|
The betting window is now closed and the odds stand at about 8:1! I was very surprised to find someone had placed 20 BTC on the "won't reach 20 USD" side of the bet at the last minute.
Good luck to all and best luck to me.
|
|
|
|
I'm running 2 Cards, on Windows 7 Ultimate 64bit and have a Silverstone Strider 1500w PSU
Do you use stock coolers? In auto mode or on 100% rpm? I can't get, how do you keep temp at 68C. My cards are separated with pci-e risers and heat up to 75-80C. What software do you use for OC, MSI AfteBurner? My 5850s are the sapphire xtreme ones, stock coolers running at 65-70% fan depending on the days temp, running at 100% will kill its life time I'm using sapphire trixx for the OC, not sure why you are getting such high temps, maybe your OC software is automatically bumping the voltage. I found that my 5850 Xtremes with stock coolers and stock voltage would run at around 72*C and 78*C even with the fans at 100% (not recommended). At the time the ambient temperature was about 20*C. Ventilation wasn't the best but it was ok. I'd imagine a single card would be at around 70*C but haven't verified this. Perhaps noogai93 has good ventilation, low ambient temperatures, or is using case fans or something to blow cool air between the cards. If you're struggling to obtain low enough temperatures then I'd consider undervolting the cards. |
|
|
|
|
I've just confirmed that the ads are visible when I visit the site but not once I log in. I didn't notice earlier because I use adblock at home.
|
|
|
|
Wow! This block is confirming fast! But, you know what that means...10 blocks/hr==Diff increase!  Total network hashrate is at 17Th/s! It was nice while it lasted! Man, where'd all that hashing power come from? Let's hope some of these new miners like PPLNS and that our excellent luck holds. Speaking of luck, have you guys seen the state mineco.in is in? They've had only two blocks in the last 10 days at a consistent 85 Gh/s. |
|
|
|
|
Congrats on reaching 10`000`000 shares guys, that's really impressive.
|
|
|
|
Block #12  Well done thientibc! Isn't it Block #11 (or Block #10 if you count from 0)? This seems to be quite a lucky pool. mineco.in (which also uses PPLNS) has been working away at a consistent 90 Gh/s and hasn't found a block in 4.5 days. Yes! Since SC kept track of blocks! There was one before all the upgrades/revisions!  I stand corrected. Who found the first block? |
|
|
|
Block #12 Well done thientibc! Isn't it Block #11 (or Block #10 if you count from 0)? This seems to be quite a lucky pool. mineco.in (which also uses PPLNS) has been working away at a consistent 90 Gh/s and hasn't found a block in 4.5 days. |
|
|
|
You guys are just stupid. If your had just shut up or at least kept your bragging of how profitable it is and your silly attempts at justifying pool jumping to this thread you could have gotten away with it for a while longer. Now you're even doing it in the pool's threads. That has of course pissed off the miners who wasn't aware of what is going on, putting even more pressure on the pool owners to protect the more loyal users.
I think you want the "Is pool hopping ethical" thread. |
|
|
|
|
More points about the reported stats:
I visited the stats page today to find that my reported Mh/s was at only 146 Mh/s where it is normally around 750 Mh/s. Indeed, everyone on the top 30 list seemed to have taken a 3-4 fold hit in reported Mh/s. The top 5 were:
Rank - User Name - MH/s - BTC/Day
1 - hmblm1245 - 1,208 - 0.673
2 - mike - 874 - 0.487
3 - loderunner - 662 - 0.369
4 - RyNinDaCleM - 626 - 0.349
5 - DooKey - 553 - 0.308
Secondly, the pool efficiency seems to be rising suspiciously steadily. I'd guess that the reported efficiency is an average taken over a fairly long history. Is this so and, if so, how much past data does this average take into account?
|
|
|
|
how exactly does this mooncoin thing work when far far more people bet on one side than the other?
do they wait til the end and just pay out the first bets..refunding the money of everyone else who didnt get a matching bet on the other side?
or does everyone on the winning side split up the winnings based on how much they bet?
I figure the later.. but would like to make sure
Yes, the latter. Check out the FAQ. At the moment the bets are at a won't:will ratio of about 5:1. - If you put a bitcoin on "won't reach 20 USD" you'll get about 1.2 BTC back in September if you are right.
- If you put a bitcoin on "will reach 20 USD" you'll get back about 6 BTC if it touches 20 USD at any point.
There's a total of over 60 BTC in the pot right now! Exciting stuff. |
|
|
|
Automated payout is back online. Payouts should have already sent!
Confirmed. Thanks. |
|
|
|
It was not intentional, I was at lunch when my email alerts went off. I am investigating now.
As for cgminer, it does handle failover pools. I'm not sure about the syntax though.
UPDATE: It was an unscheduled server restart. Not sure of the cause, the servers are in an excellent facility so it's not like someone tripped over a wire.
Strange. Do you suppose the restart was caused by software? In any case I'll keep my ear to the ground. |
|
|
|
Server outage. The website is reporting: Lost connection to MySQL server at 'reading initial communication packet', system error: 110
and my two miners (using phoenix 1.6.2) say: [20/08/2011 20:27:35] Warning: work queue empty, miner is idle
[0 Khash/sec] [634 Accepted] [2 Rejected] [RPC (+LP)]
On restarting the miners manually I got: bitcoinminer@bitcoinMiner2:~/jedi95-Phoenix-Miner-2b57b96$ python phoenix.py -u http://user:pass@pool.simplecoin.us:8337/ -b http://user:pass@mineco.in:3000/ -a 1 -k phatk2 VECTORS BFI_INT FASTLOOP=false AGGRESSION=12 WORKSIZE=256 DEVICE=2
[20/08/2011 20:38:29] Phoenix v1.6.2 starting...
[20/08/2011 20:38:59] Failed to connect, retrying...
[20/08/2011 20:39:44] Failed to connect, retrying...
[20/08/2011 20:40:29] Failed to connect, retrying...
[20/08/2011 20:40:29] Primary server failed too many times,
[20/08/2011 20:40:29] attempting to connect to backup server.
[20/08/2011 20:40:29] Connected to server
[20/08/2011 20:40:37] Result: 46d9603d accepted
[20/08/2011 20:40:48] Result: d6273b00 accepted
[20/08/2011 20:41:10] Result: 9398d91d accepted
If this is an intentional MySQL update/restart then any idea how I can get my miners to automatically fallback to another pool? Is this something which is handled better in cgminer do you know? |
|
|
|
|
I have no idea whether or not it makes a difference but you could try forwarding the appropriate port in your router.
|
|
|
|
I've decided to end the experiment early (for reasons which should be apparent from the results). pool.simplecoin.uspython phoenix.py -u http://user:pass@pool.simplecoin.us:8337/ -b http://user:pass@mineco.in:3000/ -k phatk2 VECTORS BFI_INT FASTLOOP=false AGGRESSION=8 WORKSIZE=256 DEVICE=1
[338.58 Mhash/sec] [1510 Accepted] [1 Rejected] [RPC (+LP)]
python phoenix.py -u http://user:pass@mineco.in:3000/ -b http://user:pass@pool.simplecoin.us:8337/ -k phatk2 VECTORS BFI_INT FASTLOOP=false AGGRESSION=8 WORKSIZE=256 DEVICE=2
[338.99 Mhash/sec] [1535 Accepted] [14 Rejected] [RPC (+LP)]
Make of this what you will. I'm now back at SimpleCoin in full force (732 Mh/s). |
|
|
|
Any pool system besides PPS requires trust in the pool operator, regardless of the payment system used. A pool admin could withhold a winning block payment, or be contributing fake shares into the system so they get paid for work they didn't do. There doesn't seem to be a good way to hold a pool op accountable if you can't know from the outside when a pool has solved a block or verify that all contributed shares are from real miners.
With PPS there are typically high fees, since the pool operator is paying for mining in advance of block solves, takes a risk that there may be a long period of bad luck where he still has to pay miners, and also a PPS pool can be attacked by withholding - bad miners not submitting a winning share if found.
Thanks for the informative post. There are few users here who are as clear or as eloquent. |
|
|
|
Is there a plan to include a way to donate a percentage of my gains to the pool automatically?
I like that there is no option on the site shaming users into donating a fixed percentage. The donations address from the pool's web site is 1D3ro6Xb9XDvPFCytiNLdSLDHpWXZoA2kn if you want to send something. BTW, this is the highest earnings pool around - a fair unhoppable payment system, no fees, and pays miners the transaction fees earned per block solve in addition to the 50BTC. BTW, is Wuked on a legendary European vacation? He hasn't signed on to the forum since July 31 (although his sig shows he is still mining away...) I understand. Some pools have acted rather shamefully regarding their donation percentages. Personally, I feel that a donation percentage box set to 0 by default accompanied by a polite sentence making the views of the pool owner on the subject clear would be ideal but if Wuked prefers it this way I'll try to calculate an appropriate donation and do so manually. I noticed the included transaction fees and this is very much appreciated. The PPLNS is a big winner for me too. One thing that is bothering me about PPLNS is trust in the pool operator. What is to stop a PPLNS pool operator from cashing in a winning block silently once in a while and keeping the reward for themselves. I don't mean to cast doubt on the trustworthyness of Wuked at all; I'm sure no such scam is taking place. Is there some kind of mechanism in place which makes it impossible for the pool operator to keep the odd block for themselves and if so how does it work? |
|
|
|
Do you think it would be difficult to add simplecoin.us? It's not a pool which is trying to hide information and the site is being actively developed but I don't know the API situation. It's been at 50 Gh/s recently so is big enough to be worth considering. I offer 1 BTC for the addition of this pool. The developers can be easily contacted here. Okay, done. Now I don't mind you donating 1 BTC for pident developement, but to be honest, I don't think a 5-line commit is worth this  Damn! I didn't know it would be so easy. Ah well, I'm a man of my word so 1 BTC for you. Enjoy!  |
|
|
|
I wonder how much server location affects stales. Unfortunately, this is practically impossible for me to test but I intend to give it a go. ping pool.simplecoin.us64 bytes from unassigned.psychz.net (74.117.62.208): icmp_req=1 ttl=52 time=158 ms
64 bytes from unassigned.psychz.net (74.117.62.208): icmp_req=2 ttl=52 time=160 ms
64 bytes from unassigned.psychz.net (74.117.62.208): icmp_req=3 ttl=52 time=159 ms
64 bytes from server.wuked.co.uk (77.72.0.50): icmp_req=1 ttl=51 time=16.1 ms
64 bytes from server.wuked.co.uk (77.72.0.50): icmp_req=2 ttl=51 time=18.3 ms
64 bytes from server.wuked.co.uk (77.72.0.50): icmp_req=3 ttl=51 time=17.9 ms
Both pools are similarly sized, use PPLNS, and report low load on a single server. I've configured my two 5850s identically (specifically focusing on stability and low stales at the expense of Mh/s) and have pointed one at one pool and one at the other (each card uses the other pool as a fallback). This is not terribly scientific because server configuration could make a significant difference but it's the best I can do. I'll report my findings here in a few days. This does mean that this pool will have to do without 392 Mh/s of my hashing power for now unfortunately. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
