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

[Trongersoll]

Merged mining, as you mentioned earlier, many of us just send our altcoins to BTC-e. Do you know if we need a separate address for each type of coin sent there? or can we use the same address for all of them? I assume that all these can be sold there? Since they aren't being made yet, no rush on an answer. Thanks man, you ROCK!!!

[1713480724]

1713480724

[1713480724]

1713480724

[eleuthria]

Merged mining, as you mentioned earlier, many of us just send our altcoins to BTC-e. Do you know if we need a separate address for each type of coin sent there? or can we use the same address for all of them? I assume that all these can be sold there? Since they aren't being made yet, no rush on an answer. Thanks man, you ROCK!!!

I don't believe BTC-e has trading for any of the other merged mining altcoins.  I think cryptsy is where people trade them?  I really haven't bothered looking into the sheer volume of junk coins out there, but the new server is being designed in a way it can handle all these chains at once.  IXC/DVC/I0C/GRC will all end up running on a separate server from the pools themselves that way there's no impact *at all* to regular performance.

I've previously been against the near-valueless coins because of the HDD/CPU time spent processing blocks on those chains could negatively impact performance.  While it wouldn't be a huge impact either way, they also add so little that the tradeoff didn't seem worth it.  With the new code, I'm making it so that tradeoff no longer exists.

[Taugeran]

Merged mining, as you mentioned earlier, many of us just send our altcoins to BTC-e. Do you know if we need a separate address for each type of coin sent there? or can we use the same address for all of them? I assume that all these can be sold there? Since they aren't being made yet, no rush on an answer. Thanks man, you ROCK!!!

I don't believe BTC-e has trading for any of the other merged mining altcoins.  I think cryptsy is where people trade them?  I really haven't bothered looking into the sheer volume of junk coins out there, but the new server is being designed in a way it can handle all these chains at once.  IXC/DVC/I0C/GRC will all end up running on a separate server from the pools themselves that way there's no impact *at all* to regular performance.

I've previously been against the near-valueless coins because of the HDD/CPU time spent processing blocks on those chains could negatively impact performance.  While it wouldn't be a huge impact either way, they also add so little that the tradeoff didn't seem worth it.  With the new code, I'm making it so that tradeoff no longer exists.

+infinity+1

[BitMinerN8]

Merged mining, as you mentioned earlier, many of us just send our altcoins to BTC-e. Do you know if we need a separate address for each type of coin sent there? or can we use the same address for all of them? I assume that all these can be sold there? Since they aren't being made yet, no rush on an answer. Thanks man, you ROCK!!!

Most of the Alt coin Exchanges I have seen or had transactions with have separate funding addresses for each denomination.

[CYPER]

Merged mining, as you mentioned earlier, many of us just send our altcoins to BTC-e. Do you know if we need a separate address for each type of coin sent there? or can we use the same address for all of them? I assume that all these can be sold there? Since they aren't being made yet, no rush on an answer. Thanks man, you ROCK!!!

I don't believe BTC-e has trading for any of the other merged mining altcoins.  I think cryptsy is where people trade them?  I really haven't bothered looking into the sheer volume of junk coins out there, but the new server is being designed in a way it can handle all these chains at once.  IXC/DVC/I0C/GRC will all end up running on a separate server from the pools themselves that way there's no impact *at all* to regular performance.

I've previously been against the near-valueless coins because of the HDD/CPU time spent processing blocks on those chains could negatively impact performance.  While it wouldn't be a huge impact either way, they also add so little that the tradeoff didn't seem worth it.  With the new code, I'm making it so that tradeoff no longer exists.

For the time I mined 80BTC and also mined 2BTC worth of NMC.
So for 2 months of mining (November and December) I got enough NMC to pay my electricity for 3 months.
You still think that is nothing?

You should have added them long time ago, as obviously adding them now will have less of an impact because of the ever increasing difficulty.

[DPoS]

Merged mining, as you mentioned earlier, many of us just send our altcoins to BTC-e. Do you know if we need a separate address for each type of coin sent there? or can we use the same address for all of them? I assume that all these can be sold there? Since they aren't being made yet, no rush on an answer. Thanks man, you ROCK!!!

I don't believe BTC-e has trading for any of the other merged mining altcoins.  I think cryptsy is where people trade them?  I really haven't bothered looking into the sheer volume of junk coins out there, but the new server is being designed in a way it can handle all these chains at once.  IXC/DVC/I0C/GRC will all end up running on a separate server from the pools themselves that way there's no impact *at all* to regular performance.

I've previously been against the near-valueless coins because of the HDD/CPU time spent processing blocks on those chains could negatively impact performance.  While it wouldn't be a huge impact either way, they also add so little that the tradeoff didn't seem worth it.  With the new code, I'm making it so that tradeoff no longer exists.

For the time I mined 80BTC and also mined 2BTC worth of NMC.
So for 2 months of mining (November and December) I got enough NMC to pay my electricity for 3 months.
You still think that is nothing?

You should have added them long time ago, as obviously adding them now will have less of an impact because of the ever increasing difficulty.

"any of the other merged mining altcoins"

[CYPER]

Merged mining, as you mentioned earlier, many of us just send our altcoins to BTC-e. Do you know if we need a separate address for each type of coin sent there? or can we use the same address for all of them? I assume that all these can be sold there? Since they aren't being made yet, no rush on an answer. Thanks man, you ROCK!!!

I don't believe BTC-e has trading for any of the other merged mining altcoins.  I think cryptsy is where people trade them?  I really haven't bothered looking into the sheer volume of junk coins out there, but the new server is being designed in a way it can handle all these chains at once.  IXC/DVC/I0C/GRC will all end up running on a separate server from the pools themselves that way there's no impact *at all* to regular performance.

I've previously been against the near-valueless coins because of the HDD/CPU time spent processing blocks on those chains could negatively impact performance.  While it wouldn't be a huge impact either way, they also add so little that the tradeoff didn't seem worth it.  With the new code, I'm making it so that tradeoff no longer exists.

For the time I mined 80BTC and also mined 2BTC worth of NMC.
So for 2 months of mining (November and December) I got enough NMC to pay my electricity for 3 months.
You still think that is nothing?

You should have added them long time ago, as obviously adding them now will have less of an impact because of the ever increasing difficulty.

"any of the other merged mining altcoins"

I need to sleep now. I misread what he meant for which I apologize
Btw they are worthless now, but that can easily change

[eleuthria]

For the time I mined 80BTC and also mined 2BTC worth of NMC.
So for 2 months of mining (November and December) I got enough NMC to pay my electricity for 3 months.
You still think that is nothing?

You should have added them long time ago, as obviously adding them now will have less of an impact because of the ever increasing difficulty.

BTC Guild has been mining NMC for months.  It mined it during most of 2011, all of 2012 for users that wanted it.  It was only unavailable for a few months in early 2013 when getwork was shut down and it had not been added to the Stratum code yet.  During the few months it was unavailable, it was virtually worthless.

[zerokwel]

woop. Glad altguild scryptguild etc is opening its doors soon . means my altcoin miners can move to the guild as well

[medUSA]

Good to hear there is a scryptguild, I can move my litecoin mining to guild too!
Oh, just Googled it, not up yet... but looking forward to it.

Great work eleuthria!

[eleuthria]

Good to hear there is a scryptguild, I can move my litecoin mining to guild too!
Oh, just Googled it, not up yet... but looking forward to it.

Great work eleuthria!

Yeah, unfortunately I was overzealous in my original timeline predictions.  It's amazing how many little bugs can slip through internal testing.  As much as I tried to break things on my local testing, it can't compete with the complete onslaught of junk data the live servers receive.  The new backend is *very* close to complete now, and is getting significant live testing for the majority of its functions already.  As soon as the backend is confirmed ready, Scrypt Guild will begin to take shape.

[AussieHash]

Miner statistics bug with the new backend ?

I had 2 of my miners go down due to a datacentre reshuffle, which saw some miners powered down and restarted.

On restart 2 units were mining suboptimally, an Oct jupiter hashing at about 1/4 speed (confirmed on http GUI and shell cgminer) and a Nov jupiter hashing at about 1/2 speed.

btcguild moved them from "idle workers" to "active workers" but despite multiple refreshes over a few minutes, the estimated speed was clearly incorrect  547.64 GH/s and 654.68 GH/s

I assume btcguild is displaying the old estimated speed before they became idle, rather than their current estimated speed.

[eleuthria]

Miner statistics bug with the new backend ?

I had 2 of my miners go down due to a datacentre reshuffle, which saw some miners powered down and restarted.

On restart 2 units were mining suboptimally, an Oct jupiter hashing at about 1/4 speed (confirmed on http GUI and shell cgminer) and a Nov jupiter hashing at about 1/2 speed.

btcguild moved them from "idle workers" to "active workers" but despite multiple refreshes over a few minutes, the estimated speed was clearly incorrect  547.64 GH/s and 654.68 GH/s

I assume btcguild is displaying the old estimated speed before they became idle, rather than their current estimated speed.

I'm assuming this already sorted itself out.  The estimated speed has always used a large window to determine the average speed.  If your miners disconnect for a while (restart) and you turn them back on, it will take about an hour before your estimated speed returns to normal, since you have a period of no hashing.

Absolutely *nothing* has changed on the frontend or backend mining servers.  The server currently being used for testing is the validation server, which you're only connected to for a few seconds at most if you're running decent hardware.

[Joshwaa]

Is XPM (Primecoin) one of the alt-currency you might be running eleuthria?  This would be good news? Thanks for all your great work.

[eleuthria]

Is XPM (Primecoin) one of the alt-currency you might be running eleuthria?  This would be good news? Thanks for all your great work.

Primecoin probably won't be added.  My understanding is the proof of work verification for Primecoin is drastically different from the other coins, so it wouldn't be quite as simple to implement (certainly wouldn't work for a multicoin pool).

[Joshwaa]

Yes, it is true it is quite different. Was just a hopeful idea. There are few pools that offer XPM, all of which I feel do not have enough transparency.  Also are you needing any guinea pigs for the Scrypt Guild?

[eleuthria]

Yes, it is true it is quite different. Was just a hopeful idea. There are few pools that offer XPM, all of which I feel do not have enough transparency.  Also are you needing any guinea pigs for the Scrypt Guild?

Guinea pigs will be hand chosen (AKA:  mass invited) in IRC once it is ready.  I'm going to avoid giving any dates until it's closer though, after the hangups that I hit on the main backend over the weekend (most of which have been resolved).

[Trongersoll]

Yes, it is true it is quite different. Was just a hopeful idea. There are few pools that offer XPM, all of which I feel do not have enough transparency.  Also are you needing any guinea pigs for the Scrypt Guild?

Guinea pigs will be hand chosen (AKA:  mass invited) in IRC once it is ready.  I'm going to avoid giving any dates until it's closer though, after the hangups that I hit on the main backend over the weekend (most of which have been resolved).

just out of curiosity, what language are you coding in? I won't ask why because that is a personal choice.

[newguy05]

Sorry if this was asked, but does anyone know any common resolution to high # of rejected shares?  i switched from slush to btcguild and all 4 antminers are showing very high number (~25%) of rejected shares.  I don think it is the hardware or internet, they were mining slush fine but i dont like that pool anymore.

I am pretty sure it's some setting i need to do figured if someone already knew, will save me some time.

Thanks

fyi this is resolved, i *think* the issue was the minimum difficulty setting of the workers, they were all defaulted at 2, once i changed them to 128 or 256 (i put 2 workers on each) for my 180 GH antminer, the rejected shares stopped and everything began working correctly.  I am running at 99%+ accepted now after about 24 hours.

[AussieHash]

Miner statistics bug with the new backend ?

I had 2 of my miners go down due to a datacentre reshuffle, which saw some miners powered down and restarted.

On restart 2 units were mining suboptimally, an Oct jupiter hashing at about 1/4 speed (confirmed on http GUI and shell cgminer) and a Nov jupiter hashing at about 1/2 speed.

btcguild moved them from "idle workers" to "active workers" but despite multiple refreshes over a few minutes, the estimated speed was clearly incorrect  547.64 GH/s and 654.68 GH/s

I assume btcguild is displaying the old estimated speed before they became idle, rather than their current estimated speed.

I'm assuming this already sorted itself out.  The estimated speed has always used a large window to determine the average speed.  If your miners disconnect for a while (restart) and you turn them back on, it will take about an hour before your estimated speed returns to normal, since you have a period of no hashing.

Absolutely *nothing* has changed on the frontend or backend mining servers.  The server currently being used for testing is the validation server, which you're only connected to for a few seconds at most if you're running decent hardware.

Already sorted out. I don't know why some Jupiters hash poorly after restarting (And on occasion on forced pool change when bitminter went down). Bertmod did not reveal any obvious problem. Restarting cgminer from shell fixed the hashrate.