bitHopper: Python Pool Hopper Proxy

[creativex]

I do think we need to put the threshold to 100%
I do think organofcorti was right on that.

but a little over 100% and your shares become cheaper than pps.

BAH...cow joules would never "utter" such blasphemy...dunno who this imposter is.

I've been testing threshold=.75 and don't care for the result much with default slicer, but it doesn't bother me with altslicescheduler and a low min shares.

[MaGNeT]

I do think we need to put the threshold to 100%
I do think organofcorti was right on that.

but a little over 100% and your shares become cheaper than pps.

I don't want such a big step at once, so I try at 60% for 3 days and see what it does
One advantage is that it (almost) never needs a backup pool at that setting.

So, you mean you set penalty to .6 for deepbit?

No, I set both --startLP and --threshold=0.60 in the shortcut for Bithopper.py
If you set threshold to 0.10 it will mine a pool until 10%, 0.20 for 20%, etc.
Standard is 0.43

[paraipan]

I do think we need to put the threshold to 100%
I do think organofcorti was right on that.

but a little over 100% and your shares become cheaper than pps.

I don't want such a big step at once, so I try at 60% for 3 days and see what it does
One advantage is that it (almost) never needs a backup pool at that setting.

So, you mean you set penalty to .6 for deepbit?

for the sake of hopping science please try standard hops for a day or your results could be ignored in the future

[MaGNeT]

I do think we need to put the threshold to 100%
I do think organofcorti was right on that.

but a little over 100% and your shares become cheaper than pps.

I don't want such a big step at once, so I try at 60% for 3 days and see what it does
One advantage is that it (almost) never needs a backup pool at that setting.

So, you mean you set penalty to .6 for deepbit?

for the sake of hopping science please try standard hops for a day or your results could be ignored in the future

Standard? What's that?   Bitcoin / PC's / bitHopper is a hobby, not my dayjob...

[dribbits]

I doubt your issue is bitHopper.  I am looking at my usage graphs here, and I have around 550 mb  per day going out and 250 per day coming in.  Granted, that would put you over the 20 GB / month, but not in 8 days

now I have done measuring
I have done nothing else on net except forum
since around 2:00 pm to 7:00 pm
340 MB out
270 MB in
from one (the main-)PC (on the second PC is bithopper running too)
thats around 120 MB/h per PC
this is too much for my account...
is there much less if I disable most of the pools?
Or what else can I do to decrease the traffic (I have to do some other things with this PC too...)
TIA

Ive got bitHopper running on my main machine with 2 GPUS, and 10 more miners from other machines that connect to it. Including browsing the internet I have used 61.7MB down and 25.6MB up today. Do you have some other software doing auto updates or something in the background?

[paraipan]

I do think we need to put the threshold to 100%
I do think organofcorti was right on that.

but a little over 100% and your shares become cheaper than pps.

I don't want such a big step at once, so I try at 60% for 3 days and see what it does
One advantage is that it (almost) never needs a backup pool at that setting.

So, you mean you set penalty to .6 for deepbit?

for the sake of hopping science please try standard hops for a day or your results could be ignored in the future

Standard? What's that?   Bitcoin / PC's / bitHopper is a hobby, not my dayjob...

standard, it was a form of referring to simple methods hopping (default scheduler or alt scheduler, --startLP) in this case with bH, without changing principles in the middle of testing (like hopping to a higher threshold)

edit: thanks, tomorrow I will be testing different levels too 

[GenTarkin]

k, Ill go back to standard...I will just use --startLP

[macboy80]

I would like to pose a possibly over-complicated solution to the slice vs. default scheduler question that I'm not even sure is possible. I may be way off, but please give this some thought.

Create a new role called "mine_slice". This would be for the small pools with low hashrate (user selectable). The faster pools would stay "mine".
My idea is to run the slice scheduler inside of the default scheduler. So the behavior would be: If there were "mine" pools below threshold, you would be mining them under OldDefault rules. If there were no acceptable "mine" pools, all of the "mine_slice" pools would be selected running under slice rules as a group, but only if there was one or more below threshold. If all of these options were exhausted, we would then resort to "backup".

Visually, I see it like this.
OldDefaultScheduler[mine; mine_slush; SliceScheduler(mine_slice); backup]

Like I said, I'm not even sure this is possible, and I'm definitely not qualified to try to code it. Just food for thought...

PS: What do you guys think of giving priority to mine_slush to where you always hop in for the first 11% or less, no matter what. I feel like those that are using mine_slush wouldn't mind diverting for the very short time in search of those short rounds?

[ewibit]

Ive got bitHopper running on my main machine with 2 GPUS, and 10 more miners from other machines that connect to it. Including browsing the internet I have used 61.7MB down and 25.6MB up today. Do you have some other software doing auto updates or something in the background?

ok, I think, the first important step will be the miner on the second PC connect to this PC's bithopper...
(because now it is running here 2 times)
how can I do this (if the ip changes every reboot)?

[paraipan]

@macboy80 favouring slush when available is on issue list in git and it's already implemented in AltScheduler
ppl in here would surely give you answers about the new role you propose

[djex]

I would like to pose a possibly over-complicated solution to the slice vs. default scheduler question that I'm not even sure is possible. I may be way off, but please give this some thought.

Create a new role called "mine_slice". This would be for the small pools with low hashrate (user selectable). The faster pools would stay "mine".
My idea is to run the slice scheduler inside of the default scheduler. So the behavior would be: If there were "mine" pools below threshold, you would be mining them under OldDefault rules. If there were no acceptable "mine" pools, all of the "mine_slice" pools would be selected running under slice rules as a group, but only if there was one or more below threshold. If all of these options were exhausted, we would then resort to "backup".

Visually, I see it like this.
OldDefaultScheduler[mine; mine_slush; SliceScheduler(mine_slice); backup]

Like I said, I'm not even sure this is possible, and I'm definitely not qualified to try to code it. Just food for thought...

I think this is a pretty good idea. It may be a good alternative to slicing based off pool speed. I don't think it would be to hard to code in either. Very nice idea.

[bitcoindaddy]

I suspect, but can't prove that deepbit isn't working with the alternate scheduler. I mined quite a while on the newest build and it didn't go over, even though others here said their's were mining deepbit. When I switched back to the default scheduler, it started mining deepbit.

[gnaget]

I just updated this morning, and now when a pool lags out, the slice goes empty, and it doesn't mine anymore until I mark something info and then back

[joulesbeef]

since around 2:00 pm to 7:00 pm
340 MB out
270 MB in

that seems more than high to me.. we are only sending small strings of text back and forth.. even blocks are normally in the kb range.

chek to see if you got a virus.. make sure wifi is secure

I am going to monitor the miner and hopper and see what I come up with.. but there is no way it is that much i wouldnt think.

[MaGNeT]

Deepbit:

09.08 18:21:52 0h 20m   203 1586080   0.00620744

That's for 2950Mhash/s, Default scheduler and threshold at 60% (.6)

[EskimoBob]

I suspect, but can't prove that deepbit isn't working with the alternate scheduler. I mined quite a while on the newest build and it didn't go over, even though others here said their's were mining deepbit. When I switched back to the default scheduler, it started mining deepbit.

Deepbit is evil!   Help the small guys to grow and take something away from those top 3 pools!
Do I really have to say: "Fuck globalisation, fuck central an all controlling [ADD YOUR PICK]  and blaa blaa blaa? Do I?
 

[paraipan]

Ref: original Raulo paper on pool hopping - link

edit: detailed analysis of pooled mining reward system

edit2:
just happened to see this table in Meni's paper, it just reinforces my thoughts on amplification factor (m = number of pools)

Code:

Table B.1: Amplication factor of pool-hopping, as a function of the number of proportional
pools.
m|with fallback|without fallback
1 1.28149 |1
2 1.5159 |1.38629
3 1.71404 |1.64792
4 1.88393 |1.84839
5 2.03152 |2.0118
6 2.16131 |2.15011
7 2.27669 |2.27023
8 2.38028 |2.3765
9 2.4741 |2.47188
10 2.55975 |2.55843
15 2.90159 |2.90148
20 3.15341 |3.1534
25 3.353 |3.353

[GenTarkin]

Deepbit:

09.08 18:21:52 0h 20m   203 1586080   0.00620744

That's for 2950Mhash/s, Default scheduler and threshold at 60% (.6)

hrm....WTF?!?!? my stats on deepbit say 000 shares for me on that exact round! Although, I know I hopped over to deepbit more than an hour ago. I am just using default scheduler, default threshold.
Deepbit was confirming I submitted shares during that time period ( I watched my worker on their site)
I mine at about 366mh/s
ideas?


EDIT: couple mins later, just saw another LP hit and went over to deepbit...mining there again. Is there a bug thats causing deepbit to get mined on every LP? ... it seems thats the behaviour even when the LP says someone else owns the block.

[bb]

Is slush's website down for everyone?

[djex]

Ugh finally mining on deepbit.

Feels good man. feels good.