How to increase the mining difficulty on an Antminer s9?
On nicehash my miner has a difficulty of 65.5k and has 4 blocks in less than a week (great luck that's why I'm wanting solo)
But on Solo.ckpool my miner only has a difficulty of 12.5-12.7k and doesn't get nearly the same performance (less/not as good shares)
I know it all has to do with luck, but having a miner find 4 blocks within a week and only owning it for 2 weeks there's gotta be something to get better performance when solo.
No there is not. The diff of the pool has absolutely nothing to do with your miner's performance - trying to improve performance or luck by fiddling with diff is pointless. If you found 4 blocks on nicehash they were all shitcoins. |
|
|
|
Hi;
New at this, but I got as far as securing 2 S9's and plugging them in. They are hashing for a pool, while I try to figure out how to solo mine with them.
I want to be able to play with a candidate block. It's academic in a sense - I want to see the mechanics in play, from constructing a custom transaction, to watching a miner take it and attempt to assemble a valid block.
I understand that by joining a pool, we give up that part of the Bitcoin blockchain process.
Are my assumptions wrong?
Is there any hope of mining solo with an S9, (with Core attached) ?
Thanks for any advice.
Cheers!
The S9 doesn't contain the official cgminer so you're asking for support in the wrong place. Nonetheless the S9 isn't capable of solo mining by itself; you'll need to run pool software such as ckpool or if you want the level of customisation you're talking about you're going to have to write software yourself. Thanks for the response. Is there more appropriate hardware that you might recommend? You are asking to do multiple things here. Mining solo is as easy as setting up bitcoind, ckpool and then pointing your S9 at it. However "playing with a candidate block" is seriously high level shit that should only be done by people who understand code and bitcoin at a high level. There is no "better" hardware to use, as the only thing that makes it possible to mine a block is hashrate, and the more hardware you throw at it the more chance you have at finding a block. An S9 is likely to solve a block on average once every 5 YEARS. It is likely the hardware will burn out before you actually achieve anything at all (let alone make a profit.) Hope this helps put it into perspective. |
|
|
|
Let me know if you'd like a blurb at the bottom of my pool's home page (which is somewhat inspired by ckpool.org, although, when you're going for the simple look, there aren't a ton of options... maybe I'll add a splash of color).
So long as you say what code it's based on, I'm happy. You need to set max block size to smaller instead then by say 15kb.... though the chance of having a full sized moronic 8MB block is pretty slim. |
|
|
|
You mean with blockmaxweight right?
Yes |
|
|
|
@-ck
I get a segfault with ckpool-splns. It is easily reproducible and so is the fix.
When starting with empty/nonexistant log directories and sock directories, ckpool starts but segfaults as soon as it connects to a bitcoind.
Fix I stumbled upon is to run non-splns ckpool for a bit, then close and run ckpool-splns. No segfaults.
Sorry if this is documented somewhere. Bitbucket seems to have been a mess lately.
Ckpool-splns was designed to be used on the ckpool.org pool only so I didn't really add much in the way of documentation for it apart from in code comments, nor tested it in many environments. Thanks for that. Be aware that if you're using the splns fork with hundreds of users, you must leave room in your block size for the generation transaction as well so set block weight in bitcoind to less than the full amount (something like 3.85MB instead of the max 4MB). Bitbucket had a major cloud storage failure of some sort. |
|
|
|
Just an observation (I haven't been tracking to gather empirical data) it seems like our big hash contributor is here to stay. He's been onboard non-stop for awhile now. Just wondering if there is communication with him and we know he's here for good now? Or could there still be a rental in the future and we're back down to hashing at TH/s rates without notice?
Yes we know him and he posts here and he has said many times he is here to stay. The only time his hash disappears is temporarily when someone offers him a stupid amount to rent his hash which only ever happens for short periods. And a not inconsiderable amount of more hash just got added. Wow.
Yes very nice, pushing over 8 now.  |
|
|
|
Hi;
New at this, but I got as far as securing 2 S9's and plugging them in. They are hashing for a pool, while I try to figure out how to solo mine with them.
I want to be able to play with a candidate block. It's academic in a sense - I want to see the mechanics in play, from constructing a custom transaction, to watching a miner take it and attempt to assemble a valid block.
I understand that by joining a pool, we give up that part of the Bitcoin blockchain process.
Are my assumptions wrong?
Is there any hope of mining solo with an S9, (with Core attached) ?
Thanks for any advice.
Cheers!
The S9 doesn't contain the official cgminer so you're asking for support in the wrong place. Nonetheless the S9 isn't capable of solo mining by itself; you'll need to run pool software such as ckpool or if you want the level of customisation you're talking about you're going to have to write software yourself. |
|
|
|
All files available for DOWNLOAD from here: http://ck.kolivas.org/apps/cgminerWhen I go on this site Why it says: The site ahead contains harmful programs Attackers on ck.kolivas.org might attempt to trick you into installing programs that harm your browsing experience (for example, by changing your homepage or showing extra ads on sites you visit) False positive and google offer no way to appeal against it. |
|
|
|
Ah, so this is not so much a performance-gain based strategy, but more a performance mitigation strategy? Would "To-Big-To-Scale" pool software also account for the same pool mining 2 consecutive blocks, the 2nd of which is empty? (I seem to remember Antpool recently mining 1 full block quickly followed by an empty block just recently)
Definitely. In essence they're still mining on just the header of the first block they solve since they can just get out a blank template for work while waiting for the bitcoin daemon (or whatever custom block generator they use) to create a fresh block template for them and then the pool software to distil it down into a merkle tree they need to then send out. It also saves a few bytes but that doesn't matter much since all the current mining protocol messages easily fit into one MTU - though the likelihood of need for retransmission increases as the size of the packet gets larger. |
|
|
|
|
It goes beyond the time taken to sort transactions in the bitcoin daemon to generate a new block template which is an issue in itself and has to work within the limits of scalability of the pool software as well and its ability to send out fresh work to thousands of miners.
Pools also have clients connected to other pools in order to detect a block that has been solved by that pool before it has even propagated on the network based on the block header sent in their stratum (mining protocol) template for new work. As they don't have the full block but have the header they cannot even build transactions on it but can start working on a transaction free template until they get the full block and then create a template for work with transactions afterwards. This is one of the main reasons blocks very close to each other from different pools do not contain transactions. This is also why there was an invalid fork that many pools were mining on for an extended period a couple of years ago - they forgot to check the block was ever valid. They've at least fixed that issue but they will still keep mining empty blocks.
None of my pools or pool software do any of the above since speed and scalability was the reason I wrote new software from scratch so there is very little to gain by doing so, and I've always believed in only mining on fully validated blocks and mining as many transactions as possible. Thanks to Bluematt's fibre network it doesn't take long for full validated blocks to propagate any more and bitcoin core's block template generation is magnitudes faster than it used to be at sorting and creating new transactions. At best working on an unvalidated header can only gain 200ms these days. However that doesn't take into account that the pool software itself used by the bigger pools hasn't been able to scale to the number of clients they're seeing so they still save time in getting new work out to all the miners with an unvalidated block header based template for work.
|
|
|
|
[2018-01-11 04:35:51.597] Possible block solve diff 2363747331127.568848 !
[2018-01-11 04:35:51.826] BLOCK ACCEPTED!
[2018-01-11 04:35:52.002] Solved and confirmed block 503670 by 3ErUqs4Kxmdrw8CyHwiXMwRc6mUoHhTpsk.62268
[2018-01-11 04:35:52.002] User 3ErUqs4Kxmdrw8CyHwiXMwRc6mUoHhTpsk:{"hashrate1m": "1.63P", "hashrate5m": "1.64P", "hashrate1hr": "1.66P", "hashrate1d": "820T", "hashrate7d": "231T"}
[2018-01-11 04:35:52.002] Worker 3ErUqs4Kxmdrw8CyHwiXMwRc6mUoHhTpsk.62268:{"hashrate1m": "1.18P", "hashrate5m": "1.19P", "hashrate1hr": "1.2P", "hashrate1d": "549T", "hashrate7d": "101T"}
[2018-01-11 04:35:52.007] Block solved after 2013858835869 shares at 104.3% diff
|
|
|
|
Is pool.work currently accurate? My normal stat page shows a DERP that "should" be in the payout - http://ckpool.org/users/12MiYVyrVt5bLLH1vpxYprnEtEWTEHxL3nLooking at the pool.work page shows a "gap" where payouts go from 0.003 to 0.0008 and my address is down in the deferred range again :-/ I know I have been getting pushed down as more and bigger miners join and my tiny little hash rate has trouble making a difference, this is just the first time I have seen different data on these two screens. Only the top 100 miners based on HERP are guaranteed to be in the payout queue and ordered by DERP. Beyond that, those that end up in the payouts list are dependant on how many times they've been deferred, so that even if they're smaller miners than you, provided they are above the dust threshold they will be in the payout if they've missed out on more payouts. |
|
|
|
Also, why don't you work towards better marketing your pool and improve the end user experience if you want to attract more hashing power? I'm almost 100% sure the author of that site did not include your pool because he/she likely does not even know your pool exists.
What I'm saying is that it is very easy for you to post on a forum and point out this and that, but if you would've spend some more time on improving your pool I don't see any reason why your pool should not be in the top 3. The way I see it Slush, Kano, and your pool are the only 3 pools that are actually friends of bitcoin. The "good guy" pools need to work on their marketing and end user experience if they want to compete with the mega Chinese pools.
Don't forget Eligius, Bitminter, Jonny's mining emporium, mmpool and p2pool. My pool is completely free so I don't see much point in pushing it, advertising it, or working on a fancy front end given that fact. If people see the merit in a free pool that's good for bitcoin, they will get on board regardless of the lack of fancy front end. However, most people sheep their way to mine with antpool and co. |
|
|
|
is everything working right with the payouts?
on the jan 5th block i got a payout and i havent mined here for months.. ?
it was pretty significant too about 18$ .0012 btc..
the thing i was only mining here with 5 compacs so my hash rate would have been about 60ghs..
thats like almost a whole years worth of bitcoin mining on that hash rate in one block?
if everything is working ok, maybe i should put them back on this pool haha.. they are solo mining on solo ck now.. for a slim to non chance of a block..
Working fine. It's the reward for being one of the first in the pool while stats were building up, along with the high rewards from transaction fees. Rewards haven't even started decaying from 5 blocks' worth yet. Your share is reducing only as a proportion of total shares still so you have maybe a couple of blocks to go. After the next block will the dormant miners start loosing HERP? No, when we cross 5x network diff in herp, ie about 10 quadrillion shares. However the dormant miners' share of the herp is lessening as time progresses so it's not like they're entitled to the same payout with each subsequent block. |
|
|
|
I'm a bit fascinated by the (lack of) SegWit adoption.
This is a combination of inertia and people/entities STILL obsessed by the fact that a block size increase didn't happen and continuing to blame that for high fees and push their own agenda instead of just adopting the new technology that was offered. I use it on all my new receive addresses and all transactions where possible and my fees are lower; if everyone did, our blocks would be 70% bigger and fees would be lower for everyone. |
|
|
|
Did the pool change the automated difficultly adjustment to a permanent 4k?
Before, it would assign that initially but adjust my difficulty after seeing my wimpy hash rate, and I could be obsessive complusive and check a few times a day how my pitiful little block erupters were doing.
Now, it's assigned a permanent 4k to me and even though it's recognized me a few times this week when I break the threshold, it looks like I'm not connected a majority of the time.
No Cool. Thanks for the quick response. So do you know any other reason my difficulty keeps jumping to 4k? My miners are not disconnecting, they have been active for days and they are intermittently registering as active on the pool. Random disconnections. Each reconnect will put you back at the starting diff. You could always add a suggest diff to your cgminer command to avoid waiting. If you're not using cgminer... well diff doesn't matter on a solo pool anyway. |
|
|
|
Did the pool change the automated difficultly adjustment to a permanent 4k?
Before, it would assign that initially but adjust my difficulty after seeing my wimpy hash rate, and I could be obsessive complusive and check a few times a day how my pitiful little block erupters were doing.
Now, it's assigned a permanent 4k to me and even though it's recognized me a few times this week when I break the threshold, it looks like I'm not connected a majority of the time.
No |
|
|
|
-ck, I installed libncurses5-dev and that didn't help. Then I reran the build command (sudo apt-get install build-essential autoconf automake libtool pkg-config \ libcurl4-openssl-dev libudev-dev libusb-1.0-0-dev \ libncurses5-dev) and was told everything was installed properly, but I still don't get the stats I see in the OSX terminal window. I've also restarted the machine a couple times. Uninstall and rebuild, or is there something simpler I could do? Thanks! EDIT: Images. https://imgur.com/PTCXPNYhttps://imgur.com/aFn3DpLRerun the configure and rebuild after installing ncurses5-dev. |
|
|
|
Again, while slush is a good pool compared to antpool, leaving out all the smaller pools with a lower fee than slush makes the results misleading. I agree with you, but don't hold me responsible for the website owner's oversight lol. I'm holding you responsible for posting this url over and over again which is misleading. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
