Bitcoin Forum
December 11, 2016, 12:32:16 AM *
News: Latest stable version of Bitcoin Core: 0.13.1  [Torrent].
 
   Home   Help Search Donate Login Register  
Pages: « 1 ... 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 [320] 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360 361 362 363 364 365 366 367 368 369 370 ... 376 »
  Print  
Author Topic: [1050 TH] BitMinter.com [1% PPLNS,Pays TxFees +MergedMining,Stratum,GBT,vardiff]  (Read 776264 times)
cenicsoft
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 118


View Profile WWW
May 21, 2014, 03:50:56 PM
 #6381

Ok...here it goes...

I am currently running 1.2TH in antminer S1's.  For a variety of reasons (all legal) I have been presented with a situation where my electricity costs are minimal.  (less than 6 cents kWh) The catch is that I only have 24U in a data rack with which to put miners in.  The room is also air conditioned and sound is not a problem. So...the only limiting factor is CapEx (I'm no lottery winner) and space.   It's funny you should mention Spondoolies because it would seem to solve my problem nicely.  Except...I have found the PepperMining Habanero.  I have run the numbers and I can fit 2 boards in a single re-purposed 2U server case complete with psu's and plenty of cooling, for a little less than half the CapEx of the Spondoolies. So 1.4TH vs 1.3TH in roughly the same space with a significant cost difference, minus the intangibles. (which might make a huge difference and I'm just too new to see them - i.e. who can you trust, who will be supportive, who's going to be around in 6 months time)

My question is...without being burdened by power efficiency, cooling or noise pollution, am I crazy to consider building up the Habanero's (which haven't even be produced yet) in lieu of going with a tried and tested Spondoolies (which is so highly priced that the ROI is scary, and delivery data is kinda iffy)?  Or I could simply stick with the tried and tested Antminer S2 which is shipping in 48hrs and jam as many as I can in the cabinet and call it a day. (a bird in the hand)

Or am I missing something so obvious that you're all screaming at your monitors right now?

The pools' collected wisdom is very welcome

I don't see how you can recover your CapEx even with low cost power.  If the difficulty keeps rising ~20%, you'll never earn enough BTC to warrant what you'll spend in BTC to cover your equipment costs.  If you buy with cash and then BTC goes up significantly, then you can earn a return.  However, you'd simply be better buying BTC at current rates and if it goes to $600 to $800, you'll make a much more significant return.

The S2 is much more power efficient, but the cost is significantly higher than the S1's for the same Gh/s. You can get nearly double the hash rate by buying S1's.  At some point though, you'll run out of power in your facility.

BannerView.com - Energize your Business Online, powered by BannerOS, the platform that turns your website into a powerful business tool.
Want to grow your website traffic? Check out the BannerMethod.
1481416336
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481416336

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481416336
Reply with quote  #2

1481416336
Report to moderator
Satoshi is no god. He did not come down from the mountain with 10 golden rules engraved in stone for no one to question.
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1481416336
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481416336

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481416336
Reply with quote  #2

1481416336
Report to moderator
1481416336
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481416336

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481416336
Reply with quote  #2

1481416336
Report to moderator
DrHaribo
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1974


Bitminter.com Operator


View Profile WWW
May 21, 2014, 04:11:51 PM
 #6382

There are some issues with blacklotus
I have rebooted my miners - 20 tplinks

Sorry for the late response.

20 connections from the same location should work fine. There may be a temporary issue if they all connect at once, though I don't think 20 is enough to trigger anti DDoS measures. If your IP address gets filtered as an anti DDoS response, you should be able to access the server again after just a couple of minutes as long as your miners are not repeating connection attempts at a very high rate.

There is a bug in the current mining server code that can cause delayed response to stratum authentication commands. This can cause a delay when first connecting to the server, or even your client timing out. But if this is the problem your miner should normally switch back from backup pool fairly quickly and begin mining normally at Bitminter. This bug is fixed in a new version of the server software that I hope to have up and running in a few days.

In both cases your miners should switch back to Bitminter within a couple of minutes. But I take it this was not the case?

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

Activity: 1372


View Profile
May 21, 2014, 06:04:55 PM
 #6383

There are some issues with blacklotus
I have rebooted my miners - 20 tplinks

Sorry for the late response.

20 connections from the same location should work fine. There may be a temporary issue if they all connect at once, though I don't think 20 is enough to trigger anti DDoS measures. If your IP address gets filtered as an anti DDoS response, you should be able to access the server again after just a couple of minutes as long as your miners are not repeating connection attempts at a very high rate.

There is a bug in the current mining server code that can cause delayed response to stratum authentication commands. This can cause a delay when first connecting to the server, or even your client timing out. But if this is the problem your miner should normally switch back from backup pool fairly quickly and begin mining normally at Bitminter. This bug is fixed in a new version of the server software that I hope to have up and running in a few days.

In both cases your miners should switch back to Bitminter within a couple of minutes. But I take it this was not the case?

Thanks doc
It took a day for them to switch
But they are all there for the moment
Let us hope it was the bug in auth you are mentioning
If that happens again I will let you know
Thanks
Best

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
May 21, 2014, 06:35:52 PM
 #6384

It took a day for them to switch

One day is extremely long. I can't think of anything on my end that would cause that. Let me know if you have any more problems. And make sure you are running a recent version of bfgminer/cgminer - there's been bugs with the failover pool functionality before, but hopefully not with recent versions.

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

Activity: 1582


I charge NOTHING for current signature.


View Profile
May 21, 2014, 08:29:53 PM
 #6385

Ok...here it goes...

I am currently running 1.2TH in antminer S1's.  For a variety of reasons (all legal) I have been presented with a situation where my electricity costs are minimal.  (less than 6 cents kWh) The catch is that I only have 24U in a data rack with which to put miners in.  The room is also air conditioned and sound is not a problem. So...the only limiting factor is CapEx (I'm no lottery winner) and space.   It's funny you should mention Spondoolies because it would seem to solve my problem nicely.  Except...I have found the PepperMining Habanero.  I have run the numbers and I can fit 2 boards in a single re-purposed 2U server case complete with psu's and plenty of cooling, for a little less than half the CapEx of the Spondoolies. So 1.4TH vs 1.3TH in roughly the same space with a significant cost difference, minus the intangibles. (which might make a huge difference and I'm just too new to see them - i.e. who can you trust, who will be supportive, who's going to be around in 6 months time)

My question is...without being burdened by power efficiency, cooling or noise pollution, am I crazy to consider building up the Habanero's (which haven't even be produced yet) in lieu of going with a tried and tested Spondoolies (which is so highly priced that the ROI is scary, and delivery data is kinda iffy)?  Or I could simply stick with the tried and tested Antminer S2 which is shipping in 48hrs and jam as many as I can in the cabinet and call it a day. (a bird in the hand)

Or am I missing something so obvious that you're all screaming at your monitors right now?

The pools' collected wisdom is very welcome

I don't see how you can recover your CapEx even with low cost power.  If the difficulty keeps rising ~20%, you'll never earn enough BTC to warrant what you'll spend in BTC to cover your equipment costs.  If you buy with cash and then BTC goes up significantly, then you can earn a return.  However, you'd simply be better buying BTC at current rates and if it goes to $600 to $800, you'll make a much more significant return.

The S2 is much more power efficient, but the cost is significantly higher than the S1's for the same Gh/s. You can get nearly double the hash rate by buying S1's.  At some point though, you'll run out of power in your facility.

    buying  coins is not bad or good but depending upon your location tax laws differ a lot.    In the USA you can buy a coin today note the price you paid for it.  Then do nothing in terms of reporting it as long as you do not get rid of it.  In the USA if you are mining every piece of a coin earned  needs to be reported when you mine it and when you get rid of it.   So mining is more work on the tax end.

  Always hard to tell someone what to do. since coins are not that high right now.


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

1BURGERAXHH6Yi6LRybRJK7ybEm5m5HwTr

 
 ██
ichtus27
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 72

http://leaserig.net/index.jsp?rfid=6679


View Profile
May 21, 2014, 09:17:10 PM
 #6386

What just happend, i saw the pool bounce from 645 or so to back at 1006. Koi was at 20 for a moment and getting back.
Was al lot op miners gone or a bump in .. what happend??

Solemn
Jr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 38


View Profile
May 21, 2014, 10:41:06 PM
 #6387

OK...Thanks for your thoughts and comments on the hardware aspect guys.  I have a bit more thinking and spreadsheet work to do, so I'll get back on topic.

New question...

Is there a direct correlation between the total pool hashing capability and the frequency of blocks being "mined" that can be charted?  I ask because I've seen people say that a larger pool capability simply means that the smaller guys get a smaller percentage more often...but given the "luck" or CDF that this pool has seen over the past couple of weeks, I have to wonder what part that CDF plays in relation toline of thought that says, "...individual hash ratio to pool decreasing, but payouts are a wash due to increased frequency of blocks."

My gut says that there must be some benefit to a larger pool...right?  This pool has grown from around 400TH to 1000Th since I've been a member.  Should that mean that the frequency of blocks "mined" should have increased by the same margin...?



 
eleuthria
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1750


BTC Guild Owner


View Profile WWW
May 21, 2014, 10:52:53 PM
 #6388

OK...Thanks for your thoughts and comments on the hardware aspect guys.  I have a bit more thinking and spreadsheet work to do, so I'll get back on topic.

New question...

Is there a direct correlation between the total pool hashing capability and the frequency of blocks being "mined" that can be charted?  I ask because I've seen people say that a larger pool capability simply means that the smaller guys get a smaller percentage more often...but given the "luck" or CDF that this pool has seen over the past couple of weeks, I have to wonder what part that CDF plays in relation toline of thought that says, "...individual hash ratio to pool decreasing, but payouts are a wash due to increased frequency of blocks."

My gut says that there must be some benefit to a larger pool...right?  This pool has grown from around 400TH to 1000Th since I've been a member.  Should that mean that the frequency of blocks "mined" should have increased by the same margin...?

The rate of blocks is (fairly) static.  The target is one block on the entire network every 10 minutes.  If the network is growing, that time shrinks (it's been ~8 minutes on average for the last 6 months roughly).

A pool's neutral luck rate of blocks is entirely a measure of the pool's speed compared to network difficulty.  If the pool is growing at 10%, and the network is growing at 10% per adjustment, then the number of blocks a pool is expected to receive in a given time frame does not change.

If a pool is growing at 10% per adjustment period but the network is growing at 11%+ per adjustment period, the pool will, over time, make fewer and fewer blocks per period.  If the pool is growing at 11%+ and the network is growing at 10% or less, then the pool will gradually make more and more blocks per period.

Smaller pools have a bigger "jackpot" possibility.  You might make a lot less than expected (unlucky), you might make a lot more than expected (lucky).  This is because the way blocks are generated is truly random, and the odds are very low.  You can have very large swings of luck with a smaller pool because you're basically looking at a small sample size.  

Flip a coin 100 times, check your heads vs tails percentages.  Flip it 1,000 times, you're likely going to be much closer to expectation (50%/50%).  Flip it 10,000 times, even more likely.  This is similar to comparing small pools vs large pools.  The large pool is doing more iterations per time period, meaning they're less likely to deviate as far from expectation.  A small pool's *expected* output is the same, but it can be much further from that expectation in either direction.

R.I.P. BTC Guild, 2011 - 2015.
BTC Guild Forum Thread
freddyfarnsworth
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 238


View Profile
May 22, 2014, 12:23:53 AM
 #6389

Which brings us to our first unknown string variable "variance" Smiley

As in pool size or power.

There are more...



BTC: 1F1X9dN2PRortYaDkq89YJDbQ72i3F5N3h MEOW: KAbvy9jrrajvN5WLo7RWBsYqYfJKyN9WLf DOGE: DAyKSrTiVeRZaReTu1Cyf5Je6qPdKTuKKE
loshia
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1372


View Profile
May 22, 2014, 09:45:22 AM
 #6390

It took a day for them to switch

One day is extremely long. I can't think of anything on my end that would cause that. Let me know if you have any more problems. And make sure you are running a recent version of bfgminer/cgminer - there's been bugs with the failover pool functionality before, but hopefully not with recent versions.

Doc,

I am starting to think the cause of this is because FW or something
Basically my miners are using two different external ips. So everything else is same except ips. From one IP there are 5 miners only No issues at all
But from the other one there are always 2-3 miners struggling to connect. The funny part is that if i restart connected miner it connects immediately
But if i restart the one that is struggling to connect - same cgminer worker pool url it is refusing to connect. I will make a tcpdump of connect session and post this here


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
Hunyadi
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1199


☑ ♟ ☐ ♚


View Profile
May 22, 2014, 09:56:55 AM
 #6391

My worker address is username.workername, however, web page says: " As user name put your Bitminter user name, an underscore, then a worker name, e.g. DrHaribo_asic3." So, does username_workername work as well?

▂▃▅▇█▓▒░BTC-Cultist░▒▓█▇▅▃▂
DrHaribo
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1974


Bitminter.com Operator


View Profile WWW
May 22, 2014, 09:16:06 PM
 #6392

I am starting to think the cause of this is because FW or something

Not sure what it is. Let's see if it helps when the new server version is up and running.

My worker address is username.workername, however, web page says: " As user name put your Bitminter user name, an underscore, then a worker name, e.g. DrHaribo_asic3." So, does username_workername work as well?

Yes, username_workername works and is the official correct way to do it at Bitminter. I added support for using a period instead of an underscore because another pool was doing that. So it works both ways and there are fewer confused users.

▶▶▶ Bitminter.com - Your trusted mining pool since 2011.
ichtus27
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 72

http://leaserig.net/index.jsp?rfid=6679


View Profile
May 26, 2014, 04:52:59 PM
 #6393

So Fefox, you still do not have your power supply's that you where waiting for to get your hash up??

I'm waiting on my firts antminer s1 to come in and all that it needs.

Good luck and and good earnings..

Me.. Smiley

hayseed
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 240


View Profile
May 27, 2014, 03:21:07 AM
 #6394

Holy Xor DOC!!

I solved a block!!  Imagine my shock when scrolling through the previous block list on "BTC Miner" app and I see FeFox, JoeCool2k, Koi, Koi, Collective,…

then MY NAME!!!!  blink eyes, rub eyes, readjust glasses, yep I read it right. And on Towel Day as well !!!!

Never thought I would solve one for the pool. Did just get my first ant miner S1 on the 19th.

Feel like a proud Poppa ;-)

BTC block at height 302575

Minted by: bitdude

Status: confirmed

Proofs of work submitted: 16693206284

Work begun: 2014.05.24 - 20:25

Work completed: 2014.05.25 - 15:25
DrHaribo
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1974


Bitminter.com Operator


View Profile WWW
May 27, 2014, 05:06:15 AM
 #6395

Holy Xor DOC!!

I solved a block!!

Hey, congratulations Smiley Very cool to find a block now with this difficulty.

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

Activity: 240


View Profile
May 27, 2014, 01:25:32 PM
 #6396

Holy Xor DOC!!

I solved a block!!

Hey, congratulations Smiley Very cool to find a block now with this difficulty.

Thanx Doc !!
loshia
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1372


View Profile
May 27, 2014, 06:50:17 PM
 #6397

It took a day for them to switch

One day is extremely long. I can't think of anything on my end that would cause that. Let me know if you have any more problems. And make sure you are running a recent version of bfgminer/cgminer - there's been bugs with the failover pool functionality before, but hopefully not with recent versions.

All is good for the moment Doc. I do not know what it was but now I can reboot my miners as many times as I want without being afraid they will not connect


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
philipma1957
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1582


I charge NOTHING for current signature.


View Profile
May 27, 2014, 09:14:06 PM
 #6398

Holy Xor DOC!!

I solved a block!!  Imagine my shock when scrolling through the previous block list on "BTC Miner" app and I see FeFox, JoeCool2k, Koi, Koi, Collective,…

then MY NAME!!!!  blink eyes, rub eyes, readjust glasses, yep I read it right. And on Towel Day as well !!!!

Never thought I would solve one for the pool. Did just get my first ant miner S1 on the 19th.

Feel like a proud Poppa ;-)

BTC block at height 302575

Minted by: bitdude

Status: confirmed

Proofs of work submitted: 16693206284

Work begun: 2014.05.24 - 20:25

Work completed: 2014.05.25 - 15:25

I used to solve one every month.  I think It has been close to a 7 months since I solved one. 

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

1BURGERAXHH6Yi6LRybRJK7ybEm5m5HwTr

 
 ██
GigaBit
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 380

The Gold Miner


View Profile
May 28, 2014, 09:58:16 AM
 #6399

Holy Xor DOC!!

I solved a block!!  Imagine my shock when scrolling through the previous block list on "BTC Miner" app and I see FeFox, JoeCool2k, Koi, Koi, Collective,…

then MY NAME!!!!  blink eyes, rub eyes, readjust glasses, yep I read it right. And on Towel Day as well !!!!

Never thought I would solve one for the pool. Did just get my first ant miner S1 on the 19th.

Feel like a proud Poppa ;-)

BTC block at height 302575

Minted by: bitdude

Status: confirmed

Proofs of work submitted: 16693206284

Work begun: 2014.05.24 - 20:25

Work completed: 2014.05.25 - 15:25

Congrats and thank you BitDude!

-I'd rather be prospecting
-I'm a certified fuck off donor
GigaBit
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 380

The Gold Miner


View Profile
May 28, 2014, 11:19:18 AM
 #6400

I am starting to think the cause of this is because FW or something

Not sure what it is. Let's see if it helps when the new server version is up and running.
---

Hey Doc, some advice/tips from a webmaster/game developer...

You need to UPGRADE your server, one PH/s I lose too much hashing power because of traffic bottle-necking, too many connections.  Tried your pool for a week today and I am disconnecting today too due to having too great of a hash power loss compared to when I joined when you were below 1PH/s.  I'll assume you're hosting online, most hosts can do an upgrade in an hour or so.

That's why you're having such a hard time to find blocks as of late, you're not using the pool's complete hashing potential I am afraid.  I observed about 10%-20% average hashing power loss using your pool compared to other modern, non-beta pools I have tested.  Has nothing to do with the recent difficulty increase, made really little to no difference.

I noticed the difference the minute BMT went back over 1PH/s and kept growing on it.  I monitor my workers like a hawk, so I know in real time what's going on, at all times of the day and when your stats show almost 50GH/s difference from my miner's interface to yours for most of the time, I start asking questions because that's rather significant, in my book anyways.  Connection is steady though.

Your server needs a hardware upgrade and maybe very well, bandwidth.

Sorry but I can't mine here with only having 400GH/s with a 50GH/s loss due to bottle-necking.  People buy machines that clock at 50GH/s, right now it's like I have one of those and your pool's rejecting the whole thing.

I hope you take from what I just said, lots of people pay good money for my advice.  But again, my knowledge on mining is still rather rudimentary but my knowledge on making money, computers and web design is spot on =D

I mean, it's not just your pool with bottle-necking but I actually like BitMinter... well used to thus so far anyways.  Maybe it's just me?  I doubt it, your pool does stand out in the bottle-neck column.  That's why i don't hash with GHash anymore, bottlenecks and gaps were too great during the day.

Peace out

-I'd rather be prospecting
-I'm a certified fuck off donor
Pages: « 1 ... 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 [320] 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360 361 362 363 364 365 366 367 368 369 370 ... 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!