Please note that DeepBit still appears to be creating 50kb blocks at times - most pools are now upgrading to blocks 10x or 15x larger. Small blocks mean that transactions take longer to confirm.
If you're still mining on DeepBit, please consider moving to a pool that a more reasonable block size policy (basically - any other pool). Most of them seem to have lower fees too.
Your notifying the community of a pools apparent block size is completely appropriate and probably a good thing. But please keep your opinions of where a person should be mining and why to yourself and let miners exercise their freedom of choice. Whether you, or others, agree with that choice, or not, is immaterial. Thanks for the info though. Take Care, Sam sam seems to be a deepbit fan boy taking this agresive stance whats left of deepbit is gpu miners who run on autopilot when asics start to arive in few weeks deepbit is finished peace sam deepbit and tycho:) so long was nice ride while it lasted oh and my miners are returning failed shares? si deep bit down? I'm no Deepbit "fan boy". But I'm not an enemy of Deepbit either. I don't like it when people try to influence the free market. Let people who use a service decide. I very much appreciate the information Mr. Hearn supplied and if my words were a bit harsh I apologize for that. But I stand by the basic point I was attempting to make and that is let the free market work. Thanks, Sam |
|
|
|
People can mine wherever they like, of course. I'm just pointing out that 50kb isn't really helping confirm transactions, which is the point of mining.
Sure, I understand that and appreciate the info. If your analyzing "apparent" pool block size's maybe it would be productive to create a thread with a chart? Then we all could compare and contrast. Sam |
|
|
|
Please note that DeepBit still appears to be creating 50kb blocks at times - most pools are now upgrading to blocks 10x or 15x larger. Small blocks mean that transactions take longer to confirm.
If you're still mining on DeepBit, please consider moving to a pool that a more reasonable block size policy (basically - any other pool). Most of them seem to have lower fees too.
Your notifying the community of a pools apparent block size is completely appropriate and probably a good thing. But please keep your opinions of where a person should be mining and why to yourself and let miners exercise their freedom of choice. Whether you, or others, agree with that choice, or not, is immaterial. Thanks for the info though. Take Care, Sam |
|
|
|
[2013-03-07 17:55:32] Pool: http://xxx:yyy [2013-03-07 17:55:32] SOLVED 1 BLOCK! does this mean solved 1 BTC Block or may it be a NMC Block? What's your Best share: ? |
|
|
|
Firstly, for all those people crying out the end of Bitcoin if the block size is not lifted to 1GB, do yourselves a favor and go read the blocksize thread.
There's a Block Size thread? I guess that is what I've been looking for since this ruckus started a couple days ago. Where is it? Thanks, Sam |
|
|
|
Two questions:
How was this soft block size limit derived? And why?
What is the Hard block size limit?
Sam
well. the hard limit is 1 megabyte, and this is 1/4th that. i think the answer to your second question answers your first, yes? Well no, not really. The block size should be regulated by fee's not an artificial cap.
I actually want to see the block size limit removed, Bitcoin to scale up
Let me be clear, I'm not suggesting that block size limit should be lifted completely, at least not yet. I would like to know the reasoning behind 1MB hard limit and the 250KB soft limit? It seems to me that the soft limit is artificial, but maybe not?!? Sam |
|
|
|
Two questions:
How was this soft block size limit derived? And why?
What is the Hard block size limit?
Sam
well. the hard limit is 1 megabyte, and this is 1/4th that. i think the answer to your second question answers your first, yes? Well no, not really. The block size should be regulated by fee's not an artificial cap. Thanks for the answer to my last question though. Sam |
|
|
|
|
Two questions:
How was this soft block size limit derived? And why?
What is the Hard block size limit?
Sam
|
|
|
|
also: graet, what's the plan regarding the 250kb block size limit recently reached?
Isn't that one of the purposes of fee's? |
|
|
|
What version of AMD driver should I have, and what version of CGminer should I have?
I'm using Catalyst 12.1 SDK 2.5 and CGMiner 2.10.4. Seems to work well with my 5830. Sam |
|
|
|
Only thing is, John Doe won't ever understand why *he* should buy a BFL Single or similar in order to protect the network.
It's truly sad how little some think of their fellow man. The governments of the world are doing a great job of dividing and conquering humanity. |
|
|
|
I don't necessarily disagree with your statement/analysis. But it reveals your thinking in terms in making money in mining now, as many of the most vocal people in Bitcoin are.
There are many that are mining for the long term. I'm not expecting to get a return on my investment before the next difficulty increase(s), after which I need to buy more hardware, because I didn't quite make it, in order to recoup my previous investments. I'm investing in hardware that can mine for a long period of time at a stable hash rate. Hopefully these devices can do that reliably.
I have no problem with people mining for an ROI immediately but that ultimately doesn't help bitcoin. Mining consistently and reliably for decades does or at least more so.
Sam
I'm not sure if 'consistent' mining has any effect by itself, at least not anymore. I would, of course, disagree with that. Mining consistently will average out over time. If I were to leave my 35Mhs GPU mining for the long term it would eventually solve some blocks here and there. A statistical analysis may say it would take years for solve a block but it could be the next share too, there is no way of knowing for sure. So if for some reason all ASIC's left Bitcoin that GPU would still be there hashing and picking up the slack. When/if my ASIC ever shows up I'm not going to keep mining that old GPU, you understand that I hope.  I'd say that mining consistently is more of a classification of a person.
That's a more generous classification than most people, probably, group me in, so I'll take it. Also i think you underestimate bitcoins dependence on these people going for instant ROI.
Dependence? How so? The thing with the asics is that they have a pretty steep cutoff point when it comes to ROI so that tends to divide the short term from the long term people.
Yep, sad but true. This round is pretty much for the instant ROI people because the chips will be obsolete soon. Noone investing long time will be helped by these asics.
This line of reasoning makes no sense to me. So once the folks that won the gamble on the Avalons recoup their investment they are just going to turn them off? FPGA's were the long term choice while they lasted.
FPGA's were just the stepping stone to ASIC's. That is the normal technological progression in the high tech, or sometimes not so hi tech, electronics industries. FPGA's were just a fart in a wirlwind compared to GPU's or even CPU's in the progression of Bitcoin mining. Sam |
|
|
|
Every time I put my miners to PPLNS there is a long string of bad luck....FML. Can anyone justify this to me. On PPS i am getting xxx650 a share. the last day I've averaged around xxx500... WTF does the fate just hate me? I saw just a couple days ago some of the shifts were pulling xx1000 a share... Bad timing?
When using a payout method like PPLNS or DGM you really need to mine over a longer period, like an entire difficulty period of 2016 blocks, and then compare it to the PPS. These payout methods don't work out well if your continuously switching back and forth between PPS because they payout across several rounds of mining. It's hard not to switch back and forth, I know, I have a hard time staying at one place through a bad luck period too. Sam |
|
|
|
|
Thanks for not requiring scripting.
Sam
|
|
|
|
perf is exacty the same just causes network wide lag even when the internet is laggin mining speeds dont change its not normaly instant either after 5-15mins usualy no voip or anything here. Im not to worried about it because after the next bump in diff wont be worth it for me to mine with my gpus anymore will retire then from mining for good probly.
I would still want to get to the bottom of the issue. It will probably manifest itself again is some other application. Hope you change your mind about retiring for good, but that's your business. The buffer bloat is when routers cache too many packets which can slow down performance. Routers would often have better performance if they serviced traffic on a best effort basis and then dropped packets as the rest of the internet does. Not sure if that's a problem with yours or not. Percentage wise it doesn't seem like your is using too much in the way of buffering. There is a java based network utility that measures allot of aspects of your internet connection, it may be worth your while looking into it. Still a strange problem, Sam |
|
|
|
eu.ozco.in should be up now
I'd like to again encourage miners to move to stratum servers, unfortunately ecoinpool isn't being updated and also runs on an older version of bitcoind, unless we can get some updates those servers will be have to be decommissioned when block version2 takes over.
Miners on stratum are finding very low stale rates and some have found it increases their hashrate slightly as the miner always has work cued
cheers
Graet
I hope not i cant use stratum for some reason it causes my network to lag so bad webpages take mins or wont load at all but getwork has no problems at all. Are you using VOIP or Ruby programming? According to Wikipedia TCP port 3333 is used for network caller ID server. When mining is your stratum performance equal to or better than your getwork mining performance? |
|
|
|
eu.ozco.in should be up now
I'd like to again encourage miners to move to stratum servers, unfortunately ecoinpool isn't being updated and also runs on an older version of bitcoind, unless we can get some updates those servers will be have to be decommissioned when block version2 takes over.
Miners on stratum are finding very low stale rates and some have found it increases their hashrate slightly as the miner always has work cued
cheers
Graet
I hope not i cant use stratum for some reason it causes my network to lag so bad webpages take mins or wont load at all but getwork has no problems at all. I still say something screwy is going on with your router. Check for buffer bloat, TCP prioritization, if your router supports that and do a wireshark capture of your network to see what percentage of packets and bandwidth is being consumed by your mining traffic. On my network the biggest user of bandwidth is my Bitcoin client yesterday it consumed 1.7GB where my getwork 35Mhs/s miner consumed 1.8MB and my stratum traffic didn't even make the to 10 in network usage. The bitcoin client sometimes gets up to 3 or 4 GB of data a day and will use almost 2Mbps of peak bandwidth. That seems to make my network a little sluggish. Been thinking of shutting the client down. Anyway the description of your problem just makes no sense so it calls for some more advanced trouble shooting/information gathering as opposed to just not using stratum. Sam |
|
|
|
crazy has too much time on his hands. why does he care about a necro bump
Because I asked |
|
|
|
The purpose was my Mhash was 1337. Also NECRO BUMP.
Doh! Didn't even notice that. What the heck does "NECRO BUMP" mean? Got to be patient with us old farts. Sam A Necro Bump is when an old thread is resurrected from the dead, usually by someone with a low post count, and with a completely useless addition to the thread. See THIS POST as a perfect example. Doh! Again. I didn't even notice the date on the OP. Thanks, Sam |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
