You could mine on my solo pool which takes away the guesswork about whether it's working or not, and takes care of the responsibility of the high speed nodes, bandwidth and scalability you need to ensure to avoid orphans: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=763510.0 |
|
|
|
is it ok to mine with slush stratum proxy? hashrate seems to be reported correctly
Any properly working stratum implementation can mine here. |
|
|
|
|
Running a bitcoin pool means people will direct tens of thousands of dollars worth of hardware at the pool, generating hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of bitcoin. Do you think people will be happy to do that if you don't even know how to set one up? This is one of those tasks that if you don't know what you are doing, you shouldn't be doing it.
|
|
|
|
at nicehash there is a lot about extranonce.
what is that extranonce? are old miners without this extranonce patch outdated? and therefore have lower chance to solve a block?
It's a modification they made for their coin hopping service. It has nothing to do with bitcoin mining and having your cgminer bastardised with the patch or not has no effect here. |
|
|
|
i just want That difficulty drop and we can make some coins Easier..?
No |
|
|
|
I think you would have been better renting a bunch of miners vs, one at 2ph - looks like it didn't keep up to the speeds for you either.
It actually looked fine to me, though the time is up and there was no block found... easy come easy go eh? EDIT: Looks like it averaged 2PH looking at the 1hr rate, before the time was up: {"hashrate5m": "2.14P", "hashrate1hr": "2.03P", "hashrate1d": "514T", "hashrate7d": "134T", "workers": 870}
Oh well. Worth a try I suppose. I'm still happy had a good few days You stayed on afterwards it seems because... CONGRATULATIONS AGAIN! https://blockchain.info/tx/28f9ea3fd08b924cfd4e068eebc62781fa7300b300c7eb3a0444dfab536c36f8 |
|
|
|
|
Nothing would happen for an hour and then everything would resume as it always did and difficulty would still rise virtually the same amount. There are periods of over an hour where no blocks are found even with all the mining in the world still going on and this would be no different to those periods. If you want difficulty to drop as much as possible you need to stop people mining for 8 weeks. In that time the lack of transaction processing would lead to a bitcoin collapse unlike any before and it would be totally utterly worthless at the end of it.
|
|
|
|
From reading the change log it seems that CGMiner will support Butterfly Labs Monarch's, but when I look at the Monarch specifications, it says it only supports BFGMiner. Why is that? I'd prefer to stay with CGMiner for my Monarchs.
The "relationship" between bfl and cgminer has always been awkward and strained. They've never directly supported running cgminer on it and they employed the fork miner author to write their official driver, though they then sent us devices to write drivers for them. Cgminer supports the monarchs fine, even if BFL doesn't say so. |
|
|
|
Ah, that is good to know, pointed ~55TH from my rigs to it. Guess I will see how lucky I am LOL.
Good luck to you then! Ckpool can handle any sized rigs. At one stage there was one miner with just one worker at 3PH. |
|
|
|
p2p went poof once stratum come along and theris newer coming out soon. So no doubt stratum will end up soon becoming like p2p went. p2p had too many problems on it. To begin with it was fine for none asic equipment but soon as aics turnd up acisc chomped though shairs like water in a river soon come along stratum and fixed a lot of problems and cured stale or rejected shares that p2p seems to have. I know my acis I have do not like p2p pools yet they are some good p2p pools still going that do work fine but not many because their crap.
Don't mix your thoughts about stratum's demise with complaints about p2pool. Stratum isn't going anywhere. While it wasn't a perfect protocol, it was billions of times better than getwork and is "good enough" and now everything uses it so there is zero initiative on either the mining software or pool software side to change it. |
|
|
|
I think you would have been better renting a bunch of miners vs, one at 2ph - looks like it didn't keep up to the speeds for you either.
It actually looked fine to me, though the time is up and there was no block found... easy come easy go eh? EDIT: Looks like it averaged 2PH looking at the 1hr rate, before the time was up: {"hashrate5m": "2.14P", "hashrate1hr": "2.03P", "hashrate1d": "514T", "hashrate7d": "134T", "workers": 870}
|
|
|
|
1,886.06THs?  It's likely only for a couple of hours. Someone's gambling with 2PH from here on solo pool. |
|
|
|
Well, someone's dumping a busload of hashrate here for a bit it seems.  |
|
|
|
AMU ? It doesnt seem to be detecting the U3 properly. It should be saying AU3. Are you using cgminer 4.9.0 with out any settings to test. Bitmain continues to distribute its own binaries ignoring any development I put into mainline cgminer so their driver still uses a different driver name, trashes other icarus drivers, needs lots of weird command line options to get working etc. So people using their binary get devices as AMU. |
|
|
|
Lack of best share is not the pool's fault, it's the driver's. It doesn't calculate the share difficulty if it's coincidentally a power of 2 value at the pool.
That's interesting. I wonder why my S3 displays a best share while mining on slush but never displays one (i.e shows 0) when mining on ghash. It is the same S3, and I assume using the same driver .... or does cgminer change the driver change according to the pool you point it to? EDIT: Or is it that the difficulty at ghash is always a power of 2 value (not sure what that means ....) and at slush is never that? That's exactly what I said. Ghash only uses power of 2 difficulties - there is nothing wrong with choosing these, they just set off the (harmless, cosmetic) bug in the S3 driver by doing so which does not calculate the best share when it happens. |
|
|
|
How can p2pool ever be written in C ? Someone should take the job and donation address should be changed so it goes to developers, but is it enough to get started? Its too difficult to even change the donation btc address now, if something like the ckproxy that works with pool gets done I would like to support that, but cant do that because cant change the code.. Donation could be a tool in p2pool to get things better (--donation btcaddress reason) No one donates anything anymore, and development has stopped  P2pool could be running just fine on 4 cores atom if it was written in C.. I could easily rewrite it in c given enough time, and have been asked many times over about this. However it doesn't fix the fatal design flaw in p2pool's design, and no one has a meaningful workaround for it, so I would never embark on a futile task like that. |
|
|
|
Congratulations to 1JUurq3mTA29oQZGqoniDnp74UQy1qcRbM! Though 177TH is hardly small time hashrate  20 blocks and counting. |
|
|
|
|
Lack of best share is not the pool's fault, it's the driver's. It doesn't calculate the share difficulty if it's coincidentally a power of 2 value at the pool.
|
|
|
|
Ok thanks, good to know. You suggest setting queue to 1 instead of 0? I keep seeing people say queue 0 for p2pool, but if you say 1 is best that's what I'll set.
I don't mean to turn this thread into an S4 thread, but while you're here.. I noticed you compiled cgminer 4.9 for S5, any chance you'll do the same for the S4?
There's almost no real difference between 0 and 1 though some have claimed lower rejects with zero, there is a possibility of slightly lower hashrates on underpowered devices, of which all the bitmain gear is. The 4.9 I compiled for S5 is based on bitmain's branch with a handful of my fixes, so it's not a real, official 4.9 and there's no advantage to updating the S4 binary. With time there will be a real driver for these in the master cgminer branch, and that's when more binaries would have anything to offer. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
