The price is down to 100K sat..
Topic: [BBR] Boolberry: Privacy and Security - Guaranteed Since 2014 - page 394. (Read 1210752 times)
What's going on?
The price is down to 100K sat..
The price is down to 100K sat..
News section on CryptoNote.org
We are happy to announce a news section on the cryptonote.org. The new section is dedicated to new developments, ideas and news from the CryptoNote realm. About two years ago the CryptoNote technology had only been represented by Bytecoin (BCN) but since then things have changed dramatically. Not only the number of Bytecoins has soared, the other coins such as Quazarcoin, Fantomcoin and Monero are taking the cryptocurrency world by storm. The CryptoNote community becomes very diverse and geographically disseminated therefore we believe it is our duty to spread the word and bring everyone at one place. Just by clicking on the news tab you’ll have the latest account on what’s been going on with CryptoNote-based currencies along with fresh updates from the devs at hand. The idea is to turn this website into a vibrant pool of information accessible to anybody who wants to keep one's finger on the pulse of CryptoNote technology. If you are a CryptoNote enthusiast and you have some ideas worth sharing, please don’t hesitate to contact us at [email protected]
We are happy to announce a news section on the cryptonote.org. The new section is dedicated to new developments, ideas and news from the CryptoNote realm. About two years ago the CryptoNote technology had only been represented by Bytecoin (BCN) but since then things have changed dramatically. Not only the number of Bytecoins has soared, the other coins such as Quazarcoin, Fantomcoin and Monero are taking the cryptocurrency world by storm. The CryptoNote community becomes very diverse and geographically disseminated therefore we believe it is our duty to spread the word and bring everyone at one place. Just by clicking on the news tab you’ll have the latest account on what’s been going on with CryptoNote-based currencies along with fresh updates from the devs at hand. The idea is to turn this website into a vibrant pool of information accessible to anybody who wants to keep one's finger on the pulse of CryptoNote technology. If you are a CryptoNote enthusiast and you have some ideas worth sharing, please don’t hesitate to contact us at [email protected]
I have to ask what many are probably thinking but have had apprehensions about asking for one reason or another.
- Why no mention of BBR?
- An obvious unfair hidden scorn for Monero in all of your posts right from the very beginning?
- Constant pushing of the scammy Monero clones like the worst CN coin QCN
Just a note of caution for miners -
As the scratchpad size continues to increase, hashrates are dropping on 8MB cache machines (even with my hugepages changes).
It would be a good idea to pay attention carefully to your mining profitability and watch the rates you're seeing. This will probably continue for a bit as the fraction of hits in L3 continues to go down over the coming weeks.
cubydu, this may have something to do with the effects you observed, though I've only seen a ~25% slowdown on my i7-4790 at this point.
off to do some math.
I think I just lost a lot of money on EC2 while I wasn't watching. Hope this saves others the pain!
As the scratchpad size continues to increase, hashrates are dropping on 8MB cache machines (even with my hugepages changes).
It would be a good idea to pay attention carefully to your mining profitability and watch the rates you're seeing. This will probably continue for a bit as the fraction of hits in L3 continues to go down over the coming weeks.
cubydu, this may have something to do with the effects you observed, though I've only seen a ~25% slowdown on my i7-4790 at this point.
off to do some math.
I think I just lost a lot of money on EC2 while I wasn't watching. Hope this saves others the pain!Ouch, yea, gotta watch this more carefully if you are running EC2 instances. I also had a lot (leave it at that) of Ec2 instances but have completely stopped...
AWS can really kick you in the but when you get the bill.
Carlo
1300000*86400/346429025453 = 0.324222255 blocks * 16.97 =5.502051676 BBR * 0.00150634 BTC = 0.008287961 BTC/per day * 579 = 4.802541604 USD per day
Total spent at 0.27 per instance * 24 = 6.48
Um, why do we want to get listed on coinmarketcap already? This community is doing just fine without the nightmare of get-marginally-more-rich/make$5 pump and dumpers out there. There is too much infrastructure that still needs to be built, and if the coin goes sky-high and then crashes equally fast it's more likely to kill this community as the thread gets overrun with whiny "to da moon!" posters that drown out the dev and any real love for the project.
I think we should NOT get on coinmarketcap and we should not try and get on more exchanges. These things serve only to serve up a new coin as fresh meat to speculative individuals with zero interest in contributing in any meaningful manner. It's a terrible idea right now. Lets wait till there is actually something happening with the coin more then just mining.
I agree. Monero is currently having this problem (despite the devs sharing your view). Better to stay out of the limelight until everything is developed or coming along well. DRK could've used the obscurity and look what happened to them...I think we should NOT get on coinmarketcap and we should not try and get on more exchanges. These things serve only to serve up a new coin as fresh meat to speculative individuals with zero interest in contributing in any meaningful manner. It's a terrible idea right now. Lets wait till there is actually something happening with the coin more then just mining.
Purely based on the promise from a stranger on the internet. Though never come through with the promise. Yet little old boolberry is just chillinh here with the king of anon features, fully functional.. and has a 500k market cap... ha! Who wants to count down with me till everyone realizes this and panic buys boolberry?
I would prefer a slow increase in price to a pump of any sort I submitted for CoinMarketCap but will not be pushing for Mintpal anytime soon.
Um, why do we want to get listed on coinmarketcap already? This community is doing just fine without the nightmare of get-marginally-more-rich/make$5 pump and dumpers out there. There is too much infrastructure that still needs to be built, and if the coin goes sky-high and then crashes equally fast it's more likely to kill this community as the thread gets overrun with whiny "to da moon!" posters that drown out the dev and any real love for the project.
I think we should NOT get on coinmarketcap and we should not try and get on more exchanges. These things serve only to serve up a new coin as fresh meat to speculative individuals with zero interest in contributing in any meaningful manner. It's a terrible idea right now. Lets wait till there is actually something happening with the coin more then just mining.
I agree. Monero is currently having this problem (despite the devs sharing your view). Better to stay out of the limelight until everything is developed or coming along well. DRK could've used the obscurity and look what happened to them...I think we should NOT get on coinmarketcap and we should not try and get on more exchanges. These things serve only to serve up a new coin as fresh meat to speculative individuals with zero interest in contributing in any meaningful manner. It's a terrible idea right now. Lets wait till there is actually something happening with the coin more then just mining.
Purely based on the promise from a stranger on the internet. Though never come through with the promise. Yet little old boolberry is just chillinh here with the king of anon features, fully functional.. and has a 500k market cap... ha! Who wants to count down with me till everyone realizes this and panic buys boolberry?
I would prefer a slow increase in price to a pump of any sort Just a note of caution for miners -
As the scratchpad size continues to increase, hashrates are dropping on 8MB cache machines (even with my hugepages changes).
It would be a good idea to pay attention carefully to your mining profitability and watch the rates you're seeing. This will probably continue for a bit as the fraction of hits in L3 continues to go down over the coming weeks.
cubydu, this may have something to do with the effects you observed, though I've only seen a ~25% slowdown on my i7-4790 at this point.
off to do some math. I think I just lost a lot of money on EC2 while I wasn't watching. Hope this saves others the pain!
As the scratchpad size continues to increase, hashrates are dropping on 8MB cache machines (even with my hugepages changes).
It would be a good idea to pay attention carefully to your mining profitability and watch the rates you're seeing. This will probably continue for a bit as the fraction of hits in L3 continues to go down over the coming weeks.
cubydu, this may have something to do with the effects you observed, though I've only seen a ~25% slowdown on my i7-4790 at this point.
off to do some math.
I think I just lost a lot of money on EC2 while I wasn't watching. Hope this saves others the pain!Ouch, yea, gotta watch this more carefully if you are running EC2 instances. I also had a lot (leave it at that) of Ec2 instances but have completely stopped...
AWS can really kick you in the but when you get the bill.
Carlo
With 375Kh/s, how much should I be making daily? Or at least weekly?
hash rate*day in seconds / current diff
375000*86400/342108147834 = day proffit
With 375Kh/s, how much should I be making daily? Or at least weekly?
Just a note of caution for miners -
As the scratchpad size continues to increase, hashrates are dropping on 8MB cache machines (even with my hugepages changes).
It would be a good idea to pay attention carefully to your mining profitability and watch the rates you're seeing. This will probably continue for a bit as the fraction of hits in L3 continues to go down over the coming weeks.
cubydu, this may have something to do with the effects you observed, though I've only seen a ~25% slowdown on my i7-4790 at this point.
off to do some math. I think I just lost a lot of money on EC2 while I wasn't watching. Hope this saves others the pain!
As the scratchpad size continues to increase, hashrates are dropping on 8MB cache machines (even with my hugepages changes).
It would be a good idea to pay attention carefully to your mining profitability and watch the rates you're seeing. This will probably continue for a bit as the fraction of hits in L3 continues to go down over the coming weeks.
cubydu, this may have something to do with the effects you observed, though I've only seen a ~25% slowdown on my i7-4790 at this point.
off to do some math.
I think I just lost a lot of money on EC2 while I wasn't watching. Hope this saves others the pain!but Amazon AWS EC2 c3.8xlarge L3 Cache = 25600 KB
http://browser.primatelabs.com/geekbench2/2361078
or I didn't understand something
No, you're right - it shouldn't be hitting AWS c3 yet.
I was using some of the smaller/older instance types to try to avoid congestion and got bit.
Just a note of caution for miners -
As the scratchpad size continues to increase, hashrates are dropping on 8MB cache machines (even with my hugepages changes).
It would be a good idea to pay attention carefully to your mining profitability and watch the rates you're seeing. This will probably continue for a bit as the fraction of hits in L3 continues to go down over the coming weeks.
cubydu, this may have something to do with the effects you observed, though I've only seen a ~25% slowdown on my i7-4790 at this point.
off to do some math. I think I just lost a lot of money on EC2 while I wasn't watching. Hope this saves others the pain!
As the scratchpad size continues to increase, hashrates are dropping on 8MB cache machines (even with my hugepages changes).
It would be a good idea to pay attention carefully to your mining profitability and watch the rates you're seeing. This will probably continue for a bit as the fraction of hits in L3 continues to go down over the coming weeks.
cubydu, this may have something to do with the effects you observed, though I've only seen a ~25% slowdown on my i7-4790 at this point.
off to do some math.
I think I just lost a lot of money on EC2 while I wasn't watching. Hope this saves others the pain!but Amazon AWS EC2 c3.8xlarge L3 Cache = 25600 KB
http://browser.primatelabs.com/geekbench2/2361078
or I didn't understand something
Im getting compiling errors while it is trying to compile the connectivity_tool on ubuntu 14.04. Using Win7x64 for now until I can get some help to get it to compile.
What errors? /tmp/cc5ITsCl.ltrans25.ltrans.o: In function `handle_update_maintainers_info(boost::program_options::variables_map&)':
cc5ITsCl.ltrans25.o:(.text+0x139f): undefined reference to `currency::get_blob_hash(std::string const&)'
cc5ITsCl.ltrans25.o:(.text+0x13c0): undefined reference to `crypto::crypto_ops::generate_signature(crypto::hash const&, crypto::public_key const&, crypto::secret_key const&, crypto::signature&)'
/tmp/cc5ITsCl.ltrans28.ltrans.o: In function `generate_and_print_keys()':
cc5ITsCl.ltrans28.o:(.text+0x6c5): undefined reference to `crypto::crypto_ops::generate_keys(crypto::public_key&, crypto::secret_key&)'
/tmp/cc5ITsCl.ltrans28.ltrans.o: In function `main':
cc5ITsCl.ltrans28.o:(.text.startup+0x1a4): undefined reference to `command_line::arg_help'
cc5ITsCl.ltrans28.o:(.text.startup+0x490): undefined reference to `command_line::arg_help'
collect2: error: ld returned 1 exit status
make[3]: *** [src/connectivity_tool] Error 1
make[3]: Leaving directory `/home/nirv/boolberry/build/release'
make[2]: *** [src/CMakeFiles/connectivity_tool.dir/all] Error 2
make[2]: Leaving directory `/home/nirv/boolberry/build/release'
make[1]: *** [all] Error 2
make[1]: Leaving directory `/home/nirv/boolberry/build/release'
make: *** [build-release] Error 2
I can't reproduce it on my ubuntu, so can you give exact gcc version, os version and commands that you use for build?
gcc version 4.9.0 20140405 (experimental) [trunk revision 209157] (Ubuntu 4.9-20140406-1ubuntu1)
Ubuntu 14.04 LTS
3.14.1-031401-generic
git clone https://github.com/cryptozoidberg/boolberry.git
cd boolberry; make -j
When it failed I tried just make with the same errors.
Downgrading to 4.8 fixed the issue. I didn't know it upgraded to 4.9.
We had some issues with GCC 4.9/ArchLinux building too, we fix them in this commit
https://github.com/monero-project/bitmonero/commit/9853ba8e0636ba6f1043bb4f52caff19fe54c8ac
You can try merging that and seeing if it fixes it
Im getting compiling errors while it is trying to compile the connectivity_tool on ubuntu 14.04. Using Win7x64 for now until I can get some help to get it to compile.
What errors? /tmp/cc5ITsCl.ltrans25.ltrans.o: In function `handle_update_maintainers_info(boost::program_options::variables_map&)':
cc5ITsCl.ltrans25.o:(.text+0x139f): undefined reference to `currency::get_blob_hash(std::string const&)'
cc5ITsCl.ltrans25.o:(.text+0x13c0): undefined reference to `crypto::crypto_ops::generate_signature(crypto::hash const&, crypto::public_key const&, crypto::secret_key const&, crypto::signature&)'
/tmp/cc5ITsCl.ltrans28.ltrans.o: In function `generate_and_print_keys()':
cc5ITsCl.ltrans28.o:(.text+0x6c5): undefined reference to `crypto::crypto_ops::generate_keys(crypto::public_key&, crypto::secret_key&)'
/tmp/cc5ITsCl.ltrans28.ltrans.o: In function `main':
cc5ITsCl.ltrans28.o:(.text.startup+0x1a4): undefined reference to `command_line::arg_help'
cc5ITsCl.ltrans28.o:(.text.startup+0x490): undefined reference to `command_line::arg_help'
collect2: error: ld returned 1 exit status
make[3]: *** [src/connectivity_tool] Error 1
make[3]: Leaving directory `/home/nirv/boolberry/build/release'
make[2]: *** [src/CMakeFiles/connectivity_tool.dir/all] Error 2
make[2]: Leaving directory `/home/nirv/boolberry/build/release'
make[1]: *** [all] Error 2
make[1]: Leaving directory `/home/nirv/boolberry/build/release'
make: *** [build-release] Error 2
I can't reproduce it on my ubuntu, so can you give exact gcc version, os version and commands that you use for build?
gcc version 4.9.0 20140405 (experimental) [trunk revision 209157] (Ubuntu 4.9-20140406-1ubuntu1)
Ubuntu 14.04 LTS
3.14.1-031401-generic
git clone https://github.com/cryptozoidberg/boolberry.git
cd boolberry; make -j
When it failed I tried just make with the same errors.
Downgrading to 4.8 fixed the issue. I didn't know it upgraded to 4.9.
otila, will this fix a bug?
boolberry\CMakeLists.txt:
boolberry\CMakeLists.txt:
Code:
include_directories(SYSTEM ${Boost_INCLUDE_DIRS})
if(MINGW)
set(Boost_LIBRARIES "${Boost_LIBRARIES};ws2_32;mswsock")
elseif(NOT MSVC)
if(NOT APPLE)
set(Boost_LIBRARIES "${Boost_LIBRARIES};rt;pthread")
endif()
endif()
Yes. I have also
Code:
set(Boost_USE_STATIC_LIBS OFF)
because only Windows people like to link statically.
Still no luck, not able to build it
Any other solution?
gcc version 4.9.0 20140405 (experimental) [trunk revision 209157] (Ubuntu 4.9-20140406-1ubuntu1)
Try without -flto in CMakeLists.txt, gcc 4.9 and/or binutils has some bug with it... maybe C_Z could mention it in README.md ?
Just a note of caution for miners -
As the scratchpad size continues to increase, hashrates are dropping on 8MB cache machines (even with my hugepages changes).
It would be a good idea to pay attention carefully to your mining profitability and watch the rates you're seeing. This will probably continue for a bit as the fraction of hits in L3 continues to go down over the coming weeks.
cubydu, this may have something to do with the effects you observed, though I've only seen a ~25% slowdown on my i7-4790 at this point.
off to do some math. I think I just lost a lot of money on EC2 while I wasn't watching. Hope this saves others the pain!
As the scratchpad size continues to increase, hashrates are dropping on 8MB cache machines (even with my hugepages changes).
It would be a good idea to pay attention carefully to your mining profitability and watch the rates you're seeing. This will probably continue for a bit as the fraction of hits in L3 continues to go down over the coming weeks.
cubydu, this may have something to do with the effects you observed, though I've only seen a ~25% slowdown on my i7-4790 at this point.
off to do some math.
I think I just lost a lot of money on EC2 while I wasn't watching. Hope this saves others the pain! Im getting compiling errors while it is trying to compile the connectivity_tool on ubuntu 14.04. Using Win7x64 for now until I can get some help to get it to compile.
What errors? /tmp/cc5ITsCl.ltrans25.ltrans.o: In function `handle_update_maintainers_info(boost::program_options::variables_map&)':
cc5ITsCl.ltrans25.o:(.text+0x139f): undefined reference to `currency::get_blob_hash(std::string const&)'
cc5ITsCl.ltrans25.o:(.text+0x13c0): undefined reference to `crypto::crypto_ops::generate_signature(crypto::hash const&, crypto::public_key const&, crypto::secret_key const&, crypto::signature&)'
/tmp/cc5ITsCl.ltrans28.ltrans.o: In function `generate_and_print_keys()':
cc5ITsCl.ltrans28.o:(.text+0x6c5): undefined reference to `crypto::crypto_ops::generate_keys(crypto::public_key&, crypto::secret_key&)'
/tmp/cc5ITsCl.ltrans28.ltrans.o: In function `main':
cc5ITsCl.ltrans28.o:(.text.startup+0x1a4): undefined reference to `command_line::arg_help'
cc5ITsCl.ltrans28.o:(.text.startup+0x490): undefined reference to `command_line::arg_help'
collect2: error: ld returned 1 exit status
make[3]: *** [src/connectivity_tool] Error 1
make[3]: Leaving directory `/home/nirv/boolberry/build/release'
make[2]: *** [src/CMakeFiles/connectivity_tool.dir/all] Error 2
make[2]: Leaving directory `/home/nirv/boolberry/build/release'
make[1]: *** [all] Error 2
make[1]: Leaving directory `/home/nirv/boolberry/build/release'
make: *** [build-release] Error 2
I can't reproduce it on my ubuntu, so can you give exact gcc version, os version and commands that you use for build?
gcc version 4.9.0 20140405 (experimental) [trunk revision 209157] (Ubuntu 4.9-20140406-1ubuntu1)
Ubuntu 14.04 LTS
3.14.1-031401-generic
git clone https://github.com/cryptozoidberg/boolberry.git
cd boolberry; make -j
When it failed I tried just make with the same errors.
You might also just use the solo miner, even though it's a little slower than simpleminer now. It's what I'm doing, and my block rates roughly equal what I calculate them to be.
(e) Any other issues you've spotted? If they're problems with simpleminer, please let me know so I can try to fix.
I don't know how to make autostart script for solo mining. I use spotinstance and when I outbid they kill by spot request. I made image with autostart of miner which loads miner automaticaly with setting and start mine.
Hash rate my private pool is 120MH/S and I'm finding 1 block per 2 hours. However I should find 1 block less then hour 
And last night block was found after 12 hours with hash rate 80 MH/S
And last night block was found after 12 hours with hash rate 80 MH/S
a) Wow. That's a lot of hash.
b) I agree with your calculation. You should be getting ~31 blocks per day.
c) What orphan rates are you seeing from the pool?
d) Do you track the fraction of expired shares reported by your miners?
for (d), you might want to *reduce* the maximum difficulty that your pool hands out to the miners, because they're all working locally (low latency to the pool). There's a balance between amount of time working and contacting the pool, but I bet you have the computational capacity to handle having every miner check in for work every 4 seconds. With that target, you should lose 0.1/4 = 2.5% of your efficiency due to communication with the pool (or less), and 3.3% of your efficiency due to stale shares.
You might also just use the solo miner, even though it's a little slower than simpleminer now. It's what I'm doing, and my block rates roughly equal what I calculate them to be.
(e) Any other issues you've spotted? If they're problems with simpleminer, please let me know so I can try to fix.
Simpleminer works great
Code:
oW:, height:27339, submitting...
ESC[0mESC[1;32m2014-Jun-24 19:01:58.163918 Share submitted successfully!
ESC[0mESC[1;37m2014-Jun-24 19:01:58.163957 avg hr: 1591079
ESC[0mESC[1;37m2014-Jun-24 19:01:58.163985 Getting next job...
ESC[0mESC[1;37m2014-Jun-24 19:01:58.164606 Job didn't change
ESC[0mESC[1;32m2014-Jun-24 19:02:02.056406 Share found: nonce=31760701 for job=895621501328423, diff: 5900000
, PoW:<800a15b3b484e9050ff2b37cc4dfbd418dd0738d89f6be5a3efc931c9c020000>, height:27339, submitting...
ESC[0mESC[1;32m2014-Jun-24 19:02:02.058249 Share submitted successfully!
ESC[0mESC[1;37m2014-Jun-24 19:02:02.058288 avg hr: 1591269
ESC[0mESC[1;37m2014-Jun-24 19:02:02.058317 Getting next job...
ESC[0mESC[1;32m2014-Jun-24 19:02:03.545178 Share found: nonce=3365408 for job=625844258116558, diff: 6000000
, PoW:<265d40b70c6c5045f4871747bcc7f4c8b0e039fd47bf7161f520ccf28e010000>, height:27339, submitting...
ESC[0mESC[1;32m2014-Jun-24 19:02:03.546791 Share submitted successfully!
ESC[0mESC[1;37m2014-Jun-24 19:02:03.546832 avg hr: 1591233
ESC[0mESC[1;37m2014-Jun-24 19:02:03.546868 Getting next job...
ESC[0mESC[1;37m2014-Jun-24 19:02:03.547431 Job didn't change
I don't see any big troubles with pool. And all blocks were accepted.
I set default pool settings
Code:
"varDiff": {
"minDiff": 50000,
"maxDiff": 10000000,
"targetTime": 100,
"retargetTime": 15,
"variancePercent": 30,
"maxJump": 100000
},
Tried with
Code:
"varDiff": {
"minDiff": 50000,
"maxDiff": 10000000,
"targetTime": 100,
"retargetTime": 15,
"variancePercent": 50, (60, 90)
"maxJump": 100000
},
Hash rate my private pool is 120MH/S and I'm finding 1 block per 2 hours. However I should find 1 block less then hour
And last night block was found after 12 hours with hash rate 80 MH/S
And last night block was found after 12 hours with hash rate 80 MH/S
a) Wow. That's a lot of hash.
b) I agree with your calculation. You should be getting ~31 blocks per day.
c) What orphan rates are you seeing from the pool?
d) Do you track the fraction of expired shares reported by your miners?
for (d), you might want to *reduce* the maximum difficulty that your pool hands out to the miners, because they're all working locally (low latency to the pool). There's a balance between amount of time working and contacting the pool, but I bet you have the computational capacity to handle having every miner check in for work every 4 seconds. With that target, you should lose 0.1/4 = 2.5% of your efficiency due to communication with the pool (or less), and 3.3% of your efficiency due to stale shares.
You might also just use the solo miner, even though it's a little slower than simpleminer now. It's what I'm doing, and my block rates roughly equal what I calculate them to be.
(e) Any other issues you've spotted? If they're problems with simpleminer, please let me know so I can try to fix.
Jump to: