[CLOSED] BTC Guild - Pays TxFees+NMC, Stratum, VarDiff, Private Servers

[MoneyMorpheus]

is it safe to go back to the original pool instead of the private gigaforce server?

[1714208785]

1714208785

[1714208785]

1714208785

[1714208785]

1714208785

[eleuthria]

is it safe to go back to the original pool instead of the private gigaforce server?

The private DNS information will remain valid indefinitely.  It's actually recommended you continue to use those as your primary pool if you want to mine on BTC Guild.  In the event of future attacks, the semi-private servers will be back online before the public servers, and ideally they will remain online as attacks continue, while the public servers may go up/down during the process.

[MoneyMorpheus]

is it safe to go back to the original pool instead of the private gigaforce server?

The private DNS information will remain valid indefinitely.  It's actually recommended you continue to use those as your primary pool if you want to mine on BTC Guild.  In the event of future attacks, the semi-private servers will be back online before the public servers, and ideally they will remain online as attacks continue, while the public servers may go up/down during the process.

Ok, thanks for the info!

[Fassade]

Error 1006
Access denied
What happened?

The owner of this website (www.btcguild.com) has banned your IP address ().

Why     

[eleuthria]

Error 1006
Access denied
What happened?

The owner of this website (www.btcguild.com) has banned your IP address ().

Why    

Send an email to webmaster@btcguild.com with your IP.  IP bans are issued when your IP fails too many login attempts in a certain time frame.  Do note that IP bans only affect website access, not mining.

[eleuthria]

DDoS Attack Updates

The pool has been under attack for over a week straight.  The attacks hit in short bursts, moving as DNS changes, and generally lasting 6-12 hours at a time.  As many users know by now, these continued attacks have given the pool time to radically adapt it's DDoS defenses in order to create more effective methods to filter out good and bad traffic and prioritize already connected traffic.  Once you have started mining successfully, you should not have instability, and that is well reflected by the pool speed over the last few days.  Even as the attacks are repeatedly knocking servers down, the speed has been steadily increasing even above it's pre-attack all time high.

There is one major exception at the moment on the filtering, and that is GUI Miner.  GUI Miner is currently being caught by the filters that separate good miners from bad miners/bad traffic.  I'm trying to find a way to get it separate out, but due to it's very outdated implementation of Stratum (it's using the initial poclbm stratum release without any updates), there isn't any good type of fingerprint that can be used to identify GUIMiner at this time.

[jarhed]

......... Once you have started mining successfully, you should not have instability, and that is well reflected by the pool speed over the last few days..........

umm, I assumed the attacking morons gave up.........
BTC Guild is awesome, but we already knew that.

[demonmaestro]

no they are still "attacking"

[xstr8guy]

Blech!  Pool luck is just awful right now.  Is it just me or does it usually seem like pool luck sucks for a couple days after a difficulty change?

[demonmaestro]

yea thats what i was thinking...

[jedimstr]

I could have sworn that pool luck was uber good right after the previous difficulty change (or was that two changes ago), but it does suck after this one.

[Zooey]

In case it hasn't been said enough: kudos to you(s) on your handling of what appears to have been (at least at the outset) a pretty decent 'attack'.

[eleuthria]

Pool luck at the start of a difficulty is always going to be at one extreme or the other most likely.  It's only been about 24 hours.  In that 18 hours worth of closed shifts at the new difficulty, average luck is 82%.  That is pretty insignificant overall.  If you kept a watch on last difficulties' luck graph, you should recognize how much it can move when measured in short periods of time.  But in the end, the luck almost always ends up +/- a few % for the entire difficulty period.  Last difficulty ended ~5% positive.  That's actually a fairly significant deviation given the pool's size.  The larger the pool, the less they're expected to deviate from neutral as time goes on.

[Trongersoll]

Pool luck at the start of a difficulty is always going to be at one extreme or the other most likely.  It's only been about 24 hours.  In that 18 hours worth of closed shifts at the new difficulty, average luck is 82%.  That is pretty insignificant overall.  If you kept a watch on last difficulties' luck graph, you should recognize how much it can move when measured in short periods of time.  But in the end, the luck almost always ends up +/- a few % for the entire difficulty period.  Last difficulty ended ~5% positive.  That's actually a fairly significant deviation given the pool's size.  The larger the pool, the less they're expected to deviate from neutral as time goes on.

I think including the difficulty in a Luck calculation is the wrong thing to do. It is in accurate. What you need to use is the current global hashrate. Difficulty lags too far behind.

[eleuthria]

Pool luck at the start of a difficulty is always going to be at one extreme or the other most likely.  It's only been about 24 hours.  In that 18 hours worth of closed shifts at the new difficulty, average luck is 82%.  That is pretty insignificant overall.  If you kept a watch on last difficulties' luck graph, you should recognize how much it can move when measured in short periods of time.  But in the end, the luck almost always ends up +/- a few % for the entire difficulty period.  Last difficulty ended ~5% positive.  That's actually a fairly significant deviation given the pool's size.  The larger the pool, the less they're expected to deviate from neutral as time goes on.

I think including the difficulty in a Luck calculation is the wrong thing to do. It is in accurate. What you need to use is the current global hashrate. Difficulty lags too far behind.

This is incorrect.  At a current network difficulty, a certain number of shares are expected to find a certain number of blocks.  That is how the luck is calculated, and that is the correct way to do it.  Pool speed/network speed is irrelevant, it is entirely about Blocks Found after X Shares vs Network Difficulty.

[Trongersoll]

Pool luck at the start of a difficulty is always going to be at one extreme or the other most likely.  It's only been about 24 hours.  In that 18 hours worth of closed shifts at the new difficulty, average luck is 82%.  That is pretty insignificant overall.  If you kept a watch on last difficulties' luck graph, you should recognize how much it can move when measured in short periods of time.  But in the end, the luck almost always ends up +/- a few % for the entire difficulty period.  Last difficulty ended ~5% positive.  That's actually a fairly significant deviation given the pool's size.  The larger the pool, the less they're expected to deviate from neutral as time goes on.

I think including the difficulty in a Luck calculation is the wrong thing to do. It is in accurate. What you need to use is the current global hashrate. Difficulty lags too far behind.

This is incorrect.  At a current network difficulty, a certain number of shares are expected to find a certain number of blocks.  That is how the luck is calculated, and that is the correct way to do it.  Pool speed/network speed is irrelevant, it is entirely about Blocks Found after X Shares vs Network Difficulty.

So what you are saying is that what other pools or miners are doing, regardless of their hash rate or how many blocks they find, has no bearing on a specific pool's luck? even though everytime someone else finds a block you effectively have to start over? I have trouble wrapping my mind around that, but then, i did fail probability and statistics. 

[eleuthria]

So what you are saying is that what other pools or miners are doing, regardless of their hash rate or how many blocks they find, has no bearing on a specific pool's luck? even though everytime someone else finds a block you effectively have to start over? I have trouble wrapping my mind around that, but then, i did fail probability and statistics. 

Correct.  Nothing else on the network impacts your expected rate of block solving at a given difficulty.  The only minor impact is that when the network is going faster, the odds of an orphaned block are higher (higher block rate = more chance of two blocks at the same time), but those are still a very rare case, and on BTC Guild you're paid for orphans so they wouldn't show any reduction in luck.

[Trongersoll]

So what you are saying is that what other pools or miners are doing, regardless of their hash rate or how many blocks they find, has no bearing on a specific pool's luck? even though everytime someone else finds a block you effectively have to start over? I have trouble wrapping my mind around that, but then, i did fail probability and statistics. 

Correct.  Nothing else on the network impacts your expected rate of block solving at a given difficulty.  The only minor impact is that when the network is going faster, the odds of an orphaned block are higher (higher block rate = more chance of two blocks at the same time), but those are still a very rare case, and on BTC Guild you're paid for orphans so they wouldn't show any reduction in luck.

I need to think on this. thanks for being patient with me.

[os2sam]

I need to think on this. thanks for being patient with me.

At least you know what you don't know

[eleuthria]

I need to think on this. thanks for being patient with me.

At least you know what you don't know

Better than what most can say about themselves!