Bitcoin Forum
October 20, 2019, 03:57:43 PM *
News: 10th anniversary art contest
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register More  
Pages: « 1 ... 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] 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 ... 375 »
  Print  
Author Topic: [1050 TH] BitMinter.com [1% PPLNS,Pays TxFees +MergedMining,Stratum,GBT,vardiff]  (Read 835467 times)
WhitePhantom
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 348
Merit: 250


View Profile
October 27, 2012, 05:46:06 PM
 #1981

Awesome, looking forward to it!  I never wear any of those items except for cufflinks at the occasional wedding, but I'd probably find an excuse to wear BTC gear like this.
1571587063
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1571587063

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1571587063
Reply with quote  #2

1571587063
Report to moderator
1571587063
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1571587063

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1571587063
Reply with quote  #2

1571587063
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1571587063
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1571587063

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1571587063
Reply with quote  #2

1571587063
Report to moderator
1571587063
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1571587063

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1571587063
Reply with quote  #2

1571587063
Report to moderator
1571587063
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1571587063

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1571587063
Reply with quote  #2

1571587063
Report to moderator
Digigami
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 462
Merit: 250


View Profile
October 27, 2012, 06:56:20 PM
 #1982

Whohoo Mint Race!
PsychoticBoy
Donator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1792
Merit: 1007


Parental Advisory Explicit Content


View Profile
October 27, 2012, 09:22:16 PM
 #1983

21 blocks allready today, It`s a new record!  Grin
We still have time for more  Cheesy

Greetz



abeaulieu
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 295
Merit: 250



View Profile
October 27, 2012, 10:29:55 PM
 #1984

An actual quantitative correlation? I ask only because I'd like to know how you calculated it.

Maybe my language was a little too strong. From my personal observation over the last 14 months of mining, I've seen correlation in that the price of bitcoin effects what happens with the difficulty. There is also significant lag between price movement and the difficulty following.

I suspect that if the price falls any further, mining will become unprofitable for some and difficulty will decrease. This may be offset a bit with miners starting to realize that we are in the final month of 50 btc blocks.

I don't disagree with you and what you write makes sense, but there must be some kind of simple correlation analysis that can be done. If you (or anyone else) can save me a bit of google-time to tell me what it is I'd be grateful.

Google search yielded this historical data (you may have access to some better data but this okay for me)
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AmcTCtjBoRWUdHVRMHpqWUJValI1RlZiaEtCT1RrQmc#gid=0

I am most interested in data after the bubble so I grabbed the dates from 9/13/11 to 10/16/12. I dumped that data into a spreadsheet and created a scatter plot of difficulty vs price. Here:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0Al7wzGJVtBaQdFpObzVuZWI4OU1PMkdDY3ptYkZNZFE#gid=0

You can already see the positive-linear relationship in the graph. For some reason Google spreadsheet does not allow you to add a trendline so I threw it into excel and got a linear equation of:

y = 5E-06x - 2.1471
And an r-squared coefficient of
R² = 0.8541

Which means there is a pretty substantial, positive correlation between the difficulty and the market value of a bitcoin.
jamesg
VIP
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1358
Merit: 1000


AKA: gigavps


View Profile
October 27, 2012, 10:34:39 PM
 #1985

Which means there is a pretty substantial, positive correlation between the difficulty and the market value of a bitcoin.

Thanks abeaulieu. That was almost completely above my pay grade.

* gigavps watches the plane fly over his head...  Wink
biddicoin
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 546
Merit: 250

CryptoTalk.Org - Get Paid for every Post!


View Profile
October 28, 2012, 07:58:35 AM
 #1986

24 Blocks yesterday  Grin 

nice nice

 
                                . ██████████.
                              .████████████████.
                           .██████████████████████.
                        -█████████████████████████████
                     .██████████████████████████████████.
                  -█████████████████████████████████████████
               -███████████████████████████████████████████████
           .-█████████████████████████████████████████████████████.
        .████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████
       .██████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████.
       .██████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████.
       ..████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████..
       .   .██████████████████████████████████████████████████████.
       .      .████████████████████████████████████████████████.

       .       .██████████████████████████████████████████████
       .    ██████████████████████████████████████████████████████
       .█████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████.
        .███████████████████████████████████████████████████████████
           .█████████████████████████████████████████████████████
              .████████████████████████████████████████████████
                   ████████████████████████████████████████
                      ██████████████████████████████████
                          ██████████████████████████
                             ████████████████████
                               ████████████████
                                   █████████
CryptoTalk.org| 
MAKE POSTS AND EARN BTC!
🏆
organofcorti
Donator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2058
Merit: 1007


Poor impulse control.


View Profile WWW
October 28, 2012, 02:30:00 PM
 #1987

Google search yielded this historical data (you may have access to some better data but this okay for me)
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AmcTCtjBoRWUdHVRMHpqWUJValI1RlZiaEtCT1RrQmc#gid=0

I am most interested in data after the bubble so I grabbed the dates from 9/13/11 to 10/16/12. I dumped that data into a spreadsheet and created a scatter plot of difficulty vs price. Here:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0Al7wzGJVtBaQdFpObzVuZWI4OU1PMkdDY3ptYkZNZFE#gid=0

You can already see the positive-linear relationship in the graph. For some reason Google spreadsheet does not allow you to add a trendline so I threw it into excel and got a linear equation of:

y = 5E-06x - 2.1471
And an r-squared coefficient of
R² = 0.8541

Which means there is a pretty substantial, positive correlation between the difficulty and the market value of a bitcoin.

Thanks for the good work, abeaulieu. It does look like a good correlation, there. It inspired me to look a little further back and I got the following plots, the first linear and the second log-log. They are quite interesting, yes? I won't go further off-topic here discussing covariance and correlation coefficients, perhaps we should start a thread in the mining speculation board? (it's late for me and I don't have time to write an introductory piece).

Suffice it to say that the correlation seems to be less strong if you include the pre-bubble data, so I'd be cautious relying on such a correlation for future planning. My guess is that there might be a more stable correlation between log(diff(BTCUSD)) and log(diff(Difficulty)), with a time lag.




Bitcoin network and pool analysis 12QxPHEuxDrs7mCyGSx1iVSozTwtquDB3r
follow @oocBlog for new post notifications
DrHaribo
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2632
Merit: 1020


Bitminter.com Operator


View Profile WWW
October 28, 2012, 04:45:32 PM
 #1988

Testing is up on port 9000 again. This time testing dynamic difficulty (aka var diff or variable difficulty).

Please help testing: mint.bitminter.com port 9000

Difficulty is from 1 to 128 (powers of 2). The default is diff 2 unless your miner sends X-Mining-Hashrate in which case the default is based off of that. After this the diff updates every minute based on your hashrate.

The target is set to 15 proofs of work per minute. That's one result sent in every 4 seconds. The server will adjust the difficulty of your work to get you as close to the target rate as possible. You will need a couple GH/s to get over diff 1. No luck for me with 1.3 GH/s Cheesy

When mining at diff X you get credited X accepted work for each valid result sent in. So mining at diff 4 means your "accepted" numbers will go up by 4 for each valid result.

Like last time the livestats won't show your hashrate on the test port. But you can look at the "workers" page on the website, mine for a bit, then refresh and see that the accepted work goes up. Note that those stats are a few seconds delayed. The livestats will work better once proper multi-server support is finished on the server side.

You can't use BitMinter client for this yet, sorry, multi-server support is still on its TODO list.

Let me know how it runs. Smiley

▶▶▶ Bitminter.com - Your trusted mining pool since 2011.
ralree
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 518
Merit: 500


Manateeeeeeees


View Profile
October 28, 2012, 04:56:54 PM
 #1989

We'll see if 4GH is enough to get more diff.

1MANaTeEZoH4YkgMYz61E5y4s9BYhAuUjG
jamesg
VIP
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1358
Merit: 1000


AKA: gigavps


View Profile
October 28, 2012, 05:28:11 PM
 #1990

Testing is up on port 9000 again. This time testing dynamic difficulty (aka var diff or variable difficulty).

Please help testing: mint.bitminter.com port 9000

Yay. Hopefully I can help test this in a couple days.

Difficulty is from 1 to 128 (powers of 2). The default is diff 2 unless your miner sends X-Mining-Hashrate in which case the default is based off of that. After this the diff updates every minute based on your hashrate.

Can you please explain how you decide what diff to server with X-Mining-Hashrate?

The target is set to 15 proofs of work per minute. That's one result sent in every 4 seconds. The server will adjust the difficulty of your work to get you as close to the target rate as possible. You will need a couple GH/s to get over diff 1. No luck for me with 1.3 GH/s Cheesy

Is this per worker or per user?
DrHaribo
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2632
Merit: 1020


Bitminter.com Operator


View Profile WWW
October 28, 2012, 06:41:15 PM
 #1991

Difficulty is from 1 to 128 (powers of 2). The default is diff 2 unless your miner sends X-Mining-Hashrate in which case the default is based off of that. After this the diff updates every minute based on your hashrate.

Can you please explain how you decide what diff to server with X-Mining-Hashrate?

Normally your measured hashrate is used. X-Mining-Hashrate, if available, is only used in the beginning when the server has not yet measured your hashrate.

The target is set to 15 proofs of work per minute. That's one result sent in every 4 seconds. The server will adjust the difficulty of your work to get you as close to the target rate as possible. You will need a couple GH/s to get over diff 1. No luck for me with 1.3 GH/s Cheesy

Is this per worker or per user?

This is per worker.

▶▶▶ Bitminter.com - Your trusted mining pool since 2011.
jamesg
VIP
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1358
Merit: 1000


AKA: gigavps


View Profile
October 28, 2012, 06:51:06 PM
 #1992

Normally your measured hashrate is used. X-Mining-Hashrate, if available, is only used in the beginning when the server has not yet measured your hashrate.

Is there any way to keep using X-Mining-Hashrate after the initial go? This would allow larger miners to have 1 worker but not suffer from higher share variance for the entire farm.
Isokivi
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 910
Merit: 1000


Items flashing here available at btctrinkets.com


View Profile WWW
October 28, 2012, 06:59:40 PM
 #1993

Normally your measured hashrate is used. X-Mining-Hashrate, if available, is only used in the beginning when the server has not yet measured your hashrate.

Is there any way to keep using X-Mining-Hashrate after the initial go? This would allow larger miners to have 1 worker but not suffer from higher share variance for the entire farm.
Is there something preventing you from connecting multiple rigs to the same worker ?

Bitcoin trinkets now on my online store: btc trinkets.com <- Bitcoin Tiepins, cufflinks, lapel pins, keychains, card holders and challenge coins.
DrHaribo
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2632
Merit: 1020


Bitminter.com Operator


View Profile WWW
October 28, 2012, 07:28:53 PM
 #1994

Is there any way to keep using X-Mining-Hashrate after the initial go? This would allow larger miners to have 1 worker but not suffer from higher share variance for the entire farm.

The problem with X-Mining-Hashrate is that you can make your computer(s) send whatever value you wish.

There's a conflict of interest here. Lower difficulty means less daily variance for the miner, which most miners prefer. But lower difficulty also means higher load on the server. If all miners could choose their own difficulty then most would choose diff 1 and the pool would need many more servers, which would be rather expensive. We are doing fine on 1 server right now with difficulty 1 for everyone. But that will no longer work once ASICs are out.

I think the HHTT pool is on to something. At that pool the lower difficulty you choose the more you must pay to the pool. That said, they do look a bit expensive and it makes no sense for small miners (choose between huge fees or huge variance).

I am considering adding a perk that gives you half the difficulty you would otherwise have. It could be a very cheap one. I also thought about a perk that would allow you to choose the difficulty freely, but then a single big miner could perhaps take down a server by choosing diff 1.

Organofcorti has some nice numbers on work difficulty and the accompanying variance: http://organofcorti.blogspot.com/2012/10/71-variable-pool-difficulty.html

I guess it comes down to; how much load can the server handle and how much variance is acceptable for the miners? Any opinions on the variance part?

And yes, you can reduce difficulty by using multiple worker accounts. And if I make change it to be per user account rather than worker account, then you can just create many user accounts. I would prefer to avoid this. So I would want the "normal usage" to give a variance that is good enough. I would also prefer for small miners to be able to mine without choosing between huge fees or huge variance.

▶▶▶ Bitminter.com - Your trusted mining pool since 2011.
Krak
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 591
Merit: 500



View Profile WWW
October 28, 2012, 07:36:00 PM
 #1995

I am considering adding a perk that gives you half the difficulty you would otherwise have. It could be a very cheap one. I also thought about a perk that would allow you to choose the difficulty freely, but then a single big miner could perhaps take down a server by choosing diff 1.
I like this idea. Just get Stratum enabled and the big miners won't be a problem. Smiley

BTC: 1KrakenLFEFg33A4f6xpwgv3UUoxrLPuGn
DrHaribo
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2632
Merit: 1020


Bitminter.com Operator


View Profile WWW
October 28, 2012, 08:18:14 PM
 #1996

Just get Stratum enabled and the big miners won't be a problem. Smiley

Stratum and GBT will be better at getting work than getwork with rollntime. Rollntime was already a big improvement, Stratum and GBT will improve this a little further. But that is all.

The server already spends most of its time verifying proofs of work from miners. Unfortunately Stratum and GBT will have zero impact on this.

So we will need variable difficulty whether it is over getwork, getblocktemplate (GBT) or Stratum.

For big ASIC miners you need two things:
  • More efficient work generation: rollntime (OK), GBT or Stratum (better)
  • More effiicient proofs of work: higher difficulty

Next up after var diff now is GBT and Stratum. I'll probably add GBT first. I know a lot of you are using cgminer which only supports Stratum. But GBT is so much easier to add when you already have a well-tuned engine for getwork with JSON-RPC over HTTP. It makes sense to grab the low hanging fruit first.

▶▶▶ Bitminter.com - Your trusted mining pool since 2011.
kano
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2940
Merit: 1196


Linux since 1997 RedHat 4


View Profile
October 28, 2012, 09:40:48 PM
 #1997

Actually - at the moment GBT is worse than GetWork

GetWork with Roll-N-Time will provide enough work for a 375GH/s rig to mine for up to 2 minutes.
GBT will provide the same but transfers a LOT more data to do it.

Once people start using multiple TH/s rigs it will "start" to be an issue, since a 1.5TH/s rig will ... only ... last for 30s on a GetWork
Yeah it will be a while before GetWork isn't usable ...

Stratum has a specific advantage - it works with a permanent connection and this results in losing less work on an LP

Stratum doesn't send hundreds of transactions with each item of work
GBT does (unless the GBT pool is ignoring hundreds of transactions)

Pool: https://kano.is Here on Bitcointalk: Forum BTC: 1KanoPb8cKYqNrswjaA8cRDk4FAS9eDMLU
Discord support invite at https://kano.is/ Majority developer of the ckpool code
Help keep Bitcoin secure by mining on pools with full block verification on all blocks - and NO empty blocks!
DrHaribo
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2632
Merit: 1020


Bitminter.com Operator


View Profile WWW
October 28, 2012, 10:17:42 PM
 #1998

Actually - at the moment GBT is worse than GetWork

GetWork with Roll-N-Time will provide enough work for a 375GH/s rig to mine for up to 2 minutes.
GBT will provide the same but transfers a LOT more data to do it.

Once people start using multiple TH/s rigs it will "start" to be an issue, since a 1.5TH/s rig will ... only ... last for 30s on a GetWork
Yeah it will be a while before GetWork isn't usable ...

So if this 1.5 TH/s rig is mining on a pool with merged mining that has block changes on average every 5 minutes, it would need 10 requests per block change to get work with getwork, but only 1 request with GBT or Stratum. But since GBT transfers more data, the 10 getwork requests may be less bandwidth than the 1 GBT request.

But with 15 TH/s the 100 getwork requests are probably less efficient than 1 GBT request.

Stratum has a specific advantage - it works with a permanent connection and this results in losing less work on an LP

I'm not sure this will reduce stales. I also think some miners with crappy home routers will have problems with this. Some of those routers do NAT but silently stop forwarding packets if the connection was idle for 5 minutes or in some cases even less. Maybe Stratum has a ping type of command to keep things moving, though?

Of course getwork has its problems, but I'm not sure if HTTP is one of them.

Stratum doesn't send hundreds of transactions with each item of work
GBT does (unless the GBT pool is ignoring hundreds of transactions)

Yeah, GBT uses more bandwidth than Stratum. It also has more possibilities than Stratum, but I guess it is a moot point so far since no miners take advantage of them.

▶▶▶ Bitminter.com - Your trusted mining pool since 2011.
kano
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2940
Merit: 1196


Linux since 1997 RedHat 4


View Profile
October 28, 2012, 11:43:01 PM
 #1999

Actually - at the moment GBT is worse than GetWork

GetWork with Roll-N-Time will provide enough work for a 375GH/s rig to mine for up to 2 minutes.
GBT will provide the same but transfers a LOT more data to do it.

Once people start using multiple TH/s rigs it will "start" to be an issue, since a 1.5TH/s rig will ... only ... last for 30s on a GetWork
Yeah it will be a while before GetWork isn't usable ...

So if this 1.5 TH/s rig is mining on a pool with merged mining that has block changes on average every 5 minutes, it would need 10 requests per block change to get work with getwork, but only 1 request with GBT or Stratum. But since GBT transfers more data, the 10 getwork requests may be less bandwidth than the 1 GBT request.

But with 15 TH/s the 100 getwork requests are probably less efficient than 1 GBT request.

...
Ah you've fallen into the trap of paying too much attention to Luke-Jr's FUD and not spotting the things he glosses over Cheesy

The issue of how long you can hash on work also has an upper limit of course.
The miner should not be working on the same work for more than 2 minutes (I'd suggest even 1 minute is reasonable) since that means a clear negative effect on the whole point of mining - confirming transactions - and an increase in average transaction confirm time

If the a coin has a 5 minute block change, then allowing a miner to work for the full 5 minutes means it wont be accepting any new transactions for 5 minutes ......

Most people look down on blocks that contain no transactions since the actual reason for mining and being paid the block reward is to give miners the incentive to confirm transactions.
However, mining without including new transactions often enough, is almost as bad IMO

I wonder if there shouldn't actually be an option in bitcoind to select the preferred first target to send outgoing transactions to.
Thus people would choose pools that don't ignore as many transactions, and minimise delaying passing their transactions to their miners, as the best target to send them to first ...

Pool: https://kano.is Here on Bitcointalk: Forum BTC: 1KanoPb8cKYqNrswjaA8cRDk4FAS9eDMLU
Discord support invite at https://kano.is/ Majority developer of the ckpool code
Help keep Bitcoin secure by mining on pools with full block verification on all blocks - and NO empty blocks!
eleuthria
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1750
Merit: 1007



View Profile
October 29, 2012, 12:37:57 AM
 #2000

kano:  Don't forget that allowing miners to roll the nTime as far as you're suggesting can be dangerous for the network.  If enough blocks are found too far in the future (to where the median timestamp over the last 11(?) blocks is in the future), valid blocks can be rejected by the network because they contain timestamps "in the past" (even if they're not).

When I was working with ArtForz on a new protocol (prior to Stratum, but basically the same design), this was something we talked about in depth.  It can happen from a variety of reasons, malicious [pools providing base times in the future], inept [pool server running a bad clock], or just a run of luck.  With the expected speed of chips coming out, and future advances, all 3 scenarios are possible.

RIP BTC Guild, April 2011 - June 2015
Pages: « 1 ... 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] 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 ... 375 »
  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!