[masterpool.eu] DISCONTINUED - shut down at the end of February

[nodemaster]

getting a javascript error on the dashboard:
Security error: attempted to read protected variable: open

using latest Opera on Windows 7

Thank you for that hint. Unfortunately I have no testing environment at hand. But I'll have a look into it. Would you mind testing if it is possible to (de)activate worker notifications in your dashboard? This is the ony JS which is only used on that page. This would help me figuring out the error.

[1714040897]

1714040897

[1714040897]

1714040897

[1714040897]

1714040897

[1714040897]

1714040897

[iopq]

getting a javascript error on the dashboard:
Security error: attempted to read protected variable: open

using latest Opera on Windows 7

Thank you for that hint. Unfortunately I have no testing environment at hand. But I'll have a look into it. Would you mind testing if it is possible to (de)activate worker notifications in your dashboard? This is the ony JS which is only used on that page. This would help me figuring out the error.

it works from time to time, so I can't replicate it right now

[slush]

Yeah, I guess I'll come up with something like slush implemented on his pool. It's really neat. Only allow connections from known users. But I'll do it later  

Unfortunately it works only for small-midsize attack. Largest DDoS which I had come with 2+ milion connections per second, which overloeded routers in server room, so there was nothing to filter on pool servers .

[Beta-coiner1]

New to the pool and was wondering under Merged mining how many shares equal an NMC and BTC ?

[Beta-coiner1]

^Thanks for that,my transactions have not updated at Masterpool for the past 6 hours or so and was trying to find out what the issue was as it seemed to be working alright earlier in the day.

[nodemaster]

^Thanks for that,my transactions have not updated at Masterpool for the past 6 hours or so and was trying to find out what the issue was as it seemed to be working alright earlier in the day.

From my point of view the pool is working without a problem. Please send me your user ID or username via PM. I'll have a look into it.

Edit: This is the last scheduled payout (last night): http://explorer.dot-bit.org/tx/67041. Of course you can always choose to do an instant payout (However payout fee will be 2 instead of 1%)

[Beta-coiner1]

From my point of view the pool is working without a problem. Please send me your user ID or username via PM. I'll have a look into it.

Edit: This is the last scheduled payout (last night): http://explorer.dot-bit.org/tx/67041. Of course you can always choose to do an instant payout (However payout fee will be 2 instead of 1%)

Alright sent you a PM.

It looks like the transactions for NMC are now there.

[Seraphim401]

Hey Nodemaster,
Do you think some large pool is secretly merged mining?
According to http://dot-bit.org/tools/nextDifficulty.php,the network is over 500 gH/s strong.

[bulanula]

Hey Nodemaster,
Do you think some large pool is secretly merged mining?
According to http://dot-bit.org/tools/nextDifficulty.php,the network is over 500 gH/s strong.

I would say something like that is happening I see too many solved blocks going by that don't show up on the stats page of the three pools I know doing the merged.

Deepbit is probably doing some merged mining. I just sense it. Or BTCguild etc.

Damn scammers !!! Who knows how long they have been doing it for as well etc.

[nodemaster]

Hey Nodemaster,
Do you think some large pool is secretly merged mining?
According to http://dot-bit.org/tools/nextDifficulty.php,the network is over 500 gH/s strong.

I would say something like that is happening I see too many solved blocks going by that don't show up on the stats page of the three pools I know doing the merged.

Deepbit is probably doing some merged mining. I just sense it. Or BTCguild etc.

Damn scammers !!! Who knows how long they have been doing it for as well etc.

I know of some pools who are trying to implement merged mining. However ATM there are some perfomance issues that even MasterPool suffers from at about 50GHash/s for which I have workarounds in place but it needs to be fixed permanently. Not to mention that MasterPool architecture was designed to deal with this splitted blockchains stuff from the beginning. Everybody is working right now lowering the foot print of merged mining. You have to understand that big pools optimized their complete architecture for mining one blockchain. Now they have an additional blockchain, merged mine proxy and additional calculations in their backend. It feels like hitting a concrete wall with a jet   The problem is you CAN'T simulate large load easily on testnet. Thus I guess some pools are turning it on occasionally in order to make sure merged mining optimizations are working properly turning it off if they gathered enough data to do the next optimization iteration. So please don't panic and wait a few days.

[DutchBrat]

It might be Eligius,

Maybe Luke got it up and running sooner than he thought

[slush]

I know of some pools who are trying to implement merged mining. However ATM there are some perfomance issues that even MasterPool suffers from at about 50GHash/s for which I have workarounds in place but it needs to be fixed permanently. Not to mention that MasterPool architecture was designed to deal with this splitted blockchains stuff from the beginning. Everybody is working right now lowering the foot print of merged mining. You have to understand that big pools optimized their complete architecture for mining one blockchain. Now they have an additional blockchain, merged mine proxy and additional calculations in their backend. It feels like hitting a concrete wall with a jet   The problem is you CAN'T simulate large load easily on testnet. Thus I guess some pools are turning it on occasionally in order to make sure merged mining optimizations are working properly turning it off if they gathered enough data to do the next optimization iteration. So please don't panic and wait a few days.

Nodemaster pointed that out very precisely. I want to dispel fears of any of you who's thinking that some big player is "stealing" coins for himself.

Yes, I'm testing merged mining on my pool with some backends. And no, I'm not going to "steal" those blocks for myself. But implementing MM on pretty big pool is really pain and I didn't want to announce it before I'll be sure it will work *somehow*. But after spending ages on weird bitcoind crashes using MM together with my custom performance patches, I'm starting to be pretty optimistic.

I need to finish GUI for NMC support, then I'll also start giving away all those mined blocks (already over 100 NMC block mined during my tests) back to pool users to spread Namecoins between people.

Btw first merged mined block ever was #148744 (BTC) == #19274 (NMC)

[ahitman]

Can you please put the BTC share count into your api? Thanks.
Other than that everything including merged mining is working great.

Thanks, found it.

[nodemaster]

Can you please put the BTC share count into your api? Thanks.
Other than that everything including merged mining is working great.

Maybe you missed the announcement on dot-bit.org some time ago? JSON Stats moved to: https://www.masterpool.eu/jsonstats and includes BTC stats. /api is obsolete and will be removed in future. Have a look here for description: https://www.masterpool.eu/faq

[Seraphim401]

Thanks for changing the userbar code Nodemaster!

[nodemaster]

Thanks for changing the userbar code Nodemaster!

MasterPool at your service, Sir! 

[m3ta]

@Nodemaster:

Considering that most of your top10 contributors are hoppers, does that mean Masterpool condones it?

[nodemaster]

@Nodemaster:

Considering that most of your top10 contributors are hoppers, does that mean Masterpool condones it?

No, it's not condoned (as this would imply that a customary right might be derived in future). At the moment however it's a fact that it's technically possible to hop pools with MasterPool. Furthermore I have no bullet proof possibility to know for sure if someone is pool hopping or if it is coincidence (however there is a strong evidence that some miners are doing it). But as long as I have no possibility to proof someone is pool hopping it wouldn't make sense to prohibit it. For that reason it is tolerated at the moment, as long as it happens in an acceptable manner (acceptable in terms of not disturbing the pools performance).

My current focus is on having a bunch of merge mined BTC being verified, awarded and sent out to the miners. If I'm confident there is nothing else to tweak I'll have the registered (and active) members decide whether or not we change the distribution scheme. I tend to not go with proportional payouts and I have quite some requests from miners to change it. As soon as we have a decision on this all pool members will be notified via email with at least one week time to change pools if they don't like the new scheme.

[Portnoy]

When I try to connect to your pool using using the latest GUIMiner - v2011-08-24, I get this error:

2011-10-20 09:34:23: Listener for "masterpool" started
2011-10-20 09:34:23: Listener for "masterpool": Traceback (most recent call last):
2011-10-20 09:34:23: Listener for "masterpool": File "poclbm.py", line 67, in <module>
2011-10-20 09:34:23: Listener for "masterpool": File "BitcoinMiner.pyo", line 34, in __init__
2011-10-20 09:34:23: Listener for "masterpool": File "HttpTransport.pyo", line 20, in __init__
2011-10-20 09:34:23: Listener for "masterpool": File "Transport.pyo", line 46, in __init__
2011-10-20 09:34:23: Listener for "masterpool": AttributeError: 'HttpTransport' object has no attribute 'failure'


That version of GUIMiner works with all other pools I have tried.

Thanks

[slush]

(registering to the thread)