Cryptocurrency mining is a broad subject, with many different facets. There are a number of different ways in which mining can be done, ranging from traditional dedicated hardware mining, like the ASICs, GPU mining, cloud mining or web browser mining, to name some. However, a very interesting and less known concept is the one of merged mining. This process entails the mining of two coins that are based on the same algorithm, simultaneously. Basically, merged mining allows a miner to mine on more than one blockchain at a time. The added benefit to this is that the miner will contribute to both of the blockchain’s hashrates, hence increasing their security (lower threat of a 51% attack) and functionality. Satoshi Nakamoto himself has written on the subject, in this Bitcointalk post from 2010 regarding Bitcoin specifically, saying: I think it would be possible for BitDNS to be a completely separate network and separate block chain, yet share CPU power with Bitcoin. The only overlap is to make it so miners can search for proof-of-work for both networks simultaneously. The networks wouldn’t need any coordination. Miners would subscribe to both networks in parallel. They would scan SHA such that if they get a hit, they potentially solve both at once. A solution may be for just one of the networks if one network has a lower difficulty. I think an external miner could call getwork on both programs and combine the work. Maybe call Bitcoin, get work from it, hand it to BitDNS getwork to combine into a combined work. Instead of fragmentation, networks share and augment each other’s total CPU power. This would solve the problem that if there are multiple networks, they are a danger to each other if the available CPU power gangs up on one. Instead, all networks in the world would share combined CPU power, increasing the total strength. It would make it easier for small networks to get started by tapping into a ready base of miners. Perhaps the most discussed examples of merged mining are the pairs Bitcoin & Namecoin and Litecoin & Dogecoin. In a merged mining process, there always has to be a parent blockchain and an auxiliary one. This process does not require any additional computing power from the miners, which is a big advantage. First, a block of transactions for each chain has to be assembled. The next step is simply starting to mine. During the process there are 3 possible outcomes:
Mining a block at Bitcoin’s difficulty level. You receive both mining rewards.
Mining a block at Namecoin’s difficulty level. You only receive the Namecoin mining reward.
Mining a block between Namecoin’s and Bitcoin’s difficulty level. Same outcome as scenario number two.
The biggest disadvantage of implementing merged mining is that within the auxiliary chain, there is implementation and development work involved and when switching, a hard fork is needed. Overall, merged mining benefits miners, not so much investors, however it does offer other perks like increased security for the actual networks. Could be the perfect approach for new projects, in terms of protecting themselves from a 51% attack for example. It is an interesting implementation which more people should be aware of.
BTC Guild is NOT close to 51% of the hash share, despite previous reports here
I wanted to debunk this, not because I like BTC guild (I use Slush's pool, which thankfully is now back up), but to stop the fear mongering of BTC Guild being large and another threat besides regulation, DDoS attacks, etc. Find the service you like, use them to mine, and be done with it. The whole purpose of BTC is to have more choices and allow more market freedom. If someone chooses to use BTC guild, they probably have a reason to do so, not because tehy were forced into it. Source: http://bitcoincharts.com/bitcoin/
Full article found here: https://medium.com/@myschlongis/pbaas-the-age-of-merged-mining-is-upon-us-687f432bcac3 Summary of article below: satoshi Founder Sr. Member Activity: 364 Merit: 1997 View Profile Re: BitDNS and Generalizing Bitcoin December 09, 2010, 09:02:42 PM Merited by Traxo (1) #222 I think it would be possible for BitDNS to be a completely separate network and separate block chain, yet share CPU power with Bitcoin. The only overlap is to make it so miners can search for proof-of-work for both networks simultaneously. The networks wouldn't need any coordination. Miners would subscribe to both networks in parallel. They would scan SHA such that if they get a hit, they potentially solve both at once. A solution may be for just one of the networks if one network has a lower difficulty. I think an external miner could call getwork on both programs and combine the work. Maybe call Bitcoin, get work from it, hand it to BitDNS getwork to combine into a combined work. Instead of fragmentation, networks share and augment each other's total CPU power. This would solve the problem that if there are multiple networks, they are a danger to each other if the available CPU power gangs up on one. Instead, all networks in the world would share combined CPU power, increasing the total strength. It would make it easier for small networks to get started by tapping into a ready base of miners. -Satoshi Nakimoto These were the anonymously written, prophetic words of Satoshi Nakimoto, posted to bitcointalk nearly a decade ago and yet they describe a concept that today we are only truly realizing. What Satoshi describes is not only an elegant solution to many of today's cryptocurrency shortcomings but if implemented properly, could form the backbone for an entire crypto-economy of secure, scalable, and self sufficient chains, outside of the flawed one we currently have. This new crypto-economy would need to be backed by a secure chain itself with immunity to 51% attacks and powerful cutting edge technological features supporting anonymity and protection of assets to pass on down to the interconnected chains. One such cutting edge project is Verus Coin (https://veruscoin.io/). The lead Technical Developer of Verus is a former VP at Microsoft who also co-founded Microsoft’s Java and .NET platforms. Verus has a unique, new consensus algorithm called Proof of Power, a 50% PoW/50% PoS algorithm that solves theoretical weaknesses in other PoS systems (Nothing at Stake problem for example) and is provably immune to 51% hash attacks. Verus utilizes zk-snarks tech zero-knowledge proofs and is not "forced private", allowing for both transparent and shielded (private) transactions along with private messages as well. They created their very own hardware equalizing algorithm VerusHash 2.0, that leverages the many hardware advantages intrinsic to modern CPU's architecture, enabling the most decentralizing hardware, CPUs (due to their virtually complete market penetration), to stay relevant as miners for the indefinite future. VerusHash 2.0 is specifically designed to better equalize hashrates across all mining hardware types, allowing CPUs and FPGAs to mine competitively on the same network and by favoring the latest CPUs over older types, has the additional benefit of being a defense against the centralizing potential of botnets. Verus and the Verus Coin project are community driven, all open source (https://github.com/VerusCoin/VerusCoin) and they are also now currently running a test net of their all new protocol, PBaaS (Public Blockchain as a Service) with merged mining of up to 15 (including Verus) fully independent, secure, scalable chains that all share the properties of the parent chain described above. Check out their Discord to give merged mining a try for yourself. I do know that merged mining as a concept has been around for a while. There are even some implementations out there too, but not on the scale of what Verus is doing. They are creating an ecosystem fully interconnected and yet independent blockchains that scale and because of their implementation (The bottom link on Merkle Mountain Ranges (MMRs)) they will all be able to be exchanged with each other and converted automatically, like a smart exchange without the need for buyers and sellers. What they are doing is truly revolutionary in it's one click chain creation ease and the fact that it is a massive network of chains (just like each of all the coins we have now) but where people can mine up to 15 projects at a time at no additional energy costs and all the created projects are fully protected. I do understand that other projects are doing great things as well and it was not my aim to downplay that but rather to highlight what can come next and fill in the holes left from a first generation blockchain network. A Peek at the GUI (Graphical User Interface) version of the wallet https://preview.redd.it/sa0dzgtyk5v21.jpg?width=1651&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=08f89d5fbb7682a6fbba105fa8819c906dffcb44 https://preview.redd.it/1f65bfk1l5v21.png?width=3840&format=png&auto=webp&s=daadea4ad6775ac68abad2754944f7afd4ee4e0a A Peek at the CLI (Command Line Interface) version of the wallet (with GUI) courtesy of a community member. https://preview.redd.it/pdzpu4p7l5v21.jpg?width=2444&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=40c17cd47c1d25c98de1e50947949f99dcbc484d A helpful place for lots of useful information and if you want to learn more, check out their Medium page (https://medium.com/veruscoin) A rough description of the concepts described above: -PBaaS: or Public Blockchain as a Service is a revolutionary new take on the blockchain as a service model entirely unique to Verus that offers the tools and necessary means to build on and utilize blockchain technology for business or personal use. It is similar to using a web hosting service to build a website with, but rather than having to build one by yourself from scratch, the service provider supplies the basics and handles all the necessary tasks from general upkeep to infrastructure maintenance. Since Verus doesn't rely on a centralized authority to work, there isn't any one single point of failure in the network, so in the event of a hack, power failure, data breach or loss, Verus' system is immune while the other options aren't. Instead of relying on a centralized system, Verus elegantly does work for the public by utilizing the public to do work. -Merge Mining: or auxiliary mining is a lesser known cryptographic concept that has been seldom discussed and even less so attempted, but can be found as far back as bitcointalk's earliest days. Unfortunately, development in this area of work has remained largely stagnant due to the numerous difficulties involved in coding it, coupled with the sheer complexity and vast scope involved in the programming work. Fortunately, the development team's years of experience and months of hard work have finally paid off, and now merge mining in it's true form is at last a reality. This means that a miner could find a block for Verus and now hypothetically also earn block rewards for several other projects at the exact same time! With literally nothing to lose, and significantly more to gain, it's a no brainer choice for miners. Now miners who mine for profit can make more with the same energy expenditure, while at the same time still have the option to speculatively mine and hold projects they really believe in or care about. Businesses and individual project creators will benefit too by being able to attach a newly formed project to the hashrate of a larger, more established one. This would provide security and reliability to new projects right away and in their earliest stages, a point where they are most vulnerable. Verus has created the foundation for which any person or business, whether small or large, can safely and easily enter into the blockchain. A semi-visual descriptive paper on the immense benefits of utilizing Merkle mountain ranges, one of the many technologies implemented in Verus PBaaS- https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2016-May/012715.html Also, full disclosure for readers or mods, I am also a member of this crypto community among several others and this should not diminish the value of it's content. I wrote this post to highlight a genuine technical achievement in cryptocurrency and if not here, then where do we discuss this? The lead developer Michael Toutonghi has spent decades in the field programming and is a former Vice President and Technical Fellow at Microsoft, recognized founder and architect of Microsoft's .Net platform, ex-Technical Fellow of Microsoft's advertising platform, ex-CTO, Parallels Corporation, and an experienced distributed computing and machine learning architect. The project he helped create employs and makes use of a diverse myriad of technologies and security features to form one of the most advanced and secure cryptocurrency to date. What their team has managed to do (in testnet, but open to the public for testing) is truly unique in that they've already built a functional system of fully interconnected blockchains that each are also completely independent from one another and fully scalable, private, secure, and immune to 51% attacks. Public blockchain as a service is their ultimate goal of offering these near infinite, secure blockchains to project creators, mineable for near zero energy and protected from attacks. Secure voting, polling, and identity using the tech are on the not-too-distant horizon. Even the briefest glance over any of their work and it is easy to see this is not just another bs post. I hope this complies with all the rules. If there is some other place to discuss cryptocurrency and the launch of an all new system within it, please let me know. Things keep getting removed without a word said why. I'm happy to do things the proper way.
Replace user, pass and ips to match your setup. You can make up your own usepass. You need to use the same ones when configuring ccminer. 192.168.1.100 needs to be changed to the IP of the machine running the wallet. This setup allows connections from all ips in the range 192.168.1.X
Restart your QT wallet. (You can start the ravend console version instead at this point.)
Making pooled mining immune to 51% attacks, selfish mining, etc. by bundling an SPV client into mining software.
This idea has been floating in my mind for a while, but I haven't seen anyone else mention it. Figured it was worth discussing.
The threat posed by pools is that they indirectly control large amounts of hashing power. Miners are mining blindly on whatever header the pool gives them, and hence can be made to attack the network at their leisure.
GetBlockTemplate was supposed to fix this problem by allowing miners to do their own transactions (and making what they're mining completely transparent). This works, but adoption is low for a few reasons:
GBT is bandwidth-hungry compared to Stratum.
GBT, to be effective. requires a miner to run a fully validating node. Most miners run very small computers as hosts for their hardware (think Raspberry PI).
Supporting GBT requires both the pool and the miner to use it (and GHash.io doesn't support it, according to the wiki).
TLDR: GBT is a great way to neuter the ability of pools to do bad things™, but it isn't widely deployed due to the resource requirements and setup effort of using it properly. Most/All the big threats posed by a large pool boil down to:
Building on a block not on top of the longest chain (51% attack/history rewriting).
Keeping the longest chain private and continuing to work on it alone (Selfish mining).
In both cases, the fact that this is occuring is actually detectable regardless of mining protocol (getwork,stratum,GBT), because the parent block hash is part of the header the miner is hashing. So the information you need to know whether you're being used to attack the network has been available all along.
By bundling an SPV client into mining software, all miners can verify that they're building on top of a block that is:
Known to the network (blocking selfish mining).
The tip of the longest chain (blocking orphaning of other blocks/51% attacks).
If this isn't the case, they can switch to their backup pool.
Advantages of the approach:
SPV is very low on resource usage, so the cost of using it is negligible. It could just be bundled into all mining software by default.
We can stop relying on "a pool would lose all its miners if it tried" and rely instead on "a pool can't get its miners to help".
Game theory wise, running such a failsafe costs nothing/nearly nothing, and it only makes you switch away from a pool when it is attacking the network, as opposed to having to switch when the pool gets too big (even if it's benign).
A pool can't tell the difference between a miner that runs this check and one that doesn't, so it can't encourage miners not to run it.
It incentivizes pools, even large ones, to get their blocks broadcast as fast as possible (so that their miners will start working on it).
Certain types of attacks against 0-conf transactions (Finney attack, Race attack) will still be possible. However, those are a risk even with 20% pools (success is at most linearly proportional to hash rate).
The best tested SPV client is built in Java (bitcoinj), so it can't be bundled into mining software easily. We'd have to find a solid implementation in C/C++ (looks like picocoin might work), or write one.
The system would have to be extremely reliable before miners are willing to use it (it shouldn't have false positives at a rate much higher than the likelyhood of attack). We could start by having it send a warning to the operator instead, and see how frequently mistakes happen.
To deal with propagation delays, the mining software would probably be willing to mine for ~30-60 seconds before triggering the failover. If blocks get so large that propagation times are close to the block interval, this will break (it will be far from the only problem they'll have).
Because SPV clients don't relay blocks, it might be possible for an evil pool to run a bunch of nodes (so that their miners connect to those), and block any IP that's not from their miners, in order to continue being able to do selfish mining. This could be addressed by verifying that multiple nodes know about the block or by getting the block from a node that knows it and relaying it to all others.
This only works against pooled mining attacks, where the hashing power belongs to people who don't want to attack the network.
If the longest chain is invalid, somehow, then miners will refuse not to build on it. This could be really bad.
Does this work, or am I missing something obvious?
To arms Bitcoin community! Help us to complete this mining installation for the Zürich MoneyMuseum. We are not asking for funds. Only your expertise needed! 20$ tip if you give us the relevant clue to solve or mitigate our main problem. Nice pictures of the exhibition inside as well…
Edit: A big thank you to all people who helped us we can now mine true pps with diff1! The people in this thread which have helped most have been awarded. I want to mention also the operator of btcmp.com denis2342 and Luke-Jr. Actually looking at the miner screen in the Linux terminal helped a lot ;-). The pool constantly resigned to stratum with variable difficulty. We can now mine true pps with diff1. Getwork with long polling seems to be default after disabling stratum... We will probably post again, when there is a video of the installation in action... Again many thanks. Learned a lot. Edit: Thank you for all the answeres so far! We will try different things now and report back. Tip bounty will be distrubuted as soon as we found out what finally does the trick. Ths could take a few days. The offerd tip will be distributed and very likeley a few others as well. First of all, let me tell you that the Bitcoin Exhibition at the Zürich MoneyMuseum is most likely the biggest and most diverse of it’s kind. Please read more about the museum and the exhibition below. Help us solve the following problem we experience with our “Muscle Powered Proof of Work” installation: Me and a friend have invested a lot of time to build an installation for the Museum. It is basically a 10GHash/s miner and RapberryPi which is powered by a hand generator (Maxon DC motor with planetary gear). Here are some pictures of the installation, although not entirely put together yet. There are still some changes planned. https://www.dropbox.com/sh/0qcvl3wu4romhnt/AAAYF08lnVAy6W6KEepE7e2Ua?dl=0 Now let’s get to the core of our problem: We are mining at the getwork diff1 pool btcmp.com as it is a true pps pool with getwork diff1. The visitors in the museum can power the generator for 2-3min and see directly how many Satoshis the "network" (actually pool but we don't want to confuse the visitors to much at that point) has given the museum for their work. This all works well so far but one problem remains. Sometimes the pool does not get a share from us for more than 40 seconds or even more than 60 in some cases. I have calculated that with 8.4 GHash/s we should find a share about every 0.5 seconds in average (diff1). I think when the pool gets a share it gets all the hashes as it then accounts for several Satoshis. Statistically we get per minute what we should get in theory. We would very much like to lower the time between the accepted shares by the pool, however. This would help to make the overall experience much smoother for the visitors. Please look at this screenshot from MinePeon and answer some questions: https://www.dropbox.com/s/lb1jei4trc9kqe5/MinePeonScreenshot.png?dl=0 We see that we get a lot of diff1 hashes. However, only 11 shares/packages have been accepted. The Is there a possibility to set the miner SW so it submits to the pool as soon as a share is found? It seems to send them in packages which sometimes have 4-5 seconds in between but sometimes a much as 80 seconds. I would like to submit packages of hashes much more often. How can this be influenced? What exactly are the Getworks (GW)? What exactly are the Accepted ones (Acc)? This is where the TipBounty is. Help us to get a better Acc/diff1 ratio. Best would be 1:1. What exactly are the rejected ones (Rej)? What exactly are the discarded ones (Disc)? What exactly are the difficulty one hashes (diff1)? Now some of these questions seem very very basic but it is important for us to understand what these are and how we can influence these. We have a 1:1 correlation between the Acc and the pool side acknowledgement of shares/packages. So whenever the MinePeon shows one more for this value the pool value for last submitted share goes to “moments ago”. Does the miner SW have a setting where we can set after how many diff1 hashes a package of hashes is sent to the pool? If no, do you have another idea why so few are sent? Ideally we would set it so the diff1 hashes are sent every 5 seconds or so, probably even more often. Is stratum with fixed diff1 possible? If so, would it be better to use stratum? Are there critical settings if we should know of? (we have tried --request-diff and --no-submit-stale) We are using BFGMiner on MinePeon if that matters. We could switch to CGMiner if that would help. Any help is very much appreciated. The museum is doing a great job explaining Bitcoin basics. We had special focus on interactive learning and have several things to underline this. I hope to hear back from you so we can improve our installation. Please don't hesitate to ask if you have further questions. We are both not mining experts. Thanks for reading and AMA. SimonBelmond Current features of the Bitcoin exhibition at the Zürich MoneyMuseum: Current Features:
Life screen with various stats/charts/parameters/transactions…
Muscle powered PoW: Hand generator with 5v and 3.5-5A output, Raspberry Pi, MinePeon, 5x Antminer U2+ plus a screen to show the hash-rate at the pool and/or in MinePeon web interface. This screen will not be hand powered. This installation will complement their coining die (go to 1:27 to see what I mean).
The Bitcoin mining evolution (CPU, GPU, FPGA, ASIC)
A few short (2-3 minutes) interviews.
Other wallets, Trezor, PiperWallet
ATM Prototype, functional
PiperWallet to use.
Casascius and other physical Bitcoins, Wallets (also some commemorative coins), Paper wallet like one out of the first Bitcoin (A)TM ever
12 Picture tours
Bitcoin for beginners
Debunking 13 Bitcoin myths
What you definitely have to know
The history of Bitcoin
Bitcoin und traditional forms of money
Alternatives to Bitcoin
Citations about Bitcoin
How do I open an account?
How do I get Bitcoin?
Bitcoin community and economy
Bitcoin as a platform
I see this as a good opportunity for Bitcoin, so let’s embrace it. I am especially excited to compare the traditional forms of money which used proof of work to the new money which also uses proof of work. I think in that context it will be much easier for the visitors to value this concept. A lot of schools and other groups book guided tours at the museum. It is open on every Friday from December 05. On. Entry is free of charge. Edit:Markdown, typos
Why BTCGuild is a bigger threat than you think (or: why 6 confirmations is not enough)
TL;DR: even 40% hash control is too big, and 6 confirmations is too few. A lot of people have been worrying about the possibility of BTCGuild getting 51% of the mining power and pulling off a majority attack. Personally, I don't think it will; I believe that if it does they'll cut off getwork and drop down to 35% or however much, plus people might start leaving. But even 35% is still a threat. Consider the figures in Table 1 of this paper. Specifically, look at the success rates for reversing a 6-confirm transaction with 25% of the hashing power. It's about 5-8%. Do you really want to deal with BTCGuild having a 5-8% success rate at reversing a transaction? Obviously they're not going to try for tiny ones, but what if they try it on a transfer on the order of tens thousands of bitcoins? That's a couple hundred USD at today's prices; while that wouldn't hold in the resultant panic selling, it'd still be a sizeable loss. A lot of people say 'well, BTCGuild wouldn't do that, because X and Y and Z'. I think this is an unreasonable defense. BTCGuild might not, because they're invested in BTC staying a strong currency. But someone who wants to see BTC fail would have reasons to try this. I'm not saying I think that the government or whoever is going to try to hack the BTCGuild servers and try this, but I think that given that the point of BTC is to be resilient to that sort of thing, we shouldn't be making it possible. Another thing I see people say a lot is that people will notice. How? It's not like your miner is going to suddenly pop up a big "ACTIVATING EVIL MODE" dialog box. Plus, even when people do notice that it's been suspiciously long since BTCGuild found a block, it might just be probability. And even if it were confirmed that they're malicious, you'd have to wait for people to actually find it out and pull their mining power. There are altogether too many 'if's here. The intermediate solution, if you're worried, is to wait for more than 10 transactions for high-value transactions. However, the transaction number required is extremely high; even with 100 transactions BTCGuild would have a roughly 0.5% chance of reversing the transfer. I'd like at least eight more zeroes in front of that number (this is supposed to be super-secure, right?), and for the transfer count to be no more than 25. According to this calculation, the success probability with nobody controlling more than 25% of the hash power and 25 confirmations is about 10-12; even with 10 confirmations it's 7 * 10-6, and with 6 it's 6 * 10-4. These are numbers I can live with, but I suspect they're still a lot higher than most people's intuition for how high the probabilities are.
Announcing new LTC pool! stratum, getwork, sms/mail notify, and more!
Greetings fellow miners, I've been working with Bitcoins a while now, but I got tired, so I've started with Litecoins. But none of the existing pools offered all of the services I wanted, so I decided to setup my own. Currently I'm developing the frontend to provide a better user experience. Requests for popular or usefull features can also be added on demand. The pool is quite new and the first block is not yet found, but all calculations I've done indicates that the first block will be found in one week, with only myself mining. Currently, it's a PPLNS reward system, but I'm planning to make it possible to choose between PPLNS and PPS per pool worker. I also plan to rewrite the whole frontend in the future. The url is: https://coinpool.in Features:
Mmcfe forked frontend with my modifications
Stratum + getwork (w/longpool) protocol support
International SMS & Email notifications (Free sms, with a daily limit based on donation percentage)
Server located in both Western Europe and in the US
Available on TOR and I2P
In constant development (own development environment)
Only 0.7% fee
On demand and automatic payouts
IPv6 support on getwork protocol
IRC channels are available on Freenode (#coinpool.in) and I2P (#coinpool), and I will add forum if needed. I'll hope you join me! Best regards, Meeh https://coinpool.in
Would this mitigate the double-spend potential of a 51% attack?
After looking at cgminer and bfgminer source code I noticed both blindly include the transactions sent over in response to their getblocktemplate RPC calls. What if instead, the mining software sourced its transactions from random nodes across the network and included those in their blocks and always dropped the ones coming directly from the node they requested the template from? That way, any double-spending transactions wouldn't make it into the new blocks as presumably they'd only be sent in response to getblocktemplate/getwork anyway in order to be effective.
P2Pool Error messages within shell window (win 10 pro)
Hi all, Newbie trying to run my own P2Pool node for VTC and within the shell window periodically I start seeing the below error msg's in 15 second blurts, then it goes back to mining normal then all the sudden I will start seeing these error messages again. Error Message in P2Pool shell window: Error getting work from bitcoind: Traceback (most recent call last): File "twisted\internet\defer.pyc", line 653, in _runCallbacks File "twisted\internet\defer.pyc", line 1357, in gotResult File "twisted\internet\defer.pyc", line 1299, in _inlineCallbacks File "twisted\python\failure.pyc", line 393, in throwExceptionIntoGenerator --- --- File "p2pool\util\deferral.pyc", line 41, in f File "twisted\internet\defer.pyc", line 1299, in _inlineCallbacks File "twisted\python\failure.pyc", line 393, in throwExceptionIntoGenerator File "p2pool\bitcoin\helper.pyc", line 47, in getwork File "twisted\internet\defer.pyc", line 1299, in _inlineCallbacks File "twisted\python\failure.pyc", line 393, in throwExceptionIntoGenerator File "p2pool\util\jsonrpc.pyc", line 126, in _http_do twisted.web.error.Error: 500 Internal Server Error Worker VvstnCT7shwVwg1JBh3du41dGMkq6V2gC1 submitted share more than once! Does anyone know what it means? I'm generating VTC coins, but get these messages when the coins are being mined. Please help this newbie!
Why isn't GHash/CEX.io addressing the community? BTC Guild used mitigation efforts in the past when they breached thresholds - GHash/CEX promised the same but then failed to follow through. Why haven't they explained why or made any comment?
The community has long expressed it's concern over any pool owning more then 50% of the mining network What's going on? Yesterday GHash/CEX.io's mining pool breached 51% of the hashing power in the bitcoin transaction network. This is dangerous because when a pool begins to regularly be above certain hashing power thresholds, there are weaknesses in the bitcoin transaction network that can be exploited. In a rising value currency, such weaknesses are flat out not acceptable. These security flaws become exposed when the risk of a 51% attack is exposed. How have other pools handled this in the past? In 2013, BTC Guild issued mitigation guidlines incase their pool began to breach certain thresholds of the mining network. bitcointalk link
If Pool Speed is Over 40% of Network BTC Guild will begin limiting the creation of new accounts. Additionally, the fee on PPS will be increased from 5% to 7.5% on all new miners, and will be moved to 7.5% on old miners after the difficulty changes. PPLNS will remain at the 3% + tx fees rate initially. If Pool Speed is Over 45% of Network BTC Guild will remove all getwork based pool servers within 24 hours. This is expected to reduce the pool by about 3.5 TH/s, or roughly 15% as of this post. If Pool Speed is Over 45% of Network After Getwork is Removed PPLNS fee will be raised to 4%, and new registrations will be completely closed off until speed drops back under 40%.
What is GHash/CEX's Mitigation Plan? We don't know. They have expressed goodwill towards the community but have not given any guidelines of their plan of action.
GHash.IO does not have any intentions to execute a 51% attack, as it will do serious damage to the Bitcoin community, of which we are part of. On the contrary, our plans are to expand the bitcoin community as well as utilise the hashing power to develop a greater bitcoin economic structure. If something happened to Bitcoin as a whole it could risk our investments in physical hardware, damage those who love Bitcoin and we see no benefit from having 51% stake in mining -GHash/CEX
CCN: What has ghash.io learned from the last time this happened [gaining large percentages of the hashing power?] Jeffrey Smith: We understand that the Bitcoin community strongly reacts to GHash.IO’s percentage of the total hash rate. However, we would never do anything to harm the Bitcoin economy; we believe in it. We have invested all our effort, time and money into the development of the Bitcoin economy. We agree that mining should be decentralised, but you cannot blame GHash.IO for being the #1 mining pool. CCN: What steps were put in place to ensure something like this didn’t happen again? (stop accepting miners when you guys are at 50%?) Jeffrey Smith:
Just yesterday, they repeated the same mantra. That they are coming up with a solution very soon™. via CEX's Twitter
We are not intending to capture the 51% of the overall #Bitcoin hashrate. Working on solutions for decentralising Bitcoin mining. Stay tuned
GHash/CEX, can you please address the community's concerns? Your actions currently are making us very worried. Not talking to us is only making us more anxious and frustrated. There should have been clear guidelines beforehand, and constantly prolonging this is making things worse. tl;dr?: GHash/CEX.io made promises to not breach certain thresholds in the past. They have broke these promises and not addressed the concerns of the community
One of the questions that comes up frequently is "If we're just pulling in changes from Bitcoin, where does the time go?", and as I've just spent a couple of hours hunting down something with langerhans, now's probably a good time for a breakdown. To start with, we're looking at https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/4100 , so that's fairly meaty set of changes. It touches the mining protocol, which is where things get problematic, though. First of all, they're replacing the mining system in Bitcoin. Apply those same changes to Dogecoin, and it breaks. Adapt it to Scrpyt, and you're closer, but there are design differences in Scrypt (the same differences that were meant to make it ASIC resistant) that mean it can't be used the same way too. Secondly, when the RPC "getwork" call went, it left "getworkaux" hanging, so there's a decision to be made on whether we hybridize Bitcoin's code to keep getworkaux functioning, or rip it out. In the end we've taken the decision to remove getworkaux, as everyone (in theory) should be using getauxblock instead. Then... there's subtleties in differences between SHA2 and Scrypt. Again, Scrypt is a lot slower, and targets much higher, so the optimisations in the miner are subtly incompatible. It works well enough to pass basic testing, but in terms of performance on one specific test network is suddenly 10x slower. So we end up tweaking the values used to better match Dogecoin. Now... we're definitely moving towards automation. There's 900-ish patches left, which at the current rate would take us through to summer. I've been working on tools to automatically determine how to apply patches from Bitcoin and automate as much of that process as possible, so all we require human intervention for is code review afterwards. Hopefully that will also let us expand the number of developers available for reviewing the code, which is the main time sink right now.
What is the plausibility (and impact) of the mining algorithm being "cracked"?
Forgive my ignorance here, but I was informed by someone with knowledge on the subject that the mining algorithm for bitcoin has been "cracked" (his word). The individual is being purposefully vague, but implied that an update would need to be implemented by the bitcoin devs in the next few weeks when the specifics become public. He also mentioned that ASICs developed for the current algorithm would be inherently obsolete with the update. My understanding of how mining works is that it is essentially a getwork proof of doing SHA256 hashes. The inherent security of SHA256 makes me wary of there being any truth to the claim, but - suspending that thought - if such a change was forced, the following would be some of the impacts:
Immediate obsolescence of all current ASICs (BFL, Avalon)
A required code rewrite for FPGA and GPU mining software
A rapid drop in hashrate (and, therefore, difficulty) until GPUs and FPGAs are brought back online with functional software
Note: I'm simply asking for input on how this might work, not purporting that this is truly accurate information.
Security in the bitcoin network is based on no single person having > 50% of the hashing power. However when mining in a pool you are not providing hashes for your own generated blocks, but providing work on behalf of the pool operator. The pool operator is the one who builds the blocks the pool members seem to only provide the hashing. I don't see any evidence that the mining clients that connect to pool actually verify the blocks the pools are creating. The getwork RPC call definitely doesn't give enough for the miner to validate anything, the newer method getblocktemplate seems to give the individual transaction data but is this being fully used to validate what the pool operator is doing? Typically I also found that pool mining I don't even need to sync the blockchain so again seems little verification is happing locally. My question is basically if a pool operator went rouge and started attacking the network, would this get detected immediately? Currently no pool has > 50% however the worst case would be if a few got together a did a coordinated attack, then they easily could get > 50% of the hashing power. I imagine there is something that protects the network I am not aware of, still learning how this all works.
I've been trying to mine with a DE2 board, and it keeps giving me this error
ERROR: Unable to getwork. Reason: key "result" not known in dictionary.
Anybody have any idea why? I'm using The Open Source FPGA Bitcoin Miner I have a regular DE2, not a DE2-115, and I managed to get the correct sof file to set it up (can't remember where I got it from though), so that's probably not the problem here.. I've tried using the mining_proxy, as someone suggested on the same fourm, but I can't seem to get it to work at all.. In fact, I have no idea how I was supposed to make it work; I even tried the proxy with my GPU and still couldn't get it to work. the .bat files I used were
Maybe if I get this working correctly, it'll actually work this time? It would be awesome if someone could help me out here, I don't know much about mining in general as I started out only yesterday. Thank you in advance!
The getblocktemplate protocol, or GBT, is a decentralized mining protocol that was developed in 2012 by Luke-Jr as a modern successor to the dated getwork protocol. The design of GBT gives contributing pool hashers more individual control over the blocks they are contributing towards. This is seen as desirable because it distributes the network mining authority more widely, instead of simply amongst a small set of mining pool operators. Not many pools support the protocol, but there are two pools where it can be used: Bitminer and Eligius. The protocol uses a series of JSON requests to work through the mining process. First the hasher gets the basic block template to start work against. Then, unlike in a centralized mining pool configuration, the hasher individually goes through all the transactions they have verified to include in the block, building the transactions' merkle root signature to use for their block hash. The hash of all the transactions is then combined with the block template to create the block header to hash against. While hashing, a hasher can request that new transaction data be signaled to him so that he can recalculate the transaction merkle root. The origin of this protocol was in improvements forrrestv made so that P2Pool could use getmemorypool over JSON-RPC to allow decentralized miners to add transactions to their blocks. Luke-Jr expanded on that work to provide a solution for his Eligius pool, and created a solution that served as a simple compromise between centralized pools and a new system like P2Pool. Luke over time has tried to promote the broad use of GTB by standardizing the concept in BIP 22 and BIP 23, and by creating open source software to make its use easier.
So I emailed the pool and this is the reponse to me telling them they have fraudulent miners.
Hello, *! Thanks ofr the feedback. Suspicious accounts was blocked, if you'll find any more bots, please let us know. Your help is much appreciated! Best regards, team 50btc.com
Kudos to 50btc.com for taking care of the issue and if you find that your GPU is being used while your PC is idle start by looking at the task manager as regular virus programs will no detect miners yet. Malware Bytes will tag cgminer and others as PUP (Potentially unwanted programs) but this is only on a full scan. Track down the offending exe and before you delete it run a wireshark and see where it is mining too. Be safe out there.
Bitcoin Core 0.10.0 released | Wladimir | Feb 16 2015
Wladimir on Feb 16 2015: Bitcoin Core version 0.10.0 is now available from: https://bitcoin.org/bin/0.10.0/ This is a new major version release, bringing both new features and bug fixes. Please report bugs using the issue tracker at github: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues The whole distribution is also available as torrent: https://bitcoin.org/bin/0.10.0/bitcoin-0.10.0.torrent magnet:?xt=urn:btih:170c61fe09dafecfbb97cb4dccd32173383f4e68&dn;=0.10.0&tr;=udp%3A%2F%2Ftracker.openbittorrent.com%3A80%2Fannounce&tr;=udp%3A%2F%2Ftracker.publicbt.com%3A80%2Fannounce&tr;=udp%3A%2F%2Ftracker.ccc.de%3A80%2Fannounce&tr;=udp%3A%2F%2Ftracker.coppersurfer.tk%3A6969&tr;=udp%3A%2F%2Fopen.demonii.com%3A1337&ws;=https%3A%2F%2Fbitcoin.org%2Fbin%2F Upgrading and downgrading How to Upgrade If you are running an older version, shut it down. Wait until it has completely shut down (which might take a few minutes for older versions), then run the installer (on Windows) or just copy over /Applications/Bitcoin-Qt (on Mac) or bitcoind/bitcoin-qt (on Linux). Downgrading warning Because release 0.10.0 makes use of headers-first synchronization and parallel block download (see further), the block files and databases are not backwards-compatible with older versions of Bitcoin Core or other software:
Blocks will be stored on disk out of order (in the order they are
received, really), which makes it incompatible with some tools or other programs. Reindexing using earlier versions will also not work anymore as a result of this.
The block index database will now hold headers for which no block is
stored on disk, which earlier versions won't support. If you want to be able to downgrade smoothly, make a backup of your entire data directory. Without this your node will need start syncing (or importing from bootstrap.dat) anew afterwards. It is possible that the data from a completely synchronised 0.10 node may be usable in older versions as-is, but this is not supported and may break as soon as the older version attempts to reindex. This does not affect wallet forward or backward compatibility. Notable changes Faster synchronization Bitcoin Core now uses 'headers-first synchronization'. This means that we first ask peers for block headers (a total of 27 megabytes, as of December 2014) and validate those. In a second stage, when the headers have been discovered, we download the blocks. However, as we already know about the whole chain in advance, the blocks can be downloaded in parallel from all available peers. In practice, this means a much faster and more robust synchronization. On recent hardware with a decent network link, it can be as little as 3 hours for an initial full synchronization. You may notice a slower progress in the very first few minutes, when headers are still being fetched and verified, but it should gain speed afterwards. A few RPCs were added/updated as a result of this:
getblockchaininfo now returns the number of validated headers in addition to
the number of validated blocks.
getpeerinfo lists both the number of blocks and headers we know we have in
common with each peer. While synchronizing, the heights of the blocks that we have requested from peers (but haven't received yet) are also listed as 'inflight'.
A new RPC getchaintips lists all known branches of the block chain,
including those we only have headers for. Transaction fee changes This release automatically estimates how high a transaction fee (or how high a priority) transactions require to be confirmed quickly. The default settings will create transactions that confirm quickly; see the new 'txconfirmtarget' setting to control the tradeoff between fees and confirmation times. Fees are added by default unless the 'sendfreetransactions' setting is enabled. Prior releases used hard-coded fees (and priorities), and would sometimes create transactions that took a very long time to confirm. Statistics used to estimate fees and priorities are saved in the data directory in the fee_estimates.dat file just before program shutdown, and are read in at startup. New command line options for transaction fee changes:
-txconfirmtarget=n : create transactions that have enough fees (or priority)
so they are likely to begin confirmation within n blocks (default: 1). This setting is over-ridden by the -paytxfee option.
-sendfreetransactions : Send transactions as zero-fee transactions if possible
(default: 0) New RPC commands for fee estimation:
estimatefee nblocks : Returns approximate fee-per-1,000-bytes needed for
a transaction to begin confirmation within nblocks. Returns -1 if not enough transactions have been observed to compute a good estimate.
estimatepriority nblocks : Returns approximate priority needed for
a zero-fee transaction to begin confirmation within nblocks. Returns -1 if not enough free transactions have been observed to compute a good estimate. RPC access control changes Subnet matching for the purpose of access control is now done by matching the binary network address, instead of with string wildcard matching. For the user this means that -rpcallowip takes a subnet specification, which can be
a single IP address (e.g. 184.108.40.206 or fe80::0012:3456:789a:bcde)
a network/CIDR (e.g. 220.127.116.11/24 or fe80::0000/64)
a network/netmask (e.g. 18.104.22.168/255.255.255.0 or fe80::0012:3456:789a:bcde/ffff:ffff:ffff:ffff:ffff:ffff:ffff:ffff)
An arbitrary number of -rpcallow arguments can be given. An incoming connection will be accepted if its origin address matches one of them. For example: | 0.9.x and before | 0.10.x | |--------------------------------------------|---------------------------------------| | -rpcallowip=192.168.1.1 | -rpcallowip=192.168.1.1 (unchanged) | | -rpcallowip=192.168.1.* | -rpcallowip=192.168.1.0/24 | | -rpcallowip=192.168.* | -rpcallowip=192.168.0.0/16 | | -rpcallowip=* (dangerous!) | -rpcallowip=::/0 (still dangerous!) | Using wildcards will result in the rule being rejected with the following error in debug.log:
Error: Invalid -rpcallowip subnet specification: *. Valid are a single IP (e.g. 22.214.171.124), a network/netmask (e.g. 126.96.36.199/255.255.255.0) or a network/CIDR (e.g. 188.8.131.52/24).
REST interface A new HTTP API is exposed when running with the -rest flag, which allows unauthenticated access to public node data. It is served on the same port as RPC, but does not need a password, and uses plain HTTP instead of JSON-RPC. Assuming a local RPC server running on port 8332, it is possible to request:
In every case, EXT can be bin (for raw binary data), hex (for hex-encoded binary) or json. For more details, see the doc/REST-interface.md document in the repository. RPC Server "Warm-Up" Mode The RPC server is started earlier now, before most of the expensive intialisations like loading the block index. It is available now almost immediately after starting the process. However, until all initialisations are done, it always returns an immediate error with code -28 to all calls. This new behaviour can be useful for clients to know that a server is already started and will be available soon (for instance, so that they do not have to start it themselves). Improved signing security For 0.10 the security of signing against unusual attacks has been improved by making the signatures constant time and deterministic. This change is a result of switching signing to use libsecp256k1 instead of OpenSSL. Libsecp256k1 is a cryptographic library optimized for the curve Bitcoin uses which was created by Bitcoin Core developer Pieter Wuille. There exist attacks against most ECC implementations where an attacker on shared virtual machine hardware could extract a private key if they could cause a target to sign using the same key hundreds of times. While using shared hosts and reusing keys are inadvisable for other reasons, it's a better practice to avoid the exposure. OpenSSL has code in their source repository for derandomization and reduction in timing leaks that we've eagerly wanted to use for a long time, but this functionality has still not made its way into a released version of OpenSSL. Libsecp256k1 achieves significantly stronger protection: As far as we're aware this is the only deployed implementation of constant time signing for the curve Bitcoin uses and we have reason to believe that libsecp256k1 is better tested and more thoroughly reviewed than the implementation in OpenSSL.  https://eprint.iacr.org/2014/161.pdf Watch-only wallet support The wallet can now track transactions to and from wallets for which you know all addresses (or scripts), even without the private keys. This can be used to track payments without needing the private keys online on a possibly vulnerable system. In addition, it can help for (manual) construction of multisig transactions where you are only one of the signers. One new RPC, importaddress, is added which functions similarly to importprivkey, but instead takes an address or script (in hexadecimal) as argument. After using it, outputs credited to this address or script are considered to be received, and transactions consuming these outputs will be considered to be sent. The following RPCs have optional support for watch-only: getbalance, listreceivedbyaddress, listreceivedbyaccount, listtransactions, listaccounts, listsinceblock, gettransaction. See the RPC documentation for those methods for more information. Compared to using getrawtransaction, this mechanism does not require -txindex, scales better, integrates better with the wallet, and is compatible with future block chain pruning functionality. It does mean that all relevant addresses need to added to the wallet before the payment, though. Consensus library Starting from 0.10.0, the Bitcoin Core distribution includes a consensus library. The purpose of this library is to make the verification functionality that is critical to Bitcoin's consensus available to other applications, e.g. to language bindings such as [python-bitcoinlib](https://pypi.python.org/pypi/python-bitcoinlib) or alternative node implementations. This library is called libbitcoinconsensus.so (or, .dll for Windows). Its interface is defined in the C header [bitcoinconsensus.h](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/0.10/src/script/bitcoinconsensus.h). In its initial version the API includes two functions:
bitcoinconsensus_verify_script verifies a script. It returns whether the indicated input of the provided serialized transaction
correctly spends the passed scriptPubKey under additional constraints indicated by flags
bitcoinconsensus_version returns the API version, currently at an experimental 0
The functionality is planned to be extended to e.g. UTXO management in upcoming releases, but the interface for existing methods should remain stable. Standard script rules relaxed for P2SH addresses The IsStandard() rules have been almost completely removed for P2SH redemption scripts, allowing applications to make use of any valid script type, such as "n-of-m OR y", hash-locked oracle addresses, etc. While the Bitcoin protocol has always supported these types of script, actually using them on mainnet has been previously inconvenient as standard Bitcoin Core nodes wouldn't relay them to miners, nor would most miners include them in blocks they mined. bitcoin-tx It has been observed that many of the RPC functions offered by bitcoind are "pure functions", and operate independently of the bitcoind wallet. This included many of the RPC "raw transaction" API functions, such as createrawtransaction. bitcoin-tx is a newly introduced command line utility designed to enable easy manipulation of bitcoin transactions. A summary of its operation may be obtained via "bitcoin-tx --help" Transactions may be created or signed in a manner similar to the RPC raw tx API. Transactions may be updated, deleting inputs or outputs, or appending new inputs and outputs. Custom scripts may be easily composed using a simple text notation, borrowed from the bitcoin test suite. This tool may be used for experimenting with new transaction types, signing multi-party transactions, and many other uses. Long term, the goal is to deprecate and remove "pure function" RPC API calls, as those do not require a server round-trip to execute. Other utilities "bitcoin-key" and "bitcoin-script" have been proposed, making key and script operations easily accessible via command line. Mining and relay policy enhancements Bitcoin Core's block templates are now for version 3 blocks only, and any mining software relying on its getblocktemplate must be updated in parallel to use libblkmaker either version 0.4.2 or any version from 0.5.1 onward. If you are solo mining, this will affect you the moment you upgrade Bitcoin Core, which must be done prior to BIP66 achieving its 951/1001 status. If you are mining with the stratum mining protocol: this does not affect you. If you are mining with the getblocktemplate protocol to a pool: this will affect you at the pool operator's discretion, which must be no later than BIP66 achieving its 951/1001 status. The prioritisetransaction RPC method has been added to enable miners to manipulate the priority of transactions on an individual basis. Bitcoin Core now supports BIP 22 long polling, so mining software can be notified immediately of new templates rather than having to poll periodically. Support for BIP 23 block proposals is now available in Bitcoin Core's getblocktemplate method. This enables miners to check the basic validity of their next block before expending work on it, reducing risks of accidental hardforks or mining invalid blocks. Two new options to control mining policy:
-datacarrier=0/1 : Relay and mine "data carrier" (OP_RETURN) transactions
if this is 1.
-datacarriersize=n : Maximum size, in bytes, we consider acceptable for
"data carrier" outputs. The relay policy has changed to more properly implement the desired behavior of not relaying free (or very low fee) transactions unless they have a priority above the AllowFreeThreshold(), in which case they are relayed subject to the rate limiter. BIP 66: strict DER encoding for signatures Bitcoin Core 0.10 implements BIP 66, which introduces block version 3, and a new consensus rule, which prohibits non-DER signatures. Such transactions have been non-standard since Bitcoin v0.8.0 (released in February 2013), but were technically still permitted inside blocks. This change breaks the dependency on OpenSSL's signature parsing, and is required if implementations would want to remove all of OpenSSL from the consensus code. The same miner-voting mechanism as in BIP 34 is used: when 751 out of a sequence of 1001 blocks have version number 3 or higher, the new consensus rule becomes active for those blocks. When 951 out of a sequence of 1001 blocks have version number 3 or higher, it becomes mandatory for all blocks. Backward compatibility with current mining software is NOT provided, thus miners should read the first paragraph of "Mining and relay policy enhancements" above. 0.10.0 Change log Detailed release notes follow. This overview includes changes that affect external behavior, not code moves, refactors or string updates. RPC:
f923c07 Support IPv6 lookup in bitcoin-cli even when IPv6 only bound on localhost
b641c9c Fix addnode "onetry": Connect with OpenNetworkConnection
GUIminer returning "Verification failed, check hardware" on HD 6870. BitMinters Client is working though.
I want to use GUIminer and more specifiaclly I want to use the poclbm kernel because it allows me to set the -f 60 flag, which allows me to play games (league of legends) while mining. However GUIminer returns:
2013-11-20 14:14:40: Running command: poclbm.exe MetalPinguin.GPU:[email protected]:3333 --device=0 --platform=0 --verbose -r1 -v -w 128 -f 60 --verbose 2013-11-20 14:14:40: Listener for "GPU #1" started 2013-11-20 14:14:43: Listener for "GPU #1": 20/11/2013 14:14:43, started OpenCL miner on platform 0, device 0 (Barts) 2013-11-20 14:14:43: Listener for "GPU #1": stratum.bitcoin.cz:3333 20/11/2013 14:14:43, checking for stratum... 2013-11-20 14:14:43: Listener for "GPU #1": stratum.bitcoin.cz:3333 20/11/2013 14:14:43, no response to getwork, using as stratum 2013-11-20 14:14:43: Listener for "GPU #1": stratum.bitcoin.cz:3333 20/11/2013 14:14:43, Setting new difficulty: 3 2013-11-20 14:15:12: Listener for "GPU #1": stratum.bitcoin.cz:3333 20/11/2013 14:15:12, Verification failed, check hardware! (0:0:Barts, 4bb0be35) 2013-11-20 14:15:13: Listener for "GPU #1": stratum.bitcoin.cz:3333 20/11/2013 14:15:13, Verification failed, check hardware! (0:0:Barts, a4bfd3a7) 2013-11-20 14:15:19: Listener for "GPU #1" shutting down
I googled for a solution which said I should downgrade to CCC version 11.11, however this is not ideal since it would negatively affect my gaming experience. I also heard that BitMinter had a very easy to use client, so I decided to give that a shot. This client is indeed easy, as it immediatly worked! My work got accepted for the most part (5 stale out of 300+ proofs of work), however this is not the pool I want to mine in and the client does not allow me to set any parameters. Anyone know a solution, obviously there are miners that could work with my card (BitMinter), but I did not find them yet. I tried GUIminer, Phoenix and CGminer. PS: Please don't comment on whether mining is viable for me. I want to participate in Bitcoin mining with my gaming PC, my question is not about viability.
Bitcoin is Secure. Bitcoin miners help keep the Bitcoin network secure by approving transactions. Mining is an important and integral part of Bitcoin that ensures fairness while keeping the Bitcoin network stable, safe and secure. Links. We Use Coins - Learn all about crypto-currency. Bitcoin News - Where the Bitcoin community gets news. Bitcoin Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for Bitcoin crypto-currency enthusiasts. It only takes a minute to sign up. Sign up to join this community Because getwork provides the data in little endian, and SHA256 works in big endian, for every 32-bit chunk you need to swap the byte order; Chop off the SHA-2 padding; for Bitcoin, you can just take the first 80 bytes, but otherwise you can find the correct length (in bits) as the last 64 bits of the (byteswapped) data Um Bitcoin Mining zu betreiben, müssen Sie einem Miningpool beitreten, was zusätzliche Kosten verursacht. Für das Mining benötigen Sie entsprechende Hardware. Auch hier kommen Kosten auf Sie zu. Je nachdem, wie leistungsfähig Ihr Bitcoin Miner sein soll, zahlen Sie bis zu 2.000 Euro. Es ist nicht bekannt, ob sich Mining auch in Zukunft noch lohnen wird. Wenn Sie nicht genau wissen, was ... You are too tired to spend time preserving and taking care of the bitcoin digging machine every day. MiningCity is a Bitcoin mining project (BTC), specifically Mining City will provide mining equipment, technology and maintenance to improve Bitcoin digging performance, while helping investors minimize management costs. physical. Here you will invest to buy excavators and profits will flow to ...
Best Bitcoin Mining Software That Work in 2020 🍓 - YouTube
bitcoin hack,legit bitcoin hack,bitcoin hacker legit way,how to hack bitcoin,new bitcoin hack,latest bitcoin hack,bitcoin hacked,hack bitcoins,bitcoin mining,bitcoin hack 2020,best bitcoin hack ... MINE 0.05 BTC .. BITCOIN MINING NETWORK Download link : www.bitcoinandro.com Email : [email protected] Crypto Browser : Earn 8x Times Faster Bitcoin Mining Without Investment Earn 1 Free Bitcoin 2020 click this link and click on continue button SITE LINK:https... #Getbitcoin org Mining Site Withdraw Trick 100% Work send massge.copy and past. ( Hi Dear , I am Zonair and Technical zonair my Youtube channel, I am join ww... Find out more on https://bitcoinvault.vip/ Find out how to mine bitcoin with Mining City one of the leading bitcoin mining companies in the world that offers...