When I compile bfgminer on ubuntu and run configure the getwork proxy shows disabled. All the dependencies are installed. Any idea why its not working.
You probably just need to install libmicrohttpd-dev. If it's installed, the support should be enabled by default. EDIT: If you DO have it installed, you should look through the configure log and see why it's failing to enable it. It shows enabled. Now when I go to start bfgminer I get error ./bfgminer: error while loading shared libraries: libmicrohttpd.so.10: cannot open shared object file: No such file or directory It appears that it is installed in a place where the linker can't find it, if it is indeed installed anywhere. It's not clear to me how it could be found by the build, but not found at run-time. On my system, it is installed as /usr/lib/i386-linux-gnu/libmicrohttpd.so.10. |
|
|
|
When I compile bfgminer on ubuntu and run configure the getwork proxy shows disabled. All the dependencies are installed. Any idea why its not working.
compiled it and libmicrohttpd-dev is newest version, but how can I see if getwork proxy is active? TIA Start BFGMiner with --http-proxy 8330 (or whatever port you want), then point your blades at the IP of the machine running BFGM, using the port you specified on the command line. |
|
|
|
When I compile bfgminer on ubuntu and run configure the getwork proxy shows disabled. All the dependencies are installed. Any idea why its not working.
You probably just need to install libmicrohttpd-dev. If it's installed, the support should be enabled by default. EDIT: If you DO have it installed, you should look through the configure log and see why it's failing to enable it. |
|
|
|
I've given it a crack, it works. One thing I've noticed is that the userid given in the blade configuration is used to distinguish between the blades, not the blade IP address. Oh, and something I threw together to help watch the blades side-by-side: <HTML>
<HEAD>
</HEAD>
<BODY>
<TABLE>
<TR>
<TD><iframe id=150 height=430 width=350 src="http://192.168.0.150:8000/"></iframe></TD>
<TD><iframe id=151 height=430 width=350 src="http://192.168.0.151:8000/"></iframe></TD>
<TD><iframe id=152 height=430 width=380 src="http://192.168.0.152:8000/"></iframe></TD>
</TR>
<TR>
<TD style="text-align:center;"><button onclick="document.getElementById('150').src='http://192.168.0.150:8000/';">Reload</button></TD>
<TD style="text-align:center;"><button onclick="document.getElementById('151').src='http://192.168.0.151:8000/';">Reload</button></TD>
<TD style="text-align:center;"><button onclick="document.getElementById('152').src='http://192.168.0.152:8000/';">Reload</button></TD>
</TR>
</TABLE>
</BODY>
</HTML>
The layout can cope with 4, maybe 5 wide on an HD monitor. Add another row for 8 or 10 Replace the IP addresses with your IP addresses, the iframe IDs need to be unique and are ised to link the reload button to the correct iframe If you click on the update/restart button in a config page, click on the reload button underneath to go back to the config page Adding a reload time for each should be straightforward Nice, that is handy. Thanks!  |
|
|
|
The windows support was added in the newest release - 3.2.1. You need to update. I have not tried it on Windows, so I can't personally vouch for how well it works there. On Linux, my blades hash at a very consistent 10.7 GH/s each on Eligius via BFGMiner.
What build of linux do you use it on? I couldn't get the dependancy installed on ubuntu 12.04, the latest build they had was 0.9.27 but BFG required 0.9.5x I'm using Ubuntu 13.04. |
|
|
|
Can I just say, that the latest bfgminer (released today) has native support for blades so a proxy may not be needed. I've yet to try it myself, but it sounds promising.
The Windows binaries don't provide the http-port option, so I went to the trouble of building an Ubuntu workstation and building bfgminer 3.2 - and that didn't make a difference. Or maybe I was to impatient with it? The latest Win32 release of BFGMiner DOES support the http-port option. Read the release notes. The Windows binaries don't provide the http-port option,
Wrong. Have either of you tried it? I've downloaded version 3.2.0, both x86 and AMD64 builds. C:\Program Files (x86)\BitCoin miner\bfgminer-3.2.0-win32>bfgminer -V
bfgminer 3.2.0
C:\Program Files (x86)\BitCoin miner\bfgminer-3.2.0-win32>bfgminer -o stratum.btcguild.com:3333 -O pjnield_5:1234 --http-port 8533
[2013-09-20 23:13:18] bfgminer: --http-port: unrecognized option
the --http-port option is not listed in the help reported by bgfminer.exe, nor in the linux build, although the feature is s listed in the release notes, and instructions in README.ASIC.txt. But it's accepted on the linux build I did, and runs quite happily, though the speed reported in Blade config page never seems to reach >10GH like it does with mining_proxy. I'm confused!  The windows support was added in the newest release - 3.2.1. You need to update. I have not tried it on Windows, so I can't personally vouch for how well it works there. On Linux, my blades hash at a very consistent 10.7 GH/s each on Eligius via BFGMiner. |
|
|
|
Actually, I make a great deal more mining on Slush than I do on BTC guild with my 83 Gh/s ....
I'm sure of it, its PPS... The only problem with it, is like I said, you get paid even if no blocks are found. Risk for reward A) Slush is NOT PPS B) You do NOT get paid more on a PPS pool. You just get less variance. The miner is assuming NO extra risk on a PPS pool, so why would he make more? It's the pool operator that is taking a risk. |
|
|
|
Here's the thing. the percentage rate is NOT the only thing you want to look at here.. There are plenty of reputable smaller pools, some which charge as low as 1/2% to mine with them. These sound great at face value but the fact is, they simply do not find as many blocks as say btcguild. If you don't find block, then you don't get BTC, and you therefore water down the value of each hash you put into the pool. Now, if you are using a pool which uses PPLNS, this is a problem, since the pool will only pay you based off of blocks found. so no blocks found = no money, or in the case of smaller pools less blocks found = less money. If the pool is using PPS, this is MUCH for the pool, and possible yourself as well depending on how much reserves the pool has, what percentage rate they take from found blocks, and their luck. This is because in a PPS pool, if you mine X amount of shares, you get paid for X amount of shares regardless of whether or not a block is found or not. This is very dangerous IMO because you are trusting that the pool doesn't go bankrupt based off of the following : Pool has a sufficient reserve of BTC to weather the block where they do not mine coin. Pool has a high enough percentage rake from the found blocks to sustain the reserve. and Pool doesn't have absolutely terrible luck... It is for these reasons why you do not see many pools still doing PPS, because it is just too risky, and there are too many players in the game now to assume a optimistic result. If you are considering PPS, you might want to read up on what happened to bitclockers.com Case in point, https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=144073.0Now with that said, BCTGuild, admittedly does own a large share of the network, but that is for a good reason. They have had the best luck at finding blocks and they are using PPLNS for calculating payments, so the pool should never go bankrupt. and this equates simply to a much higher / stable return for on each hash you contribute to the pool. As for solo mining, if you do intend to keep your Jupiter after the difficulty goes to ridiculous and it is no longer very profitable to run them, then this may be the way to go if you don't mind burning the electricity. But at-least for now while we are in the thick of the gold rush, you are better off sticking with the pool model, and choose one that fits your level of risk. You DO NOT make more money in the long run by mining on a pool that gets more blocks. You get paid PROPORTIONALLY to your hashrate vs. the rest of the pool's hashrate. In a big pool like BTCGuild, you will get smaller payouts more often. In a smaller pool, like Eligius or Bitminter, your will get less payouts, but they will be bigger. The only advantage to mining in a big pool is less variance in the short term. You are assuming all pools have the same reliability, which is not true. In my experience, I have found BtcGuild to be very reliable and some of the smaller pools to be less reliable. That is a valid point. FWIW, P2Pool, being distributed, is highly unlikely to ever 'go down'. I have never seen the pool go down at Eligius (where I am mining now), but I have only been using it for a couple of weeks. I am definitely making more BTC/day (with more variance) than I was on BTCGuild. |
|
|
|
Here's the thing. the percentage rate is NOT the only thing you want to look at here.. There are plenty of reputable smaller pools, some which charge as low as 1/2% to mine with them. These sound great at face value but the fact is, they simply do not find as many blocks as say btcguild. If you don't find block, then you don't get BTC, and you therefore water down the value of each hash you put into the pool. Now, if you are using a pool which uses PPLNS, this is a problem, since the pool will only pay you based off of blocks found. so no blocks found = no money, or in the case of smaller pools less blocks found = less money. If the pool is using PPS, this is MUCH for the pool, and possible yourself as well depending on how much reserves the pool has, what percentage rate they take from found blocks, and their luck. This is because in a PPS pool, if you mine X amount of shares, you get paid for X amount of shares regardless of whether or not a block is found or not. This is very dangerous IMO because you are trusting that the pool doesn't go bankrupt based off of the following : Pool has a sufficient reserve of BTC to weather the block where they do not mine coin. Pool has a high enough percentage rake from the found blocks to sustain the reserve. and Pool doesn't have absolutely terrible luck... It is for these reasons why you do not see many pools still doing PPS, because it is just too risky, and there are too many players in the game now to assume a optimistic result. If you are considering PPS, you might want to read up on what happened to bitclockers.com Case in point, https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=144073.0Now with that said, BCTGuild, admittedly does own a large share of the network, but that is for a good reason. They have had the best luck at finding blocks and they are using PPLNS for calculating payments, so the pool should never go bankrupt. and this equates simply to a much higher / stable return for on each hash you contribute to the pool. As for solo mining, if you do intend to keep your Jupiter after the difficulty goes to ridiculous and it is no longer very profitable to run them, then this may be the way to go if you don't mind burning the electricity. But at-least for now while we are in the thick of the gold rush, you are better off sticking with the pool model, and choose one that fits your level of risk. You DO NOT make more money in the long run by mining on a pool that gets more blocks. You get paid PROPORTIONALLY to your hashrate vs. the rest of the pool's hashrate. In a big pool like BTCGuild, you will get smaller payouts more often. In a smaller pool, like Eligius or Bitminter, your will get less payouts, but they will be bigger. The only advantage to mining in a big pool is less variance in the short term. |
|
|
|
Yes, I can do meetups at a 3rd party location within my city.
I don't know what the total electric pulling power is. I would assume 360W * 15 = 5400 W just from what others have reported as the power draw for a single unit.
I should say that it is doubtful that all 15 are going to be available. I have 3 on hold already pending people getting their payment to me, and I have enough PMs to cover interest in the rest (although no commitments).
Where are you located? |
|
|
|
Alright, well that's a relief knowing that the blade is functioning. I disconnected my AP just in case it was on 192.168.1.254, still no response from the web configuration. I noticed the 3-pin reset header says "1-2 Normal 2-3 Factory reset" Does this require a jumper on 1-2 to run?
I'm not at home atm, so I can't look, but I am pretty sure my blades don't have any jumpers on those headers. If you are on linux, or Windows with Cygwin installed, you can use 'arp -a' to see if anything else is on 192.168.1.254. |
|
|
|
No merged-mining, no transaction payouts.
Eligius does merge-mine NMC. It does not pay transactions currently, I think. Personally, I would like to see P2Pool take over the world. A distributed pool like that could eliminate the possibility of a monopolistic pool if it could get enough hash power. Right now, the variance is a killer for low hash-rate miners though. |
|
|
|
My network is 192.168.1.x, and I have been trying to connect to 192.168.1.254. Actually, I think one of my APs is sitting on 192.168.1.254. Is it normal operation to flash the green light, then stop?
Yes. |
|
|
|
|
Our play continues...
ACT I
In which the people are filled with mirth, anticipating much ROI and RESALE VALUE
ACT II
In which the people wait
ACT III
In which the Evil Yifu destroys the people's hopes and dreams!
Act IV
In which Terrahash absconds, and the people turn on one another
Act V
? ? ?
|
|
|
|
I intend on switching back to my old little pool once 80% ROI is realized. However, this was an investment, and it just makes fiscal sense at the moment to go with the pool mining the most coin. You won't make more by mining on a pool that mines the most coin, because you get paid proportional to your hash power vs. the rest of the pool. At best, you may see less variance, but in the long run you won't make more money. And paying a 3% pool fee means you will be actually earning less than you would on some other pools. |
|
|
|
I just received my Rev. 2 Block Erupter Blade, and I've wired everything up and connected to my network. When I power the board, a green led behind the ethernet port flashes for about 5s, then shuts off. I can't access the network config page.
Make sure you are connecting to 192.168.1.254. Make sure your PC/router has an IP on the 192.168.1.x net. 192.168.0.x won't work. A lot of people seem to miss that. |
|
|
|
+1 Why pay those guys 3% when you can mine on Eligius, P2Pool, and others for free? You can keep more of the BTC you mine, AND help keep the network secure by spreading the hashing power around. |
|
|
|
Can I just say, that the latest bfgminer (released today) has native support for blades so a proxy may not be needed. I've yet to try it myself, but it sounds promising.
The Windows binaries don't provide the http-port option, so I went to the trouble of building an Ubuntu workstation and building bfgminer 3.2 - and that didn't make a difference. Or maybe I was to impatient with it? The latest Win32 release of BFGMiner DOES support the http-port option. Read the release notes. |
|
|
|
not enough subnet mask to go from 192.168.x.x to 10.x.x.x Do you have a separate switch? You can manually change your PC's IP address to be 192.168.1.x just so you can connect to blade and change it's config Yes, thx and just got pc to show 192.168.0.1 as gateway, however, I never got docs with new blade and do not know the blade IP plus if it is 192.168.1.x I am still off some with 192.168.0.x. Also, good idea to change the blade and then can go back to 10.0.0.1 if needs be. thx ip should be 192.168.1.254 as long as your router gives that range. 1-254 I am trying to connect a blade to my office network and I think I have a similar issue to above. The Default Gateway is 192.168.0.1. The router goes to 254. But I can't access the config page using 192.168.1.254:8000 or 192.168.0.254:8000. Tried from both a wireless and direct connection on a networked PC. The blade is plugged right into the router and it's flashing green. Any suggestions? You need to be on a network with 192.168.1.x. Can you temporarily change your router's IP address to 192.168.1.1 instead of 192.168.0.1? You will be able to connect if you do that. EDIT: You will need to change your PC's IP address to 192.168.1.(whatever) also. If you want to stay on the 192.168.0.x net, you can change the blade to 192.168.0.x, and then set your other IPs back to normal. |
|
|
|
“Currently we’re looking at 450 Th/sec that we expect to enter the network between September and the end of October,” Cole predicts. That will mean substantially increased difficulty as more miners come onstream. Sam Cole KnC http://www.coindesk.com/a-look-inside-kncminer/That was back when they thought their products were 400GH. So now that they might be 500GH? Make it closer to 600TH I think? If they had sold 450 TH/s of 400GH/s miners that then turn out to be 600GH/s miners, that make the total ~675TH/s - a long way from 2PH/s still. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
