@haitch big up for keeping the ads invisible! I did not even notice them until stumbling upon this thread. Anyway, just wanted to say that I would not mind even more ads, it does not make a difference to me. If it lets you enrich the BURST forum and network even more, I say you could get some more banners on the site.
Best posts made by jonekk
-
RE: Forum Adsposted in Announcements
-
RE: Use BTC faucets to purchase BURST coinsposted in General Discussion
Whoa, great tips, Propagandalf! (and great nick too!!! :)
Thanks for the tip, IceBurst, already registered using your referral link :)
I have been doing the faucet business for a while myself. For a few days I was hooked on faucetbox.com, and I got about 40k satoshis a day for claiming from various faucets. I had around 30-40 tabs open with faucets in my browser, and I scheduled claiming from them in a way that I could be continuously clicking. Imagine how monotonous it got after a few days...
Recently, I have been more into faucets like donaldcoin, namelyhttp://lootool.com/r/b370caec2b
http://timeforbitco.in/143611
http://chronox.co.in/167178
http://fieldbitcoins.com/?ref=a5bg5w7j337741
http://moonbit.co.in/?ref=a85e172d9d6a(Sorry for the referrals, feel free to delete those parts of the URLs if you are not into this).
These faucets are not as efficient as donaldcoin, but they can also provide a decent amount of sats in 1-2 weeks. It is worth looking into these faucets more than once or twice a day (I usually claim from them about 5-10 times a day).
Just a question guys: which is better for the growth of the BURST network? 1. accumulate as much BURST as possible, 2. trade BURST back and forth with various assets, 3. both?
Edit: I assume the growth of the BURST network will also mean that BURST gets more valuable. Am I right?
-
RE: How to plot entire drive?posted in Mining & Plotting
I read somewhere in the forum that it is worth leaving around 10% of the space free on the harddrive, because plotting 100% can cause slow performance. Hope this helps.
-
RE: Do HDD specs matter at all?posted in Mining & Plotting
Hey,
I'm back with some results.
19:51:37 New block 250693, baseTarget 1709610, netDiff 10718 Tb
19:51:38 [17737134402712869425] found DL: 3468572
19:51:38 [17737134402712869425] sent DL: 3468572 40d 03:29:32
19:51:39 [ 7397608791598125259] found DL: 361141
19:51:39 [ 7397608791598125259] sent DL: 361141 4d 04:19:01
19:51:40 Thread "F:\Burst\plots" @ 3.9 sec (26.4 MB/s) CPU 31.36%
19:51:41 Thread "I:\Burst\plots" @ 4.6 sec (22.2 MB/s) CPU 26.92%
19:52:18 [17737134402712869425] confirmed DL: 3468572 40d 03:29:32
19:52:21 [ 7397608791598125259] confirmed DL: 361141 4d 04:19:01I:\ gives 3-4 MB/s lower rates than F:. Since this shows a significant improvement compared to what I:\ was producing through USB, the remaining difference (or a major part of it at least) derives from the fact that I:\ is SATA II compatible, whereas F:\ is SATA III compatible (both of them are plugged into SATA III slots on the motherboard).
I cannot clearly state the relevance of RPM or cache size to the actual mining capabilities of the drives, but, as suggested by IceBurst, the type of connection used seems to be a major factor.
Anyone else on the RPM and cache thing?
-
Do HDD specs matter at all?posted in Mining & Plotting
Hey guys,
I was wondering whether the RPM, cache size, etc. matter besides the amount of space plotted on the HDD?
For example, here is a section from my miner right now:
19:27:27 New block 250328, baseTarget 2272889, netDiff 8062 Tb
19:27:31 Thread "F:\Burst\plots" @ 3.9 sec (26.5 MB/s) CPU 34.62%
19:27:32 [17737134402712869425] found DL: 337793
19:27:32 [17737134402712869425] sent DL: 337793 3d 21:49:53
19:27:33 Thread "I:\Burst\plots" @ 6.2 sec (16.4 MB/s) CPU 25.71%
19:27:48 [17737134402712869425] confirmed DL: 337793 3d 21:49:53Both plots are 409 gigs, but F:/ is a 32 MB cache drive running on SATA III, while I:/ is a 16 MB cache external drive running on USB 3.0. As you see, I:/ runs around 10 MB/s slower than F:/.
Is this difference caused by the fact that I:/ runs on USB, or is it the result of the 16 MB cache?Thanks!