I have it set to specifically do that. It's a preventative measure for an exploit when taking transactions numbers that are not a power of 2. It's related to CVE-2012-2459.
Topic: [1200 TH] EMC: 0 Fee DGM. Anonymous PPS. US & EU servers. No Registration! - page 59. (Read 499709 times)
September 11, 2012, 11:28:14 AM
September 11, 2012, 11:17:33 AM
How come most blocks found by eclipseMc the transaction numbers are at the power of 2 ( 32, 64, 128, 256, 512, 1024...) compared to other pools wich just seems like normal numbers...
anybody have a clue?
anybody have a clue?
September 10, 2012, 04:48:27 PM
I saw Graet running away from the EMC servers with a grin on his face... Now I'm not sayin' he done nothin' but I'm just sayin'...
If nothing is broken then Magical Thinking is the best course of action
Step 1. You need a rabbits foot.. Or a lucky coin. Or .. you get the idea
Step 2. Place the lucky item on the router or some other main device.
Step 3. Profit.
September 10, 2012, 03:06:33 PM
egads! Another 6hr+ one. Sure hope this one doesn't turn up "Invalid" also.
--
BTW, ty Inaba for your work on the variable difficulty capability. I'm pretty sure that will end up being 'standard' over the next year. Not everyone has a 'data-center' quality Internet connection.
September 10, 2012, 01:56:10 PM
I saw Graet running away from the EMC servers with a grin on his face... Now I'm not sayin' he done nothin' but I'm just sayin'...
September 10, 2012, 01:21:33 PM
Damn, who broke EMC's luck? 
September 10, 2012, 01:16:31 PM
Ok, switching back to try...
Edit: seems to be working, stats still catching up...
So, is it really working now? Cos, yesterday I've noticed that my rigs showing around 400Mhs instead of 25Ghs, I was like wtf Edit: seems to be working, stats still catching up...
and switched to bitminter and other emc servers. Will try it out again.Had the same, but it works now.
September 10, 2012, 01:15:21 PM
Ok, switching back to try...
Edit: seems to be working, stats still catching up...
So, is it really working now? Cos, yesterday I've noticed that my rigs showing around 400Mhs instead of 25Ghs, I was like wtf Edit: seems to be working, stats still catching up...
and switched to bitminter and other emc servers. Will try it out again. September 10, 2012, 10:03:57 AM
Ok, switching back to try...
Edit: seems to be working, stats still catching up...
Edit: seems to be working, stats still catching up...
September 10, 2012, 09:47:03 AM
It should be fixed now... ugh. I should not work on the pool when I'm tired, I make stupid mistakes sometimes.
VarDIFF server should be fixed now. Dumb dumb dumb of me.
VarDIFF server should be fixed now. Dumb dumb dumb of me.
September 10, 2012, 09:42:40 AM
Ok, I switch 10diff to VarDiff now, so vardiff is running on both the original Vardiff server and on the 10diff server. Assuming all goes well for 10diff over the next day or two, I'll roll it out to the rest of the servers.
Please report any problems.
I guess it is because it now is var diff Please report any problems.
What you are saying is that going to var diff broke diff10.
*manually switching to backup pool*
September 10, 2012, 09:39:55 AM
Ok, I switch 10diff to VarDiff now, so vardiff is running on both the original Vardiff server and on the 10diff server. Assuming all goes well for 10diff over the next day or two, I'll roll it out to the rest of the servers.
Please report any problems.
I guess it is because it now is var diff Please report any problems.
September 10, 2012, 09:25:13 AM
Something is wrong with the diff10 server.
It shows diff1, while the utility I see on cgminer is actually less than expected for diff10.
The pool webpage says I'm mining with only 5% of the hashing rate cgminer tells me. In fact I'm seeing fewer shares in the block-solved list contributed by me.
Something's wrong.
It shows diff1, while the utility I see on cgminer is actually less than expected for diff10.
The pool webpage says I'm mining with only 5% of the hashing rate cgminer tells me. In fact I'm seeing fewer shares in the block-solved list contributed by me.
Something's wrong.
September 10, 2012, 05:21:38 AM
Inaba - please rub a rabbits foot
For luck.
For luck.
September 10, 2012, 02:25:17 AM
I'm not accusing you, or anyone else of ripping me off.
What I AM trying to do is figure out why after every LP I get a string of rejected shares from EMC, and no other pool, that can last for over a minute sometimes, that leaves me with around a 10% rejected rate.
What I AM trying to do is figure out why after every LP I get a string of rejected shares from EMC, and no other pool, that can last for over a minute sometimes, that leaves me with around a 10% rejected rate.
Set CGMiners scan time lower. When I see this happen I turn it down to 25 or 30. Then I only get a couple of shares that maybe where actually delayed not seemingly rolling work and getting rejects. I noticed the problem mainly through GPUMax though. Any proxy may contribute to this though. I am not sure if this is the problem. At worst it wouldn't hurt you to try it, or wouldn't hurt much.
September 09, 2012, 10:29:32 PM
The only way that can happen is if you have a ton of shares in a queue. What is the reject reason you are getting back from the pool? stale-prevblk or something else? That will help narrow it down.
September 09, 2012, 10:25:32 PM
I'm not accusing you, or anyone else of ripping me off.
What I AM trying to do is figure out why after every LP I get a string of rejected shares from EMC, and no other pool, that can last for over a minute sometimes, that leaves me with around a 10% rejected rate.
What I AM trying to do is figure out why after every LP I get a string of rejected shares from EMC, and no other pool, that can last for over a minute sometimes, that leaves me with around a 10% rejected rate.
September 09, 2012, 10:04:40 PM
I think you may be misunderstanding what submit-old (stale) does.
When you receive an LP, it may not be from the pool your connected to, in this case EMC. You may be notified of an LP before EMC notifies you, so submitting stales will potentially allow you to submit a share that's stale according to YOU, but not to EMC. If I were to turn that off, any time you received an LP, all of your shares for EMC would be stale, even if EMC would have still accepted them.
I mean, I can rip you off like some other pools do, but why would you want me to? Just because your stale stats *appear* better, does not mean they actually are. Those shares are still rejected, they are just rejected silently as opposed to EMC's method of telling you what's happening and not hiding information.
When you receive an LP, it may not be from the pool your connected to, in this case EMC. You may be notified of an LP before EMC notifies you, so submitting stales will potentially allow you to submit a share that's stale according to YOU, but not to EMC. If I were to turn that off, any time you received an LP, all of your shares for EMC would be stale, even if EMC would have still accepted them.
I mean, I can rip you off like some other pools do, but why would you want me to? Just because your stale stats *appear* better, does not mean they actually are. Those shares are still rejected, they are just rejected silently as opposed to EMC's method of telling you what's happening and not hiding information.
September 09, 2012, 10:02:38 PM
Yes, EMC does inform CGminer to submit-old. You can force that off I believe, Kano can correct me if I'm wrong... but honestly, there's no reason to NOT submit them. If a pool is telling you not to submit them, then they are just wasting potentially good shares.
So, you are telling CGminer to submit stales, and then rejecting them. Okay.
September 09, 2012, 09:56:05 PM
Yes, EMC does inform CGminer to submit-old. You can force that off I believe, Kano can correct me if I'm wrong... but honestly, there's no reason to NOT submit them. If a pool is telling you not to submit them, then they are just wasting potentially good shares.
Jump to: