Bitcoin Forum
December 08, 2016, 05:59:03 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 ... 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 [309] 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 ... 744 »
  Print  
Author Topic: [1500 TH] p2pool: Decentralized, DoS-resistant, Hop-Proof pool  (Read 2032657 times)
BTCMiners.net
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 252



View Profile WWW
July 19, 2013, 05:18:37 PM
 #6161

So, being that for the next 2 weeks I have a really bad internet connection; I should set my pseudo difficulty share to a higher amount so that it's not killing my internet speeds?

Also, thank you for answering my first question! Smiley
A higher share difficulty won't hurt anything; it'll just make your graphs go all over the place. I personally use difficulty 8 on my Jalapeno just to save some bandwidth. If you're mining on a node on your local network, however, the only thing you're really saving is maybe a tiny amount of CPU power.

I'm mining on someone else's p2pool node, which is relatively close, 1 state away.  But I have a pathetic 2Mbps and 1Mbps up until next week or two tops when I get the 75Mbps and 20Mbps up. Cheesy

At that point, my RAID-1 2x2TB HDD, PCI-e 16x dual network card, 32GB of DDR3 memory and my 3.66GHz AMD Hex Core will be hosting it's own P2Pool node.  CAN'T WAIT!

I might charge a small fee, but then if funds allow I'll be placing it within a data center in the Midwest as it doesn't seem to have a lot of nodes in this general region with a good, quality connection.

Buy Cloud Hashing! $8.50 USD per GH/s!  [32.231 TH/s] Remaining
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=329674.20  -- www.BTCMiners.net
1481176743
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481176743

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481176743
Reply with quote  #2

1481176743
Report to moderator
1481176743
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481176743

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481176743
Reply with quote  #2

1481176743
Report to moderator
1481176743
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481176743

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481176743
Reply with quote  #2

1481176743
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1481176743
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481176743

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481176743
Reply with quote  #2

1481176743
Report to moderator
1481176743
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481176743

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481176743
Reply with quote  #2

1481176743
Report to moderator
gyverlb
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 896



View Profile
July 19, 2013, 07:25:37 PM
 #6162

This has been already discussed here. Current share "punishing" mechanism is broken. I hope forrestv will eventually notice and fix it. Until then, I just comment out those three lines which "jump" to previous share and I don't really care if anyone suffers from it.

Broken how? There's not even a bug on the bugtracker related to share punishing.

Devs don't dig in forum posts for bug descriptions unless they happen to be involved in it...

Last time I found a bug with zvs, I created an entry in the bugtracker with detailed explanations and forrestv designed a solution in a couple of weeks (which is now in place).

P2pool tuning guide
Trade BTC for €/$ at bitcoin.de (referral), it's cheaper and faster (acts as escrow and lets the buyers do bank transfers).
Tip: 17bdPfKXXvr7zETKRkPG14dEjfgBt5k2dd
baloo_kiev
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 476


View Profile
July 20, 2013, 12:31:23 AM
 #6163

This has been already discussed here. Current share "punishing" mechanism is broken. I hope forrestv will eventually notice and fix it. Until then, I just comment out those three lines which "jump" to previous share and I don't really care if anyone suffers from it.

Broken how? There's not even a bug on the bugtracker related to share punishing.

Devs don't dig in forum posts for bug descriptions unless they happen to be involved in it...

Last time I found a bug with zvs, I created an entry in the bugtracker with detailed explanations and forrestv designed a solution in a couple of weeks (which is now in place).

Sorry for misunderstanding here. When saying "broken", I mean not broken code but wrong algorithm/strategy.

One of principal rules of mining, as I understand it, is "A miner who breaks a rule must be punished." For example, if you mine not on the latest block but its parent, or mine invalid blocks, your work will be orphaned by the rest of network.

Now consider the rule defined by those 3 lines I was talking about. It states "If a share (S) is based on stale block, mine on its parent (P)." (That's what "Punishing for block-stale / Jumping to ..." log message is about.) If a miner (either intentionally or because of slow bitcoind) disrespects this rule, not only he loses nothing, but may also eventually profit from it! Really, his share A (a child of block-stale share S, which is punished by the rest of the network) is 1 share ahead of "proper" miner's share B, which is P's child. As a result, A will have priority over B even if B is found earlier!

Should I report a bug on GitHub?

PGP: 6EC48BA7
Welcome to my p2pool: BTC
maqifrnswa
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 454


View Profile
July 20, 2013, 03:35:41 PM
 #6164

Sorry for misunderstanding here. When saying "broken", I mean not broken code but wrong algorithm/strategy.

One of principal rules of mining, as I understand it, is "A miner who breaks a rule must be punished." For example, if you mine not on the latest block but its parent, or mine invalid blocks, your work will be orphaned by the rest of network.

Now consider the rule defined by those 3 lines I was talking about. It states "If a share (S) is based on stale block, mine on its parent (P)." (That's what "Punishing for block-stale / Jumping to ..." log message is about.) If a miner (either intentionally or because of slow bitcoind) disrespects this rule, not only he loses nothing, but may also eventually profit from it! Really, his share A (a child of block-stale share S, which is punished by the rest of the network) is 1 share ahead of "proper" miner's share B, which is P's child. As a result, A will have priority over B even if B is found earlier!

Should I report a bug on GitHub?

I think it should be reported, at least to start the discussion
forrestv
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 510


View Profile
July 20, 2013, 07:19:56 PM
 #6165

P2Pool release 13.2  - commit hash: a7e081924e8bd1f3a7b57dc34499475b8cd458a5

Windows binary: http://u.forre.st/u/xypigdde/p2pool_win32_13.2.zip
Windows binary signature: http://u.forre.st/u/vuopsaei/p2pool_win32_13.2.zip.sig
Source zipball: https://github.com/forrestv/p2pool/zipball/13.2
Source tarball: https://github.com/forrestv/p2pool/tarball/13.2

Changes:
* Out-of-the-box Avalon device support - simply point Avalon devices to http://P2POOL_HOST:9332/

1J1zegkNSbwX4smvTdoHSanUfwvXFeuV23
lenny_
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 953



View Profile
July 20, 2013, 07:38:56 PM
 #6166

P2Pool release 13.2  - commit hash: a7e081924e8bd1f3a7b57dc34499475b8cd458a5

Windows binary: http://u.forre.st/u/xypigdde/p2pool_win32_13.2.zip
Windows binary signature: http://u.forre.st/u/vuopsaei/p2pool_win32_13.2.zip.sig
Source zipball: https://github.com/forrestv/p2pool/zipball/13.2
Source tarball: https://github.com/forrestv/p2pool/tarball/13.2

Changes:
* Out-of-the-box Avalon device support - simply point Avalon devices to http://P2POOL_HOST:9332/

Well done!
zvs
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1386



View Profile WWW
July 20, 2013, 08:00:51 PM
 #6167

i have it running now if someone wanted to test before setting up local node or something

Quote
Now consider the rule defined by those 3 lines I was talking about. It states "If a share (S) is based on stale block, mine on its parent (P)." (That's what "Punishing for block-stale / Jumping to ..." log message is about.) If a miner (either intentionally or because of slow bitcoind) disrespects this rule, not only he loses nothing, but may also eventually profit from it! Really, his share A (a child of block-stale share S, which is punished by the rest of the network) is 1 share ahead of "proper" miner's share B, which is P's child. As a result, A will have priority over B even if B is found earlier!

Exactly  Undecided

Dacentec, best deals for US dedicated servers. They regularly restock $20-$25 Opterons with 8-16GB RAM & 2x1-2TB HDD's (ofc, usually lots of other good stuff to choose from).  I did a Serverbear benchmark of one of my $20/mo Opteron (June last year), it's here.  Have had about a half dozen different servers with Dacentec, & none have failed to sustain at least 40MB/s (burst higher). My favorite is a 12-month rent-to-own ZT Systems 2XL5520 16GB 2x2TB SATA for $40/month (got lucky with the 'off-brand', haven't seen a RTO 2xL5520 for under $50/mo since -- at least for monthly contracts).  wholesaleinternet.com has some ancient 2-core intel CPUs @ $10/mo sometimes (I got an Intel Core 2 6300 @ 1.86GHz, with a 250GB HDD with 46000 hours on it, LOL. $20 @ Dacentec is much better, if you can grab one). joesdatacenter.com (same location as Wholesale Internet) also occasionally has specials (or if you don't want to wait, it has an AMD Opteron 170 @ $16/mo).
gyverlb
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 896



View Profile
July 21, 2013, 12:38:11 AM
 #6168


    Now consider the rule defined by those 3 lines I was talking about. It states "If a share (S) is based on stale block, mine on its parent (P)." (That's what "Punishing for block-stale / Jumping to ..." log message is about.) If a miner (either intentionally or because of slow bitcoind) disrespects this rule, not only he loses nothing, but may also eventually profit from it! Really, his share A (a child of block-stale share S, which is punished by the rest of the network) is 1 share ahead of "proper" miner's share B, which is P's child. As a result, A will have priority over B even if B is found earlier!

    Should I report a bug on GitHub?

    You should. But read below why I think it's not high priority.

    2 cases in your example:
    • local bitcoind lagging: miner is punished most of the time so it is prevented to benefit from worthless work as intended and is motivated to upgrade his/her configuration
    • node trying to make his share more resilient by avoiding to build on the parent share

    In the "more resilient attack" the node can only attack after one out of 20 shares (30s share interval with 10mn block interval) if and only if it is from a slow node producing a stale share (assuming we don't have nodes more than 30-60s behind the Bitcoin network able to make 2 successive stale shares).
    • if another node finds a share before him he will automatically switch to it as building on either fork doesn't give him any benefit anymore
    • if he finds a share before the rest of the network, he won't have gained anything (he has as much chances of that happening when mining on the parent share)
    • the only gain is when he finds a share that collides with another : there he will be sure to win instead of having ~50% chances
    .

    So someone trying this attack will get benefit for less than 5% (1 in 20 at most, probably far less) of his expected DOA+Orphan rate (which seems to be ~10% since we switched to a 30s share interval) and this benefit will be ~50%.

    So in the most pathological case where 100% of the network produces stale shares (built with the previous block), the expected benefit is only 50% of 10% of 5% : 0.25%.

    Most nodes probably don't produce stale shares, so this is more likely a ~0.1% advantage.

    Now what is the attacker losing? If you don't punish slow nodes you are hurting yourself as much as the rest of the network by validating wasted work. The exception is the slow node which is grateful to be paid for worthless work.
    For every gained share you are validating one worthless share. If everyone did this, everyone would lose money to worthless shares producers instead of gaining 0.1%. Now it's too late for me to try to estimate how much is lost but disabling the protection might not be a good idea, especially if many are doing it. It probably would end in a "tragedy of the commons": you can gain a bit by doing it, but when everyone does it, everyone loses.

    Allowing worthless work allows it to rise without limits: if there are very slow bitcoinds with very high hashrate they could make 2 or more consecutive stale shares a frequent occasion and rise the worthless hashrate to 10 or more percent of the whole pool.

    One solution might be to ignore stale shares when comparing the different sharechain forks. People disabling the protection would get no benefit at all.

    In the meanwhile, advocating to remove the protection is an attack on P2Pool, please stop doing it unless you want to participate in your own reduced income.[/list]

    P2pool tuning guide
    Trade BTC for €/$ at bitcoin.de (referral), it's cheaper and faster (acts as escrow and lets the buyers do bank transfers).
    Tip: 17bdPfKXXvr7zETKRkPG14dEjfgBt5k2dd
    zvs
    Legendary
    *
    Offline Offline

    Activity: 1386



    View Profile WWW
    July 21, 2013, 12:51:32 AM
     #6169

    Uh, you've got it as the exact opposite of what the reality is

    Slow nodes aren't being punished... furthermore, if they found a block while generating these useless shares, then it'd be an orphaned block

    Dacentec, best deals for US dedicated servers. They regularly restock $20-$25 Opterons with 8-16GB RAM & 2x1-2TB HDD's (ofc, usually lots of other good stuff to choose from).  I did a Serverbear benchmark of one of my $20/mo Opteron (June last year), it's here.  Have had about a half dozen different servers with Dacentec, & none have failed to sustain at least 40MB/s (burst higher). My favorite is a 12-month rent-to-own ZT Systems 2XL5520 16GB 2x2TB SATA for $40/month (got lucky with the 'off-brand', haven't seen a RTO 2xL5520 for under $50/mo since -- at least for monthly contracts).  wholesaleinternet.com has some ancient 2-core intel CPUs @ $10/mo sometimes (I got an Intel Core 2 6300 @ 1.86GHz, with a 250GB HDD with 46000 hours on it, LOL. $20 @ Dacentec is much better, if you can grab one). joesdatacenter.com (same location as Wholesale Internet) also occasionally has specials (or if you don't want to wait, it has an AMD Opteron 170 @ $16/mo).
    zvs
    Legendary
    *
    Offline Offline

    Activity: 1386



    View Profile WWW
    July 21, 2013, 05:30:16 AM
     #6170

    OK, I started using the fork again to get more examples.  Not so difficult there since I get about 10-15% of the shares.

    Anyway, here you go:

    2013-07-20 23:37:10.117273 Skipping from block 8fb150619665d3e8d31395239d90fa377275479c6322072a76 to block 3b02efd60769dd972d8c9473a16396a47c3d4181fcdf216258!
    2013-07-20 23:37:10.121500 New work for worker! Difficulty: 0.999985 Share difficulty: 64.059627 Total block value: 25.000000 BTC including 0 transactions
    2013-07-20 23:37:10.284908 New work for worker! Difficulty: 0.999985 Share difficulty: 64.071125 Total block value: 25.000000 BTC including 0 transactions
    2013-07-20 23:37:11.055484 Punishing share for 'Block-stale detected! 8fb150619665d3e8d31395239d90fa377275479c6322072a76 < 3b02efd60769dd972d8c9473a16396a47c3d4181fcdf216258'! Jumping from 5cfa46a1 to 1d667ebf!
    2013-07-20 23:37:11.070429 New work for worker! Difficulty: 0.999985 Share difficulty: 64.059627 Total block value: 25.000000 BTC including 0 transactions
    2013-07-20 23:37:11.085102 GOT SHARE! General.Butt.Naked 9036b0e9 prev 5cfa46a1 age 0.80s DEAD ON ARRIVAL
    2013-07-20 23:37:11.112115 New work for worker! Difficulty: 0.999985 Share difficulty: 64.151483 Total block value: 25.000000 BTC including 0 transactions
    2013-07-20 23:37:11.268987 Peer sent entire transaction 0946744912e4b00dd29396dc7a63d3fb3b46e8a7915cbdffcc02b8ea8272dcc5 that was already received
    2013-07-20 23:37:12.249095 Peer sent entire transaction 0946744912e4b00dd29396dc7a63d3fb3b46e8a7915cbdffcc02b8ea8272dcc5 that was already received
    2013-07-20 23:37:12.439025 Peer sent entire transaction 0946744912e4b00dd29396dc7a63d3fb3b46e8a7915cbdffcc02b8ea8272dcc5 that was already received
    2013-07-20 23:37:14.459965 P2Pool: 17353 shares in chain (17357 verified/17357 total) Peers: 22 (0 incoming)
    2013-07-20 23:37:14.460087  Local: 2562MH/s in last 10.0 minutes Local dead on arrival: ~3.4% (1-6%) Expected time to share: 1.8 minutes
    2013-07-20 23:37:14.460151  Shares: 35 (0 orphan, 0 dead) Stale rate: ~0.0% (0-10%) Efficiency: ~128.6% (115-129%) Current payout: 0.1031 BTC

    -------

    Notice something wrong in this picture?  Heh.

    Well, again, it would have been my first DOA/orphan... except, well, it wasn't a DOA.  This time I was slow, but my share that arrived about 950ms after my bitcoind picked up the new block and built off of 5cfa46a1 instead of 1d667ebf...  became undead....  because, well, someone else had a slow bitcoind.

    I'd say this occurs maybe 5% of the time, the other 95% of the time is when I get a legit shit that's orphaned... probably a few of them by ^^ zombies like that

    ... i think it must have been between me and that other share that got punished 300ms earlier.  maybe the 150ms between the punish and the 'new work for worker' is where my miner picked up the share based on the 5cfa46a1 parent. 

    Dacentec, best deals for US dedicated servers. They regularly restock $20-$25 Opterons with 8-16GB RAM & 2x1-2TB HDD's (ofc, usually lots of other good stuff to choose from).  I did a Serverbear benchmark of one of my $20/mo Opteron (June last year), it's here.  Have had about a half dozen different servers with Dacentec, & none have failed to sustain at least 40MB/s (burst higher). My favorite is a 12-month rent-to-own ZT Systems 2XL5520 16GB 2x2TB SATA for $40/month (got lucky with the 'off-brand', haven't seen a RTO 2xL5520 for under $50/mo since -- at least for monthly contracts).  wholesaleinternet.com has some ancient 2-core intel CPUs @ $10/mo sometimes (I got an Intel Core 2 6300 @ 1.86GHz, with a 250GB HDD with 46000 hours on it, LOL. $20 @ Dacentec is much better, if you can grab one). joesdatacenter.com (same location as Wholesale Internet) also occasionally has specials (or if you don't want to wait, it has an AMD Opteron 170 @ $16/mo).
    Searinox
    Member
    **
    Offline Offline

    Activity: 100

    Do you like fire? I'm full of it.


    View Profile
    July 21, 2013, 09:56:47 AM
     #6171

    What do I need to do to set a custom difficulty? At 200MH/s mining at current difficulty's gonna get awfully spiky.
    mdude77
    Legendary
    *
    Offline Offline

    Activity: 1358


    View Profile
    July 21, 2013, 10:03:43 AM
     #6172

    What do I need to do to set a custom difficulty? At 200MH/s mining at current difficulty's gonna get awfully spiky.

    Um.  At 200MH/s you might want to give up or use an alt coin.

    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.
    bitpop
    Legendary
    *
    Offline Offline

    Activity: 1932


    https://keybase.io/bitpop


    View Profile WWW
    July 21, 2013, 10:08:57 AM
     #6173

    It seems I get a lot of rejects just due to constant difficulty changes. Should I make it static or do these changes coincide with the 30 second cycles?

    Reputation  |  PGP  |  DigitalOcean  |  OpenVPN 2GB Free  |  TorGuard  |  Ethereum Classic
    Bitcoin: 3DSh6AnmvBpDJFUz2mnLirMLmTMcFs9nDm
    Bitmessage: BM-2cXN9j8NFT2n1FxDVQ6HQq4D4MZuuaBFyb
    gyverlb
    Hero Member
    *****
    Offline Offline

    Activity: 896



    View Profile
    July 21, 2013, 10:12:50 AM
     #6174

    Uh, you've got it as the exact opposite of what the reality is

    Care to explain this? I have several steps in my explanation, are they all wrong or only some of them?

    Slow nodes aren't being punished...

    If you mean slow bitcoind nodes, of course they are (until you remove the 3 lines that punish them when they generate stale shares), seems pretty obvious to me as it's the goal of this code.

    furthermore, if they found a block while generating these useless shares, then it'd be an orphaned block

    Hum? I don't get what this has to do with the current discussion and it seems it should be pretty obvious to everyone.

    P2pool tuning guide
    Trade BTC for €/$ at bitcoin.de (referral), it's cheaper and faster (acts as escrow and lets the buyers do bank transfers).
    Tip: 17bdPfKXXvr7zETKRkPG14dEjfgBt5k2dd
    gyverlb
    Hero Member
    *****
    Offline Offline

    Activity: 896



    View Profile
    July 21, 2013, 10:29:18 AM
     #6175

    OK, I started using the fork again to get more examples.  Not so difficult there since I get about 10-15% of the shares.

    Anyway, here you go:

    2013-07-20 23:37:10.117273 Skipping from block 8fb150619665d3e8d31395239d90fa377275479c6322072a76 to block 3b02efd60769dd972d8c9473a16396a47c3d4181fcdf216258!
    2013-07-20 23:37:10.121500 New work for worker! Difficulty: 0.999985 Share difficulty: 64.059627 Total block value: 25.000000 BTC including 0 transactions
    2013-07-20 23:37:10.284908 New work for worker! Difficulty: 0.999985 Share difficulty: 64.071125 Total block value: 25.000000 BTC including 0 transactions
    2013-07-20 23:37:11.055484 Punishing share for 'Block-stale detected! 8fb150619665d3e8d31395239d90fa377275479c6322072a76 < 3b02efd60769dd972d8c9473a16396a47c3d4181fcdf216258'! Jumping from 5cfa46a1 to 1d667ebf!
    2013-07-20 23:37:11.070429 New work for worker! Difficulty: 0.999985 Share difficulty: 64.059627 Total block value: 25.000000 BTC including 0 transactions
    2013-07-20 23:37:11.085102 GOT SHARE! General.Butt.Naked 9036b0e9 prev 5cfa46a1 age 0.80s DEAD ON ARRIVAL
    2013-07-20 23:37:11.112115 New work for worker! Difficulty: 0.999985 Share difficulty: 64.151483 Total block value: 25.000000 BTC including 0 transactions
    2013-07-20 23:37:11.268987 Peer sent entire transaction 0946744912e4b00dd29396dc7a63d3fb3b46e8a7915cbdffcc02b8ea8272dcc5 that was already received
    2013-07-20 23:37:12.249095 Peer sent entire transaction 0946744912e4b00dd29396dc7a63d3fb3b46e8a7915cbdffcc02b8ea8272dcc5 that was already received
    2013-07-20 23:37:12.439025 Peer sent entire transaction 0946744912e4b00dd29396dc7a63d3fb3b46e8a7915cbdffcc02b8ea8272dcc5 that was already received
    2013-07-20 23:37:14.459965 P2Pool: 17353 shares in chain (17357 verified/17357 total) Peers: 22 (0 incoming)
    2013-07-20 23:37:14.460087  Local: 2562MH/s in last 10.0 minutes Local dead on arrival: ~3.4% (1-6%) Expected time to share: 1.8 minutes
    2013-07-20 23:37:14.460151  Shares: 35 (0 orphan, 0 dead) Stale rate: ~0.0% (0-10%) Efficiency: ~128.6% (115-129%) Current payout: 0.1031 BTC

    -------

    Notice something wrong in this picture?  Heh.

    Yes, you are complaining about one share being reported DOA but your estimated efficiency is ~128.6%.

    Well, again, it would have been my first DOA/orphan... except, well, it wasn't a DOA.  This time I was slow, but my share that arrived about 950ms after my bitcoind picked up the new block and built off of 5cfa46a1 instead of 1d667ebf...  became undead....  because, well, someone else had a slow bitcoind.

    Any proof of that or is it speculation?

    I'd say this occurs maybe 5% of the time

    You'd say many things but you wouldn't back it up with useful data would you? If you want to get someone else interested, copy your logs, find out the precise percentage of whatever you think is wrong is happening instead of guessing and if you still think there is a problem push it somewhere with your findings. If you manage to prove that your efficiency is changed by more than 1% over 3 days I'd be surprised, heck, I even would raise an eyebrow if it was changed by more than 0.25%.

    Repeatedly claiming there's a bug affecting income of normal miners when these 'victims' always have above normal efficiency is becoming old and tired. Isolated events are meaningless: statistics on at least 3 days worth of data and 1000 self-produced shares (if you want to prove a 1% change, 10000 if you want to prove a 0.1% change) or GTFO.

    P2pool tuning guide
    Trade BTC for €/$ at bitcoin.de (referral), it's cheaper and faster (acts as escrow and lets the buyers do bank transfers).
    Tip: 17bdPfKXXvr7zETKRkPG14dEjfgBt5k2dd
    gyverlb
    Hero Member
    *****
    Offline Offline

    Activity: 896



    View Profile
    July 21, 2013, 10:32:19 AM
     #6176

    It seems I get a lot of rejects just due to constant difficulty changes. Should I make it static or do these changes coincide with the 30 second cycles?

    "A lot of" isn't useful a number so I don't know.

    What is your efficiency ? If it's >=100% don't change anything. If it's bellow, describe your setup.

    P2pool tuning guide
    Trade BTC for €/$ at bitcoin.de (referral), it's cheaper and faster (acts as escrow and lets the buyers do bank transfers).
    Tip: 17bdPfKXXvr7zETKRkPG14dEjfgBt5k2dd
    bitpop
    Legendary
    *
    Offline Offline

    Activity: 1932


    https://keybase.io/bitpop


    View Profile WWW
    July 21, 2013, 10:34:23 AM
     #6177

    2 jalapenos, 16 asic usb. I'm getting 95%.

    It seems I get a lot of rejects just due to constant difficulty changes. Should I make it static or do these changes coincide with the 30 second cycles?

    "A lot of" isn't useful a number so I don't know.

    What is your efficiency ? If it's >=100% don't change anything. If it's bellow, describe your setup.

    Reputation  |  PGP  |  DigitalOcean  |  OpenVPN 2GB Free  |  TorGuard  |  Ethereum Classic
    Bitcoin: 3DSh6AnmvBpDJFUz2mnLirMLmTMcFs9nDm
    Bitmessage: BM-2cXN9j8NFT2n1FxDVQ6HQq4D4MZuuaBFyb
    gyverlb
    Hero Member
    *****
    Offline Offline

    Activity: 896



    View Profile
    July 21, 2013, 10:45:52 AM
     #6178

    2 jalapenos, 16 asic usb. I'm getting 95%.

    It seems I get a lot of rejects just due to constant difficulty changes. Should I make it static or do these changes coincide with the 30 second cycles?

    "A lot of" isn't useful a number so I don't know.

    What is your efficiency ? If it's >=100% don't change anything. If it's bellow, describe your setup.

    I assume it's over a large number of shares (I'd say you need 100-200 to have reasonable causes for alarm at 95% efficiency).

    To find out if it's related to difficulty changes, you can try to make it static (just use "+<n>" with <n> above the maximum difficulty you get with automatic). Let it run until you have 100-200 shares and compare your efficiency.

    P2pool tuning guide
    Trade BTC for €/$ at bitcoin.de (referral), it's cheaper and faster (acts as escrow and lets the buyers do bank transfers).
    Tip: 17bdPfKXXvr7zETKRkPG14dEjfgBt5k2dd
    centove
    Full Member
    ***
    Offline Offline

    Activity: 194


    View Profile
    July 21, 2013, 12:00:58 PM
     #6179

    Just noticed this:
     Pool Speed: 2.03TH/s (12% DOA+orphan)

    Guess some more asic's came online?

    Give me Btc: 1BRkf5bwSVdGCyvu4SyYBiJjEjbNiAQoYd Mine on my node: http://ask.gxsnmp.org:9332/
    mdude77
    Legendary
    *
    Offline Offline

    Activity: 1358


    View Profile
    July 21, 2013, 12:05:18 PM
     #6180

    Just noticed this:
     Pool Speed: 2.03TH/s (12% DOA+orphan)

    Guess some more asic's came online?


    share difficulty is now at 12.6k as well.

    I saw a post earlier on how to change this, but I didn't understand it.  Can someone give a clear example of how to decrease it?  Dust transactions don't mean much if you get a block every day.  I'm more concerned about getting shares.

    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.
    Pages: « 1 ... 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 [309] 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 ... 744 »
      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!