Bitcoin Forum
June 03, 2024, 09:02:47 AM *
News: Latest Bitcoin Core release: 27.0 [Torrent]
 
  Home Help Search Login Register More  
  Show Posts
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 9 »
81  Bitcoin / Pools / Re: [8500 GH/s] Slush's Pool (mining.bitcoin.cz); TX FEES + UserDiff; ASIC tested on: May 31, 2013, 03:29:13 PM

What is that monster? 24 cores??? Are you runing this on server or is there another reason that you have that many.


lol -- this is my desktop -- dual Xeon 5680's on an EVGA SR-2 Classified mobo.  Got it to improve render times for Adobe CS apps.
82  Bitcoin / Pools / Re: [8500 GH/s] Slush's Pool (mining.bitcoin.cz); TX FEES + UserDiff; ASIC tested on: May 31, 2013, 03:11:04 PM
having issues connecting.  Tried the built in url on guiminer, and I also tried stratum2.bitcoin.cz:3333 and stratum3.bitcoin.cz:3333 to no avail. Connection is just not happening, something about IO errors

Here's what my guimer looks like:

83  Bitcoin / Pools / Re: [8500 GH/s] Slush's Pool (mining.bitcoin.cz); TX FEES + UserDiff; ASIC tested on: May 31, 2013, 02:54:47 PM

Score resets to zero top of every hour for everyone, but shares are not reset -- you don't lose anything.  Score has to reset because on long blocks, the number could get big enough to overflow the registers and peeps would start asking about why they were seeing negative scores Smiley

I know why are flip. But when resets then why can from this number calculating?
I mean, then on 59:59 is 400'000'000'000 total score, and then over 1:00:00 is 0 total score.
The slush method says:
reward = user score / total score * 50
Then every hour have more participations?Smiley
I have now 53413,5817 score from my workers.
Current total score is: 4031371780,6554
/*
Current round duration:   2:25:39
Current shares CDF:   86.79 %
Current Bitcoin block, difficulty:   238884, 12153411
*/
so my reward is now: 0,00066247402380 ?! (528 shares, total share is now 24596507)
And alfter a hour we see this method so:
my reward = 53413,5817 / 0 * 50 ?
I dont understand this, i think there is a math bug^^


No math bug -- your score is increasing at the same rate as before because your hash rate is the same.  The total pool score is increasing by the total pool hash rate (and that can change as miners come and go during the round).  Not sure if you've seen this, but the latest audit for Slush's pool has this about the scoring system: http://organofcorti.blogspot.com/2012/08/42-slushs-score-method-and-miner.html?q=slush%27s+pool
84  Bitcoin / Pools / Re: [8500 GH/s] Slush's Pool (mining.bitcoin.cz); TX FEES + UserDiff; ASIC tested on: May 31, 2013, 02:30:24 PM
That is completely understandable, but I think it's not balanced or well designed if 10 minutes downtime due to connection problem causes 50+% loss on the actual rewards.  :O


Yeah, it doesn't seem fair -- had more than a few of them myself -- but how can the server tell if you're having a connection problem or if you've hopped?  How long does it take for the average mining operation to notice and correct a dc, and how could you account for changes in the chain?  Taking your case as an example, ten minutes is the average block time, so most likely a new block would start before reconnection, maybe even a new round -- where would you want to apply the shares you've started generating again -- the previous round or the current round?
85  Bitcoin / Pools / Re: [8500 GH/s] Slush's Pool (mining.bitcoin.cz); TX FEES + UserDiff; ASIC tested on: May 31, 2013, 02:01:41 PM
On the http://mining.bitcoin.cz/stats/ Page
For the current block was the:
Total score of current round: 10645738685290.2051

and now alfter 5 min is 1726123.6787

The variable has flipped?

Score resets to zero top of every hour for everyone, but shares are not reset -- you don't lose anything.  Score has to reset because on long blocks, the number could get big enough to overflow the registers and peeps would start asking about why they were seeing negative scores Smiley
86  Bitcoin / Pools / Re: [8500 GH/s] Slush's Pool (mining.bitcoin.cz); TX FEES + UserDiff; ASIC tested on: May 30, 2013, 08:15:55 PM
And negative comments have there reasons... So you might start looking there also. Also some miners probably left since they were told to do so by other miners who didn't see or didn't wanna see a problem...

I wouldn't speculate as to why "some miners probably left" and chalk it up to DIVERSITY and thank whatever powers be higher than me for it.  The world would be a very boring place if everyone did everything just to suit me -- I'm sure you would all agree.

I've looked at several pools now, including solo mining -- each has its own mix of API, scoring/reward system, and followers -- and I do my mining where I feel I fit in.  I suggest each of you to do the same.  Check 'em all out, pick one or two (or three or four as you wish) and get into it -- support the mining, the media, and the community wherever you fit in.  And if things change -- if your ideals and your chosen pool's activities don't seem to match anymore, then reevaluate all the pools and move on if you find something that fits you better elsewhere.  Change is another thing to be thankful for.

The algorithm:  make your own evaluations, seek advice when you need it, give advice when you're asked to, make your own decisions, stand by them until things change, repeat.
87  Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / Re: Bitcoin 0.8.2 BETA on: May 30, 2013, 02:12:43 PM
Likewise, another issue with Norton. When I had it, I was never able to send in detection reports. I tried searching for fixes and solutions but never found one. It is a common error. I think it's time to switch buddy.

Yeah, I think you're right.
88  Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / Re: Bitcoin 0.8.2 BETA on: May 30, 2013, 01:09:47 AM
Well, that sucks.  Went through 5 minutes of filling out an erroneous detection report at Symantec, waited another five minutes while the stuff uploaded, and then got this:

Server Error
This server has encountered an internal error which prevents it from fulfilling your request. The most likely cause is a misconfiguration. Please ask the administrator to look for messages in the server's error log.
89  Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / Re: Bitcoin 0.8.2 BETA on: May 30, 2013, 12:48:43 AM
Received an email alert from Sourceforge that a 0.8.2 update to Bitcoin client was available -- downloaded and installed, then restarted the app from the installer finish button.  Welcome screen showed Bitcoin 0.8.2 BETA, then my AV kicked in saying it had blocked 2 malicious intrusion attempts from checkip.dyndns.org (216.146.39.70) on port 80.  It appears the attack was asking for routing data all the way in to the internal network IP of my PC.  Not good.

What AV do you use? I installed it and see no issues or flags. Probably a false positive.

Using Norton 360.  Same thing happens when I restart the Litecoin client -- so perhaps a false positive.  I'll report it to Symantec and see if they flagged checkip.dyndns.org for something other than routine heuristics.
90  Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / Bitcoin 0.8.2 BETA on: May 30, 2013, 12:23:18 AM
Received an email alert from Sourceforge that a 0.8.2 update to Bitcoin client was available -- downloaded and installed, then restarted the app from the installer finish button.  Welcome screen showed Bitcoin 0.8.2 BETA, then my AV kicked in saying it had blocked 2 malicious intrusion attempts from checkip.dyndns.org (216.146.39.70) on port 80.  It appears the attack was asking for routing data all the way in to the internal network IP of my PC.  Not good.
91  Bitcoin / Pools / Re: [12 TH/s] BitMinter.com [ASIC support: var diff, Stratum, GBT, rollntime] on: May 28, 2013, 10:15:44 PM
Compare the most recent BTC blocks found to your shifts worked. It is possible you started during an unlucky period and no BTC blocks have been found in the shifts you have worked.

Ah, thanks -- looks like Bitminter is becalmed Smiley
92  Bitcoin / Pools / Re: [12 TH/s] BitMinter.com [ASIC support: var diff, Stratum, GBT, rollntime] on: May 28, 2013, 09:59:45 PM
Just getting started with Bitminter -- running in my 8th shift (7 shifts completed) and see NMC rewards for last 11 blocks found by Bitminter, but no rewards for BTC.  Do I have to run 10+ consecutive shifts in order to start getting BTC rewards?
93  Bitcoin / Pools / Re: [8500 GH/s] Slush's Pool (mining.bitcoin.cz); TX FEES + UserDiff; ASIC tested on: May 28, 2013, 06:36:12 PM
Don't blame block 18264 rewards. The block is invalid anyway.
There were issues with "resetting" only some of the scores, but it's no longer important.

Ok, understand 18264 scoring -- but still have the payout question on 18263.
94  Bitcoin / Pools / Re: [8500 GH/s] Slush's Pool (mining.bitcoin.cz); TX FEES + UserDiff; ASIC tested on: May 28, 2013, 05:24:43 PM
More scoring/reward weirdness:

Current round shares submitted 4797 over past 1 hour 19 minutes, but estimated reward only 0.00000127 BTC

and 18263 showing 25% of normal payout

18263 -- 2013-05-28 16:02:36 -- 2:15:30 -- 21570361 -- 8816 -- 0.00296759 -- 238376 -- 25.11542000 -- 93 confirmations left
...
18259 -- 2013-05-28 11:17:00 -- 2:18:20 -- 21656874 -- 10248 -- 0.01178656 -- 238334 -- 25.41659740 -- 51 confirmations left
95  Bitcoin / Mining software (miners) / Re: BFGMiner 3.0.2: modular ASIC/FPGA, GBT, Strtm, RPC, Lnx/OpnWrt/PPA/W64, BFLSC on: May 28, 2013, 05:14:31 PM
Having a problem using bfgminer-3.0.0-win64 with usb hubs.
...
decided to free up the USB ports on my PC so moved the FPGAs to the 4-port hub and saw the errors when I restarted bfgminer.  Tried moving the hub input to different ports on the PC, same result.  Tried switching the FPGAs around on the 4-port and it was always the first detected that ran ok with other three miners throwing the error.  Thought maybe the hub was bad, so tried the 12-port 2.0 hub (it has 2 independently switched banks of 6 powered ports each) -- same result irrespective of ports connected on the hub or the PC.  Next, tried the 10-port 3.0 hub (3 independently switched banks of 3 ports each plus one iphone/ipad charger port) -- same result.  Moved the miners back to ports on the PC, no errors.

For now I have a workaround so I'm not particularly concerned. I'm more concerned about the general instability of bfgminer versions higher than 2.9.9 on my systems. I may as well ask: Does anyone else have a 15+ cluster of Singles running on a single instance of bfgminer? If so, what version are you running and what are your experiences?

Like you, for the time being I have a workaround, but will be looking for an alternative ahead of my long-awaited Bitminers.  Don't want to buy another PC just to get 4 more built-in USB ports.
96  Bitcoin / Pools / Re: [8500 GH/s] Slush's Pool (mining.bitcoin.cz); TX FEES + UserDiff; ASIC tested on: May 27, 2013, 09:22:40 PM
I know this topic has been discussed before, but I would like some further clarification in discussion. I recently upgraded my hashing power from 160Mhash/s to 1.3Ghash/s. I found my network traffic was about 10Mb/h before, and since I will be hashing much faster now and I don't want to be consuming almost 10 times the bandwidth. Is it usefull to turn up my difficulty? Should I expect loss from turning my difficulty to something like 5? Is it right to assume that the result will then be that I submit shares 1/5 as fast but they are worth 5x as much while the work submitted still occupies the same number of bits as diff 1? I have tried running this difficulty for a few days now and noticed I still catch the >1 minute blocks. Haven't been carefully analyzing the bandwidth though.

Difficulty should be set to 1 for workers hashing less than 2GH/s.  You'll still get work assigned (aka jobs) with difficulties greater than 1, but that's ok -- awarded shares = difficulty assigned for the completed job (aka accepted share).
97  Bitcoin / Pools / Re: [8500 GH/s] Slush's Pool (mining.bitcoin.cz); TX FEES + UserDiff; ASIC tested on: May 27, 2013, 05:26:43 PM

This bitcoin is a risk, risk will pay you money or make you lose money, but it is a risk.  Not a job, a job will pay you for x amount of work.  In a way you can expect to get paid for x amount of work in a pool, but you still are taking a risk.  Sorry if you can't see it that way.  But that is what it is.  If you have invested large sums of money to mine bitcoin, there is no guarantee you will receive what reward you expect, there is no guarantee here.  I don't care, or rather it don't care how much math you throw at it.


If I take risk to mean the possibility of things happening that are outside of one's control, everything involves risk (e.g., my boss may default on a loan to the business and I'll find the doors locked and the pay I've earned gone when I show up in the morning).

Gain (or loss) on some risk-taking endeavor is always affected by those who make better (or worse) guesses than I, have better (or worse) timing than I, or do a better (or worse) job of scamming.  Still, I go to work in the mornings, I invest in the stock markets, I mine bitcoins, and I hope for more than enough profit in the long run to offset my losses.
98  Alternate cryptocurrencies / Pools (Altcoins) / Re: [ANN][LTC][Pool][PPLNS] WeMineLTC.com | 0% FEES! | Stratum | DDoS Protection |!! on: May 27, 2013, 04:44:46 PM
Paid shares: 386
Account Balance: 0 LTC
Confirmed Transactions: nothing

What's up? Huh

Sometimes have to wait a couple of minutes for stats to sync up with whatever just happened.

Actually I wait couple of hours before I post here...

Copy and paste your Dashboard -- mebbe forum members can see something wrong.  Mine looks ok (see below).


Dashboard

Your Current Hashrate
543 KH/s [It takes 20 minutes for your hashrate to be calculated up to full speed and is only approximate, go by your work utility in cgminer.]

Paid Shares [All submitted shares from previous rounds which are already accounted and paid for.]
Your Valid: 49640
Invalid: 578

Unpaid Shares [Submitted shares between the last 20 confirms block until now.]
Your Valid: 361
Pool Valid: 1037024

Round Shares [Submitted shares since last found block (ie. round shares)]
Pool Valid: 281205

Round Estimate
0.0100976 LTC

Account Balance
4.914196959999994 LTC

Stats last updated:
16:42:01 GMT
(updated every 120 secs)
99  Alternate cryptocurrencies / Pools (Altcoins) / Re: [ANN][LTC][Pool][PPLNS] WeMineLTC.com | 0% FEES! | Stratum | DDoS Protection |!! on: May 27, 2013, 04:02:49 PM
Paid shares: 386
Account Balance: 0 LTC
Confirmed Transactions: nothing

What's up? Huh

Sometimes have to wait a couple of minutes for stats to sync up with whatever just happened.
100  Alternate cryptocurrencies / Pools (Altcoins) / Re: [ANN][LTC][Pool][PPLNS] WeMineLTC.com | 0% FEES! | Stratum | DDoS Protection |!! on: May 27, 2013, 03:01:57 PM
the btc world isn't too much better. btcguild is down and slush's is having veryy bad pool luck.

I don't follow BTCGuild, but for many pools, like Slush's, mining is a back-end operation and continues even tho the Web site might be down.

Re Slush's luck, I can't complain.
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 9 »
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!