|
Due to the fact that this thread has now been completely taken off topic, our server has been attacked multiple times, and someone has tried to hack into our personal e-mail accounts, I'm locking the thread.
If user's of our pool would like to contact us, please send either Geebus or myself a private message.
We didn't come here to stir up shit. We came here to explain how miner's were not mining efficiently, and we started a pool to show why this is important. Due to amount of flaming and mis-information that has occurred here, many people are simply confused and don't understand why this is important. Efficiency is important in regards to many things in our lives, from cars to computers, efficiency matters. Some people understand this, some don't. Those who don't have for some reason take personal offense to our claims and started flaming our thread.
Expect a new forum on our site sometime in the next week. Things will be much more regulated on our forums.
To all the loyal users, Geebus and I would like to apologize that you've had to read through all this shit from the trolls who think efficiency doesn't matter.
This stops now. Thread is locked.
|
|
|
|
So for the sake of reposting something that is IMPORTANT for you to read, here it is again.just restarted my miner and working away again, and just wanted to say something on my opinion of people jumping off the mining pool for another. i will admit i stop mining with you from time to time, to turn my pc off, i don't own a dedicated mining rig, what i use is my everyday gaming rig that i just so happen to mine on. This sits right next to my bed and has several fans running on it meaning there are nights that i can't sleep due to the constant noise and so it all goes off. While i realise you want to make sure people are mining for the whole length of time, and i have discussed with you before my very strange and ongoing efficiency problems, i joined this pool as the payout was based on what work i'd done in the pool, whether i'd had to turn my rig off or had it running the entire time instead of one like slush' where my down time would have me penalised. So while i'd like to see people staying with you're pool the entire time and i agree with you're points on the mathematical 'proofs' being mentioned in here, i'd rather not be punished for having my pc off one night and not getting any coins from a block because of it
I agree. People should be able to come and go as they please, and not be punished for leaving (because they want to sleep, watch a movie, play a game, or whatever people do with their systems.) This is the reason why I've been against implementing anything that punishes people for leaving the pool. We started this pool to show efficiency of miners and the effects it has on the pool itself. Because everybody seems to have an opinion about how things should be run, and because we've made several required bug fixes to the pool software, we've gotten distracted from the fact that we started this to show efficiency and how it effects finding blocks. In light of remembering why we started this pool, we will be making some changes in the up coming days, and the inefficient miners are going to feel the effects of it. If you haven't increased your askrate on your miner, or are not using poclbm-mod, and your efficiency remains low (< 50% or whatever % we choose), you'll be finding yourself going to another pool. Here is how you determine what your askrate should be. Use the average speed of your card when doing this math. (2^32) / (your card speed) For example. 1 of my GPUs does about 171,000,000 hashes per second. (2^32) / ( 171000000 ) = 25.116767812865497076023391812865 seconds. Round that number, and you get 25 seconds. My askrate would then be 25 seconds. I do understand that some of the other miner programs were not built to be efficient, and may not let you set your askrate above 10 (poclbm) or 60 (jgarzik's CPU miner) seconds. This is why you should use poclbm-mod if possible. It will work through the entire getwork, then request another, which results in a higher level of efficiency. Before we make this change that will effect inefficient miners, we'll be releasing a very slighty modified version of jgarzik's miner for the CPU miners. The only change will be we remove the 60 second maximum askrate and increase it. What would be ideal would be if jgarzik's CPU miner knew when it was finished working through the entire getwork THEN requests another one, but neither Geebus or myself are going to recode/redesign the behavior of another miner since we already did this to poclbm, and we just don't have the time right now to make major changes to another miner. Hence why we'll be making a very slight change and then leaving it up to the user to figure out what their askrate should be. However, there is no need to even have an askrate if your miner can: 1) Work through the entire getwork before asking for another ( check all 2^32 hashes ) 2) Detect when the block changed and receive a new getwork ( long polling ) Poclbm-mod meets both those conditions, and our server supports long polling. If jgarzik's miner could meet the first condition, then it would be the ideal CPU miner. Again, with an efficient miner AND long polling there would be no more need for an askrate in the miner.
|
|
|
|
just restarted my miner and working away again, and just wanted to say something on my opinion of people jumping off the mining pool for another. i will admit i stop mining with you from time to time, to turn my pc off, i don't own a dedicated mining rig, what i use is my everyday gaming rig that i just so happen to mine on. This sits right next to my bed and has several fans running on it meaning there are nights that i can't sleep due to the constant noise and so it all goes off. While i realise you want to make sure people are mining for the whole length of time, and i have discussed with you before my very strange and ongoing efficiency problems, i joined this pool as the payout was based on what work i'd done in the pool, whether i'd had to turn my rig off or had it running the entire time instead of one like slush' where my down time would have me penalised. So while i'd like to see people staying with you're pool the entire time and i agree with you're points on the mathematical 'proofs' being mentioned in here, i'd rather not be punished for having my pc off one night and not getting any coins from a block because of it
I agree. People should be able to come and go as they please, and not be punished for leaving (because they want to sleep, watch a movie, play a game, or whatever people do with their systems.) This is the reason why I've been against implementing anything that punishes people for leaving the pool. We started this pool to show efficiency of miners and the effects it has on the pool itself. Because everybody seems to have an opinion about how things should be run, and because we've made several required bug fixes to the pool software, we've gotten distracted from the fact that we started this to show efficiency and how it effects finding blocks. In light of remembering why we started this pool, we will be making some changes in the up coming days, and the inefficient miners are going to feel the effects of it. If you haven't increased your askrate on your miner, or are not using poclbm-mod, and your efficiency remains low (< 50% or whatever % we choose), you'll be finding yourself going to another pool. Here is how you determine what your askrate should be. Use the average speed of your card when doing this math. (2^32) / (your card speed) For example. 1 of my GPUs does about 171,000,000 hashes per second. (2^32) / ( 171000000 ) = 25.116767812865497076023391812865 seconds. Round that number, and you get 25 seconds. My askrate would then be 25 seconds. I do understand that some of the other miner programs were not built to be efficient, and may not let you set your askrate above 10 (poclbm) or 60 (jgarzik's CPU miner) seconds. This is why you should use poclbm-mod if possible. It will work through the entire getwork, then request another, which results in a higher level of efficiency. Before we make this change that will effect inefficient miners, we'll be releasing a very slighty modified version of jgarzik's miner for the CPU miners. The only change will be we remove the 60 second maximum askrate and increase it. What would be ideal would be if jgarzik's CPU miner knew when it was finished working through the entire getwork THEN requests another one, but neither Geebus or myself are going to recode/redesign the behavior of another miner since we already did this to poclbm, and we just don't have the time right now to make major changes to another miner. Hence why we'll be making a very slight change and then leaving it up to the user to figure out what their askrate should be. However, there is no need to even have an askrate if your miner can: 1) Work through the entire getwork before asking for another ( check all 2^32 hashes ) 2) Detect when the block changed and receive a new getwork ( long polling ) Poclbm-mod meets both those conditions, and our server supports long polling. If jgarzik's miner could meet the first condition, then it would be the ideal CPU miner. Again, with an efficient miner AND long polling there would be no more need for an askrate in the miner. |
|
|
|
|
*
**
*** PLEASE RESTART YOUR MINERS IF YOU HAVE NOT DONE SO ALREADY!
**
*
Because of the attack, your miner may have crashed, and lots of users are requesting getwork but are not submitting any shares.
|
|
|
|
|
We has a server outage again tonight, but for a totally different reason. We were attacked with a SYN flood. The offending IPs has been blocked. Yes, I said IP's. This time is was a DDoS. Looks like someone doesn't like us much. I know it's April 1st and all, but this is not funny.
Please restart your miners.
|
|
|
|
I received the following error: 31/03/2011 03:15:52, e0413b11, accepted at 0% of getwork[1575]
31/03/2011 03:16:03, 463996bb, accepted at 21% of getwork[1575]
Problems communicating with bitcoin RPCException in thread Thread-2:
Traceback (most recent call last):
File "threading.pyo", line 532, in __bootstrap_inner
File "threading.pyo", line 484, in run
File "BitcoinMiner.pyo", line 481, in miningThread
File "BitcoinMiner.pyo", line 231, in hashrate
ZeroDivisionError: float division again. We had a server outage earlier today. Please just restart your miner. |
|
|
|
Server is back online.
I know its just me, but it is still down for me, any ideas? Edit: Neither the website or poclbm is working for me still. DNS change might take about an hour to propagate. Patience please... |
|
|
|
I think you should leave it the way it is. I understand i have a very large share of the pool and some may disagree with me but the way it is is fair period point blank. If a miner chooses to mine for your pool for 2hrs then another pool for 2hrs and solo for two hrs its their right. They still put in X amount of shares that would have to have been sifted through by any other miner so they get paid for their work. Last night i went to bed all of my miners cruching away 2.1ghash i was in that round for over a day. I wake up this morning two of my rigs are down and im olny at .9 and we hit twice during that time. And a third a couple hrs later. I was paid for the work i did for that long round and much less for the round that went on during while my rigs were down but it was still fair pay. now what if i only had one rig and it went down for one night? i dont get paid for a 32 hr round that i crunched away for 26? you do that and u have some very unhappy miners. If a miner chooses to jump pools then they take a gamble with their own money. its like the stock market one day ur up and one day ur down u can try to go in the direction of the market and move around alot or u can sit and be patient and watch ur money grow. thats just my take on it..keep it going the way it is Geebus youve made a niche for yourself offering something different if people want a diff. based share system theyre are other pools for that. Mimic what other pools are doing and we have no reason to be here at all and the 70% eff is total crap too because your saying if we dont use ur miner we wont get paid and that will turn people off as well...sorry for being so long winded ive been watch alot but not really saying much
I agree. Trying to trap people into our pool with weighted shares seems unfair to those who have this exact problem (boxes crashed). We can't sit in front of our miner 24/7 to make sure it's running. Punishing those who had a technical failure of some sort seems dumb to me. Everyone keeps saying it's mathematically proven that pool hoping works. Yeah, I read that paper too, but has anyone proven this in real life? Has anyone successfully done it and made more than what they would make on average if they were mining solo? Did they test it for 24 hours, 3 days, 7 days, a month? Or did everyone go "ahhh, I see big formula's so it must be true."? Unless someone can do it, record all their data, and prove they make more by doing it, I don't see it being a viable cheating method. |
|
|
|
can you consider adding support for Ufasoft's CPU Miner? your site says it supports it, but i'm getting "the operation timed out" errors.
It works. I'm running it on my laptop without issue. If it's giving "the operation timed out", it's not an incompatibility issue. How are you starting it? bitcoin-miner.exe -t 4 -u grue -p xxxxxxxx -o http://bitcoinpool.com:8334/ -a 10 Are you using grue or grue1 account? Also, please increase the askrate to 60 (which is the highest it can go). |
|
|
|
In regards to what happened the other day with the network being flooded with unconfirmed transactions and the delay in payouts that it caused, we think we have a solution. Geebus and I want to make sure that you get paid at a normal rate, and the way we can do that is to apply a 0.01 tx fee to the payment, but if we did 0.01 for 100 users, that's 1.00 BTC just to get all payments out the door with priority. The solution is a new patch for bitcoin called sendmanytx, and sendmanytx allows us to make many payments in 1 transaction vs making 100 individual payments in 100 individual transactions. With sendmanytx, would could make a single payment to many parties in 1 transaction, and then we could apply a 0.01 tx fee to that transaction to make sure it gets priority when blocks are processed. We'll be making this change sometime in the next week. However, my day job is requiring a lot of me right now and I have to make that priority 1 in my life, so I'll get to this when I have time. Thank you for your patience and understanding while we attempt to adjust our pool to be more consistent.  |
|
|
|
That explains why I'm getting some stale shares, but not why I'm getting more.
If you use our miner, poclbm-mod, it support long polling which will reduce the number of stale shares. Poclbm-mod also works through the entire getwork, and when it is finished with it's work, it will ask for more work. Poclbm-mod will not find MORE or LESS shares than the regular poclbm, it will find the SAME number of shares but does this with less getwork requests. If you believe your getting more shares with poclbm-mod, I'd be very curious to see some logs from poclbm vs poclbm-mod. We ran both poclbm and poclbm-mod until it found 1000 shares and recorded how long that took. It was about the same amount of time, give or take a minute. Each test took about 10 hours. |
|
|
|
No. Bitcoincharts.com is not run by us. bob, it's just a matter of luck here. I don't know why slush's pool isn't having the same problem as ours. Don't you think you should maybe ask him? |
|
|
|
Interesting. continuum:~$ dig -t ns bitcoinpool.com +short
ns63.domaincontrol.com.
ns64.domaincontrol.com. ~ $ dig -t ns bitcoinpool.com +short ~ $ echo $? 0 ~ $ dig www.bitcoinpool.com. @ns64.domaincontrol.com. ; <<>> DiG 9.7.3 <<>> www.bitcoinpool.com. @ns64.domaincontrol.com. ;; global options: +cmd ;; connection timed out; no servers could be reached ~ $ I still have my name servers pointed to variations of 4.2.2.1, but I doubt that would make a difference in your examples. Well, I got something different. root@www [~]# dig bitcoinpool.com. @ns64.domaincontrol.com.
; <<>> DiG 9.3.6-P1-RedHat-9.3.6-4.P1.el5_5.3 <<>> bitcoinpool.com. @ns64.domaincontrol.com.
;; global options: printcmd
;; Got answer:
;; ->>HEADER<<- opcode: QUERY, status: NOERROR, id: 59519
;; flags: qr aa; QUERY: 1, ANSWER: 1, AUTHORITY: 2, ADDITIONAL: 0
;; QUESTION SECTION:
;bitcoinpool.com. IN A
;; ANSWER SECTION:
bitcoinpool.com. 1800 IN A 173.50.236.43
;; AUTHORITY SECTION:
bitcoinpool.com. 3600 IN NS ns63.domaincontrol.com.
bitcoinpool.com. 3600 IN NS ns64.domaincontrol.com.
;; Query time: 6 msec
;; SERVER: 208.109.255.42#53(208.109.255.42)
;; WHEN: Sun Mar 27 04:02:29 2011
;; MSG SIZE rcvd: 101
I think the Internet tubes are full of crap today. From some people having DNS issues, to different dig answers, something is amidst. Patience is a virtue, I guess. Use the IP address if need be. |
|
|
|
It seems like .com seizure to me.
US pulled bitcoinpool.com from DNS?
No. I checked from a server in NY and Chicago. Both can resolve it just fine. |
|
|
|
I've had no response from it for a few days now....
Please edit the forum topic, pool wasn't dead for longer than 10 minutes since it started on December 2010  . It could be your DNS server. ATT DNS is having issues at the moment. From a command prompt try nslookup mining.bitcoin.cz 4.2.2.2 and see if that resolves to an IP address. If so, you may want to change your DNS until ATT gets theirs fixed. |
|
|
|
I've started putting some of my own resources into this pool. 8.0 Ghash/s is good enough to keep my variance pretty low---I can comfortably expect a few payouts a day.
Welcome to BitcoinPool! |
|
|
|
Can you try a nslookup with a global DNS server like 4.2.2.1, 4.2.2.2, or 8.8.8.8 (Google's Public DNS)??
The globals work, but not the AT&T uVerse DNS server. Makes sense, that's what I'm using. I'm also East coast USA ATT just bought T-Mobile, and they are in the merging process. They are experiencing various temporary problems from delayed SMS to intermediate network connectivity issues, and I would guess DNS would be the problem in this case. |
|
|
|
DNS: 68.94.156.1
C:\>nslookup bitcoinpool.com 68.94.156.1
Server: dnsr1.sbcglobal.net
Address: 68.94.156.1
DNS request timed out.
timeout was 2 seconds.
DNS request timed out.
timeout was 2 seconds.
*** Request to dnsr1.sbcglobal.net timed-out
Can you try a nslookup with a global DNS server like 4.2.2.1, 4.2.2.2, or 8.8.8.8 (Google's Public DNS)?? |
|
|
|
bitcoinpool.com doesn't return an address from DNS.
Just verified that my IP is correct with my DNS registrar. From my PoV with a server in Chicago using two different DNS servers. root@www [~]# nslookup bitcoinpool.com 4.2.2.2 Server: 4.2.2.2 Address: 4.2.2.2#53 Non-authoritative answer: Name: bitcoinpool.com Address: 173.50.236.43 root@www [~]# nslookup bitcoinpool.com 8.8.8.8 Server: 8.8.8.8 Address: 8.8.8.8#53 Non-authoritative answer: Name: bitcoinpool.com Address: 173.50.236.43 What is your DNS server's IP address? I'd like to be able to see that from your PoV. If any user's are having DNS problems, please try using the IP address directly. Thank you. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
