|
BlackPrapor
|
 |
September 16, 2012, 05:52:03 PM |
|
us1 and diff10 are okay
for me all dead, and I'm in the same building  |
There is no place like 127.0.0.1
In blockchain we trust
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You can see the statistics of your reports to moderators on the "Report to moderator" pages.
|
|
|
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction.
|
|
n4l3hp
|
|
September 16, 2012, 05:58:57 PM |
|
power problems maybe, like what happened before
|
|
|
|
|
Inaba (OP)
Legendary
 Offline
Activity: 1260
Merit: 1000
|
|
September 16, 2012, 06:18:57 PM |
|
Yeah, US1 and VarDiff should be fine, US2 and US3 are having some trouble... well the servers are fine, but the network is having trouble. I have a trouble ticket open with the DC... it's like only certain ports are being blocked, so it might be a DDoS either with the pool as a target or someone else and the DC has put in some strange filtering... I'll know more soon.
|
If you're searching these lines for a point, you've probably missed it. There was never anything there in the first place.
|
|
|
|
FLHippy
|
|
September 16, 2012, 06:28:26 PM |
|
Yeah, US1 and VarDiff should be fine, US2 and US3 are having some trouble... well the servers are fine, but the network is having trouble. I have a trouble ticket open with the DC... it's like only certain ports are being blocked, so it might be a DDoS either with the pool as a target or someone else and the DC has put in some strange filtering... I'll know more soon.
US3 just started working for me again. Why do people DDoS a mining pool? Inaba does not have controversal politics from what I have seen. extortion? |
|
|
|
|
cyberlync
|
|
September 16, 2012, 06:31:24 PM |
|
Yeah, US1 and VarDiff should be fine, US2 and US3 are having some trouble... well the servers are fine, but the network is having trouble. I have a trouble ticket open with the DC... it's like only certain ports are being blocked, so it might be a DDoS either with the pool as a target or someone else and the DC has put in some strange filtering... I'll know more soon.
US3 just started working for me again. Why do people DDoS a mining pool? Inaba does not have controversal politics from what I have seen. extortion? Well, there has been a botnet miner just recently, who got his account suspended. Perhaps someone is butthurt. |
Giving away your BTC's? Send 'em here: 1F7XgercyaXeDHiuq31YzrVK5YAhbDkJhf
|
|
|
mufa23
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1022
Merit: 1001
I'd fight Gandhi.
|
|
September 16, 2012, 07:27:36 PM |
|
Or it's mem.
|
Positive rep with: pekv2, AzN1337c0d3r, Vince Torres, underworld07, Chimsley, omegaaf, Bogart, Gleason, SuperTramp, John K. and guitarplinker
|
|
|
mufa23
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1022
Merit: 1001
I'd fight Gandhi.
|
|
September 16, 2012, 10:13:04 PM |
|
Hell yeah! After nearly a year of mining, I finally mined my first block! Didn't think I was going to ever get one with 2.3GH/s.  |
Positive rep with: pekv2, AzN1337c0d3r, Vince Torres, underworld07, Chimsley, omegaaf, Bogart, Gleason, SuperTramp, John K. and guitarplinker
|
|
|
ocminer
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2660
Merit: 1240
|
|
September 17, 2012, 09:02:34 AM |
|
Whats the Hostname of vardiff ? vardiff.eclipsemc.com does not work.
|
suprnova pools - reliable mining pools - #suprnova on freenet https://www.suprnova.cc - FOLLOW us @ Twitter ! twitter.com/SuprnovaPools |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
runlinux
|
|
September 17, 2012, 11:26:45 AM |
|
Hell yeah! After nearly a year of mining, I finally mined my first block! Didn't think I was going to ever get one with 2.3GH/s. I know its not the same, but I have found 2 blocks here (one pictured above) and 1 at ozcoin the last 2 weeks. Man... if only solo mining was that easy  I am loving the really low reject rate. I am not using GPUMax anymore as the rejects are just crazy high no matter where I have been mining. 5% is way too high. |
|
|
|
|
fabrizziop
|
|
September 17, 2012, 05:22:55 PM |
|
I've found 7 blocks with this pool and I haven't been paid 50 BTC. That's the bad thing about pooled mining  |
|
|
|
|
Inaba (OP)
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1260
Merit: 1000
|
|
September 17, 2012, 05:25:21 PM |
|
Dear Namecoin,
Please eat a bag of dicks.
Sincerely,
EMC
Anyway, block processing got hung up a bit due to namecoin. It's fixed now and I've added some code to let block processing continue even if namecoin has issues... should have done that in the first place. Sorry folks. |
If you're searching these lines for a point, you've probably missed it. There was never anything there in the first place.
|
|
|
|
runlinux
|
|
September 17, 2012, 05:27:38 PM |
|
Glad to hear you got it fixed!
|
|
|
|
kano
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 4466
Merit: 1798
Linux since 1997 RedHat 4
|
|
September 17, 2012, 08:55:22 PM |
|
I've found 7 blocks with this pool and I haven't been paid 50 BTC. That's the bad thing about pooled mining Which probably means there are 6 people who have found no blocks in the same amount of time and also got paid ... It's how pools reduce variance. It's the reason you use a pool. Had you mined solo at the same time you may have found 0, 7 or even 14 blocks. You found 7 blocks because EMC gave you work that had 7 blocks in it. Mining on DeepBit a while ago I found 3 blocks - and got paid less than 1 block there also. I did not stop using pools because of that. Mining at less than 2.5GH/s I found 3 blocks at various pools in March, and 3 blocks again in May. Since May ... none. Wow looks like pools solving variance is working really well - gotta love using pools |
|
|
|
rocks
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1153
Merit: 1000
|
|
September 18, 2012, 03:34:31 AM |
|
This was pretty interesting, can anyone explain it? 2 blocks were found back to back within six seconds. EMC block 2218 and 2219. However 7 bitcoin blocks were found between 2217 and 2218 and 14 bitcoin blocks between 2218 and 2219. Which implies the network found 21 blocks in 12 seconds.  Any idea what is going on? I'm assuming something is off the timestamps and block 2217 did not take 6 whole hours... |
|
|
|
|
|
Lethos
|
|
September 18, 2012, 07:23:54 AM |
|
That is easy to explain: Variance.
It was the same answer, last time it was asked.
|
|
|
|
Inaba (OP)
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1260
Merit: 1000
|
|
September 18, 2012, 07:25:20 AM |
|
As I said several posts up name coin screwed up block processing. It should not happen again as I have changed he code to prevent it.
|
If you're searching these lines for a point, you've probably missed it. There was never anything there in the first place.
|
|
|
|
The00Dustin
|
|
September 18, 2012, 10:14:11 AM |
|
While I'm late to the last posted question, I would have pointed out the post about nmc processing causing the problem since that has happened before (with similar information posted in the thread with the question). However, another interesting possibility that could cause similar issues (at least at blockchain.org apparently) is the nrolltime functionality being used to lessen server load. I have seen newer blocks at blockchain.org showing older times than the blocks preceding them, and apparently that is because they use the timestamp in the block, which is apparently what nrolltime changes, and apparently isn't used (at least not strictly) to verify block legitimacy. I think EMC's stats show when the block's shares were processed (or something like that), as opposed to when the block was created, so this explanation probably would never apply here, but it could be interesting to anyone curious about time discrepancies like this.
|
|
|
|
|
kano
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 4466
Merit: 1798
Linux since 1997 RedHat 4
|
|
September 18, 2012, 11:03:13 AM |
|
While I'm late to the last posted question, I would have pointed out the post about nmc processing causing the problem since that has happened before (with similar information posted in the thread with the question). However, another interesting possibility that could cause similar issues (at least at blockchain.org apparently) is the nrolltime functionality being used to lessen server load. I have seen newer blocks at blockchain.org showing older times than the blocks preceding them, and apparently that is because they use the timestamp in the block, which is apparently what nrolltime changes, and apparently isn't used (at least not strictly) to verify block legitimacy. I think EMC's stats show when the block's shares were processed (or something like that), as opposed to when the block was created, so this explanation probably would never apply here, but it could be interesting to anyone curious about time discrepancies like this.
Yes bitcoind allows blocks to be 7200 seconds in the future - then the block following will of course be in the past relative to it. You'll find roughly 10% of blocks in the blockchain like this ... I call roll-n-time a hack for a reason  |
|
|
|
|
