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

[eleuthria]

I've put up a new poll to gauge interest in Litecoin being added as an option for BTC Guild miners.  BTC Guild has always had a decent number of users which hop to altcoins when they're profitable.  Being able to move between coins without leaving the same pool could be convenient.

This wouldn't take significant work to add, so don't think that voting yes means other parts of the pool might be neglected to get it up and running.  I'm actually hoping to test my Stratum pool code against litecoin this weekend.  My hope is it would be as simple as changing a few database table names, and a single line of code which is currently used to determine if shares meet difficulty requirements or not.

[1713554177]

1713554177

[1713554177]

1713554177

[1713554177]

1713554177

[1713554177]

1713554177

[1713554177]

1713554177

[BeetcoinScummer]

Is port 80 available on stratum or only on getwork?

[TechCF]

See: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=49417.msg1575621;topicseen#msg1575621

Stratum on port 80 is coming.

[meebs]

being able to mine LTC on btcguild = win

[Naelr]

I can't find a change password link on the website anywhere?   Have I gone mad or can anyone else find it.. I guess I could log out and request password change but that seems a bit off.....

Naelr

[debianlinux]

See: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=49417.msg1575621;topicseen#msg1575621

Stratum on port 80 is coming.

That will be the day, damn!

[420]

I calculated my reject rate and got 17% (on stratum)

sounds bad. Using cgminer 2.11.1

also saw this on the readout:
Lost 1 share due to stratum disconnect on pool 0

[eleuthria]

I calculated my reject rate and got 17% (on stratum)

sounds bad. Using cgminer 2.11.1

also saw this on the readout:
Lost 1 share due to stratum disconnect on pool 0

You have something very wrong on your setup if you're seeing that kind of reject rate.  Rejects did go up slightly with the downgrade to 0.7, but anything above 0.10-0.30% points to a likely problem on your end unless you're mining with a latency of 500ms+.  

Please note that BTC Guild does not include Duplicates in your Acceptance Rate %, because those are entirely the fault of the miner, and shouldn't be used against the pool for your performance.  If you're mining with certain FPGAs, it is very likely you will have a large number of duplicates, but they do not hurt your hash rate because it's a problem in the FPGA<->Miner Software interface causing them to be submitted multiple times.  My own ztex chips on most mining software will submit around 9% duplicates.  However, they will still receive their full 200-208 MH/s worth of valid shares (speed estimates and charts only count valid shares).

[420]

I calculated my reject rate and got 17% (on stratum)

sounds bad. Using cgminer 2.11.1

also saw this on the readout:
Lost 1 share due to stratum disconnect on pool 0

You have something very wrong on your setup if you're seeing that kind of reject rate.  Rejects did go up slightly with the downgrade to 0.7, but anything above 0.10-0.30% points to a likely problem on your end unless you're mining with a latency of 500ms+.  

Please note that BTC Guild does not include Duplicates in your Acceptance Rate %, because those are entirely the fault of the miner, and shouldn't be used against the pool for your performance.  If you're mining with certain FPGAs, it is very likely you will have a large number of duplicates, but they do not hurt your hash rate because it's a problem in the FPGA<->Miner Software interface causing them to be submitted multiple times.  My own ztex chips on most mining software will submit around 9% duplicates.  However, they will still receive their full 200-208 MH/s worth of valid shares (speed estimates and charts only count valid shares).

ping average stratum.btcguild.com is 91ms

Doe the cgminer rejects not show up on my dashboard? dashboard shows 98% acccept rate (8014 (98.07%)) but rejects as stale, dupe, other: 9 / 0 / 149

so 149 other? that's still only 1.8% whereas cgminer says 527 R and 3175 A

[eleuthria]

I calculated my reject rate and got 17% (on stratum)

sounds bad. Using cgminer 2.11.1

also saw this on the readout:
Lost 1 share due to stratum disconnect on pool 0

You have something very wrong on your setup if you're seeing that kind of reject rate.  Rejects did go up slightly with the downgrade to 0.7, but anything above 0.10-0.30% points to a likely problem on your end unless you're mining with a latency of 500ms+.  

Please note that BTC Guild does not include Duplicates in your Acceptance Rate %, because those are entirely the fault of the miner, and shouldn't be used against the pool for your performance.  If you're mining with certain FPGAs, it is very likely you will have a large number of duplicates, but they do not hurt your hash rate because it's a problem in the FPGA<->Miner Software interface causing them to be submitted multiple times.  My own ztex chips on most mining software will submit around 9% duplicates.  However, they will still receive their full 200-208 MH/s worth of valid shares (speed estimates and charts only count valid shares).

ping average stratum.btcguild.com is 91ms

Doe the cgminer rejects not show up on my dashboard? dashboard shows 98% acccept rate (8014 (98.07%)) but rejects as stale, dupe, other: 9 / 0 / 149

so 149 other? that's still only 1.8% whereas cgminer says 527 R and 3175 A

I can't answer for that kind of discrepancy with CGMiner's reject display, unless you're running at a very high difficulty and trying to force submit shares that don't match difficulty.  Other includes 2 types of rejects:  Unknown Work (normally the result of a server restart, pretty rare), and Low Difficulty.  Unknown rejects only count as 1 reject each, even if you're mining at high difficulties, while stales/valids count multiple times when running at higher difficulties.  But I also don't think CGMiner adjusts the A/R numbers to match difficulty.

My suggestion would be reset your stats on the dashboard, restart cgminer, and try to catch when the two numbers diverge, if it ever happens again.


EDIT:  Are you running multiple backup pools possibly?

[420]

I can't answer for that kind of discrepancy with CGMiner's reject display, unless you're running at a very high difficulty and trying to force submit shares that don't match difficulty.  Other includes 2 types of rejects:  Unknown Work (normally the result of a server restart, pretty rare), and Low Difficulty.  Unknown rejects only count as 1 reject each, even if you're mining at high difficulties, while stales/valids count multiple times when running at higher difficulties.  But I also don't think CGMiner adjusts the A/R numbers to match difficulty.

My suggestion would be reset your stats on the dashboard, restart cgminer, and try to catch when the two numbers diverge, if it ever happens again.


EDIT:  Are you running multiple backup pools possibly?

no backup pools.
set difficulty 1 in my dashboard, only using 300Mh/s. If there is a difficulty setting in cgminer I'm not using it.

restarted. right off bat 3 rejects 4 accepts

[2013-03-16 12:40:19] Use the gpu map feature to reliably map Ope
[2013-03-16 12:40:19] WARNING: Number of OpenCL and ADL devices d
[2013-03-16 12:40:19] Hardware monitoring may NOT match up with d
[2013-03-16 12:40:19] Probing for an alive pool
[2013-03-16 12:40:25] Accepted 241de8f3 Diff 7/1 GPU 0
[2013-03-16 12:40:28] Accepted 83a062eb Diff 1/1 GPU 0
[2013-03-16 12:40:30] Rejected 09ad7759 Diff 26/1 GPU 0  (unknown
[2013-03-16 12:40:33] Accepted 90cc2691 Diff 1/1 GPU 0
[2013-03-16 12:40:42] Rejected 7f189939 Diff 2/1 GPU 0  (unknown)
[2013-03-16 12:41:10] Accepted 53f66fed Diff 3/1 GPU 0
[2013-03-16 12:41:11] Rejected bb76f996 Diff 1/1 GPU 0  (unknown)

[eleuthria]

Sounds like you might be submitting malformed stratum responses, which is a bug that has affected some users.  To date I don't think this bug has ever been resolved within cgminer.  It sends weird binary data instead of proper hex pairs for the share submissions.  Unfortunately I can't confirm if that's the issue, I removed the detailed logging of those types rejects because it spammed my logs with mostly unreadable data.

It's highly likely this is the problem, because the server is set to completely ignore these types of submissions and just send a reject message, not log it to the database.

You could try running your miners through a local stratum proxy to see if that fixes the problem.

[420]

Sounds like you might be submitting malformed stratum responses, which is a bug that has affected some users.  To date I don't think this bug has ever been resolved within cgminer.  It sends weird binary data instead of proper hex pairs for the share submissions.  Unfortunately I can't confirm if that's the issue, I removed the detailed logging of those types rejects because it spammed my logs with mostly unreadable data.

It's highly likely this is the problem, because the server is set to completely ignore these types of submissions and just send a reject message, not log it to the database.

You could try running your miners through a local stratum proxy to see if that fixes the problem.

I upgraded to cgminer 2.11.2 and my problem is fixed! 0 rejects

[eleuthria]

Sounds like you might be submitting malformed stratum responses, which is a bug that has affected some users.  To date I don't think this bug has ever been resolved within cgminer.  It sends weird binary data instead of proper hex pairs for the share submissions.  Unfortunately I can't confirm if that's the issue, I removed the detailed logging of those types rejects because it spammed my logs with mostly unreadable data.

It's highly likely this is the problem, because the server is set to completely ignore these types of submissions and just send a reject message, not log it to the database.

You could try running your miners through a local stratum proxy to see if that fixes the problem.

I upgraded to cgminer 2.11.2 and my problem is fixed! 0 rejects

Sounds good.  I normally would have recommended upgrading cgminer, but from my experience this bug has been floating around since the earliest Stratum support, but since nobody can reliably trigger it, it just kind of pops up from time to time, so I didn't think an upgrade would have solve it.

[-ck]

I did find and fix a race condition in the stratum code going to cgminer 2.11.2.

[lastbit]

I'm a small miner on btcguild and I haven't notice any strange income on March 11, but I just donated 1.2. Not for the amount, but for the wish and hope that you'll receive back from that guys what you sent by mistake.

And a message to the guys:
It's not in the real world but in the anonymity when you prove who you really are.
Prove (to yourself) that you are, indeed, Somebody!

[BitMinerN8]

I'm a small miner on btcguild and I haven't notice any strange income on March 11, but I just donated 1.2. Not for the amount, but for the wish and hope that you'll receive back from that guys what you sent by mistake.

And a message to the guys:
It's not in the real world but in the anonymity when you prove who you really are.
Prove (to yourself) that you are, indeed, Somebody!

"History is-a made at night. Character is what you are in the dark."

                                                                       -- Lord John Whorfin

[Fiyasko]

174292 (99.91%) accepted shares 
Definitly the best pool, back when i was on 50btc, I was getting 89-93%

[eleuthria]

174292 (99.91%) accepted shares  
Definitly the best pool, back when i was on 50btc, I was getting 89-93%

Just wait until next week when we move back to a 0.8 branch .  It will reduce the internal window where stales can be created by about 90%, which should restrict stales to less than your latency+50ms (or less).  The 0.7 branch sometimes introduces delays up to 400ms+ at generating new work after a block comes out.  0.8 averaged about 30ms.

[Monster Tent]

Yeah what an asshat.  Go ahead and post his/her info.  I'm sure some people on here with some "technical support" would be happy to pay him/her a cyber visit (if not a real visit).  That and just believe in karma.

While i do think the guy is obnoxious, please think twice before releasing his info if you have it.

While he might have a right to keep the coins other people also have a right to ostrasize him.