Farm share ethereum
I keep it shorter than my kernel run time, which is ms. I don't report hash rate. I just use regular qtminer and have no issues with stale. I haven't bothered to accurately profile my kernel runtime s , so I just made an educated guess of somewhere in the ms window and set all of my --farm-recheck values to I assume fewer stales should result in a higher perceived hashrate?
Stales you still get partial credit for, invalids you do not. MrYukonC The stales have dropped, because you're getting the new work faster than the kernel run time, so you have less instances where the kernels keep working on a block that's already solved. Some of what used to be stale are now fresh, because you're starting to work on them sooner.
I was stating I was not getting stales, only invalids but not many. I understand they are different. I don't use Claymore, Genoli, or Ethos to mine. Just Windows and regular qtminer. The other miner software might push cards harder and cause more stales or invalids, I really don't know. It just wasn't totally clear the way you worded your post -- I thought maybe you typed invalid when you meant stale.
MrYukonC You are actually running very short kernels, compared to most miners. The 's are running about I would suggest local work at , unless you've tried that with poor results. That would double the kernel run times, above. That still means your recheck is longer than your kernel times.
Running one central eth-proxy will cause you more problems lowering your recheck, since all the miners are pounding on the one instance of the proxy. If you have one proxy per rig, that problem goes away; you could lower recheck to 50 ms. I build my own ethminer from source, and I disable the "get-work" hash rate reporting what good does it do?
I can show you the source code change, if you're interested. You should see somewhat higher hash rates with the longer but not too long kernel run times. Is it just the hash rate reporting getting erratic? I'm not using the newest ethminer, so I hadn't seen the hash rate flag, but I'd recommend using it.
Before I do that though, I'll try local-work again just to be sure it's causing problems. I saw an earlier thread that you wrote, or maybe earlier in this thread, about how the values work together to determine kernel runtime.
Identity and reputation could be managed by an external DApp, such as uPort. Successful completion of a task would require both parties to send a transaction to the task contract, which would then trigger a message to the token contract to transfer or mint shares, as well as a message to the identity system indicating an increase in reputation for a job well done.
Tasks that are accepted by a user but not completed may result in a reputation loss, while disputed tasks could be handled by a community conflict resolution board. Resource Bank Shares can also be earned by sharing resources within the community, through a separate resource bank contract.
Resources may include excess food for donation rather than the market , compostable waste, farming equipment, processing facilities, land, etc. This component is intended to allow for a parallel economy based on the free exchange of resources as well as labor. A user may interact with the resource bank either to list a new resource or request access to a resource that has already been listed.
The resource bank contract would message the identity system to verify the reputation of the user before confirming access. Each instance of a resource contract may contain parameters such as payment information, access length, restrictions, etc.
For instance, one might offer to exchange some excess food in exchange for one-time access to a processing facility, or this may be scheduled on a weekly or monthly basis. The contract may then stipulate that the processor bring the resulting goods to market, in return for which both parties receive a percentage of the sale. Marketplace Shares may be exchanged for food and other agricultural products through the marketplace feature.
To some extent the experience may be similar to shopping on online farmers market platforms such as Farmigo or GoodEggs, where customers join a local community with a host that serves as a distribution hub. Users could have the option of viewing the entire supply chain associated with each food item.
Producers may post a product on the market along with a description, price, quantity, and photos via IPFS. Consumers may interact with the marketplace by claiming a product, which could involve holding the shares in escrow until both parties confirm the successful exchange. Community members may coordinate the exchange via an internal messaging feature or traditional modes of communication.
If enough members opt for delivery to a community hub, the market contract could message the task contract to find transportation. Community Governance Decision-making within the community can be handled democratically, using a distributed governance application such as BoardRoom. Any member may table a proposal on the platform to be voted on by the rest of the community, with the ability to automatically enact proposals via smart contract once a predefined number of community members have approved it.
The community may establish committees and subcommittees on any number of issues, which may have an electable chair, add or remove members based on community consensus, allocate funds according to tabled proposals, and revise its structure or bylaws as deemed necessary by the community.
By default the community would have two independent boards for managing the treasury and community fund accounts. It may be effective to have multiple subcommittees to manage portions of the community budget associated with various subjects or sectors of the local food economy.
For instance, dairy farmers, processors, and contributors to crowdfunding campaigns to support local milk and cheese initiatives may be added to a committee devoted to local dairy, which may have subcommittees for managing funding, marketing, processing, and distribution.
Supply Chain Data By incorporating agricultural IoT and blockchain technology throughout the supply chain, FarmShare could allow users to keep track of a wide array of data about their food. Agricultural sensors can monitor the environmental conditions and nutrient levels of crops over the course of a season, and the data can be stored in the blockchain to be reviewed at any time.
Additional data, such as labor or transportation information, can also be tracked on the blockchain, allowing conscientious consumers to make decisions about their food based on ethical concerns about energy sustainability or fair labor practices.
Consumers are becoming increasingly concerned about the provenance of the food that they purchase, which is one of the primary reasons that CSAs have grown in popularity over the past several decades.
The local food movement grew out of a concern not just for the quality of the food but also for the energy burned and emissions caused by the transportation portion of the supply chain. The blockchain could allow users to know not only the farmer from whom they purchased a product, but also the quality of the soil and the air on his land, the source of the seeds and the fertilizer used to grow it, and the distance it traveled to get from farm to table.
FarmShare will launch a pilot program in Sullivan County, NY in the spring of , which will serve as an integral part of the design and development of the tools and protocols. Sullivan County is an interesting test site for several reasons.
It is only two hours away from New York City by car, in the Catskills, providing easy access to urban farmers markets and restaurants. It is also an incredibly underserved area, with a dire need for an improved agricultural infrastructure.