bitHopper: Python Pool Hopper Proxy

[Sukrim]

But when a massive amount of clients are greedily bouncing back and forth between servers and dog-piling on pools when a block is found; something had to be done.

The right thing to do is not some stupid API delay which will be obsolete soonish anyways - just change to a real and fair payout system!

[1714177703]

1714177703

[c00w]

Huh. We shouldn't be cross submitting shares. However if our connections lag out we leave your pool. And then come back when it delags. So giving us bad connections causes a lot of wounded thrashing.

Cross submitting shares shouldn't happen though... I'll check.

As always though using a proper algorithm would be nice instead of messing with the hoppers.

[bb]

We will stay proportional, but we will not encourage pool hopping.

This makes no sense.

[joulesbeef]

so backburn you have any thoughts as a pool operator to our other convo? about jumping on pools that have a very long block to help them finish it, instead of jumping to our back up pools when no one has found a block in a while?


that and figuring out our share problem... would that help reduce the hate on your site?

[Sukrim]

Don't forget, you're hurting the very people who make it possible for the pools good luck, profitability and the ability for you to hop in the first place.

Nope, YOU do hurt them by setting up a hoppable pool.

[Clipse]

But when a massive amount of clients are greedily bouncing back and forth between servers and dog-piling on pools when a block is found; something had to be done.

The right thing to do is not some stupid API delay which will be obsolete soonish anyways - just change to a real and fair payout system!

I assume they still want to give "legit" users the chance of excessive pay during quick rounds but not for hopping users.

[Clipse]

Huh. We shouldn't be cross submitting shares. However if our connections lag out we leave your pool. And then come back when it delags. So giving us bad connections causes a lot of wounded thrashing.

Cross submitting shares shouldn't happen though... I'll check.

As always though using a proper algorithm would be nice instead of messing with the hoppers.

Ive only noticed the high stales (false submits?) for bitclockers, so I highly doubt its the hopper at fault since the whole lot of other sites would have had similar instances.

[gnaget]

Ive only noticed the high stales (false submits?) for bitclockers, so I highly doubt its the hopper at fault since the whole lot of other sites would have had similar instances.

I've suspected this is the issues causing the higher than normal stale rate across the board.  I'm getting 2-4% stales on every site, and I've noticed that the vast majority come when the proxy switches pools.  I think it is more pronounced for bitclockers because of his anti-hopping tactics, which I assume are to blame for the connection issues I was complaining about earlier.  So, when I would lag out, move away then move back, the shares being submitted were probably for the last pool

[paraipan]

Ive only noticed the high stales (false submits?) for bitclockers, so I highly doubt its the hopper at fault since the whole lot of other sites would have had similar instances.

I've suspected this is the issues causing the higher than normal stale rate across the board.  I'm getting 2-4% stales on every site, and I've noticed that the vast majority come when the proxy switches pools.  I think it is more pronounced for bitclockers because of his anti-hopping tactics, which I assume are to blame for the connection issues I was complaining about earlier.  So, when I would lag out, move away then move back, the shares being submitted were probably for the last pool

+1 seeing same thing here

[joulesbeef]

I'm getting 2-4% stales on every site, and I've noticed that the vast majority come when the proxy switches pools.

me too. far more than I used to get not hopping. I just thought it was some of the pains of hopping.

[owowo]

If you spend your life only worrying about squeezing every ounce of profit, you'll end up like this guy:
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_Ucq-_7Ktpuk/SZQaue7TPZI/AAAAAAAABL8/pPNPzOOxS8Q/s400/quark.jpg

I assume everyone gets the reference

rule of acquisicion no. 10 "Greed is eternal. " ;o)

[backburn]

Huh. We shouldn't be cross submitting shares. However if our connections lag out we leave your pool. And then come back when it delags. So giving us bad connections causes a lot of wounded thrashing.

Cross submitting shares shouldn't happen though... I'll check.

As always though using a proper algorithm would be nice instead of messing with the hoppers.

The high stales reports i received from users using this proxy we're getting unknown-work for over 90% of their stales.

We never broke pool hopping clients, however, our API spit bad data to known hopping clients for a little over a week until it was removed. We moved to a delay because a delay period is much more sensible and cannot be evaded.

Other than the stats delay; habitual hoppers (and tbh they gotta hop a bunch) are flagged by a script to get lowest priority through our load balancer. Plenty fair, why should hoppers get work ahead of or to the detriment of someone that has been "in line" before them.

Hoppers want to maximize their income at the detriment of other users. So we obviously cant support it, a mildly random stats delay ensures that you can take far less advantage.

The right thing to do is not some stupid API delay which will be obsolete soonish anyways - just change to a real and fair payout system!

Sorry, proportional is the only fair mining method. A share is a share, no matter when it is submitted.
TBH, I really don't mind hopping that much. But as i said before, when it starts wreaking havoc on the pools you're hopping on the problem must be addressed. Hoppers are hundreds of thousands of work requests all hopping together to the same pool; might as well be a "DDoS".

[Sukrim]

Sorry, proportional is the only fair mining method. A share is a share, no matter when it is submitted.

Why do you pay them differently then?

Anyways, at least you give a bit of challenge...

By the way, real pool DDoSing is done differently, but I won't give any hints here, because THAT would really hurt your pool I guess.

[backburn]

Sorry, proportional is the only fair mining method. A share is a share, no matter when it is submitted.

Why do you pay them differently then?

Anyways, at least you give a bit of challenge...

By the way, real pool DDoSing is done differently, but I won't give any hints here, because THAT would really hurt your pool I guess.

Paid differently? Not sure i follow, every share is worth the same. The other payout methods pay people differently....

Obviously its not a ddos, but it fits the definition spare the ill intent. Hence the quotes.

[macboy80]

@backburn: I also would like to hear what you say to hopping in on a long block to help out. I wouldn't mind "giving back" in a time of need.

[gnaget]

Hoppers are hundreds of thousands of work requests all hopping together to the same pool; might as well be a "DDoS".

Makes sense, if the infrastructure can't handle the amount of hashing power we bring to the table, then it only makes sense for him to mitigate it.

[gnaget]

@backburn: I also would like to hear what you say to hopping in on a long block to help out. I wouldn't mind "giving back" in a time of need.

I'd also like to get your opinion.  I've brought up the question in the triplemining pool thread, since they are currently on a 7 million share block from hell

[Sukrim]

Sorry, proportional is the only fair mining method. A share is a share, no matter when it is submitted.

Why do you pay them differently then?

Paid differently? Not sure i follow, every share is worth the same. The other payout methods pay people differently....

No, if every share would be worth the same, you'd have PPS.

You pay a different amount for each share - and some people choose to only mine when you pay more. You obviously don't like that and/or can't handle it (other pools have FAR higher hash rate than 10x all the hoppers together). That's your issue.

By the way, with a scored system you'd still pay every share...

[backburn]

@backburn: I also would like to hear what you say to hopping in on a long block to help out. I wouldn't mind "giving back" in a time of need.

I'd also like to get your opinion.  I've brought up the question in the triplemining pool thread, since they are currently on a 7 million share block from hell

I think that would be an excellent gesture of good will. We had a 6+ mill block when we were first getting started; it really hurts
Thanks to the great majority of users sticking through, it eventually ended and let the good blocks roll. However, helping them gives you another hop target, which is sorta selfish in a way.

I know everyone is just trying to make a buck. Just remember, in the end patience pays off steady dividends and community is everything. The more pools that are out there, the better it is for bitcoins. As long as you can push a block a day, variance is not enough to worry about. I mean, we're all in this for the long run right?

[gnaget]

@backburn: I also would like to hear what you say to hopping in on a long block to help out. I wouldn't mind "giving back" in a time of need.

I'd also like to get your opinion.  I've brought up the question in the triplemining pool thread, since they are currently on a 7 million share block from hell

I think that would be an excellent gesture of good will. We had a 6+ mill block when we were first getting started; it really hurts
Thanks to the great majority of users sticking through, it eventually ended and let the good blocks roll. However, helping them gives you another hop target, which is sorta selfish in a way.

I know everyone is just trying to make a buck. Just remember, in the end patience pays off steady dividends and community is everything. The more pools that are out there, the better it is for bitcoins. As long as you can push a block a day, variance is not enough to worry about. I mean, we're all in this for the long run right?

If the hopping client were to implement such an algorithm, and you could count on the hoppers to jump in to help out on your worst blocks, would you still penalize hoppers?

My thinking is that hoppers bring a certain value to the pools.  We represent about 200 MH/s additional speed to a pool.  On average, we are there for 40% of a block (probably closer to 45% of a block with this algorithm), and thus we would be equivalent to 90 MH/s steady users.  That is useful, and I would think pools would be open to it.  If we give in on our position a little lower our profits a little, more pools might be open to running prop and it wouldn't be as much a game of cat and mouse.

On a side note, I'll probably get a lot of hoppers hating me for this, but what if you offered "priority QoS" access for 1% donors?