Bitcoin Forum
May 25, 2019, 02:45:59 PM *
News: Latest Bitcoin Core release: 0.18.0 [Torrent] (New!)
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register More  
Pages: « 1 ... 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 [179] 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 ... 814 »
  Print  
Author Topic: [1500 TH] p2pool: Decentralized, DoS-resistant, Hop-Proof pool  (Read 2577075 times)
mdude77
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1540
Merit: 1001



View Profile
October 18, 2012, 01:53:42 PM
 #3561

* Transaction preforwarding Transactions that you're mining are sent to peers before you get a share, so any block solution you find can be broadcast virtually instantaneously. This could theoretically get our invalid block rate below any other pool's thanks to our large network of nodes.

Excellent work.

Now for the next version. Is it time to start considering ASICs? A lot of the current small miners are going to see difficulty go too high as soon as ASICs come online. I see 2 options:

1. Split ASICs off to a separate pool.
2. Auto-adjust local share difficulty.

I'm not sure this is worth the effort.  Presumably it won't be too long before ALL current GPU miners will be bailing because of increased difficulty from ASIC miners.

M

I mine at Kano's Pool because it pays the best and is completely transparent!  Come join me!
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
forrestv
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 516
Merit: 514


View Profile
October 18, 2012, 05:09:30 PM
 #3562

I'm doing the same thing, that is I untar it and then do a

Code:
ln -s ./forrestv-p2pool-7aedd00 p2pool

then I start it with a

Code:
cd p2pool
python ./run_p2pool.py

and it shows, right at the start

Code:
fatal: Not a git repository (or any parent up to mount parent )
Stopping at filesystem boundary (GIT_DISCOVERY_ACROSS_FILESYSTEM not set).
2012-10-18 09:25:08.997911 p2pool (version 7aedd00)

So it finds its version even if I start if from a link

You're not doing exactly the same thing. You're cd'ing in first. Maybe this is because getcwd() from within a symlinked directory returns the original directory name?

1J1zegkNSbwX4smvTdoHSanUfwvXFeuV23
rav3n_pl
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1360
Merit: 1000


Don`t panic! Organize!


View Profile WWW
October 18, 2012, 05:45:51 PM
 #3563

Trying to complie scrypt module on my win7 64 machine:
Code:
C:\p2pool-8.2-1-g90b71e5\litecoin_scrypt>setup.py build --compiler=mingw32 install
running build
running build_ext
building 'ltc_scrypt' extension
c:\mingw\bin\gcc.exe -mdll -O -Wall -I. -IC:\Python27\include -IC:\Python27\PC -c scryptmodule.c -o build\temp.win-amd64-2.7\Release\scryptmodule.o
scryptmodule.c: In function 'scrypt_getpowhash':
scryptmodule.c:15:5: warning: implicit declaration of function 'scrypt_1024_1_1_256' [-Wimplicit-function-declaration]
c:\mingw\bin\gcc.exe -mdll -O -Wall -I. -IC:\Python27\include -IC:\Python27\PC -c scrypt.c -o build\temp.win-amd64-2.7\Release\scrypt.o
writing build\temp.win-amd64-2.7\Release\ltc_scrypt.def
c:\mingw\bin\gcc.exe -shared -s build\temp.win-amd64-2.7\Release\scryptmodule.o build\temp.win-amd64-2.7\Release\scrypt.o build\temp.win-amd64-2.7\Rel
ease\ltc_scrypt.def -LC:\Python27\libs -LC:\Python27\PCbuild\amd64 -lpython27 -lmsvcr90 -o build\lib.win-amd64-2.7\ltc_scrypt.pyd
build\temp.win-amd64-2.7\Release\scryptmodule.o:scryptmodule.c:(.text+0x1e): undefined reference to `__imp__PyArg_ParseTuple'
build\temp.win-amd64-2.7\Release\scryptmodule.o:scryptmodule.c:(.text+0x35): undefined reference to `__imp__PyMem_Malloc'
build\temp.win-amd64-2.7\Release\scryptmodule.o:scryptmodule.c:(.text+0x44): undefined reference to `__imp__PyString_AsString'
build\temp.win-amd64-2.7\Release\scryptmodule.o:scryptmodule.c:(.text+0x83): undefined reference to `__imp__Py_BuildValue'
build\temp.win-amd64-2.7\Release\scryptmodule.o:scryptmodule.c:(.text+0x8e): undefined reference to `__imp__PyMem_Free'
build\temp.win-amd64-2.7\Release\scryptmodule.o:scryptmodule.c:(.text+0xcd): undefined reference to `__imp__Py_InitModule4'
collect2.exe: error: ld returned 1 exit status
error: command 'gcc' failed with exit status 1
Tried to use VC compiler too:
Code:
C:\p2pool-8.2-1-g90b71e5\litecoin_scrypt>vcvarsall
Setting environment for using Microsoft Visual Studio 2010 x86 tools.

C:\p2pool-8.2-1-g90b71e5\litecoin_scrypt>setup.py build --compile=msvc install
running build
running build_ext
building 'ltc_scrypt' extension
creating build
creating build\temp.win-amd64-2.7
creating build\temp.win-amd64-2.7\Release
E:\Program Files (x86)\Microsoft Visual Studio 10.0\VC\BIN\cl.exe /c /nologo /Ox /MD /W3 /GS- /DNDEBUG -I. -IC:\Python27\include -IC:\Python27\PC /Tcs
cryptmodule.c /Fobuild\temp.win-amd64-2.7\Release\scryptmodule.obj
scryptmodule.c
scryptmodule.c(15) : warning C4013: 'scrypt_1024_1_1_256' undefined; assuming extern returning int
E:\Program Files (x86)\Microsoft Visual Studio 10.0\VC\BIN\cl.exe /c /nologo /Ox /MD /W3 /GS- /DNDEBUG -I. -IC:\Python27\include -IC:\Python27\PC /Tcs
crypt.c /Fobuild\temp.win-amd64-2.7\Release\scrypt.obj
scrypt.c
creating build\lib.win-amd64-2.7
E:\Program Files (x86)\Microsoft Visual Studio 10.0\VC\BIN\link.exe /DLL /nologo /INCREMENTAL:NO /LIBPATH:C:\Python27\libs /LIBPATH:C:\Python27\PCbuil
d\amd64 /EXPORT:initltc_scrypt build\temp.win-amd64-2.7\Release\scryptmodule.obj build\temp.win-amd64-2.7\Release\scrypt.obj /OUT:build\lib.win-amd64-
2.7\ltc_scrypt.pyd /IMPLIB:build\temp.win-amd64-2.7\Release\ltc_scrypt.lib /MANIFESTFILE:build\temp.win-amd64-2.7\Release\ltc_scrypt.pyd.manifest
   Creating library build\temp.win-amd64-2.7\Release\ltc_scrypt.lib and object build\temp.win-amd64-2.7\Release\ltc_scrypt.exp
scryptmodule.obj : error LNK2019: unresolved external symbol __imp__PyMem_Free referenced in function _scrypt_getpowhash
scryptmodule.obj : error LNK2019: unresolved external symbol __imp__Py_BuildValue referenced in function _scrypt_getpowhash
scryptmodule.obj : error LNK2019: unresolved external symbol __imp__PyString_AsString referenced in function _scrypt_getpowhash
scryptmodule.obj : error LNK2019: unresolved external symbol __imp__PyMem_Malloc referenced in function _scrypt_getpowhash
scryptmodule.obj : error LNK2019: unresolved external symbol __imp__PyArg_ParseTuple referenced in function _scrypt_getpowhash
scryptmodule.obj : error LNK2019: unresolved external symbol __imp__Py_InitModule4 referenced in function _initltc_scrypt
build\lib.win-amd64-2.7\ltc_scrypt.pyd : fatal error LNK1120: 6 unresolved externals
error: command '"E:\Program Files (x86)\Microsoft Visual Studio 10.0\VC\BIN\link.exe"' failed with exit status 1120
Any ideas? I have no troubles on win7 32bit...

1Rav3nkMayCijuhzcYemMiPYsvcaiwHni  Bitcoin stuff on my OneDrive
My RPC CoinControl for any coin https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=929954
Some stuff on https://github.com/Rav3nPL/
BR0KK
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 728
Merit: 500



View Profile
October 18, 2012, 08:32:19 PM
 #3564

Upgrades are comming fast with p2pool ?

from 5.0 to 8.2

Just upgraded Smiley


Is it normal that every new release ofd p2pool gets its own default BTC address with Bitcoin qt?

Krak
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 591
Merit: 500



View Profile WWW
October 18, 2012, 08:36:04 PM
 #3565

Is it normal that every new release ofd p2pool gets its own default BTC address with Bitcoin qt?
Yes. It's a good idea to set a static payout address with the -a flag.

BTC: 1KrakenLFEFg33A4f6xpwgv3UUoxrLPuGn
mdude77
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1540
Merit: 1001



View Profile
October 18, 2012, 09:42:29 PM
 #3566

I'm showing pool stale rate at 18%.  Aside from making my 4% very very efficient, is this normal for a hard branch?

I'm showing 8 at 20% right now.

M

I mine at Kano's Pool because it pays the best and is completely transparent!  Come join me!
BR0KK
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 728
Merit: 500



View Profile
October 18, 2012, 09:49:13 PM
 #3567

seeing the same atm.

Seems to be normal?

Code:
2012-10-18 23:48:46.318000 P2Pool: 17452 shares in chain (9324 verified/17456 total) Peers: 12 (2 incoming)
2012-10-18 23:48:46.319000  Local: 3851MH/s in last 10.0 minutes Local dead on arrival: ~4.3% (2-7%) Expected time to share: 13.0 minutes
2012-10-18 23:48:46.320000  Shares: 7 (1 orphan, 3 dead) Stale rate: ~57.1% (25-85%) Efficiency: ~51.2% (18-90%) Current payout: 0.0174 BTC
2012-10-18 23:48:46.321000  Pool: 399GH/s Stale rate: 16.3% Expected time to block: 9.2 hours

forrestv
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 516
Merit: 514


View Profile
October 18, 2012, 09:50:08 PM
 #3568

I'm showing pool stale rate at 18%.  Aside from making my 4% very very efficient, is this normal for a hard branch?

I'm showing 8 at 20% right now.

Nothing has actually happened yet. The switchover happens at 95% upgraded, and until then, nothing should change.

I think the jump in the pool's stale rate was someone joining with a lot of misconfigured miners (FPGAs?). Looking at http://forre.st:9332/static/graphs.html?Day , the good (non-stale) hashrate didn't decline.

1J1zegkNSbwX4smvTdoHSanUfwvXFeuV23
mdude77
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1540
Merit: 1001



View Profile
October 18, 2012, 09:51:11 PM
 #3569

I'm showing pool stale rate at 18%.  Aside from making my 4% very very efficient, is this normal for a hard branch?

I'm showing 8 at 20% right now.

Nothing has actually happened yet. The switchover happens at 95% upgraded, and until then, nothing should change.

I was wondering how that worked.  Clever!

M

I mine at Kano's Pool because it pays the best and is completely transparent!  Come join me!
rav3n_pl
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1360
Merit: 1000


Don`t panic! Organize!


View Profile WWW
October 18, 2012, 09:54:05 PM
 #3570

seeing the same atm.

Seems to be normal?

Code:
2012-10-18 23:48:46.318000 P2Pool: 17452 shares in chain (9324 verified/17456 total) Peers: 12 (2 incoming)
2012-10-18 23:48:46.319000  Local: 3851MH/s in last 10.0 minutes Local dead on arrival: ~4.3% (2-7%) Expected time to share: 13.0 minutes
2012-10-18 23:48:46.320000  Shares: 7 (1 orphan, 3 dead) Stale rate: ~57.1% (25-85%) Efficiency: ~51.2% (18-90%) Current payout: 0.0174 BTC
2012-10-18 23:48:46.321000  Pool: 399GH/s Stale rate: 16.3% Expected time to block: 9.2 hours

57% stales? Looks like failed miner config to me.
If you use cgminer (best miner imo) change in config:
"queue" : "0",
"gpu-threads" : "1",

1Rav3nkMayCijuhzcYemMiPYsvcaiwHni  Bitcoin stuff on my OneDrive
My RPC CoinControl for any coin https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=929954
Some stuff on https://github.com/Rav3nPL/
BR0KK
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 728
Merit: 500



View Profile
October 18, 2012, 09:59:32 PM
 #3571

no  i don't use GPUs Smiley

im testing p2pool, with my ztex boards (so FPGAs). I figured it takes some time for them to do real work.


rav3n_pl
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1360
Merit: 1000


Don`t panic! Organize!


View Profile WWW
October 18, 2012, 10:06:40 PM
 #3572

no  i don't use GPUs Smiley

im testing p2poo, with my ztex boards (sop FPGAs). I figured it takes some time for them to do real work.


If this boards not catching longpools properly and not returning shares just after they found it p2pool is not good for them.
I read about some FPGAs that making full nonce then returning shares it found. But if longpool hit in mean time they are DOA.
If you using cgminer change
"queue" : "0",
to prevent miner from fetching more work than it need.

1Rav3nkMayCijuhzcYemMiPYsvcaiwHni  Bitcoin stuff on my OneDrive
My RPC CoinControl for any coin https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=929954
Some stuff on https://github.com/Rav3nPL/
BR0KK
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 728
Merit: 500



View Profile
October 18, 2012, 10:15:12 PM
 #3573

might try cgminer on them (i use btcminer; ztex own miner; for them). But im not sure how to use that Smiley

and I'm testing a beta release of the ztex bitstream. that might be a problem too here.


Code:
Version: 8.2

Pool rate: 366GH/s (14% stale) Share difficulty: 703

Node uptime: 0.098 days Peers: 10 out, 2 in

Local rate: 3.87GH/s (2.6% DOA) Expected time to share: 0.217 hours

Shares: 7 total (1 orphaned, 3 dead) Efficiency: 49.76%

thats what the stats page gives me. Ill let it run for a night and report back. Im online for a few minutes now. As i recall that behavior was the same with p2pool 5 (and all versions below) ittl correct itself after running a while..... I hope so :/

thats the printout of btcminer:
Code:
bus-0-0: ztex_ufm1_15d4-04A32E1205-1: f=204,00MHz,  errorRate=0,07%,  maxErrorRate=0,90%,  hashRate=203,9MH/s,  submitted 16 new nonces,  luckFactor=1,21
bus-0-0: ztex_ufm1_15d4-04A3468E00-1: f=208,00MHz,  errorRate=0,07%,  maxErrorRate=0,86%,  hashRate=207,9MH/s,  submitted 16 new nonces,  luckFactor=0,97
bus-0-0: ztex_ufm1_15d4-04A3469756-1: f=212,00MHz,  errorRate=0,41%,  maxErrorRate=1,25%,  hashRate=211,1MH/s,  submitted 15 new nonces,  luckFactor=0,87
bus-0-0: ztex_ufm1_15d4-04A346BF8B-1: f=212,00MHz,  errorRate=0,03%,  maxErrorRate=0,71%,  hashRate=211,9MH/s,  submitted 14 new nonces,  luckFactor=1,00
bus-0-0: ztex_ufm1_15d4-04A346D523-1: f=216,00MHz,  errorRate=0,02%,  maxErrorRate=0,50%,  hashRate=216,0MH/s,  submitted 17 new nonces,  luckFactor=1,02
bus-0-0: ztex_ufm1_15d4-04A346E12C-1: f=204,00MHz,  errorRate=1,17%,  maxErrorRate=2,36%,  hashRate=201,6MH/s,  submitted 18 new nonces,  luckFactor=1,22
bus-0-0: ztex_ufm1_15y1-04A3461185-1: f=228,00MHz,  errorRate=0,00%,  maxErrorRate=0,00%,  hashRate=228,0MH/s,  submitted 10 new nonces,  luckFactor=0,57
bus-0-0: ztex_ufm1_15y1-04A3461185-2: f=228,00MHz,  errorRate=0,68%,  maxErrorRate=1,36%,  hashRate=226,4MH/s,  submitted 20 new nonces,  luckFactor=0,93
bus-0-0: ztex_ufm1_15y1-04A3461185-3: f=228,00MHz,  errorRate=0,00%,  maxErrorRate=0,00%,  hashRate=228,0MH/s,  submitted 14 new nonces,  luckFactor=0,89
bus-0-0: ztex_ufm1_15y1-04A3461185-4: f=228,00MHz,  errorRate=0,13%,  maxErrorRate=0,51%,  hashRate=227,7MH/s,  submitted 10 new nonces,  luckFactor=0,91
bus-0-1: ztex_ufm1_15y1-04A34644C6-1: f=220,00MHz,  errorRate=0,00%,  maxErrorRate=1,00%,  hashRate=220,0MH/s,  submitted 12 new nonces,  luckFactor=0,80
bus-0-1: ztex_ufm1_15y1-04A34644C6-2: f=228,00MHz,  errorRate=0,07%,  maxErrorRate=0,82%,  hashRate=227,8MH/s,  submitted 8 new nonces,  luckFactor=0,69
bus-0-1: ztex_ufm1_15y1-04A34644C6-3: f=224,00MHz,  errorRate=0,00%,  maxErrorRate=0,94%,  hashRate=224,0MH/s,  submitted 14 new nonces,  luckFactor=0,80
bus-0-1: ztex_ufm1_15y1-04A34644C6-4: f=228,00MHz,  errorRate=0,00%,  maxErrorRate=0,00%,  hashRate=228,0MH/s,  submitted 15 new nonces,  luckFactor=0,93
bus-0-1: ztex_ufm1_15y1-04A36E24F2-1: f=220,00MHz,  errorRate=0,74%,  maxErrorRate=1,32%,  hashRate=218,4MH/s,  submitted 15 new nonces,  luckFactor=1,03
bus-0-1: ztex_ufm1_15y1-04A36E24F2-2: f=216,00MHz,  errorRate=0,00%,  maxErrorRate=0,00%,  hashRate=216,0MH/s,  submitted 21 new nonces,  luckFactor=1,12
bus-0-1: ztex_ufm1_15y1-04A36E24F2-3: f=220,00MHz,  errorRate=0,00%,  maxErrorRate=0,98%,  hashRate=220,0MH/s,  submitted 24 new nonces,  luckFactor=1,06
bus-0-1: ztex_ufm1_15y1-04A36E24F2-4: f=216,00MHz,  errorRate=0,75%,  maxErrorRate=1,03%,  hashRate=214,4MH/s,  submitted 21 new nonces,  luckFactor=1,09
bus-0-0: poll loop time: 49ms (USB: 46ms network: 3ms)   getwork time: 7ms  submit time: 2ms
bus-0-1: poll loop time: 51ms (USB: 49ms network: 3ms)   getwork time: 8ms  submit time: 3ms
Total hash rate: 3931,1 MH/s
Total submitted hash rate: 3699,5 MH/s
 --------
bus-0-0: ztex_ufm1_15y1-04A3461185-1: Set frequency from 228,00MHz to 232,00MHz
New block detected by long polling (submitold = true)
New block detected by long polling (submitold = true)
New block detected by long polling (submitold = true)
bus-0-0: ztex_ufm1_15y1-04A3461185-1: Set frequency from 232,00MHz to 228,00MHz
New block detected by long polling (submitold = true)
New block detected by long polling (submitold = true)

Note: Boards are still in the clocking phase.... so that might be an efficiency killer too?

rav3n_pl
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1360
Merit: 1000


Don`t panic! Organize!


View Profile WWW
October 18, 2012, 10:26:47 PM
 #3574

Code:
Local rate: 3.87GH/s (2.6% DOA) Expected time to share: 0.217 hours
THIS looks good, only 2,6% DOA Smiley
Code:
Shares: 7 total (1 orphaned, 3 dead) Efficiency: 49.76%
This looks worse, IMO too many dead shares, looks like something lagging there.

1Rav3nkMayCijuhzcYemMiPYsvcaiwHni  Bitcoin stuff on my OneDrive
My RPC CoinControl for any coin https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=929954
Some stuff on https://github.com/Rav3nPL/
BR0KK
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 728
Merit: 500



View Profile
October 18, 2012, 10:38:01 PM
 #3575

That might be caused from USB lagging ..... Have to restart the Mac again. I'll leave tit running now till tomorrow morning (desperately need sleep!)

Need to buy another miner base....( The mac mini draws way to much power) Since the pi is not good for this I'm still searching :/

How many deads should there be for 3,9 ghs?

ChipGeek
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 198
Merit: 100


View Profile
October 18, 2012, 10:44:45 PM
 #3576

Need to buy another miner base....( The mac mini draws way to much power) Since the pi is not good for this I'm still searching :/

Why is the Raspberry Pi not good for this? 

I have a R-Pi and have been using it with a BFL Single on non-p2p pools quite well.  But as soon as (or if) ASICs arrive I plan on switching back to p2pool on my R-Pi.  Assuming there is NOT the same inefficiency that currently exists with BFL on p2pool.

Tip jar: 1ChipGeeK7PDxaAWG4VgsTi31SfJ6peKHw
stevegee58
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 922
Merit: 1003



View Profile
October 19, 2012, 12:05:02 AM
 #3577

I thought I'd try p2pool again but I'm having a heck of a time getting the client to run this time around.  I'm running bitcoin-qt 0.7.0 with the .conf file set up correctly as a server.  I'm running the latest p2pool client 8.2

When I start run_p2pool.exe I get this in the log file:

Code:
2012-10-18 20:03:33.221000 p2pool (version 8.2)
2012-10-18 20:03:33.221000
2012-10-18 20:03:33.221000 Testing bitcoind RPC connection to 'http://127.0.0.1:8332/' with username 'user'...
2012-10-18 20:03:33.861000 Testing bitcoind P2P connection to '127.0.0.1:8333'...

It just sits there and never says success.

You are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike.
Smoovious
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 504
Merit: 500

Scattering my bits around the net since 1980


View Profile
October 19, 2012, 12:13:47 AM
 #3578

I thought I'd try p2pool again but I'm having a heck of a time getting the client to run this time around.  I'm running bitcoin-qt 0.7.0 with the .conf file set up correctly as a server.  I'm running the latest p2pool client 8.2

When I start run_p2pool.exe I get this in the log file:

Code:
2012-10-18 20:03:33.221000 p2pool (version 8.2)
2012-10-18 20:03:33.221000
2012-10-18 20:03:33.221000 Testing bitcoind RPC connection to 'http://127.0.0.1:8332/' with username 'user'...
2012-10-18 20:03:33.861000 Testing bitcoind P2P connection to '127.0.0.1:8333'...

It just sits there and never says success.
Are you limiting the # of connections in bitcoind, and, is bitcoind already at that limit? (that's what the problem is on my end when that happens... it keeps retrying so if you lose a peer connection in bitcoind, then p2pool can get in)

-- Smoov
stevegee58
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 922
Merit: 1003



View Profile
October 19, 2012, 12:24:55 AM
 #3579

I haven't done anything special to limit connections to my knowledge.

I'm not using bitcoind BTW, I'm using bitcoin-qt (the GUI client).  I was using it earlier this year like this successfully.

You are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike.
Smoovious
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 504
Merit: 500

Scattering my bits around the net since 1980


View Profile
October 19, 2012, 12:35:57 AM
 #3580

I haven't done anything special to limit connections to my knowledge.

I'm not using bitcoind BTW, I'm using bitcoin-qt (the GUI client).  I was using it earlier this year like this successfully.
daemon=1
server=1
rpcuser=username
rpcpassword=password
rpcport=8332
rpcallowip=127.0.0.1

all these defined in bitcoin.conf?

-- Smoov

Pages: « 1 ... 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 [179] 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 ... 814 »
  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!