BitcoinPool.com open thread

[demonofelru]

I guess I'll put in my 2 cents.  In my opinion this pool has the greatest potential I mean you can't argue with no fees.  The main reason I haven't switched all my miners to here is I had one of mine on there for a couple days which there was a combined 2ish hours downtime in those couple days.  So that cut about 5% out right there, also I was watching my miner and it was acting weird once for a couple minutes it was switching between mining and then stating unable to connect.  It very well might have been that it was an unlucky period and the downtime isn't normal but I wasn't sure how much it showed the intermittent unable to connect errors either as I don't just sit and watch it mine all the time.  In conclusion I hope/think it's was/is just going through some growth pains and I'll keep an eye on it and probably bounce back in later.

Edit: looks like my grammar wasn't exactly spot on here sorry.

[nster]

I guess I'll put in my 2 cents.  In my opinion this pool has the greatest potential I mean you can't argue with no fees.  The main reason I haven't switched all my miners to here is I had one of mine on there for a couple days which there was a combined 2ish hours downtime in those couple days.  So that cut about 5% out right there, also I was watching my miner and it was acting weird once for a couple minutes it was switching between mining and then stating unable to connect.  It very well might have been that it was an unlucky period and the downtime isn't normal but I wasn't sure how much it showed the intermittent unable to connect errors either as I don't just sit and watch it mine all the time.  In conclusion I hope/think it's was/is just going through some growth pains and I'll keep an eye on it and probably bounce back in later.

Edit: looks like my grammar wasn't exactly spot on here sorry.

the downtime was only a recent problem. TBH,IMO, they have the right to be a bit on the aggressive side, they spent countless hours on the pool with no income (ie: fees)

[goatpig]

If I was a pool operator and another operator came into my thread and offered this up I would see it as hostile and be apprehensive also. He has his own pool. Even if is stats aren't constantly updated, anyone can calculate the sweet spot with some accuracy and try it out. There is no reason to repeatedly challenge another operator to exploiting their pool at the detriment of their users either way. That was adding fuel to the fire at a time when the whole conversation was going downhill.

slush didn't just walk in there saying "hey ima assault your pool". He defended his score system, that FairUser and Geebus presented as unfair. He exposed how it was mathematically yielding the same result as a share based pool, and how it protected against Raulo's attack. Now you don't see slush saying how he'll attack Tycho's pool to prove share based distribution vulnerable, simply because you don't see Tycho pretending score based systems are unfair.

Now, it is up to one's opinion to disregard mathematical evidence. If you manage to build a successful pool while remaining exposed to an exploit, the more power to you. It is a different matter if such opinion is the basis of one's criticism of the mathematical evidence. In a public discussion, your opinion doesn't weight the same as a mathematical theory.

Ill weigh in here. Most of the above is true however towards the end they did actually accept slush's challenge right before it was locked out. Also much of the confusion in the thread came from members AND non-members adding nothing constructive to the conversation mostly complaining about long rounds even though the pool was doing fine for its hash rate. There was an awful lot of critisim going on, much more than any other pool and im sure that was frustrating for two pool operators who weren't making a mint off running it like Slush

For information I tried the pool with the moded miner. I related that part of the discussion because it led to the locking of the thread. To the question "what are the downsides of BitcoinPool.com", i answered "the pool hopping", which is also relevant to the discussion prior to the lock down. And however frustrating it might have been FU and G, you might consider the fact that they're the ones who accused slush of cheating his pool. You should be prepared for a flame war when you go around flaming others. I mean, this is the internet.

I think this is a perfectly fair and open challenge so long as he doesn't try and hide it from everyone.  

Maybe yes, maybe no. I don't speak for slush but i can come up with a few arguments as to why he has little interest in performing that test under all these conditions. I'll elaborate if you so desire. Note also that slush offered to perform the attack under his name before Geebus gave in.

[demonofelru]

I guess I'll put in my 2 cents.  In my opinion this pool has the greatest potential I mean you can't argue with no fees.  The main reason I haven't switched all my miners to here is I had one of mine on there for a couple days which there was a combined 2ish hours downtime in those couple days.  So that cut about 5% out right there, also I was watching my miner and it was acting weird once for a couple minutes it was switching between mining and then stating unable to connect.  It very well might have been that it was an unlucky period and the downtime isn't normal but I wasn't sure how much it showed the intermittent unable to connect errors either as I don't just sit and watch it mine all the time.  In conclusion I hope/think it's was/is just going through some growth pains and I'll keep an eye on it and probably bounce back in later.

Edit: looks like my grammar wasn't exactly spot on here sorry.

the downtime was only a recent problem. TBH,IMO, they have the right to be a bit on the aggressive side, they spent countless hours on the pool with no income (ie: fees)

Yeah like I said I was unsure if it was normal but it was just too much downtime for me.  I am glad they seem to be sticking to it and improving it.

[geebus]

I guess I'll put in my 2 cents.  In my opinion this pool has the greatest potential I mean you can't argue with no fees.  The main reason I haven't switched all my miners to here is I had one of mine on there for a couple days which there was a combined 2ish hours downtime in those couple days.  So that cut about 5% out right there, also I was watching my miner and it was acting weird once for a couple minutes it was switching between mining and then stating unable to connect.  It very well might have been that it was an unlucky period and the downtime isn't normal but I wasn't sure how much it showed the intermittent unable to connect errors either as I don't just sit and watch it mine all the time.  In conclusion I hope/think it's was/is just going through some growth pains and I'll keep an eye on it and probably bounce back in later.

Edit: looks like my grammar wasn't exactly spot on here sorry.

the downtime was only a recent problem. TBH,IMO, they have the right to be a bit on the aggressive side, they spent countless hours on the pool with no income (ie: fees)

Yeah like I said I was unsure if it was normal but it was just too much downtime for me.  I am glad they seem to be sticking to it and improving it.

Any and all downtime we've had that was not directly posted about in the thread was due to aggressive DDoS and SYN flood attacks against our pool. Someone, or some group specifically targeting us with malicious intent. We've also had attempts made to hack our personal email accounts and personal computers. All of this while being directly and openly trolled by non-members of our pool in the thread about our pool.

[xenon481]

Any and all downtime we've had that was not directly posted about in the thread was due to aggressive DDoS and SYN flood attacks against our pool. Someone, or some group specifically targeting us with malicious intent. We've also had attempts made to hack our personal email accounts and personal computers. All of this while being directly and openly trolled by non-members of our pool in the thread about our pool.

All of those things happen to all of the other pools too.

BitPenny even had to completely shut down due to malicious attacks.

[Zamicol]

I'm having a hard time with the poclbm-mod.zip.  I'm on a Linux box (Ubuntu). 

Diablo and poclbm work great, but poclbm-mod.py does not work.

Code:

./poclbm-mod.py  -u ****** --pass=********** -o bitcoinpool.com -p 8334 -d 1
bash: ./poclbm-mod.py: /usr/bin/python^M: bad interpreter: No such file or directory

Anyone know why?  From what I read on line there is a mix up with the windows endings and the *nix endings, but I thought this file was suppose to work with Linux.  As I said, poclbm.py works fine.  I'm running it right now. 

[cdhowie]

Anyone know why?  From what I read on line there is a mix up with the windows endings and the *nix endings, but I thought this file was suppose to work with Linux.  As I said, poclbm.py works fine.  I'm running it right now. 

Try "python poclbm-mod.py ..." or if that doesn't work, install dos2unix and run it over poclbm-mod.py.

[Zamicol]

Freak'n amazing.  python poclbm-mod.py ... works!  I knew it had to be something simple. I'm only on a 4830 so it might take a day or two before I see any real payout

[grndzero]

Freak'n amazing.  python poclbm-mod.py ... works!  I knew it had to be something simple. I'm only on a 4830 so it might take a day or two before I see any real payout

I got the same error message and just went with python poclbm-mod.py also. I forgot about the possibility of it being a system format issue.

dos2unix worked for me, but I had to install it.

sudo apt-get install dos2unix
dos2unix poclbm-mod.py

If you're on bitcoinpool it only takes as long to get paid as it takes for the pool to solve a block (which seems to be running long this round). How much is a different question.   

[xenon481]

Per the BitcoinPool website: (emphasis added by me)

In recent days our server has had an increasing number of malicious attacks made against it, and in the case of one, the attacker was successful.

While we see no direct modifications that have been made to any particular account, we would like to request at this time that all users verify their account information is correct. You may do so by opening the account page (http://www.bitcoinpool.com/account.php) and logging in with your miner credentials.

It is also advisable at this time to change your password for added security.

I highly agree with the site owners that anybody that has an account there should review their security immediately.

[bobR]

Ive been monitoring poclbm-mod since the drive to remove those with low efficiency

what i'm seeing is that it continues hashing the current getwork after it finds an invalid/stale share
should it not get a fresh getwork after finding bad results

I also tried using poclbm-mod for cpu
First off my hash rate on the cpu was 20% of what pudinpop's rpc miner were
my results also showed that after the first longpole block change  most block changes were missed
resulting in mostly invalid/stale shares being found

This is NOT a bitch or complaint against the pool or the operators
Just my findings - Yours results may differ

[nster]

Ive been monitoring poclbm-mod since the drive to remove those with low efficiency

what i'm seeing is that it continues hashing the current getwork after it finds an invalid/stale share
should it not get a fresh getwork after finding bad results

I also tried using poclbm-mod for cpu
First off my hash rate on the cpu was 20% of what pudinpop's rpc miner were
my results also showed that after the first longpole block change  most block changes were missed
resulting in mostly invalid/stale shares being found

This is NOT a bitch or complaint against the pool or the operators
Just my findings - Yours results may differ

This is a complaint, and a legitimate one as it is backed by your findings. 

[cdhowie]

Per the BitcoinPool website: (emphasis added by me)

In recent days our server has had an increasing number of malicious attacks made against it, and in the case of one, the attacker was successful.

While we see no direct modifications that have been made to any particular account, we would like to request at this time that all users verify their account information is correct. You may do so by opening the account page (http://www.bitcoinpool.com/account.php) and logging in with your miner credentials.

It is also advisable at this time to change your password for added security.

I highly agree with the site owners that anybody that has an account there should review their security immediately.

Yep, and this is a very good reason why you should use different passwords on each site.  I personally use different randomly-generated passwords for each site, account, worker account, etc.  Be smart and limit the damage someone can do by compromising a pool's data.

[bobR]

another thing I'm noticing
I've only got shares on 4 of 7 blocks
but have a 0 for emp (blocks with out share)

Ive been monitoring poclbm-mod since the drive to remove those with low efficiency

what i'm seeing is that it continues hashing the current getwork after it finds an invalid/stale share
should it not get a fresh getwork after finding bad results

I also tried using poclbm-mod for cpu
First off my hash rate on the cpu was 20% of what pudinpop's rpc miner were
my results also showed that after the first longpole block change  most block changes were missed
resulting in mostly invalid/stale shares being found

This is NOT a bitch or complaint against the pool or the operators
Just my findings - Yours results may differ

[bobR]

ok its becoming apparent

8 of 18 blocks yield results
9   results below 50%
2   results above 50%
1   results above 75%
yield after 50% hash of a get work    not much

efficiency went from 200%  down to 60%

How can you possibly rate the efficiency of luck
It's lucky when you find a share... it's lucky if that or any share finds the block
My luck has no bearing on what happens in the future
My past luck has nothing to do with now

another thing I'm noticing
I've only got shares on 4 of 7 blocks
but have a 0 for emp (blocks with out share)

Ive been monitoring poclbm-mod since the drive to remove those with low efficiency

what i'm seeing is that it continues hashing the current getwork after it finds an invalid/stale share
should it not get a fresh getwork after finding bad results

I also tried using poclbm-mod for cpu
First off my hash rate on the cpu was 20% of what pudinpop's rpc miner were
my results also showed that after the first longpole block change  most block changes were missed
resulting in mostly invalid/stale shares being found

This is NOT a bitch or complaint against the pool or the operators
Just my findings - Yours results may differ

[jgarzik]

I also tried using poclbm-mod for cpu
First off my hash rate on the cpu was 20% of what pudinpop's rpc miner were
my results also showed that after the first longpole block change  most block changes were missed
resulting in mostly invalid/stale shares being found

If you use my cpuminer or ufasoft's CPU miner, you will get far more performance on CPU.

poclbm and puddinpop were not built for CPU mining.  That is largely an afterthought, and it shows with lower performance.

[bobR]

Any one notice
no payout since the last totally 120 confirms

[bobR]

22 getshares crunched now 
of 25 shares returned
4 over 50%
2 over 75%

You get the picture ..
16% in the last 50% of the getwork
8% in the last 25% of the getwork

MY point is Yes there are shares to be had in mining the whole getwork
but most are before 50% and certainly before the last 25% of the getwork
mining every possibility in every getwork doesn't seem to give the most

ok its becoming apparent

8 of 18 blocks yield results
9   results below 50%
2   results above 50%
1   results above 75%
yield after 50% hash of a get work    not much

efficiency went from 200%  down to 60%

How can you possibly rate the efficiency of luck
It's lucky when you find a share... it's lucky if that or any share finds the block
My luck has no bearing on what happens in the future
My past luck has nothing to do with now

another thing I'm noticing
I've only got shares on 4 of 7 blocks
but have a 0 for emp (blocks with out share)

Ive been monitoring poclbm-mod since the drive to remove those with low efficiency

what i'm seeing is that it continues hashing the current getwork after it finds an invalid/stale share
should it not get a fresh getwork after finding bad results

I also tried using poclbm-mod for cpu
First off my hash rate on the cpu was 20% of what pudinpop's rpc miner were
my results also showed that after the first longpole block change  most block changes were missed
resulting in mostly invalid/stale shares being found

This is NOT a bitch or complaint against the pool or the operators
Just my findings - Yours results may differ

[cdhowie]

MY point is Yes there are shares to be had in mining the whole getwork
but most are before 50% and certainly before the last 25% of the getwork
mining every possibility in every getwork doesn't seem to give the most

22 is not a statistically significant sample size in this context.  Observing my miner for about a week, the valid shares found in each getwork seem pretty uniformly distributed through the nonce-space to me.

That's not so say I haven't had a bad day or two where I run getworks that mostly turn up nothing at all.  The way the numbers work, you should average almost exactly one share per getwork that is completely searched.  In other words, your efficiency should be close to 100% on average.  I have some days where I'm consistently around 60% and others I'll be at 150%.