|
Title: Passing mining work upstream to a different pool on a different port Post by: superking123 on January 31, 2015, 12:49:23 AM Hi guys,
Quick question if you guys have ever heard of such a thing: I've got a couple of S5s that I'm *allowed* to use at my workplace. The problem is that the workplace network only allows outbound connections on port 80. and it allows all connections on port 80. Ie, if I configure my SSH server to listen on port 80, I can connect, but if it's listening on port 22, I can't connect. I have a VPS that would be capable of running stratum listening on port 80 for these workers, but I really want to mine on another pool (discus, or whatever) which listens for incoming worker connections on port 3333. I thought stratum/proxy would do this but it seems to be more of a getwork/stratum bridge than a stratum/stratum bridge. I've seen that miningrigrentals uses some way of passing hashrate through their servers to another pool when your rig is not rented. Does anybody know of a way that I can achieve my goal of mining to a stratum server on port 80 which then passes the work upstream to a different port/pool. Thanks in advance. Title: Re: Passing mining work upstream to a different pool on a different port Post by: os2sam on January 31, 2015, 01:13:05 AM Doesn't sound like your locked into one pool, so just mine on a pool that supports port 80 mining. That would be the easiest anyway.
Also check with ckolivas and see if his proxy will do what your trying. Here's the link for that https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=790323.0 ckproxy does to stratum to stratum prxoy https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=790323.msg8907589#msg8907589 Title: Re: Passing mining work upstream to a different pool on a different port Post by: superking123 on January 31, 2015, 01:32:00 PM I think with CKproxy, the target pool has to be using CKpool software, is this correct?
Title: Re: Passing mining work upstream to a different pool on a different port Post by: os2sam on January 31, 2015, 04:22:11 PM I think with CKproxy, the target pool has to be using CKpool software, is this correct? No. It wouldn't be very useful if that were the case since there are only two pools using ckpool at the moment. The write up does say with some pools you would be limited to 256 connections but unlimited connections with pools that work like ckpool does with the extra nonce2. But it sounds like you would be using less than 256 mining devices so it should be a moot point. |