DiabloMiner-XXX -u <login>.<workerID> -p <password> -o mining.bitcoin.cz -r 8332

Please paste here your command line (replace password with some characters).

Worker's login is assembled by two parts - your login to administration and worker's suffix, dot betweet them: <login>.<worker_id>
When you register worker, system will show you complete login/password on profile page. This is because you can run worker on not fully trusted computer. Nobody with access to this computer can access your web profile (and change wallet address, ...).

Please use exactly one worker login for one miner instance. Otherwise it will break counting of your worker's shares.

Yes, we found second block at 16:10, see http://blk.bitcoinwatch.com/b?h=97886. First one from 07:16 is http://blk.bitcoinwatch.com/b?h=97834.

"Blocks' in worker details are only valid block found by this worker. So currently only two workers have  '1' in Block column. All stats are realtime.

:-) No, it isn't. I will make more stats on Statistics page, so everybody will be able to count, if declared cluster power corresponds with finding frequency and if user's share corresponds with his reward.

I was already thinking about how get paid for server resources and I like proposed idea of voluntary continuous donations.

First block found at 8:16 CET! (It reminds me I have to add timezone calculating or at least UTC times to statistics). Once bitcoins will be in the wallet, the first bitcoins will be sent :-). But you already see yours calculated reward on profile page. 4898 shares was needed to find the block.

Oh, it is really bad connection. I have <40ms and 0%loss (cable connection and in Europe). I expect you are in America (large pings) and over wifi (packet loss)?

I plan to make 'miner proxy' application, which should pre-load work on your computer and act as local bitcoin installation (you connect miner locally to this app). It should help a lot in this case.

Interesting. I have running m0mchil's here too and have no one error... Which is your ping to mining.bitcoin.cz? Server is located in London.

Not yet. It need cleanup and optimization, which I'm planning. But I expect that I will open codes at least for security review in future.

AFAIK they use special protocol and different algo for counting shares. But they can change miners and connect us . But I'm not affraid that there will not be enough power. I have to optimize code very quickly to be ready for many fast GPUs.

All financial computation are made multiplied by 10^8, so with maximal precision. If there will be still some rests after dividing 50BTCs, the rest is added to random worker which participated in mining. But don't forget we are talking about 'rests' on eighth decimal place...


How?

You are right, dynamic targets are on the way. Don't forget it is beta. Current target is compromise for low-end and high-end machines. By the way, normal CPUs (say 1000khash/s) will compute current target about half an hour .

Oh, found a bug. Please do not register logins with dots. As dots are delimiters between login and worker name, login with dots does not work correctly.

I will fix it tomorrow (probably by prohibiting dots in worker names and splitting 'login.worker' by the most right dot). Thanks!

Right, internally it works with standard bitcoin client.

If m0mchil provide power which he promised me today, we will see it very soon :-).

Hi all, I just started my own bitcoin mining server on http://mining.bitcoin.cz . Server was heavily tested on Testnet, but it is still beta stage software. But there is already ~600000khash/s of power and more will come tomorrow.

Server is based on principle which is discussed above and which satoshi accepted as possible. Server works with all CPU/GPU miners following standard getwork() interface - jgarzik's CPU miner, m0mchil's and Diablo's GPU miners. All needed information are on site homepage.

Sending rewards - when block found, 50BTCs are written to server's wallet, not on miner's wallets. Every miner can specify own 'sending treshold', which is minimum amount to send to his wallet. This should help with sending 0.0001 BTCs and so on. Currently the cron script for sending is disabled, I will process few first payments manually - just to be sure that everything is working fine.

If you are interested, please open account, enter wallet address, register own workers and start mining! Also report all troubles, I will work on them ASAP! Please be patient with short server outages in this stage. In the most cases, miners will solve that by restarting itself.

...works also on Windows.

I'm not sure how many people know both Tahoe-LAFS and Bitcoin and want to donate bitcoin-based accounting system. Maybe we should also ask users on tahoe-lafs mailing list and accept pledges in USD (of course with comment that primary currency is bitcoin .

There were already requests to add accounting and also exist draft/idea how to implement that, but nobody started with that. Maybe GSOC student will be more interested if some extra pledge will be here...

Anyway, I'm pledging 100 BTC.

Well, in fact, there are two different problems:
1. Allow small targets - under 32 bits (H > 0)
2. Perform full checking before send work back to bitcoin to save server resources.

ad 1)
I think it could be easy for every nonce to not compare H == 0, but H <= constant, where constant is pre-counted for every work from bitcoin. It should be easy and safe enough to pick last 32 bits from target and convert to this constant.

ad 2)
Full checking is not performed for every nonce, but only when H <= constant is found. So it does not slow down computing (as it is performed only for hashes which already passed first check), but save resources for server


Yes, I'm checking result of bitcoin's getwork() to obtain if block was found. My own checking is against low target to counting worker's shares.

Well, but this check is performed only when possible valid block is found, right? So we are talking about 'slowing down' once per tens of seconds or even minutes for every worker (depends on target and machine speed).

I'm asking that because strict checking on workers are much 'cheaper' than lazy checking on workers and full check on central server. For saving server resources we need to distribute full target checking as much as possible...