Thanks for sharing. A really mysterious coin.  Rule change without any notice is really bad. Wait a minute here- the entire algorithm is public. There were NO rule changes. The only thing I did was restrict heavy pool users from sending in more than 200 solutions per IP per 10 minutes, which technically didnt change anything yet. That was on the pool side, to ensure the pool is not overrun by linux hackers. When I said I raised the Diff, I was referring to the minimum difficulty share the pool hands out, which is not a global rule change, its the pool owners business. This community has been transparent from the beginning. I hope everyone can see that. >>That was on the pool side, to ensure the pool is not overrun by linux hackers. sense really bad attitude here. Running multiple daemons is possible on Windows the same way as on Linux. it's a bad idea to treat people like this BP. how exactly BBP was hacked on Linux ? another question : did pool admin applied restrictions individually or to all Linux miners. I have Windows boxed where HPS2 and shares dropped dramatically too . why would someone care investing in BBP time and money if it can be manipulated that badly by the pool admins? They wouldnt. This coin is for the general public, not for greedy people like you, who are trying exploit widows and orphans. Im for the widows! The one against the pharisees! Im for the blue collar worker in the pool, not the rich spoiled brat that has a new toy to point at the pool. Im for the longsuffering, and the weak. If you were WITH ME, you would be helping to create a FAIR escosystem - Thats what I did with the pool. I though the more hashpower we generate the more kids we can donate to . Isn't it so ? that 's what 10+6+6 cut exists for. Were restrictions applied to some people individually for their "greed" or it's an universal rule ? No, thats not the case with hashpower. The more hashpower you generate, the more of the block share you take from my other valuable hobbyists in the pool. Look, Im not against big hash power, Im just against an unfair advantage due to scripting multiple instances of biblepay on one box to squeeze extra HPS per node. This coin was built to run One instance of biblepay and act as a full service node, not as a tool to exploit more hash power by running 10 hobbled down slow versions of the software to steal shares from the other miners in the pool. I understand we started to experiment with the datadir script- but what we did not do, is no one created a thread for it and said Oh my look at this Rob, look this is 400% to someones advantage, no they started silently using it secretly in the pool until I noticed the top 10 users on the leaderboard had an unfairly high allocation of shares. What Im saying is, this algorithm will continue to get tweaked until one processor with 25kh/s yields 25kh/s in the pool, and no one can run multiple degraded copies to squeeze more HPS out of the box at the expense of other miners. Anyway, the only restriction on the pool is you cant solve more than 200 shares per IP per 15 minute time frame- that should not be a big deal, if it is you can still solo mine if you have that kind of hash to throw around. I want to focus on adding value to this coin to end up with more Value for the orphans, not making it more mineable for profit. |
|
|
|
Do you guys think pool.biblepay.org is mining on a fork? It's finding an awful lot of block all of the sudden...
It looks OK, daemon blockhash is good. |
|
|
|
Thanks for sharing. A really mysterious coin. Rule change without any notice is really bad. Wait a minute here- the entire algorithm is public. There were NO rule changes. The only thing I did was restrict heavy pool users from sending in more than 200 solutions per IP per 10 minutes, which technically didnt change anything yet. That was on the pool side, to ensure the pool is not overrun by linux hackers. When I said I raised the Diff, I was referring to the minimum difficulty share the pool hands out, which is not a global rule change, its the pool owners business. This community has been transparent from the beginning. I hope everyone can see that. >>That was on the pool side, to ensure the pool is not overrun by linux hackers. sense really bad attitude here. Running multiple daemons is possible on Windows the same way as on Linux. it's a bad idea to treat people like this BP. how exactly BBP was hacked on Linux ? another question : did pool admin applied restrictions individually or to all Linux miners. I have Windows boxed where HPS2 and shares dropped dramatically too . why would someone care investing in BBP time and money if it can be manipulated that badly by the pool admins? They wouldnt. This coin is for the general public, not for greedy people like you, who are trying exploit widows and orphans. Im for the widows! The one against the pharisees! Im for the blue collar worker in the pool, not the rich spoiled brat that has a new toy to point at the pool. Im for the longsuffering, and the weak. If you were WITH ME, you would be helping to create a FAIR escosystem - Thats what I did with the pool. |
|
|
|
The script is from 2010. Maybe even earlier. It has good security, but it's not a script for multithreading. I'm working 10 years on multithreading windows and ubuntu. You destroy people who help BBP.
Not sure what you are referring to, but BiblePay was just started this year. Our algorithm is not a copy of any other algorithm. You know exactly what this script is based on. Let's make a team, let's do something positive. Too much anger, it is not needed. Inblue showed something. This script is old. On windows you can fix it x times. Your annoyance is bad. You can not do it yourself, because you do not have time. Everyone will go away with this attitude ... Listen, I said it earlier and I meant it: the algorithm is NEW, its multi-threaded, and when we launched with X11 originally, it did use all of the processor. It was not until it became a node based algorithm (f7000) when that changed. You said something about a script being from 2010. First of all, we have 3 platforms and 3 languages, so again, I dont even know what you are talking about when you say Script. Even bitcoins tx are a script. We have scripts in the command shell, we have scripts in the pool, we have c# scripts. So your ambiguous comment makes no sense here. Explain exactly what you mean before making a baseless negative comment. |
|
|
|
I think my pool is ready to go live, this might alleviate some of the arguing and complaints (or generate more if it doesn't work right!  ) The problem with having only 1 pool for a coin is that the pool owner becomes a lightning rod for problems. People automatically associate problems with pool with the coin, and vice versa. My pool is in beta so mine at your own risk, but there is no hashrate or share limit. Its running on AWS so I can adjust the resources as necessary but since I don't know what sort of load will be thrown on the server just keep in mind I might need to do some tweaking in the next day or so. I got the open source code from Bible_Pay and implemented it via his instructions so it looks pretty much the exact same as his pool. The only real difference is there is no letter writing to the orphans, so no fees associated with that, but there is a 2% mining fee to keep the lights on. It might be beneficial to somehow implement some of the letter writing on my pool in the future but I will talk to Bible_Pay about that. So without further ado, Jesus said “Come after me, and I will make you fishers of men." Nsummy says, I will make you miners of men! https://minersofmen.compoolport=80 pool=http://pool.minersofmen.com workerid=insertWorkerUsernameHere Great job! Thanks. |
|
|
|
Thanks for sharing. A really mysterious coin. Rule change without any notice is really bad. The only thing I did was restrict heavy pool users from sending in more than 200 solutions per IP per 10 minutes, which technically didnt change anything yet It changed a lot... multicore cpu are useless now again... you didnt see this? And if it didn't changed anything so why hps2 droped? P.S. can you explain to diffrent things you said about running multi-deamon? What changed that you change you mind? What part of biblepay have you contributed to that provides value Oliwer? |
|
|
|
The script is from 2010. Maybe even earlier. It has good security, but it's not a script for multithreading. I'm working 10 years on multithreading windows and ubuntu. You destroy people who help BBP.
Not sure what you are referring to, but BiblePay was just started this year. Our algorithm is not a copy of any other algorithm. |
|
|
|
Thanks for sharing. A really mysterious coin. Rule change without any notice is really bad. Wait a minute here- the entire algorithm is public. There were NO rule changes. The only thing I did was restrict heavy pool users from sending in more than 200 solutions per IP per 10 minutes, which technically didnt change anything yet. That was on the pool side, to ensure the pool is not overrun by linux hackers. When I said I raised the Diff, I was referring to the minimum difficulty share the pool hands out, which is not a global rule change, its the pool owners business. This community has been transparent from the beginning. I hope everyone can see that. |
|
|
|
Thanks for sharing. A really mysterious coin. Rule change without any notice is really bad. Welcome to BBP club, where 9 out of 10 times rules are changed without any notice, lol. I thought you were leaving? If you are going to continue to post trash here, Im going to have to recommend you to be banned. |
|
|
|
I don't get it, what did I say wrong? Or what am I doing wrong?
Um, I don't think you understand the concept of mining pools. My computers find blocks for which other pool miners get their share of the reward! And because of my computers, blocks are found more often by the pool! Having big miners can only benefit a pool!!!
But feel free to play an admin in a decentralized project, shut down my account if you want, I don't care. I think I have helped immensely in this project, but I am always getting bashed by you. I think it's time to say goodbye.
I'm sorry you feel that way, and don't want to see you go. I know you are very helpful to the other users, and want to see the project succeed. On my side of the fence, I have to create an algorithm that is solved fairly for the users and I can't have any gross advantages and we have to work together to remove them, otherwise we risk the integrity of this whole project. I view this discrepancy as one that is not to be exploited but to be patched with an emergency patch. I am hoping I have everyone on board to work with me toward the common goal not against it. We cant have a gross discrepancy in the pool for a select few who figure out how to exploit the algorithm by creating multiple running nodes per linux instance. In the end we fool ourselves, because those nodes are weaker than the full sanctuaries (where ultimately we want to measure proof-of-service) and have them be external nodes servicing 3000 external connections. So for now, I am going to limit shares solved by IP to 200 and lets work on a solution to this issue to make it fair for everyone to hash biblehashes. Make it fair for everyone? How is it not fair now? All the instructions for setting up multiple daemons could be found in this thread, I posted it clearly, as well as someone else who was setting it up later. The instructions are at at a public disposal and they could be posted now again if needed. They could also be made into a wiki page. It's not some hidden secret exploit; you first suggested us to try running multiple daemons on a machine and even helped with it. Actually this is the first time you refer to it as an exploit. Also the first time where you say you want to issue a patch for it. Earlier you were saying that it's fine and that it's how it's supposed to be, because it's better to have full nodes etc. Repeated many times. Exactly this was the reason I did it, because it was not going to change and that it was not an exploit, but a "feature", and also because it's simply easier to manage one bigger computer than 10 small ones, while giving notably better rewards. I would not intentionally do something bad to the coin or the pool, but I am being treated as a bad actor, accused of trying to "steal" others' money. Also, as oliwer said, other pool miners are doing the same, so even though it's not all of them, that seems fair enough, because others probably didn't care enough to read the forum or have the trouble of setting it up. If someone reads this now and wants to setup multiple daemons, I would gladly instruct them on how to do that. I am not hiding anything or doing something sneaky, immoral etc. And because everyone can run multiple daemons (or already does), a fact is that there is mathematically no disadvantage to anyone while my computers are running, because I increase the pool block find frequency, while in turn I get a % of the rewards. Smaller reward per block for everyone, but more blocks found, so it all irons out to the same rewards for everyone, whether I am mining or not. The only difference is that the pool finds more blocks and that the pool has a lower luck factor, which are both advantages. Not to mention that I am barely even in the top 10 miners on the pool. You can see for yourself in the block distribution history.That will force me to try solo mining.
Yeah, me too, I'm out. Btw, you will earn 6% more by solo mining.  Alright, thanks for sharing. I dont have the bandwidth to continue arguing with you. Id rather work on the positive aspects anyway. We will work the kinks out over the long term. |
|
|
|
I don't get it, what did I say wrong? Or what am I doing wrong?
Um, I don't think you understand the concept of mining pools. My computers find blocks for which other pool miners get their share of the reward! And because of my computers, blocks are found more often by the pool! Having big miners can only benefit a pool!!!
But feel free to play an admin in a decentralized project, shut down my account if you want, I don't care. I think I have helped immensely in this project, but I am always getting bashed by you. I think it's time to say goodbye.
I'm sorry you feel that way, and don't want to see you go. I know you are very helpful to the other users, and want to see the project succeed. On my side of the fence, I have to create an algorithm that is solved fairly for the users and I can't have any gross advantages and we have to work together to remove them, otherwise we risk the integrity of this whole project. I view this discrepancy as one that is not to be exploited but to be patched with an emergency patch. I am hoping I have everyone on board to work with me toward the common goal not against it. We cant have a gross discrepancy in the pool for a select few who figure out how to exploit the algorithm by creating multiple running nodes per linux instance. In the end we fool ourselves, because those nodes are weaker than the full sanctuaries (where ultimately we want to measure proof-of-service) and have them be external nodes servicing 3000 external connections. So for now, I am going to limit shares solved by IP to 200 and lets work on a solution to this issue to make it fair for everyone to hash biblehashes. |
|
|
|
is that normal? https://imgur.com/a/Ai648and can anyone tell me what is today with HPS2? Rising and going down for all users... Now it looks like multicore function on pool is disabled and few hours ago was on;) That looks normal to me. You can point multiple daemons at a user. HPS will only show up for the first daemon, and hps2 will reflect the total for all of the daemons. Yeah but is it normal that the shares number doesn't correspond to HPS2? Compare shares and HPS2 from the first two rows in that screenshot. I raised the diff on the pool for everyone about 30% because it was getting pounded with too many hits per second and that seemed to alleviate the trouble it was having keeping up with updating the solution lag per second. I believe the screen capture was taken while it was updating the leaderboard. Right now there are about 10 users (inblue included) where shares solved per IP per round are very high. I havent done anything about it yet as everything looks OK, but I just wanted to mention that if people dont bring other pools online, it could be suggested that maybe we add a rule to limit the number of shares solved per public IP. Why? Because the mining is for everyone. There really is nothing I can do if you want to rent a lot of hashpower over multiple IPs, but something doesnt feel quite right with all the solutions per second over concentrated IPs. Well it's because the results are better when multiple daemons/nodes are running on the same machine, rather than just one. It was you who suggested this possibility after all, and then we saw better results, so yeah. I would much rather like if I could run just one daemon and get the same results, it would be much easier for me. I'm not here to give you 1000% of other users money! It was me? Are you saying your script yields 10* the results vs a standalone miner? I'll go ahead and shut your accounts down until we figure this out then, is that cool? |
|
|
|
So I finally have my pool set up and am testing it. I have my linux vm mining to it (I think). The getmininginfo says true. The only issue is that my worker doesn't show up as mining on the website. Any idea what would cause that?
Sweet! Btw you will probably have to delete some of the records in Menu to make it a more accurate representation without orphans (you probably already read that). The first thing to do is see if any work records are being created by the miner. Do a select * from work in the SQL query analyzer? Anything there? Yep I read that! Tonight I am going to go through that and remove some of those links that won't be used and double check my security settings, then bring the pool live for everyone. It looks like I just needed to be patient, my worker finally showed up and is mining  By the way, is there supposed to be any functionality under the admin section or has that not been implemented yet? When I click on it I just get a message about old workers being paid out. On the admin button, I had written some miscellaneous utilities over time but none of them made it to the keep list. The only thing the admin button does right now is loop back over the last 24 hours and ensure every block paid into the pool was paid to users. With the budget and proposals coming up the pool is changing again so if anything needs to be added over the next 14 days that I can find Ill add it in but for now, thats really all that is required. The database maintenance is done outside of the pool - Ill give you the command asap. |
|
|
|
is that normal? https://imgur.com/a/Ai648and can anyone tell me what is today with HPS2? Rising and going down for all users... Now it looks like multicore function on pool is disabled and few hours ago was on;) That looks normal to me. You can point multiple daemons at a user. HPS will only show up for the first daemon, and hps2 will reflect the total for all of the daemons. Yeah but is it normal that the shares number doesn't correspond to HPS2? Compare shares and HPS2 from the first two rows in that screenshot. I raised the diff on the pool for everyone about 30% because it was getting pounded with too many hits per second and that seemed to alleviate the trouble it was having keeping up with updating the solution lag per second. I believe the screen capture was taken while it was updating the leaderboard. Right now there are about 10 users (inblue included) where shares solved per IP per round are very high. I havent done anything about it yet as everything looks OK, but I just wanted to mention that if people dont bring other pools online, it could be suggested that maybe we add a rule to limit the number of shares solved per public IP. Why? Because the mining is for everyone. There really is nothing I can do if you want to rent a lot of hashpower over multiple IPs, but something doesnt feel quite right with all the solutions per second over concentrated IPs. |
|
|
|
Hello, how is it connected with religion? There's already Satan coin, are you rivals or partners?
Used to be partners a long time ago. Then we cast out the creator of Satan Coin and now its only traded in hell  LOL
|
|
|
|
is this normally for pool?  Load: 156.25%bible_pay its overload for hw or? It could be a number of things really. I see its back under control. If it gets out of hand Ill start a 3rd pool to see if that helps. Looks like we already have a couple people very close to coming on line with a new pool however already. |
|
|
|
So I finally have my pool set up and am testing it. I have my linux vm mining to it (I think). The getmininginfo says true. The only issue is that my worker doesn't show up as mining on the website. Any idea what would cause that?
Sweet! Btw you will probably have to delete some of the records in Menu to make it a more accurate representation without orphans (you probably already read that). The first thing to do is see if any work records are being created by the miner. Do a select * from work in the SQL query analyzer? Anything there? |
|
|
|
Is there coming a faucet for biblepay?
Ill add one to the pool and give away 100 bbp per ip address. If anyone feels like running one that is already written, go for it also if you feel like it Faucet is live. EDIT: Ill up the payout later once I see this is safe. EDIT2: I made the faucet available from the outside world also (accountability.biblepay.org) so people can paste in PR blogs. |
|
|
|
Is there coming a faucet for biblepay?
Ill add one to the pool and give away 100 bbp per ip address. If anyone feels like running one that is already written, go for it also if you feel like it |
|
|
|
This transaction method also appears to be much more efficient than one with two sets of collateral, lag time, confirmations, and a market maker. Technically, it can be done with two participants only if we used the more advanced Contingent tx type.
You might want to look at 0x (ZRX) for ideas - they have implemented an API to allow decentralised exchanges in this manner. Thanks, well I took a look at ZRX, and it appears that they implemented decentralized trading in ethereum (although Im not sure if they delivered it, there was an article saying the ICO didnt include the trading engine), but anyway, its much easier, a level of magnitude easier to program trading in ethereum because they already have smart contracts running. I take for granted that Ethereum and Ripple do certain things for the blockchain, while bitcoin and other BerkeleyDb coins provide value in other ways. We are in the bitcoin camp, because we have a variation of bitcoin with masternodes running on a berkeleyDB database. So I was looking to enhance the base Bitcoin transaction in this case. Speaking on the earlier post however, it would not be outside of the realm of possibility to go further and ask our Sanctuaries to store signed crypto prices in the chain (IE each of them would pull prices once per hour, keep a database, and if they all agree on the price, vote on it and store it). That might allow us to implement smart contracts also in the future, which would be valuable if a node wants to buy or sell in a smart contract based on an outcome. I also could not find any leveldb coin that already has decentralized trading, or this transactiontype, so I maintain this would potentially still be a novel feature for bitcoin based coins. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
