Topic: [DBL] Doubloons: Pirate Currency - page 34. (Read 139884 times)
i only get 2 active connections and i cant catch up...
i need more connections.
are there nodes?
are there nodes?
addnode=andarazoroflove.org
addnode=46.247.171.61
addnode=195.182.194.155
addnode=184.155.113.224
There's something seriously wrong in the blockchain which occurred in the last couple of hours.
coinchoose and the block explorer are reporting way more blocks than the client is prepared to accept. It's peer ban central in debug.txt right now. Absolutely full of lines like this:
And this:
coinchoose and the block explorer are reporting way more blocks than the client is prepared to accept. It's peer ban central in debug.txt right now. Absolutely full of lines like this:
Code:
Disconnected xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx:1336 for misbehavior (score=100)
And this:
Code:
ERROR: ProcessBlock() : block with too little proof-of-work
i need more connections.
are there nodes?
are there nodes?
@Catman, Sorry didnt know it was not a serious project, I will move on... THX for notice...
I had to stop apache server on my Crappy pool. To much load. Pool works somehow but efficiency is very low
Great update for a great coin.
Yer welcome matey.
Is there gonna be some more pools for this coin, I would mine it but given pool is CRAP. Share submits over the roof, no stratum, high stales, inaccurate hash reading, and developer didnt even change the coin name, it still says BTC in my account... If this coin is gonna be serious please get a decent pool...
This coin is NOT meant to be taken seriously, but whatever it may be it may be. Its a celebration!
Also, use one of the P2Pools if you don't like the other one.
Is there gonna be some more pools for this coin, I would mine it but given pool is CRAP. Share submits over the roof, no stratum, high stales, inaccurate hash reading, and developer didnt even change the coin name, it still says BTC in my account... If this coin is gonna be serious please get a decent pool...
I noticed the ships be backed up in the harbor this morning. I unleashed 5.1 megahash to git the scurvey dogs movin on. Good things coming soon me thinks.
Great update for a great coin.
Yaargh, Difficulty be walking the plank in less than 24 hours!
Wheres best pool for this pirate stuff yarg.
Looking in the source code, it is 720 blocks:
nInterval is number of blocks before difficulty retargets.
Quote
static const int64 nTargetTimespan = 0.5 * 24 * 60 * 60;
static const int64 nTargetSpacing = 60;
static const int64 nInterval = nTargetTimespan / nTargetSpacing;
static const int64 nTargetSpacing = 60;
static const int64 nInterval = nTargetTimespan / nTargetSpacing;
nInterval is number of blocks before difficulty retargets.
I was just looking at nTargetTimespan >_>
I feel like an idiot.
FYI - see here about a potential code issue - https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.2515204
I think those bits were mentioned in shake's cloning guide, so i assume he must've known to change it in doubloons as well.
FYI - see here about a potential code issue - https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.2515204
Looking in the source code, it is 720 blocks:
nInterval is number of blocks before difficulty retargets.
Quote
static const int64 nTargetTimespan = 0.5 * 24 * 60 * 60;
static const int64 nTargetSpacing = 60;
static const int64 nInterval = nTargetTimespan / nTargetSpacing;
static const int64 nTargetSpacing = 60;
static const int64 nInterval = nTargetTimespan / nTargetSpacing;
nInterval is number of blocks before difficulty retargets.
Looking over historical difficulty, it seems to be 720 blocks, not 12 hours.
Also, difficulty would not still be 1.13 since it has been that way about 24 hrs.
Also, difficulty would not still be 1.13 since it has been that way about 24 hrs.
As i understand it, in the source code it's measured in time, so I'm not sure how the retarget interval is affected by how many blocks are actually mined.
The idea is to try and keep transactions moving at a set rate by adjusting the difficulty up or down to try and reach an equilibrium for the size of the network.
Taking doubloons as an example it's goal is to try and solve 1 block every minute and do difficulty retargets every 12 hours. This is where the 720 blocks for difficulty retargets comes from:
12 hours = 43200 seconds
1 minute = 60 seconds
43200 / 60 = 720 blocks
This is all well and good when the network speed is consistent or at the very least doesn't fluctuate too much but in these days of flash miners you get a massive spike in mining which pushes the difficulty up and then just as fast as they came 4/5 (or more) of the miners abandon the coin. This leaves the coin stuck at too high a difficulty and there is no longer any possibility of getting anywhere near the next retarget block in a reasonable timeframe.
Sure the difficulty is guaranteed to come down because of this but it'll take a week to get there and this pattern will happen to every coin that doesn't take into consideration the flash miner problem when deciding how many blocks there are between difficulty retargets.
So you didn't read what I said at all. -_-
In the source, retarget interval is literally set to 12hrs flat out, not "720 blocks". How many actual blocks are mined at that time shouldn't affect the retargeting happening exactly when it's supposed to.
As i understand it, in the source code it's measured in time, so I'm not sure how the retarget interval is affected by how many blocks are actually mined.
The idea is to try and keep transactions moving at a set rate by adjusting the difficulty up or down to try and reach an equilibrium for the size of the network.
Taking doubloons as an example it's goal is to try and solve 1 block every minute and do difficulty retargets every 12 hours. This is where the 720 blocks for difficulty retargets comes from:
12 hours = 43200 seconds
1 minute = 60 seconds
43200 / 60 = 720 blocks
This is all well and good when the network speed is consistent or at the very least doesn't fluctuate too much but in these days of flash miners you get a massive spike in mining which pushes the difficulty up and then just as fast as they came 4/5 (or more) of the miners abandon the coin. This leaves the coin stuck at too high a difficulty and there is no longer any possibility of getting anywhere near the next retarget block in a reasonable timeframe.
Sure the difficulty is guaranteed to come down because of this but it'll take a week to get there and this pattern will happen to every coin that doesn't take into consideration the flash miner problem when deciding how many blocks there are between difficulty retargets.
Coin devs really need to stop referring to diff retargets in terms of time when in reality it is by the number of blocks solved. (No offence to shakezula intended, all devs refer to retargets in terms of time rather than block intervals).
When the flash miners desert (usually at 1.0 or above) then even 720 blocks can be a very painful interval. This has happened to pretty much every coin recently. At least 720 blocks isn't as bad as the default 2016 blocks.
In my honest opinion, all coins really need to start using much smaller retarget intervals so the coin is better suited to adjust it's difficulty for the size of the network and the dedicated miners don't get screwed over for too long when the flash miners leave.
When the flash miners desert (usually at 1.0 or above) then even 720 blocks can be a very painful interval. This has happened to pretty much every coin recently. At least 720 blocks isn't as bad as the default 2016 blocks.
In my honest opinion, all coins really need to start using much smaller retarget intervals so the coin is better suited to adjust it's difficulty for the size of the network and the dedicated miners don't get screwed over for too long when the flash miners leave.
As i understand it, in the source code it's measured in time, so I'm not sure how the retarget interval is affected by how many blocks are actually mined.
Coin devs really need to stop referring to diff retargets in terms of time when in reality it is by the number of blocks solved. (No offence to shakezula intended, all devs refer to retargets in terms of time rather than block intervals).
When the flash miners desert (usually at 1.0 or above) then even 720 blocks can be a very painful interval. This has happened to pretty much every coin recently. At least 720 blocks isn't as bad as the default 2016 blocks.
In my honest opinion, all coins really need to start using much smaller retarget intervals so the coin is better suited to adjust it's difficulty for the size of the network and the dedicated miners don't get screwed over for too long when the flash miners leave.
When the flash miners desert (usually at 1.0 or above) then even 720 blocks can be a very painful interval. This has happened to pretty much every coin recently. At least 720 blocks isn't as bad as the default 2016 blocks.
In my honest opinion, all coins really need to start using much smaller retarget intervals so the coin is better suited to adjust it's difficulty for the size of the network and the dedicated miners don't get screwed over for too long when the flash miners leave.
Jump to: