BiblePay - New Coin Launch - Official Thread

[x5650]

All of the crypto falling in price atm, lots of $ withdrawn from market.

[bible_pay]

all your coins is gone
pool is heavy loaded....... wthell is this for mining?    2core got better hashrate like 8core Ryzen..... bible_pay without response .... chinese idiots killing all  ... not exists marketplace

time to go to hell with all of this

Please stop posting derogatory things here - this way you wont be banned.

[p3ppymon]

Have you guys looked at the block distribution?  There are 3 miners with and excess of thirty workers each and one with about 14.  I would say that is slightly ridiculous.  What is the point of resistant coin if this happens?  Honestly all these guys wanna do is sell off for btc or eth or something. But that is my opinion.  If that is not the case then I apologize.

P.S.

I have no objection if you have five i7 or i5 pcs. I object to 30 of them.

Having 100 powerful workstations to mine is not bad. I would do the same if I had the capabilities and possibilities. Big players play the way they should. No merci for small fish.

[bible_pay]

Have you guys looked at the block distribution?  There are 3 miners with and excess of thirty workers each and one with about 14.  I would say that is slightly ridiculous.  What is the point of resistant coin if this happens?  Honestly all these guys wanna do is sell off for btc or eth or something. But that is my opinion.  If that is not the case then I apologize.

P.S.

I have no objection if you have five i7 or i5 pcs. I object to 30 of them.

Right, I sort of feel you.  The thing is, if they go through the expense of buying a Full node and mining by the rules then they get the equal reward.
However, I might consider limiting the miner count to 20 workers per user address, so we dont break the pool.

[bible_pay]

I tried to withdraw again some coins from pool and got this message: Sorry, Invalid Destination Address (Code: 65002)

Double-check that you have correctly pasted the address to send to, and that there are no spaces before or after.

Also, as others have said, there seems to be some problems with the pool currently.  Be patient and wait until we have heard from bible_pay.

Pool biblepayd went down around that time (at least it lasted all night til 7am so its on a stretch after the mishap) anyway try withdraw again.

Looking at the error, on the bright side it looks like we are down to one distinct error the one everyone reported early this morning.

[noob101]

Have you guys looked at the block distribution?  There are 3 miners with and excess of thirty workers each and one with about 14.  I would say that is slightly ridiculous.  What is the point of resistant coin if this happens?  Honestly all these guys wanna do is sell off for btc or eth or something. But that is my opinion.  If that is not the case then I apologize.

P.S.

I have no objection if you have five i7 or i5 pcs. I object to 30 of them.

Having 100 powerful workstations to mine is not bad. I would do the same if I had the capabilities and possibilities. Big players play the way they should. No merci for small fish.

Yeah,  I get get the premise of your gist.  I would have probably done the same.  But the whole POBH concept behind this coin is to avoid Big Players with AISIC and GPU, but now you get this situation that in a sense bypasses the whole idea.  But like I said.  It is an opinion only.

[bible_pay]

Great concept! Where can I fing info about bounty?

Subsidy schedule is on biblepay.org.
Its about 19,000 BBP per block right now.

[bible_pay]

Unfortunately I have removed all of my miners. They will mine for an hour or so and then crash with previous posted errors. I have completely installed from scratch, including removing the profile folder with same results. Hope to mine again when these issues are solved.

Here is something that worked for me, I had a similar problem.  Try creating a subsdir in %appdata%\biblepaycore, called Trash, and Move your blocks,chainstate and database in Trash.  Then restart the wallet and try to mine again.

EDIT: It seems to be something that is hidden and locked in chainstate, that I could not get rid of, some type of berkeleydb .lock file.

[x5650]

I tried to withdraw again some coins from pool and got this message: Sorry, Invalid Destination Address (Code: 65002)

Double-check that you have correctly pasted the address to send to, and that there are no spaces before or after.

Also, as others have said, there seems to be some problems with the pool currently.  Be patient and wait until we have heard from bible_pay.

Pool biblepayd went down around that time (at least it lasted all night til 7am so its on a stretch after the mishap) anyway try withdraw again.

Looking at the error, on the bright side it looks like we are down to one distinct error the one everyone reported early this morning.

I used an address i had used before this morning, which now gived that error, so i generated new address and it worked well.

[bible_pay]

Some of my miners still crash / stop reporting to pool with this:

Code:

2017-09-14 03:15:32 ProcessMessages(version, 109 bytes) FAILED peer=527
2017-09-14 03:15:41 peer=528 using obsolete version 70707; disconnecting
2017-09-14 03:15:41 ProcessMessages(version, 109 bytes) FAILED peer=528
2017-09-14 03:15:42 peer=529 using obsolete version 70707; disconnecting
2017-09-
2017-09-14 03:18:20 peer=551 using obsolete version 70707; disconnecting
2017-09-14 03:18:20 ProcessMessages(version, 109 bytes) FAILED peer=551

This problem will resolve itself over the next 2 days as people upgrade, but if necessary I can move these messages to Debug only, lets see if they go away, weve got 44% upgraded according to 'run versionreport'

[bible_pay]

Just catching up on the thread. Installed the new biblepay on my workers, all working now. Great work dev.

Biblepay is probably the most interesting coin I follow. Not a typical clone of another coin, biblehash is genuinely interesting, dev is communicative and actually knows what they're doing. 👍

Wasn't aware of public beta-testing on the main chain. Will definitely volunteer next time you put the call out.

Thanks a lot for the comments!

Yeah, I definitely did not intend to publically beta test on the main chain, LOL, its absolutely horrible.  We have a new testnet thread at forum.biblepay.org, and we "thought" we tested F7000, but we didnt catch this issue, so we were forced to fix it in prod.  I guarantee we are going to test the sanctuaries inside and outside in testnet and add the web governance software before we move it to prod!  Also, we will have a slack team soon, so that should be exciting, bringing on more devs, etc.

[tiras]

Have you guys looked at the block distribution?  There are 3 miners with and excess of thirty workers each and one with about 14.  I would say that is slightly ridiculous.  What is the point of resistant coin if this happens?  Honestly all these guys wanna do is sell off for btc or eth or something. But that is my opinion.  If that is not the case then I apologize.

P.S.

I have no objection if you have five i7 or i5 pcs. I object to 30 of them.

Right, I sort of feel you.  The thing is, if they go through the expense of buying a Full node and mining by the rules then they get the equal reward.
However, I might consider limiting the miner count to 20 workers per user address, so we dont break the pool.

I'm afraid you can't fight this .   what prevents them from creating 10 accounts 20 CPUs each ?

[bible_pay]

Have you guys looked at the block distribution?  There are 3 miners with and excess of thirty workers each and one with about 14.  I would say that is slightly ridiculous.  What is the point of resistant coin if this happens?  Honestly all these guys wanna do is sell off for btc or eth or something. But that is my opinion.  If that is not the case then I apologize.

P.S.

I have no objection if you have five i7 or i5 pcs. I object to 30 of them.

Right, I sort of feel you.  The thing is, if they go through the expense of buying a Full node and mining by the rules then they get the equal reward.
However, I might consider limiting the miner count to 20 workers per user address, so we dont break the pool.

I'm afraid you can't fight this .   what prevents them from creating 10 accounts 20 CPUs each ?

I agree, not trying to stop them from mining.  Just trying to stop them from polluting all the reports, in specific, the Stats column in block_distribution.

Also, technically if I did add the limit of 20 workers per account, they would have to manage 5 accounts, which is cumbersome, and would definitely slow the pace of the expansion down.

Not sure yet; Im also considering just grouping large accounts by minerid and letting them run rampant.  Its a tough one.

[x5650]

Is it normal that an I5 4210M (2 cores-4 threads and genproclimit=4) gives better HPS than an Xeon x5650 (6 cores-12 threads and genproclimit=6 or 12)
Also the six core Xeon gives better results with genproclimit=6 than 12.

[seasonw]

Have you guys looked at the block distribution?  There are 3 miners with and excess of thirty workers each and one with about 14.  I would say that is slightly ridiculous.  What is the point of resistant coin if this happens?  Honestly all these guys wanna do is sell off for btc or eth or something. But that is my opinion.  If that is not the case then I apologize.

P.S.

I have no objection if you have five i7 or i5 pcs. I object to 30 of them.

Right, I sort of feel you.  The thing is, if they go through the expense of buying a Full node and mining by the rules then they get the equal reward.
However, I might consider limiting the miner count to 20 workers per user address, so we dont break the pool.

I'm afraid you can't fight this .   what prevents them from creating 10 accounts 20 CPUs each ?

I agree, not trying to stop them from mining.  Just trying to stop them from polluting all the reports, in specific, the Stats column in block_distribution.

Also, technically if I did add the limit of 20 workers per account, they would have to manage 5 accounts, which is cumbersome, and would definitely slow the pace of the expansion down.

Not sure yet; Im also considering just grouping large accounts by minerid and letting them run rampant.  Its a tough one.

I don't think managing 5 accounts will be cumbersome, because all they need to do is changing the worker id in the biblepay.conf file. The only problem is login to different pool's account for stats and reports.

I think it is better to have more pools, I know someone is waiting to setup a new pool for biblepay 

[bible_pay]

Have you guys looked at the block distribution?  There are 3 miners with and excess of thirty workers each and one with about 14.  I would say that is slightly ridiculous.  What is the point of resistant coin if this happens?  Honestly all these guys wanna do is sell off for btc or eth or something. But that is my opinion.  If that is not the case then I apologize.

P.S.

I have no objection if you have five i7 or i5 pcs. I object to 30 of them.

Right, I sort of feel you.  The thing is, if they go through the expense of buying a Full node and mining by the rules then they get the equal reward.
However, I might consider limiting the miner count to 20 workers per user address, so we dont break the pool.

I'm afraid you can't fight this .   what prevents them from creating 10 accounts 20 CPUs each ?

I agree, not trying to stop them from mining.  Just trying to stop them from polluting all the reports, in specific, the Stats column in block_distribution.

Also, technically if I did add the limit of 20 workers per account, they would have to manage 5 accounts, which is cumbersome, and would definitely slow the pace of the expansion down.

Not sure yet; Im also considering just grouping large accounts by minerid and letting them run rampant.  Its a tough one.

I don't think managing 5 accounts will be cumbersome, because all they need to do is changing the worker id in the biblepay.conf file. The only problem is login to different pool's account for stats and reports.

I think it is better to have more pools, I know someone is waiting to setup a new pool for biblepay 

It is cumbersome, to maintain 5 passwords, 5 withdraw addresses and 5 sets of workers.

[noob101]

Have you guys looked at the block distribution?  There are 3 miners with and excess of thirty workers each and one with about 14.  I would say that is slightly ridiculous.  What is the point of resistant coin if this happens?  Honestly all these guys wanna do is sell off for btc or eth or something. But that is my opinion.  If that is not the case then I apologize.

P.S.

I have no objection if you have five i7 or i5 pcs. I object to 30 of them.

Right, I sort of feel you.  The thing is, if they go through the expense of buying a Full node and mining by the rules then they get the equal reward.
However, I might consider limiting the miner count to 20 workers per user address, so we dont break the pool.

I'm afraid you can't fight this .   what prevents them from creating 10 accounts 20 CPUs each ?

I agree, not trying to stop them from mining.  Just trying to stop them from polluting all the reports, in specific, the Stats column in block_distribution.

Also, technically if I did add the limit of 20 workers per account, they would have to manage 5 accounts, which is cumbersome, and would definitely slow the pace of the expansion down.

Not sure yet; Im also considering just grouping large accounts by minerid and letting them run rampant.  Its a tough one.

Here is a thought,  How about large worker groups auto revert to solo mining?  We need the hashes for the blockchain, and what is left is fair distribution.  Could it be done?  Is it feasible?

[svirusxxx2]

Is it normal that an I5 4210M (2 cores-4 threads and genproclimit=4) gives better HPS than an Xeon x5650 (6 cores-12 threads and genproclimit=6 or 12)
Also the six core Xeon gives better results with genproclimit=6 than 12.

i5 4210M have AVX2.0 instruction ... this give hughe diffrents in cryptograpfic
Xeon x5650 is very old and have less instruction

What is your HPS on this xeon ?

I have one machine with 2x x5650 and currently is 71k genproclimit 32

of course you must know how HT is working ... if there is not free instruction , then thread must wait.
modern cpu have duplicate some instructions, so HT can use that.

[x5650]

Is it normal that an I5 4210M (2 cores-4 threads and genproclimit=4) gives better HPS than an Xeon x5650 (6 cores-12 threads and genproclimit=6 or 12)
Also the six core Xeon gives better results with genproclimit=6 than 12.

i5 4210M have AVX2.0 instruction ... this give hughe diffrents in cryptograpfic
Xeon x5650 is very old and have less instruction

What is your HPS on this xeon ?

I have one machine with 2x x5650 and currently is 71k genproclimit 32

of course you must know how HT is working ... if there is not free instruction , then thread must wait.
modern cpu have duplicate some instructions, so HT can use that.

HPS=5734  HPS2=12348 with genproclimit=6.

So what would be the best genproclimit number?

BTW: the load is never>than 80% , with only 6 cores mining is less than 60%

[PhaseshiftUK]

Is it normal that an I5 4210M (2 cores-4 threads and genproclimit=4) gives better HPS than an Xeon x5650 (6 cores-12 threads and genproclimit=6 or 12)
Also the six core Xeon gives better results with genproclimit=6 than 12.

I can't advise on the i5 vs Xeon (although I see someone has pointed out about the AVX2 instruction set), but regarding "the six core Xeon gives better results with genproclimit=6 than 12" - this is probably something about how the different architectures handle the hyperthreading.