BiblePay - New Coin Launch - Official Thread

[bible_pay]

is that normal?
https://imgur.com/a/Ai648

and can anyone tell me what is today with HPS2? Rising and going down for all users...
Now it looks like multicore function on pool is disabled and few hours ago was on;)

That looks normal to me.  You can point multiple daemons at a user.  HPS will only show up for the first daemon, and hps2 will reflect the total for all of the daemons.

Yeah but is it normal that the shares number doesn't correspond to HPS2? Compare shares and HPS2 from the first two rows in that screenshot.

I raised the diff on the pool for everyone about 30% because it was getting pounded with too many hits per second and that seemed to alleviate the trouble it was having keeping up with updating the solution lag per second.
 
I believe the screen capture was taken while it was updating the leaderboard. 

Right now there are about 10 users (inblue included) where shares solved per IP per round are very high.  I havent done anything about it yet as everything looks OK, but I just wanted to mention that if people dont bring other pools online, it could be suggested that maybe we add a rule to limit the number of shares solved per public IP.  Why?  Because the mining is for everyone.  There really is nothing I can do if you want to rent a lot of hashpower over multiple IPs, but something doesnt feel quite right with all the solutions per second over concentrated IPs. 

[inblue]

is that normal?
https://imgur.com/a/Ai648

and can anyone tell me what is today with HPS2? Rising and going down for all users...
Now it looks like multicore function on pool is disabled and few hours ago was on;)

That looks normal to me.  You can point multiple daemons at a user.  HPS will only show up for the first daemon, and hps2 will reflect the total for all of the daemons.

Yeah but is it normal that the shares number doesn't correspond to HPS2? Compare shares and HPS2 from the first two rows in that screenshot.

I raised the diff on the pool for everyone about 30% because it was getting pounded with too many hits per second and that seemed to alleviate the trouble it was having keeping up with updating the solution lag per second.
 
I believe the screen capture was taken while it was updating the leaderboard. 

Right now there are about 10 users (inblue included) where shares solved per IP per round are very high.  I havent done anything about it yet as everything looks OK, but I just wanted to mention that if people dont bring other pools online, it could be suggested that maybe we add a rule to limit the number of shares solved per public IP.  Why?  Because the mining is for everyone.  There really is nothing I can do if you want to rent a lot of hashpower over multiple IPs, but something doesnt feel quite right with all the solutions per second over concentrated IPs.

Well it's because the results are better when multiple daemons/nodes are running on the same machine, rather than just one. It was you who suggested this possibility after all, and then we saw better results, so yeah. I would much rather like if I could run just one daemon and get the same results, it would be much easier for me.

[bible_pay]

So I finally have my pool set up and am testing it.  I have my linux vm mining to it (I think).  The getmininginfo says true.  The only issue is that my worker doesn't show up as mining on the website.  Any idea what would cause that?

Sweet!  Btw you will probably have to delete some of the records in Menu to make it a more accurate representation without orphans (you probably already read that).

The first thing to do is see if any work records are being created by the miner.  Do a select * from work in the SQL query analyzer?  Anything there?

Yep I read that!  Tonight I am going to go through that and remove some of those links that won't be used and double check my security settings, then bring the pool live for everyone.  It looks like I just needed to be patient, my worker finally showed up and is mining   

By the way, is there supposed to be any functionality under the admin section or has that not been implemented yet?  When I click on it I just get a message about old workers being paid out.

On the admin button, I had written some miscellaneous utilities over time but none of them made it to the keep list.  The only thing the admin button does right now is loop back over the last 24 hours and ensure every block paid into the pool was paid to users.  With the budget and proposals coming up the pool is changing again so if anything needs to be added over the next 14 days that I can find Ill add it in but for now, thats really all that is required.  The database maintenance is done outside of the pool - Ill give you the command asap.

[bible_pay]

is that normal?
https://imgur.com/a/Ai648

and can anyone tell me what is today with HPS2? Rising and going down for all users...
Now it looks like multicore function on pool is disabled and few hours ago was on;)

That looks normal to me.  You can point multiple daemons at a user.  HPS will only show up for the first daemon, and hps2 will reflect the total for all of the daemons.

Yeah but is it normal that the shares number doesn't correspond to HPS2? Compare shares and HPS2 from the first two rows in that screenshot.

I raised the diff on the pool for everyone about 30% because it was getting pounded with too many hits per second and that seemed to alleviate the trouble it was having keeping up with updating the solution lag per second.
 
I believe the screen capture was taken while it was updating the leaderboard. 

Right now there are about 10 users (inblue included) where shares solved per IP per round are very high.  I havent done anything about it yet as everything looks OK, but I just wanted to mention that if people dont bring other pools online, it could be suggested that maybe we add a rule to limit the number of shares solved per public IP.  Why?  Because the mining is for everyone.  There really is nothing I can do if you want to rent a lot of hashpower over multiple IPs, but something doesnt feel quite right with all the solutions per second over concentrated IPs.

Well it's because the results are better when multiple daemons/nodes are running on the same machine, rather than just one. It was you who suggested this possibility after all, and then we saw better results, so yeah. I would much rather like if I could run just one daemon and get the same results, it would be much easier for me.

I'm not here to give you 1000% of other users money!  It was me?

Are you saying your script yields 10* the results vs a standalone miner?

I'll go ahead and shut your accounts down until we figure this out then, is that cool?

[inblue]

is that normal?
https://imgur.com/a/Ai648

and can anyone tell me what is today with HPS2? Rising and going down for all users...
Now it looks like multicore function on pool is disabled and few hours ago was on;)

That looks normal to me.  You can point multiple daemons at a user.  HPS will only show up for the first daemon, and hps2 will reflect the total for all of the daemons.

Yeah but is it normal that the shares number doesn't correspond to HPS2? Compare shares and HPS2 from the first two rows in that screenshot.

I raised the diff on the pool for everyone about 30% because it was getting pounded with too many hits per second and that seemed to alleviate the trouble it was having keeping up with updating the solution lag per second.
 
I believe the screen capture was taken while it was updating the leaderboard. 

Right now there are about 10 users (inblue included) where shares solved per IP per round are very high.  I havent done anything about it yet as everything looks OK, but I just wanted to mention that if people dont bring other pools online, it could be suggested that maybe we add a rule to limit the number of shares solved per public IP.  Why?  Because the mining is for everyone.  There really is nothing I can do if you want to rent a lot of hashpower over multiple IPs, but something doesnt feel quite right with all the solutions per second over concentrated IPs.

Well it's because the results are better when multiple daemons/nodes are running on the same machine, rather than just one. It was you who suggested this possibility after all, and then we saw better results, so yeah. I would much rather like if I could run just one daemon and get the same results, it would be much easier for me.

I'm not here to give you 1000% of other users money!  It was me?

Are you saying your script yields 10* the results vs a standalone miner?

I'll go ahead and shut your accounts down until we figure this out then, is that cool?

I don't get it, what did I say wrong? Or what am I doing wrong?

Um, I don't think you understand the concept of mining pools. My computers find blocks for which other pool miners get their share of the reward! And because of my computers, blocks are found more often by the pool! Having big miners can only benefit a pool!!!

But feel free to play an admin in a decentralized project, shut down my account if you want, I don't care. I think I have helped immensely in this project, but I am always getting bashed by you. I think it's time to say goodbye.

[oliwer21]

is that normal?
https://imgur.com/a/Ai648

and can anyone tell me what is today with HPS2? Rising and going down for all users...
Now it looks like multicore function on pool is disabled and few hours ago was on;)

That looks normal to me.  You can point multiple daemons at a user.  HPS will only show up for the first daemon, and hps2 will reflect the total for all of the daemons.

Yeah but is it normal that the shares number doesn't correspond to HPS2? Compare shares and HPS2 from the first two rows in that screenshot.

I raised the diff on the pool for everyone about 30% because it was getting pounded with too many hits per second and that seemed to alleviate the trouble it was having keeping up with updating the solution lag per second.
 
I believe the screen capture was taken while it was updating the leaderboard. 

Right now there are about 10 users (inblue included) where shares solved per IP per round are very high.  I havent done anything about it yet as everything looks OK, but I just wanted to mention that if people dont bring other pools online, it could be suggested that maybe we add a rule to limit the number of shares solved per public IP.  Why?  Because the mining is for everyone.  There really is nothing I can do if you want to rent a lot of hashpower over multiple IPs, but something doesnt feel quite right with all the solutions per second over concentrated IPs. 

Screenshot wasn't made on refresh cuz i check laderboard 4-5 times in 2 mins to be sure that is not a bug.
By rising difficulty IMO you make again that ryzens are cheated by pool again.
Before your "update" i saw that my ryzen is not wasting his power in compare of my ulv cpu on laptop(7,5W TDP). Now hps2 of laptop is only 3 times lower than ryzen. Before update was 10 or more...

[bible_pay]

I don't get it, what did I say wrong? Or what am I doing wrong?

Um, I don't think you understand the concept of mining pools. My computers find blocks for which other pool miners get their share of the reward! And because of my computers, blocks are found more often by the pool! Having big miners can only benefit a pool!!!

But feel free to play an admin in a decentralized project, shut down my account if you want, I don't care. I think I have helped immensely in this project, but I am always getting bashed by you. I think it's time to say goodbye.

I'm sorry you feel that way, and don't want to see you go.  I know you are very helpful to the other users, and want to see the project succeed.

On my side of the fence, I have to create an algorithm that is solved fairly for the users and I can't have any gross advantages and we have to work together to remove them, otherwise we risk the integrity of this whole project.

I view this discrepancy as one that is not to be exploited but to be patched with an emergency patch.  
I am hoping I have everyone on board to work with me toward the common goal not against it.
We cant have a gross discrepancy in the pool for a select few who figure out how to exploit the algorithm by creating multiple running nodes per linux instance.
In the end we fool ourselves, because those nodes are weaker than the full sanctuaries (where ultimately we want to measure proof-of-service) and have them be external nodes servicing 3000 external connections.

So for now, I am going to limit shares solved by IP to 200 and lets work on a solution to this issue to make it fair for everyone to hash biblehashes.

[oliwer21]

is that normal?
https://imgur.com/a/Ai648

and can anyone tell me what is today with HPS2? Rising and going down for all users...
Now it looks like multicore function on pool is disabled and few hours ago was on;)

That looks normal to me.  You can point multiple daemons at a user.  HPS will only show up for the first daemon, and hps2 will reflect the total for all of the daemons.

Yeah but is it normal that the shares number doesn't correspond to HPS2? Compare shares and HPS2 from the first two rows in that screenshot.

I raised the diff on the pool for everyone about 30% because it was getting pounded with too many hits per second and that seemed to alleviate the trouble it was having keeping up with updating the solution lag per second.
 
I believe the screen capture was taken while it was updating the leaderboard. 

Right now there are about 10 users (inblue included) where shares solved per IP per round are very high.  I havent done anything about it yet as everything looks OK, but I just wanted to mention that if people dont bring other pools online, it could be suggested that maybe we add a rule to limit the number of shares solved per public IP.  Why?  Because the mining is for everyone.  There really is nothing I can do if you want to rent a lot of hashpower over multiple IPs, but something doesnt feel quite right with all the solutions per second over concentrated IPs.

Well it's because the results are better when multiple daemons/nodes are running on the same machine, rather than just one. It was you who suggested this possibility after all, and then we saw better results, so yeah. I would much rather like if I could run just one daemon and get the same results, it would be much easier for me.

I'm not here to give you 1000% of other users money!  It was me?

Are you saying your script yields 10* the results vs a standalone miner?

I'll go ahead and shut your accounts down until we figure this out then, is that cool?

I think that many linux users are running multi deamon... but they are no cheating. They want just use their cpu power... and user 235... was best example of this

[macko20]

I have 1/8 shares... and I`m using windows wallet. Something was changed about 4-5 hours ago.

[seeksilence]

That will force me to try solo mining. It is not good to keep changing rule for a decentralized coin.

Is there any way to set up a private testnet to do some code testing?

[oliwer21]

I have 1/8 shares... and I`m using windows wallet. Something was changed about 4-5 hours ago.

Bbp said that he rises difficulty... i dont think its ok...

[inblue]

I don't get it, what did I say wrong? Or what am I doing wrong?

Um, I don't think you understand the concept of mining pools. My computers find blocks for which other pool miners get their share of the reward! And because of my computers, blocks are found more often by the pool! Having big miners can only benefit a pool!!!

But feel free to play an admin in a decentralized project, shut down my account if you want, I don't care. I think I have helped immensely in this project, but I am always getting bashed by you. I think it's time to say goodbye.

I'm sorry you feel that way, and don't want to see you go.  I know you are very helpful to the other users, and want to see the project succeed.

On my side of the fence, I have to create an algorithm that is solved fairly for the users and I can't have any gross advantages and we have to work together to remove them, otherwise we risk the integrity of this whole project.

I view this discrepancy as one that is not to be exploited but to be patched with an emergency patch. 
I am hoping I have everyone on board to work with me toward the common goal not against it.
We cant have a gross discrepancy in the pool for a select few who figure out how to exploit the algorithm by creating multiple running nodes per linux instance.
In the end we fool ourselves, because those nodes are weaker than the full sanctuaries (where ultimately we want to measure proof-of-service) and have them be external nodes servicing 3000 external connections.

So for now, I am going to limit shares solved by IP to 200 and lets work on a solution to this issue to make it fair for everyone to hash biblehashes.

Make it fair for everyone? How is it not fair now? All the instructions for setting up multiple daemons could be found in this thread, I posted it clearly, as well as someone else who was setting it up later. The instructions are at at a public disposal and they could be posted now again if needed. They could also be made into a wiki page.

It's not some hidden secret exploit; you first suggested us to try running multiple daemons on a machine and even helped with it. Actually this is the first time you refer to it as an exploit. Also the first time where you say you want to issue a patch for it. Earlier you were saying that it's fine and that it's how it's supposed to be, because it's better to have full nodes etc. Repeated many times. Exactly this was the reason I did it, because it was not going to change and that it was not an exploit, but a "feature", and also because it's simply easier to manage one bigger computer than 10 small ones, while giving notably better rewards. I would not intentionally do something bad to the coin or the pool, but I am being treated as a bad actor, accused of trying to "steal" others' money.

Also, as oliwer said, other pool miners are doing the same, so even though it's not all of them, that seems fair enough, because others probably didn't care enough to read the forum or have the trouble of setting it up. If someone reads this now and wants to setup multiple daemons, I would gladly instruct them on how to do that. I am not hiding anything or doing something sneaky, immoral etc. And because everyone can run multiple daemons (or already does), a fact is that there is mathematically no disadvantage to anyone while my computers are running, because I increase the pool block find frequency, while in turn I get a % of the rewards. Smaller reward per block for everyone, but more blocks found, so it all irons out to the same rewards for everyone, whether I am mining or not. The only difference is that the pool finds more blocks and that the pool has a lower luck factor, which are both advantages. Not to mention that I am barely even in the top 10 miners on the pool. You can see for yourself in the block distribution history.

That will force me to try solo mining.

Yeah, me too, I'm out. Btw, you will earn 6% more by solo mining.

[macko20]

I have 1/8 shares... and I`m using windows wallet. Something was changed about 4-5 hours ago.

Bbp said that he rises difficulty... i dont think its ok...

It`s shares limit... I have about 190 now

[macko20]

Inblue I have multiple rings. I've spent about 150 to 200 hours optimizing a script on windows. Now it is bad that the hashrate pool and coin is growing.

[seeksilence]

Yeah, me too, I'm out. Btw, you will earn 6% more by solo mining.

Do you figure out how to manage multiple wallets for solo?

[inblue]

Yeah, me too, I'm out. Btw, you will earn 6% more by solo mining.

Do you figure out how to manage multiple wallets for solo?

I didn't try it yet, I was just getting to it. Why, is it not the same as before? Either way, I will write my findings soon.

Edit: I thought you asked multiple daemons, not wallets. Below is my answer for wallets.

[Korin]

lol nice altcoin with innovation. rarely seen these day!

Bless you dev. Can I get some BBP sent to me? Please PM me.

🙏

You just wrote those kind words to get reward ? Sad to tell you that you licked for vain ... NO PREMINE

lomjk jkj jjk

[seeksilence]

I didn't try it yet, I was just getting to it. Why, is it not the same as with the pool? Either way, I will write my findings soon.

Not the same. You have different wallet address for miners on different machine. Thanks for sharing your finding in advance. I have never tried solo mining before. Can we copy the same wallet on different machine?  That's why I want to know how to setup a private testnet to try the solo.

[inblue]

Not the same. You have different wallet address for miners on different machine. Thanks for sharing your finding in advance. I have never tried solo mining before. That's why I want to know how to setup a private testnet to try the solo.

You can copy the same wallet.dat file to every different machine and all block find rewards will go to the same wallet, which you can check from your home PC. The wallet should be encrypted before copying anywhere, but it you not encrypted it and have some funds in it, be careful because by encrypting it you will lose funds. I did solo mining earlier and that setup was working 100%. You don't need testnet, just try it on main.

[seeksilence]

Will different machine work on different tasks? Or they will solve the same task with the same wallet?