Seems like an old friend is stopping by slush's pool again.
Not sure if it's just the pool being overloaded or an attack.
First time I saw the unhandled exception btw.
Listener for "Default": 26/06/2011 21:47:48, Problems communicating with bitcoin RPC
Listener for "Default": 26/06/2011 22:54:50, Problems communicating with bitcoin RPC
Listener for "Default": 26/06/2011 22:57:54, Problems communicating with bitcoin RPC
Listener for "Default": 26/06/2011 23:09:55, Problems communicating with bitcoin RPC
Listener for "Default": 27/06/2011 00:07:16, Unhandled exception (1040, 'Too many connections')
Listener for "Default": 27/06/2011 01:15:53, Problems communicating with bitcoin RPC
Topic: [4+ EH] Slush Pool (slushpool.com); Overt AsicBoost; World First Mining Pool - page 999. (Read 4382675 times)
June 26, 2011, 07:27:34 PM
June 26, 2011, 03:57:52 PM
It goes little complicated if you think about cheating users.
Does it? The fact that the nonce changes doesn't create any cheating risk. So, e.g. if you just treat the few least significant bits of the timestamp as more nonce you're no worse off.
Luke has patches to make bitcoind handle ntime rolling in his public repository. I strongly suggest running them, because they also fix duplicate work that bitcoind will already issue without rolling. (because it's able to reset the extranonce twice)
June 26, 2011, 02:41:43 PM
If you're using stock bitcoind as a backend for a non-trivally sized pool you're going to be losing work due to blocking getworks and time/extra_nonce update races.
Afaik all pools are using bitcoind as backend, some with custom patches for better performance, as in my case.
Quote
The change to support rolling ntime is a one line patch to bitcoind.
It goes little complicated if you think about cheating users.
June 26, 2011, 12:38:19 PM
For users of Diablo Miner:
If you're using latest DiabloMiner version and see enormous stale ratio, please downgrade or use another miner. Diablo introduced "ntime rolling" feature in his miner, but those shares will be rejected by all properly coded pools using stock bitcoind as backend. There are some good reasons to *not* use ntime rolling by default. For example, poclbm uses this feature only when pool provide special http header for allowing this. Accepting shares with rolled ntime may lead to accepting duplicate work in some cases, as I found back in January.
If you're using latest DiabloMiner version and see enormous stale ratio, please downgrade or use another miner. Diablo introduced "ntime rolling" feature in his miner, but those shares will be rejected by all properly coded pools using stock bitcoind as backend. There are some good reasons to *not* use ntime rolling by default. For example, poclbm uses this feature only when pool provide special http header for allowing this. Accepting shares with rolled ntime may lead to accepting duplicate work in some cases, as I found back in January.
"properly coded pools using stock bitcoind as backend"
That is an oxymoron.
If you're using stock bitcoind as a backend for a non-trivally sized pool you're going to be losing work due to blocking getworks and time/extra_nonce update races.
The change to support rolling ntime is a one line patch to bitcoind.
June 26, 2011, 11:56:52 AM
on the statistics page we only go back so far...is it possible for me to see the stats for 3-4 weeks somewhere?
June 26, 2011, 11:02:58 AM
Sorry, didn't see your reply. I just looked again and it's not me - you didn't reply. But thanks for replying now.
Ah, sorry, I know that I wrote you a reponse, but then obviously forgot to send the form
.Quote
I'm using firefox 4.0.1 on win7 64bit. It happens every time.
What form/url is that? Can you catch post request somehow (for example using firebug) and send me a PM? I tested all forms but don't see anything wrong. Also application logs are empty. Weird...
June 26, 2011, 07:19:30 AM
Anyone?
I asked you what browser do you use? It happen every time or only time to time?
Basically CSRF is protection to malicious javascripts, but there's no reason why you should see this if you're using site in standard way.
Sorry, didn't see your reply. I just looked again and it's not me - you didn't reply. But thanks for replying now.
I'm using firefox 4.0.1 on win7 64bit. It happens every time.
June 26, 2011, 06:23:31 AM
Anyone?
I asked you what browser do you use? It happen every time or only time to time?
Basically CSRF is protection to malicious javascripts, but there's no reason why you should see this if you're using site in standard way.
June 26, 2011, 04:55:38 AM
I tried to log on I got:
Forbidden (403)
CSRF verification failed. Request aborted.
More information is available with DEBUG=True.
I tried to reset my password I get:
Forbidden (403)
CSRF verification failed. Request aborted.
More information is available with DEBUG=True.
Anyone know why?
Forbidden (403)
CSRF verification failed. Request aborted.
More information is available with DEBUG=True.
I tried to reset my password I get:
Forbidden (403)
CSRF verification failed. Request aborted.
More information is available with DEBUG=True.
Anyone know why?
Anyone?
June 26, 2011, 04:54:40 AM
Should I take any meaning out of that?
It basically means there was problem in database lookup for your username/password. Do you have correct username/password? I'll search logs, it is weird as I don't see that on other workers...
It seems similiar to an overload error as in it only pops up sometimes and mining just goes on.
June 26, 2011, 04:08:02 AM
For users of Diablo Miner:
If you're using latest DiabloMiner version and see enormous stale ratio, please downgrade or use another miner. Diablo introduced "ntime rolling" feature in his miner, but those shares will be rejected by all properly coded pools using stock bitcoind as backend. There are some good reasons to *not* use ntime rolling by default. For example, poclbm uses this feature only when pool provide special http header for allowing this. Accepting shares with rolled ntime may lead to accepting duplicate work in some cases, as I found back in January.
If you're using latest DiabloMiner version and see enormous stale ratio, please downgrade or use another miner. Diablo introduced "ntime rolling" feature in his miner, but those shares will be rejected by all properly coded pools using stock bitcoind as backend. There are some good reasons to *not* use ntime rolling by default. For example, poclbm uses this feature only when pool provide special http header for allowing this. Accepting shares with rolled ntime may lead to accepting duplicate work in some cases, as I found back in January.
June 26, 2011, 04:01:37 AM
Should I take any meaning out of that?
It basically means there was problem in database lookup for your username/password. Do you have correct username/password? I'll search logs, it is weird as I don't see that on other workers...
June 25, 2011, 07:08:44 PM
I'm still getting
Listener for "Default": 25/06/2011 22:00:27, Error while loading credentials from database for xxx.xxx
errors as posted previously.
Should I take any meaning out of that?
Listener for "Default": 25/06/2011 22:00:27, Error while loading credentials from database for xxx.xxx
errors as posted previously.
Should I take any meaning out of that?
June 25, 2011, 06:00:21 PM
and also it's here: http://forum.bitcoin.org/?topic=1976.msg50002#msg50002
That's why I'm talking that I failed in description for *average* user :-).
June 25, 2011, 04:35:52 PM
I feel like shares/total shares * 49 is correct enough for average user.
actually I tried to explain this on https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Comparison_of_mining_poolsand also it's here: http://forum.bitcoin.org/?topic=1976.msg50002#msg50002
June 25, 2011, 11:44:33 AM
(50 BTC - 1 BTC fee) * (score) / (total score)
This.
Quote
Btw, the explanation on your site does not reflect the current scoring system.
I know that, unfortunately it's pretty complex stuff to explain (exponential functio, reason for making older shares less valuable, renormalization) and I failed with some easy description for 'common users'. But because expected payout is +- the same as for share based calculation (without pool hoping), I feel like shares/total shares * 49 is correct enough for average user.
June 25, 2011, 11:24:39 AM
Slush, a question concerning transaction fees:
Is the payout
(50 BTC - 1 BTC fee) * (score) / (total score)
or
(TransFees + 50 BTC - 1 BTC fee) * (score) / (total score)?
Some recent blocks had relatively large fees in it, and distributing them along with the 50BTC of the block would of course be highly appreciated :-)
Btw, the explanation on your site does not reflect the current scoring system.
Is the payout
(50 BTC - 1 BTC fee) * (score) / (total score)
or
(TransFees + 50 BTC - 1 BTC fee) * (score) / (total score)?
Some recent blocks had relatively large fees in it, and distributing them along with the 50BTC of the block would of course be highly appreciated :-)
Btw, the explanation on your site does not reflect the current scoring system.
June 25, 2011, 06:36:41 AM
The confirmed blocks are almost caught up to the last block completed. We have been extremely unlucky. 
June 25, 2011, 06:19:17 AM
This one is also long...
A bit sad.. But sometimes its long sometimes it fast//
A bit sad.. But sometimes its long sometimes it fast//
June 25, 2011, 04:56:56 AM
Current round duration: 5:16:35
I cross-checked everything on pool and there's nothing suspicious. It's just long round :-). It is currently around 6x more than difficulty (should be 1x in average), but it's still not the worst round in history.
Actually ended up being 5:39:06.
Jump to: