This server is using the latest git pull with unmodified settings on fees & a max blocksize of 500000 (isn't the default 1,000,000? or is it still 500k for p2pool?)
I believe the default is 500k. 1M is the limit allowed by the protocol and can be set if needed. In fact if you have a very low getblocktemplate latency, you should increase maxblocksize as there's still 22MB of unconfirmed transaction as I write this according to blockchain.info: there may be fee-less transactions in these 22MB but I assume that there's a lot of fees to grab too. If you are below 0.01s latency and want to optimize your income, increase maxblocksize gradually until you reach either 1MB or 0.01s latency. Well, it's hitting like .10-.15s avg, with .0001 fee and 500,000 blocksize, doesn't seem too bad. 'course, someone could always waste some of their money to spam a lot of junk transactions. Guess you'd just need to monitor it a bit |
|
|
|
|
and 10% of proceeds will go to the charity of your choice!1
|
|
|
|
|
going to ebay this set
i have another 7850 incoming in a week or so though
|
|
|
|
This server is using the latest git pull with unmodified settings on fees & a max blocksize of 500000 (isn't the default 1,000,000? or is it still 500k for p2pool?) http://nogleg.net:9332/static/graphs.html?Hourgranted, it's also running ltc @ http://nogleg.net:9327/static/graphs.html?Hourbut that doesn't seem to really take much resources anyway "blocks" : 237724, "currentblocksize" : 476689, "currentblocktx" : 812, "difficulty" : 11187257.46136079, "errors" : "", "generate" : false, "genproclimit" : -1, "hashespersec" : 0, "pooledtx" : 844, "testnet" : false it benches about 5% higher than nogleg.com |
|
|
|
|
Any clue what this person is trying to do (93.92.198.xx)? The only thing I noticed was that the source port reported in the receive version message was always 18333.... or are these other IPs trying to connect and there's some bug causing it to think it's the 93.92.198.xx address? Netstat reported 176.9.196.xx, not the 93.92.198.xx on one of them, for example
(ed: oh, lol, it's probably some altcoin junk? ed2: hmm, 18333 port would be related to testnet... these messages started appearing after i pulled the 0.8.2.1)
2013-05-24 05:57:35 accepted connection 5.9.245.xx:59356
2013-05-24 05:57:35 send version message: version 70001, blocks=237642, us=xx.xx.xx.xx:8333, them=5.9.245.xx:59356, peer=5.9.245.xx:59356
2013-05-24 05:57:35 receive version message: version 70001, blocks=80968, us=0.0.0.0:0, them=93.92.198.xx:18333, peer=5.9.245.xx:59356
2013-05-24 05:57:35
PROCESSMESSAGE: INVALID MESSAGESTART
2013-05-24 05:57:35 disconnecting node 5.9.245.xx:59356
2013-05-24 05:57:38 accepted connection 199.193.117.xx:47020
2013-05-24 05:57:38 send version message: version 70001, blocks=237642, us=xx.xx.xx.xx:8333, them=199.193.117.xx:47020, peer=199.193.117.xx:47020
2013-05-24 05:57:38 receive version message: version 70001, blocks=80968, us=0.0.0.0:0, them=93.92.198.xx:18333, peer=199.193.117.xx:47020
2013-05-24 05:57:39
PROCESSMESSAGE: INVALID MESSAGESTART
2013-05-24 05:57:39 disconnecting node 199.193.117.xx:47020
2013-05-24 06:02:33 accepted connection 5.9.0.xx:18244
2013-05-24 06:02:33 send version message: version 70001, blocks=237642, us=xx.xx.xx.xx:8333, them=5.9.0.xx:18244, peer=5.9.0.xx:18244
2013-05-24 06:02:33 receive version message: version 70001, blocks=80968, us=0.0.0.0:0, them=93.92.198.xx:18333, peer=5.9.0.xx:18244
2013-05-24 06:02:33
PROCESSMESSAGE: INVALID MESSAGESTART
2013-05-24 06:02:33 disconnecting node 5.9.0.xx:18244
2013-05-24 06:04:03 accepted connection 176.9.196.xx:12774
2013-05-24 06:04:03 send version message: version 70001, blocks=237642, us=xx.xx.xx.xx:8333, them=176.9.196.xx:12774, peer=176.9.196.xx:12774
2013-05-24 06:04:03 receive version message: version 70001, blocks=80968, us=0.0.0.0:0, them=93.92.198.xx:18333, peer=176.9.196.xx:12774
2013-05-24 06:04:03
PROCESSMESSAGE: INVALID MESSAGESTART
2013-05-24 06:04:03 disconnecting node 176.9.196.xx:12774
2013-05-24 06:09:45 accepted connection 93.92.198.xx:39666
2013-05-24 06:09:45 send version message: version 70001, blocks=237642, us=xx.xx.xx.xx:8333, them=93.92.198.xx:39666, peer=93.92.198.xx:39666
2013-05-24 06:09:45 receive version message: version 70001, blocks=80968, us=0.0.0.0:0, them=93.92.198.xx:18333, peer=93.92.198.xx:39666
2013-05-24 06:09:45
PROCESSMESSAGE: INVALID MESSAGESTART
2013-05-24 06:09:45 disconnecting node 93.92.198.xx:39666
|
|
|
|
the fee is send to your default address
I hope so - 0.5% to my default address and 99.5% to the user's BTC address (changed the fee to 0.5%) - am I misunderstanding something here? yeah, if you want to 'load test' something, then you don't charge a fee the fee works, trust me. server load will not impact this |
|
|
|
Agreed. Hoever, the more I think about it, I think I would prefer an automatic approach. Have cgminer find the nearest p2pool nodes. In that way, I can specify my own or preferred nodes, and not have to worry if it fails when I am sleep, as cgminer will just find someone elses.
OK, it's not the automated method you speak of, but I just thought I'd mention: http://p2pool.hostv.pl/which is fancier. But needs to be updated by the Polish gentleman to remove at least one dupe in the BTC section  What I need to remove ?  there is always contact to me on this site. I will try replay ASAP BTW: Any sugestion about new features that I can add there ? I checked and you got it, dupe on there I was talking about isn't anymore hmm, depending on how often it polls the sites, i think % online over the last 30 days and GH/s over the last 30 days is more useful than spot data (just keep it to where it doesn't show up if it was offline when last polled). as for efficiency, i think it'd be nice if there was some distinction between DOA and orphans, but i don't know if you can poll that data in p2pool? DOA can be caused by a variety of things, orphans are more indicative of what one should expect from a particular server. use that + your latency to server (DOA) to determine which would be best. i think only in cases of new blocks would a slow bitcoind come into play and cause more DOA (well, and the possibility of having a block discovered orphaned from the network)....... ed: actually, i guess those would be treated as orphans by the slow server also.... since they don't know the new block exists, they arent DOA, they just end up as orphans. and, something else i thought of, ping time isn't particularly useful since whoever is looking at it could be in a totally diff part of the world... but something that may be useful is ping jitter, if you have a server that has some 100 or 200ms jitter, you know that it is having some bandwidth exhaust issues (i guess it wouldnt work for places that dont allow icmp packets?) |
|
|
|
Does anyone know... if my miners are still running to eclipsemc while the website is down, am I getting paid?
yes |
|
|
|
Sorry, my fault!
mr. t has pity |
|
|
|
|
key logger?
i wonder how bitcoins will ever be successful, this isn't 1985 anymore, when the internets was all smart people
not to mention there is this garbage called 'java'
|
|
|
|
Can just someone tell me how the hacker checks for incoming transaction and sends it as soon as it gets 1 confirmation??
Also, its happening only on some addresses in the wallet.
key logger? |
|
|
|
|
crashed from getting too hot?
crashed from overclocking too high (case 2)?
power off computer, then power it back on?
|
|
|
|
Same thing happened to me. 2x "Gigabite" 7970 with 750 Watts OCZ power supply.
Shut down after both cards came online to mine with GUI miner. Upgraded to a 950 Watt PSU, problem solved.
Even a junk 750 watt power supply should be able to handle two 7970's... have a single core CPU or disable the other cores, undervolt all that stuff (memory, cpu, fsb, etc), ubuntu on a usb, use some energy efficiency lcd monitor with a kvm switch hmm, do ps2 mice/keyboards have less of a power draw than usb? does disabling USB slots in bios save you a few watts from motherboard? Component overheating/damage (chipset or in rare cases CPU) i never mine litecoins, but, yeah, gpu's overheating wouldnt surprise me (cough not being able to lower memory to nothing). sometimes you'll get cards with really crappy thermal paste job that'll have some sensor +20oC higher than 'main' |
|
|
|
I know this is an old thread, but does anyone have a better link for the DLL file required in the OP's first post. I believe it is atipdlxx.dll
When I used the link, all I get is a lot of spam windows from iLivid and Flash Video Downloader and crap.
the post right above yours? or the mediafire one some bit above that? |
|
|
|
these were $250 + 3 games on newegg only about a week ago... i guess just proof of what i said in some other thread about how video cards are easiest to turn for a profit  |
|
|
|
the .25BTC subject to change, just basing that off a price of ~$120 right now... essentially looking to get around $30 for it The website to input the code is @ http://www.amd4u.com/neversettlereloaded/index.html .. Includes: BioShock® Infinite + Far Cry® 3 Blood Dragon + BONUS: Tomb Raider™ Selling the coupon code only, up to you what to do with the 3 individual games. The complete set looks like it's been averaging around $35 on eBay (was going to say $30-$35, but there is some shipping cheese in there). I'd want the bitcoins first. PM me if interested (I might forget to check this message again except to close it out later). If it's before 1300 utc/0600 pst I should respond within an hr, otherwise it may take up to 12 hrs or so (ie feel free to attempt to buy from someone else, ). Not interested in haggling.... (adjust amt of bitcoins if USD value changes +/- $5) (ed: does not include Crysis, bought the card about a month ago) |
|
|
|
Since Tom is refusing to actually make the bet he himself proposed between us, I am offering up a guarantee of 1000 BTC to charity (I will take suggestions on which charity to donate this to) if BFL does not meet it's power claims within 10% - meaning if BFL's power consumption is more than 66w for a Single SC, we lose the "bet."
Now, I ask if Tom is willing to step up and back the winning side. He is 100% confident that we will not meet our power claims (which is the genesis of the failed bet), and as such I ask that he pony up 1000 BTC to the same charity if we do make our power claims.
So there it is: Tom is confident that we won't make our power claims, I am confident that we will. I am willing to put up 1000 BTC to show my confidence in BFL products. Is Tom confident enough to do the same or is he just blowing hot air?
Just figured I would quote this. 'offering', 'willing' but there is no "bet" as outlined in paragraph 1 if this tom person didn't 'agree to do the same'. did he? i'm not going to read this whole thread. if not, then why dredge up this old bs? maybe there is a better post to quote? In fact, there is. Na, I knew Tom would chicken out and run back into his hole, so it was largely irrelevant as far as Tom goes. I'm offering 1000 BTC on behalf of BFL regardless of what Tom does. I never expected Tom to honor the intent of his bet anyway (Simply because he had no intention of going through with it from the start), so it was largely altruistic on my part to begin with, but only in so far as I don't think I will have to pay up and I know Tom would... but I'm more than willing to escrow the amount until such time as is required.
Emphasis mine. Arguably he should have been Toxx'ed as soon as the funds didn't show up in escrow, but you know, forum collusion and all. ok, i am in agreements that that quoted statement is definitive |
|
|
|
Hi everyone,
I've just set up a p2pool node I'm probably going to offer as an auto-config option in MacMiner, and I'm just testing whether the server I've got it on has enough resources to handle the load, I've got a couple of workers on there but I'd appreciate it if anyone else would give it a shot for a while! The fee is set at 1%
address:
176.58.119.218:9332
password:
your BTC address
username:
anything at all
Please let me know how it goes if you give it a shot!
wtf, if you want people to test, why is there a fee |
|
|
|
Agreed. Hoever, the more I think about it, I think I would prefer an automatic approach. Have cgminer find the nearest p2pool nodes. In that way, I can specify my own or preferred nodes, and not have to worry if it fails when I am sleep, as cgminer will just find someone elses.
OK, it's not the automated method you speak of, but I just thought I'd mention: http://p2pool.hostv.pl/which is fancier. But needs to be updated by the Polish gentleman to remove at least one dupe in the BTC section .... You could always just have 3 or 4 pools... |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
