Bounty for open source ByteCoin/Monero pool

[eizh]

DStrange reported that he sent 5 million BCN and 0.3 BTC from BCN's funds.

[smooth]

DStrange reported that he sent 5 million BCN and 0.3 BTC from BCN's funds.

Both received.

I also received another 0.1 BTC, maybe from surfer43?

Balances:

5439 MRO
0.685 BTC
5100000 BCN

[eizh]

Awesome. Thank you, BCN community.

[dreamspark]

Awesome. Thank you, BCN community.

Looking forward to this pool being completed. Will give some people who havent had much luck solo mining a way to get some coins.

However it is important that there are a number of pools soon after as everyone will mine on the pool giving it way more than 50% of the hashing power.

[smooth]

Awesome. Thank you, BCN community.

Looking forward to this pool being completed. Will give some people who havent had much luck solo mining a way to get some coins.

However it is important that there are a number of pools soon after as everyone will mine on the pool giving it way more than 50% of the hashing power.

That is why we have specified the bounty for an open source pool implementation. This will allow many people to create pools.

[Cheesus]

Sent another 498k BCN to the pool's bounty.

[smooth]

Sent another 498k BCN to the pool's bounty.

Received your 498K

I also received another donation of 130555.555. I don't know where that came from but I thank the contributor.

BCN total: 5728555.55500000

[tacotime]

Bounties have been updated

Zone117x has stated that there is a good deal of difficulty in producing a pool for this coin because of the unique scripting language. He stated that a custom http server may need to be built to fetch/send work.

[tacotime]

Two FOSS mining pools are nearing completion and will be published on Github soon. One is by zone117x and another is by archit_.

My question is if the community would be okay dividing the bounty between both zone117x and archit_ in the event that both softwares are released around the same time. zone117x is concerned that his advanced stratum implementation will not be complete before archit_'s, because it takes a considerable amount longer to generate than a simple mining pool.

If archit_ is out there, I would appreciate his response too, and would hope that he's considerate of the hard work zone117x has been putting in over the past week to get his software completed.

[eizh]

Sounds fair to me. Monero/CryptoNote has both an immediate need for a functioning pool as well as a long term need for something scalable and high-performance.

[David Latapie]

I agree too. Both for moral reason and because more pool means less centralization.

[dreamspark]

I agree too. Both for moral reason and because more pool means less centralization.

You can have more pools even with only one open source implementation

I agree they should share the bounty, if they are equal. However if one is clearly better than the other and will obviously be the one used then I do think that person should get a larger share.

[dnaleor]

I agree too. Both for moral reason and because more pool means less centralization.

You can have more pools even with only one open source implementation

I agree they should share the bounty, if they are equal. However if one is clearly better than the other and will obviously be the one used then I do think that person should get a larger share.

I agree both (working) pools should get at least a part. If both are finished withing (let's say) 5 days of eachother, we can do a vote on the percentage. Taking into consideration the complexity of the pool and the the release date. Votes should be done by the number of MRO contributed (1 MRO is one vote)

[Quanttek]

I think sharing would be much more fair. So we have a longterm solution and something for now. We should then probably decide, if someone gets a larger share, if his pool is clearly better.

[smooth]

I agree too. Both for moral reason and because more pool means less centralization.

You can have more pools even with only one open source implementation

Multiple decentralized implementation are good too though. If there a exploit or even just a bug in one implementation and all the pools using it get hacked or crash, the other pools wouldn't be affected.

I will likely solo mine for the foreseeable future and encourage others to do so even though payouts are erratic. So there will likely be a surviving network even if pools get hacked, but more layers of protection are better.

[33zer0w0lf]

Two FOSS mining pools are nearing completion and will be published on Github soon. One is by zone117x and another is by archit_.

My question is if the community would be okay dividing the bounty between both zone117x and archit_ in the event that both softwares are released around the same time. zone117x is concerned that his advanced stratum implementation will not be complete before archit_'s, because it takes a considerable amount longer to generate than a simple mining pool.

If archit_ is out there, I would appreciate his response too, and would hope that he's considerate of the hard work zone117x has been putting in over the past week to get his software completed.

are these pools out yet?

[tacotime]

are these pools out yet?

pre-alpha yes
https://github.com/zone117x/node-cryptonote-pool

[archit]

Another status update, network code 20% done. miners can connect, receive work and submit shares already

I'm okay with splitting up the reward as long as it's half, within a week and much better

UPDATE: Share validation done!

UPDATE 2: Messed up but almost complete code https://github.com/archit120/Monero-Pool

UPDATE 3: Completely functional now, without a web end though as of now. Yet to be tested

UPDATE 4: Changed DB to Redis

[archit]

First test pool from archit_ is apparently up and running at 117.197.73.139:7707

Code:

simpleminer.exe --pool-addr 117.197.73.139:7707 --login [address] --pass [anything]

Down already It was on my personal computer and I had to go

[tacotime]

Down already It was on my personal computer and I had to go

Oh haha... sorry about that, I tried to remove my post after I realized you were just providing the address to test connections. X)