Topic: CH caught lying about SC 2.0 hashrates - page 2. (Read 3359 times)

These threads really are comedy gold. Thanks BTCEX, without you nobody would even be talking about SolidCoin!

Thanks also for mentioning the new GPU mining feature of Solidcoin 2. Yes, we do expect to soak up some of the GPU power leaving Bitcoin in its droves. All are welcome to come and mine SolidCoins, even you

You do raise a somewhat valid point though and a non-troll such as myself should take the time to explain the story so far in terms of the mining hashrate displayed in the client:

The SolidCoin 2.00 public beta showed a hashrate in the client, but Coinotron was showing a much lower rate in his stats. The "arrogant" Realsolid assumed that he was wrong and "corrected" the hash rate for 2.00 to more closely match what Coinotron was showing.

When mtrlt developed Reaper - the new SolidCoin GPU miner - using the now infamous SOURCE CODE given to him by Realsolid, OMG! - he had to create his own hashrate calc based on the SolidCoin source, which came out much higher than the rate shown in the official 2.00 client.

Realsolid knew they should be much closer, as he had designed his algo to be roughly equally effective on GPU and CPU, so he went back and examined 2.00 again in much closer detail. He found that the hashrate displayed was actually correct in the public beta, so changed it back for 2.01.

The issue is now corrected, you never lost any hashrate with your CPU mining, you have always been hashing at the higher rate.

So now you know.

Confusing, unfortunate and unnecessary, sure. But hey, nobody's perfect, not even our dear leader.

He was not lying, the hashrate was buggy... Doesn't look like you understand the difference

Well, to be fair, the person who wrote the code also couldn't figure out if his hashrate is correct. Calculating the number of hashes you do every second is hard... you know.

Your puppies have disassembled the code, but you still can't figure it out?

Erm, I'm pretty sure Namecoin has that slot, followed by LTC.

But I have another question:  Do -you- know the hashrates are now correct, or are you just parroting with CH has said?

Still the number 2 cryptochain after bitcoin... Why are you so worried about it if it is no danger?

Fix was published shortly after the GPU miner release... So what's the problem? SC support is still high, just some clowns who hate it, but are not able to ignore it 

So cost/benefit does go over you head.  No, I don't mine SC - haven't even installed it.  But other poor saps do, so I'm making this information available to them.

So what's the problem? Your miner worked correctly... Is you electricity wasted because the shown hashrate is not correct? You have shown multiple times that you don't like SC, why do you mine it?

What's the problem?  The problem is this is MY fucking electricity that I'm spending to mine.  I pay for it dipshit - and being able to determine if my resources are competitive vs GPU mining is necessary.  Really, is a cost/benefit analysis over your head? The problem I had was his ability to correctly identify what's going on in his code, and his ability to communicate it with people using it. What I also don't understand is how working on an open-source GPU miner revealed a previously corrected bug in the closed-source CPU miner.  Also, the hashrate is critical to SC 2.0's 'CPU-only, anyone can mine, even grandma!' rhetoric. Also if CH is so negligent when finding and communicating 'bugs', the rest of his closed-source mystery becomes even more of a liability.

Right now, CH has a wonderful opportunity to come and explain, and -maybe- even restore some of his credibility.  I -genuinely- want to know the process of which his code in beta was accurate in beta, wrong in 2.0, back to accurate in 2.01, and how it was 'discovered' while someone else was working on a GPU miner.

Still better to try to improve something, than just copying something else with zero innovation... But I still prefer LTC than TBX/FBX

It may not be a conspiracy, but if he can introduce 2 bugs in something as simple as a hashrate measurement, who knows what kinds of security problems he's introduced? Add to the fact that this is closed source, you are just asking for trouble IMHO.

Whats the problem? The first hashrate had a bug, he tried to fix it, but introduced another bug. Now it hopefully is correct... But maybe you are right, this is a big conspiracy...

It works !  Ati5830@deff ~92 kh/s
Exactly:
100 shares@600 sec
+100 shares @1200 sec
+100 shares @1800 sec@0 stale
Kinda wierd... = delete 

It made the network look larger than it really is.  

So in reality the network is much smaller than originally claimed.

allchains.info has hashrate @ 28.91 MH/s.  The reality is a 2600K gets about 150KH, not 45 as client originally indicated in the client.

28.91 / 0.15 = 192x 2600K CPUs (or other equivelent quad core CPU).  Yup.  The entire SC network is less than < 200 CPUs.

Makomk pointed this out, but I believe it warrants it's own topic (and I really want to know the explaination)


CH says the 'beta' of SC 2.0 was wrongly reporting hashes



Now he is saying it's correct



What I want explained is how something goes from correct->incorrect->correct.

Further, I would like explained how people are supposed to trust your other claims about SC 2.0, given this flip-flop.