Bitcoin Forum
September 27, 2016, 03:32:27 PM *
News: Latest stable version of Bitcoin Core: 0.13.0 (New!) [Torrent]. Make sure you verify it.
 
   Home   Help Search Donate Login Register  
Poll
Question: What type of pool payouts do you prefer?
Bitcoins - 3151 (80.4%)
Bank transfer / USD - 407 (10.4%)
Gold/silver coins and bars - 359 (9.2%)
Total Voters: 3915

Pages: « 1 ... 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 [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 ... 1104 »
  Print  
Author Topic: [40+ PH] SlushPool (slushpool.com); World's First Mining Pool  (Read 3854875 times)
slush
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1358



View Profile WWW
September 11, 2012, 12:19:51 AM
 #5341

I have both of my workers running on it now, and it seems to be a little faster then just using gui miner to connect to the pool, I just pointed them at localhost:8332 like you suggested.

The only odd thing is that GUI miner is only showing 90khash/s on one worker, and 2.1Mhash on the other worker, but I know that it is churning out faster then it was before (280Mhash/s per worker) based on the number of shares.

From what I understand, with GUIMiner you don't need to use the proxy, it is built into the miner. I might be wrong, slush must clarify.


I'm working on native guiminer support, but it's not ready yet. Btw I'm just updating the document, "compatibility" section is not up to date yet Wink.

Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1474990347
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1474990347

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1474990347
Reply with quote  #2

1474990347
Report to moderator
eleuthria
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1750


BTC Guild Owner


View Profile WWW
September 11, 2012, 12:31:06 AM
 #5342

I have both of my workers running on it now, and it seems to be a little faster then just using gui miner to connect to the pool, I just pointed them at localhost:8332 like you suggested.

The only odd thing is that GUI miner is only showing 90khash/s on one worker, and 2.1Mhash on the other worker, but I know that it is churning out faster then it was before (280Mhash/s per worker) based on the number of shares.

From what I understand, with GUIMiner you don't need to use the proxy, it is built into the miner. I might be wrong, slush must clarify.


I'm working on native guiminer support, but it's not ready yet. Btw I'm just updating the document, "compatibility" section is not up to date yet Wink.

Please get something up soon slush!  Since the two proposals we have are almost identical, I'd be more than happy to remove my proposal unless there's something that seems very wrong.

If you don't have it as part of your spec yet, please consider the two server-related pieces from my proposal:  SERVERRESTART and REDIRECT.  So pools can warn miners of an impending restart (immediately move to failover pool rather than risk wasting work) and so pools can redirect miners straight from the protocol (allows pools to more easily load balance miners without the need for external servers/software).

R.I.P. BTC Guild, 2011 - 2015.
BTC Guild Forum Thread
dburdett84
Jr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 43


View Profile
September 11, 2012, 01:11:52 AM
 #5343

dburdett83 - That sounds quite strange. Are you sure that you don't have multiple miners working on the same machine? Proxy itself should not affect mining in this way.

It's not actually slowing it down, just for some reason is causing guiminer to report it as slower, from monitoring the dashboard it is just as fast if not a little faster then without the proxy running.  Just wanted to let you guys know what I saw.
ninjaboon
Legendary
*
Online Online

Activity: 1470



View Profile WWW
September 11, 2012, 02:22:05 AM
 #5344

i finally found my first block!!! and on my slowest machine to boot, go 70 Mh/s  Grin

wow ! is that possible? lol. I'm gonna get a few 5770 GPUs now.

slush
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1358



View Profile WWW
September 11, 2012, 03:12:28 AM
 #5345

I finally posted some docs. I wrote these examples off my head so maybe there're some mistakes, but in general it should be fine.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=108533.0

eleuthria - it is quite funny how we solved some things in the same way and the rest in the completely different way :-). At this time I documented only mining core (e.g. how to build block header and submit the share), but I've implemented some maintenance methods in the current proxy as well and I'll put them to docs soon.

eleuthria
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1750


BTC Guild Owner


View Profile WWW
September 11, 2012, 03:27:51 AM
 #5346

I finally posted some docs. I wrote these examples off my head so maybe there're some mistakes, but in general it should be fine.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=108533.0

eleuthria - it is quite funny how we solved some things in the same way and the rest in the completely different way :-). At this time I documented only mining core (e.g. how to build block header and submit the share), but I've implemented some maintenance methods in the current proxy as well and I'll put them to docs soon.

Actually, we solved it the exact same way.  Our work payloads are identical, just in a different order.  Our submissions are identical, except for ntime rolling in yours vs static in mine (we figured 18 Exahash was enough to avoid having to do any kind of ntime modifications [saves the pool from having to verify ntime]). 

I really only see two differences:
1) You decided to encapsulate it with JSON whereas mine was using plaintext command verbs.
2) You allow multiple workers through a single TCP connection.  It's mostly a design preference, not a major change (it would really only happen in the development stages when people are running proxies instead of miners that support the protocol natively).


I'll be amending my proposal, I don't see a reason to try to start a protocol competition.  Both of our solutions fix the problem, yours only has a few bytes of extra overhead due to JSON encoding, which really doesn't make a difference since you could still run a farm the size of the entire Bitcoin network on a 56k modem using the new protocols.  If I had my proxy bridge for old miners to start testing I probably would've fought you on it, but since you also provided an open source poold, yours is easier for people to get off the ground.

Luckily, our designs are so similar that it shouldn't even take an hour to update my custom pool to use your implementation.

R.I.P. BTC Guild, 2011 - 2015.
BTC Guild Forum Thread
slush
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1358



View Profile WWW
September 11, 2012, 03:39:11 AM
 #5347

You allow multiple workers through a single TCP connection.  It's mostly a design preference, not a major change (it would really only happen in the development stages when people are running proxies instead of miners that support the protocol natively).

From my experience this "development stage" can take some time :-).

Quote
I'll be amending my proposal, I don't see a reason to try to start a protocol competition.  Both of our solutions fix the problem, yours only has a few bytes of extra overhead due to JSON encoding, which really doesn't make a difference since you could still run a farm the size of the entire Bitcoin network on a 56k modem using the new protocols.  If I had my proxy bridge for old miners to start testing I probably would've fought you on it, but since you also provided an open source poold, yours is easier for people to get off the ground.

That's reasonable and gentleman. When I read your announcement I worry about that a bit. What a chance that we both finalize the same project at the same time?

Quote
Luckily, our designs are so similar that it shouldn't even take an hour to update my custom pool to use your implementation.

Very nice! I expect your solution is proprietary? Which technology did you use? Java?

eleuthria
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1750


BTC Guild Owner


View Profile WWW
September 11, 2012, 03:43:02 AM
 #5348

From my experience this "development stage" can take some time :-).
I think it will be adopted faster than you think in this case.  This isn't a bitcoind proposal which is a bureaucratic nightmare.  It's a positive thing for everybody involved, and I doubt anybody could argue otherwise.


That's reasonable and gentleman. When I read your announcement I worry about that a bit. What a chance that we both finalize the same project at the same time?
Well, my protocol has been final for a few months (only recent changes were the server redirect/shutdown messages).  Unfortunately, I didn't know nearly as much about bitcoind internal workings as you did, so implementing it in a pool took a lot more work.  But our designs are just so similar, there's no reason to fight over it.


Very nice! I expect your solution is proprietary? Which technology did you use? Java?
I've been designing it in C++.  I'm very...self conscious about my code, so it's really hard for me to make my pool software open source.  Nothing to hide, other than the shame Smiley.

R.I.P. BTC Guild, 2011 - 2015.
BTC Guild Forum Thread
slush
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1358



View Profile WWW
September 11, 2012, 03:57:13 AM
 #5349

I think it will be adopted faster than you think in this case.  This isn't a bitcoind proposal which is a bureaucratic nightmare.  It's a positive thing for everybody involved, and I doubt anybody could argue otherwise.

For everybody except the miner developers :-).


Quote
Well, my protocol has been final for a few months (only recent changes were the server redirect/shutdown messages). 

I did it quite in the reversed order. I firstly implemented the server (just as an freetime project) and then found that it can be useful for mining as well :-). So then I started to summarize all of my ideas from long talks with m0mchil and define the mining protocol itself.

Quote
Unfortunately, I didn't know nearly as much about bitcoind internal workings as you did

me neither, hacking of bitcoind was a nightmare for me. But getblocktemplate is pretty straightforward concept. And I reused ArtForz's python code for serializing/deserializing all the low level stuff, so credit goes to him.

Quote
I've been designing it in C++.  I'm very...self conscious about my code, so it's really hard for me to make my pool software open source.  Nothing to hide, other than the shame Smiley.

Same here for my old pool sources :-).

digital
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 490


View Profile
September 11, 2012, 02:35:16 PM
 #5350

Since the end of the last block (duration 6:25:50)  I havent had any of my shares recorded in my account page.

I'm running my miners through the proxy.  It's only been a few minutes, hopefully there's just a delay, and I'm jumping the gun....

:Edit:

I just reconfigured one of my miners so it was running without the proxy, and the shares are showing up.  So it definitely looks to be something up with the proxy reporting shares...

If I help you out: 17QatvSdciyv2zsdAbphDEUzST1S6x46c3
References (bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=): 50051.20  50051.100  53668.0  53788.0  53571.0  53571.0  52212.0  50729.0  114804.0  115468  78106  69061  58572  54747
digital
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 490


View Profile
September 11, 2012, 02:44:41 PM
 #5351

better now...

If I help you out: 17QatvSdciyv2zsdAbphDEUzST1S6x46c3
References (bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=): 50051.20  50051.100  53668.0  53788.0  53571.0  53571.0  52212.0  50729.0  114804.0  115468  78106  69061  58572  54747
slush
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1358



View Profile WWW
September 11, 2012, 04:55:58 PM
 #5352

Did you see these shares as accepted in proxy/miner? I'm thinking if it was just a connection bug or if it was related to the server somehow.

Since the end of the last block (duration 6:25:50)  I havent had any of my shares recorded in my account page.

digital
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 490


View Profile
September 11, 2012, 05:03:15 PM
 #5353

From what I could tell, all the shares were actually counted.  It just took 4 or 5 minutes before the shares that were found using the proxy actually showed up in my account...

I happened to be watching at the end of the round, and noticed that none of the shares in the new round were showing up, so I switched one miner off the proxy and they were showing up immediately.

Then I made the post on this thread, and went back to my account, and all the other miners had caught up.

If I help you out: 17QatvSdciyv2zsdAbphDEUzST1S6x46c3
References (bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=): 50051.20  50051.100  53668.0  53788.0  53571.0  53571.0  52212.0  50729.0  114804.0  115468  78106  69061  58572  54747
slush
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1358



View Profile WWW
September 11, 2012, 05:29:22 PM
 #5354

From what I could tell, all the shares were actually counted.  It just took 4 or 5 minutes before the shares that were found using the proxy actually showed up in my account...

Thank you, it helped me and I fixed yet another small bug. It should not appear now (and sorry for two quick stratum server restarts related to bugfix).

trilby
Jr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 45


View Profile
September 11, 2012, 05:31:05 PM
 #5355

Just set up the miner proxy on my LAN and setting up my machines to point to it.

Lets see how it goes.

Have I helped you send me a donation - 1LaZmd9ZzpmjA4gkXxiQPsmfQ8zSc5mTZo
digital
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 490


View Profile
September 11, 2012, 06:04:50 PM
 #5356

From what I could tell, all the shares were actually counted.  It just took 4 or 5 minutes before the shares that were found using the proxy actually showed up in my account...

Thank you, it helped me and I fixed yet another small bug. It should not appear now (and sorry for two quick stratum server restarts related to bugfix).

Now it looks like the estimated reward isn't working right.  Im still getting the shares counted in my account, but the estimated reward is way low...

I know that doesn't always coincide to the actual reward, but with the testing I figured it was worth mentioning.

If I help you out: 17QatvSdciyv2zsdAbphDEUzST1S6x46c3
References (bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=): 50051.20  50051.100  53668.0  53788.0  53571.0  53571.0  52212.0  50729.0  114804.0  115468  78106  69061  58572  54747
slush
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1358



View Profile WWW
September 11, 2012, 06:05:32 PM
 #5357

Quick update: I'm working on the fix of reward calculations over the proxy. It should be running normally in few minutes.

dburdett84
Jr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 43


View Profile
September 11, 2012, 06:09:13 PM
 #5358

From what I could tell, all the shares were actually counted.  It just took 4 or 5 minutes before the shares that were found using the proxy actually showed up in my account...

Thank you, it helped me and I fixed yet another small bug. It should not appear now (and sorry for two quick stratum server restarts related to bugfix).

Now it looks like the estimated reward isn't working right.  Im still getting the shares counted in my account, but the estimated reward is way low...

I know that doesn't always coincide to the actual reward, but with the testing I figured it was worth mentioning.

I was just on my way here to say the same thing, glad that other people are quicker then me, was worried when I logged in and only saw .0002 estimated.
slush
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1358



View Profile WWW
September 11, 2012, 06:38:22 PM
 #5359

Is the block reward from last round in expected interval? I've fixed more small database-related bugs recently, which had an impact on block rewards of proxy users. Now it looks fine on all my testing accounts.

However the estimated reward looks a slightly lower than expected for proxy users. It's because new pool uses less aggressive method for storing shares into the database, so website calculates will obsolete data. It is quite expected and will disappear once more people will mine over Stratum (which will happen once there'll be native support at least in guiminer/poclbm).

digital
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 490


View Profile
September 11, 2012, 06:42:02 PM
 #5360

Is the block reward from last round in expected interval? I've fixed more small database-related bugs recently, which had an impact on block rewards of proxy users. Now it looks fine on all my testing accounts.

However the estimated reward looks a slightly lower than expected for proxy users. It's because new pool uses less aggressive method for storing shares into the database, so website calculates will obsolete data. It is quite expected and will disappear once more people will mine over Stratum (which will happen once there'll be native support at least in guiminer/poclbm).

yeah, it looks like it's on the low side of my normal range...

Looks like everything is back to normal.

If I help you out: 17QatvSdciyv2zsdAbphDEUzST1S6x46c3
References (bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=): 50051.20  50051.100  53668.0  53788.0  53571.0  53571.0  52212.0  50729.0  114804.0  115468  78106  69061  58572  54747
Pages: « 1 ... 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 [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 ... 1104 »
  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!