Bitcoin Forum
December 08, 2016, 10:15:16 AM *
News: Latest stable version of Bitcoin Core: 0.13.1  [Torrent].
 
   Home   Help Search Donate Login Register  
Pages: « 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 »
  Print  
Author Topic: [500 GH/s]HHTT -Selected Diff/Stratum/PPLNS/Paid Stales/High Availability/Tor  (Read 52464 times)
fireduck
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 366



View Profile
August 30, 2012, 01:27:02 PM
 #21


How complicated is it to have multiple different share difficulties run from the same pool, and in your case I presume the same server?

Not very.   The difficulty is just sent out with the work unit and the result if submitted by the miner is checked to see if it has at least that difficulty.  Might need to plumb some new variables through but shouldn't be a big deal.  I might try to get that going today.
1481192116
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481192116

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481192116
Reply with quote  #2

1481192116
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1481192116
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481192116

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481192116
Reply with quote  #2

1481192116
Report to moderator
1481192116
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481192116

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481192116
Reply with quote  #2

1481192116
Report to moderator
fireduck
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 366



View Profile
August 30, 2012, 02:53:49 PM
 #22


How complicated is it to have multiple different share difficulties run from the same pool, and in your case I presume the same server?

Not very.   The difficulty is just sent out with the work unit and the result if submitted by the miner is checked to see if it has at least that difficulty.  Might need to plumb some new variables through but shouldn't be a big deal.  I might try to get that going today.

I've done it.  I put the parameter in the username, it was just easier to ship that around.  See http://hhtt.1209k.com/:

If you would like a difficulty other than the one listed above, use a username like:

1FDkoGo8o9tmXD4cYpAqBZeWACJiYjMm3x_4
This specifies the address '1FDkoGo8o9tmXD4cYpAqBZeWACJiYjMm3x' with a difficulty of 4.

Allowable range is 1 to 65536.


Later I will implement a sliding scale of fee for difficulties. (More fees for lower difficulty).
-ck
Moderator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2002


Ruu \o/


View Profile WWW
August 30, 2012, 03:04:24 PM
 #23

Well done at being the first to implement this.

I quote from another thread I posted if people are trying to decide what difficulty to set:
To not make variance any more painful at high hashrates, make the share return rate proportional to the square root of the hashrate instead of a constant. So a 1 GH/s miner currently returns a share every 4.2 seconds - if you make the 1GH miners difficulty 10 as a baseline, then you make 10GH miners sqrt(10) * 10 ~ diff 30. And you make 100GH miners sqrt(100) * 10 ~ diff 100.

Primary developer/maintainer for cgminer and ckpool/ckproxy.
Pooled mine at kano.is, solo mine at solo.ckpool.org
-ck
Lethos
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 476


Keep it Simple. Every Bit Matters.


View Profile WWW
August 30, 2012, 03:31:14 PM
 #24


How complicated is it to have multiple different share difficulties run from the same pool, and in your case I presume the same server?

Not very.   The difficulty is just sent out with the work unit and the result if submitted by the miner is checked to see if it has at least that difficulty.  Might need to plumb some new variables through but shouldn't be a big deal.  I might try to get that going today.

I've done it.  I put the parameter in the username, it was just easier to ship that around.  See http://hhtt.1209k.com/:

If you would like a difficulty other than the one listed above, use a username like:

1FDkoGo8o9tmXD4cYpAqBZeWACJiYjMm3x_4
This specifies the address '1FDkoGo8o9tmXD4cYpAqBZeWACJiYjMm3x' with a difficulty of 4.

Allowable range is 1 to 65536.


Later I will implement a sliding scale of fee for difficulties. (More fees for lower difficulty).


Nicely done! Once home I will start experimenting with this.
Are you keeping tabs on how popular specific difficulties are?

Lethos Designs | UK BTC Seller -  Local Bitcoins | BTC OTC Rating | 1EFhXfX9uXsbXBF3LC69GiVfS3SHCsyMR1
FPGA: 2x Quad XC6SLX150 Boards
Tittiez
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 686



View Profile
August 31, 2012, 12:35:39 AM
 #25

This looks really good. I have 450MH/s, I might try difficulty 2, or maybe just difficulty 1. The simplicity of the pool is what attracts me.
dree12
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1232



View Profile
August 31, 2012, 01:30:05 AM
 #26

What software is compatible with this pool?

Edit: Nevermind, figured it out. This article is helpful.

I also made a new article documenting the future of mining: Higher difficulty pooled mining. I'm no miner, so the page needs some serious work. Also, adding some links would be helpful.
Lethos
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 476


Keep it Simple. Every Bit Matters.


View Profile WWW
August 31, 2012, 09:53:17 AM
 #27

Trying out difficulty 20 for my my mining rigs (CM1) and difficulty 2 for my testing laptop.
Seems to be performing okay.

Might try higher difficulty later on my CM1 since luck with variance seems to be pretty good on the CM1's so with a higher difficulty, it could swing a lot further.

Good quick change there, seems to work no bother, what I found funny is sometimes I notice the default changing. Is it possible that people asking for a different difficult from default temporary are changing it?

Lethos Designs | UK BTC Seller -  Local Bitcoins | BTC OTC Rating | 1EFhXfX9uXsbXBF3LC69GiVfS3SHCsyMR1
FPGA: 2x Quad XC6SLX150 Boards
nibor
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 348


View Profile
August 31, 2012, 10:20:23 AM
 #28

I would put top of your list the ability to email if miner is down.

You could use the username for that too - or the password.

e.g. if password was:
joe@gmail.com

You would email that address if miner submitted no shares for over 10 mins. Could also email when user get payments.
Lethos
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 476


Keep it Simple. Every Bit Matters.


View Profile WWW
August 31, 2012, 10:27:14 AM
 #29

I think keeping it simple has worked out quiet well.

Lethos Designs | UK BTC Seller -  Local Bitcoins | BTC OTC Rating | 1EFhXfX9uXsbXBF3LC69GiVfS3SHCsyMR1
FPGA: 2x Quad XC6SLX150 Boards
nibor
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 348


View Profile
August 31, 2012, 01:53:46 PM
 #30

Just started using this pool.

Have been getting 0.00064245 per share (x32) which seemed right to me (1/2440643 x 50 x 0.98 x 32).

But for an hour today (12:08 -> 13:09 GMT) was getting 0.00071569. Which is great! But I assume was an error?

Lethos
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 476


Keep it Simple. Every Bit Matters.


View Profile WWW
August 31, 2012, 02:17:30 PM
 #31

Bitcoin difficult still seems on the rise if anything, so I would just knock that up the variance in submitting a few shares quicker than expected in an hour, than you did last time.
Variance can be quiet abit higher than predictable diff 1 shares, when doing diff 32 shares.

Lethos Designs | UK BTC Seller -  Local Bitcoins | BTC OTC Rating | 1EFhXfX9uXsbXBF3LC69GiVfS3SHCsyMR1
FPGA: 2x Quad XC6SLX150 Boards
-ck
Moderator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2002


Ruu \o/


View Profile WWW
August 31, 2012, 02:21:14 PM
 #32

Bitcoin difficult still seems on the rise if anything, so I would just knock that up the variance in submitting a few shares quicker than expected in an hour, than you did last time.
Variance can be quiet abit higher than predictable diff 1 shares, when doing diff 32 shares.
Variance at diff 32 is 32^2 times greater, i.e. 1024 times... so in my opinion, diff 32 is too high for current mining hardware in light of that (see my earlier post).

Primary developer/maintainer for cgminer and ckpool/ckproxy.
Pooled mine at kano.is, solo mine at solo.ckpool.org
-ck
Lethos
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 476


Keep it Simple. Every Bit Matters.


View Profile WWW
August 31, 2012, 02:38:21 PM
 #33

Bitcoin difficult still seems on the rise if anything, so I would just knock that up the variance in submitting a few shares quicker than expected in an hour, than you did last time.
Variance can be quiet abit higher than predictable diff 1 shares, when doing diff 32 shares.
Variance at diff 32 is 32^2 times greater, i.e. 1024 times... so in my opinion, diff 32 is too high for current mining hardware in light of that (see my earlier post).

Didn't know the exact math, so went with a generalisation. So yeah, it's apparently a bit higher than I thought.
It is fun to experiment with many different difficulties and I've found it provides just as much over 24 hours.

I've played around with all kinds of difficulties now. 32 works fine, not ideal, I'm sure but does not make it worse.
I'm sure when I get some ASIC's this will be ideal.

Lethos Designs | UK BTC Seller -  Local Bitcoins | BTC OTC Rating | 1EFhXfX9uXsbXBF3LC69GiVfS3SHCsyMR1
FPGA: 2x Quad XC6SLX150 Boards
organofcorti
Donator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1960


Poor impulse control.


View Profile WWW
August 31, 2012, 02:47:52 PM
 #34

Bitcoin difficult still seems on the rise if anything, so I would just knock that up the variance in submitting a few shares quicker than expected in an hour, than you did last time.
Variance can be quiet abit higher than predictable diff 1 shares, when doing diff 32 shares.
Variance at diff 32 is 32^2 times greater, i.e. 1024 times... so in my opinion, diff 32 is too high for current mining hardware in light of that (see my earlier post).

Didn't know the exact math, so went with a generalisation. So yeah, it's apparently a bit higher than I thought.
It is fun to experiment with many different difficulties and I've found it provides just as much over 24 hours.

I've played around with all kinds of difficulties now. 32 works fine, not ideal, I'm sure but does not make it worse.
I'm sure when I get some ASIC's this will be ideal.

Lethos, you can select any D (maybe it has to be integer valued? not sure). Just try a lower D daily share variance isn't a problem.

Bitcoin network and pool analysis 12QxPHEuxDrs7mCyGSx1iVSozTwtquDB3r
follow @oocBlog for new post notifications
Lethos
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 476


Keep it Simple. Every Bit Matters.


View Profile WWW
August 31, 2012, 02:48:50 PM
 #35

Bitcoin difficult still seems on the rise if anything, so I would just knock that up the variance in submitting a few shares quicker than expected in an hour, than you did last time.
Variance can be quiet abit higher than predictable diff 1 shares, when doing diff 32 shares.
Variance at diff 32 is 32^2 times greater, i.e. 1024 times... so in my opinion, diff 32 is too high for current mining hardware in light of that (see my earlier post).

Didn't know the exact math, so went with a generalisation. So yeah, it's apparently a bit higher than I thought.
It is fun to experiment with many different difficulties and I've found it provides just as much over 24 hours.

I've played around with all kinds of difficulties now. 32 works fine, not ideal, I'm sure but does not make it worse.
I'm sure when I get some ASIC's this will be ideal.

Lethos, you can select any D (maybe it has to be integer valued? not sure). Just try a lower D daily share variance isn't a problem.

I'm not saying it was a problem.

Lethos Designs | UK BTC Seller -  Local Bitcoins | BTC OTC Rating | 1EFhXfX9uXsbXBF3LC69GiVfS3SHCsyMR1
FPGA: 2x Quad XC6SLX150 Boards
organofcorti
Donator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1960


Poor impulse control.


View Profile WWW
August 31, 2012, 02:50:29 PM
 #36

Bitcoin difficult still seems on the rise if anything, so I would just knock that up the variance in submitting a few shares quicker than expected in an hour, than you did last time.
Variance can be quiet abit higher than predictable diff 1 shares, when doing diff 32 shares.
Variance at diff 32 is 32^2 times greater, i.e. 1024 times... so in my opinion, diff 32 is too high for current mining hardware in light of that (see my earlier post).

Didn't know the exact math, so went with a generalisation. So yeah, it's apparently a bit higher than I thought.
It is fun to experiment with many different difficulties and I've found it provides just as much over 24 hours.

I've played around with all kinds of difficulties now. 32 works fine, not ideal, I'm sure but does not make it worse.
I'm sure when I get some ASIC's this will be ideal.


Lethos, you can select any D (maybe it has to be integer valued? not sure). Just try a lower D daily share variance isn't a problem.

I'm not saying it was a problem.

Sorry, I was replying to the part I bolded above. You could mine here just as well without asics just by reduce D to below 32.

Bitcoin network and pool analysis 12QxPHEuxDrs7mCyGSx1iVSozTwtquDB3r
follow @oocBlog for new post notifications
Lethos
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 476


Keep it Simple. Every Bit Matters.


View Profile WWW
August 31, 2012, 02:58:10 PM
 #37

Sorry, I was replying to the part I bolded above. You could mine here just as well without asics just by reduce D to below 32.

I've been experimenting with d2, 4, 8, 10, 16, 20 and 32.

All work fine, the variance is abit wild with 32 on my CM1, it all works out over 24 hours of course, it's no bother. It's just funny to see it say I'm doing 2.1Gh/s sometimes. I believe it be more stable on for higher performance system like ASIC, that is all.

I've been mining quiet happily on diff4 recently. Might keep it there or go back to 8. 8 matches the number of chips, seemed like a nice thing to do.
*waits for someone to point out that makes no mathematical sense*
Tongue

Lethos Designs | UK BTC Seller -  Local Bitcoins | BTC OTC Rating | 1EFhXfX9uXsbXBF3LC69GiVfS3SHCsyMR1
FPGA: 2x Quad XC6SLX150 Boards
organofcorti
Donator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1960


Poor impulse control.


View Profile WWW
August 31, 2012, 03:09:39 PM
 #38

Sorry, I was replying to the part I bolded above. You could mine here just as well without asics just by reduce D to below 32.

I've been experimenting with d2, 4, 8, 10, 16, 20 and 32.

All work fine, the variance is abit wild with 32 on my CM1, it all works out over 24 hours of course, it's no bother. It's just funny to see it say I'm doing 2.1Gh/s sometimes. I believe it be more stable on for higher performance system like ASIC, that is all.

I've been mining quiet happily on diff4 recently. Might keep it there or go back to 8. 8 matches the number of chips, seemed like a nice thing to do.
*waits for someone to point out that makes no mathematical sense*
Tongue

I just realised that being a PPS pool, the variance will bother you much less than at a pool that has pool based and reward methos based variance.

ckolivas, that's something might need to be taken into account with cgminer - the variance of the reward method. It starts to get complicated very quickly though, and I'm not sure there'd be an easy way to solve it.

Bitcoin network and pool analysis 12QxPHEuxDrs7mCyGSx1iVSozTwtquDB3r
follow @oocBlog for new post notifications
-ck
Moderator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2002


Ruu \o/


View Profile WWW
August 31, 2012, 03:13:27 PM
 #39

Sorry, I was replying to the part I bolded above. You could mine here just as well without asics just by reduce D to below 32.

I've been experimenting with d2, 4, 8, 10, 16, 20 and 32.

All work fine, the variance is abit wild with 32 on my CM1, it all works out over 24 hours of course, it's no bother. It's just funny to see it say I'm doing 2.1Gh/s sometimes. I believe it be more stable on for higher performance system like ASIC, that is all.

I've been mining quiet happily on diff4 recently. Might keep it there or go back to 8. 8 matches the number of chips, seemed like a nice thing to do.
*waits for someone to point out that makes no mathematical sense*
Tongue

I just realised that being a PPS pool, the variance will bother you much less than at a pool that has pool based and reward methos based variance.

ckolivas, that's something might need to be taken into account with cgminer - the variance of the reward method. It starts to get complicated very quickly though, and I'm not sure there'd be an easy way to solve it.
I don't really think there's much point even trying to work it out on a reward basis... People running cgminer will be able to see how much variance affects them by comparing their WU (work utility which is based on diff 1 share production) versus their true U (utility which is based on successful target shares submitted). Having said that, I think this is getting too complicated for most people already and I'd rather see the pool take care of the difficulty setting based on hashrate myself...

Primary developer/maintainer for cgminer and ckpool/ckproxy.
Pooled mine at kano.is, solo mine at solo.ckpool.org
-ck
organofcorti
Donator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1960


Poor impulse control.


View Profile WWW
August 31, 2012, 03:46:53 PM
 #40

I think you're right. Even if you could put it in cgminer, the person using cgminer it shouldn't have to dynamically change D with the pool's hashrate, or make sure the correct variable are entered to make it happen.

The pool knows its hashrate and reward method, so it should be possible to set a D | hashrate relationship that will not affect daily earnings for any miner by more than a certain percentage. Someone will need to figure out some sort of simplified table of variance for pools though.

Bitcoin network and pool analysis 12QxPHEuxDrs7mCyGSx1iVSozTwtquDB3r
follow @oocBlog for new post notifications
Pages: « 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 »
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Sponsored by , a Bitcoin-accepting VPN.
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!