Code:
cd yacoin/src
make -f makefile.unix
I just cd to the folder then do
Code:
qmake yacoin-qt.pro
make
./yacoin-qt
Topic: [ANN][YAC] yacoin: yet another altcoin. START is now. - page 12. (Read 346717 times)
I've never had to do:
I just cd to the folder then do
I just cd to the folder then do
I've downloaded yacoin-master.zip file, unzipped, renamed to yacoin and
and then
throws this error
Wth is that?
Code:
cd yacoin/src
make -f makefile.unix
and then
Code:
cd ..
qmake
throws this error
Code:
Project MESSAGE: Building with UPNP support
sh: 1: /usr/lib/i386-linux-gnu/qt5/bin/lrelease: not found
RCC: Error in 'src/qt/bitcoin.qrc': Cannot find file 'locale/bitcoin_en.qm'
RCC: Error in 'src/qt/bitcoin.qrc': Cannot find file 'locale/bitcoin_ru.qm'
Wth is that?
Do we see the first GPU miners on that pool?
http://yac.ltcoin.net/
hashrate explodes from yesterday 18MH/s to over 50 today
Top current round Hashrates
Rank nickname KH/s
1 qq724174 29928
2 QQ213378 913
3 darkhorse 791
http://yac.ltcoin.net/
hashrate explodes from yesterday 18MH/s to over 50 today
Top current round Hashrates
Rank nickname KH/s
1 qq724174 29928
2 QQ213378 913
3 darkhorse 791
It could be GPUs, but most likely it's someone with a server farm, AWS or similar.
The GPU implementation seems quite complicated to optimise and these numbers are achievable with enough servers.
Do we see the first GPU miners on that pool?
http://yac.ltcoin.net/
hashrate explodes from yesterday 18MH/s to over 50 today
Top current round Hashrates
Rank nickname KH/s
1 qq724174 29928
2 QQ213378 913
3 darkhorse 791
http://yac.ltcoin.net/
hashrate explodes from yesterday 18MH/s to over 50 today
Top current round Hashrates
Rank nickname KH/s
1 qq724174 29928
2 QQ213378 913
3 darkhorse 791
That may require a bit more pressure than my own email-fu.
Quote
Hi,
Now the trading fee is 0.2%.
Best,
Bter
On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 6:43 AM, ##### wrote:
Greetings,
I was wondering how long do you intend to keep YAC's trading fees at 0.5% and the warning message, considering that:
a) It's being traded on Vircurex too.
b) A coin with very short confirmations (and instability risk) as ### gets 0.2% and no warnings.
c) YAC has been running without any chain problems for a month, and the code has been thoroughly examined by developers already.
Now the trading fee is 0.2%.
Best,
Bter
On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 6:43 AM, ##### wrote:
Greetings,
I was wondering how long do you intend to keep YAC's trading fees at 0.5% and the warning message, considering that:
a) It's being traded on Vircurex too.
b) A coin with very short confirmations (and instability risk) as ### gets 0.2% and no warnings.
c) YAC has been running without any chain problems for a month, and the code has been thoroughly examined by developers already.
You are welcome.
Thanks bitdwarf! Can you have them remove that stupid warning on the page while they're at it?
This so much. Its quite annoying.
Quote
Hi,
Now the trading fee is 0.2%.
Best,
Bter
On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 6:43 AM, ##### wrote:
Greetings,
I was wondering how long do you intend to keep YAC's trading fees at 0.5% and the warning message, considering that:
a) It's being traded on Vircurex too.
b) A coin with very short confirmations (and instability risk) as ### gets 0.2% and no warnings.
c) YAC has been running without any chain problems for a month, and the code has been thoroughly examined by developers already.
Now the trading fee is 0.2%.
Best,
Bter
On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 6:43 AM, ##### wrote:
Greetings,
I was wondering how long do you intend to keep YAC's trading fees at 0.5% and the warning message, considering that:
a) It's being traded on Vircurex too.
b) A coin with very short confirmations (and instability risk) as ### gets 0.2% and no warnings.
c) YAC has been running without any chain problems for a month, and the code has been thoroughly examined by developers already.
You are welcome.
Thanks bitdwarf! Can you have them remove that stupid warning on the page while they're at it?
Quote
Hi,
Now the trading fee is 0.2%.
Best,
Bter
On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 6:43 AM, ##### wrote:
Greetings,
I was wondering how long do you intend to keep YAC's trading fees at 0.5% and the warning message, considering that:
a) It's being traded on Vircurex too.
b) A coin with very short confirmations (and instability risk) as ### gets 0.2% and no warnings.
c) YAC has been running without any chain problems for a month, and the code has been thoroughly examined by developers already.
Now the trading fee is 0.2%.
Best,
Bter
On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 6:43 AM, ##### wrote:
Greetings,
I was wondering how long do you intend to keep YAC's trading fees at 0.5% and the warning message, considering that:
a) It's being traded on Vircurex too.
b) A coin with very short confirmations (and instability risk) as ### gets 0.2% and no warnings.
c) YAC has been running without any chain problems for a month, and the code has been thoroughly examined by developers already.
You are welcome.
Any faucets yet?
If someone wants to donate a little ;P YAvvzmr3nNFNB37ZE1Z2ktFANKjRxgBuhN
Andy B
If someone wants to donate a little ;P YAvvzmr3nNFNB37ZE1Z2ktFANKjRxgBuhN
Andy B
Yeah unfortunately Vircurex may be still recovering after the hack, I don't know if it'll even have more volume than Bter, despite the latter's fees.
YAY, nice to see YAC on Vircurex... this might bring a bit more buying power...
I pointed out that GPU miners could easily be created days before release. Dev ignored it.
I suspect quite a few people did modify cgminer to do scrypt+salsa20/8(N,1,1) before the coin launched. The surprise change to scrypt+chacha20/8+Keccak(N,1,1) at the coin's launch would've prevented any of them from working though and caused a bit of surprise (I was one of the people that had already modified cgminer ahead of time, thinking it would be scrypt+salsa20/8). Due to the surprise change, it's unlikely anyone other than the original developer would've been able to prepare an actual working GPU implementation days before release.
I currently suspect a lag time of somewhere between 13.5 hours and 24 hours after the coin launched before the first YAC-specific cgminer might likely have been up and running (not including the original developer's own possible GPU implementation, which we won't know). The 13.5 hour figure comes from mtrlt (author of Reaper and the OpenCL kernel everyone else uses for scrypt) own reported time to implement, and he's likely to be fairly high on the totem pole of OpenCL talent in the community.
I have calculated the complete schedule of N changes for YACoin out to the last increment, N=30, occurring in the year 2421. The table is posted in the YACoin technical data on the first page of my ongoing YACoin development thread:
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.2162620
I certainly have my own opinion about the way N will change over the coming centuries and how it compares with Moore's Law. You guys can draw your own conclusions.
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.2162620
I certainly have my own opinion about the way N will change over the coming centuries and how it compares with Moore's Law. You guys can draw your own conclusions.
This is a very bad idea. You have just introduced another litecoin cgminer gpu catastrophe
I would not be surprised if people, maybe even many people independently, have forked and created their own cgminer in secret which is capable of utilizing GPUs, giving them several order of magnitude advantage over everyone else.
I would not be surprised if people, maybe even many people independently, have forked and created their own cgminer in secret which is capable of utilizing GPUs, giving them several order of magnitude advantage over everyone else.
Actually, this is already happening. I've seen 3 people posting they have working opencl kernels (two of them had relatively low hashrates, the third one claims to be the dev of the Reaper litecoin gpu miner and has hashrates in the Mh/s range).
So.. 174 pages. Surely someone pointed this out and brought it to the dev's attention?
I pointed out that GPU miners could easily be created days before release. Dev ignored it.
Anybody considered running a beowulf cluster on this? I'm going to set one up when I get a day off from work. It's been awhile since I have run a cluster.
This is a very bad idea. You have just introduced another litecoin cgminer gpu catastrophe
I would not be surprised if people, maybe even many people independently, have forked and created their own cgminer in secret which is capable of utilizing GPUs, giving them several order of magnitude advantage over everyone else.
I would not be surprised if people, maybe even many people independently, have forked and created their own cgminer in secret which is capable of utilizing GPUs, giving them several order of magnitude advantage over everyone else.
Actually, this is already happening. I've seen 3 people posting they have working opencl kernels (two of them had relatively low hashrates, the third one claims to be the dev of the Reaper litecoin gpu miner and has hashrates in the Mh/s range).
So.. 174 pages. Surely someone pointed this out and brought it to the dev's attention?
This isn't news, it's been discussed to death in those 174 pages already. Recommend reading through them if you're that interested.
As I said, main dev is dead, and if you want something, the new main dev is here:
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/annyac-yacoin-ongoing-development-206577
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/annyac-yacoin-ongoing-development-206577
This is a very bad idea. You have just introduced another litecoin cgminer gpu catastrophe
I would not be surprised if people, maybe even many people independently, have forked and created their own cgminer in secret which is capable of utilizing GPUs, giving them several order of magnitude advantage over everyone else.
I would not be surprised if people, maybe even many people independently, have forked and created their own cgminer in secret which is capable of utilizing GPUs, giving them several order of magnitude advantage over everyone else.
Actually, this is already happening. I've seen 3 people posting they have working opencl kernels (two of them had relatively low hashrates, the third one claims to be the dev of the Reaper litecoin gpu miner and has hashrates in the Mh/s range).
So.. 174 pages. Surely someone pointed this out and brought it to the dev's attention?
This is a very bad idea. You have just introduced another litecoin cgminer gpu catastrophe
I would not be surprised if people, maybe even many people independently, have forked and created their own cgminer in secret which is capable of utilizing GPUs, giving them several order of magnitude advantage over everyone else.
I would not be surprised if people, maybe even many people independently, have forked and created their own cgminer in secret which is capable of utilizing GPUs, giving them several order of magnitude advantage over everyone else.
Actually, this is already happening. I've seen 3 people posting they have working opencl kernels (two of them had relatively low hashrates, the third one claims to be the dev of the Reaper litecoin gpu miner and has hashrates in the Mh/s range).
Jump to: