It's not rhetorical and the answer is an emphatic no. It is not a good idea for a number of reasons, but most importantly from a security standpoint. The web site has a much larger attack surface than the pool server. When they are both on the same box, a compromise on one is automatically means the other is compromised. When they are split, your pool is still secure, even if the website isn't.
Additionally, if you need to take the website down for whatever reason (breach, upgrade, failure), the pool will stay up. It's one of the reasons EclipseMC has such stability - even if the website gets munged, the pool keeps running. There's a lot less to go wrong with the pool server as well.
Topic: [204 GH/s] yourbtc.net closing it's doors on 2011-12-08 - page 4. (Read 19910 times)
Server Migration completed.
* your miner on yourbtc.net:8999 will be redirected to our new server now
* webserver and poolserver are kept seperated
* your miner on yourbtc.net:8999 will be redirected to our new server now
* webserver and poolserver are kept seperated
The website and domain will move to the new server end of this week.
Is it really a good idea to have the pool and the website on the same server?The website and domain will move to the new server end of this week.
Is it really a good idea to have the pool and the website on the same server?This is a rhetorical question, isn't it?
The website and domain will move to the new server end of this week.
Is it really a good idea to have the pool and the website on the same server? 
urstroyer has promised me that he is setting up monit to automatically restart any services that start using so much ram, cpu or can't be reached for whatever reason. This should solve 98% of stability issues as the server should be able to monitor itself.
This could be very helpful indeed. It looks like urstroyer is being presented with an opportunity to become the operator of an established "big pool" and he's not wasting it.
Good luck urstroyer!
Looks like yourbtc.net is climbing the ranks, we're the #8 pool by blocks found -> http://blockchain.info/pools?timespan=4days
I see us as #5 on the "4 days" chart and #4 on the "24 hour" chart; serious business!
I'm happy to report that the new server seems to be running fine for me. Time will tell if this solves the server instability issue.
urstroyer has promised me that he is setting up monit to automatically restart any services that start using so much ram, cpu or can't be reached for whatever reason. This should solve 98% of stability issues as the server should be able to monitor itself.
Looks like yourbtc.net is climbing the ranks, we're the #8 pool by blocks found -> http://blockchain.info/pools?timespan=4days
I see us as #5 on the "4 days" chart and #4 on the "24 hour" chart; serious business!
I'm happy to report that the new server seems to be running fine for me. Time will tell if this solves the server instability issue.
Looks like yourbtc.net is climbing the ranks, we're the #8 pool by blocks found -> http://blockchain.info/pools?timespan=4days
New STABLE server is online!
Please connect your miner to:
mining.yourbtc.net:8999
The website and domain will move to the new server end of this week.
Please connect your miner to:
mining.yourbtc.net:8999
The website and domain will move to the new server end of this week.
Err... PPS pools aren't hoppable by nature. Can you clarify what you mean? The de facto definition of hoppable is a pool where one can gain a monetary advantage by only submitting shares during a limited time/shares (typically 43.x% or 46.x%, I forget which) window. While you could hop to and from a PPS pool, it will gain you no advantage. So while every pool is hoppable, only certain pools will realize an advantage to a hopper. Those that won't are typically considered unhoppable. PPS falls into this definition by default.
In its most general scope, "hoppable" means the relative attractiveness of mining for a pool is different at different times. If the block reward is fixed, PPS isn't hoppable. When block rewards are variable (which they are to some extent now and more so going forward), the attractiveness is measured relatively to the momentary block reward. If a PPS pool literally offers a fixed pay per share, its attractiveness relative to the block reward is constantly changing, and it becomes hoppable - you mine there when the rewards is more than the solo average, and mine elsewhere when it is less. Now it doesn't matter, but in the future a correct PPS pool will always offer a reward of (1-f)pB per share where B is the block reward at the time it was submitted. Other hopping-proof methods can also adapt to this new reality by incorporating the current block reward into the share's score (at the cost of additional variance for the operator). By implementing this now, yourbtc is indeed less hoppable than the currently implemented PPS. (I'm not sure how it is in EMC. I don't know if I emphasized this point when we corresponded about the scoring.)See also section "Variable block rewards" of AoBpmrs.
Yes, this is pretty much all I meant. Most PPS pools right now pay an amount per share which depends on difficulty but not transaction fee rewards. This is insignificant in the grand scheme of things right now, I just thought it was interesting.
Also, I've always used "hoppable" with reference to solo mining rather than the PPS reward system or as a general relative property.
Err... PPS pools aren't hoppable by nature. Can you clarify what you mean? The de facto definition of hoppable is a pool where one can gain a monetary advantage by only submitting shares during a limited time/shares (typically 43.x% or 46.x%, I forget which) window. While you could hop to and from a PPS pool, it will gain you no advantage. So while every pool is hoppable, only certain pools will realize an advantage to a hopper. Those that won't are typically considered unhoppable. PPS falls into this definition by default.
In its most general scope, "hoppable" means the relative attractiveness of mining for a pool is different at different times. If the block reward is fixed, PPS isn't hoppable. When block rewards are variable (which they are to some extent now and more so going forward), the attractiveness is measured relatively to the momentary block reward. If a PPS pool literally offers a fixed pay per share, its attractiveness relative to the block reward is constantly changing, and it becomes hoppable - you mine there when the rewards is more than the solo average, and mine elsewhere when it is less. Now it doesn't matter, but in the future a correct PPS pool will always offer a reward of (1-f)pB per share where B is the block reward at the time it was submitted. Other hopping-proof methods can also adapt to this new reality by incorporating the current block reward into the share's score (at the cost of additional variance for the operator). By implementing this now, yourbtc is indeed less hoppable than the currently implemented PPS. (I'm not sure how it is in EMC. I don't know if I emphasized this point when we corresponded about the scoring.)See also section "Variable block rewards" of AoBpmrs.
Looks like the pool is firing on all cylinders right now! 
It's so awesome to see this pool go from 10Gh to 150Gh we're running at now.
Welcome all new miners and thanks for making this pool awesome.
It's so awesome to see this pool go from 10Gh to 150Gh we're running at now.
Welcome all new miners and thanks for making this pool awesome.
Err... PPS pools aren't hoppable by nature. Can you clarify what you mean? The de facto definition of hoppable is a pool where one can gain a monetary advantage by only submitting shares during a limited time/shares (typically 43.x% or 46.x%, I forget which) window. While you could hop to and from a PPS pool, it will gain you no advantage. So while every pool is hoppable, only certain pools will realize an advantage to a hopper. Those that won't are typically considered unhoppable. PPS falls into this definition by default.
As soon as we migrated to the new server (which could be tomorrow) poolserverj will be updated to the newest release and of course bitcoind 0.5.
When we got that working, the total reward (B) for each submitted share will be block reward + transactionfees that would be incluced if the share would solve the block.
Eta should be next week!
When we got that working, the total reward (B) for each submitted share will be block reward + transactionfees that would be incluced if the share would solve the block.
Eta should be next week!
Cool! With such an update I believe it could be argued that yourbtc.net is less hoppable than most existing (possibly all) PPS pools!
I've just gotten back and am glad to see that this pool is doing well (aside from the continuing server instability issue). Reaching 200 GH/s, if only briefly, was unbelievable. Does anyone know what caused this spike in hashing power?
@urstroyer: What's the situation with regard to the correct proportioning of share scores with respect to currently available transaction fees? I noticed that while merged mining and the new PoolServerJ were being discussed that bitcoind 0.5 was mentioned (I forget where). Certainly I'm not asking for such a tweak in the near future, I'm merely curious about the current state of affairs.
@urstroyer: What's the situation with regard to the correct proportioning of share scores with respect to currently available transaction fees? I noticed that while merged mining and the new PoolServerJ were being discussed that bitcoind 0.5 was mentioned (I forget where). Certainly I'm not asking for such a tweak in the near future, I'm merely curious about the current state of affairs.
As soon as we migrated to the new server (which could be tomorrow) poolserverj will be updated to the newest release and of course bitcoind 0.5.
When we got that working, the total reward (B) for each submitted share will be block reward + transactionfees that would be incluced if the share would solve the block.
Eta should be next week!
I've just gotten back and am glad to see that this pool is doing well (aside from the continuing server instability issue). Reaching 200 GH/s, if only briefly, was unbelievable. Does anyone know what caused this spike in hashing power?
@urstroyer: What's the situation with regard to the correct proportioning of share scores with respect to currently available transaction fees? I noticed that while merged mining and the new PoolServerJ were being discussed that bitcoind 0.5 was mentioned (I forget where). Certainly I'm not asking for such a tweak in the near future, I'm merely curious about the current state of affairs.
@urstroyer: What's the situation with regard to the correct proportioning of share scores with respect to currently available transaction fees? I noticed that while merged mining and the new PoolServerJ were being discussed that bitcoind 0.5 was mentioned (I forget where). Certainly I'm not asking for such a tweak in the near future, I'm merely curious about the current state of affairs.
Current Server Stability
As many of you already recognized, we experience some server stability issues recently.
In order to eliminate those issues whe migrating to a way more powerful server early this week.
More details will follow up soon. Thanks for your patience!
As many of you already recognized, we experience some server stability issues recently.
In order to eliminate those issues whe migrating to a way more powerful server early this week.
More details will follow up soon. Thanks for your patience!
Why are forum admin or moderator remove signature of yourbtc.net from user profiles like mine?
I think this is really odd, since other pool signatures are still online.
Anybody got a clue why this is happening?
I think this is really odd, since other pool signatures are still online.
Anybody got a clue why this is happening?
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/no-more-signature-images-51077
Thanks a lot Great!
Why are forum admin or moderator remove signature of yourbtc.net from user profiles like mine?
I think this is really odd, since other pool signatures are still online.
Anybody got a clue why this is happening?
I think this is really odd, since other pool signatures are still online.
Anybody got a clue why this is happening?
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/no-more-signature-images-51077
Jump to: