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

[eleuthria]

Maybe you can keep up 2 servers or more.  I think deepbit uses multiple servers (at least two).  I know webservers like apache start up like 10 instances of the server.  

The new server coming up should be able to support a a pool speed over 1 TH//sec before needing more software optimizations or separate servers.  My goal is to begin working on linking a separate EU server after the new one is online and I get the features I want implemented.  That way we'll have two servers in different regions for people to pick from, but a single linked website for stats/rewards.

[1714180420]

1714180420

[1714180420]

1714180420

[1714180420]

1714180420

[Grike_SixEcho]

It was the same ditz from Slate, Annie Lowry,  that wrote the hatchet job piece the other day calling bitcoiners "privacy freaks" .... http://www.slate.com/id/2294980

.... maybe someone should invade her financial privacy to give her a taste of what she advocates?

I just got more and more angry reading that piece.

[mmortal03]

I'm just curious if there has been progress made on implementing auto payouts for 2%? Anyway, keep up the great work!

[Dobrodav]

Looks like pool have no protection from common pool fraud practise - connection to pool in early stages of new block solving and after est. reward  reach some constant, reconnect to other pool witch is an early stage of solving new block.

There is no reason that if you submitted 250 shares in the round that your 250 shares are worth less than my 250, just because mine were submitted evenly and yours were submitted in the beginning.  It is not fraud, it is a miner trying to maximize their reward.  No share should be worth more than any other.  Every share had the same chance of being the one to solve the block.

All right -, hope you was reading this:
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:http://bitcoin.atspace.com/poolcheating.pdf
And for example this:
http://forum.bitcoin.org/?topic=4787.0

Just to be sure.

[fasti]

Does this pool have failsafe for attackers like deepbit?

[Dobrodav]

In fact, deepbit did not have that failsafe. He uses stats delay (for one hour) to prevent this.

[[Tycho]]

In fact, deepbit did not have that failsafe. He uses stats delay (for one hour) to prevent this.

I think that he asked about hot spare servers.

[eleuthria]

Does this pool have failsafe for attackers like deepbit?

No spare servers are up yet, trying to push the server to a dedicated host first.  After getting moved to a machine that shouldn't have any issues scaling to 1 TH/sec+, I'll be working on modifying the pool software to shard it across multiple servers in different regions, with redirections when one fails.

[ensign_lee]

Haven't seen the monsters from the portal to the other dimension yet. That's good.

Interesting that our hash rate continues to go up even though registration is closed to new users. I guess people aren't concerned about the increasing stale share rate.

Way to go eleuthria! Your pool has grown by leaps and bounds, largely because of your awesome coding, but even moreso because of your responsiveness to all of us. Thank you!

[kodess]

Just registered to ask 1 question

eleuthria, is there a reason you don't support JSONP?
You made a great API, but I want to use only javascript/ajax to get data, and JSONP would be really handy
It's really easy to implement as its just one extra GET to parse.
Of course it shouldnt be on top of your ToDo list, as there are more important features waiting.

wiki:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JSONP

By the way, really like this pool more. The UI is really clean, all the data you need is in the right place... I love it

[eleuthria]

Just registered to ask 1 question

eleuthria, is there a reason you don't support JSONP?
You made a great API, but I want to use only javascript/ajax to get data, and JSONP would be really handy
It's really easy to implement as its just one extra GET to parse.
Of course it shouldnt be on top of your ToDo list, as there are more important features waiting.

wiki:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JSONP

By the way, really like this pool more. The UI is really clean, all the data you need is in the right place... I love it

Not sure if you're the person that requested it in the IRC chat, but JSONP is on the list of features to add in the near future.

[kodess]

haha, nope not the one in IRC.
Although I should start to lurk there more often..

and awesome that its on the list!

[Rudycoin]

I have just started mining with you yesterday.  I noticed that after I added 2x more 5850's to my system that the Worker Speed reported on your site is now not consistent (about 50-60%) with what is displayed when running Diablo Miner.  Just wondering why this is happening, or if my Miner needs tweaking.

Diablo Displays ~ 866 mH/sec and your site hovers around 410-420 mH/sec
the command line is using -v 2 -w 128 as this results in the highest speed.
could the -w 128 be causing this?
Just wondering if the issue is me or the site?

[eleuthria]

I have just started mining with you yesterday.  I noticed that after I added 2x more 5850's to my system that the Worker Speed reported on your site is now not consistent (about 50-60%) with what is displayed when running Diablo Miner.  Just wondering why this is happening, or if my Miner needs tweaking.

Diablo Displays ~ 866 mH/sec and your site hovers around 410-420 mH/sec
the command line is using -v 2 -w 128 as this results in the highest speed.
could the -w 128 be causing this?
Just wondering if the issue is me or the site?

As has been posted for the last few days, the server needs to be relocated to a dedicated host, which is lined up but not yet ready.

The amount on the site is NEVER the same as your miner, it's a 15 minute average.  Right now it will likely be less due to occasional miner idles that are being caused by the current volume of workers on the server.  This is the reason new registrations were closed, the current server cannot handle the load (we grew over 100 GH/sec in 4 days).

[Rudycoin]

I have just started mining with you yesterday.  I noticed that after I added 2x more 5850's to my system that the Worker Speed reported on your site is now not consistent (about 50-60%) with what is displayed when running Diablo Miner.  Just wondering why this is happening, or if my Miner needs tweaking.

Diablo Displays ~ 866 mH/sec and your site hovers around 410-420 mH/sec
the command line is using -v 2 -w 128 as this results in the highest speed.
could the -w 128 be causing this?
Just wondering if the issue is me or the site?

As has been posted for the last few days, the server needs to be relocated to a dedicated host, which is lined up but not yet ready.

The amount on the site is NEVER the same as your miner, it's a 15 minute average.  Right now it will likely be less due to occasional miner idles that are being caused by the current volume of workers on the server.  This is the reason new registrations were closed, the current server cannot handle the load (we grew over 100 GH/sec in 4 days).

Ahh, ok.  I figured the statistics would not match EXACTLY but within 100 mH/sec, this is way too far off for something not to be up. 
The miner is now up for over 12 H and has been lingering around 866 mH/sec for most of the session, so I would expect the 15 minute moving average to be somewhat close.

When do you anticipate the relocation to happen?  Sounds like some work, I hate moving stuff like that at work.

Thanks for your reply.

[kjj]

Looks like we got a second invalid block.

Any thought of rolling the shares from the invalid round into the next round?

[Grike_SixEcho]

OH CRAP

Check out block #150

That was also the number of pokemon originally.  Coincidence?  I think not.  Maybe we will see a dimensional rift and daemons from the other side in short order.   

[grndzero]

Looks like we got a second invalid block.

Any thought of rolling the shares from the invalid round into the next round?

Block 151 has already been solved. So far it's not showing invalid to me.

[kjj]

Looks like we got a second invalid block.

Any thought of rolling the shares from the invalid round into the next round?

Block 151 has already been solved. So far it's not showing invalid to me.

Oh, heh.  I wasn't suggesting that we had consecutive invalid blocks.  There was one before, round 8.

[Nythain]

Looks like we got a second invalid block.

Any thought of rolling the shares from the invalid round into the next round?

Correct me if I'm wrong in this, but wouldn't that defeat the concept of the invalid insurance/reward those of us that donate 2.5% or more get?