Bitcoin Forum
March 07, 2021, 09:37:27 AM *
News: Latest Bitcoin Core release: 0.21.0 [Torrent]
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register More  
Pages: « 1 ... 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 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 [91] 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 ... 372 »
  Print  
Author Topic: [1050 TH] BitMinter.com [1% PPLNS,Pays TxFees +MergedMining,Stratum,GBT,vardiff]  (Read 836619 times)
testconpastas2
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 199
Merit: 100



View Profile
October 02, 2012, 04:07:47 PM
 #1801

I'm currently having a problem with the client:

Everything looks fine, I'm mining at a normal rate, and suddenly a popup comes up, saying 'wrong username or password'. I press ok, and everything goes back to normal.
A few minutes later, this repeats...

Anybody else with this problem? What can I do? Strange thing is the password is not wrong, as I just press ok and the mining continues (for about 5 mins)


Logs:
2012.10.02 [11:46]  Warning - slow network or server. Request took 52 sec.
2012.10.02 [11:46]  Work rejected. Server says: Duplicate proof of work
2012.10.02 [11:46]  Warning - slow network or server. Request took 43 sec.
2012.10.02 [11:46]  Warning - slow network or server. Request took 66 sec.
2012.10.02 [11:46]  Work rejected. Server says: Stale proof of work
2012.10.02 [11:46]  Warning - slow network or server. Request took 68 sec.
2012.10.02 [11:46]  Work rejected. Server says: Stale proof of work
2012.10.02 [11:48]  Warning - slow network or server. Request took 22 sec.
2012.10.02 [11:50]  Request failed: bad credentials


I`m having problems with lots of rejectings showing up randomly ( sometimes when a new block starts,  but i couldn't say if its cgminer 2.7.6 or last server modifications.

( i did change cgminer to the same time the server was updated).
I am mining in two servers with 2.7.6 and the rejectings are always in bitminter , this is why Im thinking in some kind of incompatibility (2.7.6 / Bitminter).

anyone with 2.7.6 is having rejecting issues?? 
Thank you.

Bitmessage: BM-2DAetLWJBKWHZoPbNCgg5z8jwaPpDYWwd4
gpg key id:C6EF5CE3
1615109847
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1615109847

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1615109847
Reply with quote  #2

1615109847
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1615109847
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1615109847

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1615109847
Reply with quote  #2

1615109847
Report to moderator
1615109847
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1615109847

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1615109847
Reply with quote  #2

1615109847
Report to moderator
1615109847
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1615109847

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1615109847
Reply with quote  #2

1615109847
Report to moderator
DrHaribo
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2716
Merit: 1034


Bitminter.com Operator


View Profile WWW
October 02, 2012, 04:37:23 PM
 #1802

2012.10.02 [11:46]  Warning - slow network or server. Request took 52 sec.
2012.10.02 [11:46]  Work rejected. Server says: Duplicate proof of work

Duplicate proof of work is often caused by network issues. Also 52 second delay could also be due to a network problem.

Could you try "ping mint.bitminter.com" at commandline and see how that looks? Packetloss maybe?

I`m having problems with lots of rejectings showing up randomly ( sometimes when a new block starts,  but i couldn't say if its cgminer 2.7.6 or last server modifications.

The time the pool starts building upon a new block is usually the only time you get rejects.

How high a reject percentage are you getting?

▶▶▶ Bitminter.com 2011-2020
testconpastas2
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 199
Merit: 100



View Profile
October 02, 2012, 05:08:15 PM
 #1803

only sometimes, usually i get less than average, i got over 5% but last block i got 38% (over 250 rejecteds of 1300)  and rejecteds didnt't seem to stop till  i had to close and open cgminer in 4 windows.


can a rejected share become valid later??? because i think it was this block and now i only have 98 rejected instead of ~200

Bitmessage: BM-2DAetLWJBKWHZoPbNCgg5z8jwaPpDYWwd4
gpg key id:C6EF5CE3
DrHaribo
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2716
Merit: 1034


Bitminter.com Operator


View Profile WWW
October 02, 2012, 06:03:11 PM
 #1804

only sometimes, usually i get less than average, i got over 5% but last block i got 38% (over 250 rejecteds of 1300)  and rejecteds didnt't seem to stop till  i had to close and open cgminer in 4 windows.

Sometimes you will see 5% rejected for a moment after a new round starts. This is because rounds always start with rejects, then the accepted proofs of work start to come in.

But 250 rejected out of 1300 proofs of work sounds like something is very wrong. Pool-wide the rejects are pretty low too.

Did you get reject after reject in all 4 separate cgminer instances?

can a rejected share become valid later??? because i think it was this block and now i only have 98 rejected instead of ~200

No, if it went down it must have been because a new round (block) started.

▶▶▶ Bitminter.com 2011-2020
willphase
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 768
Merit: 500


View Profile
October 02, 2012, 07:01:43 PM
 #1805

blocks from the future?

https://blockchain.info/block-height/201556 placed by BitMinter into blockchain at 2012-10-02 18:49:44 but block timestamp is 2012-10-02 19:02:42 which is actually almost 15 minutes in the future (I am typing this at 19:01)

Confused?

Will


Mobius
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 988
Merit: 1000



View Profile
October 02, 2012, 07:14:58 PM
 #1806

blocks from the future?

https://blockchain.info/block-height/201556 placed by BitMinter into blockchain at 2012-10-02 18:49:44 but block timestamp is 2012-10-02 19:02:42 which is actually almost 15 minutes in the future (I am typing this at 19:01)

Confused?

Will



Blockchain.info is not always accurate
willphase
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 768
Merit: 500


View Profile
October 02, 2012, 07:29:45 PM
 #1807


Blockchain.info is not always accurate

This isn't from blockchain.info - this timestamp is obtained from the block header, and the block header is generated by the pool.  In this case, it looks to me that BitMinter must be generating block headers with future timestamps on them, and passing them to pool workers.

Check the block also on blockexplorer http://blockexplorer.com/b/201556 or, you can decode it yourself and view the timestamp manually:

./bitcoind getblock 0000000000000135f985cccb9e7d87af327c85fa75c46d7532ae406a711c21ec

time: 1349204562

--> Tue, 02 Oct 2012 19:02:42 GMT

Will

hahahafr
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 938
Merit: 501



View Profile
October 02, 2012, 07:32:36 PM
 #1808

Well, does it matter?




                                           ◢◣                      ◢◣
                                     ◢████◣           ◢████◣
                               ◢████████◣◢████████◣
                               █████████████████
                               █████████████████
                               █████████████████
                               █████████████◤██████
                               ███████████◤████████
                               █████████◤██████████
                               ███████◤████████████
                               █████◤██████████████
                               █████◣                       ◢█████
                               ███████◣            ◢███████
                               █████████◣◢█████████
                               ◥████████◤◥████████◤
                                    ◥████◤            ◥████◤
                                          ◥◤                      



HYDAX
       Secure  
   Efficient
   Simple  
   Medium 
    Twitter  
    Telegram 
[/center
willphase
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 768
Merit: 500


View Profile
October 02, 2012, 07:47:30 PM
 #1809

Well, does it matter?

no Smiley

More just a curiosity, but if the clock on BitMinter is incorrect and this isn't being done deliberately (I can imagine some reason related to miners that take a long time to submit shares, and a perception that it might be somehow 'better' to have block timestamps in the future rather than the past...?) then this could cause more problems for DrHaribo so he might want to know, clockdrift can cause issues with SSL validation, for example.

Will

DrHaribo
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2716
Merit: 1034


Bitminter.com Operator


View Profile WWW
October 02, 2012, 08:02:35 PM
 #1810

In this case, it looks to me that BitMinter must be generating block headers with future timestamps on them, and passing them to pool workers.

Yes, this is what roll-ntime is about. Miners are allowed to generate new work to hash by fiddling with the block's timestamp (referred to as "ntime"). This way they don't have to talk to the server several times per second (in the case of fast miners) to get new work. As long as you don't get too far away from actual time this is OK and the block will be accepted by the rest of the bitcoin network.

▶▶▶ Bitminter.com 2011-2020
willphase
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 768
Merit: 500


View Profile
October 02, 2012, 08:42:46 PM
 #1811


Yes, this is what roll-ntime is about. Miners are allowed to generate new work to hash by fiddling with the block's timestamp (referred to as "ntime"). This way they don't have to talk to the server several times per second (in the case of fast miners) to get new work. As long as you don't get too far away from actual time this is OK and the block will be accepted by the rest of the bitcoin network.


ah, quite cool!  Thanks for the info!

Will

WhitePhantom
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 348
Merit: 250


View Profile
October 02, 2012, 10:41:46 PM
 #1812


Yes, this is what roll-ntime is about. Miners are allowed to generate new work to hash by fiddling with the block's timestamp (referred to as "ntime"). This way they don't have to talk to the server several times per second (in the case of fast miners) to get new work. As long as you don't get too far away from actual time this is OK and the block will be accepted by the rest of the bitcoin network.


ah, quite cool!  Thanks for the info!

Will
Ditto!  I finally understand what roll-ntime means!  All I understood before now was that it allows miners to go longer without talking to the server.
ralree
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 518
Merit: 500


Manateeeeeeees


View Profile
October 03, 2012, 01:01:57 AM
 #1813

I got a suggestion from PsychoticBoy to change the N in PPLNS from 2x difficulty to 4x difficulty. That would be to double the size of the shifts. Please speak up if you have an opinion on it.

As a 24/7 miner, I approve of this suggestion.

1MANaTeEZoH4YkgMYz61E5y4s9BYhAuUjG
hahahafr
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 938
Merit: 501



View Profile
October 03, 2012, 01:37:32 AM
 #1814

I got a suggestion from PsychoticBoy to change the N in PPLNS from 2x difficulty to 4x difficulty. That would be to double the size of the shifts. Please speak up if you have an opinion on it.

As a 24/7 miner, I approve of this suggestion.
Same here.




                                           ◢◣                      ◢◣
                                     ◢████◣           ◢████◣
                               ◢████████◣◢████████◣
                               █████████████████
                               █████████████████
                               █████████████████
                               █████████████◤██████
                               ███████████◤████████
                               █████████◤██████████
                               ███████◤████████████
                               █████◤██████████████
                               █████◣                       ◢█████
                               ███████◣            ◢███████
                               █████████◣◢█████████
                               ◥████████◤◥████████◤
                                    ◥████◤            ◥████◤
                                          ◥◤                      



HYDAX
       Secure  
   Efficient
   Simple  
   Medium 
    Twitter  
    Telegram 
[/center
testconpastas2
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 199
Merit: 100



View Profile
October 03, 2012, 06:39:00 AM
 #1815


Did you get reject after reject in all 4 separate cgminer instances?


Yep this is what I meant.

since then everything was ok. as usual.... I'll try to watch blocks' changes.

Thank you

Bitmessage: BM-2DAetLWJBKWHZoPbNCgg5z8jwaPpDYWwd4
gpg key id:C6EF5CE3
abeaulieu
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 295
Merit: 250



View Profile
October 04, 2012, 12:33:52 PM
 #1816

I got a suggestion from PsychoticBoy to change the N in PPLNS from 2x difficulty to 4x difficulty. That would be to double the size of the shifts. Please speak up if you have an opinion on it.

As a 24/7 miner, I approve of this suggestion.
Same here.

I guess I don't really understand that advantage of increasing the N in PPLNS. Miners just want more stability in payment?

I'm still quite impartial. Eventually as the hash rate creeeps up it's going to be necessary. If/When ASICs start being released, we'll probably see a spike on Bitminter with a steady (probably large) increase in hashrate thereafter. At that point N will probably be needed to increase several fold.
Klober
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 6
Merit: 0


View Profile
October 04, 2012, 07:04:51 PM
 #1817

If this is talking about increasing how long shifts last from the current approximately 30m to 60m than I am definitely in favor. This will help even out my time when either A) I have to restart a miner or take it down temporarily for maintenance, and B) when I lose connection to BitMinter and my miner switches over to a backup pool for the next hour or two. This will also help with pool hoppers as they would need to remain in the pool that much longer to pull any significant amount of coins from the regulars.

Count my vote as an "AYE".
DrHaribo
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2716
Merit: 1034


Bitminter.com Operator


View Profile WWW
October 04, 2012, 08:29:37 PM
 #1818

Yes, increasing PPLNS's N up to 4x Difficulty will definitely reduce variance when you have some downtime. Just like it reduces the variance in the income of a non-24/7 miner, it will also reduce the variance in loss due to downtime for a 24/7 miner. Less chance of a big loss because your miners went down just before we found 3 quick blocks. It would still be a loss, but a smaller one.

It's not possible to pool hop on BitMinter though, and this won't make any difference in that regard. Of course you can move in and out of the pool as you wish, but since you can't predict beforehand whether you get high or low pay you can't "pool hop".

Making pool hopping impossible is really that simple. Just use a fair reward system. It's a shame some pools refuse to do so. And it is outright strange that so many miners still use those pools.

▶▶▶ Bitminter.com 2011-2020
willphase
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 768
Merit: 500


View Profile
October 04, 2012, 09:50:54 PM
 #1819

I'd certainly support increasing N - there appears to be no downside for people who mine on the pool 24/7 like myself.

Will

miter_myles
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 742
Merit: 500



View Profile
October 04, 2012, 10:25:56 PM
 #1820

I'd certainly support increasing N - there appears to be no downside for people who mine on the pool 24/7 like myself.

Will

concur +1

BTC - 1D7g5395bs7idApTx1KTXrfDW7JUgzx6Z5
LTC - LVFukQnCWUimBxZuXKqTVKy1L2Jb8kZasL
Pages: « 1 ... 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 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 [91] 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 ... 372 »
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!