Topic: BiblePay | 10% to Orphan-Charity | RANDOMX MINING | Sanctuaries (Masternodes) - page 633. (Read 243376 times)
February 17, 2018, 10:50:08 PM
Hello Does anyone have a throw away account on C-CEX.com or is looking to sell a masternode? C-Cex will not accept new accounts at this time that is the only reason I am asking.....also southXchange just doesn't have the sell volume to purchase 1550001 outright. Thanks for the help
February 17, 2018, 09:00:55 PM
The masternodes count on the pool about page gets populated when we have at least one active proposal. That explains why its zero.
February 17, 2018, 08:43:12 PM
Its an unfortunate situation SEO,
if needed I can fund you the coins,
and then I can re-add the proposal and set it to go to my address,
next budget wont pay out for probably another 30-40 days
if needed I can fund you the coins,
and then I can re-add the proposal and set it to go to my address,
next budget wont pay out for probably another 30-40 days
If you want to. I would appreciate not having to wait another month or more. It was only 110k BBP not 120k.
B4yJccrxhWgdcxRLZyBbPSi7MrEwb3Sh85
February 17, 2018, 08:26:32 PM
Its an unfortunate situation SEO,
if needed I can fund you the coins,
and then I can re-add the proposal and set it to go to my address,
next budget wont pay out for probably another 30-40 days
if needed I can fund you the coins,
and then I can re-add the proposal and set it to go to my address,
next budget wont pay out for probably another 30-40 days
February 17, 2018, 08:24:48 PM
I don't understand how proposals just get deleted who decided? Don't masternodes vote? I had something like 44 - 1 votes yes?
We all voted on a bad superblock, one with payments that exceeded the limit, so we had to recreate it with one less proposal.I deleted yours because it appeared to be the least important proposal in the batch.
If you want to recover the 120K Im sure the community can come up with that amount easily.
EDIT: To clarify, I didnt have power to delete a proposal, I just recreated a good superblock and asked everyone to vote on it.
Once the superblock epoch time passes, the proposal is no good - it would have needed recreated anyway.
Rob, do you mean it had the least number of yes votes?
No, I mean I scanned for the lowest one we could remove that looked like we could live without it, and didnt include it.
We are testing the feature that automagically creates the superblock in testnet however, using that new method.
February 17, 2018, 08:11:33 PM
I don't understand how proposals just get deleted who decided? Don't masternodes vote? I had something like 44 - 1 votes yes?
We all voted on a bad superblock, one with payments that exceeded the limit, so we had to recreate it with one less proposal.I deleted yours because it appeared to be the least important proposal in the batch.
If you want to recover the 120K Im sure the community can come up with that amount easily.
EDIT: To clarify, I didnt have power to delete a proposal, I just recreated a good superblock and asked everyone to vote on it.
Once the superblock epoch time passes, the proposal is no good - it would have needed recreated anyway.
Rob, do you mean it had the least number of yes votes?
February 17, 2018, 08:07:46 PM
I don't understand how proposals just get deleted who decided? Don't masternodes vote? I had something like 44 - 1 votes yes?
We all voted on a bad superblock, one with payments that exceeded the limit, so we had to recreate it with one less proposal.I deleted yours because it appeared to be the least important proposal in the batch.
If you want to recover the 120K Im sure the community can come up with that amount easily.
EDIT: To clarify, I didnt have power to delete a proposal, I just recreated a good superblock and asked everyone to vote on it.
Once the superblock epoch time passes, the proposal is no good - it would have needed recreated anyway.
February 17, 2018, 07:52:11 PM
I don't understand how proposals just get deleted who decided? Don't masternodes vote? I had something like 44 - 1 votes yes?
February 17, 2018, 07:46:19 PM
Quick recap regarding the shares count on lichtsucher's purepool:
machine 24h shares
Raspberry Pi 3 Mod. B: 55
Core2Duo T9400: 180
Rented 2 cores (of Xeon X56XX) 300
Xeon E3-1230 v3 700
Dual Xeon L5640 2200
Seems perfectly proportional to their computing power.
Those 2 blocks we hit yesterday were obviously pure luck; let's see when we'll strike again.
machine 24h shares
Raspberry Pi 3 Mod. B: 55
Core2Duo T9400: 180
Rented 2 cores (of Xeon X56XX) 300
Xeon E3-1230 v3 700
Dual Xeon L5640 2200
Seems perfectly proportional to their computing power.
Those 2 blocks we hit yesterday were obviously pure luck; let's see when we'll strike again.
So are you implying the main pool is not proportional to computing power also, or is it not tested?
From what I understand Lich's PMs back and forth to me sound as if the Purepool issues the same diff shares as pool.biblepay.org. So the results should be the same.
That's hard to say to be honest, because the main pool is resetting the shares much more often and irregularly (at least for my workers), so I never really see how much I gathered with the specific workers in a specific time.
What I can say is, that for example a machine with Dual Xeon E5645 processors is now (for at least 2 weeks) consistently at 12-30 shares in "My Leaderboard" whereas my Raspberries are always ín a range of 5-15 shares and my ASUS Tinker Board (which should be approx. 150% of a Pi) is at 10-20 shares. So judging from these (few) examples the main pool definitely levels out my machines.
So my personal conclusion would be that the main pool right now is perfectly suited for weaker machines (Dual Core, rented, ARM etc.), while more powerful systems might be better off on purepool (which of course cannot be safely said right now, because we will have to see how many blocks it hits over the course of a week or so...).
Oh OK I see what you mean regarding the resets. Hes got a 24 hour duration of collected shares, while (pool.biblepay) has a diminishing share effect for the share age.. OK, cool lets see how purepool plays out.
February 17, 2018, 07:43:36 PM
bin/watchman.py
Line 94: proposals = Proposal.approved_and_ranked(...)
Line 98: sb = dashlib.create_superblock(proposals, event_block_height, budget_max, sb_epoch_time)
Line 94: proposals = Proposal.approved_and_ranked(...)
Line 98: sb = dashlib.create_superblock(proposals, event_block_height, budget_max, sb_epoch_time)
So I took a look at Watchman, and how it could potentially rank winning proposals and automagically create triggers for them, and I think we may be able to use that particular system in the future. Ill comment more in the testnet thread, and then we can test the change in there with a testnet proposal.
February 17, 2018, 07:36:32 PM
Quick recap regarding the shares count on lichtsucher's purepool:
machine 24h shares
Raspberry Pi 3 Mod. B: 55
Core2Duo T9400: 180
Rented 2 cores (of Xeon X56XX) 300
Xeon E3-1230 v3 700
Dual Xeon L5640 2200
Seems perfectly proportional to their computing power.
Those 2 blocks we hit yesterday were obviously pure luck; let's see when we'll strike again.
machine 24h shares
Raspberry Pi 3 Mod. B: 55
Core2Duo T9400: 180
Rented 2 cores (of Xeon X56XX) 300
Xeon E3-1230 v3 700
Dual Xeon L5640 2200
Seems perfectly proportional to their computing power.
Those 2 blocks we hit yesterday were obviously pure luck; let's see when we'll strike again.
So are you implying the main pool is not proportional to computing power also, or is it not tested?
From what I understand Lich's PMs back and forth to me sound as if the Purepool issues the same diff shares as pool.biblepay.org. So the results should be the same.
That's hard to say to be honest, because the main pool is resetting the shares much more often and irregularly (at least for my workers), so I never really see how much I gathered with the specific workers in a specific time.
What I can say is, that for example a machine with Dual Xeon E5645 processors is now (for at least 2 weeks) consistently at 12-30 shares in "My Leaderboard" whereas my Raspberries are always ín a range of 5-15 shares and my ASUS Tinker Board (which should be approx. 150% of a Pi) is at 10-20 shares. So judging from these (few) examples the main pool definitely levels out my machines.
So my personal conclusion would be that the main pool right now is perfectly suited for weaker machines (Dual Core, rented, ARM etc.), while more powerful systems might be better off on purepool (which of course cannot be safely said right now, because we will have to see how many blocks it hits over the course of a week or so...).
February 17, 2018, 07:17:41 PM
Quick recap regarding the shares count on lichtsucher's purepool:
machine 24h shares
Raspberry Pi 3 Mod. B: 55
Core2Duo T9400: 180
Rented 2 cores (of Xeon X56XX) 300
Xeon E3-1230 v3 700
Dual Xeon L5640 2200
Seems perfectly proportional to their computing power.
Those 2 blocks we hit yesterday were obviously pure luck; let's see when we'll strike again.
machine 24h shares
Raspberry Pi 3 Mod. B: 55
Core2Duo T9400: 180
Rented 2 cores (of Xeon X56XX) 300
Xeon E3-1230 v3 700
Dual Xeon L5640 2200
Seems perfectly proportional to their computing power.
Those 2 blocks we hit yesterday were obviously pure luck; let's see when we'll strike again.
So are you implying the main pool is not proportional to computing power also, or is it not tested?
From what I understand Lich's PMs back and forth to me sound as if the Purepool issues the same diff shares as pool.biblepay.org. So the results should be the same.
February 17, 2018, 07:12:04 PM
Alright. Is it maybe a good suggestion that the person who proposed for the Second Faucet (SEO_Account) gets compensated in the mean time (the same way we went about getting on southXchange)?
I'm gonna wait for his response of course, maybe SEO has no problems waiting for the next superblock.
The general donation adres for the faucet is B9ki5RieMSspR9RncPnPQx3QF56kVm6ioc btw
You can dubbelcheck it on:
http://biblepayfaucet.com/
I'll just re-quote myself here. Whatever you feel comfortable with I guess SEO
I also don't mind fronting some coins. February 17, 2018, 07:08:09 PM
You sadly do not get funded this budget cycle 
You will just have to enter it into this now 3rd proposal cycle
I can front you some coins for the faucet in the meantime if needed
You will just have to enter it into this now 3rd proposal cycle
I can front you some coins for the faucet in the meantime if needed
February 17, 2018, 06:56:25 PM
Oh no, it looks like our getsuperblockbudget for 30750 is 5702381, and we spent 5780000 in the superblock.
I dont know how we did that, but lets look at that later and try to get through this mess.
Checking for a straightforward solution now....
EDIT: All, please stay tuned and watch this thread, we might have to create an emergency superblock and hold an emergency vote...
I dont know how we did that, but lets look at that later and try to get through this mess.
Checking for a straightforward solution now....
EDIT: All, please stay tuned and watch this thread, we might have to create an emergency superblock and hold an emergency vote...
All, I have created a new superblock - please vote for this new one first before we try to delete the old one - so we don't miss it:
gobject vote-many d30ade50b678d6a1092964c15443c3d8e6b48621a7a325b3155d1d225783fdf3 funding yes
I removed the proposal for Second Biblepay Faucet from this superblock.
Next: Also please vote against the old superblock:
gobject vote-many 4e69d1fe449e64e7e1e0b1585971bf5d1b75f442653c40567d6ca8dc7a008d09 funding no
So what happens with my proposal?
February 17, 2018, 06:28:05 PM
dave_bbp very weird for rented 2 CPUs 56xx and dual xeon L5640 ...
sorry, I'll correct this, it's of course 2 rented cores of a Xeon X56XX. February 17, 2018, 06:22:47 PM
maybe he think 2 cores..
for me, dual x5660 >2500, dont know exactly as there was small outage (~2 hrs)
for me, dual x5660 >2500, dont know exactly as there was small outage (~2 hrs)
February 17, 2018, 06:15:47 PM
dave_bbp very weird for rented 2 CPUs 56xx and dual xeon L5640 ...
February 17, 2018, 06:07:30 PM
Quick recap regarding the shares count on lichtsucher's purepool:
machine 24h shares
Raspberry Pi 3 Mod. B: 55
Core2Duo T9400: 180
Rented 2 cores (of Xeon X56XX) 300
Xeon E3-1230 v3 700
Dual Xeon L5640 2200
Seems perfectly proportional to their computing power.
Those 2 blocks we hit yesterday were obviously pure luck; let's see when we'll strike again.
machine 24h shares
Raspberry Pi 3 Mod. B: 55
Core2Duo T9400: 180
Rented 2 cores (of Xeon X56XX) 300
Xeon E3-1230 v3 700
Dual Xeon L5640 2200
Seems perfectly proportional to their computing power.
Those 2 blocks we hit yesterday were obviously pure luck; let's see when we'll strike again.
February 17, 2018, 05:34:03 PM
Im a little late, but my understanding is that if we request too many coins from the budget,
the budget will only pay out the proposals with the most yes votes (pays out in descending order of yes votes),
is that correct?
the budget will only pay out the proposals with the most yes votes (pays out in descending order of yes votes),
is that correct?
If we request too many, the budget will not be converted and approved as a superblock (the chain will fail with Superblock amount too big). We need to be careful to not insert too many proposals into the next budget next time.
We basically voted in an invalid budget.
bin/watchman.py
Line 94: proposals = Proposal.approved_and_ranked(...)
Line 98: sb = dashlib.create_superblock(proposals, event_block_height, budget_max, sb_epoch_time)
https://github.com/biblepay/watchman/blob/c6f4cdc831b45019b1f7b3b6ce99100b5fa7086f/bin/watchman.py#L94
lib/models.py
approved_and_ranked() "return all approved proposals, in order of descending vote count"
https://github.com/biblepay/watchman/blob/e944d85fe5edc89d0ad4459c2428127cbc3b4d16/lib/models.py#L338
lib/biblepaylib.py
create_superblock()
Line 105: if (budget_allocated + proposal.payment_amount) > budget_max: "# skip proposals that are too expensive..."
https://github.com/biblepay/watchman/blob/c6f4cdc831b45019b1f7b3b6ce99100b5fa7086f/lib/biblepaylib.py#L89
So to me it looks like watchman, sorts the proposals before sending them to create in the superblock
and in the superblock creation the proposals get added up 1 by 1 unless they go over the budget limit at which point they get skipped
What was the error that you saw exactly Rob? Im interested to dig into this
If the above is correct, then it should have theoretically skipped the passing proposals that went over budget with the least amount of votes,
specifically the PR Communications Marketing proposal I think, I believe it had the least amount of votes
Hmm.... Ive never seen that ... We have our own superblock creation function, so our is atomic - either create it right or it blows up.
We dont use watchman for superblocks.
I'll have to take a look at that and see if its of benefit to us.
Probably wont be til tomorrow though.
Jump to: