[DEAD] DeepBit.net PPS+Prop,instant payouts, we pay for INVALID BLOCKS too

[Nick13ro]

Hey. I'm new here. It says "Balance is updated once per hour" but I've been at it for several hours and no update. What gives ?

EDIT: It seems a block wasn't found in quite a bit. I assume that must be the reason. :|

[LordZer]

Hi, I'm a new bitcoin user and joining your pool with my (not so) hefty ~890 kh/s (peak). I have question/suggestion for you: would it not make more sense for the payments on the Payments page to be in reverse chronological sequence, with the most recent at the top and oldest at the bottom?

Yes, it may be better that way.

It would to me. As for the "Your part in the pool's current speed" measure, I've only ever seen it read 0%, diverging occasionally/briefly to some impossibly high value. Same for "average speed in last 7 minutes" actually. To me, those could both be removed because they seem useless and uninformative.

"average speed in last 7 minutes" or luck meter works for fast miners. I'll add time window adjustment for it to work with CPU miners too.

That sounds great. Feel free to donate btw. System upgrades aren't cheap. :S

Oh wow that was quick! The sequence in the payments window is already changed. I think I'm going to like this pool.

BTW if you are CPU mining, try playing with the different algorithm settings. I found with the quad core i can get 1.2mh/s/core with cryptopp_asm32 and only 880kh/s/core with 4 way or c.....

[xenon481]

BTW if you are CPU mining, try playing with the different algorithm settings. I found with the quad core i can get 1.2mh/s/core with cryptopp_asm32 and only 880kh/s/core with 4 way or c.....

Ufasoft's SSE2 CPU Miner gets me about 2.5MHash/s per core on a 2.2ghz Core2 Duo. ~5MHash/sec total.

[jgarzik]

Ufasoft's SSE2 CPU Miner gets me about 2.5MHash/s per core on a 2.2ghz Core2 Duo. ~5MHash/sec total.

Same with cpuminer's "sse2_64" algorithm.

[jkminkov]

Ufasoft's SSE2 CPU Miner gets me about 2.5MHash/s per core on a 2.2ghz Core2 Duo. ~5MHash/sec total.

Same with cpuminer's "sse2_64" algorithm.

well I can only run it with those algorithms(showing on help screen)

c, 4way, cryptopp, cryptopp_asm32

and it's not fast enough

win xp 32bit, intel E7200* and Q6600

* - 1,4Mhash/s

[Tolkien]

I'm using puddinpop's cpu miner (only one CPU at home, 2 at work). How do I change algorithms? Which CPU miner would you say is best?

[jgarzik]

cpuminer's sse2_64 should be the fastest, but it only works on 64-bit Linux (sse2_64 is a port of ufasoft's code).

ufasoft's miner works on Windows.

puddinpop's stuff can do CPU mining, but is slower than cpuminer or ufasoft.

[jkminkov]

Tycho, why you waste money on google adwords, give'em to me

cpuminer's sse2_64 should be the fastest, but it only works on 64-bit Linux (sse2_64 is a port of ufasoft's code).

ufasoft's miner works on Windows.

puddinpop's stuff can do CPU mining, but is slower than cpuminer or ufasoft.

how about borrowing the code I wanted long pool cpu miner before summer comes

[jgarzik]

I wanted long pool cpu miner before summer comes

cpuminer already supports long polling.

[jkminkov]

yes, but it's 1,4Mhash/s w/ LP vs. 3,8Mhash/s w/o LP on one core E7200@3,16Mhz

[jgarzik]

yes, but it's 1,4Mhash/s w/ LP vs. 3,8Mhash/s w/o LP on one core E7200@3,16Mhz

I think you've got a configuration problem, because nobody else is reporting such bizarre behavior   Maybe you could head over to the cpuminer thread and provide technical details sufficient for a bug report?

[marcus_of_augustus]

Can you explain further what do you mean ?
You want a list of all users, their submitted shares and found blocks ? But it would be the same as existing statistics page.

No, the statistics page only has the total shares that the pool found for each block. I would like running totals since forever.

If we had table with breakdown as follows;

User  |   Total Shares  Submitted  |  Total Blocks Found
----------------------------------------------------------------------
user1                1048576                                20
user2                    32768                                15
.
.
.

userN                  2                                          0

You could put a fourth column with ratio of total_shares_submitted:total_blocks_found if you like but that would be gravy.

Any thoughts on this [TYCHO], yes, no maybe?

More transparency and information is always good for building confidence, right?

[[Tycho]]

No, the statistics page only has the total shares that the pool found for each block. I would like running totals since forever.
If we had table with breakdown as follows;

User  |   Total Shares  Submitted  |  Total Blocks Found
----------------------------------------------------------------------
user1                1048576                                20
user2                    32768                                15

You could put a fourth column with ratio of total_shares_submitted:total_blocks_found if you like but that would be gravy.
Any thoughts on this [TYCHO], yes, no maybe?
More transparency and information is always good for building confidence, right?

Actually at this moment i'm not keeping information about who solved the block because it doesn't matters for anything except curiosity.
And i have more than a 1000 of users, this would be a really long list. You want this to check if it's better to mine in pool or solo ?

I'm planning to add info about average number of shares per block in the last 24 hours, which should be almost the same and useful for checking statistics.
What's the point of breaking it into separate users if you don't know who is who anyway ?

[marcus_of_augustus]

No, the statistics page only has the total shares that the pool found for each block. I would like running totals since forever.
If we had table with breakdown as follows;

User  |   Total Shares  Submitted  |  Total Blocks Found
----------------------------------------------------------------------
user1                1048576                                20
user2                    32768                                15

You could put a fourth column with ratio of total_shares_submitted:total_blocks_found if you like but that would be gravy.
Any thoughts on this [TYCHO], yes, no maybe?
More transparency and information is always good for building confidence, right?

Actually at this moment i'm not keeping information about who solved the block because it doesn't matters for anything except curiosity.
And i have more than a 1000 of users, this would be a really long list. You want this to check if it's better to mine in pool or solo ?

I'm planning to add info about average number of shares per block in the last 24 hours, which should be almost the same and useful for checking statistics.
What's the point of breaking it into separate users if you don't know who is who anyway ?

It is the only way you will truly know if everyone is mining honestly.

EDIT: there is an element of curiosity to know distribution of luck also ...

[[Tycho]]

It is the only way you will truly know if everyone is mining honestly.

I have other ways to check this; I'm prepared since i expected someone to implement Raulo's attack :)
And if they will do it with sufficient speed, i'll notice it.

[Tolkien]

cpuminer's sse2_64 should be the fastest, but it only works on 64-bit Linux (sse2_64 is a port of ufasoft's code).

ufasoft's miner works on Windows.

puddinpop's stuff can do CPU mining, but is slower than cpuminer or ufasoft.

Thanks for the reply! I've tried ufasoft's and it is indeed faster.. I'm running an AMD64 3200+ with Windows XP SP3 32-bit (1 CPU) and 2GBs RAM. With only the miner running I seem to peak at 933 kh/s whereas with puddinpop's I peak at 888 kh/s. Is this really the best I can get or can I get better?
The command line I used is:

bitcoin-miner.exe -a 5 -v -g no -t 1 -o "http://deepbit.net:8332/" -u X@X.X -p XXXX

Thanks.

[urizane]

As far as CPU mining goes, you're not going to get much out of it.  You should consider a GPU.  Well, if you insist on CPU mining and this is your own personal machine, you have one possible option.  If you've got Socket 939, you might be able to find a Socket 939 Althlon X2 somewhere.  If it'll cost you more than $120 though, don't bother.

[Ian]

One thing that I'd find useful is extending the worker's table under "My Account" to display hash/s for the past 30m/24h/all time.  Since I've got this all running on a separate box I find it's much easier to visit your site to check on my miners than to get to the miners directly, and if I'm not at home it's the only way that I can check on them.  Turning the worker red when it hasn't received a share in 30m is useful, but only detects complete failures, it doesn't detect misconfiguration (e.g. I forgot to overclock a card or accidentally ran two miners on a single GPU).  To keep things clean you could probably remove the password and reward columns since they only change when the user changes them.

Great job with the site/pool so far though, definitely worth the 3% it for all of the benefits it brings.

[VastLite]

As has been stated numerous times, CPU mining really is not profitable at this point in Bitcoin. You will most likely spend more on electricity than you will make mining.

A suggestion for anyone with an office computer with an available pci-e slot:

http://www.google.com/products/catalog?q=sapphire+5670&hl=en&biw=1016&bih=935&prmd=ivns&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.&um=1&ie=UTF-8&cid=1275012490375071464&sa=X&ei=vfuTTYiuHo6ksQOPmtjDBQ&ved=0CGcQ8wIwBQ#

The 5670 will get you about 75MH/s or so and does not need external power, meaning you can probably use the generic power supply that comes with just about any computer. Depending on shipping, it costs about $80 USD which is a much more sound investment, in my opinion, than finding a better CPU for an older motherboard.

At Pay per share of 0.0006/share, given that 1MH/s equates to about 1 share an hour, that's about 75 shares an hour (1800 shares/day), which is 1.08 BTC/day. You can recoup your costs in a little over two months if nothing changes.

If I'm not mistaken, the difficulty has gone down a bit recently, from 75k to 60-something (sorry I'm only back mining these last few days.) I think when I started it was 55k, and people were saying how insane the jump had been in the preceding two weeks. I think once the whole Slashdot effect wares off (if it hasn't already) the difficulty should at least be more stable than the jump that occurred during that influx.

Anyway, the suggestion is just my opinion. I know there are numerous projects for CPU mining, I just don't think anyone with less than a multi-socket setup will see any tangible return, and if anything, they will see a large power bill, which will only increase once summer gets here, when running the A/C doubles the price paid per kW/h of any heat-generating appliance.

[[Tycho]]

One thing that I'd find useful is extending the worker's table under "My Account" to display hash/s for the past 30m/24h/all time.  Since I've got this all running on a separate box I find it's much easier to visit your site to check on my miners than to get to the miners directly, and if I'm not at home it's the only way that I can check on them.  Turning the worker red when it hasn't received a share in 30m is useful, but only detects complete failures, it doesn't detect misconfiguration (e.g. I forgot to overclock a card or accidentally ran two miners on a single GPU).  To keep things clean you could probably remove the password and reward columns since they only change when the user changes them.

Yes, that would be useful. But you must remember that luck meter can't be really accurate on time intervals shorter than some hours.
I'm thinking about removing the right gray column (which was intended to contain nice drawing) to make more room for tables.
30 min. interval for turning red will be definitely user-configurable (i'm currently adding a new "settings" page), and i may add option to mark it with some other ill color when it's speed falls below defined threshold.

Great job with the site/pool so far though, definitely worth the 3% it for all of the benefits it brings.

Thanks :) I'm trying to do my best.
Actually 3% fee is almost lower than some other pools ask.