Additional information (optional):
* I suspect this user user chatbot.
* The post contain hidden SEO spam, which removed on below quoted post.
List of post:
- Network Configuration: Ensure that your mining software is configured correctly. Incorrect settings can lead to rejected shares. Make sure you are using the correct pool URL and port.
Overclocking/Underclocking: If you’re overclocking your hardware, it might cause instability, leading to rejected shares. Consider dialing back the overclocking settings to see if that reduces the rejection rate.
Hardware Issues: Sometimes, hardware issues can lead to rejected shares. Ensure that your hardware (like your Bitaxe 401 Supra) is functioning correctly and that it is properly cooled. Overheating can cause errors during mining.
Network Latency: High latency can lead to rejected shares, especially if your miner is not receiving updates from the pool in a timely manner. Check your internet connection and consider testing from a different location or provider to see if it affects performance.
Mining Pool Configuration: Sometimes, the mining pool itself may have settings or issues that can cause a higher rejection rate. You might want to check the pool’s status or forums for any reported issues.
Share Difficulty: If the pool's share difficulty is set too high for your hashrate, it might result in more rejected shares. Make sure you are aware of the pool's settings and adjust if necessary.
Software Bugs: Occasionally, the mining software you are using might have bugs or issues leading to rejected shares. Make sure you are running the latest version of your mining software.
If the issue persists, consider reaching out to the community around solo.ckpool.org or looking for forums specifically about your mining hardware for tailored advice.
1. If wrong pool URL or port is being used, the pool would report it receive no hashrate or share instead.
2. The thread never mention overclock, so suggesting to stop overclock isn't helpful. In addition, underclock generally doesn't lead to increased share rejection rate.
3. The mentioned pool (solo ckpool) have history of accepting miner with relative low hashrate. So mentioning about pool's share difficulty isn't helpful.
User: Babayan-nawu
Additional information (optional):
* I suspect this user user chatbot.
List of post:
It clear to me from my research that Merkle trees are crucial in blockchain, but I'd like some assistance in understanding what would happen if merkle trees didn't included in the blockchain and what difficulties arise while using them. I would appreciate any corrections you may have so I may improve my research, because learning the technical aspects of bitcoin is my top goal here.
I think many answers were given but I will like add this too,Although Merkle trees make it possible to improve the performance, security and scalability of the blockchain. Without them, blockchain would face the most serious problems leading to congestion, centralization and lower rates of adoption.
I think you need to explain further why lack of merkle trees leads to congestion, centralization and lower rates adaption. After all,
1. Merkle tree doesn't determine block size limit, which means total transaction which can fit in a block doesn't change.
2. Full nodes verify whole block, where lack of merkle tree wouldn't have such major impact on verification time.
3. Average user doesn't know or care about how Bitcoin works in details.
CMIIW.
Congestion: Without Merkle trees:
Increased storage requirements: Hence, the block sizes would also increase since every block would need to contain all transaction information and therefore would require more storage space.
Increased transaction verification time: Every transaction within that particular block has to be verified meaning over reliance on computational resources which will take a long time, this also might lead to the network getting congested.
Slower transaction processing speed: Due to the delay in computational time, there is a reduction in the speed and number of transactions that can be conducted in a block. Thus overall decreasing the transaction throughput.
Centralization: Without Merkle trees:
Growing computational requirements,Every stage of the transaction verification processes will be very complicated and thus it will favor only big mining companies having the necessary capabilities.
Greater barriers to entry,Smaller miners and nodes may find it difficult to successfully verify transactions which might result into centralization and lesser decentralization of the network.
Greater dependence on trust nodes, People may depend on centralized services or trusted nodes more than what is desirable to end up disrupting the decentralized scope of Blockchains.
Lower adoption rates Without Merkle trees:
Substandard user experience,Due to delays in transaction processing and transaction verifications, when users are engaging in these activities, they are left in so much frustration.
Very limited scalability,As a result, the throughput in number of transactions would make it impossible for blockchains to achieve widespread support
Thank you for making me elaborate it more.
1. Block already contain all transaction data.
2. Full node already verify all transaction.
3. When people talk about "congestion", usually it means there are more transaction created compared with block size, not time to verify a block which currently only takes few seconds.
4. Even without markle tree, it doesn't change transaction size or block size limit. That means it won't reduce transaction throughput or theoretical TPS (Transaction per second).
5. Almost all Bitcoin miners join mining pool these days, which mean they never perform any verification.
As a security feature, if you want to check the integrity of a QT wallet.dat file without initiating a transaction all steps can help you.
>>Do not sync the wallet and unlock it.
>>Check that the balances correspond to the explorer.
>>Run bitcoin-cli verifychain in order to examine the integrity of the blockchain.
>>Use bitcoin-cli getbalance to view available balance.
If these verifications are satisfactorily passed, probably the wallet.dat file is intact and the balances are ready to be utilized.
Note: Check whether the height of the blockchain of the given wallet is equal to that of the current height of the chain so that one can be sure the wallet is up-to-date.
1. bitcoin-cli getbalance might show outdated balance if you don't let Bitcoin Core sync the wallet (a.k.a. finding relevant transaction associated with the wallet).
2. Default parameter for verifychain (at least on Bitcoin Core 28.0) doesn't verify whole blockchain.
User: btcdvl
Additional information (optional):
* Some member suspect this user use chatbot.
* On thread created by this user, other member also point other of his technical non-sense.
List of post:
in the old days it would have been impossible. But now any password without a timestamp can be brute forced. Algorithms like Bcrypt are stronger. You can examine the range of timestamped ciphers with public hash used in cryptography.