Topic: [ANN][RIC] Riecoin: constellations POW *CPU* HARD FORK successful, world record - page 193. (Read 685214 times)

I thought there were some problems with new pools, thats why i asked. If this is stable i will start mining there right now...

just saw that bitterx has a vote going on for a new coin to list

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/which-coins-should-bittrex-support-week-3-round-1-521726

income depends on the fee of the pool
why would you expect less income?

http://ric.upcpu.com/ already has 4 blocks

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definition_of_mathematics
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematics

After reading those, continue this argument.

dude, i am not appealing to authority. I am just saying that physics is nothing else than math especially today...Quantum mechanics is just maths...The science of science is exactly the maths...I seriously believe, in a friendly manner, that you have got it wrong. I would urge you to check the matter a bit more. But anyway...

Since ypool has most of the hashing power and this is not good i want to mine in other pool.

But is there any other stable pool? Which? And how much less income do you expect to have in other pool?

Looks like the difficulty is going to drop soon.

Yes... but jh00 open-sourced his code exactly so others could improve upon it?

...and Clintar deserves more for compiling with mingw... that is about as much fun as gouging out your own eyeballs with a rusty spoon

I know - but I built entirely on his codebase from xptMiner.  I've only changed one file in there - riecoinMiner.cpp.  All of the rest, from the threading and #cpu detection to the xpt protocol, is his.  I think it's right to have part of the dev fee go to jh00-the-developer, and for the pool fees to go to jh00-the-pool-creator/maintainer.

(I realize they're the same person and that jh00 benefits twice, but the way I mentally worked through this decision was to ask what I'd do if I'd based my code on someone else's miner -- I'd give part of the dev fee to them, too, so I figured it shouldn't be any different simply because jh00 also maintains the pool.)

This is the same reason the dev fee is split a little more for the Windows version -- Clintar did the patching and the makefile in his version for getting it to compile under the mingw framework, and helped me out getting my cross compilation environment working.

Oddly enough, I had libgmp-dev. What worked for me was the addition of "libboost-all-dev" (I had parts, not all )as suggested by the link trny provided. Thanks trny

gatra, stop using "crappy windows editors" unless you like assholes like me bitching and moaning

Oh and it messed up more than just CR/LF, think it messed with the encoding cause after retyping the "/config.status" non comment parts of "./configure" it went a step further. ".in'ig.status: error: cannot find input file: `" seems like an encoding issue

The gmp.h error is because you a are missing one of the dependencies: gmp (package libgmp-dev or you can get it from http://gmplib.org/ as stated in the README file)

Yes, it's possible that I messed up the CR/LF, I edited the files in some crappy windows editor and it changed my line endings.

Can I ask why the extra 0.5% to jh00? jh00 already makes his coins from pool fees, and could adjust those if he wanted to take a bigger slice.

Try the process at: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.5086753

heh, I actually did try dos2unix among other sed/perl/python/etc one-liners but all failed due to not mangling the sourcecode even further (and all in different ways, which I think backs up my higgledy-piggledy theory of encoding)

But as for the last I error I got
That actually seems to be unrelated to the line termination/encoding issues. Stuck for a fix though (installed all lib-devs that look relevant, no joy)

Navigating a CLI? No, but forking opersource crosspatform software and messing up one or both of those main features (yes, they are main features) is the fault of the/a dev

-b9 has been reduced to 7% dev fee.  6.5% me, 0.5% jh00.  Windows build is 6% me, 0.5% jh00, 0.5% Clintar.
http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~dga/crypto/ric/

(same filename, but re-uploaded on top of the old one - nothing else has changed).  As before, "smaller" uses less memory, but might be a little slower with the increasing diff.  It sieves out to fewer primes - 200m vs 500m.

md5 checksums:
951b331d896e47c754c974700a20b686  xptminer-sse4-b9
83abf911e7efb1ac973b6501c454ae4b  xptminer-sse4-b9-small.exeat
3805bc3baba80a42f586543f340d517f  xptminer-sse4-b9-smaller
edd62ba2088389d94016e71910b2ddf9  xptminer-sse4-b9.exe

Thanks to everyone who's putting up this experiment in yet-another-model-of-funding an eventual open source release of fast mining code.

Plan remains unchanged but added to a bit:
- Friday: 5%
- Sunday: 3%
- Whenever the definition of share is changed to match what Gatra & jh00 have decided:  Open sourced, with 1% dev fee left sitting in the code that will be easy to remove if you feel strongly about it.

I'll throw 200 RIC out of dev fees to the Riecoin foundation if it's created within the next two months.

Happy prime cluster finding, everyone.  I noticed the diff was over 1600 for the first time today - congratulations!

Update:  By request, there's now one avx2 version.  This is a test - if people provide good comparative benchmarks at the same diff and find that it's faster, I'll get it out for windows and keep providing that one too.  For now, regular size / linux only.  If it's faster enough, I'll work on improving the build process to automate creating some CPU-specific variants.

  -Dave

I'll pay with knowledge...

Install dos2unix or 'sed -e "s/^M$//"' (you'll need to ^V ^M to get the right string).

I understand that not everyone can code or can navigate a unix-ish CLI but is that the fault of a dev?

PS. My Verilog sucks but I don't blame the *coin ASIC miners for that.

--
bsunau7

I tried to jump on this coin at launch but had endless issues compiling a 32 bit wallet. Gave up; time passes.

Now I'm trying again (missed the boat, I know) and while I have the wallet, I still need a miner but... nothing but problems

Okay. That's common enough among the endless sporkcoins so...
Sure, CRLF/CR/LF/Encoding/whatever issues (I thought we were past this. It's LF and ASCII/UTF8 or STFU...) anyway, so lets just run the contents of autogen.sh manualy
Fine. Then on one system
And on another
Fun times. Love it when identical VM images act differently... anyway, some voodoo later (manual retyping of 2 lines on the latter system's (the easier fix) configure file)
YAY, more CRLF/CR/LF/Encoding/whatever bullshit... I give up. Please provide some unmangled sourcecode or at the very least, a 32 bit linux build.

I had faith in this coin from launch but it's just been a disappointment to me. Missed the boat due to, seemingly, dev's that take cross platform code, change a line or two (aka/ie, somenewcoin2.0), and completely fuck up all code portability. Seems like there's only a handful of actual developers in the cryptocurrency community that know what cross-platform/portable means.

If you have sympathy or pity this fool, RAvAQ3TrUNWrG2DDgfuPvdhzaiXtg2wjEu

If you have a real thought, you can elaborate it and share it with the class. There's lots of explanations for why math is not science all over the intarwebs, you can go look yourself. I'm not hijacking this thread with a philosophical discussion, I just wanted to make a point that I see math being called a science a lot lately, and it isn't. It's nice for you that you are just now studying relativity. If you want to play the "appeal to authority game" to justify an argument, that's a pretty un-mathy thing to do.

I don't really care about the definition much, but what irks me is why math people (and people who suck at math but still post Neil Degrasse Tyson pics and say "science is cool, lolz") get offended about their maths being called "not science", but then don't have a solid and accurate definition of science on hand to justify why math is a science. This is especially funny when math is all about rigorous definitions, so it should be easy for them. It's relation to science is that it is used to describe scientific concepts, like a language.

Why do math people want math to be science, anyway? It isn't. That's not bad, better, or worse. It just is. Why is this a problem? Why is this offensive? If you are a mathematician, you can be proud of it. Math is used for lots of things, including modeling a lot of scientific things. But it isn't, in itself, science.

Yes, by a couple of people as usual with a lot of CPU power taking advantage of the low difficulty. But hopefully, RIC mining attracts more people so that the network difficulty can be truly sustained.

Happy mining to all - have to work on a special project until early May. 

Vault of Satoshi (a decently big Canadian exchange) just asked which coins to add. We should make Riecoin be noticed. I am against a whole bunch of exchanges adding us all at once but big exchanges could certainly help us. I'll be writing a nice long reply to them tomorrow but maybe others could today?

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/vault-of-satoshi-asks-what-coins-do-you-want-to-see-519658