[NR 1] Triplemining.com <> BIG jackpot every week <>

[DullJack]

Yeah seems that too many people are switching to eu2 now :/ i'm mining on eu1 now

So since my miners are still pointed to eu.triplemining.com, am I getting redirected to eu1 or eu2, or are there 3 servers total now?

[kinlo]

eu goes currently to eu1

The number of servers is invisible, we can add and remove without you noticing.  There are 2 clusters, eu1 and eu2.

The idea between eu1 and eu2 is that they are 100% seperated, in seperated datacenters with seperated uplinks and all.  If either one goes down, the other one can still continue to work.  So consider it 2 different pools, eu1 and eu2, but the data from both pools is gathererd at a central location so if either pool wins a block, you will get your piece of the cake based on the shares you've submitted at either pool.  If you have an option to mine with a fallback pool, configure the other as fallback.

[EskimoBob]

People, please stop pool hopping! It makes your asshole bleed and you go limp in less than a year.
On the other hand, this is actually good when thieves go limp. It helps to clean the gene pool from you clowns.
 
 
 

[MrSam]

People, please stop pool hopping! It makes your asshole bleed and you go limp in less than a year.
On the other hand, this is actually good when thieves go limp. It helps to clean the gene pool from you clowns.
 
 
 

Yeah, its amazing how many people leave at the end and join on a new block .. Bye bye little triplemining family, we are a grown up pool now

[gigabytecoin]

Sooooooo, is this a scam or not? Didn't diablo call you guys out for being one? What's the dealio?

[DullJack]

Sooooooo, is this a scam or not? Didn't diablo call you guys out for being one? What's the dealio?

Diablo saw that Triplemining uses a hybrid referral system and decided to make a sticky calling the pool a scam with absolutely no research, evidence, or explanation. He still hasn't said anything about the matter, just seemed like an attempt to kill a newly formed pool. It was a pretty lame move on his part, using his influence on this board for highschool-level forum politics...

I've been mining here from the start and have gotten every single bitcoin owed to me. I make more here than I have anywhere else and that is with no referral bonus. Call it luck.

I have no active miners in my minipool yet somehow Triplemining hasn't collapsed, crazy how non-pyramid schemes work.

[Nagios]

So an upgrade from a GTX 460 to a HD 5830 is huge, weeeeeee

[PandaMiner]

Sooooooo, is this a scam or not? Didn't diablo call you guys out for being one? What's the dealio?

Diablo saw that Triplemining uses a hybrid referral system and decided to make a sticky calling the pool a scam with absolutely no research, evidence, or explanation. He still hasn't said anything about the matter, just seemed like an attempt to kill a newly formed pool. It was a pretty lame move on his part, using his influence on this board for highschool-level forum politics...

I don't know if anyone noticed, but that thread has long been unstuck.  Diablo does have a "boss" and a "co-worker" of Diablo's informed me that Diablo was being reported.  Soon after, the thread got un-stickied.

[CoinMan]

I continue to have problems connecting to eu or eu2.  Never seen this new error message before but it seems to be happening every time it tries to submit a found hash.  I can see that stats show no shares going to the servers.  I can mine solo and on slushes pool and don't see this problem.  Help me Mr. Sam?

Code:

serv1 19/07/2011 15:54:52, Unexpected error:                                    
Traceback (most recent call last):
  File "/home/user/poclbm/HttpTransport.py", line 50, in loop
    rv = self.send(result)
  File "/home/user/poclbm/Transport.py", line 89, in send
    is_block = belowOrEquals(h[:7], self.true_target[:7])
TypeError: 'NoneType' object is not subscriptable

[DullJack]

I continue to have problems connecting to eu or eu2.  Never seen this new error message before but it seems to be happening every time it tries to submit a found hash.  I can see that stats show no shares going to the servers.  I can mine solo and on slushes pool and don't see this problem.  Help me Mr. Sam?

I'm not having CoinMan's problem, but I just can't connect to either server at all, miners keep retrying but failing.

[gerOZ]

#137140   ORPHAN   50.069   July 20, 2011   10 hours   913309    YES

Block invalid?

[bitlane]

#137140   ORPHAN   50.069   July 20, 2011   10 hours   913309    YES

Block invalid?

I would like to know as well.

Block link is active/valid....but we lost the payout ?

Does anyone know if ORPHAN = INVALID ?

<EDIT>

Looks like I got my answer..... https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Block_chain

Blocks in shorter chains (or invalid chains) are called "orphan blocks", and while they are stored, they are not used for anything. When a block becomes an orphan block, all of its valid transactions are re-added to the pool of queued transactions and will be included in another block. The 50 BTC reward for the orphan block will be lost, which is why a network-enforced 100-block maturation time for generations exists.

[kinlo]

Yes orphans are invalid blocks, orphan is the name the bitcoin client uses, so we re-used that name.

The blockexplorer link links to a block number, so it always links to a valid block, invalid blocks mean there are 2 blocks that have the same number, but one of the 2 blocks is valid, and one is invalid, and unfortunately ours has become invalid.

This is the way that bitcoin works, and there is not much we can do about it....

This is the transaction for that block:
    {
        "account" : "",
        "category" : "orphan",
        "amount" : 50.06900000,
        "confirmations" : 0,
        "txid" : "0d43faa1cb3464fbbde4d2b782987588551968fd6ca108c6efca42981e5d4e28",
        "time" : 1311135895
    }

[Auspician]

So the way the pool is currently set up to deal with Orphaned blocks is basically that all shares submitted for that block are lost, and we restart and move onto working on a different block? 

It seems the pool operators have the option to either A: throw away all the shares that contributed to the orphaned block and start fresh on the new block, or B: to calculate both the shares that contributed to the orphaned block AND the shares that went towards finding the new block to determine payouts.

Based upon Kinlo's explanation and the way the website appears, I get the impression that the decision made was to go with option A.  Not that I have strong opinions either way (but it sucks thinking that some work was lost due to an invalid block rather than being considered for payout when the next valid block is found) but I am curious how this is set up to work.

Thanks!

[kinlo]

Yes we are currently not re-using the shares.  However, re-using the shares would encourage poolhopping, while now you have to stay for your btc's.  In any case, we're looking into changing the way the payouts work, into a totally different system so poolhopping makes no longer any sense.

[bitlane]

How about something as simple as a 60min CONNECTION REFUSAL based on worker login/pass at the beginning of a new round for those who were not part of the previous round for atleast 90% of it ?

It's usually after the 1 hour mark into a round that the Pool hoppers tend to begin leaving again anyways......

[kinlo]

How about something as simple as a 60min CONNECTION REFUSAL based on worker login/pass at the beginning of a new round for those who were not part of the previous round for atleast 90% of it ?

It's usually after the 1 hour mark into a round that the Pool hoppers tend to begin leaving again anyways......

True, but who's going to stay on a pool that does not allow you to mine?  Imagine you have no bad intentions, but your internet provider has some troubles, you're back online and suddenly you're not allowed to mine because a new block has been found?

No I'm afraid that won't .  Everybody must be allowed to mine at all times

[PandaMiner]

I'm kinda bummed that TM does not pay for invalid blocks. I guess that's what you get with a (nearly) no-fee pool in such an infancy. I mean, no percentage of the blocks (or block fees) are kept by the pool owners. So, there's nothing to insure bad beats. But that's poker. I mean life.

[kinlo]

If we required a fee of 3% like some others, we could pay the 1-2% of blocks that are invalid.  So in the long run, you win, because if we run such a pool, you would still end up earning 1-2% less

[kinlo]

I've modified the site so it is more clear when a block is invalid... The "confirmed" column now clearly states it is invalid, and the link to blockexplorer has been removed (as it was wrong anyway)