[DOWN] Bitlc.net - P2SH, No invalid blocks, Custom payouts, EU, 0% fee, LP

[darkskypoet]

I'm not going to be a b%tch, but lets face it - is Deepbit's UI good? Are their fee OK? Is it professional enough? - No, not even close.

Having something "Current offline due to database work." 24/7 as you have is hardly professional, thus not giving you the right to comment on anyone else's professionalism.

Wow... So the verbage about why something is offline is that large of a share in the 'professionalism' ideal??

Shit, I thought it would be forthright communication, steady progress, hard work, not calling you a douche when you've come across very clearly as a douche, growing the pools base of users, implementing new features where appropriate to the prevailing conditions and circumstances, ensuring timely payments and updates for his miners, and not leaving us in a lurch ever, etc; that would form the basis of his "professionalism".


But no... Heavens heavens no. Having one feature sitting on the back burner and listed as down do to db work quashes all of that and makes him unprofessional???

You sir / ma'am / troll, are a douche!

(Jine is very professional. I however have never claimed, and am not now claiming, to be.)

[iopq]

pay out multiclone, you sons of bridges
I put in work into your pool and I didn't get paid by multiclone because his account got banned and funds not paid out

but multiclone actually did help you solve blocks, you're just pocketting that money

[Jine]

"I put in work into your pool" - you pool hopped.

The story is:
I banned multiclone and froze his account because we we're getting hit with a enormous amount of data/requests - for just a couple of shares.
http://multiclone.us.to:18080/user/?address=1H36TPKaYcqDUK4CAN9PbaTGNB8ShJtYRN is an example, < 100 shares per round.

He got pissed and sent his pool hoppers on me Case closed, funds will be allocated to miners (used as tx. fees and returned back to the community)

[SteveFL]

Jine,

There's a rumor going around that you are withholding payment from one of your users because they were a conduit for other users pool hopping.  While I can see you terminating the account, withholding payment is theft.  Can you elaborate as to why you feel that I shouldn't be paid the shares I contributed?

Yes, I'm one of those users that had a few shares through that account.  I also have another account where I mine for your directly, but will be terminating as soon as I can.  I don't want to mine for someone that withholds based on their own moral judgement.

Edit:  This is the other pool:  http://forum.bitcoin.org/index.php?topic=26500.msg350934#msg350934

Confirm/deny?

[flower1024]

i don't mine at multiclone/multipool but thea are right.

your website did NOT say anything against pool hopping. you just banned them because you want to (which is fine).

but keeping the btc is theft.

get yourself an anti-poolhopping policy or (better) delay stats to prevent it. everthing else is just theft.

[superweb]

Same opinion. You have right to say: "User ABC is doing this, overloads our servers, so I don't want him to mine here anymore." Being fair enought sending him e-mail "We're switching you off". But not paying out what he mined before you banned him, is scam. If you had some kind of rules saying "No pool hopping or be banned" somewhere on your website, then fine. But not this way.

There are easy ways to make pool hopping useless.

[nodemaster]

Same opinion. You have right to say: "User ABC is doing this, overloads our servers, so I don't want him to mine here anymore." Being fair enought sending him e-mail "We're switching you off". But not paying out what he mined before you banned him, is scam. If you had some kind of rules saying "No pool hopping or be banned" somewhere on your website, then fine. But not this way.

There are easy ways to make pool hopping useless.

/Signed I'm not using multipool or something like this, too. But your behaviour is giving me the creeps    leave him banned it's your decision. But IMHO it would be fair to pay him out.

[gno]

I mined at multiclone and a substantial number of my shares went to bitcoins-lc. 

Hopping is mining in pools with a fresh block trying to catch short blocks and giving up when a block is taking longer than you want to solve.  There nothing evil or wrong about it.  Its no different than someone moving to another pool because it is taking forever to hit a block and no coins are being made.  Is there a policy somewhere that says you have to stay in the pool for long blocks and you can't give up on them even if the pool is having bad luck?  I haven't seen it.  That's all hopping is, folks.

I'm 100% OK with a pool operator saying "We do not want pool hoppers here.  We define pool hopping as X.  If we detect X, we will close your account.  I didn't see that.  I certainly didn't see anything that said "and we also reserve the right to confiscate any of your earnings at any time".

If you can just confiscate earnings for any reason you want, what other reasons should we be concerned about?

I fully support your right to warn and ban users.  Banning users without warning and imposing a 100% fine on earnings is hard to excuse. 

I hope you will reconsider.

[Jine]

I didn't "manually" confiscated his account nor "stole" any funds, we just disabled the account due to the excessive hopping.
I do not have time, nor want to - enable it again.

I think of hopping as a way to earn "undeserved" funds, i think all users of my pool agree on my decision regarding this - due to the fact that those funds will still stay on the site and be allocated to users.

Feel free to send any thoughts on this matter to info@bitlc.net.
Comments in here are both a waste of mine and your time - I've got bigger things to take care of.

So for now, please calm down and send an e-mail if you have anything on your mind.

--
Regards, Jim

[nodemaster]

I think of hopping as a way to earn "undeserved" funds, i think all users of my pool agree on my decision regarding this - due to the fact that those funds will still stay on the site and be allocated to users.

Actually I AM a user of your pool    . Same nickname as on this forum. I'm mining regularly (if it was possible. Due to the probs the last days i had to switch to namecoin or deepbit PPS often enough.)

[flower1024]

EDIT: He has reactivated the account. so all seems fine

--- old (now irrelevant) complains ---

ok: He just said: "Whenever somebody acts in a way i don't like i ban him and he won't get his funds. - and i don't have time to send him the money" (which is fine... no need to unban)

huh.. maybe i have to be careful what to say here... puhhh my username @ this pool is different.. he won't find me

[gno]

I didn't "manually" confiscated his account nor "stole" any funds, we just disabled the account due to the excessive hopping.
I do not have time, nor want to - enable it again.

I think of hopping as a way to earn "undeserved" funds, i think all users of my pool agree on my decision regarding this - due to the fact that those funds will still stay on the site and be allocated to users.

Feel free to send any thoughts on this matter to info@bitlc.net.
Comments in here are both a waste of mine and your time - I've got bigger things to take care of.

So for now, please calm down and send an e-mail if you have anything on your mind.

--
Regards, Jim

If you had a problem with hopping and were subject to close down accounts based on it, you should have posted that ahead of time.  You're changing the rules after the fact and that is unethical. 

You have removed the ability for them to be retrieved by their rightful owner and you are willfully refusing to spend ten seconds to make them available.  I'm not sure what to call that if not theft. 

I would ask you to reconsider.  You don't have to.  No one can force you to.  You are perhaps within your right to do as you wish, but this is not a big deal for you and it would be trivial for you to fix and satisfy the people that it affects who already agreed not to hop in your pool anymore.  What do you lose by simply restoring access so that the earnings can be withdrawn?  Its no meaningful amount to your users.

[Jine]

Account reactivated, stop whining now - I have more important things to do.
I'm not sure his balance is correct tho, but a couple of btc is it.

I would however suggest you guys that ARE pool hopping to stop it, not because I'm going to ban you nor steal anything, it may have been the wrong choice - but only for the sake of the pool.
More people ACTUALLY mining means faster blocks, which means a more stable pool and a lot more reason for me to act up and evolve it to something more then just a pool.

[gno]

Account reactivated, stop whining now - I have more important things to do.
I'm not sure his balance is correct tho, but a couple of btc is it.

Thank you for your understanding.  I know everyone with a few bitcents in that account appreciate your reconsideration.

[nomnomnom]

Hey, am I the only one having some problems on this pool?

Get some miner is idle once in a while.
Is longpolling broken or something?
Have a lot of rejects after LP Push, see:

Code:

[11/07/2011 07:31:57] LP: New work pushed                  
[11/07/2011 07:32:09] Warning: work queue empty, miner is idle
[11/07/2011 07:32:12] Result: 98e9f4be rejected       
[11/07/2011 07:32:12] Result: 1f885fed rejected       
[11/07/2011 07:32:12] Result: ee558687 rejected       
[11/07/2011 07:32:13] Result: 13e77eec rejected 

[11/07/2011 08:10:46] LP: New work pushed                 
[11/07/2011 08:10:55] Result: 78353884 rejected           
[11/07/2011 08:10:58] Result: 9510d9f5 rejected           
[11/07/2011 08:11:01] Result: 4dc4d6fe rejected           
[11/07/2011 08:11:04] Result: f039908e rejected           
[11/07/2011 08:11:04] Result: 7d7d58ec rejected           
[11/07/2011 08:11:04] Result: 8d6ba15d rejected           
[11/07/2011 08:11:08] Result: acd6240e accepted

[nodemaster]

Dunno what it is but its the same over here... Again switching to another pool until it settles 

[padrino]

Hey, am I the only one having some problems on this pool?

Get some miner is idle once in a while.
Is longpolling broken or something?
Have a lot of rejects after LP Push, see:

Code:

[11/07/2011 07:31:57] LP: New work pushed                  
[11/07/2011 07:32:09] Warning: work queue empty, miner is idle
[11/07/2011 07:32:12] Result: 98e9f4be rejected       
[11/07/2011 07:32:12] Result: 1f885fed rejected       
[11/07/2011 07:32:12] Result: ee558687 rejected       
[11/07/2011 07:32:13] Result: 13e77eec rejected 

[11/07/2011 08:10:46] LP: New work pushed                 
[11/07/2011 08:10:55] Result: 78353884 rejected           
[11/07/2011 08:10:58] Result: 9510d9f5 rejected           
[11/07/2011 08:11:01] Result: 4dc4d6fe rejected           
[11/07/2011 08:11:04] Result: f039908e rejected           
[11/07/2011 08:11:04] Result: 7d7d58ec rejected           
[11/07/2011 08:11:04] Result: 8d6ba15d rejected           
[11/07/2011 08:11:08] Result: acd6240e accepted

It's improved some over the last few days but it's still an issue, I noticed an improvement with the switch made over the weekend. His pool is picking up and he is working hard to fix things but it's still a problem from time to time and is reflected with some of what you see, I decided a little while ago to just hold out and keep my 5GH/s on his pool, it's caused some downtime and lost BTC (variance, I know, this is for discussion purposes) but he looks like he's on the right track.

[deepceleron]

Hey, am I the only one having some problems on this pool?

Get some miner is idle once in a while.
Is longpolling broken or something?
Have a lot of rejects after LP Push, see:

Code:

[11/07/2011 07:31:57] LP: New work pushed                  
[11/07/2011 07:32:09] Warning: work queue empty, miner is idle
[11/07/2011 07:32:12] Result: 98e9f4be rejected       
[11/07/2011 07:32:12] Result: 1f885fed rejected       
[11/07/2011 07:32:12] Result: ee558687 rejected       
[11/07/2011 07:32:13] Result: 13e77eec rejected 

[11/07/2011 08:10:46] LP: New work pushed                 
[11/07/2011 08:10:55] Result: 78353884 rejected           
[11/07/2011 08:10:58] Result: 9510d9f5 rejected           
[11/07/2011 08:11:01] Result: 4dc4d6fe rejected           
[11/07/2011 08:11:04] Result: f039908e rejected           
[11/07/2011 08:11:04] Result: 7d7d58ec rejected           
[11/07/2011 08:11:04] Result: 8d6ba15d rejected           
[11/07/2011 08:11:08] Result: acd6240e accepted

That's some pretty fast hashing there!

I sent off the results of my log file analysis to the pool admin, that for around ~5-6 seconds after I get the LP new block push, the pool rejects shares that should be valid for the new block. Some people, however, start getting the rejects a second or two before they get the LP, like the server already knows the old share is stale but hasn't given that particular user LP push notification of the new block yet. It's seems to be a maximum of around ten seconds of rejects out of a ten minute block.

It seems like two factors are at play: first, it seems to take a few seconds for pushpoold/bitcoind to send out new block notification to every single user before it resumes accepting submitted shares. Second, miner software seems to be quickly making new RPC/TCP connections to the pool when they don't get an immediate response, and then sending these unexpected shares to the new connection gets a reject. I know they have a top-notch team looking at this - they probably made more improvements to pool software in general in the last month than other pool admins combined - before bitcoins.lc, the reject rate at pools was closer to 6% and they've already got it down to <2%, with patches they've shared with others.

[crazy987]

is there an issue, i dont think this is correct right?

Current round duration 11 hours, 14 minutes
Valid shares for current round 5 521 636
Shares for current round 5 651 492

could be me however

[dishiestquill]

that is correct, sometimes it takes a while to solve a block when sometimes it does not take long like last block

Previous round duration 29 minutes

the more gh/s the pool has the faster blocks will be solved. (mostly)