Bitcoin Forum
December 09, 2016, 07:50:59 PM *
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  
Poll
Question: What type of pool payouts do you prefer?
Bitcoins - 3160 (80.5%)
Bank transfer / USD - 407 (10.4%)
Gold/silver coins and bars - 359 (9.1%)
Total Voters: 3924

Pages: « 1 ... 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 [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 ... 1105 »
  Print  
Author Topic: [40+ PH] SlushPool (slushpool.com); World's First Mining Pool  (Read 3931610 times)
nosfera2
Jr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 42



View Profile
June 22, 2011, 01:13:12 PM
 #3061

About blocks #5898 and #5896; They were very short, but both are invalid.  Probability of finding two solutions by two pool backends at same time (and twice in the row) is extremely small, but as you see, it may happen.

Pool backends are independent machines, which synchronize data as soon as possible, but broadcasting bitcoin block information is pretty complex stuff, so it may take one or two seconds. In those two blocks, two miners found solution too fast in a row and backends didn't notice that there is already valid solution for this block, so they decide to accept this solution, too. This leads to two 'invalid' blocks, but no (or only very small fraction) of mining power was wasted. I know that two 'invalid blocks' in a row looks weird, but there's not a simple solution to fix this issue and reject invalid block solution when another machine just found valid one.

Thanks for your reply. I see now that the blocks turned out to be invalid, but that if they were OK? The reward would be shared only by the lucky people who submitted shared to those blocks and in one of those cases, a maximum of 60 people would share 50 BTC that really belong to the whole pool. This is what I am trying to fix by suggesting that the rewards of extremely short block runs are shared according to the results of the previous block.
1481313059
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481313059

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481313059
Reply with quote  #2

1481313059
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
finnthecelt
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 140


View Profile
June 22, 2011, 01:16:25 PM
 #3062

About blocks #5898 and #5896; They were very short, but both are invalid.  Probability of finding two solutions by two pool backends at same time (and twice in the row) is extremely small, but as you see, it may happen.

Pool backends are independent machines, which synchronize data as soon as possible, but broadcasting bitcoin block information is pretty complex stuff, so it may take one or two seconds. In those two blocks, two miners found solution too fast in a row and backends didn't notice that there is already valid solution for this block, so they decide to accept this solution, too. This leads to two 'invalid' blocks, but no (or only very small fraction) of mining power was wasted. I know that two 'invalid blocks' in a row looks weird, but there's not a simple solution to fix this issue and reject invalid block solution when another machine just found valid one.

Thanks for your reply. I see now that the blocks turned out to be invalid, but that if they were OK? The reward would be shared only by the lucky people who submitted shared to those blocks and in one of those cases, a maximum of 60 people would share 50 BTC that really belong to the whole pool. This is what I am trying to fix by suggesting that the rewards of extremely short block runs are shared according to the results of the previous block.

Yes, of course my reward was very high for those blocks. Now invalid. Bummer.
slush
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1358



View Profile WWW
June 22, 2011, 05:39:56 PM
 #3063

I just released email confirmations for wallet changes on profile page.

Kuber
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 25


View Profile
June 22, 2011, 06:19:58 PM
 #3064

I just released email confirmations for wallet changes on profile page.

Thumps up Smiley
kerogre256
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 161


View Profile
June 22, 2011, 10:02:34 PM
 #3065

Hi how long its take to send coin ? or how to check it Smiley I  mine my 1 coin but it was not send to me ? Cry
finnthecelt
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 140


View Profile
June 22, 2011, 10:19:38 PM
 #3066

Hi how long its take to send coin ? or how to check it Smiley I  mine my 1 coin but it was not send to me ? Cry

Is your send threshold set to 1? Do you have your wallet opened and are all the blocks downloaded?
slush
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1358



View Profile WWW
June 23, 2011, 01:43:45 AM
 #3067

I found that at least one attacker compromised over 100 accounts, which is insane; it means that so many people had same login/password for both sites (pool, mtgox) and they even didn't changed password after strong recommendation in mtgox mass email.

I removed this wallet (http://blockexplorer.com/address/13F4yQfbzA6h2xiyqKVmhGr95zo5DGkK5R) from all pool accounts and thanks to email confirmations of wallet change, those attacks are over. Fortunately only 4.39 BTC was lost in total...

If you find that your wallet on pool profile is "Enter your address here", it means that your account was compromised and I removed attacker's wallet from your profile.

SchizophrenicX
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 126

"I'm not psychic; I'm just damn good"


View Profile
June 23, 2011, 04:01:00 PM
 #3068

Hi Slush,

I posted before the recent D jump to 877k, unfortunately soon after there was the attack on ur pool and I know you were really busy getting it up again. Now I'd like to bring my concern up again. I've not really arrived at an average that is close to my expected rate of BTC before and I have not now.

My expected at current difficulty is ~3.7 BTC/day and with 2% stales it's still ~3.6 BTC/day. I'm seeing 2.7ish and a 7-day average of 2.45ish. This is much similar to my previous post % of around 30% difference between my 7-day average and my expected returns. I've been busy to change my script to test out other pools and I'd like to ask for some sort of justification.

Judging from what I hear from others, they are getting pretty close to the expected value thus I'm feeling like there is some kind of fault on my end, however I'm not seeing it. Your previous reply indicated there might be some problems with my miners. I've stayed with them and I'm seeing no issues, just for info I'm running

Ubuntu 11.04
Phoenix 1.5 w/ phatk @ VECTORS BFI_INT WORKSIZE=256 AGGRESSION=13
CCC 11.5 + SDK 2.1
AMDOverdriveCtrl 1.2.0
2x5970 ~750 Mhash/s ea. (OC @ 850/300 FS: 100% ~ 75 celcius)
5x5850 ~355 Mhash/s ea. (OC @ 900/250 FS: 100% ~ 65 celcius)

Stales at around 2.3% average.

These are on 2 dedicated machines, I've got problems running my other 5850 and 4850 since my 3 year'o 600 W PSU blew but still. Please advice. TIA



finnthecelt
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 140


View Profile
June 23, 2011, 04:19:54 PM
 #3069

Hi Slush,

I posted before the recent D jump to 877k, unfortunately soon after there was the attack on ur pool and I know you were really busy getting it up again. Now I'd like to bring my concern up again. I've not really arrived at an average that is close to my expected rate of BTC before and I have not now.

My expected at current difficulty is ~3.7 BTC/day and with 2% stales it's still ~3.6 BTC/day. I'm seeing 2.7ish and a 7-day average of 2.45ish. This is much similar to my previous post % of around 30% difference between my 7-day average and my expected returns. I've been busy to change my script to test out other pools and I'd like to ask for some sort of justification.

Judging from what I hear from others, they are getting pretty close to the expected value thus I'm feeling like there is some kind of fault on my end, however I'm not seeing it. Your previous reply indicated there might be some problems with my miners. I've stayed with them and I'm seeing no issues, just for info I'm running

Ubuntu 11.04
Phoenix 1.5 w/ phatk @ VECTORS BFI_INT WORKSIZE=256 AGGRESSION=13
CCC 11.5 + SDK 2.1
AMDOverdriveCtrl 1.2.0
2x5970 ~750 Mhash/s ea. (OC @ 850/300 FS: 100% ~ 75 celcius)
5x5850 ~355 Mhash/s ea. (OC @ 900/250 FS: 100% ~ 65 celcius)

Stales at around 2.3% average.

These are on 2 dedicated machines, I've got problems running my other 5850 and 4850 since my 3 year'o 600 W PSU blew but still. Please advice. TIA




Are you saying that you are expecting 3.7 and only getting 3.6 and you are concerned about this? Please tell me you're not serious. Am I missing something?
pokermon919
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 84


View Profile
June 23, 2011, 04:34:42 PM
 #3070

he is seeing 2.7ish, don't you read what you quote?



To Slush: Please enable a address lock, this will give ppl time to fix things when shit hits the fan for them. At least the thief can't steal unless the user is away for more than 24hours. PLEASE ENABLE THIS. It will make your pool more secure and I know alot of ppl LOVE BTCGuild because they have this safety feature.
super6
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 28


View Profile
June 23, 2011, 04:48:53 PM
 #3071

My empty Mt. Gox account used the same password as my nearly empty BPM mining account. Just before 7AM EDT today someone tried to change my wallet address to:
1GM5hnKBFm2nJB4KLsFPrh55EKNwQjog4W
If you look at this address on block explorer you'll see that it started receiving coins today and has mostly gotten small amounts, presumably from doing what he tried to do to me (but failed at, because my email address has a different PW so he couldn't confirm the change).
I suggest you blacklist this wallet address from receiving coins from BPM and alert those accounts who were switched to it.
superweb
Jr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 36


View Profile
June 23, 2011, 06:51:41 PM
 #3072

I suggest you blacklist this wallet address from receiving coins from BPM and alert those accounts who were switched to it.

It takes one second to create another one..this is no sollution. I just don't understand why the attacker does not use several(let say 50) different adresses to be less traceable.

Is this helpful? Say thx to 17JgJ4i9ngcxkzpyjooUkY559AegZk5agK  Smiley
finnthecelt
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 140


View Profile
June 23, 2011, 06:55:37 PM
 #3073

I suggest you blacklist this wallet address from receiving coins from BPM and alert those accounts who were switched to it.

It takes one second to create another one..this is no sollution. I just don't understand why the attacker does not use several(let say 50) different adresses to be less traceable.

Maybe because there not all that sophisticated. It's just THAT easy to get into some people's accounts....
super6
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 28


View Profile
June 23, 2011, 07:53:29 PM
 #3074

I suggest you blacklist this wallet address from receiving coins from BPM and alert those accounts who were switched to it.

It takes one second to create another one..this is no sollution. I just don't understand why the attacker does not use several(let say 50) different adresses to be less traceable.

I don't think this would stop him but I'm assuming there are a lot of account that have pending wallet transfers. I think it'd be smart to go ahead and revert any pending wallet transfer to that address in the event someone unwittingly confirms it. I think it'd be wise to roll out mandatory password changes, too, or at least send out an advisory email. I didn't change mine because I switched to a different pool and didn't think about it (plus I had only a very small fractional balance left at BPM). Last time I looked at the address on block explorer it didn't look like he'd snagged any big sums of BTC so it could be the case that the only account with weak passwords were idle accounts but better safe than sorry.
pokermon919
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 84


View Profile
June 23, 2011, 07:54:54 PM
 #3075

This is exactly why we need a payout address lock. Just so if something fishy happens, your coins won't move out for at least 24hours.
Vwlopez3
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 78


View Profile WWW
June 23, 2011, 07:55:26 PM
 #3076

Slush-
So do wallet changes automatically need email conformation or how do we set that up? I thought you said you already added this feature.

19G8b28qHHM7yACCwwWfikGv7QimEsHyga
super6
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 28


View Profile
June 23, 2011, 09:52:45 PM
 #3077

Slush-
So do wallet changes automatically need email conformation or how do we set that up? I thought you said you already added this feature.

I never remember opting in but I got email confirmation and, because my email didn't use the same PW as Mt Gox/BPM they weren't able to confirm it. I suspect it automatically requires email confirmation. If you were unlucky enough to use your BPM/Gox password for your email, too, though, then you'd be out of luck.
slush
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1358



View Profile WWW
June 23, 2011, 11:31:54 PM
 #3078

This is exactly why we need a payout address lock. Just so if something fishy happens, your coins won't move out for at least 24hours.

Why we need 'lock'? I don't see any advantage in that. Email confirmation isn't enough? Afaik it works very well for pool users.

Some users has changed wallet, because attacker entered their account before I released email confirmation. But I detected many intrusions and cancelled attacker address on those accounts. But of course everybody have to check his account if wallet is correct.

As far as I can say, pool accounts are now safe, even if attacker know login/password for them.

sharky112065
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 383



View Profile
June 24, 2011, 01:15:17 AM
 #3079

This is exactly why we need a payout address lock. Just so if something fishy happens, your coins won't move out for at least 24hours.

Why we need 'lock'? I don't see any advantage in that. Email confirmation isn't enough? Afaik it works very well for pool users.

Some users has changed wallet, because attacker entered their account before I released email confirmation. But I detected many intrusions and cancelled attacker address on those accounts. But of course everybody have to check his account if wallet is correct.

As far as I can say, pool accounts are now safe, even if attacker know login/password for them.

Because if their email is also compromised it gives them time to fix it before a payout can be made.

Donations welcome: 12KaKtrK52iQjPdtsJq7fJ7smC32tXWbWr
marvinmartian
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 224



View Profile
June 24, 2011, 01:49:34 AM
 #3080

I tried the day after it went into effect.  All I got was the "ERROR:  Can't connect to Bitcoin:  Bitcoin returned unparsable JSON" message.

I'm trying to connect as follows:

--url http://me.something:pass@api.mining.cz:8332

what am I missing?

Thanks.

"... and the geeks shall inherit the earth."
Pages: « 1 ... 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 [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 ... 1105 »
  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!