us1 stopped working for me.
I switched to us3 and it's working now.
Topic: [1200 TH] EMC: 0 Fee DGM. Anonymous PPS. US & EU servers. No Registration! - page 57. (Read 499709 times)
September 22, 2012, 06:08:05 PM
September 22, 2012, 06:07:38 PM
I am unable to get to diff10.
September 22, 2012, 05:52:34 PM
got connection timed out on eu now, changed to us3 and got on, just reinstalled my drivers aswell, might be my router or something, to tired too check it out now 
September 22, 2012, 05:46:08 PM
My reported total GH rate is about half what it should be
0.o
That would mean I was disconnected from eclipse servers for nearly half an hour
0.o
That would mean I was disconnected from eclipse servers for nearly half an hour
September 22, 2012, 05:36:12 PM
Don't think so. I anyone else having problems? There is 1.5 TH active at the moment.
September 22, 2012, 05:14:29 PM
pool down? cant connect to eu / us 1 2 or 3 atm 
September 21, 2012, 12:52:10 PM
Where'd you send the PM?
September 21, 2012, 06:25:34 AM
Inaba, I sent you a PM the other night about logging into the pool. When you get some time and can take a look at it, that'd be great!
Loving the crazy low stale / reject rates!!! (26671 / 61)
Loving the crazy low stale / reject rates!!! (26671 / 61)
September 18, 2012, 02:32:21 PM
The problem happened last night
September 18, 2012, 12:16:40 PM
As I said several posts up name coin screwed up block processing. It should not happen again as I have changed he code to prevent it.
OK, thanks for the explaination. Well those were blocks from last night so it seems to still be happening FYI.
September 18, 2012, 06:03:13 AM
While I'm late to the last posted question, I would have pointed out the post about nmc processing causing the problem since that has happened before (with similar information posted in the thread with the question). However, another interesting possibility that could cause similar issues (at least at blockchain.org apparently) is the nrolltime functionality being used to lessen server load. I have seen newer blocks at blockchain.org showing older times than the blocks preceding them, and apparently that is because they use the timestamp in the block, which is apparently what nrolltime changes, and apparently isn't used (at least not strictly) to verify block legitimacy. I think EMC's stats show when the block's shares were processed (or something like that), as opposed to when the block was created, so this explanation probably would never apply here, but it could be interesting to anyone curious about time discrepancies like this.
Yes bitcoind allows blocks to be 7200 seconds in the future - then the block following will of course be in the past relative to it.You'll find roughly 10% of blocks in the blockchain like this ...
I call roll-n-time a hack for a reason
September 18, 2012, 05:14:11 AM
While I'm late to the last posted question, I would have pointed out the post about nmc processing causing the problem since that has happened before (with similar information posted in the thread with the question). However, another interesting possibility that could cause similar issues (at least at blockchain.org apparently) is the nrolltime functionality being used to lessen server load. I have seen newer blocks at blockchain.org showing older times than the blocks preceding them, and apparently that is because they use the timestamp in the block, which is apparently what nrolltime changes, and apparently isn't used (at least not strictly) to verify block legitimacy. I think EMC's stats show when the block's shares were processed (or something like that), as opposed to when the block was created, so this explanation probably would never apply here, but it could be interesting to anyone curious about time discrepancies like this.
September 18, 2012, 02:25:20 AM
As I said several posts up name coin screwed up block processing. It should not happen again as I have changed he code to prevent it.
September 18, 2012, 02:23:54 AM
That is easy to explain: Variance.
It was the same answer, last time it was asked.
It was the same answer, last time it was asked.
September 17, 2012, 10:34:31 PM
This was pretty interesting, can anyone explain it?
2 blocks were found back to back within six seconds. EMC block 2218 and 2219.
However 7 bitcoin blocks were found between 2217 and 2218 and 14 bitcoin blocks between 2218 and 2219. Which implies the network found 21 blocks in 12 seconds.
Any idea what is going on? I'm assuming something is off the timestamps and block 2217 did not take 6 whole hours...
2 blocks were found back to back within six seconds. EMC block 2218 and 2219.
However 7 bitcoin blocks were found between 2217 and 2218 and 14 bitcoin blocks between 2218 and 2219. Which implies the network found 21 blocks in 12 seconds.
Any idea what is going on? I'm assuming something is off the timestamps and block 2217 did not take 6 whole hours...
September 17, 2012, 03:55:22 PM
I've found 7 blocks with this pool and I haven't been paid 50 BTC. That's the bad thing about pooled mining 
Which probably means there are 6 people who have found no blocks in the same amount of time and also got paid ...It's how pools reduce variance.
It's the reason you use a pool.
Had you mined solo at the same time you may have found 0, 7 or even 14 blocks.
You found 7 blocks because EMC gave you work that had 7 blocks in it.
Mining on DeepBit a while ago I found 3 blocks - and got paid less than 1 block there also.
I did not stop using pools because of that.
Mining at less than 2.5GH/s I found 3 blocks at various pools in March, and 3 blocks again in May.
Since May ... none.
Wow looks like pools solving variance is working really well - gotta love using pools
September 17, 2012, 12:27:38 PM
Glad to hear you got it fixed!
September 17, 2012, 12:25:21 PM
Code:
Dear Namecoin,
Please eat a bag of dicks.
Sincerely,
EMC
Anyway, block processing got hung up a bit due to namecoin. It's fixed now and I've added some code to let block processing continue even if namecoin has issues... should have done that in the first place. Sorry folks.
September 17, 2012, 12:22:55 PM
I've found 7 blocks with this pool and I haven't been paid 50 BTC. That's the bad thing about pooled mining
September 17, 2012, 06:26:45 AM
Hell yeah! After nearly a year of mining, I finally mined my first block! Didn't think I was going to ever get one with 2.3GH/s.
I know its not the same, but I have found 2 blocks here (one pictured above) and 1 at ozcoin the last 2 weeks. Man... if only solo mining was that easy
I am loving the really low reject rate. I am not using GPUMax anymore as the rejects are just crazy high no matter where I have been mining. 5% is way too high.
Jump to: