Bitcoin Forum
October 22, 2017, 05:45:35 PM *
News: Latest stable version of Bitcoin Core: 0.15.0.1  [Torrent]. (New!)
 
   Home   Help Search Donate Login Register  
Pages: « 1 ... 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 [83] 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 ... 143 »
  Print  
Author Topic: [ANN][XCN] Cryptonite - NEW Thread | 1st mini-blockchain coin | Bounties!  (Read 144361 times)
pallas
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1442


Black Belt Developer


View Profile
July 12, 2017, 09:14:45 AM
 #1641

I wouldn't say that things seem to work correctly if I have 10% of the net hash but get less than 5% of the blocks with 50% rejected blocks.

Right, I got the ports mixed up. I've been connecting to the RPC port all the time so nothing wrong there. I don't get any errors when connecting or mining and things are running along fine.

The problem is that 50% of my found blocks get rejected, which shouldn't be the case.

I get that orphans can happen, but 50% of my found blocks can't be orphans.

Also, some (though very few) blocks are added to the wallet as "generated but not accepted". What does that mean? They are few and far in between though, so they're not the ones that the miner reports as rejected (at least not all of them).

During the last 37 hours I've found 82 blocks. But since I have 10% of the net hash, I should have found 222. I get that luck is involved, but my miners does report about 50% rejected.

If all those would have been accepted that would've been 164 which isn't too far off 222, which I could say is the lack of luck.

orphans: there are a lot for everybody, if you followed the thread (and if you didn't, just read the last pages) you will see that's an open discussion.

1508694335
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1508694335

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1508694335
Reply with quote  #2

1508694335
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1508694335
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1508694335

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1508694335
Reply with quote  #2

1508694335
Report to moderator
Amph
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1666



View Profile
July 12, 2017, 09:37:12 AM
 #1642

with the last blockchain you posted pallas i'm stuck again at 3 days behind....
nu1mlock
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 294


View Profile
July 12, 2017, 09:37:50 AM
 #1643

So what's the som behind there being more orphans than there should be?

And there should be 1440 blocks found each day, that doesn't include orphans. So where does the remaining correct block go?
pallas
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1442


Black Belt Developer


View Profile
July 12, 2017, 09:38:26 AM
 #1644

with the last blockchain you posted pallas i'm stuck again at 3 days behind....

how many connections? what does the debug.log say?

pallas
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1442


Black Belt Developer


View Profile
July 12, 2017, 09:40:25 AM
 #1645

So what's the som behind there being more orphans than there should be?

And there should be 1440 blocks found each day, that doesn't include orphans. So where does the remaining correct block go?

You are comparing your hashrate (miner side, counting orphans) to the net hashrate (which doesn't takes orphans into account).
So, you don't have 10% of the total hashrate but probably around 5%.

preach god
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 168


View Profile
July 12, 2017, 09:45:34 AM
 #1646

Yes, all the connection bars are visible and I've currently got 15 connections on the wallet.

Adding "port=8253" to the config file didn't help and I can't connect to that port at all. I get the following when trying:
Code:
[2017-07-12 08:28:27] HTTP request failed: Empty reply from server
[2017-07-12 08:28:27] json_rpc_call failed, terminating workio thread

Note that I've tried connecting to that port from both the local machine (that has the wallet), the two other rigs on the same internal network and four external rigs. They can, however, connect to the RPC port, even though that might not be recommended.

UPnP is enabled and I've also tried opening both 8252 and 8253 on the router. I've also tried setting the machine with the wallet behind DMZ just in case to make sure that the port forwarding wasn't the problem. And on top of that I've fully disabled the Windows firewall.
Port 8253 is the Peer-2-Peer Port for the wallet and not used for mining. So the miner files will still have the rpcport of 8252.
Let the wallet machine run and observer the number of connections. Something of where I am, I only have DSL (no cable or fiber available), so the bandwidth is slow, and seems to limit my connections. It does take some time for me to get the connections up after a reboot. Best success seems to come from being in the 20's.

And I assume you have with the wallet used the "setgenerate true -1" command via the debug window?

But if things are working correctly, which seems to be the case...
I'm not certain, perhaps Pallas or someone else may have some tips or answers.
I would like to ask a question, where is the xcn mine pool
pallas
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1442


Black Belt Developer


View Profile
July 12, 2017, 09:50:31 AM
 #1647

Additional pool not ready yet.
Ocminer won't share his code, so we are doing it from scratch.
3 people working on it.
Thing to do to make an xcn pool: import M7 hashing code, adapt custom stratum side, adapt custom getblocktemplate side.

nu1mlock
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 294


View Profile
July 12, 2017, 10:12:15 AM
 #1648


You are comparing your hashrate (miner side, counting orphans) to the net hashrate (which doesn't takes orphans into account).
So, you don't have 10% of the total hashrate but probably around 5%.
Alright, but then something has to be done about the orphans then. And what can we/I do?

I would also like it explained why SOME blocks are added to my transactions as "generated buy not accepted" while MOST aren't? What's the dirfferynce between those rejects and other rejects that the miners report?
megainarmy
Jr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 36


View Profile
July 12, 2017, 10:32:51 AM
 #1649

Hi.
My wallet under Windows synchronizes the whole day, or even more. The connections are from 1 to 14. If you look at the log file, you can see that there are errors like on the attached image.
Does it all happen this way? Or this should not be?

http://prntscr.com/fupfl1
pallas
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1442


Black Belt Developer


View Profile
July 12, 2017, 10:39:52 AM
 #1650


You are comparing your hashrate (miner side, counting orphans) to the net hashrate (which doesn't takes orphans into account).
So, you don't have 10% of the total hashrate but probably around 5%.
Alright, but then something has to be done about the orphans then. And what can we/I do?

I would also like it explained why SOME blocks are added to my transactions as "generated buy not accepted" while MOST aren't? What's the dirfferynce between those rejects and other rejects that the miners report?

blocks rejected by the wallet (reported by the miner) are stale, i.e. the miner solved a block but the wallet received a new block meanwhile (this should be attenuated by "-s 2").
or, as it's called by sgminer, "hardware error" (nonce does not verify).

pallas
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1442


Black Belt Developer


View Profile
July 12, 2017, 10:40:35 AM
 #1651

Hi.
My wallet under Windows synchronizes the whole day, or even more. The connections are from 1 to 14. If you look at the log file, you can see that there are errors like on the attached image.
Does it all happen this way? Or this should not be?

http://prntscr.com/fupfl1

that's normal behavior, it's downloading recent blocks.
that may be a slow process because of cpu or network connection.

megainarmy
Jr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 36


View Profile
July 12, 2017, 11:40:33 AM
 #1652

More questions...

I launched cryptonite-qt for win.
On local addresses everything works as it should. ( farms in local network working on this one wallet excellent)
I try to make it through the Internet, it does not connect.

Bat file: ccminer -a m7 -o my_static_IP_adress:1336 -u xxx -p yyy --scantime=2 --no-longpoll --no-stratum

cryptonite.conf :

rpcuser=xxx
rpcpassword=yyy
rpcport=1336
rpcallowip = *
listen=1
daemon=1
server=1
gen=0


Ping from mining farm to my_static_IP_adress is good=47ms.

What and where to look, adjust, so that this problem is solved? Thank's a lot!!!
pallas
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1442


Black Belt Developer


View Profile
July 12, 2017, 11:44:52 AM
 #1653

More questions...

I launched cryptonite-qt for win.
On local addresses everything works as it should. ( farms in local network working on this one wallet excellent)
I try to make it through the Internet, it does not connect.

Ping from mining farm to my_static_IP_adress is good=47ms.

Likely, you are pinging the router. Can you check the NAT rule in some way, using another protocol for example.

nu1mlock
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 294


View Profile
July 12, 2017, 01:06:26 PM
 #1654

And I assume you have with the wallet used the "setgenerate true -1" command via the debug window?
I don't run the wallet with "setgenerate true -1". I don't want to CPU mine since that's worthless. I'm assuming that's all it does. Well, that and reduce the hash rate of my GTX 1080 Ti's from 30-32MH/s each to about 0.7-1.5MH/s each.

blocks rejected by the wallet (reported by the miner) are stale, i.e. the miner solved a block but the wallet received a new block meanwhile (this should be attenuated by "-s 2").
or, as it's called by sgminer, "hardware error" (nonce does not verify).
So in order to decrease stale blocks even further, I should use "-s 1" in the miners. You've previously said that the miners sometimes can get wonky (or something like that), but when I used "-s 1" everything worked just fine for all my rigs. Is there something under the hood so I won't notice if it doesn't work?
Amph
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1666



View Profile
July 12, 2017, 01:15:22 PM
 #1655

with the last blockchain you posted pallas i'm stuck again at 3 days behind....

how many connections? what does the debug.log say?

8, debug say orphan already exist!!!
pallas
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1442


Black Belt Developer


View Profile
July 12, 2017, 01:19:16 PM
 #1656

blocks rejected by the wallet (reported by the miner) are stale, i.e. the miner solved a block but the wallet received a new block meanwhile (this should be attenuated by "-s 2").
or, as it's called by sgminer, "hardware error" (nonce does not verify).
So in order to decrease stale blocks even further, I should use "-s 1" in the miners. You've previously said that the miners sometimes can get wonky (or something like that), but when I used "-s 1" everything worked just fine for all my rigs. Is there something under the hood so I won't notice if it doesn't work?

I experienced weird errors from ccminer when using "-s 1", but only on some rigs... not sure why, I didn't investigate as they did never happen when using "-s 2".

pallas
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1442


Black Belt Developer


View Profile
July 12, 2017, 01:22:23 PM
 #1657

with the last blockchain you posted pallas i'm stuck again at 3 days behind....

how many connections? what does the debug.log say?

8, debug say orphan already exist!!!

hmmm looks like your chain got corrupted.
I tested the snapshot myself so I know it's ok.
start fresh or with or without the snapshot.

wxi734862
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 199


View Profile
July 12, 2017, 01:28:39 PM
 #1658

The team so active, I am full of confidence in the coin, long-term holding, thanks to the team to pay
krnlx
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 226


View Profile
July 12, 2017, 01:30:31 PM
 #1659

I have 10% of the net hash but get less than 5% of the blocks

You are wrong here. When suprnova pool worked well the hashrate was about 30m/h, now this people mine solo, and total hashrate is about 20-25mh. whattomine and xcn block explorer shows wrong hashrate.


BTC 1DGhgVtTzJqxFvM9yrL8kFBGZdf8Zq6bEr
nu1mlock
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 294


View Profile
July 12, 2017, 02:18:55 PM
 #1660

I experienced weird errors from ccminer when using "-s 1", but only on some rigs... not sure why, I didn't investigate as they did never happen when using "-s 2".
Right, but in theory - if my miners doesn't give me any errors at all, I should (again, in theory) be able to reduce stable blocks by scanning every second instead of every two seconds, correct?

You are wrong here. When suprnova pool worked well the hashrate was about 30m/h, now this people mine solo, and total hashrate is about 20-25mh. whattomine and xcn block explorer shows wrong hashrate.
The total net hashrate reported by the network (not whattomine or xcn blockexplorer) is, as of writing, 10 945 274 727 H/s. That's 10.94GH/s. My miner reports at least 30 000 000 per GTX 1080 Ti. I have 36. That's a total of 1080MH/s, which is 1.08GH/s.

But then pallas explained that my actual hash rate is closer to half since it includes orphans while the net hashrate doesn't. Still, that's about 5% of the total net hashrate. I don't know where you get your 30MH/s totals from but it's not anywhere close.
Pages: « 1 ... 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 [83] 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 ... 143 »
  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!