|
mine works fine (except mtred api). make sure you have the latest version (cc36995) and you put the script in a new folder every time you update.
|
|
|
|
I think the core bithopper program should not include many pools, maybe even only have backup pools in it. This way each person who runs bithopper will have to setup the pools they want to hop themselves. This would save the pools from being hammered by EVERYONE who runs bithopper, and will only be hopped by people who specifically set it up, making it somewhat random and spearing the servers from being overloaded.
I think the core bithopper program should include ALL of the hoppable pools, but with most of them set to 'disable' or 'info' in pools.py. That way people can just mine the pools they want by changing the value to 'mine'. Good call, but it would even be better if you can set info or disable in the passwords file so that you can update the hopper without losing which pools are active or disabled. +1 |
|
|
|
if some pool merge mines and asks me if I want that then I would be diminishing my bitcoin income with something not widely accepted and equally priced, new risk I would not easily take.
You obviously did not read the post I linked. A while back in this forum someone discussed submitting the same hashes to multiple pools and how if they accepted hashes they hadn't sent a getwork for it'd be considered a security vulnerability. There's sort of a similar thing with alternate blockchains like namecoin. Namecoin, at least, is talking about modifying their client so that when miners submit hashes to bitcoind they can submit the exact same hashes to namecoind thus allowing existing mining clients to mine both networks simultaneously at full speed. Essentially they noticed they weren't getting a hell of a lot of namecoin miners except when difficulty changed and it briefly became more popular, so they're changing the way NMC works to allow us to mine namecoins at no cost aside from setting up a merged mining proxy. tl;dr: namecoin is making it possible to submit the same hashes to both networks so you can mine NMC at no additional cost. Sorry for not getting the point in that thread, now I do thanks to your explication. I have to study it a little more. You said the magic word "no cost". Would wait and see if this project succeeds because between the cryptocurency and the unhackable DNS small people like us could build unthinkable projects. Cheers |
|
|
|
...They don't even have to provide much (or at all) financial incentive for miners, as for them there is no downside in adding another blockchain to hash. It only needs to be for something a big part of miners would support for one reason or another, and you get your hashing power.see no problem with that....
meeeh... wrong answer . No.hashing.power if incentives <= 0 everyone is free to have it's own block-chain. I would definitely not mine 10% or less of my total hashing power for another block-chain if that percentage it's not equal in price with the main block-chain. Actually I'm free to mine namecoins if I want to support distributed DNS, which I do, but my incentives are low for the moment. Namecoin will have to make it's way like bitcoin did, slowly, gaining it's users trust and no free hash power. It has the same security as bitcoin, don't need to worry bout it being fragile. Just my opinion. |
|
|
|
Let's wait and see how it can be implemented first. Just read the whole merged mining thread and I'm not convinced. If I ever want to mine for nmc's could easy jump to a pool or mine solo, no problem with that, but implement it at pool level it's another thing. My total hashing power it's a constant I cannot change without spending some money on hardware, if some pool merge mines and asks me if I want that then I would be diminishing my bitcoin income with something not widely accepted and equally priced, new risk I would not easily take. Leaving aside block-chain compatibilities I think it could be done but only based on popular acceptance, not imposed. I know that domain names of namecoin have a price tag set by it's developers (like fees in bitcoin) and will not be changed to soon, correct me if I'm wrong. Will wait and see what happens until then let's mine some bitcoins  Thanks c00w for your efforts, I just started studying python more in depth since bithopper. |
|
|
|
i think we need to be that hub itself.
because if the hub announces the new block it wouldn't tell us where it get it from.
but: the long way to go is with a central server like fasthopper.appspot.
^^ the only question is how good that service would/could be
I was just thinking all the posib. around that fasthopper. Btw, we could view and correlate some ip's with block announce in central hubs making a static list, hope pools don't stay on dynamic ip's  ... just joking |
|
|
|
cool flower, I will check out your hopper as well. and let you know.
its not mine... its c00w. just for clarification i am just playing with the maths and it is not perfect right now! planned: - better handling of backup bools - regard pools hashrate but next i'll try to patch bitcoin itself to detect btcguild block - just because i think its possible me too "thinks that", don't remember where i read something about a central hub patch for the pools to announce it's blocks very fast. We could connect to that hub instead of patching bitcoin, what do you think |
|
|
|
bitcoins.lc also does the same thing like BTCguild
I don't think so. BTC guild spoofs their shares so bithopper would never stop mining at their pool. Also, is it possible for bithopper to absolutely cripple an internet connection? I have fiber directly to my house and for the first time in years it was brought to its knees for about 20 minutes today (first day running bithopper). .... here I have a 3mb adsl and browsing works pretty well on various pcīs while my miners do their stuff |
|
|
|
In a scenario where the USA puts up a national firewall preventing miners/clients in the USA connecting with miners/clients elsewhere, would the blockchain fork into a USA chain and a rest of the world chain? And if so, would my current bitcoins be spendable independently on both chains? And then what would happen when the firewall came down again?
A great firewall of EU is also currently being discussed. We can use an updated version of RFC 1149 "A Standard for the Transmission of IP Datagrams on Avian Carriers". Have pigeons carry the encrypted and signed block chains on USB memory sticks to miners over seas. US air force fighter jets must be avoided at all costs for reliable operation. http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc1149jajaja canīt stop laughing man, great idea and hope we never have to use it. A mesh network, like a parallel internet of some kind, of Foneras with OpenWrt and ROBIN would be great but in my city I think 1 person of 1000 heard about it. Shame on us |
|
|
|
Impressive tool, will definitely recommend it to new miners |
|
|
|
I think its long overdue to say, great work so far c00w. Good to know you are also human and require sleep +1 |
|
|
|
|
Just found a little bug: when "backup" servers are changed to "info" the script refuses to work properly blaiming it on json stats.
@c00w would be nice to leave at our decision with pools are banning or not. Yes, Iīm aware it happened to you but ppl were using your credentials from different ipīs, simulating a botnet jeje
|
|
|
|
So onto a another topic but related :0 , anyone got code snippets to add triplemining.com to the rotation ?
You could make your own if you donīt like waiting, you have the snipet right in "pool.py" file. Donīt foget to make 2 new entries in "password.py" for user and pass |
|
|
|
F@H, like most scientific workloads, uses floating point math. Bitcoin uses integer math.
Didnīt know that, thanks for sharing. So, youīre telling that all supercomputers the univ. and government agencies have canīt use their massive power to hash that much. Good news for me, jaja |
|
|
|
not to be a pain in the ass, but could you put it on mediafire.
For some reason my internet is terribly slow to 2shared and megaupload and just timesout, mediafire seems fast however.
np here you go .... http://www.mediafire.com/?3ywhg717wwcbxns |
|
|
|
I think right now bithopper have a decently big-enough per pool balanced list.
Its only really worth it to include 100gh+ sized pools at this point.
I think youīre right but for testing purposes I just enabled all pools and temporarily disabled the backup (have other failsafe method) My last hour stats: http://www.2shared.com/file/IpuYpwOJ/stats.html2shared just seems to hang, weirdness. Anyhow, its worth it for people to test out different approaches other than default current bithopper methods. Would be nice to see the different outcomes Uploading to another service..... http://www.megaupload.com/?d=B8DCBLGU ... Done |
|
|
|
I think right now bithopper have a decently big-enough per pool balanced list.
Its only really worth it to include 100gh+ sized pools at this point.
I think youīre right but for testing purposes I just enabled all pools and temporarily disabled the backup (have other failsafe method) My last hour stats: http://www.2shared.com/file/IpuYpwOJ/stats.html |
|
|
|
OMG this has got to be the funniest thing i've read in weeks, true or not its great! on the chance its true, has it passed yet? XD i can see it now, you give it to the guy and... "WTF this thing smells like shit!" "yeah i just got a hold of it this morning" though if it does pass... clean it well, wouldn't want it to short out when you plug it in, shits conductive  +1 |
|
|
|
Just started to get these kinda errors:
User timeout caused connection failure.
Caught, jsonrpc_call insides
User timeout caused connection failure.
Caught, jsonrpc_call insides
User timeout caused connection failure.
[00:46:20] RPC request [] submitted to eligius
[00:46:21] RPC request [] submitted to eligius
Not sure whats causing it, or why its only happening on random miners connected to my bithopper server. They probably closed json stats on pools, I donīt get my stats either. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
