Bitcoin Forum
December 10, 2016, 12:51:47 PM *
News: To be able to use the next phase of the beta forum software, please ensure that your email address is correct/functional.
 
   Home   Help Search Donate Login Register  
Pages: « 1 ... 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 [154] 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 »
  Print  
Author Topic: bitHopper: Python Pool Hopper Proxy  (Read 333195 times)
Keninishna
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 551



View Profile WWW
August 08, 2011, 09:27:03 PM
 #3061

Right now the stats page seems to be fixed.
It appears that the os.curdir line is only used in the except clause?
Yes, working, missed a commit(567d172) to website.py and was only looking at that line, as that line made it work for me  Embarrassed
But then again, that was why I asked for logic validation on (d736afc) to begin with, as I don't know any python, at least it turned out to be the correct syntax, just the wrong place  Roll Eyes

Only programming skills I have are some faint Turbo Pascal and ANSI C memories from high school some two decades ago  Tongue

python is pretty easy to pick up http://hetland.org/writing/instant-python.html at least its suppose to resemble pseudo code
1481374307
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481374307

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481374307
Reply with quote  #2

1481374307
Report to moderator
1481374307
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481374307

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481374307
Reply with quote  #2

1481374307
Report to moderator
1481374307
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481374307

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481374307
Reply with quote  #2

1481374307
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
organofcorti
Donator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1960


Poor impulse control.


View Profile WWW
August 08, 2011, 09:31:37 PM
 #3062

Good news everyone! 43% is dead!

We no longer have to hop at 0.43*difficulty!

I haven't been around much lately because I spent the last week running and rewriting 'byteHopper', a multiple pool hopping simulator. When when I got results I didn't want, I rewrote it from scratch. Three times.

Although I made it run faster each time the results are the same, and the cumulative distribution functions follow real world bitcoin results. So I'm finally happy with the results it gives.

I'm only posting a summary here and I'll get around to making blog posts on hoppersden to give more detail, but the gist of it is: If there are 3 or more hoppable pools, you can stay on pools as long as you want and still get the same long term reward as if you hopped on 0.43, but without needing backup and without pissing pool operators as much. Keep in mind that this is not a claim about one particular round, but over, say, 100000 rounds (which I used for the graphs below).

Of course in any given round, after total shares=diff, your shares are worth less than one. But over time the shorter rounds make up for it. Even with only 3 Prop and backup, your efficiency will always be about 1.83, unless you hop off *too soon*. With ten other pools you get about 250% over PPS - sound familiar?

tl;dr BOLD CLAIM: As long as you always hop to the pool with the lowest shares - regardless of hashspeed - you don't need to hop to backup at 0.43.

The ran up some quick graphs which show byteHopper results up to hopping at 3*diff for 0 other pools (ie one proportional pools and one PPS), 1 other pools, 3 other pools and 5 other pools, all plus pps when needed. '0 other pools' mean the same as Raulo's example, and gives the same results as his equation.

 This is basically not 'hopping' much at all. PPS only really has positive effect if you hop only one or two other pools.

                 


What variance on the pool total round shares did you use? It basically comes down to that.

E.g. if you are hopping five pools which are all at 9 million shares, it is way more profitable to mine on backup.

If you use no variance in you simulations it is ok to stay on the pool with the least shares, but the simulations are useless.


I used a Poisson random number generator. If there was no variance, it would not simulate the bitcoin finding process.


As I mentioned in the post, all the results I've generated, including those for one pool/one pps, all agree with prior art and the real world.  PLus I think you missed this:

 
Quote
Keep in mind that this is not a claim about one particular round, but over, say, 100000 rounds (which I used for the graphs below).


Sure, for any one particular round mining at 5*diff is not s good idea. However, if you have 10 other pools available another one will be along soon enough, and in the long run won't affect your payout. In fact in my sims I never mined a round all the way out to 5*diff.

This is not a big deal really but since jumping off at 43% has no purpose when there are more than three pools, change your jump off to say 'difficulty' might obscure you as a hopper, and not lose you coinage.

Bitcoin network and pool analysis 12QxPHEuxDrs7mCyGSx1iVSozTwtquDB3r
follow @oocBlog for new post notifications
paraipan
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 924


Firstbits: 1pirata


View Profile WWW
August 08, 2011, 09:41:19 PM
 #3063

@organofcorti I don't really get what you're trying to say, all the graphs seem to indicate overall eff. > 1 and that's what really matters to me (liked the 4th one) Smiley

BTCitcoin: An Idea Worth Saving - Q&A with bitcoins on rugatu.com - Check my rep
bb
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 84


View Profile
August 08, 2011, 09:46:29 PM
 #3064

Quote
a form of proportional scoring for calculating a fair payout of your shares.


That pretty much kills it.  Sounds like a score method to me

Could still mean classic proportional though.
GenTarkin
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1932


View Profile
August 08, 2011, 09:50:25 PM
 #3065

slush just got a new block and the hopper didnt switch over to it, its still making sure the other hoppable pools slice accounts are "caught up" =(...  I want slush to take priority over those...grr

GenTarkin's MOD Kncminer Titan custom firmware! v1.0.4! <--- CLICK HERE
Donations: bitcoin- 1Px71mWNQNKW19xuARqrmnbcem1dXqJ3At || litecoin- LYXrLis3ik6TRn8tdvzAyJ264DRvwYVeEw
EskimoBob
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 910


Quality Printing Services by Federal Reserve Bank


View Profile
August 08, 2011, 09:51:15 PM
 #3066

...
This is not a big deal really but since jumping off at 43% has no purpose when there are more than three pools, change your jump off to say 'difficulty' might obscure you as a hopper, and not lose you coinage.

Do I understand you correctly, that if I set the Penalty below 1, I'll stay longer in that pool and actually lose nothing in the long run?
 

While reading what I wrote, use the most friendliest and relaxing voice in your head.
BTW, Things in BTC bubble universes are getting ugly....
organofcorti
Donator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1960


Poor impulse control.


View Profile WWW
August 08, 2011, 09:55:31 PM
 #3067

...
This is not a big deal really but since jumping off at 43% has no purpose when there are more than three pools, change your jump off to say 'difficulty' might obscure you as a hopper, and not lose you coinage.

Do I understand you correctly, that if I set the Penalty below 1, I'll stay longer in that pool and actually lose nothing in the long run?
 

If you set it for all pools, yes. It might be easier to set the threshold to 1.0*difficulty though.

Bitcoin network and pool analysis 12QxPHEuxDrs7mCyGSx1iVSozTwtquDB3r
follow @oocBlog for new post notifications
EskimoBob
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 910


Quality Printing Services by Federal Reserve Bank


View Profile
August 08, 2011, 09:56:10 PM
 #3068

I have polmine on info until i work it out.. i will watch both numbers and see which is a lie when a block is found



What did you find out?

home page:
Current round start:  
2011-08-08 16:26:42
Current round duration:  
0 dni 7 godzin 24 minut 59 sekund
Valid round shares/total:  
124 276

BH shows: 124276 6.58% and mines

While reading what I wrote, use the most friendliest and relaxing voice in your head.
BTW, Things in BTC bubble universes are getting ugly....
bb
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 84


View Profile
August 08, 2011, 10:00:12 PM
 #3069

So does this mean bclc is safe to mine on now?

Yes and no. 

I dont know if they are still delaying stats.  If they are, you will still come out ahead on most rounds but efficiency is not going to be fantastic.  If they are not delaying stats, then yes its pretty safe to mine on.

Also, the owner of the pool has not been kind to miners.  I am going to mine them but constantly keep an eye on whether they are gaming stats or not.

Does anybody have new data on this? Is bclc still delaying stats?

Also, is BTC Guild still delaying stats?
Clipse
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 504


View Profile
August 08, 2011, 10:02:03 PM
 #3070

Well not sure how the digbit admin correlates chrome with attackers but here is hes explaination for chrome user-agent not working:

Code:
Yes, it only limit chrome Chrome/13.0.782.109, because attack are using this.

...In the land of the stale, the man with one share is king... >> Clipse

We pay miners at 130% PPS | Signup here : Bonus PPS Pool (Please read OP to understand the current process)
c00w
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 196


View Profile
August 08, 2011, 10:07:14 PM
 #3071

I think I have fixed deepbit hopping to work. My changes to the scheduler were not set up correctly. On a visual front i forgot to reverse the byte order for the block number.

EDIT: These changes aren't on github yet. I'm still testing.

1HEmzeuVEKxBQkEenysV1yM8oAddQ4o2TX
gnaget
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 112


View Profile
August 08, 2011, 10:09:37 PM
 #3072

Well not sure how the digbit admin correlates chrome with attackers but here is hes explaination for chrome user-agent not working:

Code:
Yes, it only limit chrome Chrome/13.0.782.109, because attack are using this.

Easy, he is associating chrome with the attackers because we are the attackers.  The stat check system in bh is being mistaken as DDOS attacks by many of the pools.  BitMinerUnion moved over today because of DDOS attacks, and I'm sure it was us
organofcorti
Donator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1960


Poor impulse control.


View Profile WWW
August 08, 2011, 10:12:08 PM
 #3073

@organofcorti I don't really get what you're trying to say, all the graphs seem to indicate overall eff. > 1 and that's what really matters to me (liked the 4th one) Smiley

All I'm saying is if you have more than three pools, the only hopping you have to do is when another pool has fewer shares than the one you're on. You shouldn't have to jump to backup at  43% - this number its only useful if you have one proportional pool and one pps pool. So if any pool ops are checking for you hopping off at 43%, not hopping off then won't have an effect on your long term earnings.

Bitcoin network and pool analysis 12QxPHEuxDrs7mCyGSx1iVSozTwtquDB3r
follow @oocBlog for new post notifications
c00w
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 196


View Profile
August 08, 2011, 10:13:35 PM
 #3074

@organ
What about slicing? Worth it or not?

1HEmzeuVEKxBQkEenysV1yM8oAddQ4o2TX
paraipan
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 924


Firstbits: 1pirata


View Profile WWW
August 08, 2011, 10:15:52 PM
 #3075

Well not sure how the digbit admin correlates chrome with attackers but here is hes explaination for chrome user-agent not working:

Code:
Yes, it only limit chrome Chrome/13.0.782.109, because attack are using this.

LOL , take your pick guys http://www.user-agents.org/

BTCitcoin: An Idea Worth Saving - Q&A with bitcoins on rugatu.com - Check my rep
Clipse
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 504


View Profile
August 08, 2011, 10:20:48 PM
 #3076

Well that reminds me.

Why not have pool stats refresh at something more decent, 3-5mins only, or if Longpoll identified refresh all pools listed shares.

Even better, we should get a bithopper central api where everyone can point to fetch stats, then it will never get flagged as ddos since there is only one point of fetching.
It would remove alot of hammering.

...In the land of the stale, the man with one share is king... >> Clipse

We pay miners at 130% PPS | Signup here : Bonus PPS Pool (Please read OP to understand the current process)
gnaget
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 112


View Profile
August 08, 2011, 10:30:20 PM
 #3077

I have polmine on info until i work it out.. i will watch both numbers and see which is a lie when a block is found



What did you find out?

home page:
Current round start:  
2011-08-08 16:26:42
Current round duration:  
0 dni 7 godzin 24 minut 59 sekund
Valid round shares/total:  
124 276

BH shows: 124276 6.58% and mines


They're fucking with us.  Their last block was discovered at 2:26 GMT and it changed around 9:30 GMT, 6 hours later.  And, it changed after a period of downtime.  I still have them on info, don't trust them.
bb
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 84


View Profile
August 08, 2011, 10:33:03 PM
 #3078

The update interval could be dynamically increased on small pools with slowly changing stats.

This probably needs a few lines of code though.
joulesbeef
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 476


moOo


View Profile
August 08, 2011, 10:33:59 PM
 #3079

@organofcorti I don't really get what you're trying to say, all the graphs seem to indicate overall eff. > 1 and that's what really matters to me (liked the 4th one) Smiley

All I'm saying is if you have more than three pools, the only hopping you have to do is when another pool has fewer shares than the one you're on. You shouldn't have to jump to backup at  43% - this number its only useful if you have one proportional pool and one pps pool. So if any pool ops are checking for you hopping off at 43%, not hopping off then won't have an effect on your long term earnings.

ok yeah that actually makes sense until you get over 100% then they start to be worth less than PPS

and yeah you still want to slice, due to slow pools staying below everyone for so long


but we shouldnt need the 43%

mooo for rent
paraipan
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 924


Firstbits: 1pirata


View Profile WWW
August 08, 2011, 10:39:12 PM
 #3080

I have polmine on info until i work it out.. i will watch both numbers and see which is a lie when a block is found



What did you find out?

home page:
Current round start:  
2011-08-08 16:26:42
Current round duration:  
0 dni 7 godzin 24 minut 59 sekund
Valid round shares/total:  
124 276

BH shows: 124276 6.58% and mines


They're fucking with us.  Their last block was discovered at 2:26 GMT and it changed around 9:30 GMT, 6 hours later.  And, it changed after a period of downtime.  I still have them on info, don't trust them.

you're maybe right...

Current round start:   
2011-08-08 16:26:42
Current round duration:   
0 dni 8 godzin 0 minut 38 sekund
Valid round shares/total:   
202 453

Previous round start:   
2011-08-08 04:52:03
Previous round duration:
0 dni 11 godzin 34 minut 39 sekund
Total amount of shares:
93 406 617

3 round ago...

66)    97,50% (wypłacony) Tx: 6fea3409    ( ..... / 838229) * 50.04043018   ...............   2011-08-08 04:52:03   0 dni 3 godz. 57 min. 16 sek.

they managed to stuff >800.000 shares in 4 hours with "help" of course but at a stable pool rate of ~150Gh/s

BTCitcoin: An Idea Worth Saving - Q&A with bitcoins on rugatu.com - Check my rep
Pages: « 1 ... 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 [154] 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 »
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Sponsored by , a Bitcoin-accepting VPN.
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!