Join a pooled bitcoin mining effort

[lysacor]

The only thing left now is to isolate the CPU usage associated with this CUDA experimental client. Then you can get some seriously high level performance. I just hope we don't end up burning up your server resources with it!

[1715336612]

1715336612

[1715336612]

1715336612

[1715336612]

1715336612

[1715336612]

1715336612

[lysacor]

The previous client reported within the first few messages how much BTC your address would get based on the khash it was contributing, and it reported it fairly quickly. Does it take longer before it calculates and adds you to the list of addresses receiving BTC if a block is won?

[FreeMoney]

The previous client reported within the first few messages how much BTC your address would get based on the khash it was contributing, and it reported it fairly quickly. Does it take longer before it calculates and adds you to the list of addresses receiving BTC if a block is won?

After a few hours mine is still not in. I think it is broken.

[BitLex]

seems like all connected clients get that same message,
doublec is working on it already, that's why the miners lose connection and reconnect as you might have noticed.

just be patient and keep reading here, or on the pool-website to upgrade, if needed, as soon as possible.

[doublec]

just be patient and keep reading here, or on the pool-website to upgrade, if needed, as soon as possible.

I fixed what looks like one bug in the best hash verification but it didn't solve this issue. I've switched back to the 'connected' distribution type and that is now printing things correctly. I'll wait till I hear from puddinpop before switching back to contributed and trying to solve the issue.

[lysacor]

Yep I confirm that the reports are coming across correctly now.

[FreeMoney]

Works now.

[mpkomara]

your missing the ='s, it's not spaces anymore like before,
 -server=173.255.205.10 -address=XXXXX
should work

"Attempting to connect to 127.0.0.1:8335"

[doublec]

"Attempting to connect to 127.0.0.1:8335"

Are you using the new pooled client? The old one won't work:

http://www.bluishcoder.co.nz/bitcoin-pool/

[mpkomara]

thank you, works now

[cartman]

nice work doublec, thanks a lot.

it seems that the performance is only half of the standard client. is there any way to improve the performance?

[BitLex]

it seems that the performance is only half of the standard client. is there any way to improve the performance?

the cuda-client is still a bit slow, the cpu-version isn't,
performance shouldn't be that much of a difference.

let me guess, you're using a dual-core.
then just start a 2nd instance to double your performance. 

[kwukduck]

seems to work nicely although it's somewhat slower indeed, but i wasnt getting any blocks anyway so maybe this gives a a few bitcoins

[cartman]

the cuda-client is still a bit slow, the cpu-version isn't,
performance shouldn't be that much of a difference.

let me guess, you're using a dual-core.
then just start a 2nd instance to double your performance. 

I am using a quad-core. I run 3 instances which sum to ~2100 khash/s. This results in >95% CPU usage since the rest of the system also needs some percent. The standard client does ~3600 khash/s.

Btw, why are the reported khash/s always xx00 xx33 and xx66?

[BitLex]

xx00 xx33 xx66 is rounding issues i guess (i'm not into the code, so i actually have no idea).

speed for me is like
standard 3800khash/s
pooled 3300khash/s (3x1100)

maybe we get the 4way-algo into the remote-miner soon, that would speed up some CPU-cores for the pool

[lysacor]

Looks like the calculation for total server khash is broke, getting zero reported khash result, and totals for server in messages.

[lysacor]

Nevermind, appears to have recovered. Something strange in the code possibly.

[FreeMoney]

Wild swings in the total hash rate again. 80k to 140k.

[pc]

Me too, not found. Did you switch to contributed and rounding is causing this?

Contributed method is bad imo.

Why is it bad? I asked before switching and the majority of the responses requested contributed.

I'm conflicted on this... I can see either way making a lot of sense. It's a matter of whether you think of generation as working toward a goal, with everyone who worked toward it deserving credit, or closer to the non-pooled setup, where each second (or Arbitrary Small Time Unit of your choice) there's a total number of hashes and thus an X% chance of "hitting the lottery" and making some coins, which should only go to those clients who were connected for that "second" and thus were part of the hashes that succeeded. I would expect that they should behave about the same on average over time. I'm leaning toward the "connected" method at the moment, but I was leaning toward "contributed" when I first heard of it being an option. The concern someone mentioned about how "contributed" might be gamed somewhat as people switch around as each client knows how much has been contributed to each server I think may be valid, but maybe it too just averages out over time.

I think the theory is that there will be servers of both types set up, and each user can connect to the type that they think is most "fair", and everyone will be happy.

[FreeMoney]

Me too, not found. Did you switch to contributed and rounding is causing this?

Contributed method is bad imo.

Why is it bad? I asked before switching and the majority of the responses requested contributed.

Suppose there are two pools with roughly equal hashing power, one that got a block 1 day ago and one that got it's last block 1 week ago. They are equally likely to hit the next block, but if I jump on to the first one I will get a much larger share. Anyone paying attention will do the same.

Imagine an extreme case, a group works for a week making no block and they all quit. How silly would I be to join with all the shares owed to them?