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

[DrHaribo]

This graph at Pool-X (LiteCoin pool) is really nice.  I think you have to login to see it, but I think seeing it is worth making an account.
http://pool-x.eu/blocksAuth

It is a nice graph. It is per block and not per time though, on the X-axis, so it's basically the same as ours. But the Y-axis is number of shares instead of CDF, and they have a running average for the pool shown in addition to each individual block. Might be an idea adding such an average. Not sure about shares vs. CDF though.

DrHaribo did you change anything on the server lately?

Yeah, I changed most of the database stuff in the pool backend. I put in some stuff to make parallel updates safe and added automatic retries in case a database operation fails.

1) some rows are missing from my blocks list: 657, 659-660, 662, 669, 671-687, 689-691, 693, 695-698, 701-702, 705-706, 712

That's due to parallel database transactions conflicting and one being rolled back and retried. When a database transaction is rolled back everything you did is reset to how it was before the transaction started except sequences. When a number is allocated from a sequence the same number won't be given out again, even after a rollback. Already there are many gaps in the user IDs. Now with the new database code there are gaps in the block numbers. Looks a bit ugly. I think maybe I'll switch to not showing the internal ID. The table is also sometimes too wide, so that may help with that problem. Or is a block ID of some sort useful?

2) BTC blocks and NMC blocks don't come anymore in pairs as earlier:

• when BTC block 170048 was found (row 661) NMC block 45862 is listed 1 minute earlier (row 658)
• when BTC block 170495 was found (row 688) NMC block 46281 is listed 5 minutes earlier (row 670)
• when BTC block 170638 was found (row 699) NMC block 46403 is listed 1 minute earlier (row 694)
• when BTC block 170759 was found (row 710) there is no NMC block listed mined by the same user near by
• when the last BTC block 170838 was found (row 713) there is NMC block 46572 found by the same user 5.5 hrs earlier (row 711)

170838 was stale on the NMC side unfortunately. I checked the logs and we received a new namecoin block from the namecoin P2P network 5 seconds before we attempted to create ours. Let's just be glad that was a new NMC block just ahead of ours, and not a BTC block.

170495 and 46281 were created from a single proof of work from kjakman. They were created at the same time, but one had trouble getting registered in the database. It took a full 5 minutes from it was created until it was successfully registered in the DB. I was watching and cursing as the database transactions were being retried.

Also this database code is putting 10x to 20x the load on the database, compared to earlier. While that's not a problem for the server, I don't like it. I am already working on a new solution that should run much smoother. On my test server the load was much lower and conflicting transactions happened very rarely. Back to the drawing board!

[1713481276]

1713481276

[1713481276]

1713481276

[1713481276]

1713481276

[1713481276]

1713481276

[1713481276]

1713481276

[Isokivi]

Is the site down ?

[btc_artist]

Is the site down ?

It is for me.

[Turbor]

Down, 502

[Isokivi]

Back up now.

[DrHaribo]

Sorry little hick-up on the website

[jake262144]

Just wondering, what you see on the horizon, Doc - are we going to turn over a new leaf anytime soon? Hit some fast blocks? We've been way below expected average for quite some time now...
My Crystal ball remains opaque, damn it

My long-term stale rate remains at a very decent 0.13%, thanks for all the hard work on the pool server.

[DrHaribo]

I don't have a working crystal ball either, but I do hope we hit some fast blocks soon.

We're getting over 20 new users every day, but with this kind of luck they are not staying.

[WhitePhantom]

Has anybody tried a BFL single with the BitMinter client?  I have no idea if it's even possible, but figured I'd ask.

[DrHaribo]

Has anybody tried a BFL single with the BitMinter client?  I have no idea if it's even possible, but figured I'd ask.

There's no BFL support in it. I suppose I could add that, though. Is there any info on how to program them?

[DeathAndTaxes]

Has anybody tried a BFL single with the BitMinter client?  I have no idea if it's even possible, but figured I'd ask.

There's no BFL support in it. I suppose I could add that, though. Is there any info on how to program them?

AFAIK there is a single post in the cgminer thread and that is it.  Luke code is available in cgminer github.

[DrHaribo]

AFAIK there is a single post in the cgminer thread and that is it.  Luke code is available in cgminer github.

Cool, looks like a simple serial port design. Do the other bitcoin FPGA solutions work in a similar fashion, anyone know?

Would be a little hard to add support for this without an actual device to test on. But it looks simple enough that I could give it a try if someone has a device to test my beta versions on. Anyone get a BFL single yet?

Btw, you can abort work, but then it won't report good nonces found during that round?

[rjk]

Btw, you can abort work, but then it won't report good nonces found during that round?

Correct. You may also wish to look at Ufasoft's sources to see how he implemented plug-'n-play functionality - right now with cgminer you need to specify each device, but with ufasoft they can be hot-plugged.

[P4man]

get in touch with BFL. Even if they wont ship you a test sample (you can always ask!), at least they should be able to give you some information and remote access to one.

[WhitePhantom]

I paid yesterday for a rig box that I ordered from them.  Estimated shipping time frame is 15 weeks.  If BitMinter works with the singles, it will probably work with the rig box when I get it.   

[rat]

can you make the bitminter client work with other mining pools. if no, why not?

you make a great miner.

i just think the pool sucks.

nothing personal towards you and your developers.

[DeathAndTaxes]

i just think the pool sucks.

LOLZ.  I am curious what exactly about the pool "sucks"?

[Turbor]

LOLZ.  I am curious what exactly about the pool "sucks"?

Da luck sucks !

[DrHaribo]

can you make the bitminter client work with other mining pools. if no, why not?

Yes, I can, and I will probably put in support for backup pools. I just have a lot on my slate, everything takes time.

you make a great miner.

Glad you like it.

i just think the pool sucks.

nothing personal towards you and your developers.

We are one and the same.

What do you think sucks about the pool?

We get 20 new users every day, but hardly any of them stay. I'm assuming variance is the problem. But I'd love to hear about anything that could be improved. After almost a year of intense work this is still one of the smallest pools. I'm open to the idea that I may be "doing it wrong" in some fashion.

[conspirosphere.tk]

What do you think sucks about the pool?

We get 20 new users every day, but hardly any of them stay. I'm assuming variance is the problem. But I'd love to hear about anything that could be improved. After almost a year of intense work this is still one of the smallest pools. I'm open to the idea that I may be "doing it wrong" in some fashion.

Nothing. It is just a tiny pool, that is why is unlucky more often than not (I already explained my theory here), and that is why it remains tiny. And that is why I suggest to merge it with other 0-fee tiny pools, or alternatively just point its hash rate to GPUMax or some other buyer in order to get a stable, above average income. How about it? Technical difficulties or else?