[~1000 GH/sec] BTC Guild - 0% Fee Pool, LP, SSL, Full Precision, and More

[BookLover]

I've been having the same problem, I hope it's because he implemented difficulty2 shares.

Because of this you have not convinced me that it is on my end. And I do not believe that none of your other users are not having this same issue.

I had the same issue but I managed to fix it on my end by creating a backup miner which was pointed at the second server and had a higher -f setting(aka lower priority).

The reason I had to do this was because I run through TOR which causes you connection to lag slightly and for you to be put on Eleuthria botnet suspect list.

P.S. To Eleuthria, could you possibly fix that glitch?  I've previously proved I'm not a botnet in a PM.

[1714222184]

1714222184

[1714222184]

1714222184

[1714222184]

1714222184

[fcmatt]

12 million shares for this block and counting!  When does it end!!! 

It ended with a record breaker (for BTC Guild, I would bet someone out there has a higher one though).  Happy Block #2000 all.  Now lets not get stuck on one like that again.

deepbit's new record!!

3h 37m     0    16180592

ow

[eleuthria]

I guess they just couldn't let us have our record breaker .

[jjiimm_64]

I guess they just couldn't let us have our record breaker .

correct me if im wrong here...  but wont this record keep going up as a function of the difficulty?

edit:  I still have not found a block at btcguild.  I have 2.98Million shares accepted here...

[Bitonetta]

I guess they just couldn't let us have our record breaker .

correct me if im wrong here...  but wont this record keep going up as a function of the difficulty?

edit:  I still have not found a block at btcguild.  I have 2.98Million shares accepted here...

In theory no.  Because difficulty goes up based on current network hash as people join.  It should be believed that the same proportional number will join btc.  So the time for found should remain the same.  6 mins/block to the whole network.  And if btc hash remains the proportional as total network, it's at 50(something)mins/block here currently.  I don't know what the exact time is.

In reality it won't happen that way tho.  If more people join the network and less proportional joins btc (or none of the new miners) then btc will end up taking longer and longer.  That's why it's so hard for new pools to start off.  Getting people to join so it can hit critical mass and be large enough for people to stay.

[kjj]

I guess they just couldn't let us have our record breaker .

correct me if im wrong here...  but wont this record keep going up as a function of the difficulty?

edit:  I still have not found a block at btcguild.  I have 2.98Million shares accepted here...

Yes, it will.  The current difficulty is the expected average number of shares needed to find a block.  But a round taking 10 times the expected shares is very unusual.

[PcChip]

Just noticed the note on the block statistics page,

"On very short rounds (< 1 minute), it is possible that one server is not sync'd up with the current round # before a block is found, meaning miners on that server won't have had any shares recorded for that round"

Does that mean if we got a few shares in on the short round, they'll be carried over to the next round instead of being applied to the short one, or they'll just be lost? (because neither scenario is favorable)

[eleuthria]

Just noticed the note on the block statistics page,

"On very short rounds (< 1 minute), it is possible that one server is not sync'd up with the current round # before a block is found, meaning miners on that server won't have had any shares recorded for that round"

Does that mean if we got a few shares in on the short round, they'll be carried over to the next round instead of being applied to the short one, or they'll just be lost? (because neither scenario is favorable)

If a server sync fails, it means the old server is still recording shares on the prior round.  The sequence of events would be like this:
Server A and B are working on Round #1500.
Server A finds the block, updates to Round #1501, and tries to update Server B but fails.
Server A is now recording Round #1501 shares, while Server B is still working on Round #1500.
Server A finds a block before the fallback sync script executes, and updates to Round #1502, and updates Server B to the new round, skipping 1501 on Server B.

The rewards for #1500 would not be recorded until after server B had moved past that round, so Server B users didn't lose any shares, but they were applied to the Round #1500 instead of #1501.


This was only a "problem" when we were running with 7+ servers, where connection issues could easily occur between round synchronization.  It only happened a few times, normally between euro and US servers.  

Since consolidating to two servers, this has not happened.  The sync script is much more aggressive at retrying.  However, there is always a chance of it happening if something prevents the two servers from communicating a new block with each other, so I've left the warning there.

[d.james]

I know this may be a bit early to ask, but do you have any plans to add NameCoin mining support when the merge mining starts sometimes in September?(est.)

[eleuthria]

I know this may be a bit early to ask, but do you have any plans to add NameCoin mining support when the merge mining starts sometimes in September?(est.)

I'm looking into it, but I'm not rushing for the chance.  I personally feel that namecoins are a waste of space.  Their adoption will be limited to a subset of users even smaller than TOR.  At least TOR serves a purpose.

That said, I'm waiting to see if anybody modifies pushpool to work with merged mining.  Merged mining with pools is going to be very tricky to implement, especially when a pool is already up and running.

[epdp14]

24 Hour Luck       +72.5%

holy shit.

and my miners have been lucky on top of that (they are reporting about 20% higher hashrate than they actually get) so all in all I've made about double normal earnings in the last 24 hours.

[eleuthria]

The 24H luck is slightly skewed right now due to the difficulty change.  We are definitely still positive, but not quite 70%.  We are certainly off to a nice start this difficulty though.

[Tx2000]

10%+ increase.  Not the worst, not the best.

But yea, luck has been pretty good.

[staraptor]

connection problems

[eleuthria]

connection problems

Looks like there were some routing problems between Level3 and Corexchange in Texas.  Nothing that we can do about that, only lasted about 10 minutes from what I can see in my miner logs.

[bodhipraxis]

I am glad that some people see their income has gone up (previous post a while ago on this page)...but in my case,
while my speeds are pretty consistent on two of my miners at 385 Mh/s and 285 Mh/s, respectively, btcguild often records them much much lower...my income has actually gone DOWN today...from average 0.0214 for 1.183 Gh/s (both 96 hr averages) to 0.0173 for 1.183 Gh/s today.

Why?

[bodhipraxis]

once again, for seventh time in last three hours:

0 Khash/sec 179 accepted 0 rejected RPC (+LP)
on both linux miners

then:
PING uswest.btcguild.com
90.4 ms
95.1 ms
104 ms
...
so is up.

start the miners AGAIN.

what can I do to improve my share submission success?

[bodhipraxis]

should I use a mining proxy?  both of my linux miners are pointed to uswest.btcguild.com [69.42.216.173]

[Oldminer]

This seems to be a great pool.

Ive been mining it more and more since I started with it a few weeks ago to the point its now more or less the pool I devote all my mining time too.

[bodhipraxis]

yes, BTCGuild is a great pool. I mine here 100% of the time, except the rare times when it is down. That being said, there are still some issues that I would like to know how to fix, as I have posted today...