[ANN][SRC] Securecoin | A Fast and Secure Version of Bitcoin | 2013

[murraypaul]

EDIT: Just thought I would add, that on coinex I was withdrawing around 20-21 src per day, and before Crytpo-Expert went down, my auto withdraws were 20-21 per day also.

That seems broadly in line with about 1Mh/s-1.25Mh/s, or a little bit more?
I've been getting a bit less than 5 SRC a day with about 240kh/s [on coinmine]

[iGotSpots]

well said and i have also said what i am running and whee i go from a MILLION times
and i don't see the usual jerks that troll on me constantly posting those quotes.
ill give you a hint i mentioned it already 3 comments up..

and to that other guy YES i was the only guy on Ahmeds pool by myself and i found the last block and i can prove it too !

Don;t you god damn dare accuse me of cheating ..i have been 100% open and honest about every micro aspect of it all
and you guys bitching here know that because i remeber telling you all this far too many times
yet Eliot for example keeps thinking no matter what i tell him i created some magical cheating client .....and he wants it and keeps asking for it
while attacking me at the same time and now coming here and pulling this carp while still begging.

Spots a troll so no need to explain that.. master of childish insults lol

But i expect better from you Eliot.. your just trolling on me here and trying to make me look bad based on nothing
and i have offered you the source code so screw you ..don't accuse me of anything

oh and also gave it to 2many28s and the pool operator Ahmed so if there was anything dishonest they would know.

the key issue is there are different versions pre-built some with source code and so with none and some of them are WAY faster than others
and i have said this sooooo many times i'm getting tired off it.. you wanna accuse anyone of anything you picked the wrong guy..
you should be picking on Neisklar and UncleBob (Github names)
all their own comments and files etc are available freely over at the QRK ANN topic so don't crucify me because people are too lazy to go read it..

edit:
Eliot didn't you tell me you were making like 60 coins a day or something ?
i make maybe 10 if i'm lucky.. real lucky
and i have made all time maybe 350 coins
so please go ahead and tell everyone how many you made lol

have you considered testing these miners on testnet? or your own blockchain? testing experimental miners on live pools doesnt strike me as a great idea.

LOL like spoetnik knows how to testnet

[2many820s]

EDIT: Just thought I would add, that on coinex I was withdrawing around 20-21 src per day, and before Crytpo-Expert went down, my auto withdraws were 20-21 per day also.

That seems broadly in line with about 1Mh/s-1.25Mh/s, or a little bit more?
I've been getting a bit less than 5 SRC a day with about 240kh/s

Depends on the difficulty and pool luck, since coinmine.pl gets all the blocks anyway, But that is about what I report locally on the machines I had on coinex or what I ran on crypto-expert full time. The bigger xeon rigs I only run full power for 8 hours a night since they are power hungry and my electricity is free from 10pm to 6am.

[kyher]

When Veget was mining with swiftshoot and one or two other miners Veget was getting 3.5 SRC/block found (with 2.5 Mh/s). When 2many280s and Spoetnik came in Veget was earning 0.6 SRC/block found. Meanwhile the total number of block found by the pool (mostly by Veget) was not increased like it should have. The difference (2.9 SRC per block) was like absorbed by users 2many280s and Spoetnik because of the distribution of the SRC pool stock to the different miners proportionally to their purported hashrate. As their hashrate are much higher than anybody else they effectively take most of the profits of the blocks founds by the other miners for themselves. If they would have found the correct number of block they should have with their hashrate it would have increased total pool supply of SRC and I would not be complaining needless to say.

2many280s: I acknowledge you found blocks at the crypto-expert pool for this I have no explanation... But on coinex you did not found the huge amount of blocks that you should have for your hashrate that is for sure.

I am no coder nor cryptanalyst I cannot help more.

EDIT: Just thought I would add, that on coinex I was withdrawing around 20-21 src per day, and before Crytpo-Expert went down, my auto withdraws were 20-21 per day also.

That seems broadly in line with about 1Mh/s-1.25Mh/s, or a little bit more?
I've been getting a bit less than 5 SRC a day with about 240kh/s

[2many820s]

2many280s: I acknowledge you found blocks at the crypto-expert pool for this I have no explanation... But on coinex you did not found the huge amount of blocks that you should have for your hashrate that is for sure.

I am no coder nor cryptanalyst I cannot help more.

I agree, I did find some blocks, but not as many as Veget and my local hashrate stats were pretty much matching his pool reported stats most of the time, although the pool would report me as being 2-5x as much as him. I'm not a coder either(or haven't done any in 20 years), so I don't have an answer as to why that is either. Seems to be an issue on all qrk/src pools though, none are reporting hashrate proper, and even the smallest guy on the pools will find several blocks in a row sometimes. Doesn't make much sense to me either really =) I just have the hardware to help test.

[Eli0t]

edit:
Eliot didn't you tell me you were making like 60 coins a day or something ?
i make maybe 10 if i'm lucky.. real lucky
and i have made all time maybe 350 coins
so please go ahead and tell everyone how many you made lol

around 25 a day but thats irrelevant

[Spoetnik]

Eliot i done with with you.. and stop asking for my magical cheating client AND bitching about me please..

and before you guys crucify me how about we get the other guys finding blocks over here and ask them what the hell THEY are using ?

If it is saying i am doing 5 Mega hashes a second at CoinEX and i am actually doing 220 on my miner then how slow is those other guys going ?

how on earth does some guy mining that slowly get blocks that much ?

all i know is that pool has massive issues and no way to see any stats basically and it times-out a lot and i have seen people report this that are not using my miner..

i notice after this topic drama i was penalized on the pool and went from getting 1.x amount of coins to 0.6 doing under the same circumstances
so i am fairly sure simply out of paranoia and a couple people that don't like me got me screwed over.. congrats Trolls lol

Andi love all the expert analysis by people who know nothing what so ever about coding and have not looked at the miner source code
and when it was offered refused and yet i am penalized flamed and trolled etc.

want to analyze ? what ? that picture ? going to ask me what i was running ? or guess ? lol gimme a break
i have dissected all code bases and built them all so yeah i think i'd know if i was cheating the damn pool.

sorry but you guys are being REALLY dumb.. and screw CoinEX i know damn well they did something, so i won't go back there ever.

[murraypaul]

2many280s: I acknowledge you found blocks at the crypto-expert pool for this I have no explanation... But on coinex you did not found the huge amount of blocks that you should have for your hashrate that is for sure.

I am no coder nor cryptanalyst I cannot help more.

I agree, I did find some blocks, but not as many as Veget and my local hashrate stats were pretty much matching his pool reported stats most of the time, although the pool would report me as being 2-5x as much as him. I'm not a coder either(or haven't done any in 20 years), so I don't have an answer as to why that is either. Seems to be an issue on all qrk/src pools though, none are reporting hashrate proper, and even the smallest guy on the pools will find several blocks in a row sometimes. Doesn't make much sense to me either really =) I just have the hardware to help test.

I suspect I have worked out why, or at least I have reproduced the problem.
The coinmine pool asks for diff 512 shares. (0.0078125)
The coinex pool asks for diff 16 shares.
However, there is a built-in throttle in the quark miner which prevents it from submitting shares at < diff 256.
If this throttle is removed, you will be able to submit significantly more shares than with it present, but those shares are guaranteed not to be able to find a block, as they are known to be less than diff 256.
 
This explains all the observed behaviour:
a) Local hashrate does not change, you are not generating any more hashes, just submitting lower difficulty ones that were previously thrown away
b) Pool hashrate does change, as you are submitting many more shares
c) Found blocks do not increase, as these extra shares are guaranteed not to be able to find any blocks, as we know they are less than diff 256
d) Incoming from pool does increase, as your sharerate is much much higher than any other user's, so you 'steal' block reward from them

The solution is for the CoinEx pool operator to increase the pool difficulty to at least 256, which will prevent the modified client submitting shares that the original clients will not.

Edit: As a very brief test, I ran my modified client against the CoinEx pool, and my local hashrate of ~240Kh/s shows up as ~2.6Mh/s and made my lowly laptop briefly the highest hashrate on the pool. I expect that if left to run long enough, it would settle down to 3.84Mh/s, minus what is lost to rejects.

[murraypaul]

i have dissected all code bases and built them all so yeah i think i'd know if i was cheating the damn pool.

sorry but you guys are being REALLY dumb.. and screw CoinEX i know damn well they did something, so i won't go back there ever.

You are cheating the pool. (Although it is the pool's fault for allowing itself to be cheated)
You are submitting lower diff shares than any other pool user, thus getting more reward but not solving any more blocks.

[ahmed_bodi]

i've been away from this thread but ill give my input. the possability of my code being somehow different to coinex is absurd. we both share the same pushpool code. Proof i hear you ask? check github.com/ahmedbodi the repo is called pushpool and the branch is called securecoin. You will see erundook pushed a compiling fix to my code so he can use it. There is 0 difference between either code. Secondly. i gave spoetnik permission to use the miner on my pool and afaik he isnt submitting shares any lower than anyone. Thirdly give me a day or 2 to finish my coding of stratum and i will release the code spoetnik sent me after inspecting it. So these rants should be stopped. As simple as that

[ahmed_bodi]

i have dissected all code bases and built them all so yeah i think i'd know if i was cheating the damn pool.

sorry but you guys are being REALLY dumb.. and screw CoinEX i know damn well they did something, so i won't go back there ever.

You are cheating the pool. (Although it is the pool's fault for allowing itself to be cheated)
You are submitting lower diff shares than any other pool user, thus getting more reward but not solving any more blocks.

Just to point out. the block stats page on my pool proves he is finding blocks which just goes to show youre argument doesnt match: http://src.crypto-expert.com/

And here is the reason why the pools show the wrong hashrate. it is a fault in the quarkcoin/securecoin code. Basically the way difficulty/hashrates are calculated there mean they are not equivelent to the btc/ltc equivelent difficulty. To obtain the correct hashrate for miners the difficulty must be / by 256 which should bring up the actual hashrate of the miners. Now that is the different between my and erundook and feeleep's pool.

[murraypaul]

i've been away from this thread but ill give my input. the possability of my code being somehow different to coinex is absurd. we both share the same pushpool code. Proof i hear you ask? check github.com/ahmedbodi the repo is called pushpool and the branch is called securecoin. You will see erundook pushed a compiling fix to my code so he can use it. There is 0 difference between either code. Secondly. i gave spoetnik permission to use the miner on my pool and afaik he isnt submitting shares any lower than anyone. Thirdly give me a day or 2 to finish my coding of stratum and i will release the code spoetnik sent me after inspecting it. So these rants should be stopped. As simple as that

You are right, your pool has the same problem as CoinEx.
The coinmine pool does not.
[Edit: There is nothing wrong with the pool coding, it is just that almost all users are using a miner which will never submit shares lower than 256 diff. So if the pool sets a diff lower than that, it allows people to 'cheat', by submitting shares that everyone else has agreed not to.]

Your pool accepts shares with target starting: 0000FFFF
The cpu-miner program is hard-coded, by default when generating quark hashes, not to submit shares with target starting worst than 000000FF.
By removing that hard-coding, your pool will accept extra shares, which cannot solve blocks, and which would never be submitted by users with the standard miner.

Here is 1 minute of mining on your pool with the limit in place:

$ ./minerd.exe -R 5 -t 1 -a quark -o http://stratum.crypto-expert.com:7103 -u murraypaul.1 -p x
[2013-09-26 12:37:06] 1 miner threads started, using 'quark' algorithm.
[2013-09-26 12:37:06] Long-polling activated for http://stratum.crypto-expert.com:7103/LP
[2013-09-26 12:37:32] thread 0: 2097152 hashes, 81.64 khash/s
[2013-09-26 12:38:06] thread 0: 2775688 hashes, 81.99 khash/s

Here is 1 minute of mining on your pool with the limit removed:

$ ./minerd.exe -R 5 -t 1 -a quark -o http://stratum.crypto-expert.com:7103 -u murraypaul.1 -p x
[2013-09-26 12:35:13] 1 miner threads started, using 'quark' algorithm.
[2013-09-26 12:35:14] Long-polling activated for http://stratum.crypto-expert.com:7103/LP
[2013-09-26 12:35:20] thread 0: 491362 hashes, 82.47 khash/s
[2013-09-26 12:35:20] accepted: 1/1 (100.00%), 82.47 khash/s (yay!!!)
[2013-09-26 12:35:26] thread 0: 522738 hashes, 82.03 khash/s
[2013-09-26 12:35:26] accepted: 2/2 (100.00%), 82.03 khash/s (yay!!!)
[2013-09-26 12:35:33] thread 0: 530008 hashes, 83.75 khash/s
[2013-09-26 12:35:33] accepted: 3/3 (100.00%), 83.75 khash/s (yay!!!)
[2013-09-26 12:35:37] thread 0: 375004 hashes, 78.27 khash/s
[2013-09-26 12:35:38] accepted: 4/4 (100.00%), 78.27 khash/s (yay!!!)
[2013-09-26 12:35:38] thread 0: 66187 hashes, 82.94 khash/s
[2013-09-26 12:35:38] accepted: 5/5 (100.00%), 82.94 khash/s (yay!!!)
[2013-09-26 12:35:49] thread 0: 897888 hashes, 79.09 khash/s
[2013-09-26 12:35:50] accepted: 6/6 (100.00%), 79.09 khash/s (yay!!!)
[2013-09-26 12:36:09] LONGPOLL detected new block
[2013-09-26 12:36:09] thread 0: 1656698 hashes, 83.30 khash/s
[2013-09-26 12:36:11] thread 0: 139319 hashes, 81.80 khash/s
[2013-09-26 12:36:11] accepted: 7/7 (100.00%), 81.80 khash/s (yay!!!)


Same hashrate, and no shares accepts vs 7 shares accepted.
If you think 1 minute is too short a sample period, I can run for as long as you like to demonstrate that the results are reproducible.

[murraypaul]

i have dissected all code bases and built them all so yeah i think i'd know if i was cheating the damn pool.

sorry but you guys are being REALLY dumb.. and screw CoinEX i know damn well they did something, so i won't go back there ever.

You are cheating the pool. (Although it is the pool's fault for allowing itself to be cheated)
You are submitting lower diff shares than any other pool user, thus getting more reward but not solving any more blocks.

Just to point out. the block stats page on my pool proves he is finding blocks which just goes to show youre argument doesnt match: http://src.crypto-expert.com/

And at what rate is he finding blocks?
One that matches his local hashrate, not the pool hashrate, is my guess.

And here is the reason why the pools show the wrong hashrate. it is a fault in the quarkcoin/securecoin code. Basically the way difficulty/hashrates are calculated there mean they are not equivelent to the btc/ltc equivelent difficulty. To obtain the correct hashrate for miners the difficulty must be / by 256 which should bring up the actual hashrate of the miners. Now that is the different between my and erundook and feeleep's pool.

As I have shown in my earlier post, if I use the standard miner, the pool hashrate matches my local hashrate.
If I use my modified miner, the pool hashrate is many times higher than my local hashrate.
This isn't because of a fault in the coin code, it is because I am submitting many more shares than people with the standard client.
Change your pool difficulty to >= 256, and this effect will go away.

If I am wrong, then setting diff to 512, to match coinmine, will have no effect.
If I am right, it will massively reduce the reported hashrate of users using a modified client, and not change the hashrate of users using the standard one.

[ahmed_bodi]

^okay i cant argue with that but even still you're wrong a higher diff wont solve anything its the minimum target diff which will need to be changed

[murraypaul]

Yes, that is what I mean.
Try a target of 512/65536 = 0.0078125
(Gives target hash of 0000007fff800000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000)

[ahmed_bodi]

you dont understand how the pool code works so lets just leave it at that. youre last post is completely irrelevent since thats the share diff not the target diff

[murraypaul]

I may well be using the wrong terms, but I think I have clearly demonstrated:
a) That a problem exists
b) Why the problem exists
c) How to solve the problem

Your pool accepts shares that meet a lower target than coinmine does.
Your pool accepts shares that meet a target that the standard quark minerd would never submit, as there is a hardcoded lower limit in it.
By removing that limit, I can have your pool accept shares from me that most users would never have submitted.
Those shares will never solve a block, as they are of a very low score (otherwise they would have been submitted by the normal client).
Therefore I get credited with many more shares submitted than normal users, despite not solving any more blocks than normal users.

[ahmed_bodi]

you definitly havent demonstrated how to solve the problem. It has 0 to do with the terms

Here is the demonstration of the code : https://forum.litecoin.net/index.php?topic=4002.0

I dont think i can fix it in pushpool and im not willing to fix pushpool. My time would be much better spent completing the coding of stratum which ill share with erundook when im finished

[murraypaul]

You currently accept shares against this target:
Target: 00000fffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffff
If instead you accepted shares against this target:
Target: 0000007fff800000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
(Or anything starting with six 0s rather than 5)
The problem would go away.
This is because of the following check in the quark miner code:
        if ( ((hash64[7]&0xFFFFFF00)==0) && fulltest(hash64, ptarget)) {
            *hashes_done = n - first_nonce + 1 - skipped;
         return true;
   }
The standard miner will never submit shares with a hash of less than six starting zeros.

The shares being submitted are completely valid, it is just that the standard miner would never submit them.

[ahmed_bodi]

^there is no problem if the hashes are valid and they are submitted. Spoetnik isnt the only one who's stated that. MeshGreed who created another miner stated the same. He recieved a 75% speed increase on my pool with his miner so i dont believe theres much wrong?