https://i.imgur.com/QfDmw.png
other comp on same rack still works fine
guess have to restart the worker and lose all those big numbers there
Topic: [1050 TH] BitMinter.com [1% PPLNS,Pays TxFees +MergedMining,Stratum,GBT,vardiff] - page 254. (Read 837101 times)
January 10, 2013, 02:46:46 AM
weird....after 3+ months working 24/7 one of my workers just stopped out of the blue
https://i.imgur.com/QfDmw.png
other comp on same rack still works fine
guess have to restart the worker and lose all those big numbers there
https://i.imgur.com/QfDmw.png
other comp on same rack still works fine
guess have to restart the worker and lose all those big numbers there
January 09, 2013, 03:39:12 PM
I just realized that I have in total about 20% more accepted namecoin shares compared to bitcoin shares.
This was a crash we had earlier. The work tracking subsystem was seeing something from the database it didn't like. It tried to roll back transactions and retry them. Somehow despite rollbacks work data for the bitcoin round got registered multiple times. Not sure if I can fix the numbers now. Perhaps I could by comparing bitcoin and namecoin rounds, only problem is that they don't always end at the same time.
I hope it's not too much bother seeing the extra proofs of work in the stats?
In other news, BitMinter client v1.3.1beta2 is ready for testing: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.1444466
And... (drumroll) .. we have minted over 100 000 bitcoins now!
January 09, 2013, 03:02:18 PM
So the website won't load but the API works now? Does it help restarting the browser, or using another browser?
restarting browser fixed it.That happened to me once too. Some kind of Cloudflare annoyance. Maybe it's cookie related. Or perhaps they change DNS settings and your browser still sticks with the old IP because of DNS pinning (a browser security feature). Whatever it is I hope it won't happen frequently.
January 09, 2013, 02:06:26 PM
website seems to be unreachable. API is as well.
It works for me - tested right now. Maybe Cloudflare is being problematic. What are you seeing? Timeouts? 403 errors?
I did see a cloudflare message "bad gateway error"
Then I got: "website is offline, cached version is not available", with cloudflare referenced
I'm still getting the 2nd error, but API is working.
So the website won't load but the API works now? Does it help restarting the browser, or using another browser?
restarting browser fixed it.
M
January 09, 2013, 01:48:44 PM
website seems to be unreachable. API is as well.
It works for me - tested right now. Maybe Cloudflare is being problematic. What are you seeing? Timeouts? 403 errors?
I did see a cloudflare message "bad gateway error"
Then I got: "website is offline, cached version is not available", with cloudflare referenced
I'm still getting the 2nd error, but API is working.
So the website won't load but the API works now? Does it help restarting the browser, or using another browser?
January 09, 2013, 01:34:26 PM
website seems to be unreachable. API is as well.
It works for me - tested right now. Maybe Cloudflare is being problematic. What are you seeing? Timeouts? 403 errors?
I did see a cloudflare message "bad gateway error"
Then I got: "website is offline, cached version is not available", with cloudflare referenced
I'm still getting the 2nd error, but API is working.
M
January 09, 2013, 01:17:01 PM
website seems to be unreachable. API is as well.
It works for me - tested right now. Maybe Cloudflare is being problematic. What are you seeing? Timeouts? 403 errors?
January 09, 2013, 01:06:57 PM
website seems to be unreachable. API is as well.
M
M
January 08, 2013, 06:13:08 PM
I was under the assumption I mentioned this to you on irc as I discovered it, apologies if I did not.
Could be that you did. I think this was months ago, and I don't remember all the details. I had a look at the numbers and I think I know what it was, but I need to check some more.
I also investigated a problem today that can cause BitMinter client to stop downloading more work, causing all GPUs to run out of work. If you have the java console enabled you could see a SecurityException. This would happen randomly after some hours of mining. It's actually a bug from Java 6 that they fixed but it has later reappeared in Java 7. The client has a workaround in case you run a buggy version of Java 6 and a new beta will be out very soon with a workaround for Java 7. The problem should also go away if you update to the latest Java 7 release.
January 08, 2013, 02:17:20 AM
I just realized that I have in total about 20% more accepted namecoin shares compared to bitcoin shares. Not speaking of per round shares here, those will obviously be wildly different because the chains don't have same difficulty. Maybe I just don't understand merged mining well enough, but shouldn't the total share numbers be roughly equal? I thought every share is used on both chains.
One crash some months ago did the same thing for my shares, cant remember what my hashrate was, but the difference stands at around 2 million shares.Thanks, that may have something to do with it. Those numbers do look odd. I will investigate.
January 07, 2013, 05:23:24 PM
I just realized that I have in total about 20% more accepted namecoin shares compared to bitcoin shares. Not speaking of per round shares here, those will obviously be wildly different because the chains don't have same difficulty. Maybe I just don't understand merged mining well enough, but shouldn't the total share numbers be roughly equal? I thought every share is used on both chains.
One crash some months ago did the same thing for my shares, cant remember what my hashrate was, but the difference stands at around 2 million shares.Thanks, that may have something to do with it. Those numbers do look odd. I will investigate.
January 07, 2013, 09:24:38 AM
I just realized that I have in total about 20% more accepted namecoin shares compared to bitcoin shares. Not speaking of per round shares here, those will obviously be wildly different because the chains don't have same difficulty. Maybe I just don't understand merged mining well enough, but shouldn't the total share numbers be roughly equal? I thought every share is used on both chains.
One crash some months ago did the same thing for my shares, cant remember what my hashrate was, but the difference stands at around 2 million shares. January 04, 2013, 08:39:07 PM
Thank you.
Restarted the browser and it's fine for me too, now.
Restarted the browser and it's fine for me too, now.
January 04, 2013, 08:25:54 PM
Is the DDOS attack still active?
I cannot get to the login page.
I cannot get to the login page.
Working fine for me.
M
January 04, 2013, 07:33:14 PM
Is the DDOS attack still active?
I cannot get to the login page.
I cannot get to the login page.
January 04, 2013, 02:27:14 PM
I created a new worker and so far it's accumulated an equal amount of BTC and NMC shares, as expected. Something's clearly wrong with the numbers on the old worker.
January 04, 2013, 01:13:17 PM
I just realized that I have in total about 20% more accepted namecoin shares compared to bitcoin shares. Not speaking of per round shares here, those will obviously be wildly different because the chains don't have same difficulty. Maybe I just don't understand merged mining well enough, but shouldn't the total share numbers be roughly equal? I thought every share is used on both chains.
Isn't that because NMC difficulty is lower than BTC difficulty? So a share that isn't good enough to meet Bitcoin difficulty might be good enough to meet NMC difficulty?I believe that applies for blocks only - each share should be accounted for in both chains, and then checked against the block difficulty of both chains. For example, if you submit a 1M/16 share, your target difficulty was 16, but the actual share difficulty happened to be 1M. That's not enough to solve a BTC block, but it does solve an NMC block. Because the share target was 16, that should increase your accepted share count by 16 for both chains. Whatever the block difficulty of both chains is, that shouldn't affect the amount of accepted shares in any way. Every share should increase the accepted share count of both chains by the same amount, unless I'm missing something here.
Tis odd that there are more accepted namecoin shares then...!
January 04, 2013, 11:53:46 AM
I just realized that I have in total about 20% more accepted namecoin shares compared to bitcoin shares. Not speaking of per round shares here, those will obviously be wildly different because the chains don't have same difficulty. Maybe I just don't understand merged mining well enough, but shouldn't the total share numbers be roughly equal? I thought every share is used on both chains.
Isn't that because NMC difficulty is lower than BTC difficulty? So a share that isn't good enough to meet Bitcoin difficulty might be good enough to meet NMC difficulty?I believe that applies for blocks only - each share should be accounted for in both chains, and then checked against the block difficulty of both chains. For example, if you submit a 1M/16 share, your target difficulty was 16, but the actual share difficulty happened to be 1M. That's not enough to solve a BTC block, but it does solve an NMC block. Because the share target was 16, that should increase your accepted share count by 16 for both chains. Whatever the block difficulty of both chains is, that shouldn't affect the amount of accepted shares in any way. Every share should increase the accepted share count of both chains by the same amount, unless I'm missing something here.
January 04, 2013, 11:34:54 AM
I just realized that I have in total about 20% more accepted namecoin shares compared to bitcoin shares. Not speaking of per round shares here, those will obviously be wildly different because the chains don't have same difficulty. Maybe I just don't understand merged mining well enough, but shouldn't the total share numbers be roughly equal? I thought every share is used on both chains.
Isn't that because NMC difficulty is lower than BTC difficulty? So a share that isn't good enough to meet Bitcoin difficulty might be good enough to meet NMC difficulty? January 04, 2013, 10:42:37 AM
I just realized that I have in total about 20% more accepted namecoin shares compared to bitcoin shares. Not speaking of per round shares here, those will obviously be wildly different because the chains don't have same difficulty. Maybe I just don't understand merged mining well enough, but shouldn't the total share numbers be roughly equal? I thought every share is used on both chains.
Jump to: