|
|
|
|
|
In order to get the maximum amount of activity points possible, you just need to post once per day on average. Skipping days is OK as long as you maintain the average.
|
|
|
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction.
|
|
|
|
|
|
shads (OP)
|
 |
October 28, 2011, 11:15:54 PM |
|
use the link in the above post
|
|
|
|
|
DavinciJ15
|
|
October 29, 2011, 06:38:05 PM |
|
use the link in the above post
What ever you did it looks good so far I only see the correct partial-stale, no stales no unknown-work. I will let it run until there is a double LP. |
|
|
|
|
jamesg
VIP
Legendary
 Offline
Activity: 1358
Merit: 1000
AKA: gigavps
|
|
October 29, 2011, 06:58:13 PM |
|
use the link in the above post
What ever you did it looks good so far I only see the correct partial-stale, no stales no unknown-work. I will let it run until there is a double LP. I second that. On http://yourbtc.net I have 70 stales out of 150,000 shares or .04%. Incredible.  |
|
|
|
|
|
urstroyer
|
|
October 30, 2011, 03:55:08 PM |
|
@DavinciJ15: Are you running 0.09 right now? I run into a 1 million share nmc round and just wondering if you already succeeded in finding a block with this version?
Thanks for help, bro!
|
|
|
|
|
DavinciJ15
|
|
October 30, 2011, 05:04:30 PM |
|
@DavinciJ15: Are you running 0.09 right now? I run into a 1 million share nmc round and just wondering if you already succeeded in finding a block with this version?
Thanks for help, bro!
No I am not running it right now but just about to set a server with it installed. Msg shadders with your properties file and see if he can see anything wrong. I hope it's just a settings issue cuz I'm going to turn off push to upstream. |
|
|
|
|
|
urstroyer
|
|
October 30, 2011, 05:17:34 PM |
|
@DavinciJ15: Are you running 0.09 right now? I run into a 1 million share nmc round and just wondering if you already succeeded in finding a block with this version?
Thanks for help, bro!
No I am not running it right now but just about to set a server with it installed. Msg shadders with your properties file and see if he can see anything wrong. I hope it's just a settings issue cuz I'm going to turn off push to upstream. We already talked about it, couldn't find any unusual. I seems to be just bad luck or variance. PSJ is running smooth like always! |
|
|
|
|
DavinciJ15
|
|
October 30, 2011, 10:16:05 PM |
|
@DavinciJ15: Are you running 0.09 right now? I run into a 1 million share nmc round and just wondering if you already succeeded in finding a block with this version?
Thanks for help, bro!
No I am not running it right now but just about to set a server with it installed. Msg shadders with your properties file and see if he can see anything wrong. I hope it's just a settings issue cuz I'm going to turn off push to upstream. We already talked about it, couldn't find any unusual. I seems to be just bad luck or variance. PSJ is running smooth like always! The only other tip I can give you is that I have noticed luck improves if you have the right work cache and timeout as it will take work that never gets done. |
|
|
|
|
|
shads (OP)
|
|
October 30, 2011, 11:52:33 PM |
|
Urstroyer I came across something last night that seemed a bit odd and Davinci's suggestion that your cache size might be too high could be on the money.
Somehow, I don't know when, the code that checks work age in cache has dissappeared. When retrieving work from the cache it's supposed get retrieving and discarding until it finds one that's no expired. That wasn't happening. So this will only happen if your work cache size is quite large but you could have been passing out work that was so old the namecoin network was rejecting it. It's just a guess.
In any case I've made a fix for the problem and released .10 on the website now.
As a backup could you do an sql dump of your solutions this round and send to me via email. I'll run a script over them and check if any meet difficulty for either chain which should tell us if there's a problem detecting them or not.
|
|
|
|
|
Keninishna
|
|
October 31, 2011, 10:07:45 AM |
|
would this bug affect normal poolserverj?
|
|
|
|
|
|
shads (OP)
|
|
October 31, 2011, 10:43:08 AM |
|
would this bug affect normal poolserverj?
if you mean the pre mm versions (0.3.0.FINAL) then no. If the problem even exists it's only in mm edition and probably only in the last couple of versions. |
|
|
|
|
shads (OP)
|
|
October 31, 2011, 12:15:45 PM |
|
would this bug affect normal poolserverj?
Turns out this bug doesn't actually exist *sigh of relief*... the pool in question was just having a looooong streak of bad luck. |
|
|
|
|
DavinciJ15
|
|
October 31, 2011, 01:34:13 PM |
|
would this bug affect normal poolserverj?
Turns out this bug doesn't actually exist *sigh of relief*... the pool in question was just having a looooong streak of bad luck. PSJ takes work from the upstream and makes sure it's not duplicate work to put in it's cache right? So, if that work expires and new work is requested would that not mean it wasted valid work that a miner could have found POW? I understand that transactions could be occurring frequently and could be added into new work for a solution but I would think this would be harder on the miners to find a solution. Just a guess. |
|
|
|
|
jamesg
VIP
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1358
Merit: 1000
AKA: gigavps
|
|
November 01, 2011, 06:33:20 PM |
|
I'm not quite sure what shads did, but here is proof that psj is by far the best pool server.  For the quick math impaired, that a total of 129,601 shares submitted with 2 stales. Unbelievable!!  I am donating all of my "world's best rig builder" winnings to psj. |
|
|
|
|
|
DavinciJ15
|
|
November 01, 2011, 07:25:47 PM |
|
I'm not quite sure what shads did, but here is proof that psj is by far the best pool server. For the quick math impaired, that a total of 129,601 shares submitted with 2 stales. Unbelievable!! I am donating all of my "world's best rig builder" winnings to psj. Yep no one tops Shadders! He is a kick ass developer. |
|
|
|
|
teukon
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1246
Merit: 1004
|
|
November 04, 2011, 12:14:28 PM |
|
Hi,
Just a simple question about when a Bitcoin block and Namecoin block are found simultaneously.
My original intuition was that a hash for a merged mining header which Generated a Bitcoin block would also be able to generate a Namecoin block due because the difficulty of Namecoin was lower than that of Bitcoin.
I was later told that this was in fact false. While merged mining it is quite possible to find a Bitcoin block without a Namecoin block and that dual Bitcoin-Namecoin blocks, while possible, were relatively rare.
However, since urstroyer set up PoolServerJ for yourbtc.net all of the Bitcoin blocks (4 now) have come at the same time as Namecoin blocks.
Can anyone explain this? Does PoolServerJ somehow do something clever with the header to guarantee that Bitcoin blocks always come with Namecoin blocks? Is this just coincidence?
|
|
|
|
|
jamesg
VIP
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1358
Merit: 1000
AKA: gigavps
|
|
November 04, 2011, 12:19:10 PM |
|
Hi,
Just a simple question about when a Bitcoin block and Namecoin block are found simultaneously.
My original intuition was that a hash for a merged mining header which Generated a Bitcoin block would also be able to generate a Namecoin block due because the difficulty of Namecoin was lower than that of Bitcoin.
I was later told that this was in fact false. While merged mining it is quite possible to find a Bitcoin block without a Namecoin block and that dual Bitcoin-Namecoin blocks, while possible, were relatively rare.
However, since urstroyer set up PoolServerJ for yourbtc.net all of the Bitcoin blocks (4 now) have come at the same time as Namecoin blocks.
Can anyone explain this? Does PoolServerJ somehow do something clever with the header to guarantee that Bitcoin blocks always come with Namecoin blocks? Is this just coincidence?
I think if you take a look at the yourbtc.net site, you'll see that the shares were not the same as the bitcoin share for this round are about 600 ahead of the namecoin round. I do find it quite interesting that we seem to find these blocks so close together though. |
|
|
|
|
|
shads (OP)
|
|
November 04, 2011, 12:29:40 PM |
|
A share that solves a block of difficulty n will always solve for all chains where difficulty is < n so your intuition is right so long as bitcoin difficulty remains higher.
The only instance where this might not occur would be where the miner is working on a work that is valid for only only the bitcoin block. This is how it can happen:
a namecoin block is found but difficulty was below bitcoin so no bitcoin block is found. All work previously issued is now no longer valid for namecoin but remains valid for bitcoin. So if a bitcoin block is found very soon after before miners have refreshed work then it may be stale for namecoin but valid for bitcoin.
Under normal circumstance this should be very rare. After a block is found LP should take less than a second or two to get the miners working on fresh work that is valid for both chains. So you'd have to have to find a namecoin block then a bitcoin block (from a different getwork) within 1-2 seconds.
In practice this can actually happen more often. cgminer ignores longpoll unless the prev_block_hash has changed. This will only change when you find a bitcoin block. So it will ignore longpolls that come straight after a namecoin-only block is found and continue working with old work. This can go on for anywhere up to a minute before it refreshes it's work. On average though call it 30 seconds. So if namecoin block is found then within 30 seconds a bitcoin/namecoind block is found by a cgminer then you might see a bitcoin only block on a mm pool.
|
|
|
|
|
urstroyer
|
|
November 04, 2011, 12:56:35 PM |
|
Hi,
Just a simple question about when a Bitcoin block and Namecoin block are found simultaneously.
My original intuition was that a hash for a merged mining header which Generated a Bitcoin block would also be able to generate a Namecoin block due because the difficulty of Namecoin was lower than that of Bitcoin.
I was later told that this was in fact false. While merged mining it is quite possible to find a Bitcoin block without a Namecoin block and that dual Bitcoin-Namecoin blocks, while possible, were relatively rare.
However, since urstroyer set up PoolServerJ for yourbtc.net all of the Bitcoin blocks (4 now) have come at the same time as Namecoin blocks.
Can anyone explain this? Does PoolServerJ somehow do something clever with the header to guarantee that Bitcoin blocks always come with Namecoin blocks? Is this just coincidence?
I think if you take a look at the yourbtc.net site, you'll see that the shares were not the same as the bitcoin share for this round are about 600 ahead of the namecoin round. I do find it quite interesting that we seem to find these blocks so close together though. In fact the total (valid + invalid) shares of btc and nmc rounds are the same if a "double block" has been found before and we are still hashing for new blocks. BTC share count on the website is 600 ahead because these are the valid shares. I will clarify on the pool website that these numbers are total shares - invalid shares. The reason why nmc invalid shares are currently higher is, that cgminer don't care about longpoll on new nmc network blocks as far as i understood. |
|
|
|
|
