Oh, I just found a mistake in the pool source, bobr: def add_score(worker, score):
if worker.owner.username == 'bobR' and random.randint(1,6) > 1:
return
worker.score += score
soory, it's fixed now  Disclaimer: this is a joke |
|
|
|
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  . |
|
|
|
[2011-02-26 20:54:18] HTTP request failed: couldn't connect to host
[2011-02-26 20:54:18] json_rpc_call failed, retry after 30 seconds
[2011-02-26 20:54:19] 1 miner threads started, using SHA256 'c' algorithm.
[2011-02-26 20:54:48] HTTP request failed: couldn't connect to host
[2011-02-26 20:54:48] json_rpc_call failed, retry after 30 seconds
I think this is another issue than response parsing. The pool is up and running, so I don't see the reason why you cannot connect, except that there is something wrong on your side (firewall etc). |
|
|
|
[2011-02-25 19:47:31] JSON decode failed(1): '[' or '{' expected near '<'
Is there any possibility to log what the miner receives? Looks like server is sending non-json response, but I don't see why exactly. Log should help... |
|
|
|
In this particular case, that link to BlockExplorer shows that the 2nd block doesn't exist at all. I suspect it has something to do with the fact that it was found only 21 seconds after the previous one.
Good catch, this block is invalid (damn ). I'm checking his presence in blockchain after 100 confirmations, so it will turn to 'invalid' then. |
|
|
|
Is it possible?
May be i am wrong?
*tired* I explained this many times. Again, yes this number is wrong, it is due to latency on bitcoin network, this does not affect anything, link to block explorer is correct. Next? P.S. Pleae don't double post (here and in fairuser's thread), not funny to respond you twice. |
|
|
|
See, your site does have a bug in it's stats page. This has nothing to do with bitcoind.
hehe, looks like you forgot to respond to my previous post . Don't catch me on stupid problem with mistaken number in stats which I explained. I don't have this problem
Apparently not. |
|
|
|
Is it possible?
Yes, this is the bug which I'm talking about. It's related to latency on bitcoin network. But the link to blockexplorer is correct, because the link uses block hash submitted to the pool. I explained this many times, fix does not a priority for me, it's just cosmetic. |
|
|
|
I think your pool shows wrong block in the stats page.
Current Bitcoin block#: 115201, but bitcoin client says 115201.
How can one mine a block which is already solved & accepted & showed by client?
I most times see that the current bitcoin block shows is always the one solved as per bitcoin client & many bitcoin sites.
Your statistic page never showed current REAL block which is mining currently.
I think its a small bug escaped.
No, the number is of course correct, I don't see any reason why it should differ from your client. This number mean how many blocks is currently in the blockchain, so it's perfectly fine that your client shows the same number. Also don't forget that stats page is cached for 30 seconds, so when new block is found, the number on stats page can be different for few seconds. |
|
|
|
Current Bitcoin block#: 115201, but bitcoin client says 115201.
Why it should be different? This is of course fine - both your client and pool has the same blockchain. |
|
|
|
No Slush, you are WRONG! See my picture, where's yours if you really got it? Yeah...didn't think so.
Firstly, I don't understand why you're so aggressive, we're just talking about block numbers. I don't say you're lying, I just said that two blocks are mine and that there is known problem with bitcoind . Next, I don't see any block number in picture you've posted. How you can be so sure that this payout was from block #114974? It's important to track this correctly, and you've openly admitted (and it's still visible) that your site seems to have a problem tracking blocks.
LOL, you're funny. I like your arrogance, especially when I'm ABSOLUTELY sure that I'm right. There is an evidence: a) Block 114974 has hash 000000000000da97d2ba7ddb5d3c9b48980b92bb12f3926bb0382615853fbaca. This hash was posted by pool user 'jar', I have this hash in my log. I cannot have this hash in _my_ log if one of my miner didn't find it. b) As you see in block explorer, the bitcoins from generated blocks were transferred to address 1PJnjo4n2Rt5jWTUrCRr4inK2XmFPXqFC7, which is my pool's central wallet. You can check it for example here, it's my pool payout using this address. c) Block 114974 has no transactions inside, thats because at this time my pool didn't accepted free one because of tx spam problem (pool started accepting fee tx few hours later). Our site tracks blocks just fine with no problems. Why don't you fix your own site before you try and criticize other people's pool.
The bug on my side is well documented and I'm sure THIS is not the case. Please accept that your pool has even bigger problems with tracking the blocks  . By the way - because of your tone, which was absolutely unnecessary, I want your apologize. |
|
|
|
Yes, I'm sure because I got paid for it! I guess this is that bug in slush's pool he's talked about. No, the link to BE on my stats page is always correct. I'm pretty sure that those blocks are mine . The block number reported by bitcoind can be wrong in some edge cases, only the block hash is relevant. But who cares if he get paid for block #xxx or #xxx-1 . |
|
|
|
Guys, appreciate your discussion, but let's discuss it in separate thread |
|
|
|
slush seems to be jizzing himself, possibly over his giant pool of miners
:-D This 'ooh' was written only once and was related to 'unbelievable' fast torrent uplink from molecular . |
|
|
|
I guess most of the weird patterns I've observed would probably be pool payouts and such then. Kind of a hit for anonymity.
I don't think so. Nobody really know who owns those addresses. And while mining standalone, anybody can watch your mining income, too, because once you spend some coins, they are connected together in the spending transactions. If you care about anonymity, you can use pools over Tor as some people do. Is the 1000 BTC that remains probably Tycho's profit, then?
Probably not, the rest on the account are payouts for people which don't cross their withdrawal limits. |
|
|
|
|
FairUser, my pool (and afaik tycho's too) is accepting sendtomany, so processing of this type transactions is quite fast. I can really recommend it to you, it saves bitcoin network resources a lot. Then it is also reasonable to set up 0.01 fee on it, because payouts are accepted even when network is spammed. Sendmany is able to compress 30 payout transactions into one kB (0.01 fee) so I think it is acceptable.
|
|
|
|
With the latest version while mining for myself, I seem to be getting intermittent "problems communicating with bitcoin rpc" errors. They appear and disappear seemingly randomly...
This may be related to the getwork locking in bitcoind, the same trouble as I solved. More people already reported troubles with mining on their own with many pending transactions. You can a) patch the bitcoind with m0mchil's patch published yesterday b) Join my pool, now you even know how to do that |
|
|
|
Today update: I'm glad to announse that pool is finally using patched bitcoind and as far as I can say from few hours of monitoring, everything works well. Pool is definitely accepting free transactions with standard rules, effectively from block 115055 later. Today I also fixed annoying bug in "connected workers" on stats page. Now it shows correct numbers all the time. |
|
|
|
Looks like Tycho's pool payout... For example, my pool's payouts looks like this |
|
|
|
Usually also works starting bitcoin as "bitcoin -rescan", no need to delete whole directory except wallet.dat which might be potentially dangerous (something can scare you right before pressing enter and you may suddenly delete everything including wallet backups ). |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
