Search found 4559 matches
- Sat Apr 23, 2016 8:46 am
- Forum: News
- Topic: Profiling session to occur Sunday or Monday night
- Replies: 3
- Views: 3443
Profiling session to occur Sunday or Monday night
On Sunday or Monday night, Chris will be conducting a "profiling" session of the production mining server. Months ago, we spent a significant amount of time improving the performance of the database. The changes have proven successful, and we estimate that the database can now handle the e...
- Sat Apr 23, 2016 8:37 am
- Forum: System support
- Topic: Rejected Share Reasons
- Replies: 5
- Views: 3659
Re: Rejected Share Reasons
The timestamp of the rejected shares? Timestamp is available and wouldn't increase CPU usage, but it wouldn't make sense in this context. The rejected shares list is a count, and the shares occur at various times, so there isn't any single time to list. Or, perhaps I'm misunderstanding what you're l...
- Thu Apr 21, 2016 8:21 pm
- Forum: System support
- Topic: Sudden Increase in Rejected Shares
- Replies: 6
- Views: 4769
Re: Sudden Increase in Rejected Shares
Chris is continuing to investigate, and will have an answer later tonight. Thanks for this report! We think that you discovered a bug that has been present for years. There is some problem with proof-of-stake mining that causes rejects for a significant proportion of shares. Proof of stake coins hav...
- Thu Apr 21, 2016 8:02 pm
- Forum: Prohashing Blog
- Topic: Update on the pending halving event
- Replies: 2
- Views: 42829
Update on the pending halving event
On March 27, I posted my long-held belief that the block reward halving would be catastrophic for the bitcoin network at http://forums.prohashing.com/viewtopic.php?f=11&t=782. Now that nearly one month has passed, I thought I would review the predictions from that post and see where recent event...
- Thu Apr 21, 2016 10:37 am
- Forum: System support
- Topic: Rejected Share Reasons
- Replies: 5
- Views: 3659
Re: Rejected Share Reasons
Great suggestion. I can't promise that we can implement this soon, however, because it would increase CPU usage on the mining server to record which worker submitted a share. CPU usage is the limiting factor for the server. But as soon as we can figure out ways to parallelize the mining server more ...
- Thu Apr 21, 2016 10:03 am
- Forum: Prohashing Blog
- Topic: Responding to the introduction of selfish mining and block withholding
- Replies: 9
- Views: 10401
Re: Responding to the introduction of selfish mining and block withholding
Wow, that's pretty amazing. :o Kudos and mad props unto thee! :lol: Chris added more coins, and the last 24 hours (8 am Wednesday to 8am Thursday) improved profit by $6.97, up from $5.33 from 6pm Tuesday to 6pm Wednesday. kires, Chris made an update and you can now see these blocks in the "fou...
- Wed Apr 20, 2016 6:17 pm
- Forum: Prohashing Blog
- Topic: Responding to the introduction of selfish mining and block withholding
- Replies: 9
- Views: 10401
Re: Responding to the introduction of selfish mining and block withholding
For those interested, we reversed at least 114 blocks worth $5.33 in the past 24 hours, for an increase in profitability of at least 0.75%. However, we've only implemented about 1/8 of the coins, and even after we have recompiled all the coins, it will take one month before we gain full effect from ...
- Sun Apr 17, 2016 11:07 am
- Forum: Development Discussion and Feedback
- Topic: Status as of Sunday, April 17
- Replies: 6
- Views: 4020
Status as of Sunday, April 17
Good morning! Here's some news on a few changes that will be rolling out soon. In the blog, you can read a description of how we are improving orphan rates on coins we mine. The mining server changes have already been deployed, but not all coins have been recompiled. More coins will be recompiled in...
- Sat Apr 16, 2016 4:03 pm
- Forum: Prohashing Blog
- Topic: Responding to the introduction of selfish mining and block withholding
- Replies: 9
- Views: 10401
Re: Responding to the introduction of selfish mining and block withholding
Absolutely agreed that there's not really a choice. This seems like the least-bad response to the block withholding attack for sure, and it's a brilliant defense which I'm surprised I haven't heard of anyone doing before. It's one of those "seems obvious in hindsight" advances. With the d...
- Fri Apr 15, 2016 2:36 pm
- Forum: Prohashing Blog
- Topic: Responding to the introduction of selfish mining and block withholding
- Replies: 9
- Views: 10401
Re: Responding to the introduction of selfish mining and block withholding
When the case above is detected, this coin actually becomes more valuable to mine because the discovery of the next block results in the status of the previous block being switched from orphaned to immature. Instead of mining the next block on top of the block that the network received earliest, we...