BiblePay - New Coin Launch - Official Thread

[VladimirN]

Hi! Wallet not sinc, give node pls

[1715172672]

1715172672

[1715172672]

1715172672

[1715172672]

1715172672

[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.

HPS=5734  HPS2=12348 with genproclimit=6.

So what would be the best genproclimit number?

show "getmininginfo" from debug console
I dont mining on pool so I can't compare this.

about genproclimit it's depended on your software ... on linux I don't have problem using 32 on 28threads hardware (2x 6 core + ht = 28 logical cpu in system)
but it should be modern kernel version who know how to use HT.

[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?

show "getmininginfo" from debug console
I dont mining on pool so I can't compare this.

about genproclimit it's depended on your software ... on linux I don't have problem using 32 on 28threads hardware (2x 6 core + ht = 28 logical cpu in system)
but it should be modern kernel version who know how to use HT.

17:50:27

{
  "blocks": 7596,
  "currentblocksize": 1228,
  "currentblocktx": 1,
  "difficulty": 785.1795945163046,
  "errors": "",
  "genproclimit": 6,
  "networkhashps": 56506183063.63522,
  "hashps": 6546.080620550341,
  "minerstarttime": "09-14-2017 14:37:43",
  "pooledtx": 1,
  "testnet": false,
  "chain": "main",
  "biblepay-generate": true,
  "poolinfo1": "B6jtJfhZzbqiNUXfoQ2LdHVjWVtrHSELMS; B6jtJfhZzbqiNUXfoQ2LdHVjWVtrHSELMS; B6jtJfhZzbqiNUXfoQ2LdHVjWVtrHSELMS; B6jtJfhZzbqiNUXfoQ2LdHVjWVtrHSELMS; B6jtJfhZzbqiNUXfoQ2LdHVjWVtrHSELMS; B6jtJfhZzbqiNUXfoQ2LdHVjWVtrHSELMS; ",
  "poolinfo2": "RM_09-14-2017 14:50:20; RM_09-14-2017 14:49:11; Submitting Solution 09-14-2017 14:50:10; RMC_09-14-2017 14:50:20; RM_09-14-2017 14:50:08; RMC_09-14-2017 14:49:34; ",
  "poolinfo3": "",
  "miningpulse": 152,
  "poolmining": true
}

[svirusxxx2]

17:50:27

{
  "blocks": 7596,
  "currentblocksize": 1228,
  "currentblocktx": 1,
  "difficulty": 785.1795945163046,
  "errors": "",
  "genproclimit": 6,
  "networkhashps": 56506183063.63522,
  "hashps": 6546.080620550341,
  "minerstarttime": "09-14-2017 14:37:43",
  "pooledtx": 1,
  "testnet": false,
  "chain": "main",
  "biblepay-generate": true,
  "poolinfo1": "B6jtJfhZzbqiNUXfoQ2LdHVjWVtrHSELMS; B6jtJfhZzbqiNUXfoQ2LdHVjWVtrHSELMS; B6jtJfhZzbqiNUXfoQ2LdHVjWVtrHSELMS; B6jtJfhZzbqiNUXfoQ2LdHVjWVtrHSELMS; B6jtJfhZzbqiNUXfoQ2LdHVjWVtrHSELMS; B6jtJfhZzbqiNUXfoQ2LdHVjWVtrHSELMS; ",
  "poolinfo2": "RM_09-14-2017 14:50:20; RM_09-14-2017 14:49:11; Submitting Solution 09-14-2017 14:50:10; RMC_09-14-2017 14:50:20; RM_09-14-2017 14:50:08; RMC_09-14-2017 14:49:34; ",
  "poolinfo3": "",
  "miningpulse": 152,
  "poolmining": true
}

huh... something is very bad
you should have something about 30k but you have only 6.5k

What OS ?
You use binary, on you compile itself ?
if it's linux, show your linux kernel version, and GCC version
linux version "uname -s" , gcc version "gcc --version"

[Iwuzhaxxed]

I can't connect to the P2P network with wallet.

I have these nodes.

addnode=node.biblepay.org
addnode=biblepay.inspect.network

Its not working..

The nodes posted a few weeks ago don't work they put the wallet on forks of the chain. How to get on the proper chain?

Please post working nodes on proper chain.

Thank you.

[svirusxxx2]

I can't connect to the P2P network with wallet.

I have these nodes.

addnode=node.biblepay.org
addnode=biblepay.inspect.network

Its not working..

The nodes posted a few weeks ago don't work they put the wallet on forks of the chain. How to get on the proper chain?

Please post working nodes on proper chain.

Thank you.

Code:

addnode=137.74.0.113
addnode=37.59.14.211
addnode=94.23.196.50
addnode=94.23.12.37
addnode=91.121.83.119
addnode=188.165.193.28

on 137.74.0.113 is just node, and I don't mining there, so should work very good.

[togoshigekata]

What is the difference between Hashes Per Second and Hashes Per Second2

@bible_pay Is Hashes Per Second2 just a pool thing?

Or is that a variable in the wallet/miner? I only see hashps with getmininginfo command

[VladimirN]

I can't connect to the P2P network with wallet.

I have these nodes.

addnode=node.biblepay.org
addnode=biblepay.inspect.network

Its not working..

The nodes posted a few weeks ago don't work they put the wallet on forks of the chain. How to get on the proper chain?

Please post working nodes on proper chain.

Thank you.

Code:

addnode=137.74.0.113
addnode=37.59.14.211
addnode=94.23.196.50
addnode=94.23.12.37
addnode=91.121.83.119
addnode=188.165.193.28

on 137.74.0.113 is just node, and I don't mining there, so should work very good.

wallet version 1.0.1.3 ?

[x5650]

17:50:27

{
  "blocks": 7596,
  "currentblocksize": 1228,
  "currentblocktx": 1,
  "difficulty": 785.1795945163046,
  "errors": "",
  "genproclimit": 6,
  "networkhashps": 56506183063.63522,
  "hashps": 6546.080620550341,
  "minerstarttime": "09-14-2017 14:37:43",
  "pooledtx": 1,
  "testnet": false,
  "chain": "main",
  "biblepay-generate": true,
  "poolinfo1": "B6jtJfhZzbqiNUXfoQ2LdHVjWVtrHSELMS; B6jtJfhZzbqiNUXfoQ2LdHVjWVtrHSELMS; B6jtJfhZzbqiNUXfoQ2LdHVjWVtrHSELMS; B6jtJfhZzbqiNUXfoQ2LdHVjWVtrHSELMS; B6jtJfhZzbqiNUXfoQ2LdHVjWVtrHSELMS; B6jtJfhZzbqiNUXfoQ2LdHVjWVtrHSELMS; ",
  "poolinfo2": "RM_09-14-2017 14:50:20; RM_09-14-2017 14:49:11; Submitting Solution 09-14-2017 14:50:10; RMC_09-14-2017 14:50:20; RM_09-14-2017 14:50:08; RMC_09-14-2017 14:49:34; ",
  "poolinfo3": "",
  "miningpulse": 152,
  "poolmining": true
}

huh... something is very bad
you should have something about 30k but you have only 6.5k

What OS ?
You use binary, on you compile itself ?
if it's linux, show your linux kernel version, and GCC version
linux version "uname -s" , gcc version "gcc --version"

W10x64 on both machines.

[svirusxxx2]

Code:

addnode=137.74.0.113
addnode=37.59.14.211
addnode=94.23.196.50
addnode=94.23.12.37
addnode=91.121.83.119
addnode=188.165.193.28

on 137.74.0.113 is just node, and I don't mining there, so should work very good.

wallet version 1.0.1.3 ?

1.0.3.4 - on all nodes

[svirusxxx2]

17:50:27

{
  "blocks": 7596,
  "currentblocksize": 1228,
  "currentblocktx": 1,
  "difficulty": 785.1795945163046,
  "errors": "",
  "genproclimit": 6,
  "networkhashps": 56506183063.63522,
  "hashps": 6546.080620550341,
  "minerstarttime": "09-14-2017 14:37:43",
  "pooledtx": 1,
  "testnet": false,
  "chain": "main",
  "biblepay-generate": true,
  "poolinfo1": "B6jtJfhZzbqiNUXfoQ2LdHVjWVtrHSELMS; B6jtJfhZzbqiNUXfoQ2LdHVjWVtrHSELMS; B6jtJfhZzbqiNUXfoQ2LdHVjWVtrHSELMS; B6jtJfhZzbqiNUXfoQ2LdHVjWVtrHSELMS; B6jtJfhZzbqiNUXfoQ2LdHVjWVtrHSELMS; B6jtJfhZzbqiNUXfoQ2LdHVjWVtrHSELMS; ",
  "poolinfo2": "RM_09-14-2017 14:50:20; RM_09-14-2017 14:49:11; Submitting Solution 09-14-2017 14:50:10; RMC_09-14-2017 14:50:20; RM_09-14-2017 14:50:08; RMC_09-14-2017 14:49:34; ",
  "poolinfo3": "",
  "miningpulse": 152,
  "poolmining": true
}

huh... something is very bad
you should have something about 30k but you have only 6.5k

What OS ?
You use binary, on you compile itself ?
if it's linux, show your linux kernel version, and GCC version
linux version "uname -s" , gcc version "gcc --version"

W10x64 on both machines.

With windows i can't help.
but this hardware should have more than 4 times hashps

[seasonw]

What is the difference between Hashes Per Second and Hashes Per Second2

@bible_pay Is Hashes Per Second2 just a pool thing?

Or is that a variable in the wallet/miner? I only see hashps with getmininginfo command

If I'm not misunderstanding, Hashes Per Second2 is the actual hashrate that received by pool. Just similar to ccminer, we see our hashrate on our machine, but pool did not receive same hashrate as our machine did, local hashrate number is just an estimated hash value.

[bible_pay]

What is the difference between Hashes Per Second and Hashes Per Second2

@bible_pay Is Hashes Per Second2 just a pool thing?

Or is that a variable in the wallet/miner? I only see hashps with getmininginfo command

HPS2 is just a pool thing: Its roughly 500*SharesSolvedInCurrentRound*ShareAgeDecayFactor

Its what is currently being used for payments, and also to prevent any cheating- it was getting a little hard to manage the original pool code that created a Synthetically measured HPS in the pool and I was getting afraid that someone who starts pool2 would pollute it or cheat themselves so I think this is the fairest way to do it, for what we are doing.

[616westwarmoth]

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 

First off, if the main benefit to multiple pools is redundancy.  If one pool gets a glitch, the other can wait and see how to resolve it.  At this point any other pools are going to be running versions of the same pool software and since BBP is in such active development, they'll likely be in lockstep.  The only difference you'll likely see between pools is minor rules, such as worker limits, letter fees and overall pool fee.  For the record, I'm starting a pool in the next week or so with the blessing of the Dev.  It'll pretty much mirror the main pool but will lag on feature updates and be less feature rich (most likely things like the orphan letters will be missing).  I'm just waiting for a decent chunk of time to start working on it and a few more days for block 7000 to work it's way through the system.

My personal thoughts are there is no reason to limit pool workers, there are too many easy ways to get around it.  However, I'd say the solution is to show only their first 5 in the logs and then a note that says "57 additional: 542246 (584455)"  Ultimately even big miners are a benefit to the pools.  The way I see it, a big farm would just as well be off solo mining, they'll gain the law of averages and not have the overhead of pool communication (which is very small, but in aggregate adds up).  So if you chase them off the pools, the pools will get fewer shares and do so less frequently.  While mathematically it works out to be the same for all players, most people I would think would rather get small payouts more frequently than large payouts less frequently.  That's because I'd say a decent number of smaller miners do what I do, run hard at night or while at work, run light while they're on the PC.

And while I'm writing, I'd say "big miners" is all relative too.  To the person running one wallet on a two core four thread Intel chip, I'm a big miner with my (sometimes but soon to be more) four boxes. To me, Tiras is a big miner with their 16 boxes, to Tiras, tonywon is a big miner with their 30 boxes.  To tonywon, linglui would be a big miner.  It's all relative.  But the coin benefits from more users.  The coin also benefits from a stable hash rate, and much like with electric generation, you do need a "base load" to get you over the difficulty humps (look at what's going on in Das right now, they've got too few miners that mine all the time and when a difficulty bubble occurs it takes HOURS to find a new block).  But in the end, as long as people like my general computer literate friends can call me up, spend five minutes setting up Biblepay (while I'm on the phone with them) and mine at genproclimit=2 so they don't notice a performance hit on their only computer, it's good for everyone.  They strengthen the peer-to-peer network by their presence, they earn a small sum of coins every so often for little impact.

And finally, this is still a very new coin, there are going to be hiccups.  If you want a stable coin, go to Bitcoin, Ethereum or DASH and you'll get just that.  However, this is a fun time for people like me, the infancy of a coin and we've got a very active Dev that is responsive, so I really believe this coin can reach it's first birthday and be still going strong.  If that happens, it benefits all of us who are early adopters, who made it through these glitches and kept mining, kept supporting the coin.  Likely it means the price will go up and those in early will benefit.  And don't mistake my motives, I'd be very pleased to make some money.  But I'm also very pleased with the idea that if this coin succeeds, we're doing more than just helping ourselves, a bunch of first world, relatively well off (in the global sense) computer guys and gals.  We're actually helping the poor around the world.  Regardless of your personal beliefs on the Bible and Christianity, this coin is trying to help those less fortunate and that's a common thread in most religions and core beliefs.  If this coin succeeds, it will continue to help the less fortunate, and hopefully that benefit will grow more and more with the coin.

[svirusxxx2]

so maybe it's good point to put pool open-source ?

If it will be a open-source I will put it online on good hardware and DataCenter in Central Europe

[Iuliu]

Is this for real or what? and why hashes is so small? i mean with a 24 cpu i get just ~ 7000 hps

[happy_merchant]

Is this for real or what? and why hashes is so small? i mean with a 24 cpu i get just ~ 7000 hps

I disabled the network hashrate field on the block explorer because it's not accurately reporting the network hashrate, so it doesn't really offer useful information on its own and would just confuse people to see a massive number there. The difficulty is being shown with an incorrect decimal place due to a bug in the value returned by biblepayd and I haven't had a chance to patch the Iquidus source yet as a temporary fix.

You can just use the getmininginfo command if you want to see those values.

-edit-
Difficulty field should be reporting correctly now.

[inblue]

So if you chase [the big miners] off the pools, the pools will get fewer shares and do so less frequently.  While mathematically it works out to be the same for all players, most people I would think would rather get small payouts more frequently than large payouts less frequently.  That's because I'd say a decent number of smaller miners do what I do, run hard at night or while at work, run light while they're on the PC.

Great post, I would like to add - putting aside if people would rather have frequent small payouts or infrequent big payouts, and speaking purely of mathematics, being in a small pool (i.e. with a low hashrate) is actually not the same as being in a large pool because of the luck factor - a small pool could find blocks per day in the range of, for example, 15 to 30, while a large pool would consistently find around let's say 85-90 blocks per day, which is a lot less volatile. In the long term (actually, infinity ∞), math always wins and it would be exactly the same whether you are in a small or a large pool, but in the real world time frames, even a month is a very short term (a lot less than infinity ), so it's always strictly better (i.e. more profitable) to be in a mid-size to large pool. It's only by a few %, but still.

Of course, if you're mining 24/7, as time goes by, the difference is getting less significant (as you're getting closer to infinity ), but as you said there are a lot of casual miners (especially for a CPU coin), who will mine maybe only a few hours a day on their home PC for example while it's idle and they will not keep it running at night because of heat and noise etc. So at a large pool, they will be rewarded after contributing for even just a few minutes, so they can rely on the pool giving them their part for even very small work, while a small pool could maybe not even find one block while their miner is active, which can get awfully close to solo mining.

[maarekelets]

So if you chase [the big miners] off the pools, the pools will get fewer shares and do so less frequently.  While mathematically it works out to be the same for all players, most people I would think would rather get small payouts more frequently than large payouts less frequently.  That's because I'd say a decent number of smaller miners do what I do, run hard at night or while at work, run light while they're on the PC.

Great post, I would like to add - putting aside if people would rather have frequent small payouts or infrequent big payouts, and speaking purely of mathematics, being in a small pool (i.e. with a low hashrate) is actually not the same as being in a large pool because of the luck factor - a small pool could find blocks per day in the range of, for example, 15 to 30, while a large pool would consistently find around let's say 85-90 blocks per day, which is a lot less volatile. In the long term (actually, infinity ∞), math always wins and it would be exactly the same whether you are in a small or a large pool, but in the real world time frames, even a month is a very short term (a lot less than infinity ), so it's always strictly better (i.e. more profitable) to be in a mid-size to large pool. It's only by a few %, but still.

Of course, if you're mining 24/7, as time goes by, the difference is getting less significant (as you're getting closer to infinity ), but as you said there are a lot of casual miners (especially for a CPU coin), who will mine maybe only a few hours a day on their home PC for example while it's idle and they will not keep it running at night because of heat and noise etc. So at a large pool, they will be rewarded after contributing for even just a few minutes, so they can rely on the pool giving them their part for even very small work, while a small pool could maybe not even find one block while their miner is active, which can get awfully close to solo mining.

The other big advantage is that with the way that BBP works, every one of these big miners is putting up a lot of full nodes and actually is beneficial to the crypto as a network (although causing some minor early headaches on the pools themselves). This is unlike most others where you run a miner that just pulls from a stratum pool and you can have thousands of miners running on a single full node. The value of a crypto is found in the network it holds and one thing I like about BBP is how it incentivizes being a full part of the network through the way it hashes and mines.

[bible_pay]

so maybe it's good point to put pool open-source ?

If it will be a open-source I will put it online on good hardware and DataCenter in Central Europe

Yes, its definitely going to be open source, but I think I want to burn it in on Wests system first, until we get to the point that it is not changing every day, then we will expose the link on github.

The specs right now : it requires Windows 2008r2 server, 4 processors, 8 gig ram, Static IP, IIS7, Windows 2016 SQL Server, .NET 4.5 framework, Biblepayd running on the server, and anti-ddos at the ISP.  You can run one for $55 a month at vultr.  This server will probably handle 1000 users.   After that as you can see it slows down.  I think with Wests running, and me running two pools (I plan on opening up a 2nd pool hooked to the same database soon just as a backup pool) I think we could then handle 3000 biblepay users.  Right now we have about 1000.

Yes that would be great if you cover Europe.