[NEW POOL & MINER] - BitcoinPool.com - Jump In! ~NO FEES~ :)

[kseistrup]

I changed all dates to show GMT/UTC instead of server timezone (GMT-8).

Did the US just switch to DST?  The times on bitcoinpool.com no longer shows UTC, but rather UTC+1.  Perhaps use gmdate() or similar?

Code:

$ echo '<?php print gmdate("Y-m-d\TH:i:s\Z\n", time()); ?>' | php5
2011-03-13T10:22:30Z

Cheers,

[geebus]

I changed all dates to show GMT/UTC instead of server timezone (GMT-8).

Did the US just switch to DST?  The times on bitcoinpool.com no longer shows UTC, but rather UTC+1.  Perhaps use gmdate() or similar?

Code:

$ echo '<?php print gmdate("Y-m-d\TH:i:s\Z\n", time()); ?>' | php5
2011-03-13T10:22:30Z

Cheers,

Fixed my UTC conversion function's method to check for DST and adjust accordingly. Thanks for letting me know.

[martok]

With the new poclbm able to avoid submitting old blocks, will the pool be switched to no longer accept stale work?

[bobR]

I have no idea what you re talking about
I'm using pudinpops miner and there is no set "askrate"
It was  set AS PER your instuctions if the FAQ's

At the time you posted this I had already stopped using the pool
I was no longer turning in anything
for the following reasons
1/3 of the current workers on the current unit have come in after 12hrs
The number of shares with out success is WAY more than normal for slushes pool
In 12 hrs My share was a pittance and ever new share I submitted was just keeping me up with the rate of increase in total shares

PS Threats make ME want to stay away from this pool even more
24hrs your lucky I even read this thread
Its hardly friendly to new users

***** ATTENTION CPU USERS  *****

I know someone at some point told you a lower askrate is better...they were wrong.  We are asking you to please increase your askrate from 1 to at least 10 seconds, we'd prefer 60 seconds, or we will ban your accounts in 24 hours.

The two accounts I'm watching closely are:

cd311 - Requesting 3 getworks/sec FROM 3 different IP's total.
Getwork Efficiency -
# Requested:    54081
# Submitted:    111

RobertRibbeck - Requesting 3-5 getworks/sec FROM 4 different IP's total.
Getwork Efficiency -
# Requested:    17893
# Submitted:    35


     I understand what is going on here, as I too at one point got as many CPU's as I possibly could (18 total) running on a pool.  Boy that sure was a waste, cause 1 GPU was waaaaay faster and far more efficient.  Another thing you must consider as a CPU user using a low askrate, you are not even getting 0.10% through the entire getwork before get another and try again.  I've been logging my getwork's, and out of the 18,500 getworks I have logged on my GPU, only 22 of those have an shares found in the first 1% of the getwork.  What this tells me is that you CPU miner's would find more shares if you tried to raise you ask rate from 1 to 20 or more seconds. 

Failure to do this on your part will result in your accounts being banned (you will still be paid though).  If you come back and have not fixed this problem, your IP's will be banned next.  Please fix this ASAP.  You have 24 hours to comply.

Thank you for your understanding and help with this matter,

Fairuser

[hacim]

Suggestion: What about putting poclbm under git or the like. Downloading 7mb clients only to delete 6mb of windows exe's and dll's was not very "efficient".

I agree, put it under git. I dont care about the size, but having version control is really useful for seeing what changed, its also much easier to get updates regularly.

[grue]

WE'VE UPDATED OUR MINER!!! PLEASE READ!!!

We've updated our miner to check against a local bitcoind instance running on the miner's PC to see if the block has changed during work, and if it has, to get new work. This will prevent miners from continuing to work on stale work once the block has changed.

does this mean shares submitted for the previous block will not be accepted?

[hacim]

Thanks for setting up this pool, its fun to have more pools to really bring out the debate on different tactics. If anything, I've enjoyed reading the debate in this thread.

I know some people think other people are trolling, and don't appreciate the criticisms, but I'd ask that you refrain from shutting people down and refusing to engage in the discussions. I've also noticed that people are sometimes thinking that argumentation is an unfair attack, I don't think that is a correct characterization. Textual mediums do not convey tone, no matter the number of emotions included. So I'd ask people who feel like they are being unfairly attacked to reconsider responding in-kind with an aggressive response, that just raises the heat. Even if you cannot read anything but an attack in the post, be a better person and respond in a way that de-escalates the aggression, rather than matching it.

Likewise, I think its fair to ask people who are disagreeing to refrain from making angry or aggressive attacks, especially those that are ad hominem and don't serve any argumentative purpose, but to piss off the other person.

With that said, please do continue debating the different approaches its fun! But be sure to read what people are saying, even when you have decided ahead of time that they are not going to say anything correct, or nice.

On another note, I'm trying out this pool to see how it compares. I'm using the "original" poclbm for a while and then I'll switch to the mod to see how they compare. I'm discouraged from continuing to use this modified miner if the changes aren't going to be pushed 'upstream' or at least offered to upstream for consideration (hint: git repository, pull request on github if you use that).

[FairUser]

does this mean shares submitted for the previous block will not be accepted?

Yes. We have not committed to a date as to when this change will take affect, but it will be going  back to current block only.

We will let you know before we make the change.

[dishwara]

Seems fairuser & geebus don't want any one to use their modified miners to mine from slush.
By using the new modified pocblm miner to connect slush pool gives error & tells to connect to bitcoinpool.

[xenon481]

Seems fairuser & geebus don't want any one to use their modified miners to mine from slush.
By using the new modified pocblm miner to connect slush pool gives error & tells to connect to bitcoinpool.

You should be able to get around that by redefining bitcoinpool.com in your HOSTS file.

But you wouldn't want to use it with Slush's nor Tycho's pool anyways as poclbm-mod doesn't support long polling the way that it has been implemented in those pools.

[bobR]

Seems fairuser & geebus don't want any one to use their modified miners to mine from slush.
By using the new modified pocblm miner to connect slush pool gives error & tells to connect to bitcoinpool.

Seem they cant do otherthings too
they bitch about what we are doing but cant say shit to us
as to WHY or WTF they are talking about

even after you send them a personal email

[bobR]

I'm back to Slush's pool
Bs here ...no answers...less payout PER HR
may be slush is getting 2% but this is CRAP
200,000 share's per unit ... over 2 days.... is BULLSHIT
almost double the workers since 10hr
somebody is F... in some one

This pool is CRAP

[FairUser]

Seems fairuser & geebus don't want any one to use their modified miners to mine from slush.
By using the new modified pocblm miner to connect slush pool gives error & tells to connect to bitcoinpool.

Seem they cant do otherthings too
they bitch about what we are doing but cant say shit to us
as to WHY or WTF they are talking about

It works with any other pool but his, and I'll explain why.

When we first proposed our modified miner to help reduce the load and resources used on slush's pool, he argued with us and said that it was pointless and useless, while at the same time switching over to a forced donations (which technically isn't donating, it's taxing) because of the excess load on his VPS server, or so he claimed.

When we kept debating him about the role of efficiency on a server's load, he kept going back to the excuse that you must have a lower askrate to make sure that you're getwork doesn't go stale.  We proposed other ways of solving this problem (which is now in the modified miner), but slush didn't want to hear it, and insisted people keep pounding his server with a lower askrate.  Then, he called us trolls, and started to really give us a bunch of shit....for trying to help him reduce the amount of resources his server was using.  That was the breaking point for me.

There we were (Geebus and I) working away on m0mchill's miner to try and help slush, and then he turned around and called us Trolls.  So, fuck him, we started our own pool.  Then, after we start our own pool, slush's begins trolling and attempting to put words in our mouth, words we never said, and expects us to play well with his pool?!

So let me put this as simply as possible: Fuck slush.  He is not selfless, he's selfish.

If he wants to force donations because his pool is inefficient and uses more resources than necessary, that's his decision.  If he wants to apologize for calling us trolls on his thread, then coming over and trolling on ours, I'll consider taking that part of the code out.  But don't hold your breath that it'll ever happen...I'm not.

[bobR]

Still doesnt answer me

You can have at slush all day

WHY cant u answer me and my concerns
You chose to single me out but can't respond

Seems fairuser & geebus don't want any one to use their modified miners to mine from slush.
By using the new modified pocblm miner to connect slush pool gives error & tells to connect to bitcoinpool.

Seem they cant do otherthings too
they bitch about what we are doing but cant say shit to us
as to WHY or WTF they are talking about

It works with any other pool but his, and I'll explain why.

When we first proposed our modified miner to help reduce the load and resources used on slush's pool, he argued with us and said that it was pointless and useless, while at the same time switching over to a forced donations (which technically isn't donating, it's taxing) because of the excess load on his VPS server, or so he claimed.

When we kept debating him about the role of efficiency on a server's load, he kept going back to the excuse that you must have a lower askrate to make sure that you're getwork doesn't go stale.  We proposed other ways of solving this problem (which is now in the modified miner), but slush didn't want to hear it, and insisted people keep pounding his server with a lower askrate.  Then, he called us trolls, and started to really give us a bunch of shit....for trying to help him reduce the amount of resources his server was using.  That was the breaking point for me.

There we were (Geebus and I) working away on m0mchill's miner to try and help slush, and then he turned around and called us Trolls.  So, fuck him, we started our own pool.  Then, after we start our own pool, slush's begins trolling and attempting to put words in our mouth, words we never said, and expects us to play well with his pool?!

So let me put this as simply as possible: Fuck slush.  He is not selfless, he's selfish.

If he wants to force donations because his pool is inefficient and uses more resources than necessary, that's his decision.  If he wants to apologize for calling us trolls on his thread, then coming over and trolling on ours, I'll consider taking that part of the code out.  But don't hold your breath that it'll ever happen...I'm not.

[slush]

which technically isn't donating, it's taxing

As I explained many times, I was on holiday and the "forced donations" concept was hot fix from crappy line in Internet cafe. Now you can see that I'm talking about "fees" on pool homepage. Don't fuck all people around, I was absolutely clear about that.

Also, please, do your business. I promise that I'll never critize your work, with one condition - stop never ending comparing with your great stuff and my the-worse-pool-ever operated by devillish slush.

[FairUser]

I'm back to Slush's pool
Bs here ...no answers...less payout PER HR
may be slush is getting 2% but this is CRAP
200,000 share's per unit ... over 2 days.... is BULLSHIT

Because our pool is at a slower speed, it takes longer to get that many shares....like 2 days.
More users == more speed

And if 200,000 shares per unit is crap....
1966   2011-03-13 13:24:55   2:35:54   266129
1955   2011-03-13 04:15:49   3:34:04   330211
1930   2011-03-12 09:12:41   2:15:59   203318
1919   2011-03-12 00:07:20   2:39:24   233007

We're not the only ones seeing that high number of shares.
In any case, bye bye CPU miner.  

[FairUser]

which technically isn't donating, it's taxing

As I explained many times, I was on holiday and the "forced donations" concept was hot fix from crappy line in Internet cafe. Now you can see that I'm talking about "fees" on pool homepage. Don't fuck all people around, I was absolutely clear about that.

Fine, you charge a "fee".  We don't.  Who's screwing who?

[FairUser]

which technically isn't donating, it's taxing

As I explained many times, I was on holiday and the "forced donations" concept was hot fix from crappy line in Internet cafe. Now you can see that I'm talking about "fees" on pool homepage. Don't fuck all people around, I was absolutely clear about that.

Also, please, do your business. I promise that I'll never critize your work, with one condition - stop never ending comparing with your great stuff and my the-worse-pool-ever operated by devillish slush.

This is really simple slush.... Apologize for 1) calling us trolls when we were trying to help your pool's efficiency, 2) trolling on our thread after calling us trolls, and 3) trying to put words in my mouth I didn't say.

That's all you have to do....APOLOGIZE.
If you can man up and do that, I'll put this all behind us and remove the code that forbids your pool.

[bobR]

Not a problem
.25 per day beats .03 
GET THAT
Your pool SUCKS     BIG TIME

and I don't get Threats and other crap from slush


You Still refuse to answer your "timing CRAP"
I did as you faqs said
I got bs for some crap setting you wanted
THAT IS NOT PART OF pudinpops setup

YOU ARE AN AHOLE

I'm back to Slush's pool
Bs here ...no answers...less payout PER HR
may be slush is getting 2% but this is CRAP
200,000 share's per unit ... over 2 days.... is BULLSHIT

Because our pool is at a slower speed, it takes longer to get that many shares....like 2 days.
More users == more speed

And if 200,000 shares per unit is crap....
1966   2011-03-13 13:24:55   2:35:54   266129
1955   2011-03-13 04:15:49   3:34:04   330211
1930   2011-03-12 09:12:41   2:15:59   203318
1919   2011-03-12 00:07:20   2:39:24   233007

We're not the only ones seeing that high number of shares.
In any case, bye bye CPU miner. 
You'll still get your 0.03 cents when we do find a block.

[slush]

Btw I quite like the solution with checking new blocks using local bitcoind. Not absolutely clean, but do the job. I didn't read the code yet, but you probably need to check if the pool server really served job from new block.

I'll explain a bit. Bitcoin network can be quite slow, you can hit many second latency in block broadcasting. In this way, local bitcoind can have info about new block sooner than pool has it. Then the new request to pool returned still the data from the old one.

There are two possible solutions:

a) Check if merkle hash in new job's 'data' field is different from previous call
b) Send the pool's block height with every getwork (for example as part of HTTP header) and cross check, that this height is the same or higher than in local bitcoind.

b) is much better solution, but needs custom tweak in getwork protocol (the blocknum inside job).
a) does not need to work, because 1) The previous job could be already from new block, so next call is not necessary 2) merkle root can be changed also by new transactions (in period of one minute), not necessary by new block.

As I said, I didn't read the code so apologize if you already do this. Otherwise I hope it helps.