Topic: [OLD] Eligius: ASIC, no registration, no fee CPPSRB BTC + 105% PPS NMC, 877 # - page 152. (Read 458499 times)
March 25, 2012, 10:57:35 PM
FWIW, BitVPS.com is offering Eligius miners 20% off with coupon code 'ELIGIUS'
March 22, 2012, 06:48:31 PM
Quote
Quote
priority = sum(input_value_in_base_units * input_age)/size_in_bytes
Transactions need to have a priority above 57,600,000 to avoid the enforced limit (as of client version 0.3.21).ETA:
(67935140 * 126) / 225 = 38,043,678.4
38,043,678.4 < 57,600,000, so I don't even know if the 120 generate confirmations counted in the formula or not.
March 22, 2012, 06:42:42 PM
Odd that you were charged a fee like that; I wonder why.
I think Red Emerald is right, it probably hadn't even been 126 confirmations. Like I said, I assumed that the 120 required before they could be spent made them old enough. It's also possible that the minimum BTC amount to not require a fee is higher, but I think that depends on age, seems like I saw the formula about what causes a fee to be required once, just kinda forgot about it. March 22, 2012, 06:40:44 PM
Odd that you were charged a fee like that; I wonder why.
I think Red Emerald is right, it probably hadn't even been 126 confirmations. Like I said, I assumed that the 120 required before they could be spent made them old enough. It's also possible that the minimum BTC amount to not require a fee is higher, but I think that depends on age, seems like I saw the formula about what causes a fee to be required once, just kinda forgot about it. March 22, 2012, 06:32:59 PM
I just spent coins from a generate and was charged a fee. The generate was for .6793514 and since 120 confirmations were required before they could be spent, and since I was trying ot send exactly .6793514, I expected to be able to send the transaction for free. Instead, a fee of .0005 was required and I had to spend .6788514 instead to afford the fee. I know that ultimately fees will be necessary to support mining, but I believe right now fees are only required for transactions that fall outside of a certain scope. My expectation did involve some assumption, but was based on this (from FAQ):
The intent is to avoid 1000x .001 BTC inputs for a 1 BTC payment. Odd that you were charged a fee like that; I wonder why. Quote
Why is there a minimum payout?
This feature was added to help miners avoid transaction fees.
Just out of curiosity, was the minimum payout's intent to be able to spend without a fee (in which case maybe it is currently too low, whether it was when implemented or not) or just to minimize fees (100 .00678851 inputs would have presumably required a larger fee)?This feature was added to help miners avoid transaction fees.
March 22, 2012, 06:26:43 PM
I just spent coins from a generate and was charged a fee. The generate was for .6793514 and since 120 confirmations were required before they could be spent, and since I was trying ot send exactly .6793514, I expected to be able to send the transaction for free. Instead, a fee of .0005 was required and I had to spend .6788514 instead to afford the fee. I know that ultimately fees will be necessary to support mining, but I believe right now fees are only required for transactions that fall outside of a certain scope. My expectation did involve some assumption, but was based on this (from FAQ):
IIRC once the coins are 120 generations in, they count as new coins. Since they are new coins, they don't get to be spent for free. I think you could have waited for the coins to mature more and saved yourself about 2 cents.Quote
Why is there a minimum payout?
This feature was added to help miners avoid transaction fees.
Just out of curiosity, was the minimum payout's intent to be able to spend without a fee (in which case maybe it is currently too low, whether it was when implemented or not) or just to minimize fees (100 .00678851 inputs would have presumably required a larger fee)?This feature was added to help miners avoid transaction fees.
priority = sum(input_value_in_base_units * input_age)/size_in_bytes
No clue what your size_in_bytes is or how to tell though. March 22, 2012, 06:08:24 PM
I just spent coins from a generate and was charged a fee. The generate was for .6793514 and since 120 confirmations were required before they could be spent, and since I was trying ot send exactly .6793514, I expected to be able to send the transaction for free. Instead, a fee of .0005 was required and I had to spend .6788514 instead to afford the fee. I know that ultimately fees will be necessary to support mining, but I believe right now fees are only required for transactions that fall outside of a certain scope. My expectation did involve some assumption, but was based on this (from FAQ):
Quote
Why is there a minimum payout?
This feature was added to help miners avoid transaction fees.
Just out of curiosity, was the minimum payout's intent to be able to spend without a fee (in which case maybe it is currently too low, whether it was when implemented or not) or just to minimize fees (100 .00678851 inputs would have presumably required a larger fee)? This feature was added to help miners avoid transaction fees.
March 20, 2012, 10:04:18 AM
the pool now is work well?
I don't think I have had any trouble with the pool, why do you ask? March 20, 2012, 09:57:24 AM
the pool now is work well?
March 18, 2012, 01:13:57 PM
So, [sarcasm]*theoretical question*[/sarcasm], when some retard mines for over 24 hours with the username set as .x instead of the username being properly set as with a password of x, is there any chance said retard can get the rewards he should have earned added returned to his queue? 
Not practical, sorry. The shares are processed in realtime, and there's no way for me to change the history without significantly rewriting code and taking the pool down for probably an extended duration to try to adapt the historical block record. March 18, 2012, 10:51:35 AM
So, [sarcasm]*theoretical question*[/sarcasm], when some retard mines for over 24 hours with the username set as .x instead of the username being properly set as with a password of x, is there any chance said retard can get the rewards he should have earned added returned to his queue?
March 17, 2012, 09:31:02 PM
I'm trying to register for the namecoins and my bitcoin qt doesnt have the message option. How can I correct this.
Upgrade to 0.6.0rc4.Where can I get that for windows.
March 17, 2012, 09:25:39 PM
I'm trying to register for the namecoins and my bitcoin qt doesnt have the message option. How can I correct this.
Upgrade to 0.6.0rc4.Where can I get that for windows.
March 17, 2012, 09:24:10 PM
I'm trying to register for the namecoins and my bitcoin qt doesnt have the message option. How can I correct this.
Upgrade to 0.6.0rc4. March 17, 2012, 09:21:23 PM
I'm trying to register for the namecoins and my bitcoin qt doesnt have the message option. How can I correct this.
March 17, 2012, 08:03:44 PM
Bitcoind 0.3.23.eligius (obsolete) source code released without support: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/for-referencehistory-0323eligius-69225
March 17, 2012, 12:45:47 PM
Finally got around to removing the old debug info ("fee"), so now Eligius is completely fee-free (as of midnight UTC tonight).
March 05, 2012, 08:28:12 PM
CPU usage was hardly being touched when I looked at top. This was an Ubuntu guest on an ESXi host (HP DL380 G5).
Sure thing. I'll make one in a bit.
Sure thing. I'll make one in a bit.
March 05, 2012, 04:38:20 PM
I tried this yesterday (which is why I was asking). I changed the listener IP in the python script and connected my rigs. One rig worked just fine, but when I added more machines, cgminer couldn't get work quickly enough and kept disconnecting/reconnecting from/to the proxy. I only tested it for a short time though before going to bed.
Hmm, not sure what might cause that. How's it look on CPU usage? Can you create me a pcap file?Code:
tcpdump -i any -s0 -w pcap port 8337 or port 9332
March 05, 2012, 04:15:56 PM
I tried this yesterday (which is why I was asking). I changed the listener IP in the python script and connected my rigs. One rig worked just fine, but when I added more machines, cgminer couldn't get work quickly enough and kept disconnecting/reconnecting from/to the proxy. I only tested it for a short time though before going to bed.
Jump to: