bulanula
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
November 06, 2011, 09:54:24 AM |
|
Added Pool Block History page, API for it will be coming soon as well so web services can scrape our block data.
Regarding bitlane's post, yes, there was about 15 seconds of downtime last night for a pool restart.
MM coming soon I assume then ? Not until shadders releases the final PSJ which includes built in work generation for merged mining. So how come other pools already have MM ? I am not too well informed on MM.
|
|
|
|
dmcurser
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
November 06, 2011, 11:32:15 AM |
|
please go back and read through the pages mm isnt really totaly stable and namce coin isnt worth that much atm and it creates alot more stalls on the bitcoin side e has a post of why he hasnt implmented it yet i think on page 4.
|
1Q7TPBHHVmGCvqffYHpXCCBgbcBQ4NwXdW
|
|
|
eleuthria (OP)
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1750
Merit: 1007
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
November 06, 2011, 05:32:47 PM |
|
Added Pool Block History page, API for it will be coming soon as well so web services can scrape our block data.
Regarding bitlane's post, yes, there was about 15 seconds of downtime last night for a pool restart.
MM coming soon I assume then ? Not until shadders releases the final PSJ which includes built in work generation for merged mining. So how come other pools already have MM ? I am not too well informed on MM. I stated earlier: I wont' implement MM until it has a close to 0 effect on BTC mining, regardless of whether the tradeoff is 1% loss of BTC for a 5-7% gain in profit due to NMC. Shadders is implementing a change to PSJ soon where the getwork creation is prepared within PSJ, rather than relying on bitcoind which has always been the bottleneck at longpoll time. That change should reduce the performance impact of merged mining enough to be worth implementing.
|
RIP BTC Guild, April 2011 - June 2015
|
|
|
eleuthria (OP)
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1750
Merit: 1007
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
November 06, 2011, 06:45:59 PM |
|
Updated Auto Payout rules slightly, you can now enter multiples of 0.1 instead of whole bitcoins.
|
RIP BTC Guild, April 2011 - June 2015
|
|
|
bulanula
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
November 06, 2011, 06:50:00 PM |
|
Added Pool Block History page, API for it will be coming soon as well so web services can scrape our block data.
Regarding bitlane's post, yes, there was about 15 seconds of downtime last night for a pool restart.
MM coming soon I assume then ? Not until shadders releases the final PSJ which includes built in work generation for merged mining. So how come other pools already have MM ? I am not too well informed on MM. I stated earlier: I wont' implement MM until it has a close to 0 effect on BTC mining, regardless of whether the tradeoff is 1% loss of BTC for a 5-7% gain in profit due to NMC. Shadders is implementing a change to PSJ soon where the getwork creation is prepared within PSJ, rather than relying on bitcoind which has always been the bottleneck at longpoll time. That change should reduce the performance impact of merged mining enough to be worth implementing. So then are you saying that pools currently using MM are in fact making us get less BTC in total than before even with MM ? Unlikely. However I think others like Eligius already have custom MM code which isolates the BTC part from NMC so that is protected in the end and not affected etc. PoolServerJ seems like a generic solution to me.
|
|
|
|
eleuthria (OP)
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1750
Merit: 1007
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
November 06, 2011, 08:38:39 PM |
|
Added Pool Block History page, API for it will be coming soon as well so web services can scrape our block data.
Regarding bitlane's post, yes, there was about 15 seconds of downtime last night for a pool restart.
MM coming soon I assume then ? Not until shadders releases the final PSJ which includes built in work generation for merged mining. So how come other pools already have MM ? I am not too well informed on MM. I stated earlier: I wont' implement MM until it has a close to 0 effect on BTC mining, regardless of whether the tradeoff is 1% loss of BTC for a 5-7% gain in profit due to NMC. Shadders is implementing a change to PSJ soon where the getwork creation is prepared within PSJ, rather than relying on bitcoind which has always been the bottleneck at longpoll time. That change should reduce the performance impact of merged mining enough to be worth implementing. So then are you saying that pools currently using MM are in fact making us get less BTC in total than before even with MM ? Unlikely. However I think others like Eligius already have custom MM code which isolates the BTC part from NMC so that is protected in the end and not affected etc. PoolServerJ seems like a generic solution to me. Merged mining requires extra long polls when the NMC block changes. Everytime you have a LP, you increase the odds of users getting stales during that window where the pool is generating thousands of getworks for miners. MM more than doubles the number of long polls. The only way around that FACT, is if some of the other MM pools are not pushing out a longpoll when the NMC block changes. If that's the case, they're damaging NMC production without hurting BTC much (there is always some minor overhead in generating the work for a merged block vs a regular block). Yes, it may be a poor excuse to some, but I've not hidden the fact that I'm not a supporter of merged mining in the first place.
|
RIP BTC Guild, April 2011 - June 2015
|
|
|
bulanula
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
November 06, 2011, 11:53:48 PM |
|
Added Pool Block History page, API for it will be coming soon as well so web services can scrape our block data.
Regarding bitlane's post, yes, there was about 15 seconds of downtime last night for a pool restart.
MM coming soon I assume then ? Not until shadders releases the final PSJ which includes built in work generation for merged mining. So how come other pools already have MM ? I am not too well informed on MM. I stated earlier: I wont' implement MM until it has a close to 0 effect on BTC mining, regardless of whether the tradeoff is 1% loss of BTC for a 5-7% gain in profit due to NMC. Shadders is implementing a change to PSJ soon where the getwork creation is prepared within PSJ, rather than relying on bitcoind which has always been the bottleneck at longpoll time. That change should reduce the performance impact of merged mining enough to be worth implementing. So then are you saying that pools currently using MM are in fact making us get less BTC in total than before even with MM ? Unlikely. However I think others like Eligius already have custom MM code which isolates the BTC part from NMC so that is protected in the end and not affected etc. PoolServerJ seems like a generic solution to me. Merged mining requires extra long polls when the NMC block changes. Everytime you have a LP, you increase the odds of users getting stales during that window where the pool is generating thousands of getworks for miners. MM more than doubles the number of long polls. The only way around that FACT, is if some of the other MM pools are not pushing out a longpoll when the NMC block changes. If that's the case, they're damaging NMC production without hurting BTC much (there is always some minor overhead in generating the work for a merged block vs a regular block). Yes, it may be a poor excuse to some, but I've not hidden the fact that I'm not a supporter of merged mining in the first place. Very nice explanation. So then this explains why Eligius is giving me less NMC but more BTC and slush is giving me a ton of NMC but less BTC ![Huh](https://bitcointalk.org/Smileys/default/huh.gif) Thanks !
|
|
|
|
eleuthria (OP)
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1750
Merit: 1007
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
November 07, 2011, 05:44:18 AM |
|
Fixed a bug in the auto payouts. Made a change after the first round of testing to make sure it wasn't possible to send a payment to somebody without logging it with a batch # so I could audit the results in case a batch failed. One of those changes ended up making the payment script stop after the first payment was processed, so only 1 person would get an auto payout per hour. That has been fixed and now the auto payouts are working as intended.
|
RIP BTC Guild, April 2011 - June 2015
|
|
|
sadpandatech
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
November 07, 2011, 08:11:37 AM |
|
Pool hash way down and I can't keep connection.
Working on something or is there something wrong?
|
If you're not excited by the idea of being an early adopter 'now', then you should come back in three or four years and either tell us "Told you it'd never work!" or join what should, by then, be a much more stable and easier-to-use system. - GA
It is being worked on by smart people. -DamienBlack
|
|
|
slush
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1386
Merit: 1097
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
November 07, 2011, 09:31:16 AM |
|
Merged mining requires extra long polls when the NMC block changes. Everytime you have a LP, you increase the odds of users getting stales during that window where the pool is generating thousands of getworks for miners. MM more than doubles the number of long polls. The only way around that FACT, is if some of the other MM pools are not pushing out a longpoll when the NMC block changes. If that's the case, they're damaging NMC production without hurting BTC much (there is always some minor overhead in generating the work for a merged block vs a regular block).
You're right that longpolling on NMC blocks isn't worth of doing, I'm not triggering LP on NMC block, too. However I must disagree that merged mining is adding any measurable additional load on servers when doing properly (so - without merged mining proxy) or hurt bitcoin mining in any way. Also that drop in NMC performance because of not doing LP is really mininmal, in few percents, so that's nothing what really hurt anybody. Otherwise I agree, introducing merged mining WAS pain and I really understand that you don't want to play with it when NMC price is so low (actually it's on 30% of price in time of MM started).
|
|
|
|
bulanula
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
November 07, 2011, 09:45:08 AM |
|
Merged mining requires extra long polls when the NMC block changes. Everytime you have a LP, you increase the odds of users getting stales during that window where the pool is generating thousands of getworks for miners. MM more than doubles the number of long polls. The only way around that FACT, is if some of the other MM pools are not pushing out a longpoll when the NMC block changes. If that's the case, they're damaging NMC production without hurting BTC much (there is always some minor overhead in generating the work for a merged block vs a regular block).
You're right that longpolling on NMC blocks isn't worth of doing, I'm not triggering LP on NMC block, too. However I must disagree that merged mining is adding any measurable additional load on servers when doing properly (so - without merged mining proxy) or hurt bitcoin mining in any way. Also that drop in NMC performance because of not doing LP is really mininmal, in few percents, so that's nothing what really hurt anybody. Otherwise I agree, introducing merged mining WAS pain and I really understand that you don't want to play with it when NMC price is so low (actually it's on 30% of price in time of MM started). So how come your pool gets me more NMC than Eligius pool ![Huh](https://bitcointalk.org/Smileys/default/huh.gif) Different implementation or what.
|
|
|
|
slush
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1386
Merit: 1097
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
November 07, 2011, 10:26:46 AM |
|
So how come your pool gets me more NMC than Eligius pool ![Huh](https://bitcointalk.org/Smileys/default/huh.gif) Different implementation or what. Well, this is highly offtopic and I don't want to hijack eleuthria's thread, but short (and last) response. It's simply because both pools are mining namecoins with all their hashpower, but they spread namecoins only for people who claimed their interest in namecoins by providing nmc wallet. As far as Eligius members are mostly geeks (well, it's a compliment), their interest in nmc is higher than interest of members on my pool. Which means that every nmc miner on my pool get more coins, because majority of pool members don't care or don't understand what namecoin is. When all pool members claim their namecoin address, average namecoin reward should be same or similar as on Eligius.
|
|
|
|
Olly_K
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
November 07, 2011, 11:39:12 AM |
|
has the pool crashed ?
|
|
|
|
what@3
Newbie
Offline
Activity: 45
Merit: 0
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
November 07, 2011, 12:29:55 PM |
|
down for me too
|
|
|
|
bulanula
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
November 07, 2011, 01:24:01 PM |
|
So how come your pool gets me more NMC than Eligius pool ![Huh](https://bitcointalk.org/Smileys/default/huh.gif) Different implementation or what. Well, this is highly offtopic and I don't want to hijack eleuthria's thread, but short (and last) response. It's simply because both pools are mining namecoins with all their hashpower, but they spread namecoins only for people who claimed their interest in namecoins by providing nmc wallet. As far as Eligius members are mostly geeks (well, it's a compliment), their interest in nmc is higher than interest of members on my pool. Which means that every nmc miner on my pool get more coins, because majority of pool members don't care or don't understand what namecoin is. When all pool members claim their namecoin address, average namecoin reward should be same or similar as on Eligius. OK this makes sense. Thank you.
|
|
|
|
os2sam
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 3582
Merit: 1094
Think for yourself
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
November 07, 2011, 01:58:37 PM |
|
|
A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text. Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing? A: Top-posting. Q: What is the most annoying thing on usenet and in e-mail?
|
|
|
sadpandatech
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
November 07, 2011, 02:05:01 PM Last edit: November 07, 2011, 11:42:35 PM by sadpandatech |
|
Still down for me too. I see some hash connected, either some working through tor or just ones the anti-ddos hasn't slapped yet. Which is likely our issue here that the ddos alarm got set off erroneously and slapped us all down. Ping times and traceroute report perfectly normal. So, either false ddos detection or the pool software itself borked.
|
If you're not excited by the idea of being an early adopter 'now', then you should come back in three or four years and either tell us "Told you it'd never work!" or join what should, by then, be a much more stable and easier-to-use system. - GA
It is being worked on by smart people. -DamienBlack
|
|
|
eleuthria (OP)
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1750
Merit: 1007
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
November 07, 2011, 02:46:39 PM |
|
We're back up, sorry for the downtime (always hits right as you go to bed). There was a rogue script running major logging due to the PoolServerJ flaw we found a few days ago, just to make sure the patches were working properly. The script didn't have a check to see if it was already running from a previous cronjob. Looks like sometime last night the script too long and ended up running twice simultaneously, which caused it to eventually get into a death spiral and lock up.
As sadpandatech mentioned, the slowdown also managed to trigger some software based DDoS protection which is why about 75% of the pool was unable to mine.
|
RIP BTC Guild, April 2011 - June 2015
|
|
|
sadpandatech
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
November 07, 2011, 02:47:38 PM |
|
We're back up, sorry for the downtime (always hits right as you go to bed). There was a rogue script running major logging due to the PoolServerJ flaw we found a few days ago, just to make sure the patches were working properly. The script didn't have a check to see if it was already running from a previous cronjob. Looks like sometime last night the script too long and ended up running twice simultaneously, which caused it to eventually get into a death spiral and lock up.
=)
|
If you're not excited by the idea of being an early adopter 'now', then you should come back in three or four years and either tell us "Told you it'd never work!" or join what should, by then, be a much more stable and easier-to-use system. - GA
It is being worked on by smart people. -DamienBlack
|
|
|
bulanula
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
November 07, 2011, 09:18:11 PM |
|
Always like your quick response times mate. How do you do it ? I wake up regularly during the night to check on my miners at about 2 hours interval ![Grin](https://bitcointalk.org/Smileys/default/grin.gif)
|
|
|
|
|