Topic: [1050 TH] BitMinter.com [1% PPLNS,Pays TxFees +MergedMining,Stratum,GBT,vardiff] - page 315. (Read 837101 times)

LOLZ.  I am curious what exactly about the pool "sucks"?

can you make the bitminter client work with other mining pools. if no, why not?

you make a great miner.

i just think the pool sucks.

nothing personal towards you and your developers.

I paid yesterday for a rig box that I ordered from them.  Estimated shipping time frame is 15 weeks.  If BitMinter works with the singles, it will probably work with the rig box when I get it.   

get in touch with BFL. Even if they wont ship you a test sample (you can always ask!), at least they should be able to give you some information and remote access to one.

Correct. You may also wish to look at Ufasoft's sources to see how he implemented plug-'n-play functionality - right now with cgminer you need to specify each device, but with ufasoft they can be hot-plugged.

Cool, looks like a simple serial port design. Do the other bitcoin FPGA solutions work in a similar fashion, anyone know?

Would be a little hard to add support for this without an actual device to test on. But it looks simple enough that I could give it a try if someone has a device to test my beta versions on. Anyone get a BFL single yet?

Btw, you can abort work, but then it won't report good nonces found during that round?

AFAIK there is a single post in the cgminer thread and that is it.  Luke code is available in cgminer github.

There's no BFL support in it. I suppose I could add that, though. Is there any info on how to program them?

Has anybody tried a BFL single with the BitMinter client?  I have no idea if it's even possible, but figured I'd ask.

I don't have a working crystal ball either, but I do hope we hit some fast blocks soon.

We're getting over 20 new users every day, but with this kind of luck they are not staying.

Just wondering, what you see on the horizon, Doc - are we going to turn over a new leaf anytime soon? Hit some fast blocks? We've been way below expected average for quite some time now...
My Crystal ball remains opaque, damn it

My long-term stale rate remains at a very decent 0.13%, thanks for all the hard work on the pool server.

Sorry little hick-up on the website

Back up now.

Down, 502

It is for me.

Is the site down ?

It is a nice graph. It is per block and not per time though, on the X-axis, so it's basically the same as ours. But the Y-axis is number of shares instead of CDF, and they have a running average for the pool shown in addition to each individual block. Might be an idea adding such an average. Not sure about shares vs. CDF though.


Yeah, I changed most of the database stuff in the pool backend. I put in some stuff to make parallel updates safe and added automatic retries in case a database operation fails.


That's due to parallel database transactions conflicting and one being rolled back and retried. When a database transaction is rolled back everything you did is reset to how it was before the transaction started except sequences. When a number is allocated from a sequence the same number won't be given out again, even after a rollback. Already there are many gaps in the user IDs. Now with the new database code there are gaps in the block numbers. Looks a bit ugly. I think maybe I'll switch to not showing the internal ID. The table is also sometimes too wide, so that may help with that problem. Or is a block ID of some sort useful?


170838 was stale on the NMC side unfortunately. I checked the logs and we received a new namecoin block from the namecoin P2P network 5 seconds before we attempted to create ours. Let's just be glad that was a new NMC block just ahead of ours, and not a BTC block.

170495 and 46281 were created from a single proof of work from kjakman. They were created at the same time, but one had trouble getting registered in the database. It took a full 5 minutes from it was created until it was successfully registered in the DB. I was watching and cursing as the database transactions were being retried.

Also this database code is putting 10x to 20x the load on the database, compared to earlier. While that's not a problem for the server, I don't like it. I am already working on a new solution that should run much smoother. On my test server the load was much lower and conflicting transactions happened very rarely. Back to the drawing board!

DrHaribo did you change anything on the server lately?
Or anybody do you know why this following happend?

Till yesterday always when we found BTC block we found also NMC block and in the list of blocks they were listed BTC and next row NMC both with the same timestamp (eg. blocks 169688/45504 - in our blocks list rows 648-649).
Since then there are two things:
1) some rows are missing from my blocks list: 657, 659-660, 662, 669, 671-687, 689-691, 693, 695-698, 701-702, 705-706, 712
2) BTC blocks and NMC blocks don't come anymore in pairs as earlier:

• when BTC block 170048 was found (row 661) NMC block 45862 is listed 1 minute earlier (row 658)
• when BTC block 170495 was found (row 688) NMC block 46281 is listed 5 minutes earlier (row 670)
• when BTC block 170638 was found (row 699) NMC block 46403 is listed 1 minute earlier (row 694)
• when BTC block 170759 was found (row 710) there is no NMC block listed mined by the same user near by
• when the last BTC block 170838 was found (row 713) there is NMC block 46572 found by the same user 5.5 hrs earlier (row 711)

Pajka

This graph at Pool-X (LiteCoin pool) is really nice.  I think you have to login to see it, but I think seeing it is worth making an account.
http://pool-x.eu/blocksAuth

In regard to functionality, it's actually pretty similar to the one at BitMinter, but I find it a lot easier to interpret.

Somebody told me a while back that the chart comes from http://www.highcharts.com

Phew, kjakman finally ended that monster block. I hope we get some easier ones now.

Glad you like the pool, guys. And bad luck is just something that happens. Some time back we had +30% luck for a while. Luck will turn again, sooner or later! Let's hope it's now.


Yes, but it makes it easier to judge luck in general when every block gets the same size in the graph. If unlucky blocks get much more space, it will look like we have bad luck all the time. Maybe a new graph would be useful though that shows luck per time instead of per block.


Both are on my list. I will first add pagination for blocks, shifts and transaction history. Luck and reward graphs are lower priority.