[1200 TH] EMC: 0 Fee DGM. Anonymous PPS. US & EU servers. No Registration!

[Luke-Jr]

Kano's just trolling, as usual.

LP and GBT take up significantly more bandwidth and resources than stratum.  Why would anyone NOT want to use stratum, aside from personal aka non logical reasons?

This simply isn't true. The only case where stratum uses noticably less bandwidth is the case where it is harmful to the Bitcoin network. Using it in a secure fashon uses about as much bandwidth as GBT. On the other hand, GBT is far more miner-friendly in general, since it allows miners more control over the blocks they are mining.

[1714995313]

1714995313

[1714995313]

1714995313

[1714995313]

1714995313

[ninjaboon]

Kano's just trolling, as usual.

LP and GBT take up significantly more bandwidth and resources than stratum.  Why would anyone NOT want to use stratum, aside from personal aka non logical reasons?

M

I did notice if I mined with cgminer on the GBT port, there will be occasional port failures. After moving to the stratum port 3333, I hardly see failures or rejects. I guess my internet connection in Asia side is not consistent enough.

BTW Inaba, seems that the rewards from your EMC pool are much higher for my small time 600 Mh/s rig since the last 24 hours, compared to other mining pools.

[kano]

Kano's just trolling, as usual.

LP and GBT take up significantly more bandwidth and resources than stratum.  Why would anyone NOT want to use stratum, aside from personal aka non logical reasons?

This simply isn't true. The only case where stratum uses noticably more bandwidth is the case where it is harmful to the Bitcoin network. Using it in a secure fashon uses about as much bandwidth as GBT. On the other hand, GBT is far more miner-friendly in general, since it allows miners more control over the blocks they are mining.

When vehemently gnashing your teeth while typing - firstly get the words right so that your argument makes sense.
Read what you wrote again

(oh I see you settled down a bit and fixed it ... the above is what you originally typed )

Anyway, there is no implementation of GBT ANYWHERE that allows anyone to choose what transactions they want.

All Mr. Confused above is gnashing his teeth about, is that he wants the pool to send his miner a copy of every transaction it is using every time it gets work.

Stratum resolves this silly need by sending the side slice of the merkle tree instead of every transaction.
The Stratum definition allows the miner to request the full set of transactions also so that the mining software can feel all warm and fuzzy about throwing away that information before the person mining gets to read it all ...
cgminer doesn't implement a request of this VERY large waste of time.

Mr Confused put up a pull request to cgminer to get it to ask for the list of transactions more often than even GBT does.
Then he even confused himself even more by naming the fields using tonal names to attempt to hide the time frames.
So yeah when people do stupid things like that, they get ignored.

It's all a big hoax saying that if the miner gets the list of transactions, suddenly a pool is decentralised.
That, of course, is false.
Any non peer-to-peer pool is of course centralised -> you know - that pool thing you all talk to in the centre of it all deciding if your work is OK
Currently the only decentralised pool is p2pool.
Mr Confused, it's called ENGLISH, not tonal or something else ... ENGLISH, learn it

[DobZombie]

I just started us1 on port 3333 (stratum) on my 2.8GH/s Miner and it was using on average 75-150mb per hour!!!

I've got the latest BFGminer and burning on 4x 5970s

What the shit?!?

[-ck]

I just started us1 on port 3333 (stratum) on my 2.8GH/s Miner and it was using on average 75-150mb per hour!!!

I've got the latest BFGminer and burning on 4x 5970s

What the shit?!?

When luke-jr took stratum from cgminer to his fork, he added code to it to grab all the transactions the way GBT does at regular intervals, but to grab them even more frequently than GBT does, which of course will make it look like it uses more bandwidth than GBT. The way he "analyses" the data coming from the transactions is pretty much useless so does not really serve as any kind of meaningful audit to make sure a pool is misbehaving as a way to prevent the dangers of centralised pools to bitcoin. Since all that transaction grabbing just wastes bandwidth for no useful purpose, cgminer does no such thing. Try cgminer and compare your bandwidth usage.

[Mobius]

Kano's just trolling, as usual.

LP and GBT take up significantly more bandwidth and resources than stratum.  Why would anyone NOT want to use stratum, aside from personal aka non logical reasons?

This simply isn't true. The only case where stratum uses noticably less bandwidth is the case where it is harmful to the Bitcoin network. Using it in a secure fashon uses about as much bandwidth as GBT. On the other hand, GBT is far more miner-friendly in general, since it allows miners more control over the blocks they are mining.

Where is this software? How do I have "more control over the blocks I am mining".

And explain how I can see the big red flag showing me I'm getting ripped off by the evil pool operators.

Please tell me Luke, because I would really like to use it to control the blocks I'm mining.

[slush]

Try cgminer and compare your bandwidth usage.

Or use --skip-security-checks (and set some high number there) in bfgminer. This is probably available only in git master.

[DobZombie]

What's a git master?

GITMASTER - Somebody responsible for a band of retards

[DobZombie]

I just started us1 on port 3333 (stratum) on my 2.8GH/s Miner and it was using on average 75-150mb per hour!!!

I've got the latest BFGminer and burning on 4x 5970s

What the shit?!?

When luke-jr took stratum from cgminer to his fork, he added code to it to grab all the transactions the way GBT does at regular intervals, but to grab them even more frequently than GBT does, which of course will make it look like it uses more bandwidth than GBT. The way he "analyses" the data coming from the transactions is pretty much useless so does not really serve as any kind of meaningful audit to make sure a pool is misbehaving as a way to prevent the dangers of centralised pools to bitcoin. Since all that transaction grabbing just wastes bandwidth for no useful purpose, cgminer does no such thing. Try cgminer and compare your bandwidth usage.

Fuck me sideways, you're right!

I'm only using 50-400 bytes a second!

NICE ONE, BROTHER

[rampone]

Hey,

sometime cgminer 2.9.6 connected with gbt to us3 gives me rejected shares (unknown-work) in the middle of the block. i have about 180 rejects and 11000 accepted. its not happening often, but it happens.

Anyone else have that problem? (was too lazy to try stratum)

[2012-12-05 16:36:17] Accepted 0160d6ab Diff 185/1 GPU 0 pool 1
 [2012-12-05 16:36:22] Accepted 3afb19dd Diff 4/1 ICA 0 pool 1
 [2012-12-05 16:36:24] Accepted 7421cc8b Diff 2/1 GPU 0 pool 1
 [2012-12-05 16:36:33] Rejected 658bcde8 Diff 2/1 ICA 0 pool 1 (unknown-work)
 [2012-12-05 16:36:34] Rejected 6348621c Diff 2/1 ICA 0 pool 1 (unknown-work)
 [2012-12-05 16:36:36] Rejected 2ae310ea Diff 5/1 ICA 0 pool 1 (unknown-work)
 [2012-12-05 16:36:44] Accepted c2c8db07 Diff 1/1 GPU 0 pool 1
 [2012-12-05 16:36:47] Accepted 69aaa620 Diff 2/1 ICA 0 pool 1

[Askit2]

Usually I can trace it to a passthrough or scan time being too high.
Try scan time of 90 and they should dissappear.

[rampone]

scantime is on default 60, and expiry on 120. ill try expire 90. It does not happen often though, lets see.

[Askit2]

US2, US3 Stratum marked down on on CGMiner started 30 mins ago. US1 marked up Stratum but not getting any work done and submitted. Hopefully its just me.

GBT on US3 also dead on CGMiner.

[Inaba]

I did some testing Askit2 - the servers are working, it's CGMiner that can't see them for some reason.

If you start CGMiner pointed at one of the pools as a stratum pool, it will work fine.  But if you have a Stratum port as a backup or add a pool, it will show as dead.  I have a post in the CGMiner thread about this... but if you want to mine on a particular EMC pool, start cgminer pointing at that pool with stratum and it should work.

Pretty strange error actually.

[Askit2]

Isn't the issue. Run http://us2.eclipsemc.com:3333 as backup pools work stratum just fine every time.

Have run for at least a week no dead pools. Last night DEAD. Earlier yesterday not dead but alive. Lost shares on stratum disconnect on US1, US2, US3 stratum. I know how to get it to work and use stratum just fine in conf file.

Issue wasn't cgminer. Issue seems to be unexplained network failure. Some data went from here out just fine. Bitpenny kept working so I know it didn't fail completely. I could post that I had dead pools on BCT so not 100% failed. But no shares to EMC. No email on wifi to my phone though and I should have checked router logs earlier. Had duplicate IP address issue listed. Not sure if I should have had a new IP and the DHCP didn't show up or what but that seems to have been the problem.

[BlackPrapor]

I just switched to EMC, I found that I'm getting around 30-35% rejects  , and switched to stratum, but it looks like people are having issues with stratum as well.

[Askit2]

Not me! Stratum works great. Under .02% rejects usually.

 Last night I had an issue. I assumed because Bitpenny(4) (my backup backup backup) kept working that my 4 pools before it had all failed. All but one marked dead. The not dead one was not actually working for me. I think there might be a slight issue still but Con will fix it I have faith. Since I could post here and had some dynamic data working I Assumed (bad idea) that Eclipse was the problem as hashpower(0) comes and goes, US1(1) was marked alive but 3s hashrate was pinned at 0 and my Single was quiet. US2(2), US3(3) are marked dead. Had been alive earlier and have used them as backups. Cgminer switched from hashpower to US1 earlier US1 had an issue (remote failure), switched to US2 and shortly after remote failure, Switched to US3 and next thing was remote failure. Bitpenny marked not providing work fast enough did eventually get marked dead I am sure. US3 GBT was also marked dead its pool 5 and I try to use it as a LP source for bitpenny.

Normally 100% of my connctions work part of the day, 80% of them work nearly 100% of the time. It isn't that Eclipse is a bad pool. It isn't. Inaba keeps it up very nearly 100% of the time. I have never had anything over 10% rejects at eclipse I don't belive. Then again at 10% give or take cgminer marks the pool as rejecting and moves on to someone else for a while. This should remove the overloaded condition that usually causes higher rejects.

Possibly your rejects are because of variable difficulty? Check your logs for share blah blah blah (below target). If it says below target difficulty jumped up on you and you are submitting work that is too low. You get paid for anything above the target so assuming you spent some time at 2 you would have some rejects from any diff 1 shares you send in but any accepted 2diff shares are paid 2x as much. Assuming in that you on average every other work unit get a solution of 2diff you will get paid 2x for 2x work but any sub 2x is rejected.

[Inaba]

BlackPrapor, are you running an up to date cgminer or bfgminer?

[BlackPrapor]

Actually not, its 2.9.4.  I think I need to update  . Also, I've noticed that I'm not getting nmc anymore.

[Inaba]

Try the latest version of CGMiner (or BFGMiner) and let me know if you're still getting stales.  Use US2 or US3 as well, since those are closer to your boxes than US1 is.

As far as NMC goes, Namecoin is falling apart... it's going to be disabled soon.  If you look at the Namecoin list, they are almost all showing up as invalid.  The whole Namecoin protocol for merged mining is a shambles and it's more trouble than it's worth.