Topic: [1200 TH] EMC: 0 Fee DGM. Anonymous PPS. US & EU servers. No Registration! - page 36. (Read 499709 times)

Hey,

sometime cgminer 2.9.6 connected with gbt to us3 gives me rejected shares (unknown-work) in the middle of the block. i have about 180 rejects and 11000 accepted. its not happening often, but it happens.

Anyone else have that problem? (was too lazy to try stratum)

Fuck me sideways, you're right!

I'm only using 50-400 bytes a second!

NICE ONE, BROTHER

What's a git master?

GITMASTER - Somebody responsible for a band of retards

Or use --skip-security-checks (and set some high number there) in bfgminer. This is probably available only in git master.

Where is this software? How do I have "more control over the blocks I am mining".

And explain how I can see the big red flag showing me I'm getting ripped off by the evil pool operators.

Please tell me Luke, because I would really like to use it to control the blocks I'm mining.

When luke-jr took stratum from cgminer to his fork, he added code to it to grab all the transactions the way GBT does at regular intervals, but to grab them even more frequently than GBT does, which of course will make it look like it uses more bandwidth than GBT. The way he "analyses" the data coming from the transactions is pretty much useless so does not really serve as any kind of meaningful audit to make sure a pool is misbehaving as a way to prevent the dangers of centralised pools to bitcoin. Since all that transaction grabbing just wastes bandwidth for no useful purpose, cgminer does no such thing. Try cgminer and compare your bandwidth usage.

I just started us1 on port 3333 (stratum) on my 2.8GH/s Miner and it was using on average 75-150mb per hour!!!

I've got the latest BFGminer and burning on 4x 5970s

What the shit?!?

When vehemently gnashing your teeth while typing - firstly get the words right so that your argument makes sense.
Read what you wrote again

(oh I see you settled down a bit and fixed it ... the above is what you originally typed )

Anyway, there is no implementation of GBT ANYWHERE that allows anyone to choose what transactions they want.

All Mr. Confused above is gnashing his teeth about, is that he wants the pool to send his miner a copy of every transaction it is using every time it gets work.

Stratum resolves this silly need by sending the side slice of the merkle tree instead of every transaction.
The Stratum definition allows the miner to request the full set of transactions also so that the mining software can feel all warm and fuzzy about throwing away that information before the person mining gets to read it all ...
cgminer doesn't implement a request of this VERY large waste of time.

Mr Confused put up a pull request to cgminer to get it to ask for the list of transactions more often than even GBT does.
Then he even confused himself even more by naming the fields using tonal names to attempt to hide the time frames.
So yeah when people do stupid things like that, they get ignored.

It's all a big hoax saying that if the miner gets the list of transactions, suddenly a pool is decentralised.
That, of course, is false.
Any non peer-to-peer pool is of course centralised -> you know - that pool thing you all talk to in the centre of it all deciding if your work is OK
Currently the only decentralised pool is p2pool.
Mr Confused, it's called ENGLISH, not tonal or something else ... ENGLISH, learn it

I did notice if I mined with cgminer on the GBT port, there will be occasional port failures. After moving to the stratum port 3333, I hardly see failures or rejects. I guess my internet connection in Asia side is not consistent enough.

BTW Inaba, seems that the rewards from your EMC pool are much higher for my small time 600 Mh/s rig since the last 24 hours, compared to other mining pools.

This simply isn't true. The only case where stratum uses noticably less bandwidth is the case where it is harmful to the Bitcoin network. Using it in a secure fashon uses about as much bandwidth as GBT. On the other hand, GBT is far more miner-friendly in general, since it allows miners more control over the blocks they are mining.

LP and GBT take up significantly more bandwidth and resources than stratum.  Why would anyone NOT want to use stratum, aside from personal aka non logical reasons?

M

Kano's just trolling, as usual.

Well - since requesting GetWork switches to GBT I just sorta thought it would be nice to switch to Stratum instead

... since the GBT spec has yet to deal with the issues that have been brought up - it seems reasonable, for now, to switch to Stratum if the miner supports it.

Shouldn't you be using port 3333 if you want Stratum though?

http://us1.eclipsemc.com:8337 switches to GBT
(you can put an x-stratum header to tell it to try Stratum first)

(sorry - by normal, I meant the http: connections, i.e. non-stratum)

I'm mining with stratum on US3 without falling back to GBT at the moment, doesn't appear to be any problems.

On port 3333 it redirects to GBT?

At the moment if you connect to the normal connections it redirects to GBT.
Obviously by design.
Is there a reason to not redirect to Stratum first if the miner supports it?

The other guy with the seven in the nick said it . No change so far btw but I'm happy as long us1 works (still wondering what's wrong though).

Sorry, I should have said that better.

I'm not using emc atm, I'm referring to a post earlier on here that said us1 is the only one he could connect to with stratum.

M