Eligius: 0% Fee BTC, 105% PPS NMC, No registration, CPPSRB - page 58.

not.you

legendary

Activity: 1726

Merit: 1018

Quote from: Elphamyto on October 07, 2015, 05:24:37 PM

Is something happening to the payout queue? I was in the queue until yesterday and I moved up to 15 blocks ahead ahead of me; today I'm back in the queue. I've noticed that sometimes the queue goes blank but eventually returns so I'm guessing this had something to do with it? Thanks

Working as intended. The payout queue is oldest paid first and recalculates each block. So if I set my payout to 1BTC but it takes me a full month to get to 1BTC then odds are I will go to the front of the queue just as soon as I hit 1 BTC since I will be owed for shares from a full month back. So every time the pool finds a block the queue is shuffled a bit. Sometimes when the pool hits two blocks very close together your display will say you are not in the queue anymore but don't worry about it, the next block will sort you out again.

EDIT: I guess I should also point out that there are some fail safe reasons that payouts will go to a pool wallet and not pay anyone (as in the case of two blocks very quickly). The fail safes are just precautionary in case of malfunctions so no erroneous payments are made. When that happens nobody gets paid so the queue just gets longer. Then every 6 to 8 weeks wizkid stops by and does a manual payout to catch the queue back up. In fact we are about due for a visit. Wink

Elphamyto

member

Activity: 117

Merit: 16

Is something happening to the payout queue? I was in the queue until yesterday and I moved up to 15 blocks ahead ahead of me; today I'm back in the queue. I've noticed that sometimes the queue goes blank but eventually returns so I'm guessing this had something to do with it? Thanks

Luke-Jr

legendary

Activity: 2576

Merit: 1186

Quote from: peteabdo on October 04, 2015, 03:07:57 AM

I think you should merge mine all of the merged mined coins Namecoin, Ixcoin, Devcoin, I0coin and Unobtanium. Why not? it is free we are already mining.

See https://bitcointalk.org/?topic=23768.msg3815348#msg3815348

peteabdo

newbie

Activity: 31

Merit: 0

I think you should merge mine all of the merged mined coins Namecoin, Ixcoin, Devcoin, I0coin and Unobtanium. Why not? it is free we are already mining.

mavericklm

hero member

Activity: 742

Merit: 500

How can i find my NMC balance? ? ? ? ?

thx!

RoadTrain

legendary

Activity: 1386

Merit: 1009

Quote from: r86c34p on October 03, 2015, 04:42:28 PM

Quote from: RoadTrain on October 03, 2015, 07:33:28 AM

The pool has been pretty unlucky recently. I wonder if it's a simple statistical fluctuation.

Looking back to Sept. 1, I think we have seen an average luck of about 86%...

Quite possible, but the last week has been bad at luck.

r86c34p

newbie

Activity: 1

Merit: 0

Quote from: RoadTrain on October 03, 2015, 07:33:28 AM

The pool has been pretty unlucky recently. I wonder if it's a simple statistical fluctuation.

Looking back to Sept. 1, I think we have seen an average luck of about 86%...

RoadTrain

legendary

Activity: 1386

Merit: 1009

The pool has been pretty unlucky recently. I wonder if it's a simple statistical fluctuation.

Biomech

legendary

Activity: 1372

Merit: 1022

Anarchy is not chaos.

Quote from: not.you on September 18, 2015, 09:26:43 PM

I may be wrong but my impression is that most of the conversation is happening on reddit. I have seen a couple threads here about it but not with very in-depth conversation. I have an app on my phone that aggregates news stories and blog posts about bitcoin and I read those things all the time so that is mostly what has informed my opinion on the issue.

In more relevent news, the Eligius website is a bit laggy tonight.

so's the freakin' blockchain. 20 minute plus blocks again Sad

Reddit is a forum I simply can't stand, but it does seem to be where most of the technical discussion is going on.

not.you

legendary

Activity: 1726

Merit: 1018

I may be wrong but my impression is that most of the conversation is happening on reddit. I have seen a couple threads here about it but not with very in-depth conversation. I have an app on my phone that aggregates news stories and blog posts about bitcoin and I read those things all the time so that is mostly what has informed my opinion on the issue.

In more relevent news, the Eligius website is a bit laggy tonight.

ProfMac

legendary

Activity: 1246

Merit: 1002

Quote from: not.you on September 18, 2015, 12:29:43 PM

Quote from: Biomech on September 18, 2015, 12:02:26 PM

I personally think that larger blocks are both desirable and necessary,

I was initially inclined to agree with this but after reading more on the issue I think I agree with those who say that block propagation speed is one of, if not the most important factor in keeping bitcoin decentralized. And with the internet infrastructure such as it is right now, smaller blocks are better. There are already problems with block propagation at 1mb, moving up to something like 8 would be a huge push in the direction of centralization. And centralization of either full nodes or mining are both potentially large problems, both of which would potentially happen with larger blocks. When large blocks can propagate quickly then a switch to larger blocks would be more timely.

I assume this has been discussed a lot, but this is one of the only threads that I follow. I think the original vision is that the fees have to rise to pay the costs of running the network. Making structural changes, such as bigger blocks, so that no transactions are delayed or left out sabotages that transition.

One alternative is to trust the original design, and to let market forces push the transaction fees up for people who want faster block inclusion.

If there is a link to the blocksize discussion somewhere, I am willing to read it before I post more. :-)

not.you

legendary

Activity: 1726

Merit: 1018

Quote from: Biomech on September 18, 2015, 12:02:26 PM

I personally think that larger blocks are both desirable and necessary,

I was initially inclined to agree with this but after reading more on the issue I think I agree with those who say that block propagation speed is one of, if not the most important factor in keeping bitcoin decentralized. And with the internet infrastructure such as it is right now, smaller blocks are better. There are already problems with block propagation at 1mb, moving up to something like 8 would be a huge push in the direction of centralization. And centralization of either full nodes or mining are both potentially large problems, both of which would potentially happen with larger blocks. When large blocks can propagate quickly then a switch to larger blocks would be more timely.

Biomech

legendary

Activity: 1372

Merit: 1022

Anarchy is not chaos.

Quote from: Luke-Jr on September 17, 2015, 09:43:14 PM

Quote from: not.you on September 17, 2015, 06:35:11 PM

Quote from: Luke-Jr on September 15, 2015, 08:05:21 PM

Quote from: btcash on September 15, 2015, 08:26:59 AM

What BIP is Eligius going to vote for? You ruled out 101 so only 101 is left or do you wait for an updated/new BIP?

Miners have no say on hardforks, and it's not a vote.
Your question is a false dichotomy.

Not quite true though. Pools can basically vote based on which software they run now that xt exists. And miners can vote based on what pool they mine on.

No, pools/miners that use software producing or accepting invalid blocks simply cease to be Bitcoin miners.

Quote from: Biomech on September 17, 2015, 07:30:13 PM

if you look at it in the light that miners drive the network forward, and if the miners decide that "x" hardfork simply isn't going to happen, then they do indeed have a say in it.

Depends on the hardfork...
Post-hardfork miners can indeed softfork-veto any rule removal by re-adding the rule, but some hardforks (particularly ones that add/remove PoW or equivalent algorithms) potentially redefine the set of miners.

True enough. It's a rather complex subject with no simple answers. I personally think that larger blocks are both desirable and necessary, but the XT proposal was poorly thought out and the attempt to force the issue rather than taking the time to properly implement it just makes Gavin and Mike look like idiots. Neither of them really are, but they come across that way with this. Throwing a tantrum might be effective, but it's certainly not the way to conduct important business.

zoro1

hero member

Activity: 812

Merit: 1000

Quote from: kano on September 18, 2015, 12:42:42 AM

I don't think posting almost the same thing 3 times in a row will convince anyone ...

heheheh

i wonder what went wrong Grin

kano

legendary

Activity: 4634

Merit: 1851

Linux since 1997 RedHat 4

I don't think posting almost the same thing 3 times in a row will convince anyone ...

Luke-Jr

legendary

Activity: 2576

Merit: 1186

Quote from: not.you on September 17, 2015, 06:35:11 PM

Quote from: Luke-Jr on September 15, 2015, 08:05:21 PM

Quote from: btcash on September 15, 2015, 08:26:59 AM

What BIP is Eligius going to vote for? You ruled out 101 so only 101 is left or do you wait for an updated/new BIP?

Miners have no say on hardforks, and it's not a vote.
Your question is a false dichotomy.

Not quite true though. Pools can basically vote based on which software they run now that xt exists. And miners can vote based on what pool they mine on.

No, pools/miners that use software producing or accepting invalid blocks simply cease to be Bitcoin miners.

Quote from: Biomech on September 17, 2015, 07:30:13 PM

if you look at it in the light that miners drive the network forward, and if the miners decide that "x" hardfork simply isn't going to happen, then they do indeed have a say in it.

Depends on the hardfork...
Post-hardfork miners can indeed softfork-veto any rule removal by re-adding the rule, but some hardforks (particularly ones that add/remove PoW or equivalent algorithms) potentially redefine the set of miners.

Luke-Jr

legendary

Activity: 2576

Merit: 1186

Quote from: not.you on September 17, 2015, 06:35:11 PM

Quote from: Luke-Jr on September 15, 2015, 08:05:21 PM

Quote from: btcash on September 15, 2015, 08:26:59 AM

What BIP is Eligius going to vote for? You ruled out 101 so only 101 is left or do you wait for an updated/new BIP?

Miners have no say on hardforks, and it's not a vote.
Your question is a false dichotomy.

Not quite true though. Pools can basically vote based on which software they run now that xt exists. And miners can vote based on what pool they mine on.

No, pools/miners that use software producing or accepting invalid blocks simply cease to be Bitcoin miners.
It is literally no different than if they start mining Freicoin instead.

Quote from: Biomech on September 17, 2015, 07:30:13 PM

if you look at it in the light that miners drive the network forward, and if the miners decide that "x" hardfork simply isn't going to happen, then they do indeed have a say in it.

Depends on the hardfork...
Post-hardfork miners can indeed softfork-veto any rule removal by re-adding the rule, but some hardforks (particularly ones that add/remove PoW or equivalent algorithms) potentially redefine the set of miners.
But that isn't relevant to the point: there is nothing positive miners can do to support a hardfork.

Luke-Jr

legendary

Activity: 2576

Merit: 1186

Quote from: not.you on September 17, 2015, 06:35:11 PM

Quote from: Luke-Jr on September 15, 2015, 08:05:21 PM

Quote from: btcash on September 15, 2015, 08:26:59 AM

What BIP is Eligius going to vote for? You ruled out 101 so only 101 is left or do you wait for an updated/new BIP?

Miners have no say on hardforks, and it's not a vote.
Your question is a false dichotomy.

Not quite true though. Pools can basically vote based on which software they run now that xt exists. And miners can vote based on what pool they mine on.

No, pools/miners that use software producing or accepting invalid blocks simply cease to be Bitcoin miners.
It is literally no different than if they start mining Freicoin instead.

Quote from: Biomech on September 17, 2015, 07:30:13 PM

if you look at it in the light that miners drive the network forward, and if the miners decide that "x" hardfork simply isn't going to happen, then they do indeed have a say in it.

Depends on the hardfork...
Post-hardfork miners can indeed softfork-veto any rule removal by re-adding the rule, but some hardforks (particularly ones that add/remove PoW or equivalent algorithms) potentially redefine the set of miners.

Biomech

legendary

Activity: 1372

Merit: 1022

Anarchy is not chaos.

Quote from: Luke-Jr on September 15, 2015, 08:05:21 PM

Quote from: btcash on September 15, 2015, 08:26:59 AM

What BIP is Eligius going to vote for? You ruled out 101 so only 101 is left or do you wait for an updated/new BIP?

Miners have no say on hardforks, and it's not a vote.
Your question is a false dichotomy.

actually...

if you look at it in the light that miners drive the network forward, and if the miners decide that "x" hardfork simply isn't going to happen, then they do indeed have a say in it.

Given that at the moment, Bitcoin is centralized between a few large pools, then the syndicate indicated by a pool has a rather large vote in whether or not to accept a hard fork.

The question as stated is a false dichotomy, but your answer is a red herring Cheesy

not.you

legendary

Activity: 1726

Merit: 1018

Quote from: Luke-Jr on September 15, 2015, 08:05:21 PM

Quote from: btcash on September 15, 2015, 08:26:59 AM

What BIP is Eligius going to vote for? You ruled out 101 so only 101 is left or do you wait for an updated/new BIP?

Miners have no say on hardforks, and it's not a vote.
Your question is a false dichotomy.

Not quite true though. Pools can basically vote based on which software they run now that xt exists. And miners can vote based on what pool they mine on.

Topic: Eligius: 0% Fee BTC, 105% PPS NMC, No registration, CPPSRB - page 58. (Read 1061862 times)