A bitcoin transaction of 291.241 BTC saw a fee of 291.2409 BTC, making it an entirely generous fee from the user toward the miner or, more likely, a huge error on the user’s part.Eagle-eyed bitcoin enthusiasts spotted a notably large transaction on the blockchain, one which stood out due to its miner’s fee.First shared on Twitter, the transaction saw 291.241 BTC (approx $136,000) processed as a part of block 409,008 on the bitcon blockchain, with a fee of 291.2409 BTC.The transfer did not go to the intended recipient of the transaction but went to the miner instead.it appears some idiot sent 0.0001 BTC with a 291.241 BTC miner fee instead of the other way around.https://t.co/8rb1VY1e3g — ActualAdvice_BTC (@ActualAdviceBTC) April 26, 2016 Mining pool BitClub has been revealed to be the miner of the block which gained the significant fee due to the user error.Private blockchain consortium R3’s Director of Market Research, Tim Swanson weighed in on the subject, noting that BitClub isn’t obligated to return the fee.

The plausibility of such errors, he reasons, is why terms of conditions and user agreements exist.BTC community learning the hard way why service-level agreements & EULA / TOS exist: @BitClub_Network owes no one https://t.co/06ke1cLFRw — Tim Swanson (@ofnumbers) April 26, 2016 Most modern bitcoin wallets and payment processors automatically calculate a viable fee as per the transaction.Quite simply, it would be a hard feat to accidentally send nearly 300 bitcoins as a fee, which raises the possibility that the sender used an antiquated means for making the transfer.At this point, however, it is mere speculation.On its website, BitClub states that it operates two mining locations, one of which is open to the public as a facility in Iceland.As a mining pool, BitClub is likely to bring in computing power and hardware efficiency contributed by users around the world who are paid in dividends by the mining service.It is yet unknown if the user has reached out to BitClub to seek a return of the erroneous transaction.

CCN has reached out to BitClub for comment and will update this article when we hear back.Comments Closed Open Open [Windows] 1.10 block corruption when syncing from scratch Closed Open Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub.Already have an account?Sign in to comment You signed in with another tab or window.Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window.Comments Open Open Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub.litecoin calc_ Here's how it works: Anybody can ask a question Anybody can answer The best answers are voted up and rise to the top up vote 1 down vote favorite It seems that litecoin/scrypt support in cgminer is unstable as I've found a lot of mentions of this error in various forums and no real solutions.litecoin coinbase news

Some seem to be able to resolve the problem by experimenting with different versions and combinations of drivers and AMD SDK.So far I've tried much and always the same problem.Here's the output from command line: cgminer --benchmark --scrypt --debug --verbose [2013-06-07 00:34:54] Started cgminer 3.2.0 [2013-06-07 00:34:54] CL Platform 0 vendor: Advanced Micro Devices, Inc.[2013-06-07 00:34:54] CL Platform 0 name: AMD Accelerated Parallel Processing [2013-06-07 00:34:54] CL Platform 0 version: OpenCL 1.2 AMD-APP (1124.2) [2013-06-07 00:34:54] Platform 0 devices: 1 [2013-06-07 00:34:54] 0 Tahiti [2013-06-07 00:34:54] GPU 0 iAdapterIndex 0 strUDID PCI_VEN_1002&DEV_6798&SUBSYS_254D1458&REV_00_4&176F368&0&0018A iBusNumber 2 iDeviceNumber 0 iFunctionNumber 0 iVendorID 1002 strAdapterName AMD Radeon HD 7900 Series [2013-06-07 00:34:54] GPU 0 AMD Radeon HD 7900 Series hardware monitoring enabled [2013-06-07 00:34:54] Pushing ping to thread 0 [2013-06-07 00:34:54] Init GPU thread 0 GPU 0 virtual GPU 0 [2013-06-07 00:34:54] Popping work to stage thread [2013-06-07 00:34:54] CL Platform vendor: Advanced Micro Devices, Inc.edward jones bitcoin

[2013-06-07 00:34:54] CL Platform name: AMD Accelerated Parallel Processing [2013-06-07 00:34:54] CL Platform version: OpenCL 1.2 AMD-APP (1124.2) [2013-06-07 00:34:54] List of devices: [2013-06-07 00:34:54] 0 Tahiti [2013-06-07 00:34:54] Selected 0: Tahiti [2013-06-07 00:34:54] Preferred vector width reported 1 [2013-06-07 00:34:54] Max work group size reported 256 [2013-06-07 00:34:54] Max mem alloc size is 2951741440 [2013-06-07 00:34:54] Selecting scrypt kernel [2013-06-07 00:34:54] GPU 0: selecting lookup gap of 2 [2013-06-07 00:34:54] GPU 0: selecting thread concurrency of 22400 [2013-06-07 00:34:54] Loaded binary image scrypt130511Tahitiglg2tc22400w256l4.bin [2013-06-07 00:34:54] Initialising kernel scrypt130511.cl with bitalign, 1 vectors and worksize 256 [2013-06-07 00:34:54] Creating scrypt buffer sized 1468006400 [2013-06-07 00:34:54] initCl() finished.raspberry pi bitcoin generator

Found Tahiti [2013-06-07 00:34:54] 1 gpu miner threads started [2013-06-07 00:34:54] Pool 0 not providing work fast enough [2013-06-07 00:34:54] API not running - API will not be available [2013-06-07 00:34:54] Generated benchmark work [2013-06-07 00:34:54] Pushing work from pool 0 to hash queue [2013-06-07 00:34:54] Generated benchmark work [2013-06-07 00:34:54] Pushing work from pool 0 to hash queue [2013-06-07 00:34:54] Generated benchmark work [2013-06-07 00:34:54] Pushing work from pool 0 to hash queue [2013-06-07 00:34:54] Popping ping in miner thread [2013-06-07 00:34:54] Popping work from get queue to get work [2013-06-07 00:34:54] Got work from get queue to get work for thread 0 [2013-06-07 00:34:54] Generated benchmark work [2013-06-07 00:34:54] Pushing work from pool 0 to hash queue [2013-06-07 00:34:54] Generated target 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000ffff0000 [2013-06-07 00:34:55] [thread 0: 18432 hashes, 17.7 khash/sec] [2013-06-07 00:34:55] GPU 0 found something?litecoin mining with gaming pc

[2013-06-07 00:34:55] OCL NONCE 33519 found in slot 0 [2013-06-07 00:34:55] New best share: 6 [2013-06-07 00:34:55] GPU0: invalid nonce - HW error [2013-06-07 00:34:55] Discarded cloned or rolled work Any help gratefully received.litecoin cgminer scrypt up vote 2 down vote In my experience scrypt mining on GPUs is quite susceptible to cause HW errors and wrong nonces if the parameters are not chosen to match the GPUs the algorithm is run on.As the SCRYPT-README file of cgminer states: The reason this is crucial is that too high an intensity can actually be disastrous with scrypt because it CAN run out of ram.bitcoin etf bloombergHigh intensities start writing over the same ram and it is highly dependent on the GPU, but they can start actually DECREASING your hashrate, or even worse, start producing garbage with HW errors skyrocketing.litecoin error

Note that if you do NOT specify an intensity, cgminer uses dynamic mode which is designed to minimise the harm to a running desktop and performance WILL be poor.The lower limit to intensity with scrypt is usually 8 and cgminer will prevent it going too low.The --benchmark option you specified in your command line tells cgminer to attempt to find an optimal set of parameters, so it will make a few attempts with high intensities as well, which will fail.Once you figured out a good value for the parameters you should be fine.bitcoin mining sydneyup vote 1 down vote I'm having the same problem.bitcoin for cs go skinsI have catalyst 13.4 installed.I tried going back to 12.8 and 12.4, both of them generated "cgminer stopped working" with all versions of cgminer I tried.I went back to cgminer 2.11.2 and it worked, but performance went way down.