[1050 TH] BitMinter.com [1% PPLNS,Pays TxFees +MergedMining,Stratum,GBT,vardiff]

[Luke-Jr]

GBT replaced X-Mining-Hashrate with the "target" request option (BIP 23 Basic Pool Extensions). Stratum has no equivalent (and no HTTP for headers) yet.

I didn't implement the target request option yet. I don't know if I would use it for anything but the first minute either. Letting a user with 10+ TH/s set the difficulty makes me a bit uneasy.

Well, you could always set it up to honour it within some reasonable limits (or maybe leave it unbound upward, so miners can always opt to increase their variance at will). Admittedly, I also haven't seen a need to implement "target" requests yet either.

[kano]

If everything runs perfectly I could perhaps enable Stratum and GBT with var diff on the main pool before the weekend is over. But perhaps delay var diff on getwork a bit longer until hashpower.com supports it.

My only other concern with vardiff is that when you enabled it on the main pool, it was done per worker.

Does vardiff now work by used the x-mining-hashrate header if available?

GBT replaced X-Mining-Hashrate with the "target" request option (BIP 23 Basic Pool Extensions). Stratum has no equivalent (and no HTTP for headers) yet.

lol no HTTP - GBT uses HTTP coz (as you said) it was too hard for you to do such an enhancement

Adding an 'options' to Stratum is a minor thing - pity you can't even take the step past HTTP to see that's all it is.

[mdude77]

All three of my miners on cgminer are complaining that bitminter isn't providing work fast enough.  Stratum is coming soon, right?

M

[Luke-Jr]

All three of my miners on cgminer are complaining that bitminter isn't providing work fast enough.  Stratum is coming soon, right?

"Isn't providing work fast enough" (even with BFGMiner) is most likely a problem with your miner, not the protocol. Con intentionally designed GBT support in cgminer to work inefficiently, but as a side-effect of this particular inefficiency, there is no excuse it should ever be starving for more work.

[mdude77]

All three of my miners on cgminer are complaining that bitminter isn't providing work fast enough.  Stratum is coming soon, right?

"Isn't providing work fast enough" (even with BFGMiner) is most likely a problem with your miner, not the protocol. Con intentionally designed GBT support in cgminer to work inefficiently, but as a side-effect of this particular inefficiency, there is no excuse it should ever be starving for more work.

This isn't GBT, this is a LP.  And I don't recall seeing the message anywhere else.  It is starving and is sending work to backup pools.

M

[kano]

All three of my miners on cgminer are complaining that bitminter isn't providing work fast enough.  Stratum is coming soon, right?

"Isn't providing work fast enough" (even with BFGMiner) is most likely a problem with your miner, not the protocol. Con intentionally designed GBT support in cgminer to work inefficiently, but as a side-effect of this particular inefficiency, there is no excuse it should ever be starving for more work.

As usual - you don't even know what you are talking about.

So ... do we assume you are just stupid enough to make that comment?

... or lying to try and attack cgminer in a way that is completely false?

[Luke-Jr]

All three of my miners on cgminer are complaining that bitminter isn't providing work fast enough.  Stratum is coming soon, right?

"Isn't providing work fast enough" (even with BFGMiner) is most likely a problem with your miner, not the protocol. Con intentionally designed GBT support in cgminer to work inefficiently, but as a side-effect of this particular inefficiency, there is no excuse it should ever be starving for more work.

This isn't GBT, this is a LP.  And I don't recall seeing the message anywhere else.  It is starving and is sending work to backup pools.

Well, why aren't you using GBT? Then you'd definitely have work ready to go as soon as the LP comes in (GBT uses LP too).

[DrHaribo]

All three of my miners on cgminer are complaining that bitminter isn't providing work fast enough.  Stratum is coming soon, right?

The "not providing work fast enough" message comes pretty quickly after long poll - may not be a big deal.

Yes, we have GBT testing on port 9000 now and Stratum testing will begin soon.

If I put GBT on main port now then users with cgminer with GBT support but earlier version than 2.9.4 will get 100% rejects. I need to add a workaround for this bug before enabling GBT on the main port, otherwise it could be pretty painful for some users.

I hope to move GBT and Stratum to main port within a week's time, if not before. Maybe before the weekend is over, if testing goes well.

[Mobius]

All three of my miners on cgminer are complaining that bitminter isn't providing work fast enough.  Stratum is coming soon, right?

The "not providing work fast enough" message comes pretty quickly after long poll - may not be a big deal.

Yes, we have GBT testing on port 9000 now and Stratum testing will begin soon.

If I put GBT on main port now then users with cgminer with GBT support but earlier version than 2.9.4 will get 100% rejects. I need to add a workaround for this bug before enabling GBT on the main port, otherwise it could be pretty painful for some users.

I hope to move GBT and Stratum to main port within a week's time, if not before. Maybe before the weekend is over, if testing goes well.

Why not keep them on separate ports :3333 for stratum seems to be the default port chosen by pools using it.

[DrHaribo]

Why not keep them on separate ports :3333 for stratum seems to be the default port chosen by pools using it.

Yeah, it will be GBT and getwork on the regular port and Stratum on a different one. But the GBT/getwork responses will have an HTTP header informing the miner where to find the Stratum port.

[mdude77]

All three of my miners on cgminer are complaining that bitminter isn't providing work fast enough.  Stratum is coming soon, right?

The "not providing work fast enough" message comes pretty quickly after long poll - may not be a big deal.

Yes, we have GBT testing on port 9000 now and Stratum testing will begin soon.

If I put GBT on main port now then users with cgminer with GBT support but earlier version than 2.9.4 will get 100% rejects. I need to add a workaround for this bug before enabling GBT on the main port, otherwise it could be pretty painful for some users.

I hope to move GBT and Stratum to main port within a week's time, if not before. Maybe before the weekend is over, if testing goes well.

Now that I know GBT is on 9000, I'll point my miners there.  I don't recall seeing that on the website, and I certainly didn't wade through the 100 pages of data here.

EDIT: it seems stats don't report work if you use the GBT port.

M

[Luke-Jr]

If I put GBT on main port now then users with cgminer with GBT support but earlier version than 2.9.4 will get 100% rejects. I need to add a workaround for this bug before enabling GBT on the main port, otherwise it could be pretty painful for some users.

Ah, that makes sense. The solution I've used in the past with older bugger miner versions is the check the User-Agent.

Why not keep them on separate ports :3333 for stratum seems to be the default port chosen by pools using it.

Yeah, it will be GBT and getwork on the regular port and Stratum on a different one. But the GBT/getwork responses will have an HTTP header informing the miner where to find the Stratum port.

BFGMiner interprets the Stratum header as "prefer Stratum over the current protocol", so IMO it would be better if it were only offered to getwork requests.

[DrHaribo]

Now that I know GBT is on 9000, I'll point my miners there.  I don't recall seeing that on the website, and I certainly didn't wade through the 100 pages of data here.

EDIT: it seems stats don't report work if you use the GBT port.

Yeah, it's only for testing. GBT will soon be on the regular port. Port 9000 may be unstable, and hashrate on that port won't show on the website. But you do get paid, and the hashrate will show in shifts, it just won't show as current hashrate.

It's a bit of a hack. In the future I will add proper support for multiple servers and they will show properly in the stats.

BFGMiner interprets the Stratum header as "prefer Stratum over the current protocol", so IMO it would be better if it were only offered to getwork requests.

Good to know, I'll just add the header on getwork responses then.

[hahahafr]

Don't forget Doc https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=27062.msg1218046;topicseen#msg1218046

The 5050 is fine

[mdude77]

Now that I know GBT is on 9000, I'll point my miners there.  I don't recall seeing that on the website, and I certainly didn't wade through the 100 pages of data here.

EDIT: it seems stats don't report work if you use the GBT port.

Yeah, it's only for testing. GBT will soon be on the regular port. Port 9000 may be unstable, and hashrate on that port won't show on the website. But you do get paid, and the hashrate will show in shifts, it just won't show as current hashrate.

It's a bit of a hack. In the future I will add proper support for multiple servers and they will show properly in the stats.

I'm having sporadic conn problems here (ISP issue), so it's important that stats work for me.  That rules GBT out for the time being.

M

[MinorMiner]

Don't you just 'love' how our luck got better AFTER the block reward drop ... bah

[kano]

...

BFGMiner interprets the Stratum header as "prefer Stratum over the current protocol", so IMO it would be better if it were only offered to getwork requests.

Good to know, I'll just add the header on getwork responses then.

Um - that doesn't make much sense?

From a pool and miner point of view, there is no gain in using GBT when Stratum is available.
No miner implements transaction choice - does your pool even allow it?

So until there even exists a transaction choice somewhere (anywhere!), it would make sense to request the miner to use Stratum and thus GREATLY reduce the data transferred.

If the miner wants the MASSIVE amounts of extra data with GBT they can force GBT selection from the miner easily enough.

[DrHaribo]

Don't forget Doc https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=27062.msg1218046;topicseen#msg1218046

The 5050 is fine

Sure, I'll add one of those ports. What's special about them anyway?

...

BFGMiner interprets the Stratum header as "prefer Stratum over the current protocol", so IMO it would be better if it were only offered to getwork requests.

Good to know, I'll just add the header on getwork responses then.

Um - that doesn't make much sense?

Hmm. So cgminer tries GBT first, and if it sees no Stratum header it stays on GBT?

[hahahafr]

Don't forget Doc https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=27062.msg1218046;topicseen#msg1218046

The 5050 is fine

Sure, I'll add one of those ports. What's special about them anyway?

Mining behind a firewall is no joke, I did originally choose Bitminter because you were offering port 80 mining. These ports are the only ones I can reach.

[-ck]

Hmm. So cgminer tries GBT first, and if it sees no Stratum header it stays on GBT?

In order of priority, cgminer will try to mine on stratum first, gbt second and getwork if all else fails, based on what order I think mining should occur. As far as I'm concerned, it's up to the pool operator to decide what they think is most important to prioritise. If you want to put a stratum redirect header in your GBT based pool, that's entirely your choice, knowing that cgminer will then use stratum preferentially. You can see the way cgminer prioritises the different protocols based on what I think is best for miners and pools, and the rest is up to you.