Bitcoin Forum
December 11, 2016, 06:29:07 AM *
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 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 [27] 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 ... 205 »
  Print  
Author Topic: bitHopper: Python Pool Hopper Proxy  (Read 333338 times)
muyoso
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 84



View Profile
July 18, 2011, 09:05:49 PM
 #521

When you update do you just copy over the password.py file from the old version to the new version?

I drink it up!
1481437747
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481437747

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481437747
Reply with quote  #2

1481437747
Report to moderator
1481437747
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481437747

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481437747
Reply with quote  #2

1481437747
Report to moderator
1481437747
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481437747

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481437747
Reply with quote  #2

1481437747
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1481437747
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481437747

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481437747
Reply with quote  #2

1481437747
Report to moderator
1481437747
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481437747

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481437747
Reply with quote  #2

1481437747
Report to moderator
Clipse
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 504


View Profile
July 18, 2011, 09:08:26 PM
 #522

I keep backup of password.py and just overwrite on update

...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)
koopa
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 61



View Profile
July 18, 2011, 09:09:00 PM
 #523

When you update do you just copy over the password.py file from the old version to the new version?

Yep, that's exactly how I do it. Just make sure you add any new pools.

Grin
enmaku
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 742



View Profile WWW
July 18, 2011, 09:13:19 PM
 #524

if some pool merge mines and asks me if I want that then I would be diminishing my bitcoin income with something not widely accepted and equally priced, new risk I would not easily take.

You obviously did not read the post I linked.

A while back in this forum someone discussed submitting the same hashes to multiple pools and how if they accepted hashes they hadn't sent a getwork for it'd be considered a security vulnerability. There's sort of a similar thing with alternate blockchains like namecoin. Namecoin, at least, is talking about modifying their client so that when miners submit hashes to bitcoind they can submit the exact same hashes to namecoind thus allowing existing mining clients to mine both networks simultaneously at full speed. Essentially they noticed they weren't getting a hell of a lot of namecoin miners except when difficulty changed and it briefly became more popular, so they're changing the way NMC works to allow us to mine namecoins at no cost aside from setting up a merged mining proxy.

tl;dr: namecoin is making it possible to submit the same hashes to both networks so you can mine NMC at no additional cost.

hawks5999
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 168



View Profile WWW
July 18, 2011, 09:18:28 PM
 #525

speaking tl;dr this thread no longer has an ALL option for pages. Sad. I missed being able to scroll through one page to reference all the code snippets..

■ ▄▄▄
■ ███
■ ■  ■               
LEDGER  WALLET    ████
■■■ ORDER NOW! ■■■
              LEDGER WALLET
Smartcard security for your BTCitcoins
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
Decentralized. Open. Secure.
muyoso
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 84



View Profile
July 18, 2011, 09:22:02 PM
 #526

Is there a reason bitclockers is disabled?  I read earlier in the thread that they were a little shady with super long rounds, but are you guys mining with them anyway?

I drink it up!
msb8r
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 78


View Profile WWW
July 18, 2011, 09:24:54 PM
 #527

Is there a reason bitclockers is disabled?  I read earlier in the thread that they were a little shady with super long rounds, but are you guys mining with them anyway?

I've tried for a couple of rounds. But am met with massive connection issues, so disabled them again.

New Bitcoin directory @ http://btcdir.org/
paraipan
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 924


Firstbits: 1pirata


View Profile WWW
July 18, 2011, 09:27:33 PM
 #528

if some pool merge mines and asks me if I want that then I would be diminishing my bitcoin income with something not widely accepted and equally priced, new risk I would not easily take.

You obviously did not read the post I linked.

A while back in this forum someone discussed submitting the same hashes to multiple pools and how if they accepted hashes they hadn't sent a getwork for it'd be considered a security vulnerability. There's sort of a similar thing with alternate blockchains like namecoin. Namecoin, at least, is talking about modifying their client so that when miners submit hashes to bitcoind they can submit the exact same hashes to namecoind thus allowing existing mining clients to mine both networks simultaneously at full speed. Essentially they noticed they weren't getting a hell of a lot of namecoin miners except when difficulty changed and it briefly became more popular, so they're changing the way NMC works to allow us to mine namecoins at no cost aside from setting up a merged mining proxy.

tl;dr: namecoin is making it possible to submit the same hashes to both networks so you can mine NMC at no additional cost.

Sorry for not getting the point in that thread, now I do thanks to your explication. I have to study it a little more. You said the magic word "no cost". Would wait and see if this project succeeds because between the cryptocurency and the unhackable DNS small people like us could build unthinkable projects. Cheers

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

Activity: 742



View Profile WWW
July 18, 2011, 09:29:21 PM
 #529

if some pool merge mines and asks me if I want that then I would be diminishing my bitcoin income with something not widely accepted and equally priced, new risk I would not easily take.

You obviously did not read the post I linked.

A while back in this forum someone discussed submitting the same hashes to multiple pools and how if they accepted hashes they hadn't sent a getwork for it'd be considered a security vulnerability. There's sort of a similar thing with alternate blockchains like namecoin. Namecoin, at least, is talking about modifying their client so that when miners submit hashes to bitcoind they can submit the exact same hashes to namecoind thus allowing existing mining clients to mine both networks simultaneously at full speed. Essentially they noticed they weren't getting a hell of a lot of namecoin miners except when difficulty changed and it briefly became more popular, so they're changing the way NMC works to allow us to mine namecoins at no cost aside from setting up a merged mining proxy.

tl;dr: namecoin is making it possible to submit the same hashes to both networks so you can mine NMC at no additional cost.

Sorry for not getting the point in that thread, now I do thanks to your explication. I have to study it a little more. You said the magic word "no cost". Would wait and see if this project succeeds because between the cryptocurency and the unhackable DNS small people like us could build unthinkable projects. Cheers

Yeah I wouldn't want to be in on it at the beginning - though they DO have a fixed block # they intend to release at and I might mine up a few NMC before that block # hits - I expect the sudden influx of attention to do interesting things to the value of NMC and there might be a few spikes in the midst of all that volatility to take advantage of. There are also a couple exchanges in the works that are paying more attention to NMC so this might be the look of things to come.

zapeta
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 182


View Profile
July 18, 2011, 09:43:51 PM
 #530

Is there a reason bitclockers is disabled?  I read earlier in the thread that they were a little shady with super long rounds, but are you guys mining with them anyway?

I've tried for a couple of rounds. But am met with massive connection issues, so disabled them again.

I was mining bitclockers, and now I get connection refused.  Not sure if they banned my IP or what.
Clipse
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 504


View Profile
July 18, 2011, 09:46:05 PM
 #531

Is there a reason bitclockers is disabled?  I read earlier in the thread that they were a little shady with super long rounds, but are you guys mining with them anyway?

I've tried for a couple of rounds. But am met with massive connection issues, so disabled them again.

I was mining bitclockers, and now I get connection refused.  Not sure if they banned my IP or what.

Yup, same here. I think they temp ban an IP, dunno for how long as soon as you hop a few times.

...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)
zapeta
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 182


View Profile
July 18, 2011, 10:08:48 PM
 #532

Although triplemining isn't mining right now, I keep seeing an error when the hopper goes to get stats saying "Error in pool api for triple".  Anyone else seeing this?

Edit:  Also, for bitclockers, maybe they don't like how often we check them for updated stats and that leads to the ban.  Can the frequency of stat checking be reduced?

flower1024
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 868


luck is just a share away


View Profile
July 18, 2011, 10:16:20 PM
 #533

hi @all.

i got an interesting mail (my answer is included):

Hello,

Am 18.07.2011 19:15, schrieb Huh?:
> Hello,
>
> If I understand this correctly, I think your addition will lower the variance of returns slightly, but not have any affect on the expected returns.

I think it will have an affect.

example 1: two pools found a block next to each other with the same speed. original bithopper will stick with the one with the lower shares. that could be good or worse.

if it's good you earn much more; if its bad you loose the half.

example 2:
a pool with a very high hashrate finds a block righte before a small pool.

original bithopper will switch to the small one. it would be better to try to submit shares to the fast pool and - after that - continue with the small one.

^^ thats my impression. please correct me if i am wrong

I'm at work right now, but I would like to discuss it further either in here or on the forums (I still don't have proper non-newbie privledges necessary to post in the thread).
>
> IMO, it adds unnecessary complexity for a small decrease in variance. Can we please add it with a switch, such as --time-slicing=[yes|no] ?

^^ bithopper itself is not from me.
so if you don't want that slicing right now, just stick with the original version.

if it gets merged (i hope so), i prefer a switch too (i would even suggest pluggable modules through c00w's planned website - so if you're watching you can change the strategy on the fly)

>
> If two pools are both at X% and both are standard proportional pools, the expected return on shares is equal. Due to time-lag in pulling stats, one should choose the pool with a lower hashrate for highest return (although if hoppers are a large portion of the hashrate, this is unstable and will cause the hashrate, #workers, and optimal pool to oscillate unstably).
>

my recent version (see attachment; as i got ill i was not able to publish it right now. especially the "ghash pool bonus" is not well tested (i should write a program to simulate pool stats)) has a few improvements:

 - bonus for BIG pools (i now; you don't like that. but big pools goes to 40% diff very fast, so i think its a good idea to catch up)
 - tries to stay longer at one pool (means: if after a ten minute round the same pool got a new time slice it stays there)
 - tries to start the longest (means most profitable) slice as soon as a new block is found, a pool lags or another slice finished

thank you for you thoughts. i just think we need a long-time sim here - and i am still planning to work on a bitcoin patch to better detect btc guild / deepbit blocks

> Cheers
>


as i said: i got ill Sad
i just managed to continue the work the pool-ghash adaption.

you can get it here:

(i promise i will make a git push; but with that headache..BBRRRRR)

link: www.k1024.de/dev.zip (this time its a zip; i just like changes Smiley

cheers


LOL just recognized it was a github comment...my headache ...

anyway: please tell me what you think about it
muyoso
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 84



View Profile
July 18, 2011, 10:34:16 PM
 #534

https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Comparison_of_mining_pools if you look at this wiki there are many prop pools that are available  Cheesy

Looks like x8s and rfcpool and bitcoinpool and polmine would be perfect to add.

http://btc.x8s.de/faq
and
https://www.rfcpool.com/
and
http://bitcoinpool.com/
and
https://polmine.pl/?setlang=pl

I drink it up!
ahitman
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 126


View Profile WWW
July 18, 2011, 10:35:40 PM
 #535

I think the core bithopper program should not include many pools, maybe even only have backup pools in it. This way each person who runs bithopper will have to setup the pools they want to hop themselves. This would save the pools from being hammered by EVERYONE who runs bithopper, and will only be hopped by people who specifically set it up, making it somewhat random and spearing the servers from being overloaded.
muyoso
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 84



View Profile
July 18, 2011, 10:37:08 PM
 #536

I think the core bithopper program should not include many pools, maybe even only have backup pools in it. This way each person who runs bithopper will have to setup the pools they want to hop themselves. This would save the pools from being hammered by EVERYONE who runs bithopper, and will only be hopped by people who specifically set it up, making it somewhat random and spearing the servers from being overloaded.

I think the core bithopper program should include ALL of the hoppable pools, but with most of them set to 'disable' or 'info' in pools.py.  That way people can just mine the pools they want by changing the value to 'mine'.

I drink it up!
ahitman
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 126


View Profile WWW
July 18, 2011, 10:41:25 PM
 #537

I think the core bithopper program should not include many pools, maybe even only have backup pools in it. This way each person who runs bithopper will have to setup the pools they want to hop themselves. This would save the pools from being hammered by EVERYONE who runs bithopper, and will only be hopped by people who specifically set it up, making it somewhat random and spearing the servers from being overloaded.

I think the core bithopper program should include ALL of the hoppable pools, but with most of them set to 'disable' or 'info' in pools.py.  That way people can just mine the pools they want by changing the value to 'mine'.

Good call, but it would even be better if you can set info or disable in the passwords file so that you can update the hopper without losing which pools are active or disabled.
paraipan
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 924


Firstbits: 1pirata


View Profile WWW
July 18, 2011, 10:54:57 PM
 #538

I think the core bithopper program should not include many pools, maybe even only have backup pools in it. This way each person who runs bithopper will have to setup the pools they want to hop themselves. This would save the pools from being hammered by EVERYONE who runs bithopper, and will only be hopped by people who specifically set it up, making it somewhat random and spearing the servers from being overloaded.

I think the core bithopper program should include ALL of the hoppable pools, but with most of them set to 'disable' or 'info' in pools.py.  That way people can just mine the pools they want by changing the value to 'mine'.

Good call, but it would even be better if you can set info or disable in the passwords file so that you can update the hopper without losing which pools are active or disabled.

+1

BTCitcoin: An Idea Worth Saving - Q&A with bitcoins on rugatu.com - Check my rep
relm9
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 784



View Profile
July 18, 2011, 10:59:36 PM
 #539

Runs fine but i get a bunch of api errors

Quote
[15:56:57] Error in pool api for mineco
[15:56:57] Error in pool api for mtred
[15:56:57] Error in pool api for bclc
[15:56:57] Error in pool api for triple
[15:56:57] Error in pool api for eclipsemc
[15:56:57] Error in pool api for ozco
[15:56:57] Error in pool api for bitclockers
[15:56:57] Error in pool api for bitp
[15:56:57] Error in user api for ('btcg', <__main__.BitHopper instance at 0x0000
0000030E69C8>)
[15:56:57] Error in user api for ('bitclockers', <__main__.BitHopper instance at
 0x00000000030E69C8>)
[15:56:57] Error in user api for ('bitp', <__main__.BitHopper instance at 0x0000
0000030E69C8>)

normal?
Clipse
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 504


View Profile
July 18, 2011, 11:08:59 PM
 #540

Im getting these errors, not sure what its related to but some clarification would be great Smiley

They seem to have started with more recent version, also getting alot of LP timeouts. I would have thought its related to my connection but I keep a constant traceroute and ping to test for any dropped packets and I get none to the serverlists.

Code:
caught, Final response/writing
Request.finish called on a request after its connection was lost; use Request.notifyFinish to keep track of 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)
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 [27] 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 ... 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!