haha, because it was throttling itself

until the last month or two, i rarely had cards go over 80oC.  now one or two do on hot days (maybe when it's 29oC or above outside)

and I always have fans at 100%

though at this moment out of my 18 cards, 6 of them have 120mm fans ziptied on.   im not sure if i should fix that before ebaying or not.  the reference fans used to cost like $10, now they seem to be around $15

as for those 5870 gigabyte dual fans and what not, forget it

wtf?

anyway, i've had 750w seasonics running at around 700w for 9 months

i'd buy the 7850 and 7870's that are all on special/being liquidated right now

like this deal (that's expired now):

http://slickdeals.net/permadeal/94066/newegg-msi-radeon-hd-7870-2gb-gddr5-pci-express-3.0-video-card-far-cry-3-blood-dragon-bioshock-infinite-tomb-raider-game-coupons

$190 for 7870, $40-$50 for games coupon, then  you could sell it 'new' (you didnt use it, just sold the games) and already get more than you paid for it.

which is why it's good for bitcoin mining, since GPUs will be worthless "soon"

you can also get 7770's for around $50 after rebate+selling games, 7850 for $110-$120 after rebate+selling games

for me, it's good idea to buy these new 7870's and then sell used 5870's for more than 7870 cost

it should have had 'bitcoin miners' in that roundtable of potential market =/

ah, netcom.   that was first commercial internet provider in DFW area outside of the crap hourly stuff like compuserve....    but back then in 1990 or so, you could still freeload off of 1/2 the universities anyway, or at least telnet out from their login interface (have some friend at a uni give you a shell acct or something).   there were a few exceptions,  like at the superconducting supercollider, you could log on directly to their VAX (sscvx1.ssc.gov) with a guest account

for the question

did you change your pushpool "requests to us" to the same port that bitcoin uses?  if so, you shouldnt have. 

Yeah, bitminter is the easiest to get started with.

If you setup p2pool, then the logical choice would be to mine on your own p2pool server.

So, I made my p2pool log public at www.nogleg.com/log  (times displayed are in CST, -5 UTC/GMT. it gets reset periodically)..  no sensitive information there, only IPs shown are other p2pool nodes that anyone could see themselves by running p2pool.  The addresses shown getting shares can be seen by going to my pool anyway & the amount they are receiving is displayed publically in the 'payouts if block is found now'.

Anyway,

There are a few incoming connections that are incredibly annoying that I've considered firewalling, but then I think it's possible they may fix their pool at some point, so..

I assume the stuff about 'peer sent entire transaction xxxxxxxxx that was already received' means that I got person X's share before person Y's (and sometimes person Z, Z2, etc)?.. so orphan is incoming?  (ed: well, for my share that was just orphaned, I didn't see anything about that... just from timestamps that the Mav one was about 150ms earlier)

What do the transactions pulled from latency queue signify?

Also, wouldn't a p2pool node w/ many people connected have problems with the 'new work to worker' stuff?   It looks like each takes about 5ms or so.  I usually run my p2pool on ramfs, but after some recent shenanigans where I lost about 12hrs of data, I stopped... does that make that new work process quicker?

anyone know about any of those?



(ed2:  i just changed incoming connections max to 1.  maybe some superstition about those IPs that just connect and timeout over and over, but didnt like the start)

(ed3: this is info from a pool other than my own, a share that I had orphaned)

mine:

Time first seen: Thu May 02 2013 08:42:42 GMT-0500 (Central Daylight Time) (1367502162.504647)

1CTgYxMTY5j6SLytKeMsBWAXuUc6yNKcAe: 

Time first seen: Thu May 02 2013 08:42:44 GMT-0500 (Central Daylight Time) (1367502164.585231) 

a second opinion at another pool:

mine:

Time first seen: Thu May 02 2013 08:42:42 GMT-0500 (Central Daylight Time) (1367502162.457166)

1CTgYxMTY5j6SLytKeMsBWAXuUc6yNKcAe: 

Time first seen: Thu May 02 2013 08:42:44 GMT-0500 (Central Daylight Time) (1367502164.538657)

... wouldn't the base client have rendered that share DOA (as it was over 2000ms late), even though 1CTgYxMTY5j6SLytKeMsBWAXuUc6yNKcAe did happen to get the following share about 10 seconds later..... or dies it resurrect it from the dead to send out both to everyone?

... and why does someone with 60ghash+ have 2+ second lag time?

dibs on devcoins and ixcoins as my salt wives

stratum appears to have some issues w/ p2pool atm.  i know that mine reponds much slower than the long polling to new work.   toggling the fix-protocol option in cgminer dropped my DOA from about 10% to 5% (180ms latency)

i guess you could test it yourself by running concurrent instances of some stratum miner + non-stratum miner.  maybe it doesnt happen to everyone

so obtuse

i'm not helping propagate your share full of transactions, because it gets orphaned

if a large amount of transactions still cause shares to have an increased chance of being orphaned and assuming people still use p2pool when this may matter, in 4, 8, or 12 years, then i suspect it would be wise to then do a rethink. 

oh, assuming the issue w/ the increased orphans isnt solved by then, in a decade or whatever.

He mines to multiple pools.  I think two are on the same machine?  Not sure..

But his efficiency rating would be higher if he sent me a msg and told me his IPs, unblocked them (right now the nodes I know he uses don't allow incoming connections) for my IP and let me connect 

well, most chinese nodes i have seen on p2pool struggle to get to 100% because of the latency issues involved.

uh, i havent been following asicminer at all, so i dont know what the hash rate is, but i'd imagine it's around 1/2 of what p2pool has now?  so that alone should get efficiency rates above 100%, as you'd be orphaning many other ppl's shares by getting multiples in a row...  well, if you wanted to be a jerk about it and play it the most profitable way.   the best way for p2pool would be to set a difficulty at whatever the maximum allowed is or something like 50-100k, then ppl with lower hashrates would still have a chance to get something.

i have hong kong dedi that gets about 220ms to my germany server, duno what asicminer uses


(yeah, 9thash, uh, that'd be like 12x what's on p2pool right now?  so I guess everyone else would leave.  but setting up own p2pool network or own pool software with merged mining wouldnt be a bad idea)

(ed: it's 4:30am.  is 9thash btcguild total?  what amt is asicminer?  p2pool is only like 750ghash)

    except I'm at 5-7ghash, not 60.

Yeah, so there's really no reason not to just change it over to the TX'es.     Add them to your blocks, take the risk of having a few more orphans, but get the whole TX amt if you solve it

I just thought you were being sarcastic, w/ the quoted Subo msg 

& gyverlb


i update once every day or two, to the latest git version.  though, the main thing as far as the getblocktemplate latency goes is how many transactions you have stored, i.e. bitcoind getmininginfo.  the more that builds up, the slower it goes.   mine is at 360 right now but clears out after blocks..... because I "cheated" a bit and set my relay fee to 50000 (the same as the creation fee, in everything *BUT* 8.1.99)... once the release is made public w/ the 10000 relay & creation fee, then i won't mess w/ it anymore... but as long as all the official releases have the creation fee at 50000, i don't see anything wrong with setting my relay fee to 50000 as well.  that cuts out a lot of the transactions that end up clogging your pooledtx.  

also, max blocksize has a lot to do with it.  i'm at 5k max blocksize, if I went up to 50k, I'd be getting 2 or 3s latency..

It's all on a ramdrive, too... but that has less to do with it then you think, probably.... example (and i had nothing to do w/ his bitcoin address):

http://rehtid.com:9332/static/graphs.html?Week

i sent him a custom copy of bitcoind on tues, now he runs around a constant 3.5-4ms latency.  this is on some cheap $40 OVH machine.  8GB RAM and some semi-junk CPU.   this was accomplished essentially by just raising the tx fee to 100000.  at that rate, you'll only get tx'es that'll clear out on the next block.   he's also set to 5000 max blocksize.   though, you'd start to notice the ramdrive a lot more once you start raising the blocksize.  the problem I have with it is that it also increases the # of orphans..

i think it'd be much better if the block solver got all the TX fees instead of however the reward system works now (and, no, this isn't favoring someone that's 60ghash, because like the share difficulty, in the long run it would all even out).

it does bother me when people have the maxblocksize set to <1000, though.... because occasionally you will get that transaction with the 5 BTC fee and it only takes a few KB to get it in a block...  lenny solved one of those just about a week or two ago (block was worth 33, I believe)

in any case, it isn't a huge deal right now since ~7 blocks are being solved every hour.. but I don't like limiting my blocksize due to the orphans...  there needs to be the counterbalance (re: getting the tx fees).

with my avg 6-7ghash, i've solved 3 p2p blocks in the last 3-4 weeks (yes, amazing luck (ed: also solved 1 block on bitminter, for about 1.5BTC worth of mining... and got an 8M difficulty share earlier today, lol))...   but everyone would distribute my normal reward and the blocks would be .3 or .4 btc more if i got to keep all the transaction fees =p

I put in a 4750 share that got 0..  I don't know if it'll let you set your difficulty to 21700, but if you can and you did, then you would have gotten credit for 21700

not here though:

http://nogleg.com:9332/static/graphs.html?Week

Well, first off, yeah, I was wrong about the 2000 cap, just got a 2005 share.  Maybe the person up above that said the max adjusted based on current difficulty was right, or maybe it just got bumped up, I dunno.  It also seems to be providing me with 5000 difficulty shares, so I assume that'd work too if it ever picks one up (the whole New work for worker! Difficulty: 10.000000 Share difficulty: 5000.002049 thing).

A 2600 share will count for twice as much as a 1300 share, the only difference would be that it'd increase deviation, but should average out eventually.  For someone at 5-10ghash+, 2000 isn't bad.  For someone at 20ghash, 3000+ would be neat.  Why?  Because p2pool is set to balance out as much as it can to 6 shares a minute... so, for the person at 300mhash, the 1500 difficulty shares aren't so nice.  If more people set theirs higher, then the share difficulty would drop, and this huge variation wouldn't occur for people mining on one card or something.  Right now it's spitting out 1327 difficulty shares, so 511 or w/e wouldn't do anything.  You'd still have to get the 1327.

oh, heh, I just got a 4.82k share on that one that's looking for 5000 




 

yeah, it's existed for a long time.

it was capped at 2000 as of ~2 months ago.  i guess I haven't checked in a while, so maybe it already is changed

&

i added the "fix-protocol" : true

into my cgminer.conf file and it looks like it dropped the # of DOA's by about half

yes, it uses accepted shares to calculate the hash rate it shows on the graph

so if you submit a 2 difficulty share, then you should see some hash rate on the chart

but you wont 'earn' anything out of the p2pool pot.  for that you have to hit the rolling difficulty, which attempts to be as close to 6 new works per (ed: minute) as possible

we could also really use a code change to be able to set the custom difficulty to at least 5000 , instead of the 2000 it is currently.  i know you can go in and modify the source yourself, but most people wouldnt/cant do that