yep hit 90 there for a while, whoever said double digits won that one or if you have bitcoins...we all lost. but its sparking back up. why doesnt it shoot back up like the good ol days. why the swing? stock market is doing fine and bitcoin sometimes follows that a bit so whats the hold up? ya we say it jump ten in 24h but now sliding again. i thought we would see it be well above 200 by about this time.... end of June so what the hell is the hold up.
LOL |
|
|
|
Previous patch didn't work, indenting on the exception handler was wrong. I've also updated it to log the network that p2pool is running on (I run BTC, LTC and TRC from one installation): root@bitcoin:/var/lib/p2pool/p2pool/p2pool# git diff work.py
diff --git a/p2pool/work.py b/p2pool/work.py
index 7c5823b..d1bbec8 100644
--- a/p2pool/work.py
+++ b/p2pool/work.py
@@ -1,6 +1,7 @@
from __future__ import division
import base64
+import csv
import random
import sys
import time
@@ -281,6 +282,7 @@ class WorkerBridge(worker_interface.WorkerBridge):
received_header_hashes = set()
def got_response(header, user, coinbase_nonce):
+ got_block, got_share = False, False
assert len(coinbase_nonce) == self.COINBASE_NONCE_LENGTH == 4
new_packed_gentx = packed_gentx[:-4-4] + coinbase_nonce + packed_gentx[-4:] if coinbase_nonce != '\0'*self.COINBASE_NONCE_LENGTH else packed_gentx
new_gentx = bitcoin_data.tx_type.unpack(new_packed_gentx) if coinbase_nonce != '\0'*self.COINBASE_NONCE_LENGTH else gentx
@@ -291,6 +293,7 @@ class WorkerBridge(worker_interface.WorkerBridge):
if pow_hash <= header['bits'].target or p2pool.DEBUG:
helper.submit_block(dict(header=header, txs=[new_gentx] + other_transactions), False, self.node.factory, self.node.bitcoind, self.node.bitcoind_work, self.node.net)
if pow_hash <= header['bits'].target:
+ got_block = True
print
print 'GOT BLOCK FROM MINER! Passing to bitcoind! %s%064x' % (self.node.net.PARENT.BLOCK_EXPLORER_URL_PREFIX, header_hash)
print
@@ -332,6 +335,7 @@ class WorkerBridge(worker_interface.WorkerBridge):
log.err(None, 'Error while processing merged mining POW:')
if pow_hash <= share_info['bits'].target and header_hash not in received_header_hashes:
+ got_share = True
share = get_share(header, pack.IntType(32).unpack(coinbase_nonce))
print 'GOT SHARE! %s %s prev %s age %.2fs%s' % (
@@ -364,6 +368,15 @@ class WorkerBridge(worker_interface.WorkerBridge):
print >>sys.stderr, 'Worker %s submitted share more than once!' % (user,)
else:
received_header_hashes.add(header_hash)
+
+ # P2POOL SHARE LOGGING
+ try:
+ with open('/tmp/p2pool-%s-shares.csv' % self.net.SYMBOL, 'ab') as csvfile:
+ diff = bitcoin_data.target_to_difficulty(target) * 1e-8
+ writer = csv.writer(csvfile)
+ writer.writerow([time.time(), self.net.SYMBOL, user, diff, on_time, got_share, got_block])
+ except:
+ log.err(None, 'Could not save share to pool database')
self.pseudoshare_received.happened(bitcoin_data.target_to_average_attempts(target), not on_time, user)
self.recent_shares_ts_work.append((time.time(), bitcoin_data.target_to_average_attempts(target)))
Good work. However, I don't see where you are changing the address that gets credit. Anyway, thanks to all the testers! The first payout will go out tomorrow at noon EST. Currently, I see shares from these addresses: 178sstRXJ2aF4KHcrkbECzFopjDgHCigyr 1Q68UdKBYgBVy7h4gAAXcipaoBPeoJZrXQ 13WSYzi1h9S14oN7E8DGbGLk7vHoXC2x3W 1yrraLgmRZ1fbgtz2BSVXcWVrJnH785QZ |
|
|
|
That does seem a little more reasonable  Still, it takes a serious chuck of developer man hours to put something as small as 22k lines of code together. |
|
|
|
Its 0.007$... thats ONE cent..
Today. What about tomorrow or the next. The whole idea of bitcoin is we don't have someone telling us how we can or can't spend our coins. This all changes when GAVIN decides so. This is not decentralization. This is a dictator telling us what we can and can't do with our money. This goes against everything I was told bitcoin stood for. This will collapse the entire notion of what bitcoin says it is as a whole if this happens. Yes, that's right, get used to it. Developer consensus can change the protocol rules, that's just how it works. No one is forced to download the changes. If the chain is split or poor changes are introduced, it's bad for bitcoin, but other alt currencies will become more attractive. I think there will come a 51% attack on bitcoin, not through mining, but through attacking the developer consensus process. Vote stuffing is normal in standarization. For me, it's not a question of, IF, but of WHEN. My hope is that bitcoin can survive a few more years yet. There's also many examples of open source projects that are well managed. But when more money gets involved, it becomes that much harder. So pray, that btc does not rise in price too fast ... This isn't even a forking change. If you really want to spend less than a penny, find a miner who is willing to mine your transaction and broadcast it to them. There is no protocol change here, just some defaults about what to forward and include in blocks that can easily be changed. If bitcoin price continues to rise, the defaults will likely be changed to adapt and in the mean time miners can edit their configuration files. As someone who intends to store the complete blockchain until I die, I support these anti-spam measures. |
|
|
|
0.01487579 BTC!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
............ 0.01414214 |
|
|
|
If he comes with chicken, I agree. Friendcat is the best cat.
FWIW, Friendcat was in response to the new shareholder who asked questions about his new shares. He wrote Friendcat, not Friedcat  No worries, just trollin' |
|
|
|
Friendcat is the best cat.
Who is Friendcat?  If he comes with chicken, I agree. Friendcat is the best cat. |
|
|
|
Friendcat is the best cat.
Who is Friendcat? |
|
|
|
float Q_rsqrt( float number )
{
long i;
float x2, y;
const float threehalfs = 1.5F;
x2 = number * 0.5F;
y = number;
i = * ( long * ) &y;
i = 0x5f3759df - ( i >> 1 );
y = * ( float * ) &i;
y = y * ( threehalfs - ( x2 * y * y ) );
return y;
}
... is the only magic I recognize.
Hooray for exploiting floating point notation! |
|
|
|
 Meta: It's time to start a new Wall Observer: Need more replies. |
|
|
|
It's called trying to inflate the actual performance of your product and/or design knowledge. If your product is good, quote firm numbers based on hard, verifiable FACTS rather than allude to 'improvements' to a mathematical process which has data dependencies which cannot be changed or improved.
The academics who wrote the paper quoted are experts in their field - Dadda has an adder type named after him - and designed a method of reducing delay paths on an actual asic. They did'nt change or say they could change an algorithm. KNC claim to have an 'improved' algorithm, and that is just plain rubbish. Ask any mathematician.
Any respectable company would not make such ridiculous claims, if KNC have indeed used the methods from this paper in their design,then they should acknowledge it. Hence my annoyance.
Incidentally, Dadda and co. got their SHA256 engine to run at 'a clock speed of well over 1Ghz' on a 130nm process.
I'm a mathematician and I think you are splitting hairs. It may not be acceptable in a mathematical journal, but in common usage it is acceptable to me to label an improved algorithm implementation as simply an improved algorithm. Most people don't know the difference and it conveys the idea that they have some special sauce that makes theirs better than a naive implementation. Nope, not right. It's not because ppl are ignorant of the jargon that you have to lie to them. If you don't even have the integrity to NOT lie to ppl who don't know what you are talking about... Get a life. There are much bigger things to worry about than a marketing department reducing a phrase from 3 long words to 2 long words that convey the same exact meaning to 90% of the population. |
|
|
|
I AM UNDERSTAND YOU PAIN 100%
say 1 guy american know what we do not do [say blah you russian fuck bear with knife] (i not understand what he say me but including the word cunt fuck i am sure)
brother lissen i seriously guy
i sell any day 1000 or 6000 bitcoins [aka buble scene bear hunting]
load my mybank.ru more 10000k or 10kk every day week
not need people say what you do or not do to be true FUCK
right on |
|
|
|
Hi all, I have found this thread googling p2pool + golang I believe "notme" has a good understanding and I like his (proxy) proposal. Is there any publicly available info about "Mhash/sec at miner's side" per "actual reward" for p2pool compared to other pools ? If there is not clear advantage, I would not throw more than 8e5 lines of python code away, not mentioning I do not understand much of it. But I would certainly enjoy going step by step and trying implement and possibly improve little pieces in google GO (asi it is well designed,compiled,clean,safe,concurrent .... language - try to play/edit/run/learn at tour.golang.org). And that will improve lags/problems with "more miners" or "high Ghashes" connected to p2pool node as well. I understand the urgency to allow connecting ASIC miners to p2pool. Avalon is mentioned not working,BFL not working(sufficiently) neither, but may improve soon : https://forums.butterflylabs.com/bfl-forum-miscellaneous/2164-demo-unit-forrestv-p2pool.html#post27922Bitfury has no devices yet, KnC miner as well, ASICminer is mentioned to work well ("notme"). But - all vendors are (or will be) selling chips and there are many HW design threads and there is no reason not to support p2pool well. I have no chips at my posession, but they can be simulated with many GPUs. There is already an effort to replicate bitcoind and a client in golang. So I will be happy to help with 'proxy' effort - but probably we shall create a new thread ? Good luck to everybody ! You can join in the discussion here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=234841.0It started off just trying to get testers for my proxy which is written in Ruby. Someone else came along and is looking at integrating it directly in p2pool using Python. I really don't care if my thread devolves into a generic p2pool proxying discussion, so feel free to try and drum up support for a version in Go. In the short term, I'm primarily interested in bringing down the block times for p2pool, and proxying is simple enough that having multiple approaches should help us all to understand the problem space better. If anyone thinks I'm being hypocritical after my hard stance on not duplicating p2pool, as .m. points out, p2pool is 8e5 lines of code and my proxy and logging is providing all the functionality I need to operate a pool and is sitting at 185 lines. |
|
|
|
Here is a quick patch against work.py which will cause it to log a line to a CSV file every time an actual share is found. I haven't had time to fully work out how to get the hash rate inside that function yet. I'm not sure if you want to only pay out on shares that p2pool counts as valid, or a percentage of the hashrate. Fields in the CSV are: time.time(), user, on_time, got_share, got_block root@bitcoin:/var/lib/p2pool/p2pool/p2pool# git diff work.py
diff --git a/p2pool/work.py b/p2pool/work.py
index 7c5823b..a4c3f38 100644
--- a/p2pool/work.py
+++ b/p2pool/work.py
@@ -5,6 +5,8 @@ import random
import sys
import time
+import csv
+
from twisted.internet import defer
from twisted.python import log
@@ -281,6 +283,7 @@ class WorkerBridge(worker_interface.WorkerBridge):
received_header_hashes = set()
def got_response(header, user, coinbase_nonce):
+ got_block, got_share = False, False
assert len(coinbase_nonce) == self.COINBASE_NONCE_LENGTH == 4
new_packed_gentx = packed_gentx[:-4-4] + coinbase_nonce + packed_gentx[-4:] if coinbase_nonce != '\0'*self.COINBASE_NONCE_LENGTH else packed_gentx
new_gentx = bitcoin_data.tx_type.unpack(new_packed_gentx) if coinbase_nonce != '\0'*self.COINBASE_NONCE_LENGTH else gentx
@@ -291,6 +294,7 @@ class WorkerBridge(worker_interface.WorkerBridge):
if pow_hash <= header['bits'].target or p2pool.DEBUG:
helper.submit_block(dict(header=header, txs=[new_gentx] + other_transactions), False, self.node.factory, self.node.bitcoind, self.node.bitcoind_work, self.node.net)
if pow_hash <= header['bits'].target:
+ got_block = True
print
print 'GOT BLOCK FROM MINER! Passing to bitcoind! %s%064x' % (self.node.net.PARENT.BLOCK_EXPLORER_URL_PREFIX, header_hash)
print
@@ -332,6 +336,7 @@ class WorkerBridge(worker_interface.WorkerBridge):
log.err(None, 'Error while processing merged mining POW:')
if pow_hash <= share_info['bits'].target and header_hash not in received_header_hashes:
+ got_share = True
share = get_share(header, pack.IntType(32).unpack(coinbase_nonce))
print 'GOT SHARE! %s %s prev %s age %.2fs%s' % (
@@ -364,6 +369,16 @@ class WorkerBridge(worker_interface.WorkerBridge):
print >>sys.stderr, 'Worker %s submitted share more than once!' % (user,)
else:
received_header_hashes.add(header_hash)
+
+ # P2POOL SHARE LOGGING
+ if got_share or got_block:
+ try:
+ with open('/tmp/p2pool-shares.csv', 'ab') as csvfile:
+ writer = csv.writer(csvfile)
+ writer.writerow([time.time(), user, on_time, got_share, got_block])
+ except:
+ log.err(None, 'Could not save share to pool database')
+
self.pseudoshare_received.happened(bitcoin_data.target_to_average_attempts(target), not on_time, user)
self.recent_shares_ts_work.append((time.time(), bitcoin_data.target_to_average_attempts(target)))
With the code I have, it logs every response from p2pool whether the "result" is true of false, but I only use the ones with true for payout calculations. I also log the current difficulty and time with each share. My current plan is to just do payouts proportionally based on successful shares weighted by their difficulty requirement. P2pool changes difficulty frequently, so that needs to be factored in if you are doing things share based. Using hashrate estimates should get you the same answer since the estimate would be derived from the rate of shares, so it seems like an unnecessary complication. |
|
|
|
Forgive my laziness in not wanting to read across the forums to dig for details that may not exist, but what on earth are you in a mental institution for? For being too busy? Too serious? Too absorbed in work? Too passionate? Or was there violence or some other kind of event that I missed? You seem far too well organized and well spoken to be a menace to society, so I'm having trouble seeing what it is that you are being restricted from doing exactly.
edit: I went back and read it anyway. Who was at the meetup and was anything stolen?
I was suffering from acute mania, in other words, I was a maniac  I did, for example, take it as a near certainty that Bitcoin would change the world and it would happen this year. Yes, I still give very good chances for crypto changing the world, and in my opinion Bitcoin has good chances for being the crypto. So, my famous prediction for $300 per m BTC may happen in 9-18 months. But I thought it was sure to happen this year. It is good that I get some rest, for some reason human beings cannot keep going indefinitely without pause. We're new to this pace. U mean what? In the past, progress moved slower and people had more time to adapt. Now it is very easy to overload oneself. |
|
|
|
Wow, some nice buys coming in. Looks like our buyer got tired of slowly buying.
I think it's the same pool of money waiting to buy bitcoin at sub $90 price, but lost their patient and decide to buy them at higher price now.  it's that time again.. .. 4h ema's about to cross.. buy a load of coins.. let people think that it this time will be different.. dump shitload! buy coins cheaper.. And what is the scaling factor between a load and a shitload? Are the 10 loads in a shitload? 100? 1000? |
|
|
|
wtf, hash rate is purely hardware based, and is not affected by the bitcoin/mining economy at all. Or I've had it all wrong this entire time  "Hash rate estimate" It is estimate based on blocks found. |
|
|
|
There seems to be a bull on havelock and a bear on btct.co... we'll see who wins.
Well given the exchange differences would say Bitfunder and Hav are market rate btct.co Undervalue But we will see Also thanks helped clear my wall a bit goes to do some btct arbitrage if that stays there guess I will toss a bit eat some bears up After 3 confirms hehe Now I do feel like I'm in the speculator thread xd Scared nothings between 0.3 and 0.31 lol Need more arbitrage! Standing Bids on Havelock: 2013-06-18 01:23:42 171/171 ฿0.02999001 ฿5.1283 2013-06-18 01:19:47 3/3 ฿0.02998001 ฿0.0899 2013-06-18 00:43:10 210/220 ฿0.02997000 ฿6.2937 2013-06-18 00:47:29 70/70 ฿0.02950000 ฿2.0650 2013-06-18 00:49:28 10/10 ฿0.02910010 ฿0.2910 2013-06-18 00:48:50 1089/1089 ฿0.02910000 ฿31.6899 2013-06-18 00:17:55 19/19 ฿0.02900100 ฿0.5510 2013-06-18 01:20:10 5/5 ฿0.02853702 ฿0.1427 2013-06-18 00:47:06 1750/1750 ฿0.02853701 ฿49.9398 Standing Asks on btct.co: 1 ฿ 2.82 1 ฿ 2.8299 1 ฿ 2.83 1 ฿ 2.839999 2 ฿ 2.84 1 ฿ 2.842 1 ฿ 2.843 2 ฿ 2.844 1 ฿ 2.848 1 ฿ 2.849 1 ฿ 2.85 2 ฿ 2.866 1 ฿ 2.8661 1 ฿ 2.8666 1 ฿ 2.867 5 ฿ 2.86999 2 ฿ 2.87 1 ฿ 2.9 10 ฿ 2.901 42 ฿ 2.909 10 ฿ 2.91 3 ฿ 2.911 3 ฿ 2.914 3 ฿ 2.916 1 ฿ 2.917 1 ฿ 2.918 1 ฿ 2.92 3 ฿ 2.93 1 ฿ 2.935 2 ฿ 2.937 19 ฿ 2.939 3 ฿ 2.9475 1 ฿ 2.9478 10 ฿ 2.949 50 ฿ 2.949999 11 ฿ 2.95 15 ฿ 2.9589 100 ฿ 2.959 1 ฿ 2.98 |
|
|
|
|
There seems to be a bull on havelock and a bear on btct.co... we'll see who wins.
|
|
|
|
Could it be someone is selling in order to have cash on hand to buy back cheaper during the expected "n00b drop" on Wednesday?
Perhaps I just saw a bear on this page so had to toss it back  You'd better get on the market if you want to toss a bear. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
