amazingrando
|
|
September 08, 2011, 07:02:53 AM |
|
FYI, BTCSERV: I have decided to stop offering Proportional Rewards after the next found block because it does not work parallelly to PPS without affecting it negatively. Even worse, it would cause losses if I would not severely cut one of the reward schemes, and thus offer significantly lower value than other pools, what is not what I want to do. Currently I am calculating the rewards like this: PROP: [user prop shares] / [total prop shares and pps shares] * 50 PPS: [user pps shares] * 0.000028125
Problem with both reward schemes parrallelly running is that the PPS Queue does not even out after a long round and a short round. In short rounds, which have a higher percentage of prop shares, you save only a bit with what you can feed the queue, but in long rounds, which have way higher share of pps shares, the queue is getting quite big very fast. I have tried some different calculations but did not get an acceptable result. I dont know how other pools with PPS and PROP calculate the rewards. Maybe they experience the same flaw, maybe not. If someone has a solution for this I would be glad to hear it. Btw, I have decided to stick to PPS since I am convinced it is the fairest of all reward schemes available. It's not in my interest to lose the hashing boost of pool hoppers, but I want to achieve a steadily increasing hash rate from regular users and not short term 150 GH/s and as soon as a round is near 43% see everyone leave.
|
Bitbond - 105% PPS mining bond - mining payouts without buying hardware
|
|
|
|
|
|
Be very wary of relying on JavaScript for security on crypto sites. The site can change the JavaScript at any time unless you take unusual precautions, and browsers are not generally known for their airtight security.
|
|
|
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction.
|
|
|
c00w (OP)
|
|
September 08, 2011, 03:42:30 PM |
|
Getwork issues should/may be fixed. Also we should reuse connections properly now.
|
1HEmzeuVEKxBQkEenysV1yM8oAddQ4o2TX
|
|
|
Ali
Member
Offline
Activity: 84
Merit: 10
|
|
September 08, 2011, 11:24:49 PM |
|
It still requests work like mad (and therefore hangs) after a while on Eligius.
|
|
|
|
amazingrando
|
|
September 09, 2011, 02:14:41 AM |
|
According to Coinotron, it looks like solidcoins are 20% more profitable than BTC atm. Thus, I've added a couple of sc pools. Currently sc difficulty is around 8000. In the Bh stats, it shows the percentage for sc pools with respect to BTC bifficulty (1.77MM). Does this mean that Bh will always stay on sc pools? Should it be 43.5% of 8000?
|
Bitbond - 105% PPS mining bond - mining payouts without buying hardware
|
|
|
johnj
|
|
September 09, 2011, 04:21:00 AM |
|
According to Coinotron, it looks like solidcoins are 20% more profitable than BTC atm. Thus, I've added a couple of sc pools. Currently sc difficulty is around 8000. In the Bh stats, it shows the percentage for sc pools with respect to BTC bifficulty (1.77MM). Does this mean that Bh will always stay on sc pools? Should it be 43.5% of 8000? I think it's been updated v0.2.4.8.zip — Oodles of bugfixes. Getwork Flooding should be gone. Miner Starvation should be reduced. Solidcoins have the correct diff and have a bunch of fixes.
|
1AeW7QK59HvEJwiyMztFH1ubWPSLLKx5ym TradeHill Referral TH-R120549
|
|
|
amazingrando
|
|
September 09, 2011, 06:20:53 AM |
|
According to Coinotron, it looks like solidcoins are 20% more profitable than BTC atm. Thus, I've added a couple of sc pools. Currently sc difficulty is around 8000. In the Bh stats, it shows the percentage for sc pools with respect to BTC bifficulty (1.77MM). Does this mean that Bh will always stay on sc pools? Should it be 43.5% of 8000? I think it's been updated v0.2.4.8.zip — Oodles of bugfixes. Getwork Flooding should be gone. Miner Starvation should be reduced. Solidcoins have the correct diff and have a bunch of fixes. I am getting BH from github by cloning or pulling (I'm running Linux if that matters). Is the v0.2.4.8.zip version newer? Where can I download it from?
|
Bitbond - 105% PPS mining bond - mining payouts without buying hardware
|
|
|
johnj
|
|
September 09, 2011, 06:43:26 AM |
|
I am getting BH from github by cloning or pulling (I'm running Linux if that matters). Is the v0.2.4.8.zip version newer? Where can I download it from?
https://github.com/c00w/bitHopper/downloads
|
1AeW7QK59HvEJwiyMztFH1ubWPSLLKx5ym TradeHill Referral TH-R120549
|
|
|
amazingrando
|
|
September 09, 2011, 07:09:53 AM Last edit: September 09, 2011, 06:51:34 PM by amazingrando |
|
According to Coinotron, it looks like solidcoins are 20% more profitable than BTC atm. Thus, I've added a couple of sc pools. Currently sc difficulty is around 8000. In the Bh stats, it shows the percentage for sc pools with respect to BTC bifficulty (1.77MM). Does this mean that Bh will always stay on sc pools? Should it be 43.5% of 8000? I think it's been updated v0.2.4.8.zip — Oodles of bugfixes. Getwork Flooding should be gone. Miner Starvation should be reduced. Solidcoins have the correct diff and have a bunch of fixes. Downloaded the v0.2.4.8 zip file. Seems like it switched from solidcoins when it should, but the stats display is a bit confusing: s0DigBTC.net (scc) 2,981 0.17%Should be showing 36.15% if sc difficulty is 8,246. EDIT: I take back my earlier statement about switching working right. For example, I've been stuck on mine4us even though it should have switched (the pool is at about 64% presently, when there are several other pools <43.5%) mine-for.us (scc) 5,289 0.30%EDIT: I'm an idiot. I in user.cfg I used mine, when I should have used mine_scc. grrr Everything appears to be working correctly
|
Bitbond - 105% PPS mining bond - mining payouts without buying hardware
|
|
|
organofcorti
Donator
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2058
Merit: 1007
Poor impulse control.
|
|
September 09, 2011, 07:34:29 AM |
|
Anyone have any up to date info on Polmine? Did they end up doing the bcp-like taxing hoppers thing they were going to do, and do they still delay stats? I'm hopping them on mine_deepbit atm, and things look ok from my side, but if I can optimise the hop-point I'd like to. And I'm sure you'd all like me to, too.
|
|
|
|
iopq
|
|
September 09, 2011, 09:10:43 AM |
|
Anyone have any up to date info on Polmine? Did they end up doing the bcp-like taxing hoppers thing they were going to do, and do they still delay stats? I'm hopping them on mine_deepbit atm, and things look ok from my side, but if I can optimise the hop-point I'd like to. And I'm sure you'd all like me to, too. wait, what? I'm using just mine on it, am I behind the times?
|
|
|
|
organofcorti
Donator
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2058
Merit: 1007
Poor impulse control.
|
|
September 09, 2011, 09:15:00 AM Last edit: September 09, 2011, 09:35:52 AM by organofcorti |
|
Anyone have any up to date info on Polmine? Did they end up doing the bcp-like taxing hoppers thing they were going to do, and do they still delay stats? I'm hopping them on mine_deepbit atm, and things look ok from my side, but if I can optimise the hop-point I'd like to. And I'm sure you'd all like me to, too. wait, what? I'm using just mine on it, am I behind the times? Ah, I could be - I've been busy on other related projects lately.
|
|
|
|
HolodeckJizzmopper
Member
Offline
Activity: 106
Merit: 10
|
|
September 09, 2011, 04:05:46 PM Last edit: September 09, 2011, 04:44:02 PM by HolodeckJizzmopper |
|
I would like to add my voice to issues hopping with 2.4.8. Last night, it refused to hop between BitClockers and MTRed despite both being <43%
EDIT: .. and just watched it ping-pong between Eligius and MTRed with MTRed being >49%, and Eligius as my backup pool, so something is... odd...
|
|
|
|
joulesbeef
Sr. Member
Offline
Activity: 476
Merit: 250
moOo
|
|
September 09, 2011, 05:18:59 PM |
|
if you have the hopper scrolling with rpc requests... are you using cgminer? cgminer above 1.61 has been causing thisw.
|
mooo for rent
|
|
|
phase
Newbie
Offline
Activity: 49
Merit: 0
|
|
September 11, 2011, 08:47:18 AM |
|
if you have the hopper scrolling with rpc requests... are you using cgminer? cgminer above 1.61 has been causing thisw.
I also had this problem about a week ago when I tried it out, it would run fine for a couple of hours, then it would start flooding the screen with mumbo-jumbo and stop doing useful work. Does the problem still persist with cgminer 2.0? Any chance of this getting fixed?
|
|
|
|
Rino
Newbie
Offline
Activity: 38
Merit: 0
|
|
September 11, 2011, 04:50:53 PM |
|
I just had getwork spam again on current version only using phoenix miners
|
|
|
|
leveer
Newbie
Offline
Activity: 42
Merit: 0
|
|
September 11, 2011, 07:11:15 PM |
|
Proxy shuts down periodically, with this coming at the end of both log files:
[21:55:06] Exception in wsgi server loop, restarting wsgi in 60 seconds
Any advice?
|
|
|
|
c00w (OP)
|
|
September 11, 2011, 09:05:55 PM |
|
leveer can you post what exceptions appears?
And versions are just git tags. So if your are pulling you'll be on the latest version.
|
1HEmzeuVEKxBQkEenysV1yM8oAddQ4o2TX
|
|
|
leveer
Newbie
Offline
Activity: 42
Merit: 0
|
|
September 11, 2011, 09:23:51 PM |
|
From logfile-errors:
Traceback (most recent call last): File "bitHopper.py", line 289, in <module> main() File "bitHopper.py", line 284, in main bithopper_instance.log_msg("Exception in wsgi server loop, restarting wsgi in 60 seconds\n%s") % (str(e)) TypeError: unsupported operand type(s) for %: 'NoneType' and 'str'
|
|
|
|
leveer
Newbie
Offline
Activity: 42
Merit: 0
|
|
September 11, 2011, 10:17:11 PM |
|
I should also ask why I might be getting this type of reject rate from slush:
4454 / 3754 84.28%
Might running 5 GH through a single instance of the proxy have anything to do with it?
|
|
|
|
tysat
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 966
Merit: 1004
Keep it real
|
|
September 11, 2011, 10:36:56 PM |
|
I should also ask why I might be getting this type of reject rate from slush:
4454 / 3754 84.28%
Might running 5 GH through a single instance of the proxy have anything to do with it?
I had a similar issue when running that much power through the proxy.
|
|
|
|
|