Bitcoin Forum
December 10, 2016, 09:19:35 AM *
News: To be able to use the next phase of the beta forum software, please ensure that your email address is correct/functional.
 
   Home   Help Search Donate Login Register  
Pages: « 1 ... 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 [188] 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 »
  Print  
Author Topic: [1200 TH] EMC: 0 Fee DGM. Anonymous PPS. US & EU servers. No Registration!  (Read 461901 times)
Askit2
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 524


View Profile
November 14, 2012, 08:58:49 PM
 #3741

Well my idea was that it would be easy to accept whatever eclipse sends for difficulty, truncate it to an int add 1 (you can't be below difficulty) then use it as an int in CGMiner.

I realise that this isn't a great idea as if eclipse sent .5 difficulty I would only send difficulty 1 work. In theory losing a ton of valid shares. The closer the decimal got to 1 or 2 or any other int but stayed under it the less shares would be lost.

My other thought was a workaround on the first but it would require eclipse to change so that either CGMiner could ask for difficulty as an int, or CGMiner could tell eclipse what difficulty it actually worked on so as to avoid getting paid .5 for 1 difficulty work.

For the future I really can't imagine that the integer difficulties are that bad. 1-2 is a 100% increase but 2-3 is only 50%. At 10-11 is a 10% increase. 20-21 is a 5%. This does ignore the difficulty adjustment for block timing though. I do see the point in decimal difficulties at the really low end to some extent but the higher the sent difficulty the less difference it makes.

I appreciate donations at ( 1NwkQdmomQPLtdes5KuZhB1D22p7ZGRy4p )
If I am helping in the CGMiner thread give it to Con or Kano. They do the work there.
If you want to sign up for a coinbase account I would appreciate it if you use my referral link. US people now wire, 1% fee give or take a little for sending to your bank account. https://coinbase.com/?r=515bf6145682db9d11000028&utm_campaign=user-referral&src=
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1481361575
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481361575

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481361575
Reply with quote  #2

1481361575
Report to moderator
1481361575
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481361575

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481361575
Reply with quote  #2

1481361575
Report to moderator
1481361575
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481361575

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481361575
Reply with quote  #2

1481361575
Report to moderator
P_Shep
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 924


View Profile WWW
November 14, 2012, 09:13:56 PM
 #3742

I don't see any sense in limiting variable difficulty to integers.  I'm interested in hearing your idea.

My argument to that would be: Why would such fine-grained difficulty be required?
Inaba
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1260



View Profile WWW
November 14, 2012, 09:27:56 PM
 #3743

I don't know actually, it just seems offensive to me to limit a field to int when it doesn't need to be.  In either case, CGMiner currently works with EMC Vardiff under Getwork, that should be no different for Stratum.  I put in a pull request for cgminer with some very minor changes that make it work fine with floating point as opposed to integer (but still, of course, works with integer) so there's really no technical reason it can't be done.  You can check out my fork and compile it and test it out if you want on Github.


If you're searching these lines for a point, you've probably missed it.  There was never anything there in the first place.
P_Shep
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 924


View Profile WWW
November 14, 2012, 09:31:32 PM
 #3744

Sometimes 'good enough' is acceptable Smiley

I'll try your patch when I get time, maybe tonight.
Luke-Jr
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2100



View Profile
November 14, 2012, 09:39:58 PM
 #3745

I suppose the second addendum to the numbers was glossed over slightly. It says this:

[2] Fractional parts may be problematic, since many decimal fractions cannot be represented exactly as binary fractions.

That would seem to indicate that it is better to use Integers then decimals or other real numbers. At least since they may not get the same value that the server sends.
I agree that using real numbers here is not the best idea. Unfortunately, stratum's protocol defines this as a Number represending a multiple of bdiff 1 (difficulty 1 subject to bitcoin rounding rules), which cannot reasonably represent traditional pdiff targets (which are easier to check). Additionally, EclipseMC has been using fully variable targets anyway.
I expect during stratum's BIP discussions, consensus will probably determine using a target as getwork and GBT do (without these problems) is the proper solution.

Actually I have an idea on how to suggest handling it I may see what Con thinks.
BFGMiner handles it by truncating the difficulty (with a special case of pdiff 1 for difficulties under bdiff 1) and letting the server reject shares that it doesn't think meet its target. This results in some degree of rejected "high-hash" shares, but it guarantees no valid ones are lost.

Inaba
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1260



View Profile WWW
November 14, 2012, 09:44:29 PM
 #3746

I'm open to a change in EMCs way of doing it, but it seems like it's working fine in all the miners right now and it's just a JSON issue at the moment that can be fixed fairly easily one way or another. 

If you're searching these lines for a point, you've probably missed it.  There was never anything there in the first place.
streetuff
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 150



View Profile
November 14, 2012, 09:46:07 PM
 #3747

Actually I have an idea on how to suggest handling it I may see what Con thinks.
BFGMiner handles it by truncating the difficulty (with a special case of pdiff 1 for difficulties under bdiff 1) and letting the server reject shares that it doesn't think meet its target. This results in some degree of rejected "high-hash" shares, but it guarantees no valid ones are lost.
[/quote]

so its a HACK where mined shares will get lost... (in some cases)
P_Shep
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 924


View Profile WWW
November 14, 2012, 09:49:32 PM
 #3748

Actually I have an idea on how to suggest handling it I may see what Con thinks.
BFGMiner handles it by truncating the difficulty (with a special case of pdiff 1 for difficulties under bdiff 1) and letting the server reject shares that it doesn't think meet its target. This results in some degree of rejected "high-hash" shares, but it guarantees no valid ones are lost.

so its a HACK where mined shares will get lost... (in some cases)
[/quote]

Hack, yes, but no shares will be lost. The miner will just send shares which are under the pools target difficulty, so will be rejected.
That is, they'll be rejected by the pool, rather then internally in the miner software.
kano
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1932


Linux since 1997 RedHat 4


View Profile
November 14, 2012, 11:42:49 PM
 #3749

I suppose the second addendum to the numbers was glossed over slightly. It says this:

[2] Fractional parts may be problematic, since many decimal fractions cannot be represented exactly as binary fractions.

That would seem to indicate that it is better to use Integers then decimals or other real numbers. At least since they may not get the same value that the server sends.
I agree that using real numbers here is not the best idea. Unfortunately, stratum's protocol defines this as a Number represending a multiple of bdiff 1 (difficulty 1 subject to bitcoin rounding rules), which cannot reasonably represent traditional pdiff targets (which are easier to check). Additionally, EclipseMC has been using fully variable targets anyway.
I expect during stratum's BIP discussions, consensus will probably determine using a target as getwork and GBT do (without these problems) is the proper solution.

Actually I have an idea on how to suggest handling it I may see what Con thinks.
BFGMiner handles it by truncating the difficulty (with a special case of pdiff 1 for difficulties under bdiff 1) and letting the server reject shares that it doesn't think meet its target. This results in some degree of rejected "high-hash" shares, but it guarantees no valid ones are lost.
If you fail at math, it's a problem, if you don't, then the risk of losing (or gaining) one share in maybe every few billion-trillion is pretty much irrelevant.
That one share lost in a few billion-trillion can never be a block, so it doesn't matter.
...

Anyone who tries to force the old pool difficulty used onto Stratum, simply needs to complete school level maths first, and then think again.

The lost shares related to checking the difficulty will be if the pool implementation of the same is faulty and allowing in shares that are below what the pool specifies, or rejecting shares that are above what the pool specifies.

Pool: https://kano.is BTC: 1KanoiBupPiZfkwqB7rfLXAzPnoTshAVmb
CKPool and CGMiner developer, IRC FreeNode #ckpool and #cgminer kanoi
Help keep Bitcoin secure by mining on pools with Stratum, the best protocol to mine Bitcoins with ASIC hardware
ChipGeek
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 198


View Profile
November 15, 2012, 04:44:58 AM
 #3750

Maybe I'm blind, but I've looked for this on the EMC site multiple times:

How do I switch from DGM to PPS?  or PPS to DGM?

Tip jar: 1ChipGeeK7PDxaAWG4VgsTi31SfJ6peKHw
mufa23
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1022


I'd fight Gandhi.


View Profile
November 15, 2012, 05:24:35 AM
 #3751

Maybe I'm blind, but I've looked for this on the EMC site multiple times:

How do I switch from DGM to PPS?  or PPS to DGM?
In "My Workers", click on "Manage" towards the upper right. Now under "Worker Type", there is a drop-down menu to switch between DGM and PPS. (This is the same page that allows you to make workers, and chose their passwords)

Positive rep with: pekv2, AzN1337c0d3r, Vince Torres, underworld07, Chimsley, omegaaf, Bogart, Gleason, SuperTramp, John K. and guitarplinker
Inaba
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1260



View Profile WWW
November 15, 2012, 05:25:11 AM
 #3752

My Workers -> Manage ... there's a drop down called Worker Type

If you're searching these lines for a point, you've probably missed it.  There was never anything there in the first place.
ChipGeek
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 198


View Profile
November 15, 2012, 05:58:35 PM
 #3753

Thanks guys.  I had forgotten about the Manage button - even though it's bright red!  Embarrassed  It's so obvious when you know where to look.

Tip jar: 1ChipGeeK7PDxaAWG4VgsTi31SfJ6peKHw
mdude77
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1358


View Profile
November 18, 2012, 01:02:50 PM
 #3754

In case you didn't see my post, I wrote a .Net "widget" for Windows that allows you to monitor your miners on p2pool, eclipse, ozcoin, and 50btc.  More pools are coming as time permits (bitminter is next).

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=86502.0

M

MMinerMonitor author, monitor/auto/schedule reboots/alerts/remote/MobileMiner for Ants and Spondoolies! Latest (5.2). MPoolMonitor author, monitor stats/workers for most pools, global BTC stats (current/nxt diff/USD val/hashrate/calc)! Latest (v4.2) 
Buyer beware of Bitmain hardware and services.
Inaba
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1260



View Profile WWW
November 18, 2012, 04:05:19 PM
 #3755

Thanks mdude77 I will check it out later today!

If you're searching these lines for a point, you've probably missed it.  There was never anything there in the first place.
cyberlync
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 226



View Profile
November 26, 2012, 10:02:13 PM
 #3756

Everything seems to be up and running at the moment. Are you still having issues?

Inaba, what's up with nmc unconfirmed thing? I've got like 1.5 hanging for a week now, is it working at all?

Seems that I have caught this bug too, I have over 11 unconfirmed NMC's.

Giving away your BTC's? Send 'em here: 1F7XgercyaXeDHiuq31YzrVK5YAhbDkJhf
-ck
Moderator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2002


Ruu \o/


View Profile WWW
November 26, 2012, 11:17:37 PM
 #3757

I believe I've found what the issue is with stratum+emc+cgminer causing lots of rejects.

Okay I see the problem here on EMC stratum.

Based on a commit luke-jr did to bfgminer, it seems he thinks that new work notification by stratum mandates that all work be thrown out in favour of the new work, because he FORCES the clean flag. However no other pool actually expects this, only forcing a clean when they actually send the work clean message. So I'm going to go out on a limb here and say the problem lies with the implementation of stratum on EMC, as coded up by luke-jr.

Primary developer/maintainer for cgminer and ckpool/ckproxy.
Pooled mine at kano.is, solo mine at solo.ckpool.org
-ck
Inaba
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1260



View Profile WWW
November 26, 2012, 11:19:43 PM
 #3758

Interesting, thanks for the heads up ckolivas!

If you're searching these lines for a point, you've probably missed it.  There was never anything there in the first place.
goxed
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1582


Mining hardware dev and reviewer.


View Profile
November 28, 2012, 12:47:22 AM
 #3759

us2 was probably down today, and after it got back up, my miners were able to connect to it, but it was not acknowledging shares of my miners. I realized it after mobile miners screen was showing 0MH/s for my us2 miners and showed them as down (red) even though my miners were still mining on us2.

Looking to review Bitcoin / Crypto mining Hardware.
Inaba
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1260



View Profile WWW
November 28, 2012, 12:49:17 AM
 #3760

It should be working now.  It had some problems earlier that required it to be brought down unexpectedly. 

I think it's worked out now, but I am monitoring it for the evening to be sure.

If you're searching these lines for a point, you've probably missed it.  There was never anything there in the first place.
Pages: « 1 ... 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 [188] 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 »
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Sponsored by , a Bitcoin-accepting VPN.
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!