Bitcoin Forum
December 10, 2016, 09:18:21 AM *
News: Latest stable version of Bitcoin Core: 0.13.1  [Torrent].
 
   Home   Help Search Donate Login Register  
Pages: « 1 ... 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] 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 ... 376 »
  Print  
Author Topic: [1050 TH] BitMinter.com [1% PPLNS,Pays TxFees +MergedMining,Stratum,GBT,vardiff]  (Read 776083 times)
DrHaribo
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1974


Bitminter.com Operator


View Profile WWW
November 25, 2012, 06:40:40 PM
 #2121

Can you absolutely rule out the possibility that something changed in BitMinter's pool processing about two weeks ago?

Change from v1 to v2 blocks and other little things. But there's no change to how a block solution is handled and pushed out on the network. No delay there.

It may of course be that we were just incredibly unlucky with the orphans lately.

And the stale blocks are not shown by most pool at all, they throw away all stale work.

Just for a comparison, I looked at Ozcoin. Their most recent orphan was on 2012/08/24. They also accept all transactions into blocks and include transaction fees in payouts.

According to blockchain.info OzCoin had stales since 2012/08/24:
1 x 2012-10-18
1 x 2012-10-16
1 x 2012-10-09
2 x 2012-10-07
1 x 2012-09-15

Those don't appear on the OzCoin website. Maybe there's a bug there?

blockchain.info doesn't show the one on 2012/08/24 though. Some orphans don't propagate far enough for blockchain.info to see them. Therefore it would be hard to make orphan stats without accurate stats from each pool itself.

5 orphans in october is not so good. But zero in november is very good. If OzCoin is running with default settings then I suppose it's just good vs bad luck?

▶▶▶ Bitminter.com - Your trusted mining pool since 2011.
1481361501
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481361501

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481361501
Reply with quote  #2

1481361501
Report to moderator
1481361501
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481361501

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481361501
Reply with quote  #2

1481361501
Report to moderator
1481361501
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481361501

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481361501
Reply with quote  #2

1481361501
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1481361501
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481361501

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481361501
Reply with quote  #2

1481361501
Report to moderator
1481361501
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481361501

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481361501
Reply with quote  #2

1481361501
Report to moderator
1481361501
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481361501

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481361501
Reply with quote  #2

1481361501
Report to moderator
sturle
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1418

http://bitmynt.no


View Profile WWW
November 25, 2012, 07:14:22 PM
 #2122

Are you sure this works?
Yes. The slower a block propagates through the bitcoin peer-to-peer network the higher the chance it is orphaned. That's because others will be making blocks that compete with yours because they haven't seen your block yet. And the bigger the block the longer bitcoin nodes take before accepting the block as valid and passing it on to other nodes.
That's the theory, yes, but it doesn't check out very well when you analyze the orphaned blocks vs the winning blocks.  The advantage to smaller blocks is very small.  There may be one for very small blocks, e.g 1 transaction blocks.

E.g. for the latest orphan, the Bitminter block was 242.8 KB.  The winning block was 250.8 KB, i.e. larger than our.

I have another suggestion: Start making new work as soon as you get a new valid block header built on top of the one we are working on.  The likelyhood of the block being invalid, is low.  This will give us a head start on the next block in front of the other pools.  We may delay LP until the new block is validated.

Sjå http://bitmynt.no for veksling av bitcoin mot norske kroner.  Trygt, billig, raskt og enkelt sidan 2010.
I buy with EUR and other currencies at a fair market price when you want to sell.  See http://bitmynt.no/eurprice.pl
I support the roadmap.  If a majority of miners ever try to forcefully take control of Bitcoin through a hard fork without 100% consensus, I will immediately split out and dump all my forkcoins, and buy more real Bitcoin.
DrHaribo
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1974


Bitminter.com Operator


View Profile WWW
November 25, 2012, 07:57:59 PM
 #2123

I have another suggestion: Start making new work as soon as you get a new valid block header built on top of the one we are working on.  The likelyhood of the block being invalid, is low.  This will give us a head start on the next block in front of the other pools.  We may delay LP until the new block is validated.

I have been thinking about making new BitMinter blocks available through the web service with long polling, to get around blocks having to go through the peer-to-peer network to reach other pools. That could also be a good way to get the necessary data to start mining before bitcoind does its checks, like you suggest. Doesn't have to be long polling, btw.

If most pools would get blocks directly from each other without going through bitcoind and if they start mining after only minimal checks like you suggest, then that might get rid of most orphans. No X number of nodes to propagate through, almost no verification = near instant block propagation as far as mining is concerned.

You are right that pools are unlikely to make invalid blocks. And you can check the previous block hash (from the block header), to ensure you don't accidentally help in a 51% attack.

Like you said, start mining after a quick check like that. Start mining a 1-tx block on top of that new block, maybe with a LP signal. Possibly you could include txes if you can be sure which ones would be valid (would take some effort). Meanwhile you can submit the block to your own bitcoind for full verification. If it checks out, start mining on top of it with full transactions. If it doesn't show as the top block in bitcoind then either it was invalid or another block got there first. Either way, start mining on whatever bitcoind says is the top block on the main chain.

▶▶▶ Bitminter.com - Your trusted mining pool since 2011.
mdude77
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1358


View Profile
November 26, 2012, 02:02:59 AM
 #2124

As requested by Doc (poolop), MPoolMonitor now supports BitMinter.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=86502.0.

Regards,

M

MMinerMonitor author, monitor/auto/schedule reboots/alerts/remote/MobileMiner for Ants and Spondoolies! Latest (5.2). MPoolMonitor author, monitor stats/workers for most pools, global BTC stats (current/nxt diff/USD val/hashrate/calc)! Latest (v4.2) 
Buyer beware of Bitmain hardware and services.
DrHaribo
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1974


Bitminter.com Operator


View Profile WWW
November 26, 2012, 06:13:35 AM
 #2125

As requested by Doc (poolop), MPoolMonitor now supports BitMinter.

That's great news! Thank you for adding support  Smiley

▶▶▶ Bitminter.com - Your trusted mining pool since 2011.
AfricanHunter
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 157


View Profile
November 26, 2012, 09:02:20 AM
 #2126

Came over to see if I was imagining the bad luck, guess I wasnt after all Sad

I would be up for nearly anything that keeps the pool going. Love Bitminter

Thinking about doing business with johnniewalkerhttps://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=72227?
First read this thread https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=131841.0

Also, Join the National Rifle Association to protect 2nd Amendment Rights http://membership.nrahq.org/default.asp?campaignid=XR020022
philipma1957
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1582


I charge NOTHING for current signature.


View Profile
November 27, 2012, 06:30:48 PM
 #2127

I was doing some thinking about stales and orphans.  2% for protection means the pool has to have 50 to 1 .  stales don't get paid so they are a push for the pool.   only orphans are paid out.   so I am going to break down the bit minter from july on. it will take a bit of time so bear with me.  first stat is 68 pages of btc = 68 x 20 or 1360 plus one or

I am basing this on  every miner paying the minimum donation for btc. If a miner does not pay he does not get paid for the orphan so the logic is sound.  Of course if people are giving above and beyond the asked donation my method would be over counting the losses.


1361 btc since july 1  

135 btc for all of july . 2 stales and 2 orphans  so that is 131 out of 133  the stales don't count.  131 out of 133 is  98.49 percent  the donation asked was 1% so July was a loss.

208 btc for Aug .  1 stale and 0 orphans.  so 207 out of 207  the stales do not count.    this is 100%  the donation asked was 1%  so AUG was a win.

310 btc for sept. 0 stale and 5 orphans.  so 305 out of 310  ------------------------------   this is  98.3% the donation asked was 1% so Sept. was a loss. 


 I am going to make a break at this point.  the 3 months above  were all at 1%.  totals are 653 coins 3 stales and 7 orphans.

 break down is 643 out of 650 or 98.9 percent so the pool lost money based on 1% donation  since it would need to be 99% to break even.  not to count equipment and time spent.

 So asking for 2%  in mid Oct is not out of line based on these 3 months of stats.

██     Please support sidehack with his new miner project Send to :

1BURGERAXHH6Yi6LRybRJK7ybEm5m5HwTr

 
 ██
philipma1957
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1582


I charge NOTHING for current signature.


View Profile
November 27, 2012, 08:00:54 PM
 #2128

New post for oct  

 okay 383 btc  5 stales 2 orphans  .   this is 376 out of 378   as stales don't count   this is 99.4%  so at 1% bit minter made a profit and 2% bit minter made a profit.  


one to go

 nov. 328 btc 3 stales 9 orphans.   this is 316 out of 325   as stales don't count this is  97.2 %   so at 2% bitminter lost . 


 now in Nov  9  orphans is equal to all of  july ,aug ,sept ,oct.       

  9 of 328 vs  9 of 1036  or

 2.744%     nov.  orphan rate

  vs   .8687%   July  - Oct  orphan rate.      it is a quick breakdown    so pardon errors.   

   the five month rate is  1.319 percent.  so in theory 2% should make some money 1 % would lose some money.   

I for one would be  willing to bump to 2.5% but if the rate stays low for a few months go back to 2 %.   Some swing number could be worked out.

 Namecoins are small but the same could be done.

I have a background in accounting  I don't mind the Doctor making some money and on paper it looks like he did not make much if any over the last 5 months.

 If this was my pool  I would think 2% may be too low 3% may be too high.   I do not have a breakdown for all pools orphan rates.


 Stales are another pair of sleeves.  we had 11 since July 1.

8 of which came in the last 2 months. 


  Of course we are not counting block split and asics  that is a different discussion.

██     Please support sidehack with his new miner project Send to :

1BURGERAXHH6Yi6LRybRJK7ybEm5m5HwTr

 
 ██
loshia
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1372


View Profile
November 27, 2012, 08:59:15 PM
 #2129

Whatever DOC made if he made something at all he deserves it. Not mentioning the fact that probably some of the pools have some "bugs" not showing the orphans like Ozcoin according to DOC post. I do not know if they are paying the orphans or not though. I have not mined there and i am not bashing at ozcoin at all. Some of the pools "officially" do not support merged mining. And as we all know it is not a rocket science to merge mine especially when you are pool operator. And to take 2.5% (All NMC income) on top of their 4% donation right?

Doc please do your math and tell us what shall be minimal donation in order for pool to stay alive. You are the last one who shall pay for it



Please help the Led Boy aka Bicknellski to make us a nice Christmas led tree and pay WASP membership fee here:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=643999.msg7191563#msg7191563
And remember Bicknellski is not collecting money from community;D
DrHaribo
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1974


Bitminter.com Operator


View Profile WWW
November 27, 2012, 09:13:46 PM
 #2130

While I think reducing block size would help a bit and I had a couple other ideas for reducing orphans, I believe Sturle's idea in combination with propagating blocks outside the bitcoin peer-to-peer network could make orphans nearly extinct. So I think that is the best way forward, for all pools.

I'll see what I can do. Stratum testing will hopefully begin soon. After that I have a few pressing matters of which the orphan problem is one. Priorities, priorities .. Smiley

Thanks for the support, guys, and thanks for running the numbers, philipma1957. Smiley

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

Activity: 1960


Poor impulse control.


View Profile WWW
November 27, 2012, 09:30:22 PM
 #2131

While I think reducing block size would help a bit and I had a couple other ideas for reducing orphans

I checked back in June - block size to that point had no significant influence on whether a block was orphaned or not. Maybe it does now.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=88302.msg984376#msg984376



Bitcoin network and pool analysis 12QxPHEuxDrs7mCyGSx1iVSozTwtquDB3r
follow @oocBlog for new post notifications
juhakall
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 422



View Profile
November 27, 2012, 10:55:46 PM
 #2132

I'm trying out BitMinter's GBT server for the first time, and got strange rejects on cgminer 2.9.5 almost immediately:

 [2012-11-28 00:50:30] Rejected 33f2f1eb Diff 4/4 GPU 2 pool 0 (unknown-work)
 [2012-11-28 00:50:38] Accepted 3b537d2f Diff 4/4 GPU 0 pool 0
 [2012-11-28 00:50:47] Accepted 387a7e01 Diff 4/4 GPU 2 pool 0
 [2012-11-28 00:50:57] Accepted 34475128 Diff 4/4 GPU 2 pool 0
 [2012-11-28 00:51:03] Accepted 378ea469 Diff 4/4 GPU 0 pool 0
 [2012-11-28 00:51:46] Accepted 1c1a6472 Diff 9/4 GPU 1 pool 0
 [2012-11-28 00:51:47] GBT LONGPOLL from pool 0 requested work restart
 [2012-11-28 00:51:49] GBT LONGPOLL from pool 0 requested work restart
 [2012-11-28 00:51:57] GBT LONGPOLL from pool 0 detected new block

As you can see, it comes seemingly in the middle of a block. I can't get a clear understanding of what's wrong with those, since a similar problem was supposed to be fixed in 2.9.4.
DrHaribo
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1974


Bitminter.com Operator


View Profile WWW
November 27, 2012, 11:06:15 PM
 #2133

I'm trying out BitMinter's GBT server for the first time, and got strange rejects on cgminer 2.9.5 almost immediately:

I am also running 2.9.5 testing GBT.  Not many rejects: A:54005  R:46. And I haven't seen any rejects that didn't happen at a block change.

Seems like we need a bit more testing. Anyone else seeing something like that?

▶▶▶ Bitminter.com - Your trusted mining pool since 2011.
philipma1957
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1582


I charge NOTHING for current signature.


View Profile
November 27, 2012, 11:08:52 PM
 #2134

While I think reducing block size would help a bit and I had a couple other ideas for reducing orphans, I believe Sturle's idea in combination with propagating blocks outside the bitcoin peer-to-peer network could make orphans nearly extinct. So I think that is the best way forward, for all pools.

I'll see what I can do. Stratum testing will hopefully begin soon. After that I have a few pressing matters of which the orphan problem is one. Priorities, priorities .. Smiley

Thanks for the support, guys, and thanks for running the numbers, philipma1957. Smiley

 Yeah no problem on looking at the stats. I had my donations set at 2% BTC and  2.6% NMC . After the crunch of numbers I have decided to up my btc to 2.5% and my nmc to 4%.

 Here is how I look at this I like this pool I want it to work. I mint about 20 usd a day 2 percent would be 40 us cents 2.5 percent would  be 50 us cents. so for my 7k hash to keep going it is worth an extra 10 cents a day to me. This pool is good simple and does not need endless care. so for 10 cents a day or $36.50 usd a year I can go for the extra .5 percent.

██     Please support sidehack with his new miner project Send to :

1BURGERAXHH6Yi6LRybRJK7ybEm5m5HwTr

 
 ██
juhakall
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 422



View Profile
November 27, 2012, 11:14:36 PM
 #2135

I am also running 2.9.5 testing GBT.  Not many rejects: A:54005  R:46. And I haven't seen any rejects that didn't happen at a block change.

Seems like we need a bit more testing. Anyone else seeing something like that?


I stopped having those rejects after changing all my rigs to BitMinter GBT. Could be just bad luck, but is it possible that having difficulty change dynamically may cause that kind of rejects? I don't have a good understanding of how dynamic difficulty works. At first the difficulty hovered around 1-2, but after pointing all the rigs at BitMinter GBT it's been stable at 4.

EDIT: Now my share difficulty went up to 8, and dropped back to 4 soon afterwards. If my hashrate is just about at the threshold between 4 and 8, at least I'm testing the dynamic difficulty thoroughly.

Yup, it's been changing between 4 and 8 for some time now.
DrHaribo
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1974


Bitminter.com Operator


View Profile WWW
November 28, 2012, 01:48:46 PM
 #2136

As I write this there are only 7 blocks left with 50 new coins in them. After that it's down to 25. Let's get block 209999! Fire up some extra miners. Wink

I had my donations set at 2% BTC and  2.6% NMC . After the crunch of numbers I have decided to up my btc to 2.5% and my nmc to 4%.

Thank you, sir, much appreciated! Smiley

I stopped having those rejects after changing all my rigs to BitMinter GBT. Could be just bad luck, but is it possible that having difficulty change dynamically may cause that kind of rejects? I don't have a good understanding of how dynamic difficulty works. At first the difficulty hovered around 1-2, but after pointing all the rigs at BitMinter GBT it's been stable at 4.

With Stratum there has been some changes to how difficulty works. Earlier it could create a few rejects, but in the future hopefully it won't anymore.

GBT, however, should not. So you should not be seeing any rejects at all apart from at the block change (long poll) times.

Did you happen to catch the message about why the work was rejected?

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

Activity: 89



View Profile
November 28, 2012, 03:51:51 PM
 #2137

I haven't seen the difficulty go down yet as we just minted 210001 - hmmm...

Mining at : 12t4H9FdmimXvjMLPzgxCTs3Mwi7LWcnro
Bitmessage: BM-2D8F9QZnigjB3ovYUGwTSQWiubzhz6VmhD
LazyOtto
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 476


View Profile
November 28, 2012, 03:54:17 PM
 #2138

post reward reduction:

The "Expected per block" is wrong.

The amount actually awarded is correct.

-- edit --

Sorry, you said "difficulty". No, the difficulty won't change.
Not until GPU folks drop out and it goes down.
Or until ASIC folks begin and it goes up.

On the next regular ~2k block interval.
conspirosphere.tk
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1862


Revolution will be decentralized


View Profile WWW
November 28, 2012, 04:08:27 PM
 #2139

Just a question: does Bitminter includes TX fees in the miners payments?
Now after the halvening this is more important.

Krak
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 591



View Profile WWW
November 28, 2012, 04:11:04 PM
 #2140

Just a question: does Bitminter includes TX fees in the miners payments?
Now after the halvening this is more important.
Read the title of the thread.

BTC: 1KrakenLFEFg33A4f6xpwgv3UUoxrLPuGn
Pages: « 1 ... 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] 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 ... 376 »
  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!