Bitcoin Forum
December 04, 2016, 06:17:51 AM *
News: To be able to use the next phase of the beta forum software, please ensure that your email address is correct/functional.
 
   Home   Help Search Donate Login Register  
Pages: « 1 ... 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 [344] 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360 361 362 363 364 365 366 367 368 369 370 371 372 373 374 375 376 377 378 379 380 381 382 383 384 385 386 387 388 389 390 391 392 393 394 ... 426 »
  Print  
Author Topic: [CLOSED] BTC Guild - Pays TxFees+NMC, Stratum, VarDiff, Private Servers  (Read 828556 times)
This is a self-moderated topic. If you do not want to be moderated by the person who started this topic, create a new topic.
ak49er
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 227


View Profile
May 06, 2014, 10:54:37 PM
 #6861

Wow ... the pool speed has dipped hugely from a couple of days ago.
And luck is improving.  Not to say that there's any correlation between the two.  I just look at each number on a daily basis to see what it looks like out in my little bitcoin mining world. Smiley

My electricity costs are about to drive me to quit this game though.  And that certainly isn't something anyone can change.
1480832271
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1480832271

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1480832271
Reply with quote  #2

1480832271
Report to moderator
1480832271
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1480832271

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1480832271
Reply with quote  #2

1480832271
Report to moderator
1480832271
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1480832271

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1480832271
Reply with quote  #2

1480832271
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1480832271
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1480832271

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1480832271
Reply with quote  #2

1480832271
Report to moderator
1480832271
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1480832271

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1480832271
Reply with quote  #2

1480832271
Report to moderator
MoreBloodWine
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 924


I rule with an iron fist !


View Profile WWW
May 06, 2014, 10:55:56 PM
 #6862

Wow ... the pool speed has dipped hugely from a couple of days ago.


Holy shit dude... 6.82 Ph

Want a chance at winning some BTC, LTC or another crypto currency ?
Then be sure to check out our Weekly Crypto Lotteries: Crypto Lottos

DaveF
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 410


If you can read this you are too close.


View Profile WWW
May 06, 2014, 10:57:01 PM
 #6863

Well, if we want to entertain the idea of faulty hardware having some bearing on the overall results, we need to identify recent release's. I follow a number of the Antminer threads and see a significant number of miners struggling to keep the S2's up and running. Also see a significant number of S2 miners posting screen shots with concerns over large numbers of Hardware Errors and Rejects. Some one will do a little math and say...Mheee...that's not too bad. My point though is that is 1TH/s equipment and those rejects and errors accumulated in 2-3hrs exceed my accepts for a given time period. AND knock-off miners with slightly less advertised total hash speed from Bit-Mine seem to have a slightly higher error rate/hour as well. Just seems too me like these units are a bit off, maybe they are putting out some bad vibe static.......

If the problem is related to the difficulty going above the limits of a 32-bit variable, it may not have anything to do with *recent* hardware releases.  It could be OLD hardware.  It would likely be firmware or software in the controller for the hardware.  (See edit for more info).

This would explain why these accounts were not noted the last time I did a pass.  I was looking for active withholding previously.  Accounts with significantly low block submissions vs shares submitted.  Last night's pass was specifically targetting shares vs blocks over the last 6 weeks, eliminating the chance of past luck making up for recent shortfalls.


EDIT/CLARIFICATION: The hardware itself has no reason to actually know the result of its hashing outside of diff>=1 (or >=1024 in some newer hardware I believe).  It's probably not in the software since *most* ASICs do not use custom software, they use cgminer or bfgminer.  So the point in the middle that handles communication between the hardware and the software is the most likely culprit.

There have been many issues with chips though the years. Both ASICs and regular processors.
The Intel FDIV bug to the huge errata lists on some RISC processors tend to be more impressive then ASICs, but that is because they are more in the public eye. Do you think that the get it out as fast as you can hardware that we are using is *really* that well tested....

-Dave

Still love this error list from the old days (the 5th one down is my favorite) you could blow your hardware with bad code:

The Amstrad Plus ASIC improved a lot of the old CPC's capability. Yet this was a bit flawed.

    Despite removing some tasks from the CPU (Z80), ASIC registers are mapped onto memory from #4000 to #7FFF range prior to other type of memory (RAM or ROM).That means this memory range is not accessible when ASIC registers are paged.

    PPI emulation is not correct as the original 8255 does not need validation.On ASIC emulation , this validation is needed so some programs written for "old CPCs" will not be able to get keyboard state.

    Z80 IM2 mode is bugged.In this mode , the Z80 I register gives the high word for vector table.ASIC gives the low word from IVR and the devices that generate interrupt (raster and DMAs channels).ASIC generates sometimes a bad values and the raster interrupt routine is called instead of DMA0 routine.The reasons of this bug are not known.

    There is a conflict between programmable interrupts and some CRTC settings (line screen split).That will cause the RAM refresh to stop and the memory content will be quickly corrupted causing machine crash.

    Reducing Horizontal BLanking could cause another internal conflict when using DMA lists.In the worst case , this conflict can cause irreversible damage to the ASIC.

    Original CPC colors emulation is not correct.

1800bitcoin.com domain for sale. PM me.
Soros Shorts
Donator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1455



View Profile
May 06, 2014, 11:30:29 PM
 #6864

EDIT/CLARIFICATION: The hardware itself has no reason to actually know the result of its hashing outside of diff>=1 (or >=1024 in some newer hardware I believe).  It's probably not in the software since *most* ASICs do not use custom software, they use cgminer or bfgminer.  So the point in the middle that handles communication between the hardware and the software is the most likely culprit.
Could it be a somebody's botched implementation of a custom stratum proxy?
eleuthria
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1750


BTC Guild Owner


View Profile WWW
May 06, 2014, 11:58:08 PM
 #6865

EDIT/CLARIFICATION: The hardware itself has no reason to actually know the result of its hashing outside of diff>=1 (or >=1024 in some newer hardware I believe).  It's probably not in the software since *most* ASICs do not use custom software, they use cgminer or bfgminer.  So the point in the middle that handles communication between the hardware and the software is the most likely culprit.
Could it be a somebody's botched implementation of a custom stratum proxy?

If it was a custom proxy, yes.  As I posted, my personal believe is this problem would be in software or firmware.  Hardware is possible, but doesn't quite make sense given how barebones a mining ASIC *should* be.  My bias points me towards firmware/controller software rather than mining software since that is where it makes the most sense.  However, if somebody is running *custom* software or a custom proxy, that would be another possibility for where the flaw lies, assuming there is one somewhere.

R.I.P. BTC Guild, 2011 - 2015.
BTC Guild Forum Thread
DaveF
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 410


If you can read this you are too close.


View Profile WWW
May 07, 2014, 12:15:37 AM
 #6866

<snip>
Hardware is possible, but doesn't quite make sense given how barebones a mining ASIC *should* be.
<snip>

https://twitter.com/ID_AA_Carmack/status/128988479114854401

-Dave

1800bitcoin.com domain for sale. PM me.
Minor Miner
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 840


View Profile
May 07, 2014, 12:22:12 AM
 #6867

<snip>
Hardware is possible, but doesn't quite make sense given how barebones a mining ASIC *should* be.
<snip>
https://twitter.com/ID_AA_Carmack/status/128988479114854401
-Dave
I only hope when they find out what product it is, a post will be made.   Process of elimination is likely the easiest.   We know it is not CT or KNC.   Any other solo miners or even people that divided their BTCGuild accounts by product that have hit blocks in the last week and can attest to another product that works?
Personally, my bet is on any product where people should be solo mining yet are on the pools.   Has that guy up in the PacNW hit a bunch of blocks lately?

too many grasshoppers, not enough ants
kendog77
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 742


View Profile
May 07, 2014, 12:26:30 AM
 #6868

I have an Antminer S1 that hit a block within the last two weeks, and a November Jupiter that hit a block within the last two months.
kendog77
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 742


View Profile
May 07, 2014, 12:34:56 AM
 #6869

It would be very evil for a hardware manufacturer to neuter their own hardware via a firmware update, but based on the way KNC has been treating their customers lately, I wouldn't put it past them.  Angry
seriouscoin
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 658


View Profile
May 07, 2014, 01:17:56 AM
 #6870

It would be very evil for a hardware manufacturer to neuter their own hardware via a firmware update, but based on the way KNC has been treating their customers lately, I wouldn't put it past them.  Angry

+1

I moved to another pool until we know what the problem is. I've been mining since early 2011 and i agree that its not a normal bad luck streak.
DPoS
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 462



View Profile
May 07, 2014, 03:42:45 AM
 #6871

It would be very evil for a hardware manufacturer to neuter their own hardware via a firmware update, but based on the way KNC has been treating their customers lately, I wouldn't put it past them.  Angry


actually a flaw with KNC firmware would be par for the course if anyone remembers how bad their flushwork and handling on/off cores were for so long...  they did their own drivers and version of cgminer when released

eleuthria, you mentioned that 2.1 bil diff was a distinct change of behavior...  is there a way to query your Team KNC (most of them should only be KNC miners), dump the data and see if any pattern shows itself?

That would connect a lot of dots


I can point my 1.7 TH of oct jupiters to a test pool if someone has a plan with test data to prove anything



~~BTC~~GAMBIT~~BTC~~Play Boardgames for Bitcoins!!~~BTC~~GAMBIT~~BTC~~ Something I say help? Donate BTC! 1KN1K1xStzsgfYxdArSX4PEjFfcLEuYhid
Minor Miner
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 840


View Profile
May 07, 2014, 03:52:43 AM
 #6872

It would be very evil for a hardware manufacturer to neuter their own hardware via a firmware update, but based on the way KNC has been treating their customers lately, I wouldn't put it past them.  Angry
actually a flaw with KNC firmware would be par for the course if anyone remembers how bad their flushwork and handling on/off cores were for so long...  they did their own drivers and version of cgminer when released
eleuthria, you mentioned that 2.1 bil diff was a distinct change of behavior...  is there a way to query your Team KNC (most of them should only be KNC miners), dump the data and see if any pattern shows itself?
That would connect a lot of dot
I can point my 1.7 TH of oct jupiters to a test pool if someone has a plan with test data to prove anything
2.1 Billion was when the hash rate was 15,000 PH/s the last week of January.   We had November Jupiters solving blocks after that.

too many grasshoppers, not enough ants
DPoS
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 462



View Profile
May 07, 2014, 03:58:22 AM
 #6873


2.1 Billion was when the hash rate was 15,000 PH/s the last week of January.   We had November Jupiters solving blocks after that.


would be nice to have some type of comprehensive test to run locally on a miner for sanity sake

~~BTC~~GAMBIT~~BTC~~Play Boardgames for Bitcoins!!~~BTC~~GAMBIT~~BTC~~ Something I say help? Donate BTC! 1KN1K1xStzsgfYxdArSX4PEjFfcLEuYhid
hurricandave
Legendary
*
Online Online

Activity: 865



View Profile
May 07, 2014, 04:04:19 AM
 #6874



[/quote]

would be nice to have some type of comprehensive test to run locally on a miner for sanity sake
[/quote] Maybe Nwools could point you in the right direction for something like that.
stan258
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 437



View Profile
May 07, 2014, 04:06:25 AM
 #6875


2.1 Billion was when the hash rate was 15,000 PH/s the last week of January.   We had November Jupiters solving blocks after that.


would be nice to have some type of comprehensive test to run locally on a miner for sanity sake

Hashfast started shipping end of Jan early Feb.  I can offer one Feb deliverd Babyjet for testing.  
eleuthria
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1750


BTC Guild Owner


View Profile WWW
May 07, 2014, 04:08:54 AM
 #6876

There's 2 possible break points.  There's ~2.1b and ~4.2b.  One is for signed 32-bit, one is for unsigned.  BTC Guild's luck took a sharp turn starting ~6 weeks ago.  That is right in line with the network difficulty passing 4.2b (March 24).

Luck for BTC Guild and Eligius both started trending negative a little earlier than that.  Roughly February.  However, this wasn't bad enough on either pool to simply rule out variance for that time frame.  For BTC Guild it was ~6% negative in March.  For Eligius it was ~5% negative.  However, February is when 2.1b break point (Jan 24th adjustment put diff over that amount) would have triggered.

Right now the largest users that had definite anomalies in their shares vs blocks solved have had accounts frozen, and one group has contacted me and is looking into it.  If they come back and it is a definite 'Yes, something was broken in our software/firmware/hardware', then at least the problem is identified and will be fixed.

R.I.P. BTC Guild, 2011 - 2015.
BTC Guild Forum Thread
ManeBjorn
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 868



View Profile
May 07, 2014, 04:54:28 AM
 #6877

That is some great sleuth work.
I have to say the pool rate dropped by almost 2000 in the last 48 hrs but our blocks have been coming faster and faster like before in your time frame.


There's 2 possible break points.  There's ~2.1b and ~4.2b.  One is for signed 32-bit, one is for unsigned.  BTC Guild's luck took a sharp turn starting ~6 weeks ago.  That is right in line with the network difficulty passing 4.2b (March 24).

Luck for BTC Guild and Eligius both started trending negative a little earlier than that.  Roughly February.  However, this wasn't bad enough on either pool to simply rule out variance for that time frame.  For BTC Guild it was ~6% negative in March.  For Eligius it was ~5% negative.  However, February is when 2.1b break point (Jan 24th adjustment put diff over that amount) would have triggered.

Right now the largest users that had definite anomalies in their shares vs blocks solved have had accounts frozen, and one group has contacted me and is looking into it.  If they come back and it is a definite 'Yes, something was broken in our software/firmware/hardware', then at least the problem is identified and will be fixed.

seriouscoin
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 658


View Profile
May 07, 2014, 05:16:51 AM
 #6878

There's 2 possible break points.  There's ~2.1b and ~4.2b.  One is for signed 32-bit, one is for unsigned.  BTC Guild's luck took a sharp turn starting ~6 weeks ago.  That is right in line with the network difficulty passing 4.2b (March 24).

Luck for BTC Guild and Eligius both started trending negative a little earlier than that.  Roughly February.  However, this wasn't bad enough on either pool to simply rule out variance for that time frame.  For BTC Guild it was ~6% negative in March.  For Eligius it was ~5% negative.  However, February is when 2.1b break point (Jan 24th adjustment put diff over that amount) would have triggered.

Right now the largest users that had definite anomalies in their shares vs blocks solved have had accounts frozen, and one group has contacted me and is looking into it.  If they come back and it is a definite 'Yes, something was broken in our software/firmware/hardware', then at least the problem is identified and will be fixed.

Interesting that when the Chinese A1 chips miners were shipped in bulk from multiple sources. Probably some Chinese farms were being built with these miners as well.

Its also bugging me that CK asked them to release their source code and they completed ignored. I've been warning others in hardware section about this but noone seems to care... " Oh look miner reports 1TH/s, thats all i need"
DaveF
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 410


If you can read this you are too close.


View Profile WWW
May 07, 2014, 03:01:34 PM
 #6879

If you look at the ghash #'s over the last day they have had three 2+ hour times w/o a block and seven 1+ hour times w/o a block. Since they have about 3x the hashing power as BTC Guild that would that be the same as three 6+ hour blocks here and seven 3+ hour blocks?

-Dave

1800bitcoin.com domain for sale. PM me.
ak49er
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 227


View Profile
May 07, 2014, 04:07:52 PM
 #6880

So my biggest question right now is if it turns out to be errant miners, what can be done about it?  For all I know I might have one such miner, but how to tell?  I'm a very small player and have never solved a block.  How do you weed out the problem miners without shitting on the little guys?  And then on the flip side what incentive is there for a manufacturer to give a shit?  They only "guarantee" a given hash rate, not that those hashes will ever solve a block.  An unscrupulous manufacturer could deliberately exploit this.

I'm getting out for the time being anyway.  Not because of this but my electricity costs are too high and I need to invest in my house and not my miners this summer.  I might be back when winter comes around again so will be following this with interest.
Pages: « 1 ... 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 [344] 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360 361 362 363 364 365 366 367 368 369 370 371 372 373 374 375 376 377 378 379 380 381 382 383 384 385 386 387 388 389 390 391 392 393 394 ... 426 »
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Sponsored by , a Bitcoin-accepting VPN.
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!