WTS 800 RIC=7 BTC
pm me if you want buy some.
pm me if you want buy some.
The most insane price I ever seen in 1st day of a new coin
Topic: [ANN][RIC] Riecoin: constellations POW *CPU* HARD FORK successful, world record - page 255. (Read 685216 times)
February 12, 2014, 10:49:51 AM
The most insane price I ever seen in 1st day of a new coin
February 12, 2014, 10:47:29 AM
WTS 800 RIC=7 BTC
pm me if you want buy some.
pm me if you want buy some.
February 12, 2014, 10:44:49 AM
From a quick examination of their miner, it's less than a day of work for a good programmer to get a 5-10x speedup. Someone who's had experience in high performance prime sieves could get more in less time.
(I hacked on my own version briefly and got an 80% speedup with about 30 minutes of work.)
I'd be surprised if there aren't at least several private fast implementations done already, devs or otherwise. Doesn't mean the devs did it, of course, but I'd bet money that someone did.
Where's the code with those 80% speed increases? Or do you prefer to keep them to yourself? (I hacked on my own version briefly and got an 80% speedup with about 30 minutes of work.)
I'd be surprised if there aren't at least several private fast implementations done already, devs or otherwise. Doesn't mean the devs did it, of course, but I'd bet money that someone did.
February 12, 2014, 10:44:16 AM
I tried the cpu-miner.c primes 6->4 change and it shows faster with --benchmark, but showed slower pointed at an actual wallet.
Same here but doesn't actual performance should also follow benchmark result ?
February 12, 2014, 10:43:01 AM
pool 
?
? February 12, 2014, 10:31:57 AM
Something really smells about this coin... I've changed cpu-miner.c (work->primes = 6; -> work->primes = 4;) and started benchmarking using "./rminerd --benchmark -q -t 24" command, here are the results:
[2014-02-12 09:46:28] accepted: 6 in 2900 seconds
[2014-02-12 09:46:33] Total: 820369 knumbers/s
[2014-02-12 09:46:33] Expected average time to block: 0.578915
[2014-02-12 09:46:33] accepted: 6 in 2905 seconds
So, expected time to find block is 0.578915 but I've found only 6 blocks in 2905 seconds, that's ca 850 times worse than estimation! When coin was launched "Expected average time to block" was 6200 s on the same machine, i.e. 61 day if we scale it according to the benchmarking results. That's really insane.
I guess that only devs are using the real miner...
Any comments before I say some harsh words to devs and their "fair" coin?
[2014-02-12 09:46:28] accepted: 6 in 2900 seconds
[2014-02-12 09:46:33] Total: 820369 knumbers/s
[2014-02-12 09:46:33] Expected average time to block: 0.578915
[2014-02-12 09:46:33] accepted: 6 in 2905 seconds
So, expected time to find block is 0.578915 but I've found only 6 blocks in 2905 seconds, that's ca 850 times worse than estimation! When coin was launched "Expected average time to block" was 6200 s on the same machine, i.e. 61 day if we scale it according to the benchmarking results. That's really insane.
I guess that only devs are using the real miner...
Any comments before I say some harsh words to devs and their "fair" coin?
From a quick examination of their miner, it's less than a day of work for a good programmer to get a 5-10x speedup. Someone who's had experience in high performance prime sieves could get more in less time.
(I hacked on my own version briefly and got an 80% speedup with about 30 minutes of work.)
I'd be surprised if there aren't at least several private fast implementations done already, devs or otherwise. Doesn't mean the devs did it, of course, but I'd bet money that someone did.
-Dave
Sounds pretty much like XPM - I think the optimized miner was something like 10x as fast as the original.
I tried the cpu-miner.c primes 6->4 change and it shows faster with --benchmark, but showed slower pointed at an actual wallet.
February 12, 2014, 10:17:35 AM
Something really smells about this coin... I've changed cpu-miner.c (work->primes = 6; -> work->primes = 4;) and started benchmarking using "./rminerd --benchmark -q -t 24" command, here are the results:
[2014-02-12 09:46:28] accepted: 6 in 2900 seconds
[2014-02-12 09:46:33] Total: 820369 knumbers/s
[2014-02-12 09:46:33] Expected average time to block: 0.578915
[2014-02-12 09:46:33] accepted: 6 in 2905 seconds
So, expected time to find block is 0.578915 but I've found only 6 blocks in 2905 seconds, that's ca 850 times worse than estimation! When coin was launched "Expected average time to block" was 6200 s on the same machine, i.e. 61 day if we scale it according to the benchmarking results. That's really insane.
I guess that only devs are using the real miner...
Any comments before I say some harsh words to devs and their "fair" coin?
[2014-02-12 09:46:28] accepted: 6 in 2900 seconds
[2014-02-12 09:46:33] Total: 820369 knumbers/s
[2014-02-12 09:46:33] Expected average time to block: 0.578915
[2014-02-12 09:46:33] accepted: 6 in 2905 seconds
So, expected time to find block is 0.578915 but I've found only 6 blocks in 2905 seconds, that's ca 850 times worse than estimation! When coin was launched "Expected average time to block" was 6200 s on the same machine, i.e. 61 day if we scale it according to the benchmarking results. That's really insane.
I guess that only devs are using the real miner...
Any comments before I say some harsh words to devs and their "fair" coin?
wel send me a copy of that miner < windows version ? lets test it out !
I don't have windows version, you can compile it on linux:
wget https://github.com/gatra/cpuminer-rminerd/archive/master.zip
unzip master
edit cpu-miner.c
./autogen.sh
...
damm ...........never done that compiling
February 12, 2014, 10:14:44 AM
Something really smells about this coin... I've changed cpu-miner.c (work->primes = 6; -> work->primes = 4;) and started benchmarking using "./rminerd --benchmark -q -t 24" command, here are the results:
[2014-02-12 09:46:28] accepted: 6 in 2900 seconds
[2014-02-12 09:46:33] Total: 820369 knumbers/s
[2014-02-12 09:46:33] Expected average time to block: 0.578915
[2014-02-12 09:46:33] accepted: 6 in 2905 seconds
So, expected time to find block is 0.578915 but I've found only 6 blocks in 2905 seconds, that's ca 850 times worse than estimation! When coin was launched "Expected average time to block" was 6200 s on the same machine, i.e. 61 day if we scale it according to the benchmarking results. That's really insane.
I guess that only devs are using the real miner...
Any comments before I say some harsh words to devs and their "fair" coin?
[2014-02-12 09:46:28] accepted: 6 in 2900 seconds
[2014-02-12 09:46:33] Total: 820369 knumbers/s
[2014-02-12 09:46:33] Expected average time to block: 0.578915
[2014-02-12 09:46:33] accepted: 6 in 2905 seconds
So, expected time to find block is 0.578915 but I've found only 6 blocks in 2905 seconds, that's ca 850 times worse than estimation! When coin was launched "Expected average time to block" was 6200 s on the same machine, i.e. 61 day if we scale it according to the benchmarking results. That's really insane.
I guess that only devs are using the real miner...
Any comments before I say some harsh words to devs and their "fair" coin?
From a quick examination of their miner, it's less than a day of work for a good programmer to get a 5-10x speedup. Someone who's had experience in high performance prime sieves could get more in less time.
(I hacked on my own version briefly and got an 80% speedup with about 30 minutes of work.)
I'd be surprised if there aren't at least several private fast implementations done already, devs or otherwise. Doesn't mean the devs did it, of course, but I'd bet money that someone did.
-Dave
February 12, 2014, 10:13:39 AM
Something really smells about this coin... I've changed cpu-miner.c (work->primes = 6; -> work->primes = 4;) and started benchmarking using "./rminerd --benchmark -q -t 24" command, here are the results:
[2014-02-12 09:46:28] accepted: 6 in 2900 seconds
[2014-02-12 09:46:33] Total: 820369 knumbers/s
[2014-02-12 09:46:33] Expected average time to block: 0.578915
[2014-02-12 09:46:33] accepted: 6 in 2905 seconds
So, expected time to find block is 0.578915 but I've found only 6 blocks in 2905 seconds, that's ca 850 times worse than estimation! When coin was launched "Expected average time to block" was 6200 s on the same machine, i.e. 61 day if we scale it according to the benchmarking results. That's really insane.
I guess that only devs are using the real miner...
Any comments before I say some harsh words to devs and their "fair" coin?
[2014-02-12 09:46:28] accepted: 6 in 2900 seconds
[2014-02-12 09:46:33] Total: 820369 knumbers/s
[2014-02-12 09:46:33] Expected average time to block: 0.578915
[2014-02-12 09:46:33] accepted: 6 in 2905 seconds
So, expected time to find block is 0.578915 but I've found only 6 blocks in 2905 seconds, that's ca 850 times worse than estimation! When coin was launched "Expected average time to block" was 6200 s on the same machine, i.e. 61 day if we scale it according to the benchmarking results. That's really insane.
I guess that only devs are using the real miner...
Any comments before I say some harsh words to devs and their "fair" coin?
wel send me a copy of that miner < windows version ? lets test it out !
I don't have windows version, you can compile it on linux:
wget https://github.com/gatra/cpuminer-rminerd/archive/master.zip
unzip master
edit cpu-miner.c
./autogen.sh
...
February 12, 2014, 10:07:37 AM
Something really smells about this coin... I've changed cpu-miner.c (work->primes = 6; -> work->primes = 4;) and started benchmarking using "./rminerd --benchmark -q -t 24" command, here are the results:
[2014-02-12 09:46:28] accepted: 6 in 2900 seconds
[2014-02-12 09:46:33] Total: 820369 knumbers/s
[2014-02-12 09:46:33] Expected average time to block: 0.578915
[2014-02-12 09:46:33] accepted: 6 in 2905 seconds
So, expected time to find block is 0.578915 but I've found only 6 blocks in 2905 seconds, that's ca 850 times worse than estimation! When coin was launched "Expected average time to block" was 6200 s on the same machine, i.e. 61 day if we scale it according to the benchmarking results. That's really insane.
I guess that only devs are using the real miner...
Any comments before I say some harsh words to devs and their "fair" coin?
[2014-02-12 09:46:28] accepted: 6 in 2900 seconds
[2014-02-12 09:46:33] Total: 820369 knumbers/s
[2014-02-12 09:46:33] Expected average time to block: 0.578915
[2014-02-12 09:46:33] accepted: 6 in 2905 seconds
So, expected time to find block is 0.578915 but I've found only 6 blocks in 2905 seconds, that's ca 850 times worse than estimation! When coin was launched "Expected average time to block" was 6200 s on the same machine, i.e. 61 day if we scale it according to the benchmarking results. That's really insane.
I guess that only devs are using the real miner...
Any comments before I say some harsh words to devs and their "fair" coin?
wel send me a copy of that miner < windows version ? lets test it out !
February 12, 2014, 10:06:36 AM
Miner won't compile (autogen fails and i've compiled qubit and max cpuminer on that machine), pre-compiled won't run, wallet did compile fine but got btc logo (really?) and did not sync even with official addnodes - not the best start -.-
Oh and Windows Miner is 32 bit, usually halfing the performance...
Oh and Windows Miner is 32 bit, usually halfing the performance...
sy , go to the website of riecon download the cpu miner works oke
February 12, 2014, 10:06:23 AM
Something really smells about this coin... I've changed cpu-miner.c (work->primes = 6; -> work->primes = 4;) and started benchmarking using "./rminerd --benchmark -q -t 24" command, here are the results:
[2014-02-12 09:46:28] accepted: 6 in 2900 seconds
[2014-02-12 09:46:33] Total: 820369 knumbers/s
[2014-02-12 09:46:33] Expected average time to block: 0.578915
[2014-02-12 09:46:33] accepted: 6 in 2905 seconds
So, expected time to find block is 0.578915 but I've found only 6 blocks in 2905 seconds, that's ca 850 times worse than estimation! When coin was launched "Expected average time to block" was 6200 s on the same machine, i.e. 61 day if we scale it according to the benchmarking results. That's really insane.
I guess that only devs are using the real miner...
Any comments before I say some harsh words to devs and their "fair" coin?
[2014-02-12 09:46:28] accepted: 6 in 2900 seconds
[2014-02-12 09:46:33] Total: 820369 knumbers/s
[2014-02-12 09:46:33] Expected average time to block: 0.578915
[2014-02-12 09:46:33] accepted: 6 in 2905 seconds
So, expected time to find block is 0.578915 but I've found only 6 blocks in 2905 seconds, that's ca 850 times worse than estimation! When coin was launched "Expected average time to block" was 6200 s on the same machine, i.e. 61 day if we scale it according to the benchmarking results. That's really insane.
I guess that only devs are using the real miner...
Any comments before I say some harsh words to devs and their "fair" coin?
February 12, 2014, 10:05:39 AM
this is a moment to point out to greedy people ,
a coin new born just a day old,or not even good started , pffff, you got some luck and have some coins,Gratz,
selling it ; in my eyes greedy people if you want a coin to get some value dont sell it keep it treasure it on the long term ,
now your selling your coins as sample say 5000 for 0.001 btc thats in my eyes dumb and even dumber !
a coin new born just a day old,or not even good started , pffff, you got some luck and have some coins,Gratz,
selling it ; in my eyes greedy people if you want a coin to get some value dont sell it keep it treasure it on the long term ,
now your selling your coins as sample say 5000 for 0.001 btc thats in my eyes dumb and even dumber !
February 12, 2014, 09:57:07 AM
Miner won't compile (autogen fails and i've compiled qubit and max cpuminer on that machine), pre-compiled won't run, wallet did compile fine but got btc logo (really?) and did not sync even with official addnodes - not the best start -.-
Oh and Windows Miner is 32 bit, usually halfing the performance...
Oh and Windows Miner is 32 bit, usually halfing the performance...
February 12, 2014, 09:38:50 AM
Selling 7000 RIC PM with offers
scam... i did not received, i checked my Reddcoin coin blockchain....
February 12, 2014, 09:38:03 AM
This will be one hell of a coin once we have some good pools to work with.
February 12, 2014, 09:22:13 AM
Cpu coins are crap. Hyped shit coins. Let's pump wiki.
February 12, 2014, 09:21:25 AM
mined all night on this, not a single coin. done.
Yeah, I'm about to give up too. It's just MaxCoin v2.o -- Why release something when you've yet to have it all prepared. People much rather wait an additional week to have the coin prepared, fair, and the devs not as busy.
I wanted to whole hardheartedly support this coin, but a lack of posts from the dev, the utterly crazy diff, and the lack of pool software has killed this coin before it got started.
GL with it, but I doubt it will go anywhere now
GL with it, but I doubt it will go anywhere now
Yeah, I'm about to give up too. It's just MaxCoin v2.o -- Why release something when you've yet to have it all prepared. People much rather wait an additional week to have the coin prepared, fair, and the devs not as busy.
February 12, 2014, 09:05:45 AM
fairly distributed they say ? mining for over 12 ours straigh all i get is Accepted 0 in XXX seconds !!!
if i could count all accepted 0 it would be awsome !
all arround 68980 khash/s
if i could count all accepted 0 it would be awsome !
all arround 68980 khash/s
February 12, 2014, 08:52:02 AM
I reckon the coin is not distributed evenly, probably 3-5 individuals got around 50% of the current coin circulation. We need that pool badly, been running my 32cores since launch and its still at 0.
Even distribution of any coin is a myth. You get back what you put into it and there arent any coins these days that only a handful of people mine early.
The main issue with RIC distribution so far would seem to be the high amount of variance since the diff started somewhat close to target and there havent been that many blocks mined.
A pool would help and is needed so that pretty much anyone outside of botnets will continue to mine, but wont solve the "Ive been mining since release on my 10 year old budget laptop and havent gotten anything - FAIL!" issue.
Pretty much only a time machine will do that.
Jump to: