Old simplecoin thread

[sirky]

Nice.  I go away for a few days and come back to find that not only has the pool doubled in size but two blocks have been found!

I'm using pool.simplecoin.us now and my stales situation seems to have improved to a comfortable 0.2% stales (for 7000 shares).  Looks like I won't have to investigate cgminer further after all.

Please do keep the old server running for as long as you can.  A reputation for reliability seems more important than a fast website.

May I ask what is the "Pool efficiency" statistic represents?

Probably 1 - the overall % of stales.

[1715335314]

1715335314

[1715335314]

1715335314

[1715335314]

1715335314

[teukon]

Another block.  Many thanks tvhwgt.

[teukon]

Does the automatic payout feature work for anyone or is it not implemented yet?  My balance has been more than double my automatic payout amount for a few days now but no payout has been made.

[simplecoin]

Does the automatic payout feature work for anyone or is it not implemented yet?  My balance has been more than double my automatic payout amount for a few days now but no payout has been made.

It was turned off during the framework update. I'll check it and get it back online.

[simplecoin]

It seems 2 users found a way to exploit the system.  

A total of ~4 btc was overdrawn.

I have patched the issue to prevent the possibility of it happening again.

I have asked the users for their cooperation, and hope it was somehow accidental.

UPDATE: This was caused by nginx timing out during a payment, not a direct exploit. The fix in place should prevent this.

[simplecoin]

On the upside! 2 blocks, 1 day  

Also, the simplecoin.us pool isn't going anywhere

It won't perform quite as well as pool.simplecoin.us, and I don't recommend using it (will have much higher reject rate).... but it remains available.

[sirky]

On the upside! 2 blocks, 1 day 

Also, the simplecoin.us pool isn't going anywhere

It won't perform quite as well as pool.simplecoin.us, and I don't recommend using it.... but it remains available.

Wooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo

[simplecoin]

Our main sql server just took a dive. Had to fire up the backup.

Sorry for the few minutes downtime.

[sirky]

On the upside! 2 blocks, 1 day  

Also, the simplecoin.us pool isn't going anywhere

It won't perform quite as well as pool.simplecoin.us, and I don't recommend using it (will have much higher reject rate).... but it remains available.

If running two servers concurrently are causing performance issues, I don't think there is anything wrong with posting something saying that 'at XYZ date simplecoin.us:8337 will no longer work. Please switch your miners to pool.simplecoin.us:8337.

In other news the website has been much more responsive recently though

[simplecoin]

On the upside! 2 blocks, 1 day  

Also, the simplecoin.us pool isn't going anywhere

It won't perform quite as well as pool.simplecoin.us, and I don't recommend using it (will have much higher reject rate).... but it remains available.

If running two servers concurrently are causing performance issues, I don't think there is anything wrong with posting something saying that 'at XYZ date simplecoin.us:8337 will no longer work. Please switch your miners to pool.simplecoin.us:8337.

In other news the website has been much more responsive recently though

Well, the pool on simplecoin.us is running off of the bitcoin client on pool.simplecoin.us now. However, since it's using blkmond remotely there are more chances for stale shares on it.

The only resource it's expending is disk space (slowly), and open tcp sockets. Neither of these is really hurting performance now.

That said, pool.simplecoin.us is handling things well. I think I'll reach disk I/O issues before I run into cpu/network bottlenecks. The pool should be able to handle about 500-1000mhs without issue. After I make a few adjustments to pushpool it should scale beyond that.

[teukon]

Another block,

quite good.

[RyNinDaCleM]

Another block,

quite good.

I concur!
Though, it is block 141553, and 0 confirms!?! We're currently on block 141559!

[teukon]

Another block,

quite good.

I concur!
Though, it is block 141553, and 0 confirms!?! We're currently on block 141559!

tvhwgt's block did the same so I'm not too worried.  I guess we'll see.

[RyNinDaCleM]

Another block,

quite good.

I concur!
Though, it is block 141553, and 0 confirms!?! We're currently on block 141559!

tvhwgt's block did the same so I'm not too worried.  I guess we'll see.

Corrected in the stats!  
At 8 now!

[teukon]

Another block,

quite good.

I concur!
Though, it is block 141553, and 0 confirms!?! We're currently on block 141559!

tvhwgt's block did the same so I'm not too worried.  I guess we'll see.

Corrected in the stats!  
At 8 now!

Ah, a reported stats bug.  I guess that was the most likely problem.

It's still a bit odd that some of the older blocks are marked 'Done' and some are marked '120 confirms'.  I also found it amusing a few days ago to find that the datapoints on the x-axis of the below graph were ordered alphabetically rather than chronologically.  This generated x-axes such as:

10th  11th  12th  13th  8th  9th

Unless this too was fixed I expect we'll see it again on 3rd September:

1st  2nd  29th  3rd  30th  31st

My lifetime shares were stuck at 0 for a very long time and that could have been fixed by now but I guess that could be a feature.

[teukon]

I found myself naturally mentioning simplecoin.us on the occasional thread (such as the thread about whether or not pool hopping is ethical).  I'm glad to see that the flurry of blocks has come shortly after the establishment of the new server and the frequent posts on this thread has kept it close to the stickied pools.

Good luck ironing out the various bugs and I hope the new server will manage impressive uptime.

[teukon]

Where you mention fees on the home page I would like to see it made clear whether or not transaction fees are included in the reward.  I assume transaction fees are not included but if it is not difficult to include them perhaps the good will generated by such a gesture will earn the pool more in donations anyway.  I would certainly increase my donation in response by 1%.  If very few people are donating more than 0% (unfortunately quite likely) then I understand the necessity of keeping the transaction fees.

Also, a feature for the future: It would be nice for a user to be able to specify a transaction fee for withdrawal.  Some pools are not as generous to 0-fee transactions as this one is and I've found transactions with a fee of 0 can sometimes take quite a bit of time.

[simplecoin]

Another block,

quite good.

I concur!
Though, it is block 141553, and 0 confirms!?! We're currently on block 141559!

tvhwgt's block did the same so I'm not too worried.  I guess we'll see.

Corrected in the stats!  
At 8 now!

Ah, a reported stats bug.  I guess that was the most likely problem.

It's still a bit odd that some of the older blocks are marked 'Done' and some are marked '120 confirms'.  I also found it amusing a few days ago to find that the datapoints on the x-axis of the below graph were ordered alphabetically rather than chronologically.  This generated x-axes such as:

10th  11th  12th  13th  8th  9th

Unless this too was fixed I expect we'll see it again on 3rd September:

1st  2nd  29th  3rd  30th  31st

My lifetime shares were stuck at 0 for a very long time and that could have been fixed by now but I guess that could be a feature.

On the stats, they were developed by a user from ozcoin. As my framework has changed, so has the way I access the stats. If any of the graphs are sorted incorrectly, please let me know, I thought I fixed them all.

Lifetime shares was also fixed, there was a nullable field in the database which gummed up the sql calculation.

[teukon]

On the stats, they were developed by a user from ozcoin. As my framework has changed, so has the way I access the stats. If any of the graphs are sorted incorrectly, please let me know, I thought I fixed them all.

Lifetime shares was also fixed, there was a nullable field in the database which gummed up the sql calculation.

Nice to see you're on top of things.  I'll make some noise here when I see a problem.

My balance is now about 7.5 BTC and no attempt has been made to pay out automatically to my BTC address.  Perhaps I've not checked a box somewhere or have misinterpreted one or more of the fields on the account details page.

[sirky]

I am working with SC on trying to make estimates more accurate and payouts more transparent (so you can see exactly how many of the last N blocks you submitted for a block).