Topic: BiblePay | 10% to Orphan-Charity | RANDOMX MINING | Sanctuaries (Masternodes) - page 411. (Read 243454 times)
July 11, 2018, 04:25:55 PM
I tried some time ago. 15 confirmations so far and it didn't even show up at C-CEX.
July 11, 2018, 03:57:09 PM
However, I am worried about C-CEX. They still haven't put us in maintenance so we are going on a fork if we cant get through to them.
The primary risk is people will try to make deposits to old BBP addresses on a fork, and we can't risk that.
I noticed that C-CEX is stuck on block 57039. Or at least this is what the show on the top-right small BBP windows.
I noticed that block # is always behind, but lets see if it stays @ 57039 for hours. Maybe they put us in maintenance and we dont know it.
Ill try sending some BBP now...
July 11, 2018, 03:03:31 PM
Does anyone have trouble using InstantSend on 1.1.3.8c? I tried to send different amounts of 100, 1000, and even 10,000, but it keeps throwing an error saying that Instantsend only supports up to 500,000 BBP. Just noticed it after I upgraded from 1.1.2.4.
I did have a problem with it, yes - but I didn't report it as I couldn't reproduce it.I could InstantSend 50,000 and 100,000 BBP, but not 200,000 or 300,00.
However, I think (not sure, but think) that the message was just misleading, and it was probably because I didn't have all of the funds sitting in the same address first. I was able to do instantsend of 100,000 -> 100,000 -> 50,000 -> 50,000 but that was the only way I could get it to work. Every other attempt threw the error you described.
The message is a bit ambigious.
To solve it, please go into coin control and manually select coin inputs less than 500,000, then re-send
.Yeah, that makes sense. I did a consolidation transaction (like I was going to fund a new masternode) afterwards and also restarted the wallet and my next instantsend was fine. Bad experimentation on my part to not isolate the changes, but I can 100% believe this was a coin control issue. Thanks.
July 11, 2018, 03:00:49 PM
However, I am worried about C-CEX. They still haven't put us in maintenance so we are going on a fork if we cant get through to them.
The primary risk is people will try to make deposits to old BBP addresses on a fork, and we can't risk that.
I noticed that C-CEX is stuck on block 57039. Or at least this is what the show on the top-right small BBP windows.
July 11, 2018, 02:58:40 PM
Alright Im synced on Crypto-Bridge desktop windows client, anticipating the big moment.
Right now this platform looks very impressive to me, I am not seeing latency, I am seeing snappy response and blocks clicking by once every 5 seconds ( I guess they have 5 second blocks, with 28 million blocks already). This is an impressive feat to design a decentralized exchange that actually works.
It makes sense to charge for cancelled orders as that takes network work, but I see MIPs point that they could charge more for the order and zero for the cancel, but its still pretty interesting how they broke the exchanges individual activities down to small units of decentralized work.
Any update on when we are going live? I assume any day now.
Right now this platform looks very impressive to me, I am not seeing latency, I am seeing snappy response and blocks clicking by once every 5 seconds ( I guess they have 5 second blocks, with 28 million blocks already). This is an impressive feat to design a decentralized exchange that actually works.
It makes sense to charge for cancelled orders as that takes network work, but I see MIPs point that they could charge more for the order and zero for the cancel, but its still pretty interesting how they broke the exchanges individual activities down to small units of decentralized work.
Any update on when we are going live? I assume any day now.
July 11, 2018, 02:52:59 PM
Does anyone have trouble using InstantSend on 1.1.3.8c? I tried to send different amounts of 100, 1000, and even 10,000, but it keeps throwing an error saying that Instantsend only supports up to 500,000 BBP. Just noticed it after I upgraded from 1.1.2.4.
I did have a problem with it, yes - but I didn't report it as I couldn't reproduce it.I could InstantSend 50,000 and 100,000 BBP, but not 200,000 or 300,00.
However, I think (not sure, but think) that the message was just misleading, and it was probably because I didn't have all of the funds sitting in the same address first. I was able to do instantsend of 100,000 -> 100,000 -> 50,000 -> 50,000 but that was the only way I could get it to work. Every other attempt threw the error you described.
The message is a bit ambigious.
To solve it, please go into coin control and manually select coin inputs less than 500,000, then re-send
. July 11, 2018, 02:52:12 PM
I am just checking the machine leadboard and find something interesting:
manasd 27315.81 7/9/2018 6:06:42 AM 3391974 89828.89 GenuineIntel Intel(R) Celeron(R) CPU G1620 @ 2.70GHz [Family 6 Model 58 Stepping 9] 1994560 2 8151.14 MB 3282.09 0.8 27.31581 1.312836
For this slow machine with 2 core, how could he achieve such a high RAC? Is there any trick we do not know?
GPU for rosetta?
manasd 27315.81 7/9/2018 6:06:42 AM 3391974 89828.89 GenuineIntel Intel(R) Celeron(R) CPU G1620 @ 2.70GHz [Family 6 Model 58 Stepping 9] 1994560 2 8151.14 MB 3282.09 0.8 27.31581 1.312836
For this slow machine with 2 core, how could he achieve such a high RAC? Is there any trick we do not know?
GPU for rosetta?
I firmly believe its impossible to have any GPUs out there for rosetta. One its public info to see which platforms they compile for and they dont offer a GPU option, two I read all the threads when we were working on PODC, and the users and scientists say that the code is too complicated to port to GPUs (because of the proprietary libs that dont have low level C libs available for GPUs, these are CPU libs), and three, you can see this is true by looking at the Rosetta Commons user manual, I dont have a link on hand, but it does appear to back up what they are saying in the boinc forums.
On manasd, he has 18 machines and 38 procs, with a rac of 89828. To figure this out you would have to click on all his 18 machines. This one might not be representative to his full account.
July 11, 2018, 02:26:43 PM
Does anyone have trouble using InstantSend on 1.1.3.8c? I tried to send different amounts of 100, 1000, and even 10,000, but it keeps throwing an error saying that Instantsend only supports up to 500,000 BBP. Just noticed it after I upgraded from 1.1.2.4.
I did have a problem with it, yes - but I didn't report it as I couldn't reproduce it.I could InstantSend 50,000 and 100,000 BBP, but not 200,000 or 300,00.
However, I think (not sure, but think) that the message was just misleading, and it was probably because I didn't have all of the funds sitting in the same address first. I was able to do instantsend of 100,000 -> 100,000 -> 50,000 -> 50,000 but that was the only way I could get it to work. Every other attempt threw the error you described.
July 11, 2018, 02:17:34 PM
Is anyone else going to the blockchain world conference tomorrow/Friday in Atlantic City, NJ? Maybe we could hold a meetup.
July 11, 2018, 01:48:23 PM
I am just checking the machine leadboard and find something interesting:
manasd 27315.81 7/9/2018 6:06:42 AM 3391974 89828.89 GenuineIntel Intel(R) Celeron(R) CPU G1620 @ 2.70GHz [Family 6 Model 58 Stepping 9] 1994560 2 8151.14 MB 3282.09 0.8 27.31581 1.312836
For this slow machine with 2 core, how could he achieve such a high RAC? Is there any trick we do not know?
GPU for rosetta?
manasd 27315.81 7/9/2018 6:06:42 AM 3391974 89828.89 GenuineIntel Intel(R) Celeron(R) CPU G1620 @ 2.70GHz [Family 6 Model 58 Stepping 9] 1994560 2 8151.14 MB 3282.09 0.8 27.31581 1.312836
For this slow machine with 2 core, how could he achieve such a high RAC? Is there any trick we do not know?
GPU for rosetta?
[6] AMD AMD Radeon (TM) R9 380 Series (4096MB) OpenCL: 2.0
It would appear that way.
edit: seems they abandoned the project
https://biblepay-central.org/en/podc/user/1994560/
July 11, 2018, 01:20:12 PM
Does anyone have trouble using InstantSend on 1.1.3.8c? I tried to send different amounts of 100, 1000, and even 10,000, but it keeps throwing an error saying that Instantsend only supports up to 500,000 BBP. Just noticed it after I upgraded from 1.1.2.4.
July 11, 2018, 01:17:28 PM
I am just checking the machine leadboard and find something interesting:
manasd 27315.81 7/9/2018 6:06:42 AM 3391974 89828.89 GenuineIntel Intel(R) Celeron(R) CPU G1620 @ 2.70GHz [Family 6 Model 58 Stepping 9] 1994560 2 8151.14 MB 3282.09 0.8 27.31581 1.312836
For this slow machine with 2 core, how could he achieve such a high RAC? Is there any trick we do not know?
GPU for rosetta?
manasd 27315.81 7/9/2018 6:06:42 AM 3391974 89828.89 GenuineIntel Intel(R) Celeron(R) CPU G1620 @ 2.70GHz [Family 6 Model 58 Stepping 9] 1994560 2 8151.14 MB 3282.09 0.8 27.31581 1.312836
For this slow machine with 2 core, how could he achieve such a high RAC? Is there any trick we do not know?
GPU for rosetta?
July 11, 2018, 12:01:28 PM
We are less than 80 blocks away from the mandatory upgrade. From my amateur view on the explorer it seems like the majority of the network is still on old versions (mostly 1.1.2.x). Even the main pool is still running 1.1.2.2. Is this gonna be a problem? I mean as long as the sanctuaries are on the new version the whole system should be fine, right? People mining on a fork will (hopefully) sooner or later realize it and upgrade too...
Pool is upgraded; and I'm seeing that 90.5% have already upgraded to the new version (1.1.3.
-(exec versionreport)
However, I am worried about C-CEX. They still haven't put us in maintenance so we are going on a fork if we cant get through to them.
The primary risk is people will try to make deposits to old BBP addresses on a fork, and we can't risk that.
In this case it's not our fault as we gave the full 10 day notice.
But I'd rather not have an issue.....
EDIT: SouthExchange has upgraded. QIEX has upgraded.
Awesome, nice work!
btw: I also read some other coins' threads and it seems like there's a lot of people who think that SouthExchange is a great exchange and no one really knows why they are so "unpopular" volume wise. I think (or I hope) it will get more popular in the upcoming months.
C-CEX on the other hand seems to keep annoying more and more people.
July 11, 2018, 11:37:51 AM
ups .-... my fault Rob 57 700 sry
July 11, 2018, 11:36:38 AM
We are less than 80 blocks away from the mandatory upgrade. From my amateur view on the explorer it seems like the majority of the network is still on old versions (mostly 1.1.2.x). Even the main pool is still running 1.1.2.2. Is this gonna be a problem? I mean as long as the sanctuaries are on the new version the whole system should be fine, right? People mining on a fork will (hopefully) sooner or later realize it and upgrade too...
80? we are still over 300 blocks what i seeWere @ 57644, 56 blocks away.
July 11, 2018, 11:35:55 AM
We are less than 80 blocks away from the mandatory upgrade. From my amateur view on the explorer it seems like the majority of the network is still on old versions (mostly 1.1.2.x). Even the main pool is still running 1.1.2.2. Is this gonna be a problem? I mean as long as the sanctuaries are on the new version the whole system should be fine, right? People mining on a fork will (hopefully) sooner or later realize it and upgrade too...
80? we are still over 300 blocks what i see"Version": "Popularity,Percent %",
"1.1.2.4": "4; 1.95%",
"1.1.2.7": "1; 0.49%",
"1.1.3.1": "5; 2.44%",
"1.1.3.3": "1; 0.49%",
"1.1.3.6": "8; 3.90%",
"1.1.3.8": "186; 90.73%"
we cant wait for CCEX
July 11, 2018, 11:35:14 AM
We are less than 80 blocks away from the mandatory upgrade. From my amateur view on the explorer it seems like the majority of the network is still on old versions (mostly 1.1.2.x). Even the main pool is still running 1.1.2.2. Is this gonna be a problem? I mean as long as the sanctuaries are on the new version the whole system should be fine, right? People mining on a fork will (hopefully) sooner or later realize it and upgrade too...
Pool is upgraded; and I'm seeing that 90.5% have already upgraded to the new version (1.1.3.
-(exec versionreport)
However, I am worried about C-CEX. They still haven't put us in maintenance so we are going on a fork if we cant get through to them.
The primary risk is people will try to make deposits to old BBP addresses on a fork, and we can't risk that.
In this case it's not our fault as we gave the full 10 day notice.
But I'd rather not have an issue.....
EDIT: SouthExchange has upgraded. QIEX has upgraded.
July 11, 2018, 11:30:39 AM
We are less than 80 blocks away from the mandatory upgrade. From my amateur view on the explorer it seems like the majority of the network is still on old versions (mostly 1.1.2.x). Even the main pool is still running 1.1.2.2. Is this gonna be a problem? I mean as long as the sanctuaries are on the new version the whole system should be fine, right? People mining on a fork will (hopefully) sooner or later realize it and upgrade too...
Im aware of the pool, Ive upgraded 99% of the nodes over here, but working on new letter writing feature now in the pool, its being upgraded now.
This is so the users can see "Outbound Letters" to children while writing letters.
July 11, 2018, 11:30:04 AM
July 11, 2018, 10:00:55 AM
Quote from: dave_bbp ltopic=2388064.msg41972158#msg41972158 date=1531319685
We are less than 80 blocks away from the mandatory upgrade. From my amateur view on the explorer it seems like the majority of the network is still on old versions (mostly 1.1.2.x). Even the main pool is still running 1.1.2.2. Is this gonna be a problem? I mean as long as the sanctuaries are on the new version the whole system should be fine, right? People mining on a fork will (hopefully) sooner or later realize it and upgrade too...
All the more reason for people to sign up for our official Mandatory Wallet Upgrade Alert:
https://www.biblepay.org/newsletter/
bbppodc.org also has one, maintained by t-mike.
Jump to: