Topic: BiblePay - New Coin Launch - Official Thread - page 34. (Read 119854 times)

Multiple daemon will be better.

This was his word's, they are really strange, because as i remember he wanted to put your "way" how to run multi-deamon to wiki and now this... LOL

I don't know, I was just about to test that, earlier it didn't make a significant difference (52k compared to 60k):

For solo mining, no need to run multiple daemons on one machine, am I right?
I will create and encrypt a new wallet for solo mining.

Different tasks, but it doesn't make any difference. They are also doing different tasks when they are connected to the pool.

Will different machine work on different tasks? Or they will solve the same task with the same wallet?

You can copy the same wallet.dat file to every different machine and all block find rewards will go to the same wallet, which you can check from your home PC. The wallet should be encrypted before copying anywhere, but it you not encrypted it and have some funds in it, be careful because by encrypting it you will lose funds. I did solo mining earlier and that setup was working 100%. You don't need testnet, just try it on main.

Not the same. You have different wallet address for miners on different machine. Thanks for sharing your finding in advance. I have never tried solo mining before. Can we copy the same wallet on different machine?  That's why I want to know how to setup a private testnet to try the solo.

lomjk jkj jjk

I didn't try it yet, I was just getting to it. Why, is it not the same as before? Either way, I will write my findings soon.

Edit: I thought you asked multiple daemons, not wallets. Below is my answer for wallets.

Do you figure out how to manage multiple wallets for solo?

Inblue I have multiple rings. I've spent about 150 to 200 hours optimizing a script on windows. Now it is bad that the hashrate pool and coin is growing.

It`s shares limit... I have about 190 now

Make it fair for everyone? How is it not fair now? All the instructions for setting up multiple daemons could be found in this thread, I posted it clearly, as well as someone else who was setting it up later. The instructions are at at a public disposal and they could be posted now again if needed. They could also be made into a wiki page.

It's not some hidden secret exploit; you first suggested us to try running multiple daemons on a machine and even helped with it. Actually this is the first time you refer to it as an exploit. Also the first time where you say you want to issue a patch for it. Earlier you were saying that it's fine and that it's how it's supposed to be, because it's better to have full nodes etc. Repeated many times. Exactly this was the reason I did it, because it was not going to change and that it was not an exploit, but a "feature", and also because it's simply easier to manage one bigger computer than 10 small ones, while giving notably better rewards. I would not intentionally do something bad to the coin or the pool, but I am being treated as a bad actor, accused of trying to "steal" others' money.

Also, as oliwer said, other pool miners are doing the same, so even though it's not all of them, that seems fair enough, because others probably didn't care enough to read the forum or have the trouble of setting it up. If someone reads this now and wants to setup multiple daemons, I would gladly instruct them on how to do that. I am not hiding anything or doing something sneaky, immoral etc. And because everyone can run multiple daemons (or already does), a fact is that there is mathematically no disadvantage to anyone while my computers are running, because I increase the pool block find frequency, while in turn I get a % of the rewards. Smaller reward per block for everyone, but more blocks found, so it all irons out to the same rewards for everyone, whether I am mining or not. The only difference is that the pool finds more blocks and that the pool has a lower luck factor, which are both advantages. Not to mention that I am barely even in the top 10 miners on the pool. You can see for yourself in the block distribution history.


Yeah, me too, I'm out. Btw, you will earn 6% more by solo mining.

Bbp said that he rises difficulty... i dont think its ok...

That will force me to try solo mining. It is not good to keep changing rule for a decentralized coin.

Is there any way to set up a private testnet to do some code testing?

I have 1/8 shares... and I`m using windows wallet. Something was changed about 4-5 hours ago.

I think that many linux users are running multi deamon... but they are no cheating. They want just use their cpu power... and user 235... was best example of this

I'm sorry you feel that way, and don't want to see you go.  I know you are very helpful to the other users, and want to see the project succeed.

On my side of the fence, I have to create an algorithm that is solved fairly for the users and I can't have any gross advantages and we have to work together to remove them, otherwise we risk the integrity of this whole project.

I view this discrepancy as one that is not to be exploited but to be patched with an emergency patch.  
I am hoping I have everyone on board to work with me toward the common goal not against it.
We cant have a gross discrepancy in the pool for a select few who figure out how to exploit the algorithm by creating multiple running nodes per linux instance.
In the end we fool ourselves, because those nodes are weaker than the full sanctuaries (where ultimately we want to measure proof-of-service) and have them be external nodes servicing 3000 external connections.

So for now, I am going to limit shares solved by IP to 200 and lets work on a solution to this issue to make it fair for everyone to hash biblehashes.

Screenshot wasn't made on refresh cuz i check laderboard 4-5 times in 2 mins to be sure that is not a bug.
By rising difficulty IMO you make again that ryzens are cheated by pool again.
Before your "update" i saw that my ryzen is not wasting his power in compare of my ulv cpu on laptop(7,5W TDP). Now hps2 of laptop is only 3 times lower than ryzen. Before update was 10 or more...