HI! Any thoughts on why CPU mining quit working today? I have tried to re-start on 2 of my machines and neither shows CPU as available...
CPU mining was removed (finally!) in the latest version of Bitminter client. CPU mining has not been profitable since 2011. And other CPU miners are 10x faster than Bitminter client, which was never optimized for CPU mining. It was time to end the insanity and get rid of that. If you insist on CPU mining you can try to find a good CPU miner. But be aware that it's not going to be profitable, it will mostly just burn electricity. |
|
|
|
Hi,
I updated but both my Jalapenos stopped working with a "ran out of work. Idling..." message.
Restarted with V1.4.2 and both are working again.
Will there be a logfiles on my system I can send to you to help with the debugging?
Phil
There's only the log in the window. It is currently not saved anywhere. You can copy paste it in an email and send it to me at operator@bitminter.com |
|
|
|
|
This appears to be an elusive bug that I haven't been able to locate.
Could you try enabling the Java console? I've heard that with the console on the bug doesn't occur, even on computers where it normally would.
|
|
|
|
I've been using bitminter for a few weeks with a couple of block eruptors and a blue fury. I've noticed my client shows a hash rate around 2.8 to 2.9 ghs while in the pool stats page it shows I'm hashing at 2.1 ghs. Why the difference in hash rate?
This appears to be a bug. I'm looking into it. I dont know...I've been trying to figure out how to use this?
If you have a computer with an AMD graphics card, you could try on that. But it's only useful for learning how mining works. A normal computer will lose you money due to electricity costs. You need ASIC hardware to make a profit. It's way faster and more efficient. |
|
|
|
|
Small website update: made the workers page a little nicer and added a few more filters for the transaction history. More to come!
There was an update on the mining service also, announced on twitter, facebook and google+. bitcointalk.org was down according to cloudflare.
Worker difficulty minimum has been increased from 1 to 2. Default difficulty when you start mining is now 4. If you have a low hashrate the difficulty will drop to 2. Unless the hashrate is extremely low, in which case it may get stuck at 4 because you almost never find a proof of work.
This can be hard on CPU miners and slow GPUs. But if you are still mining on such hardware then you are doing it wrong: you are just burning electricity. Please have a look at bitcoin ASIC hardware.
|
|
|
|
BitMinter client version 1.4.3 is out. Changes from 1.4.2 to 1.4.3: - Disabled CPU mining
- Preliminary support for Big Picture Mining BF1 devices (aka red/blue fury)
- Untested: add support for Chili devices
- Improved log messages when probing for external devices
- Added Application-Name to manifest, to get rid of errors in java console
when the application starts under the latest Java version.
Blue/red fury support isn't quite right yet. This is mainly a release to get a version out without CPU mining. If anyone has a Chili ASIC device, please let me know if this version works with it. Try it out:  If you have issues with 1.4.3 then you can still get the previous release (1.4.2) at https://bitminter.com/client/1.4.2/bitminter.jnlp |
|
|
|
Peter Lik background picture?  |
|
|
|
This mint race is over! Congratulations to the winners! kj won the KnC Jupiter ScandyAndy and subseaguru won BTC Trinkets Bitcoin miner lapel pins Thanks to BTC Trinkets for providing the nice pins as prizes.  |
|
|
|
Dr Haribo, would it be possible that you add global CDF statistics to keep track of luck more easily?
Some I would like to see:
*Current average CDF since last difficulty adjustment
*Average CDF per difficulty adjustment
*Historical all-time CDF for the pool.
Thanks, I put that in my TODO list. Sorry, everything takes time. But no good ideas are forgotten. |
|
|
|
Ever since Bitminter has gone over 350 Thps I get nothing but stale work errors?!
Up to 0.50% stale work is normal. How is your stale ratio looking? |
|
|
|
Is this all there is that I have to verify that I am up and fully operational? I haven't received any BTC but it's only been up for a few hours so I don't want to jump the gun and assume I configured something wrong just yet...especially since mining_proxy seems to be doing stuff and my increase in hashing power is definitely showing on my Bitminter stats page.
See if you get work accepted. Look at your average hashrate in the shifts (shifts page on website). If it looks ok then things are working. 2. I have no pw on my bitminter login..just linked to my google account. So is my user:pass on Blade config page looks like this:
user_worker:,user_worker:
Is this correct?
I usually put an X instead of a blank password. Noone has worker passwords anymore, you just put something because software expect a password. 3. The new worker I created for the Blade shows so far 30,488 accepted with 0 rejections. Is that unusual? I feel like it is unusual compared to the high rejection rates I was getting on my USB miners.
I'm sure you will get some rejected work after a while. If there are periods where few blocks are found (globally) then there aren't many block changes which can cause rejected work. Appreciate any help and really great job you're doing with pool. Seems very stable and looks like a lot of people are very satisfied so I'm happy to join. Thank you. Welcome to the pool! |
|
|
|
|
That's some hard core mining. Keep the pressure up!
|
|
|
|
|
Barely over a day left till the finish. Will noone challenge kj's block?
|
|
|
|
|
New record: over 11 000 people mining at Bitminter simultaneously !
|
|
|
|
i had issues on Osx Mountain Lion with java (could have been something i was doing wrong) i updated to mavericks and it works fine with the bluefury usb. I was using the beta client on a macbook air.
Thanks, that's useful info. I was testing on OS X Mavericks from the start. |
|
|
|
Hey folks. I have five block disruptors and I'm having a hell of a time getting them to work in bitminter. I've tried two computers (Vista and win  , with a powered hub and straight into the pc, and individually plugged in. I installed the drivers and the devices show properly in device manager as com ports. When I run the bitminter software it sees the devices, but as soon as I try to start them the led turns off for a few seconds. It comes back on but then program says they timed out. At that point I have to close the program and launch again. Any suggestions? Cheap hub not delivering enough power? Did you try with fewer block erupters to see if that works? It detects max 2 of up to 6 devices, and I'm not able to start them. Even if they are recognized, they rest idling.
I mint on a HP-Laptop with Win7.
Do you have Zadig installed (for cgminer)? I'm wondering if that has something to do with these issues. When you try to start them do you get any error? |
|
|
|
I think a namecoin being worth more than 1% of a bitcoin is a strangely high price. But I also think most other alt coins being valued above zero is even stranger. I guess it will take a few years for people to realize that the value of a bitcoin clone, with no new features that matter, is zero, and for most of the 500 alt coins to die out. Forking a project on github doesn't make you a developer, nor does it instantly create millions of USD value. You have to do the work and create something useful. Which namecoin has done. Let's hope the new namecoin developers can fix bugs and push things forward. |
|
|
|
 I left Eligius for this pool due to too much downtime, now im back on Eligius since this is down, oh the irony. Also I noticed that Bitminter is dead for me too, its my last backup but it appears to be down. Eligius and BTCguild are working for me. Bitminter is not down. PM if you need help. |
|
|
|
Problem solved? I see a new non-stale namecoin block. Yeah, finally working again. looks like corrupted nameindex.dat, need to stop daemon, delete it and wait while it's recreated (may take a while, but faster than downloading the whole chain).
Might not be, but worth a try
That did it. Thanks, snailbrain. I guess it will be hard for namecoin devs to track down this issue. It might happen twice a year on a busy pool. Maybe I can automate detection and recovery from this. But it's not the easiest failure to detect. Anyway, issue worked around for now, namecoins being minted again. |
|
|
|
Are you using the namecoin main branch from github yet, or is it the old version? I'm about to push the updated namecoind to all my other servers (only running on 2 of 6 pool servers at the moment). I'll take a peek at my logs to see if there's been any noticeable jump in stales for Guild since updating 1/3 the pool to the latest namecoin hardfork version.
I am using the updated version of the original namecoind. It's not related to the update. I've seen this happen a couple times before. Seems to happen about once or twice per year. Usually namecoin was in an abandoned state with no developers, but now it has some, maybe they can figure it out. I sent them some info. What happens is that namecoind gets into a broken state and I get this in its debug.log at apparently random intervals: ERROR: ConnectInputsHook() : name_update on an expired name, or there is a pending transaction on the name
ERROR: ConnectInputsHook() : name_update on an expired name, or there is a pending transaction on the name
Here is one block being created. It seems to be propagating to other nodes, but for some reason they don't consider it part of the chain. SetBestChain: new best=749f8868705d1c3d8313 height=148257 work=14693287269252460633786
ProcessBlock: ACCEPTED
ThreadRPCServer method=getblockcount
ERROR: ConnectInputsHook() : name_update on an expired name, or there is a pending transaction on the name
ERROR: ConnectInputsHook() : name_update on an expired name, or there is a pending transaction on the name
sending: inv (37 bytes) <-- Repeats many times
received: getdata (37 bytes)
received getdata for: block 749f8868705d1c3d8313
sending: block (12655 bytes)
^- repeats the 3 above many times
Could it be related to broken transactions? Maybe my node is creating blocks with invalid transactions and accepting those blocks, while other nodes reject them. At least that is my first guess. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
