainProcessorImpl.java:682)
at nxt.BlockchainProcessorImpl.pushBlock(BlockchainProcessorImpl.java:647)
at nxt.BlockchainProcessorImpl.access$400(BlockchainProcessorImpl.java:51)
at nxt.BlockchainProcessorImpl$1.run(BlockchainProcessorImpl.java:171)
at java.util.concurrent.Executors$RunnableAdapter.call(Unknown Source)
at java.util.concurrent.FutureTask.runAndReset(Unknown Source)
at java.util.concurrent.ScheduledThreadPoolExecutor$ScheduledFutureTask.access$301(Unknown Source)
at java.util.concurrent.ScheduledThreadPoolExecutor$ScheduledFutureTask.run(Unknown Source)
at java.util.concurrent.ThreadPoolExecutor.runWorker(Unknown Source)
at java.util.concurrent.ThreadPoolExecutor$Worker.run(Unknown Source)
at java.lang.Thread.run(Unknown Source)
i am working on block 60018 on all 3 wallets (all 3 showing above info message, with various intervals from seconds to minutes)
basetarget 2027904 height 60018 indicates i am on the right chain right now i would assume, but i fear we might have forked again around 60017 +/- as the last fork started with a similar error beginning to show on the bad fork.
Must admit that i *am* running a version i compiled myself, so i might have done something wrong in the build, in which case i should be the only one seeing above error. When i'm back from work tonight, i'll try to use the original 1.2.1 and see if that makes a difference.
That exception is fine, it's throwing that when rejecting blocks from the 1.2.0 fork, and it's caught in block validation. I had it dumping the stack trace for debugging purposes, but now I should probably change it to a simple log message.
January 26, 2015, 07:00:06 AM
this top pools is on the same chain. They can be use as a reference for correct chain i think
http://cryptomining.farm
http://178.62.39.204:8121
https://mining.burstcoin.io/
Also, block explore http://burstcoin.eu is also showing the same block number as the above 3 pools.
http://cryptomining.farm
http://178.62.39.204:8121
https://mining.burstcoin.io/
Also, block explore http://burstcoin.eu is also showing the same block number as the above 3 pools.
January 26, 2015, 06:59:24 AM
wallet.burstcoin.io is down?
any working web wallet?
any working web wallet?
January 26, 2015, 06:56:44 AM
did top 5 pool update their wallet ?
January 26, 2015, 06:51:29 AM
I have no idea what is going on:
Block explorer shows balance = 2108
http://burstcoin.eu/address/10709331655304380457
but in my personal wallet my balance is 1178
And information from uray pool
Deadline
794419
9 days
avg 6 days
Share
0.526%
score 0.0003
avg 0.0021
Balance
1403.00
5677/day
avg 15.77/blk
Last Payout
0.00
#0
45 years ago
Block explorer shows balance = 2108
http://burstcoin.eu/address/10709331655304380457
but in my personal wallet my balance is 1178
And information from uray pool
Deadline
794419
9 days
avg 6 days
Share
0.526%
score 0.0003
avg 0.0021
Balance
1403.00
5677/day
avg 15.77/blk
Last Payout
0.00
#0
45 years ago
January 26, 2015, 06:42:36 AM
8pool update wallet 1.2.1
pool is down for update system
http://burst8pool.dtdns.net:88
(port 8124 or 88)
pool is down for update system
http://burst8pool.dtdns.net:88
(port 8124 or 88)
January 26, 2015, 04:55:51 AM
My Wallet is on the 60027
January 26, 2015, 04:53:12 AM
Thanks for the DB download.
I've been mining coins for quite a long time and have seen some pretty shitty forks, which usually result in the developers having to release a client that actually kills the bad forks. I don't understand why developers and people say 'just let it sort itself out', meanwhile countless users of the coin risk losing fuck tons and mining time by continuing to use essentially a broken coin?
Developers should be on top of this shit. They should immediately release a client that kills the old forks if it doesn't clear itself up in 3-6 hours. We've had this forking issues since the 1.2.1 release if I'm not mistaken, which happened on... friday? From what I understand, it's not hard to kill old forks either with a new client.
Forks are like a slow poison that work their way through a coin and really mess things up. If there is an exchange as big as Poloniex still on the wrong fork, there is definitely something wrong, regardless of how good the coin is. Tons of people exchange with poloniex and if they see their transactions going through, it'll perpetuate the circle.
There is essentially six pages of posts here trying to find ways to fix the fork, work on the fork, and eventually culminated in a 'community fix', which is transplanting someone elses DB to your computer, which you should never need to do if everything is working alright. Is releasing a new version of the wallet really 'that' bad compared to having people possibly sit on a fork for god knows how long?
I know, I know, forks happen, but pro-active development could really limit their impact.
1.2.1 was the fix. It was released 6 days ago.I've been mining coins for quite a long time and have seen some pretty shitty forks, which usually result in the developers having to release a client that actually kills the bad forks. I don't understand why developers and people say 'just let it sort itself out', meanwhile countless users of the coin risk losing fuck tons and mining time by continuing to use essentially a broken coin?
Developers should be on top of this shit. They should immediately release a client that kills the old forks if it doesn't clear itself up in 3-6 hours. We've had this forking issues since the 1.2.1 release if I'm not mistaken, which happened on... friday? From what I understand, it's not hard to kill old forks either with a new client.
Forks are like a slow poison that work their way through a coin and really mess things up. If there is an exchange as big as Poloniex still on the wrong fork, there is definitely something wrong, regardless of how good the coin is. Tons of people exchange with poloniex and if they see their transactions going through, it'll perpetuate the circle.
There is essentially six pages of posts here trying to find ways to fix the fork, work on the fork, and eventually culminated in a 'community fix', which is transplanting someone elses DB to your computer, which you should never need to do if everything is working alright. Is releasing a new version of the wallet really 'that' bad compared to having people possibly sit on a fork for god knows how long?
I know, I know, forks happen, but pro-active development could really limit their impact.
1.2.1 won't sync to the 1.2.0 fork, and 1.2.0 won't sync to the 1.2.1 fork, however 1.2.1 can get stuck for a little while at the fork point if it can't find the 1.2.1 fork right away due to all the 1.2.0 spam.
The only problem in play right now is the number of 1.2.0 clients around and amount of hashrate still on 1.2.0 keeping that fork running and widely available. Sure an update could be released to blacklist the 1.2.0 fork, but the 1.2.0 fork fails validation in 1.2.1 anyway, so it wouldn't change anything. The only fix is having a larger percent of the network on 1.2.1, and time and publicity are the only things that help that out.
Personally I've yet to see any significant issues getting onto the correct fork when using 1.2.1, although it depends a lot on which/how many peers you are connected to. I had 4 instances of 1.2.1 running from separate locations from before the fork, and they all followed onto the correct one without issue. I've also synced up to date in 1.2.1 from old blockchain copies I had, and from fully synced 1.2.0 from the bad fork, and nothing took more than a few minutes to figure out which the correct chain was.
things worked fine for my wallets too, but at 59800 something broke, and i went on a bad fork, i tried to restart many many times, and waited for hours. my wallets were stuck on the shorter chain, and there were these notifications of exceptions as shown previously. i didn't have the experience that my 1.2.1s went to the longer chain by themselves in any kind of hurry.
after having downloaded the right fork things worked for a while again, but right now, my wallets seem to post an error every 15 seconds, along the lines of :
Quote
2015-01-26 10:46:15 INFO: tx with id -1019205954960601549 found
2015-01-26 10:46:15 INFO: get timestamp for tx with id -1019205954960601549 found
nxt.at.AT_Exception: Calculated md5 and recieved md5 are not matching
at nxt.at.AT_Controller.validateATs(AT_Controller.java:404)
at nxt.BlockchainProcessorImpl.accept(BlockchainProcessorImpl.java:682)
at nxt.BlockchainProcessorImpl.pushBlock(BlockchainProcessorImpl.java:647)
at nxt.BlockchainProcessorImpl.access$400(BlockchainProcessorImpl.java:51)
at nxt.BlockchainProcessorImpl$1.run(BlockchainProcessorImpl.java:171)
at java.util.concurrent.Executors$RunnableAdapter.call(Unknown Source)
at java.util.concurrent.FutureTask.runAndReset(Unknown Source)
at java.util.concurrent.ScheduledThreadPoolExecutor$ScheduledFutureTask.access$301(Unknown Source)
at java.util.concurrent.ScheduledThreadPoolExecutor$ScheduledFutureTask.run(Unknown Source)
at java.util.concurrent.ThreadPoolExecutor.runWorker(Unknown Source)
at java.util.concurrent.ThreadPoolExecutor$Worker.run(Unknown Source)
at java.lang.Thread.run(Unknown Source)
2015-01-26 10:46:15 INFO: get timestamp for tx with id -1019205954960601549 found
nxt.at.AT_Exception: Calculated md5 and recieved md5 are not matching
at nxt.at.AT_Controller.validateATs(AT_Controller.java:404)
at nxt.BlockchainProcessorImpl.accept(BlockchainProcessorImpl.java:682)
at nxt.BlockchainProcessorImpl.pushBlock(BlockchainProcessorImpl.java:647)
at nxt.BlockchainProcessorImpl.access$400(BlockchainProcessorImpl.java:51)
at nxt.BlockchainProcessorImpl$1.run(BlockchainProcessorImpl.java:171)
at java.util.concurrent.Executors$RunnableAdapter.call(Unknown Source)
at java.util.concurrent.FutureTask.runAndReset(Unknown Source)
at java.util.concurrent.ScheduledThreadPoolExecutor$ScheduledFutureTask.access$301(Unknown Source)
at java.util.concurrent.ScheduledThreadPoolExecutor$ScheduledFutureTask.run(Unknown Source)
at java.util.concurrent.ThreadPoolExecutor.runWorker(Unknown Source)
at java.util.concurrent.ThreadPoolExecutor$Worker.run(Unknown Source)
at java.lang.Thread.run(Unknown Source)
i am working on block 60018 on all 3 wallets (all 3 showing above info message, with various intervals from seconds to minutes)
basetarget 2027904 height 60018 indicates i am on the right chain right now i would assume, but i fear we might have forked again around 60017 +/- as the last fork started with a similar error beginning to show on the bad fork.
Must admit that i *am* running a version i compiled myself, so i might have done something wrong in the build, in which case i should be the only one seeing above error. When i'm back from work tonight, i'll try to use the original 1.2.1 and see if that makes a difference.
January 26, 2015, 04:13:48 AM
Hello all!
Now pool cryptomining.farm work incorrect.
He find block 60022.
Polls burst.ga and other find block 60025.
Now pool cryptomining.farm work incorrect.
He find block 60022.
Polls burst.ga and other find block 60025.
January 26, 2015, 04:03:56 AM
Not really good but better than 1.2.0...?
Updated db folder on mega:
https://mega.co.nz/#!J8hyHDjI!lx0o_Ei1p4a3QIgeZ-s8z8hkG-BoUKFx11FvXiNc1GI
January 26, 2015, 03:50:34 AM
6BTC dump@polo
January 26, 2015, 03:21:38 AM
Mod in Polo's trollbox:
Quote
whatever: OldManKidd, are your BURST wallet updated?
whatever: OldManKidd, http://is.gd/6xoPV7
OldManKidd: whatever, it has been reported already... withdrawal and deposits are down at this time
whatever: OldManKidd, update wallet and DB from http://is.gd/6xoPV7
whatever: OldManKidd, you are on a fork
OldManKidd: whatever, we are aware of the update. it should be done shortly
whatever: OldManKidd, http://is.gd/6xoPV7
OldManKidd: whatever, it has been reported already... withdrawal and deposits are down at this time
whatever: OldManKidd, update wallet and DB from http://is.gd/6xoPV7
whatever: OldManKidd, you are on a fork
OldManKidd: whatever, we are aware of the update. it should be done shortly
I've got my Polo deposit but no answer on the ticket yet. I'll try a withdraw.
***EDIT: Both deposits and withdraws from poloniex.com is working again
January 26, 2015, 03:07:55 AM
January 26, 2015, 03:05:41 AM
@poloniex chat
mirnyyy: Is BURST on the good chain?
Coinsss: mirnyyy, ya i think so
Chickenliver: mirnyyy, yes
mirnyyy: Is BURST on the good chain?
Coinsss: mirnyyy, ya i think so
Chickenliver: mirnyyy, yes
January 26, 2015, 02:02:14 AM
Thanks for the DB download.
I've been mining coins for quite a long time and have seen some pretty shitty forks, which usually result in the developers having to release a client that actually kills the bad forks. I don't understand why developers and people say 'just let it sort itself out', meanwhile countless users of the coin risk losing fuck tons and mining time by continuing to use essentially a broken coin?
Developers should be on top of this shit. They should immediately release a client that kills the old forks if it doesn't clear itself up in 3-6 hours. We've had this forking issues since the 1.2.1 release if I'm not mistaken, which happened on... friday? From what I understand, it's not hard to kill old forks either with a new client.
Forks are like a slow poison that work their way through a coin and really mess things up. If there is an exchange as big as Poloniex still on the wrong fork, there is definitely something wrong, regardless of how good the coin is. Tons of people exchange with poloniex and if they see their transactions going through, it'll perpetuate the circle.
There is essentially six pages of posts here trying to find ways to fix the fork, work on the fork, and eventually culminated in a 'community fix', which is transplanting someone elses DB to your computer, which you should never need to do if everything is working alright. Is releasing a new version of the wallet really 'that' bad compared to having people possibly sit on a fork for god knows how long?
I know, I know, forks happen, but pro-active development could really limit their impact.
1.2.1 was the fix. It was released 6 days ago.I've been mining coins for quite a long time and have seen some pretty shitty forks, which usually result in the developers having to release a client that actually kills the bad forks. I don't understand why developers and people say 'just let it sort itself out', meanwhile countless users of the coin risk losing fuck tons and mining time by continuing to use essentially a broken coin?
Developers should be on top of this shit. They should immediately release a client that kills the old forks if it doesn't clear itself up in 3-6 hours. We've had this forking issues since the 1.2.1 release if I'm not mistaken, which happened on... friday? From what I understand, it's not hard to kill old forks either with a new client.
Forks are like a slow poison that work their way through a coin and really mess things up. If there is an exchange as big as Poloniex still on the wrong fork, there is definitely something wrong, regardless of how good the coin is. Tons of people exchange with poloniex and if they see their transactions going through, it'll perpetuate the circle.
There is essentially six pages of posts here trying to find ways to fix the fork, work on the fork, and eventually culminated in a 'community fix', which is transplanting someone elses DB to your computer, which you should never need to do if everything is working alright. Is releasing a new version of the wallet really 'that' bad compared to having people possibly sit on a fork for god knows how long?
I know, I know, forks happen, but pro-active development could really limit their impact.
1.2.1 won't sync to the 1.2.0 fork, and 1.2.0 won't sync to the 1.2.1 fork, however 1.2.1 can get stuck for a little while at the fork point if it can't find the 1.2.1 fork right away due to all the 1.2.0 spam.
The only problem in play right now is the number of 1.2.0 clients around and amount of hashrate still on 1.2.0 keeping that fork running and widely available. Sure an update could be released to blacklist the 1.2.0 fork, but the 1.2.0 fork fails validation in 1.2.1 anyway, so it wouldn't change anything. The only fix is having a larger percent of the network on 1.2.1, and time and publicity are the only things that help that out.
Personally I've yet to see any significant issues getting onto the correct fork when using 1.2.1, although it depends a lot on which/how many peers you are connected to. I had 4 instances of 1.2.1 running from separate locations from before the fork, and they all followed onto the correct one without issue. I've also synced up to date in 1.2.1 from old blockchain copies I had, and from fully synced 1.2.0 from the bad fork, and nothing took more than a few minutes to figure out which the correct chain was.
January 26, 2015, 01:49:47 AM
also have errors in java console
INFO: tx id with id 0 found
Transaction to found amount 0
get timestamp for tx id - found
INFO: tx id with id 0 found
Transaction to
get timestamp for tx id - found
This is not an error, these messages are debug messages for the AT, they will be removed in next release
January 26, 2015, 01:49:03 AM
My mining statistics is on right fork now 
It's working again!
calculator is going crazy, diff so low
It's working again!
calculator is going crazy, diff so low
January 26, 2015, 01:33:24 AM
I need some help getting my rig mining.
I have claimed some BURST on different faucets, but my address is still "not found" at https://mining.burstcoin.io/
Can someone send me some burstcoins, so that I can get started with mining...
Or am I wrong with this interpretation???
Thanks!
I have claimed some BURST on different faucets, but my address is still "not found" at https://mining.burstcoin.io/
Can someone send me some burstcoins, so that I can get started with mining...
Or am I wrong with this interpretation???
Thanks!
January 26, 2015, 01:30:20 AM
also have errors in java console
INFO: tx id with id 0 found
Transaction to found amount 0
get timestamp for tx id - found
INFO: tx id with id 0 found
Transaction to
get timestamp for tx id - found
Jump to: