SUCCESS!!!  "version" : 36977, "balance" : 623.00000000, "blocks" : 2535687, "connections" : 5, "proxy" : "", "generate" : false, "genproclimit" : -1, "difficulty" : 5288.85799923, "hashespersec" : 0, "Likely to be Geistnet?" : true, "keypoololdest" : 1436084912, "paytxfee" : 0.00000000, "errors" : "" Once the blockchain had fully sync'd it immediately clogged up p2pool - but a quick wallet restart without touching p2pool cleared it. I'm now seeing merged mining work found, submitted & paid into the wallet for the first time! Unfortunately, my btc share doa rate has gone crazy, but I'm gonna run with it for a while to see if it settles at a comfortable diff, then maybe it will calm down a bit. Thanks for putting up the extra nodes markm - seems that was exactly what was needed edit: Bah......had to pull it from my node, it cluttered it up again. Damn, was so close.......... |
|
|
|
I see some warnings but don't see any errors there. Am I missing something?
It's weird. I never had any warnings before when compiling (apart from when I had to add yasm), & I've never had any problems running either the pre-compiled or the self compiled one, but this just refuses to run for some reason. I've had to revert back to the older version again, which compiles & runs perfectly.....  Maybe if Matt could post a list of any required/added dependencies on the the git page/web page? At least then we could check.......  It's a bummer not being able to take advantage of the latest improvements......  |
|
|
|
Sorry to hear about the problems guys Any news? Also, I can't find a link for the v1.2 linux binary anywhere.......but I can wait. |
|
|
|
Particularly HUnterCoin & WorldLeadCurrency.....
Actually, forget HUC atm - it's broken......  WLC though? |
|
|
|
@p3yot33at3r - Simply awesome screenshot man! Thank you for the post. If you don't mind I'll actually use it as a demo on the OP in the place of the old one that show the old wallet.
Edit: The OP has been updated using your image! As long as you don't mind this I'll leave it up. (Even put a little courtesy thank you)
I sent you some Londoncoin. Them 020's should be on their way :-) It's awesome that you're putting some hash on it! I've got a gpu on it myself. (nothing fancy just a 750ti). Didn't send a whole lot so don't get too excited but I hope you like it.
No problem at all - happy to help  Payment received too - many thanks! |
|
|
|
When you refer to "Assemble a new BTC block with the MM information in the coinbase and push it out." - how does one do that with p2pool? Or is it even possible?
Can't help on this one unfortunately, I've never used p2pool so I don't have any idea how it assembles work, same with merged mining via p2pool. Different drives for the coins is definitely one good way to split the load when new blocks hit though. Does anyone know if it's possible to do what eleuthria suggests above with p2pool? |
|
|
|
When you refer to "Assemble a new BTC block with the MM information in the coinbase and push it out." - how does one do that with p2pool? Or is it even possible?
Can't help on this one unfortunately, I've never used p2pool so I don't have any idea how it assembles work, same with merged mining via p2pool. Different drives for the coins is definitely one good way to split the load when new blocks hit though. Thanks man - I'll ask in the p2pool thread |
|
|
|
Hey markm Done - I'm seeing 6 connections buddy. Well, so far it didn't jam up all the connection slots, even though it doesn't seem to be able to download the blocks fast enough....it's currently @ 1993623 & rising fast......giving the "bitcoind is downloading blocks......" error. Diff is jumping around the 50 - 150 level though, so something is working. Maybe. I'll let it run & hope the block download catches up before the connections run out....... edit: "blocks" : 2152751 "difficulty" : 1318.96607892 By jove - I think this might work......... Down to only 4 connections now though....... |
|
|
|
I refuse to let this beat me...... |
|
|
|
Coin daemons use very little CPU for the majority of the time. The issue is when a new block hits it causes a significant spike in CPU, disk, and network activity. If multiple daemons hit blocks at the same time (which is common with merged minable coins), it means you will have other processes competing with bitcoind for CPU/disk/network resources during the block verification/relay period.
If you want to merge mine coins without impacting BTC performance, put the altcoins on a separate system, so that they are never utilizing the same CPU/disk as your bitcoin daemon. Additionally, at least in the case of pools, you should never spend any time waiting for an altcoin daemon when a new block hits. Assemble a new BTC block with the MM information in the coinbase and push it out. Most of the time this will push out work with the new altcoin block as well, since most altcoins are virtually unused so there is very little time involved in verifying a new block. If the new block for bitcoind and the altcoin chain arrived at the same time, you will almost always have the altcoin verified before bitcoind is done. If it doesn't, you're not losing anything significant, just catch up to the newest altcoin block the next time you do a work push.
Hi eleuthria, Thanks for that input - very interesting. I did notice the spikes you refer to a while ago, so decided to use the niceness option on bitcoind to give it maximum priority, which seems to have helped a little. The biggest performance increase I got was from putting the data directories on a separate, larger SSD - but I don't think it would be worth my while splashing out on more hardware for the daemons to run on - it's a private node after all, to play with..... Even though my setup is a simple home thing, it's interesting to fiddle around trying to find the best settings. When you refer to "Assemble a new BTC block with the MM information in the coinbase and push it out." - how does one do that with p2pool? Or is it even possible? Really appreciate your input eleuthria - thanks |
|
|
|
There is also the issue of the affect on the pool software itself due to the secondary crappy altcoind's that must run on the pool and the affect on stale work that
For me, merge mining with p2pool has proven to be not just a great way to learn about mining in general, but also helped me get into Linux (I read one of your guides kano, setting up on Xubuntu 10.04 I think it was - very helpful btw). I haven't found that having more altcoind's running on my rig has affected it's results in any way, they seem very similar to when I was only mining using the bitcoind (which uses the most resources). For example, my rig is using an old unlocked Phenom, 16GB RAM with two seperate SSD's - one for the system & one for the coind data. It's currently running 12 coin daemons, 11 of which are being merge mined with p2pool - I tried to get a snapshot of all the coin daemons, but ran out of patience...... :  All those altdaemons are using hardly anything, my efficiency very rarely goes below 105% (currently 115%), my DOA rate sits at around 2% & my latency is constantly around the 0.3s mark (currently 0.354s) - which, considering that I'm on a crappy 3mb ADSL line using old, second hand parts (apart from the SSD's - I got quality ones as I thought it was important to have them) is quite amazing IMHO. The way I see it, if the rig is going to be on 24/7 anyway, why not mine as many coins as I can? Performance is virtually unaffected. No, they are not worth much, but I now earn an extra 10 x more of a little compared to 10 x nothing without having to do anything at all, set it & forget it. Plus of course, merge mining gives those altcoins added network security/stability. I know there are BTC diehards out there who don't agree with all these altcoins & I would completely agree with them, most of the bazzilions of altcoins are shite - but with the costs of mining constantly rising & the rewards for the home miner constantly falling, one has to make the most of the resources he/she has available to offset costs, & merge mining enables me to do that. I'm of the opinion that if I can break even I've done well, anything extra is a bonus & I've helped Bitcoin (other altcoins) gain a foothold. I spent many, many days reading up on what my best options were until my eyes bled, & for me there was no doubt in my mind that merge mining using p2pool was my best option by far. It doesn't suit everyone of course, but I'm glad I chose it. Let's face it, the days of home mining & making a profit ended long ago (I missed that boat), this is more of a hobby for me - a very interesting & fun one that I glad I decided to take up. I do use your pool as a backup though kano........ I'm a bit of a noob to mining & Linux, so if I've made any incorrect statements - feel free to harass & scold me  |
|
|
|
I see some warnings but don't see any errors there. Am I missing something?
It's weird. I never had any warnings before when compiling (apart from when I had to add yasm), & I've never had any problems running either the pre-compiled or the self compiled one, but this just refuses to run for some reason. I've had to revert back to the older version again, which compiles & runs perfectly..... |
|
|
|
Hmmm....I'm unable to compile the latest from git or run the binary of this latest release on Xubuntu 64bit. Has another dependency been added that I'm not aware of? Is it only me? (again) My compile log: rig@rig:~/RelayNode/c++$ make -f Makefile
yasm -f x64 -f elf64 -X gnu -g dwarf2 -D LINUX -o crypto/sha256_code_release/sha256_avx2_rorx2.a crypto/sha256_code_release/sha256_avx2_rorx2.asm
yasm -f x64 -f elf64 -X gnu -g dwarf2 -D LINUX -o crypto/sha256_code_release/sha256_avx1.a crypto/sha256_code_release/sha256_avx1.asm
yasm -f x64 -f elf64 -X gnu -g dwarf2 -D LINUX -o crypto/sha256_code_release/sha256_sse4.a crypto/sha256_code_release/sha256_sse4.asm
g++ -I. -g -DFORCE_LE -DNDEBUG -O3 -march=native -mtune=native -flto -std=c++11 -Wall -I/usr/include -c -o flaggedarrayset.o flaggedarrayset.cpp
g++ -I. -g -DFORCE_LE -DNDEBUG -O3 -march=native -mtune=native -flto -std=c++11 -Wall -I/usr/include -c -o utils.o utils.cpp
g++ -I. -g -DFORCE_LE -DNDEBUG -O3 -march=native -mtune=native -flto -std=c++11 -Wall -I/usr/include -c -o relayprocess.o relayprocess.cpp
g++ -I. -g -DFORCE_LE -DNDEBUG -O3 -march=native -mtune=native -flto -std=c++11 -Wall -I/usr/include -c -o p2pclient.o p2pclient.cpp
g++ -I. -g -DFORCE_LE -DNDEBUG -O3 -march=native -mtune=native -flto -std=c++11 -Wall -I/usr/include -c -o connection.o connection.cpp
connection.cpp: In member function ‘void Connection::do_send_bytes(const std::shared_ptr<std::vector<unsigned char> >&, int)’:
connection.cpp:193:38: warning: ignoring return value of ‘ssize_t write(int, const void*, size_t)’, declared with attribute warn_unused_result [-Wunused-result]
write(processor.pipe_write, "1", 1);
^
connection.cpp: In member function ‘void Connection::maybe_send_bytes(const std::shared_ptr<std::vector<unsigned char> >&, int)’:
connection.cpp:217:38: warning: ignoring return value of ‘ssize_t write(int, const void*, size_t)’, declared with attribute warn_unused_result [-Wunused-result]
write(processor.pipe_write, "1", 1);
^
connection.cpp: In static member function ‘static void Connection::do_setup_and_read(Connection*)’:
connection.cpp:282:38: warning: ignoring return value of ‘ssize_t write(int, const void*, size_t)’, declared with attribute warn_unused_result [-Wunused-result]
write(processor.pipe_write, "1", 1);
^
connection.cpp: In member function ‘ssize_t Connection::read_all(char*, size_t)’:
connection.cpp:309:40: warning: ignoring return value of ‘ssize_t write(int, const void*, size_t)’, declared with attribute warn_unused_result [-Wunused-result]
write(processor.pipe_write, "1", 1);
^
g++ -I. -g -DFORCE_LE -DNDEBUG -O3 -march=native -mtune=native -flto -std=c++11 -Wall -I/usr/include -c -o crypto/sha2.o crypto/sha2.cpp
g++ -I. -g -DFORCE_LE -DNDEBUG -O3 -march=native -mtune=native -flto -std=c++11 -Wall -I/usr/include -c -o client.o client.cpp
g++ -I. -g -DFORCE_LE -DNDEBUG -O3 -march=native -mtune=native -flto -std=c++11 -Wall -I/usr/include crypto/sha256_code_release/sha256_avx2_rorx2.a crypto/sha256_code_release/sha256_avx1.a crypto/sha256_code_release/sha256_sse4.a flaggedarrayset.o utils.o relayprocess.o p2pclient.o connection.o crypto/sha2.o client.o -Wl,--no-as-needed -pthread -lresolv -o relaynetworkclient
rig@rig:~/RelayNode/c++$
Sorry for my Linux noobness........ |
|
|
|
Cool coin man - why not? Any chance of implementing merge mining? ....... |
|
|
|
Well, compared to certain other pools, our change over went very smoothly I think...... Just waiting for a glut of complaints from those who didn't upgrade yet....... Bitmain got caught with their pants down on Antpool it seems. They neglected to upgrade. Maybe now their users will realize Antpool isn't close to what Bitmain advertises it to be? M Yeah, I saw that too - but I'm not at all surprised either, if their history is anything to go by. I'm sure it won't be the last time either...... |
|
|
|
Well, compared to certain other pools, our change over went very smoothly I think...... Just waiting for a glut of complaints from those who didn't upgrade yet....... |
|
|
|
Cool coin man - why not? Any chance of implementing merge mining?
|
|
|
|
Definitely a long term project that I'm trying to turn into a widely used coin.
Thank you very much for the compliment, if you'd like post a pic of your wallet running and I'll send you some 020!
No problem - here you go: It's just solo mining on a few cores in the background for now - I'd like to open a p2pool node for it though......  Always up for a freebie oejxwcuXMf2iJ3iLseuEDk7ZUWYQJd9BCz |
|
|
|
Greetings mmpool & miners, I use my own p2pool node for merge mining multiple coins, and would like to add your pool as a backup/failover pool. Before I register with my addresses, I was wondering if you are planning on adding any other altcoins any time soon? Particularly HUnterCoin & WorldLeadCurrency, as it would be nice to have the same coins here as well as on my node. Thanks guys |
|
|
|
Only the hash rate display isn't working, everything else is fine:  I got cryptoglance working with it now though - had the wrong setting, I did |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
