mining pools - Setting up a miner with Eligius - Bitcoin ...

Don't mine on Eligius

Just a warning. I just asked a question in the eligius thread on bitcointalk, and the owner of seems completely out of touch with the current happenings in bitcoin, namely the forking issues. He refuses to answer questions on whether he would follow the most popular chain in the event that a hardfork occurs, and banned me from his thread after I pressed him, because it's a very simple yet extremely important question to answer. I fear he is liable to mine on the original chain even if the majority switches, out of spite at what he adamantly calls "altcoins" (Bitcoin classic, XT, etc). If you value your money I wouldn't mine there, especially if a hardfork begins to seem likely in the near future.
submitted by GrixM to BitcoinMining [link] [comments]

List of relevant parties we need to convince before we make the jump for bigger maxblocksize (repost from /r/bitcoin)

I think this might lead to a more constructive discussion here, considering how this place is much smaller, etc.
Now that the blocksize debate is back in the spotlight again, we all need to be reminded:
A hardfork is difficult to do under any circumstances.
That said, I don't believe that we'll need "100%" as some... ahem respectable folks in the community claim; Bitcoin is nothing without its economy and ecosystem, and what's essential to a fork is that it has the overwhelming majority of economic activity. Assuming the miners are not malicious, they will follow - and they will be onboard sooner and make the process less destructive if they see the overwhelming majority sooner.
Therefore, I propose we compile a checklist of major parties that we need to convince, in order to gain momentum on this. This list will become very useful once gavinandresen, mike_hearn and jgarzik finish their version of 0.11 / 0.11A XT for review.
I'll start with a list. The list is only a starter from my limited knowledge, so feel free to suggest changes:
Exchanges and Payment Processors
Major services/merchants that use a node
Note: Merchants that use payment processors will switch if payment processors are on board.
Major mining pools
Unfortunately Eligius can never be convinced. What a shame. =\
Wallets
Greenaddress is unlikely to be convinced.
Information website
While not essential to the ecosystem, will probably help a lot in getting the words out and hence building momentum.
Feel free to suggest additions/changes to the checklist. Let's get a roadmap so that we know what to aim for.
submitted by imaginary_username to bitcoinxt [link] [comments]

List of relevant parties we need to convince before we make the jump for bigger maxblocksize

Now that the blocksize debate is back in the spotlight again, we all need to be reminded:
A hardfork is difficult to do under any circumstances.
That said, I don't believe that we'll need "100%" as some... ahem respectable folks in the community claim; Bitcoin is nothing without its economy and ecosystem, and what's essential to a fork is that it has the overwhelming majority of economic activity. Assuming the miners are not malicious, they will follow - and they will be onboard sooner and make the process less destructive if they see the overwhelming majority sooner.
Therefore, I propose we compile a checklist of major parties that we need to convince, in order to gain momentum on this. This list will become very useful once gavinandresen, mikehearn and jgarzik finish their version of 0.11 / 0.11A XT for review.
I'll start with a list. The list is only a starter from my limited knowledge, so feel free to suggest changes:
Exchanges and Payment Processors
Major services/merchants that use a node
Note: Merchants that use payment processors will switch if payment processors are on board.
Major mining pools
Unfortunately Eligius can never be convinced. What a shame. =\
Wallets
Greenaddress is unlikely to be convinced.
Information website
While not essential to the ecosystem, will probably help a lot in getting the words out and hence building momentum.
Feel free to suggest additions/changes to the checklist. Let's get a roadmap so that we know what to aim for.
submitted by imaginary_username to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

Interpreting nTime for the purpose of Bitcoin-attested timestamps | Peter Todd | Sep 18 2016

Peter Todd on Sep 18 2016:
As part of my recent work(1) on OpenTimestamps I've been putting some thought
towards how to interpret the nTime fields in block headers, for the purpose of
timestamping. I'd like to get some peer review on the following scheme I've
come up with.

Motivation

We want to use the Bitcoin blockchain to provide evidence (the "attestation")
that a message M existed prior to some point in time T. Exactly how we do this
is beyond the scope of this post, but suffice to say we show that some block
header b cryptographically commits to the message, e.g. via a commitment
operation path proof, as implemented by OpenTimestamps.
A valid timestamp is simply one where T is a point in time where the message
did in fact exist. Of course, if a timestamp for time T is valid, all
subsequent T+d are also valid; such timestamps are simply more conservative
versions of the same statement.
A naively approach - as is implemented by most (all?) existing Bitcoin
timestamping schemes - is to assume that the block header's nTime field was
perfectly accurate, and thus M exists prior to the block's nTime. But that
doesn't take into account malicious miners, who may backdate their blocks.

Threat Model

We assume miners are divided into two categories:
1) Dishonest Miners --- These miners are actively conspiring to create invalid
timestamps for time's prior to when the message existed. A dishonest miner will
set the nTime field in blocks they create to the minimum possible value.
2) Honest Miners --- These miners set nTime in blocks they create to
approximately the current true time. An honest miner may use techniques such as
nTime-rolling. Additionally, all honest miners may be simultaneously affected
by systematic misconfigurations.

nTime Rolling

Prior to BIP113, reducing a block's nTime from the work given by a pool by even
a second could easily render it invalid, as the pool may have included
nLockTime'd transactions in the block. Thus hashing software was designed to
only roll nTime in the forward direction, not reverse, even though rolling
could be done in the reverse direction, up to the limit of the median-time-past
The Stratum mining protocol doesn't even have a way to tell clients what the
minimum allowed time is, just a single field, nTime, which is defined as "the
current time". Thus Stratum hashers will only ever increase nTime, which can
never result in an invalid timestamp if the original, unrolled, nTime would
have been a valid timestamp.
The getblocktemplate protocol does support telling hashers the minimum time via
the mintime field, which Bitcoin Core sets to the median-time-past. Regardless,
it appears that the pools supporting GBT (Eligius) return a much tighter limit
on mintime than the median-time-past, just 180 seconds, and as of writing,
don't actually declare that the ntime field is mutable anyway.
From an implementation point of view, relying on being able to roll nTime
backwards is unwise anyway, as the amount you can roll it back may be minimal
(e.g. if multiple blocks were recently found).
Since all miners have an incentive for time to move forward to keep difficulty
down it's reasonable to assume that the above observed behavior will continue,
and nTime rolling in the reverse direction will be a minimal effect; we'll
assume no miner rolls nTime backwards more than 1 hour.

Systematic Errors

1) Botched daylight savings time changes --- While internal clocks should be
unaffected by timezone changes, it's plausible that some kind of mistake
related to daylight savings could result in the time being set incorrectly +- 1
hour. For example, multiple large miners might manually set their clocks, based
on an incorrect understanding of what time it was.
2) Broken NTP servers --- It's reasonable to assume that many miners are using
NTP to set their clocks, and it's plausible that they're using the same NTP
servers. Of course, a broken NTP server could return any time at all! The
Bitcoin protocol considers blocks to be valid if nTime is set up to 2 hours in
the future (from the perspective of the local node) so we'll say instead that
we expect systematic NTP errors to be corrected with high probability if
they're more than 2 hours in magnitude - more than that and the Bitcoin network
is broken in a very visible way anyway.
Thus, we'll assume honest miners always create blocks with nTime greater than
the true time minus two hours, which accounts for both likely daylight savings
time misconfigurations, and likely NTP server misconfigurations. Additionally,
two hours is greater than any expected effects from nTime rolling.

Proposed Algorithm

For a timestamp anchored at a block of height x we'll define the time T it
represents as:
T = max(block[i].nTime for i in {x, ..., x + N-1}) + max_offset 
In short, T is the maximum nTime out of the N blocks that confirmed the
timestamp, including first block that actually committed the timestamp;
max_offset is the maximum nTime offset we expect from a block created by an
honest miner, discussed above.
The dishonest miners can successfully create an invalid timestamp iff all N
blocks are found by them; if any block is found by an honest miner, the nTime
field will be set correctly. Of course T may not be the minimum possible value,
but the timestamp will be at least valid.
So how big should N be? Let q be the ratio of dishonest miners to total hashing
power. The probability that all N blocks are found by dishonest miners is qN,
and thus the probability P that at least one block is found by an honest miner
is:
P = 1 - q^N => N = log(1 - P)/log(q) 
If the dishonest miners have q>0.5, the situation is hopeless, as they can
reject blocks from honest miners entirely; the only limit on them setting nTime
is the median-time-past rule, which only requires blocks timestamps to
increment by one second per block (steady state). Thus we'll assume q=0.5, the
worst possible case where a Bitcoin timestamp can still be meaningful evidence:
P = 97% => N = 5 P = 99% => N = 7 P = 99.9% => N = 10 P = 99.99% => N = 14 P = 99.999% => N = 17 P = 99.9999% => N = 20 
The reliability for the higher N is higher than the actual reliability of
Bitcoin itself. On the other hand, there's no known instance where miners have
ever created blocks with nTime's significantly less than true time on a wide
scale; even in the well-known cases where the Bitcoin network has temporarily
failed due to forks, timestamps produced during those times would be valid, if
delayed by a few hours.
Similarly, if we assume a lower q, say a single "rogue" 20% mining pool, we
get:
q = 0.20, P = 99.99% => N = 6 
Another way to think about the choice of N is to compare its contribution to
how conservative the timestamp is - T as compared to the true time - to the
effect of the max-honest-miner-offset we choose earlier. For example, 98% of
the time at least 6 blocks will be found within 2 hours, which means that if we
pick N=7, 98% of the time the conservatism added by N will be less than the
contribution of the max offset.

UI Considerations

One problem with the above algorithm is that it will frequently return
timestamps in the future, from the perspective of the user. A user who sees a
message like the following at 2:00 pm, immediately after their timestamp
confirms, is understandably going to be confused:
Bitcoin: 99% chance that existed prior to 4:00 pm, Jan 1st 2016
A reasonable approach to this problem might just to refrain from displaying
timestamps at all until the local time is after the timestamp; the UI could
describe the timestamp as "Not yet confirmed"
It may also be reasonable to round the timestamp up to the nearest day when
displaying it. However what timezone to use is a tricky issue; people rarely
expect to see timezones specified alongside dates.
Of course, in some cases a less conservative approach to interpreting the
timestamp is reasonable; those users however should be reading and
understanding the calculations in this post!

References

1) https://petertodd.org/2016/opentimestamps-announcement

https://petertodd.org 'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 455 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20160918/4552f035/attachment-0001.sig
original: https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2016-Septembe013120.html
submitted by dev_list_bot to bitcoin_devlist [link] [comments]

Reviews of six mining pools

Hi all,
I got four antminer s1's in September (after buying leased mining since December 13) and after hacking them to each concurrently mine on up to nine pools, I began working my way through the various pools I found on blocktrail. When I started mining, I was daunted by bitcointalk, and couldn't really find any reviews anywhere else, so hopefully it'll let some newer miners check out the options before they start, or if people are thinking of pointing some of their hashing elsewhere, to let them see what's out there.
I've published six out of the eight in this first round, but am looking for ideas for the next eight after this, looking at them through a similar lens.
Bitcoin Affiliate Network's Pool - http://bitcoinsinireland.com/bitcoin-affiliate-network-mining-pool-review/
Discus Fish - http://bitcoinsinireland.com/discus-fish-aka-f2pool-bitcoin-mining-pool-review/
Eligius - http://bitcoinsinireland.com/eligius-bitcoin-mining-pool-review/
gHash - http://bitcoinsinireland.com/ghash-io-bitcoin-mining-pool-review/
Ozcoin - http://bitcoinsinireland.com/ozcoin-bitcoin-mining-pool-review/
Polmine - http://bitcoinsinireland.com/polmine-bitcoin-mining-pool-review/
Final two in the batch are BTC Guild and Slush.
Enjoy!
submitted by dublinjammers to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

[x-post] script to notify on eligius hashrate for your miners

Hi,
sorry for the x-post, didn't think of this subreddit in first place.
http://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/1hmis6/eligius_email_notification_script_review/
Hope it helps.
submitted by donotwastetime to BitcoinMining [link] [comments]

How To Mine 1 Bitcoin in 10 Minutes without Investment ... CW00209 - CW *REQUIEM* (LIOC) vs. *DE*Eligius Eligius mining withdrawing error Eligius Mining - SCAM CUIDADO!!! 15 GHashs Anamur Bitcoin miner mining at Eligius mining pool

Check eligius.st site stats in one page. Alexa Traffic Rank: 30,065; Google Pages Index: 56,300; Google Backlinks: 12; Facebook Likes: 0; Cache History; Server Analysis and more... Apps. Open SEO Stats for Chrome - Chrome SEO Toolbar; Http User-Agent Switcher; Web Tools . Website Review; Free Online Ping; GEO IP Address Lookup; Http User-Agent Checker; Social Search Engine; English . English ... This is a review of Eligius, a virtual currency Mining Pool website that supports the following cryptocurrencies: Bitcoin, BTC ELIGIUS: Eligius was designed by Luke Jr., creator of BFGMiner, to incorporate the strengths of PPS and BPM pools, as miners submit proofs-of-work to earn shares and the pool pays out immediately. When the block rewards are distributed, they are divided equally among all shares since the last valid block and the shares contributed to stale blocks are cycled into the next block's shares ... Eligius Bitcoin Mining Pool Review 4 min read. 7 May 2018 Jamie McCormick. May 2018 update – The front end for Eligius has been down for time now since late 2017, and while it may be mining with some users, it hasn’t found many blocks in a long time. Therefore it is not recommended to mine on this pool. A look at Eligius Mining Pool (originally published December 2014) Please note: This ... 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. Anybody can ask a question Anybody can answer The best answers are voted up and rise to the top Bitcoin . Home ; Questions ; Tags ; Users ; Unanswered ; Jobs; Setting up a miner with Eligius. Ask Question Asked 6 years, 9 months ago ...

[index] [39647] [37230] [33971] [32952] [18370] [33857] [45638] [13498] [50374] [25616]

How To Mine 1 Bitcoin in 10 Minutes without Investment ...

Remove all; Disconnect; The next video is starting This video is show you about eligius mining site withdrawal problem.. Whether it is good site or a scam site.. Best site:- http://zipvale.com/JBoN Sunday Coffee - Flavored Coffee Jazz - Exquisite Instrumental Piano Jazz Music for Work, Study Cafe Music BGM channel 6,347 watching Live now Eligius Mining scamming Alert Eligius Mining open register 5 GH/s Power free then I bought 10 GH/s power my Bitcoin balance 0.00250 something many time i try to withdraw but i cant see this vido ... Step 1: Mining Link: https://coinpot.co/mine/dogecoin/?ref=C8E36D930CE4 (Updated) (If browser mining not support you just follow next steps!) Send Phrase as ...

#