[XMR] Monero Mining

[smooth]

I'm wondering why people still use "screen". Byobu is so much more powerful and easy to use.

I'd never heard of it. Sounds useful. Thanks for the recommendation!

[1715076257]

1715076257

[1715076257]

1715076257

[1715076257]

1715076257

[smooth]

Important update (source code only)

If you are operating a pool or other important service, or if you are solo mining, and you compile your own node, please pull master from github and upgrade ASAP. Likewise if you have AWS images, please rebuild them with the new version. Additional precautionary checkpoints have been added to protect more of the existing blockchain.

Our recommendation for exchange is to remain frozen for external transactions. If you are still running a node, please update.

https://github.com/monero-project/bitmonero

The only evidence of anomalous activity is what was reported by fluffypony. Nevertheless malicious activity may occur that is not visible until the moment of the attack.

The update is an important precaution.

Updated binaries will follow shortly.

Further measures will be taken as necessary.

Can we small coin holder leave our wallet/daemon running to support the network?

Of course!

If you are able to update from source code (for most Linux users this is fairly easy) then please get the latest update as described above. If not please await a new version of the binaries soon.

[oda.krell]

Thanks for the answers re: EC2. I understand your point now, smooth. Some of my instances were outbid over night, not to return, so I guess the "persistent" setting is the way to go.

A question for the CryptonotepoolUK guys: Is the XMRminerToDevFund AWS upgraded to the latest version? Or doesn't that really matter because it's pooled mining?

[smooth]

Thanks for the answers re: EC2. I understand your point now, smooth. Some of my instances were outbid over night, not to return, so I guess the "persistent" setting is the way to go.

A question for the CryptonotepoolUK guys: Is the XMRminerToDevFund AWS upgraded to the latest version? Or doesn't that really matter because it's pooled mining?

If it is 100% pool then you wouldn't even have a node in there at all, so no issue of upgrading.

My preferred way to use AWS is pool on the GPU and solo on the CPU, but I don't know if they are doing that.

[papa_lazzarou]

Thanks for the answers re: EC2. I understand your point now, smooth. Some of my instances were outbid over night, not to return, so I guess the "persistent" setting is the way to go.

A question for the CryptonotepoolUK guys: Is the XMRminerToDevFund AWS upgraded to the latest version? Or doesn't that really matter because it's pooled mining?

If it is 100% pool then you wouldn't even have a node in there at all, so no issue of upgrading.

My preferred way to use AWS is pool on the GPU and solo on the CPU, but I don't know if they are doing that.

Its doesn't have a full node, yet. Does the install script point to the right sources?

The main issue I see with it is that the blockchain needs to be resynced every time the instance is launched.
Maybe it is possible to check the mod date of the blockchain and download the bootstrap automatically in case it is too old?

PS - I'm not linked to CryptonotepoolUK. I just used it in the AMIs because it had low hashrate and donates 100% to devs.

[smooth]

Its doesn't have a full node, yet. Does the install script point to the right sources?

I don't even see the install script there any more, but maybe I'm looking in the wrong place.

I see

Code:

Short version: git clone git://github.com/monero-project/bitmonero && cd bitmonero && make

Here: http://monero.cc/getting-started/index.html#install_source

That is how I do it, except "make -j$(nproc)" goes much faster.

The main issue I see with it is that the blockchain needs to be resynced every time the instance is launched.
Maybe it is possible to check the mod date of the blockchain and download the bootstrap automatically in case it is too old?

I find this is usually not a major concern. The reason being that you will end up needing to update your images (new version of node, etc.) and at that point I will just update the blockchain in the image as well. (I also grab any new OS updates.) The rest of the time, yes it syncs but it doesn't really take that long. Downloading the bootstrap would probably take longer (unless your image gets really old).

Another pitfall here is to make sure you have enough disk space for two copies of the blockchain. Because when it saves (every 12 hours) it stores the new one before deleting the old one. This can be an issue on some very small instance types.

PS - I'm not linked to CryptonotepoolUK. I just used it in the AMIs because it had low hashrate and donates 100% to devs.

Excellent! Thank you (and them) for both.

[MONERO.RS]

XMR pool MONERO.RS statistics page has been updated to allow aggregate individual worker stats. You can now dedicate a worker id to every rig and monitor them all on one page.

This new feature is not available on any other pool that we know of and is perfect for legal botnets. More info on our official thread here : https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=791015

[smooth]

Important update (source code only)

We have a new update with additional precautionary checkpoints added to protect more of the existing blockchain. In addition this update adds the ability to read checkpoints from an external file. We will be distributing updated checkpoint files that will continue to protect the blockchain without the need for a full update of the daemon.

Although there has been no actual attack we consider the threat credible and are acting accordingly. We urge you to do the same.

We are however, continuing development and this update also contains some new features that will be included in the next official build. As such, dependencies have changed. For example Linux dependencies:

GCC 4.7.3 or later, CMake 2.8.6 or later, Unbound 1.4.16 or later, and Boost 1.53 or later (except 1.54, more details here).

https://github.com/monero-project/bitmonero

Plain 'git pull' wont work. Unless you are doing your own modifications to the code it is probably easiest to make a new clone. If you are doing your own modifications you should know how to use git.

If you are operating a pool or other important service, or if you are solo mining, and you compile your own node, please pull master from github and upgrade ASAP. If you are not a git expert it is probably better to just create a new clone. Likewise if you have AWS images, please rebuild them with the new version.

Our recommendation for exchange is to remain frozen for external transactions. If you are still running a node, please update.

The only evidence of anomalous activity is what was reported by fluffypony. Nevertheless malicious activity may occur that is not visible until the moment of the attack.

The update is an important precaution.

Updated binaries will follow shortly.

Further measures will be taken as necessary.

[superresistant]

 
Fast blockchain sync Linux for noobs :

First Install :

cd
mkdir ~/.bitmonero
cd ~/.bitmonero
wget http://monero.cc/downloads/blockchain/linux/blockchain.bin


Update :

cd
rm -r ~/.bitmonero
mkdir ~/.bitmonero
cd ~/.bitmonero
wget http://monero.cc/downloads/blockchain/linux/blockchain.bin

[smooth]

For some portion of the past 12 hours (including a time after my update message) there was a bad commit on github, so if you updated from there you should make sure you have the current version as of now.

[oda.krell]

Question for those more knowledgeable on mining / EC2 matters:

I don't have the exact numbers to support this claim, but by my estimations of the last few days, EC2 mining via GPU/g2.2xlarge instances seems to be more cost-efficient than EC2 mining via c3.8xlarge. Is that at all possible?

I had about 30 c3.8xlarge instances running yesterday, and replaced them with about 30 g2.2xlarge instances. The total hashrate seems to be lower (hard for me to add it up, but maybe about half of the CPU instances), but cost is closer to 1/3 of the CPU instances.

Just asking, hoping someone with more experience in this can maybe confirm this intuition, or tell me if I'm most likely wrong.

[OrientA]

Question for those more knowledgeable on mining / EC2 matters:

I don't have the exact numbers to support this claim, but by my estimations of the last few days, EC2 mining via GPU/g2.2xlarge instances seems to be more cost-efficient than EC2 mining via c3.8xlarge. Is that at all possible?

I had about 30 c3.8xlarge instances running yesterday, and replaced them with about 30 g2.2xlarge instances. The total hashrate seems to be lower (hard for me to add it up, but maybe about half of the CPU instances), but cost is closer to 1/3 of the CPU instances.

Just asking, hoping someone with more experience in this can maybe confirm this intuition, or tell me if I'm most likely wrong.

What are the has rates on the c3.8xlarge and  g2.2xlarge, what are the costs?

[oda.krell]

Question for those more knowledgeable on mining / EC2 matters:

I don't have the exact numbers to support this claim, but by my estimations of the last few days, EC2 mining via GPU/g2.2xlarge instances seems to be more cost-efficient than EC2 mining via c3.8xlarge. Is that at all possible?

I had about 30 c3.8xlarge instances running yesterday, and replaced them with about 30 g2.2xlarge instances. The total hashrate seems to be lower (hard for me to add it up, but maybe about half of the CPU instances), but cost is closer to 1/3 of the CPU instances.

Just asking, hoping someone with more experience in this can maybe confirm this intuition, or tell me if I'm most likely wrong.

What are the has rates on the c3.8xlarge and  g2.2xlarge, what are the costs?

Rates is easy: c3.8xlarge is around 0.3 USD/hour, g2.2xlarge around 0.1 USD/hour. Slightly lower in fact, but let's compare them by max rate.

Hashrate is more difficult. I don't know exactly how to read the miner logs, the hashrate values seems to change quite a bit over time.

Additional complication: when I opened a large number of concurrent c3.8xlarge instances in the same region, the per instance rate seemed to be lower than when I only had one or two instances in that region running.

[papa_lazzarou]

Question for those more knowledgeable on mining / EC2 matters:

I don't have the exact numbers to support this claim, but by my estimations of the last few days, EC2 mining via GPU/g2.2xlarge instances seems to be more cost-efficient than EC2 mining via c3.8xlarge. Is that at all possible?

I had about 30 c3.8xlarge instances running yesterday, and replaced them with about 30 g2.2xlarge instances. The total hashrate seems to be lower (hard for me to add it up, but maybe about half of the CPU instances), but cost is closer to 1/3 of the CPU instances.

Just asking, hoping someone with more experience in this can maybe confirm this intuition, or tell me if I'm most likely wrong.

Indeed. It's more cost-efficient to mine with the GPU instances. The price is indeed 1/3 of the 32 core instances.

With the current configuration the hashrate for the g2.2xlarge should be around 60% of the c3.8xlarge.

[smooth]

Additional complication: when I opened a large number of concurrent c3.8xlarge instances in the same region, the per instance rate seemed to be lower than when I only had one or two instances in that region running.

Coincidence. The rates change all the time.

[nsimmons]

Question for those more knowledgeable on mining / EC2 matters:

I don't have the exact numbers to support this claim, but by my estimations of the last few days, EC2 mining via GPU/g2.2xlarge instances seems to be more cost-efficient than EC2 mining via c3.8xlarge. Is that at all possible?

I had about 30 c3.8xlarge instances running yesterday, and replaced them with about 30 g2.2xlarge instances. The total hashrate seems to be lower (hard for me to add it up, but maybe about half of the CPU instances), but cost is closer to 1/3 of the CPU instances.

Just asking, hoping someone with more experience in this can maybe confirm this intuition, or tell me if I'm most likely wrong.

What are the has rates on the c3.8xlarge and  g2.2xlarge, what are the costs?

Rates is easy: c3.8xlarge is around 0.3 USD/hour, g2.2xlarge around 0.1 USD/hour. Slightly lower in fact, but let's compare them by max rate.

You sure? its 1.6 linux and 3.008 windows right now for the c3.8xlarge

[smooth]

Question for those more knowledgeable on mining / EC2 matters:

I don't have the exact numbers to support this claim, but by my estimations of the last few days, EC2 mining via GPU/g2.2xlarge instances seems to be more cost-efficient than EC2 mining via c3.8xlarge. Is that at all possible?

I had about 30 c3.8xlarge instances running yesterday, and replaced them with about 30 g2.2xlarge instances. The total hashrate seems to be lower (hard for me to add it up, but maybe about half of the CPU instances), but cost is closer to 1/3 of the CPU instances.

Just asking, hoping someone with more experience in this can maybe confirm this intuition, or tell me if I'm most likely wrong.

What are the has rates on the c3.8xlarge and  g2.2xlarge, what are the costs?

Rates is easy: c3.8xlarge is around 0.3 USD/hour, g2.2xlarge around 0.1 USD/hour. Slightly lower in fact, but let's compare them by max rate.

You sure? its 1.6 linux and 3.008 windows right now for the c3.8xlarge

Those are exceptionally high rates, but the rates vary continuously and are different in different regions. The above numbers were more typical.

[oda.krell]

Question for those more knowledgeable on mining / EC2 matters:

I don't have the exact numbers to support this claim, but by my estimations of the last few days, EC2 mining via GPU/g2.2xlarge instances seems to be more cost-efficient than EC2 mining via c3.8xlarge. Is that at all possible?

I had about 30 c3.8xlarge instances running yesterday, and replaced them with about 30 g2.2xlarge instances. The total hashrate seems to be lower (hard for me to add it up, but maybe about half of the CPU instances), but cost is closer to 1/3 of the CPU instances.

Just asking, hoping someone with more experience in this can maybe confirm this intuition, or tell me if I'm most likely wrong.

What are the has rates on the c3.8xlarge and  g2.2xlarge, what are the costs?

Rates is easy: c3.8xlarge is around 0.3 USD/hour, g2.2xlarge around 0.1 USD/hour. Slightly lower in fact, but let's compare them by max rate.

You sure? its 1.6 linux and 3.008 windows right now for the c3.8xlarge

Also depends on region, right? In the regions I used, when I had a number of instances open, and wanted them to be persistent and stay up without being outbid, ~0.3 was the max I had to put for CPU.

[smooth]

Anybody else experiencing issues with moneropool.com?

Miner is hashing away, yet the pool dash shows no shares or hashrate.

Edit: Also I think pool hash fell considerably.. Not fudding, just raising awareness with what's been going on recently

We're looking into it meanwhile everyone please move your miners off moneropool.com. The pool is clearly having trouble and its has rate is down to a tiny fraction of normal.

Anyone who is prepared to fire up AWS instances or GPU rigs or anything else to help support the network while moneropool.com is impaired, please do so.

[netmonk]

In that case many reliable pool will welcome the spoiled hashrate !