BiblePay - TestNet Thread - Pool Testing for Proof of Bible Hash Pool (PoBh) - page 2.

tiras

full member

Activity: 221

Merit: 100

Quote from: inblue on September 01, 2017, 11:46:56 AM

Quote from: bible_pay on September 01, 2017, 06:49:18 AM

User Name Miner Name Hashes Per Sec Hashes Per Sec2 Shares Reported
inblue blu11 834457.71 839418.82 22 9/1/2017 6:44:00 AM

Inblue, what kind of machine is this at the top?

Intel Xeon E5-2666 v3 with 72 threads, but you limited the threads promptly back to 24. Wink

After that it dropped to less than 200k, but it still showed 800k locally.

But what purpose is having the thread limit now after you made it so that the miners send packets via one stream instead of separately for each thread? As far as I understand, a miner with 4 threads and a miner with 64 threads should now equally strain the pool server? Plus the share difficulty will also adjust accordingly as usual?

inblue , how are you getting this : blu14 837187.18

we still have 24 thread limit , don't we ?

616westwarmoth

full member

Activity: 406

Merit: 101

Quote from: inblue on September 01, 2017, 11:46:56 AM

Quote from: bible_pay on September 01, 2017, 06:49:18 AM

User Name Miner Name Hashes Per Sec Hashes Per Sec2 Shares Reported
inblue blu11 834457.71 839418.82 22 9/1/2017 6:44:00 AM

Inblue, what kind of machine is this at the top?

Intel Xeon E5-2666 v3 with 72 threads, but you limited the threads promptly back to 24. Wink

After that it dropped to less than 200k, but it still showed 800k locally.

But what purpose is having the thread limit now after you made it so that the miners send packets via one stream instead of separately for each thread? As far as I understand, a miner with 4 threads and a miner with 64 threads should now equally strain the pool server? Plus the share difficulty will also adjust accordingly as usual?

What cooler you run to keep that thing from sizzling? If I run 24 threads on my Xeon it starts to climb over 77C and hits peaks at 85-90C.

616westwarmoth

full member

Activity: 406

Merit: 101

Quote from: tiras on September 01, 2017, 11:39:56 AM

Hey Rob , the new forum registration form captcha won't show up: "Type the letters shown in the picture:"

I'm using Firefox .

http://forum.biblepay.org/index.php?action=register

I had to use the audio captcha, it's a glitch he's working on.

inblue

full member

Activity: 462

Merit: 103

Quote from: bible_pay on September 01, 2017, 06:49:18 AM

User Name Miner Name Hashes Per Sec Hashes Per Sec2 Shares Reported
inblue blu11 834457.71 839418.82 22 9/1/2017 6:44:00 AM

Inblue, what kind of machine is this at the top?

Intel Xeon E5-2666 v3 with 72 threads, but you limited the threads promptly back to 24. Wink

After that it dropped to less than 200k, but it still showed 800k locally.

But what purpose is having the thread limit now after you made it so that the miners send packets via one stream instead of separately for each thread? As far as I understand, a miner with 4 threads and a miner with 64 threads should now equally strain the pool server? Plus the share difficulty will also adjust accordingly as usual?

tiras

full member

Activity: 221

Merit: 100

Quote from: bible_pay on September 01, 2017, 08:35:45 AM

ANNOUNCEMENT:

It is obvious that the BiblePay Cryptocurrency has a strong interest by thousands of users and many want to see us succeed. Our dedicated user-base is growing by 5% per day, our external node count is very close to reaching 1000 nodes, we have over 20 million hits per day in our first pool, we have a slack team planned to handle growth, we have our f7000 release planned (raising the bar), and even have a new pool coming out of development in 2 days.

Part of the growing pains we are experiencing is creation of our own slack IT group, along with dedicated operations forum topics, and subtopics. For example, PR, Sanctuaries, Charitable steering, IT issues, Tickets, etc. In this way we can become more organized. In our current admin tools setting, we are unable to create subtopics or organize our communication abilities, create managers & administrators, or even perform the most basic business process.

So that we can grow in a more professional way going forward, we are launching a dedicated forum for biblepay:

http://forum.biblepay.org/

Please post new communications in the Testnet testing thread on that site going forward, to ensure a response is received.

Best Regards,

Rob

Lead Dev

Hey Rob , the new forum registration form captcha won't show up: "Type the letters shown in the picture:"

I'm using Firefox .

http://forum.biblepay.org/index.php?action=register

bible_pay

full member

Activity: 1176

Merit: 215

Jesus is the King of Kings and Lord of Lords

ANNOUNCEMENT:

It is obvious that the BiblePay Cryptocurrency has a strong interest by thousands of users and many want to see us succeed. Our dedicated user-base is growing by 5% per day, our external node count is very close to reaching 1000 nodes, we have over 20 million hits per day in our first pool, we have a slack team planned to handle growth, we have our f7000 release planned (raising the bar), and even have a new pool coming out of development in 2 days.

Part of the growing pains we are experiencing is creation of our own slack IT group, along with dedicated operations forum topics, and subtopics. For example, PR, Sanctuaries, Charitable steering, IT issues, Tickets, etc. In this way we can become more organized. In our current admin tools setting, we are unable to create subtopics or organize our communication abilities, create managers & administrators, or even perform the most basic business process.

So that we can grow in a more professional way going forward, we are launching a dedicated forum for biblepay:

http://forum.biblepay.org/

Please post new communications in the Testnet testing thread on that site going forward, to ensure a response is received.

Best Regards,

Rob

Lead Dev

bible_pay

full member

Activity: 1176

Merit: 215

Jesus is the King of Kings and Lord of Lords

User Name Miner Name Hashes Per Sec Hashes Per Sec2 Shares Reported
inblue blu11 834457.71 839418.82 22 9/1/2017 6:44:00 AM

Inblue, what kind of machine is this at the top?

inblue

full member

Activity: 462

Merit: 103

Quote from: bible_pay on September 01, 2017, 05:56:48 AM

Its 06:00AM, and the pool is UP and I see we solved a block almost every hour.

If you have a screen shot of the actual error (not one that had to do with upgrading the database), please post it.

What do you mean with "actual error"? Those are the errors I encountered when trying to load the pool website at that time when my miners showed "poolmining" to be false and the message "pool down, reverting to solo mining". If the errors are not helpful because they have something to do with SQL, all right, but they are not happening when the load on the pool is low.

Quote from: bible_pay on September 01, 2017, 05:56:48 AM

As far as hosting on one of the top providers, If you would like to pay $3-4 an hour and host one on Azure, Im sure it would work also, and I can help direct you on setting it up on a dedicated server.

No need to be snarky. Maybe you missed this post from a few days ago:

Quote from: inblue on August 30, 2017, 03:26:40 PM

Isn't all this just a simple issue with the lack of CPU power on the server? I mean, it could be easily solved by employing a more powerful server and I bet that a few people here would be willing to donate for the costs, myself included. Or simply open source the pool and somebody will host it on a higher-end machine.

Regardless, I don't know where did you get that pricing from, it's really not that much. Here is the pricing table. The fastest CPUs based on my recent experience are ironically not in "Compute optimized", but in "General purpose" and they are named "D2-64 v3". I don't know what your current specs are, but even a D4 v3 with 4 cores at $0.384/hr could possibly outperform the current setup.

Also, Azure gives you $200 free credit outright, which means that not only can you experiment and see if it suits your needs, but actually host the pool for a lot of days for free. Google Cloud gives $300 free credit. There is a great deal of other offers and promos, for example I can have free web apps on Azure from some student promo, you can get a lot of AWS credit in various ways etc.

bible_pay

full member

Activity: 1176

Merit: 215

Jesus is the King of Kings and Lord of Lords

Its 06:00AM, and the pool is UP and I see we solved a block almost every hour.

If you have a screen shot of the actual error (not one that had to do with upgrading the database), please post it.

As far as hosting on one of the top providers, If you would like to pay $3-4 an hour and host one on Azure, Im sure it would work also, and I can help direct you on setting it up on a dedicated server.

inblue

full member

Activity: 462

Merit: 103

Pool is down. Here are some screenshots I was able to catch over time, maybe they are helpful:

Quote from: bible_pay on August 31, 2017, 01:49:30 PM

Quote from: tiras on August 31, 2017, 01:12:20 PM

there are ready VPSs or dedicated servers with DDOS protection on the market.. did you consider using one or few of them ?
google cloud is available for free now and it has DDOs protection too

Yeah, this pool wont run on a php or mysql host, it requires SQL 2012, .NET 4.5, biblepayd running as an instance on a static IP, etc. It could possibly be hosted on a windows hosting service, I suppose we'll find out when our first volunteer tries, but on my end I already paid for cloudflare and we should know within 24 hours if it helps.

I believe most of the big providers like Google Cloud, AWS and Azure provide all the things you need.

bible_pay

full member

Activity: 1176

Merit: 215

Jesus is the King of Kings and Lord of Lords

Quote from: seasonw on August 31, 2017, 07:49:37 PM

Quote from: bible_pay on August 31, 2017, 01:49:30 PM

Quote from: tiras on August 31, 2017, 01:12:20 PM

Quote from: bible_pay on August 31, 2017, 11:29:41 AM

Quote from: 616westwarmoth on August 31, 2017, 12:40:24 AM

I'm not sure why DDoS would be effective either, except for the idea that if the pool gets knocked off right before the solution is found, then all the hashes for that block from the pool are wasted. Granted, I would think that would require someone to be paying attention to the block chain pretty fiercely but that doesn't really make much sense. The only other thing that makes a bit more sense is a campaign of a hacker who has an axe to grind with religion but really, if that were the case (not suggesting or condoning this) why wouldn't they hit some high profile target like Joel Osteen or The 700 Club. So really, the only thing that makes much sense is a rival coin, which is sad to think about, or someone that doesn't realize no pool all that hash goes solo (and for the short term, that's a zero sum game, maybe long range the lack of a pool drives out other miners, but that's a bit hard to fathom).

We need more pool servers, I've offered as well to buy and run one if the price wasn't outlandish but I think the Dev wants to get a more finished product out there before that sort of thing happens. The counter argument to that is if there were one or two or three other supporters (I won't name anyone at the risk of offending, but I'd wager there's five or six posters in this thread contributing half the posts), like myself, that were willing to buy or at least Co-Lo a pool server under the direction of the Dev with the understanding it would be remotely accessed and upgraded on the short term by him and after his pool software was "prime time", would then become the hosts duty, there would be enough takers.

I can tell you with relative certainty why we're getting ddossed. Anyone who tries to create a 'novel' algorithm and a new pool is a threat to the top 50 coins on coinmarketcap. I think its more of a jealous group or actor than someone trying to extract an edge out of the pool.

On forking the code and running multiple pools, I agree, it is probably better to give you an early version of the code and have more than one, and have you upgrade later, rather than wait until we have a finished pool. However, I dont view it as 'ready' to check in. It still needs a couple things related to SQL, so, if you can respect the fact that its not ready to check in yet, thats why its too early to fork it to two beta pools. In addition, the alpha version is 65% complete (keeps getting interrupted by these outages) and I may end up checking that in instead, depending on how its received. The alpha version is completely different than the beta version.

there are ready VPSs or dedicated servers with DDOS protection on the market.. did you consider using one or few of them ?

google cloud is available for free now and it has DDOs protection too

Yeah, this pool wont run on a php or mysql host, it requires SQL 2012, .NET 4.5, biblepayd running as an instance on a static IP, etc. It could possibly be hosted on a windows hosting service, I suppose we'll find out when our first volunteer tries, but on my end I already paid for cloudflare and we should know within 24 hours if it helps.

It is good to use cloudflare to handle DDOS activities. And I noticed the pool react pretty fast now, wondering if it is already cloudflare protected?

BTW, did you add setting on your pool server to allow connection from cloudflare IP only, because your pool's IP has been exposed previously to DDOS attacker, which they might perform attack directly to your pool's IP without going through the cloudflare. Just my two cents, hope it helps to eliminate your headache on DDOS again.

Yeah, we are live on cloudflare. The reason you dont see the testing browser for 5 seconds when you hit the pool, is the switch for 'we are under attack' is off, but its still filtering attackers. Im afraid to turn it on, as I dont want to disrupt the API calls as weve had enough problems for a few days. Ill expiriment with it in the next two days.

According to the report weve had 5.3 million hits since 4pm (4 hours ago).
It must be doing something, because my VOIP phone is working again, and I was ironically on the phone talking to a salesperson for an anti-ddos service (lol) earlier.

Anyway, one feature cloudflare gives us is free HTTPS on every subdomain. Thats not working yet for some reason, although it is working on https://www.biblepay.org. Ill check into that asap for pool.biblepay.org.

seasonw

hero member

Activity: 714

Merit: 500

Quote from: bible_pay on August 31, 2017, 01:49:30 PM

Quote from: tiras on August 31, 2017, 01:12:20 PM

Quote from: bible_pay on August 31, 2017, 11:29:41 AM

Quote from: 616westwarmoth on August 31, 2017, 12:40:24 AM

I'm not sure why DDoS would be effective either, except for the idea that if the pool gets knocked off right before the solution is found, then all the hashes for that block from the pool are wasted. Granted, I would think that would require someone to be paying attention to the block chain pretty fiercely but that doesn't really make much sense. The only other thing that makes a bit more sense is a campaign of a hacker who has an axe to grind with religion but really, if that were the case (not suggesting or condoning this) why wouldn't they hit some high profile target like Joel Osteen or The 700 Club. So really, the only thing that makes much sense is a rival coin, which is sad to think about, or someone that doesn't realize no pool all that hash goes solo (and for the short term, that's a zero sum game, maybe long range the lack of a pool drives out other miners, but that's a bit hard to fathom).

We need more pool servers, I've offered as well to buy and run one if the price wasn't outlandish but I think the Dev wants to get a more finished product out there before that sort of thing happens. The counter argument to that is if there were one or two or three other supporters (I won't name anyone at the risk of offending, but I'd wager there's five or six posters in this thread contributing half the posts), like myself, that were willing to buy or at least Co-Lo a pool server under the direction of the Dev with the understanding it would be remotely accessed and upgraded on the short term by him and after his pool software was "prime time", would then become the hosts duty, there would be enough takers.

I can tell you with relative certainty why we're getting ddossed. Anyone who tries to create a 'novel' algorithm and a new pool is a threat to the top 50 coins on coinmarketcap. I think its more of a jealous group or actor than someone trying to extract an edge out of the pool.

On forking the code and running multiple pools, I agree, it is probably better to give you an early version of the code and have more than one, and have you upgrade later, rather than wait until we have a finished pool. However, I dont view it as 'ready' to check in. It still needs a couple things related to SQL, so, if you can respect the fact that its not ready to check in yet, thats why its too early to fork it to two beta pools. In addition, the alpha version is 65% complete (keeps getting interrupted by these outages) and I may end up checking that in instead, depending on how its received. The alpha version is completely different than the beta version.

there are ready VPSs or dedicated servers with DDOS protection on the market.. did you consider using one or few of them ?

google cloud is available for free now and it has DDOs protection too

Yeah, this pool wont run on a php or mysql host, it requires SQL 2012, .NET 4.5, biblepayd running as an instance on a static IP, etc. It could possibly be hosted on a windows hosting service, I suppose we'll find out when our first volunteer tries, but on my end I already paid for cloudflare and we should know within 24 hours if it helps.

It is good to use cloudflare to handle DDOS activities. And I noticed the pool react pretty fast now, wondering if it is already cloudflare protected?

BTW, did you add setting on your pool server to allow connection from cloudflare IP only, because your pool's IP has been exposed previously to DDOS attacker, which they might perform attack directly to your pool's IP without going through the cloudflare. Just my two cents, hope it helps to eliminate your headache on DDOS again.

bible_pay

full member

Activity: 1176

Merit: 215

Jesus is the King of Kings and Lord of Lords

Quote from: 616westwarmoth on August 31, 2017, 03:10:15 PM

It may have been a fluke, it's run stable the last couple hours on both the laptop that originally struggled and the desktop.

I dont know, I had the same problem when the pool went down earlier. It hasnt gone down since then, (I believe because of cloudflare), but anyway, when the pool goes down, the client is reading a new volatile variable that I put in this morning, which may not be threadsafe, so I released 1.0.2.7 using a different method.

If you want to upgrade to 1.0.2.7, its out there now. You could probably simulate an outage by pulling the cable or disabling the network device and see what the client does - ensure it doesnt crash when getmininginfo says "POOL DOWN". Could you please try testing that, that would help?

Thanks.

jaapgvk

full member

Activity: 574

Merit: 104

Updated my poolminers to 1.0.2.6. Went without hiccups. I've been mining for a few hours now and everything looks stable.

tiras

full member

Activity: 221

Merit: 100

Quote from: tiras on August 31, 2017, 02:20:03 PM

Quote from: bible_pay on August 31, 2017, 01:53:31 PM

Quote from: 616westwarmoth on August 31, 2017, 01:40:45 PM

1.0.2.6 is misbehaving a bit. It closed a few times on the laptop I use, but it's been stable for a bit (although it's been having trouble with connecting to the pool).

The desktop (running at genproc 12) exited while I was away.

The last lines of the debug look like this:

2017-08-31 17:35:39 Loading addresses from DNS seeds (could take a while)
2017-08-31 17:35:39 39 addresses found from DNS seeds
2017-08-31 17:35:39 dnsseed thread exit
2017-08-31 17:36:32 socket recv error An existing connection was forcibly closed by the remote host. (10054)
2017-08-31 17:37:02 CMasternodeSync::IsBlockchainSynced -- found enough peers on the same height as we are, done
2017-08-31 17:37:19 socket recv error An existing connection was forcibly closed by the remote host. (10054)
2017-08-31 17:37:37 socket recv error An existing connection was forcibly closed by the remote host. (10054)
2017-08-31 17:41:41 socket recv error An existing connection was forcibly closed by the remote host. (10054)

Oh great, right after I released it to the main thread. I have a feeling this is related to the shared mining comm volatile bool I added.
Alright I made a change and checked it in and Im burning it in now, and compiling a win version. Ill post here in about 4 hours when windows 1027 is ready. Cant guarantee this is the exact problem but its worth a shot.

started 1.0.2.6 on 3 win and 2 linux boxes. all are running stable against the pool

crushed on i7 7700 which I probably pushed too hard with 24 threads :

Code:

2017-08-31 19:06:32 Biblepay Core version 1.0.2.6 (2017-08-31 08:16:50 -0500)
2017-08-31 19:06:32 InitParameterInteraction: parameter interaction: -whitelistforcerelay=1 -> setting -whitelistrelay=1
2>>>
>>>
>>>
2017-08-31 19:06:48 dnsseed thread exit
2017-08-31 19:07:04

BiblepayMiner -- terminated
2017-08-31 19:07:04

BiblepayMiner -- terminated
2017-08-31 19:07:04

BiblepayMiner -- terminated
2017-08-31 19:07:04

BiblepayMiner -- terminated
2017-08-31 19:07:04

BiblepayMiner -- terminated
2017-08-31 19:07:04

BiblepayMiner -- terminated
2017-08-31 19:07:04

BiblepayMiner -- terminated
2017-08-31 19:07:04

BiblepayMiner -- terminated
2017-08-31 19:07:04

BiblepayMiner -- terminated
2017-08-31 19:07:04

BiblepayMiner -- terminated
2017-08-31 19:07:04 BibleMiner -- started thread 0.000000
2017-08-31 19:07:04 BibleMiner -- started thread 1.000000
2017-08-31 19:07:04 BibleMiner -- started thread 2.000000
2017-08-31 19:07:04

BiblepayMiner -- terminated
2017-08-31 19:07:04 BibleMiner -- started thread 3.000000
2017-08-31 19:07:04

BiblepayMiner -- terminated
2017-08-31 19:07:04 BibleMiner -- started thread 4.000000
2017-08-31 19:07:04

BiblepayMiner -- terminated
2017-08-31 19:07:04

BiblepayMiner -- terminated
2017-08-31 19:07:04

BiblepayMiner -- terminated
2017-08-31 19:07:04

BiblepayMiner -- terminated
2017-08-31 19:07:04 BibleMiner -- started thread 5.000000
2017-08-31 19:07:04 BibleMiner -- started thread 6.000000
2017-08-31 19:07:04 BibleMiner -- started thread 7.000000
2017-08-31 19:07:04 BibleMiner -- started thread 8.000000
2017-08-31 19:07:04 BibleMiner -- started thread 9.000000
2017-08-31 19:07:05 BibleMiner -- started thread 10.000000
2017-08-31 19:07:05 BibleMiner -- started thread 11.000000
2017-08-31 19:07:05 BibleMiner -- started thread 12.000000
2017-08-31 19:07:05 BibleMiner -- started thread 13.000000
2017-08-31 19:07:05 BibleMiner -- started thread 14.000000
2017-08-31 19:07:05 BibleMiner -- started thread 15.000000
2017-08-31 19:07:05 BibleMiner -- started thread 16.000000
2017-08-31 19:07:05 BibleMiner -- started thread 17.000000
2017-08-31 19:07:05 BibleMiner -- started thread 18.000000
2017-08-31 19:07:05 BibleMiner -- started thread 19.000000
2017-08-31 19:07:06 BibleMiner -- started thread 20.000000
2017-08-31 19:07:06 BibleMiner -- started thread 21.000000
2017-08-31 19:07:06 BibleMiner -- started thread 22.000000
2017-08-31 19:07:06 BibleMiner -- started thread 23.000000
2017-08-31 19:07:06 ** Started 24.000000 BibleMiner threads. **

2017-08-31 19:07:23 CMasternodeSync::IsBlockchainSynced -- found enough peers on the same height as we are, done
2017-08-31 19:08:36 socket recv error An existing connection was forcibly closed by the remote host. (10054)
2017-08-31 19:08:53 socket recv error An existing connection was forcibly closed by the remote host. (10054)
2017-08-31 19:09:10 socket recv error An existing connection was forcibly closed by the remote host. (10054)
2017-08-31 19:11:07 socket recv error An existing connection was forcibly closed by the remote host. (10054)
2017-08-31 19:11:18 socket recv error An existing connection was forcibly closed by the remote host. (10054)
2017-08-31 20:17:04 socket sending timeout: 3625s
2017-08-31 20:17:04 socket sending timeout: 3719s
2017-08-31 20:17:04 socket sending timeout: 3717s
2017-08-31 20:17:04 socket sending timeout: 3717s
2017-08-31 20:17:04 socket sending timeout: 3705s
2017-08-31 20:17:04 socket sending timeout: 3668s
2017-08-31 20:17:04 socket sending timeout: 3745s
2017-08-31 20:17:04 socket sending timeout: 3728s
2017-08-31 20:17:04 socket sending timeout: 3742s
2017-08-31 20:17:05 socket send error An operation was attempted on something that is not a socket. (10038)

616westwarmoth

full member

Activity: 406

Merit: 101

It may have been a fluke, it's run stable the last couple hours on both the laptop that originally struggled and the desktop.

tiras

full member

Activity: 221

Merit: 100

Quote from: bible_pay on August 31, 2017, 01:53:31 PM

Quote from: 616westwarmoth on August 31, 2017, 01:40:45 PM

1.0.2.6 is misbehaving a bit. It closed a few times on the laptop I use, but it's been stable for a bit (although it's been having trouble with connecting to the pool).

The desktop (running at genproc 12) exited while I was away.

The last lines of the debug look like this:

2017-08-31 17:35:39 Loading addresses from DNS seeds (could take a while)
2017-08-31 17:35:39 39 addresses found from DNS seeds
2017-08-31 17:35:39 dnsseed thread exit
2017-08-31 17:36:32 socket recv error An existing connection was forcibly closed by the remote host. (10054)
2017-08-31 17:37:02 CMasternodeSync::IsBlockchainSynced -- found enough peers on the same height as we are, done
2017-08-31 17:37:19 socket recv error An existing connection was forcibly closed by the remote host. (10054)
2017-08-31 17:37:37 socket recv error An existing connection was forcibly closed by the remote host. (10054)
2017-08-31 17:41:41 socket recv error An existing connection was forcibly closed by the remote host. (10054)

Oh great, right after I released it to the main thread. I have a feeling this is related to the shared mining comm volatile bool I added.
Alright I made a change and checked it in and Im burning it in now, and compiling a win version. Ill post here in about 4 hours when windows 1027 is ready. Cant guarantee this is the exact problem but its worth a shot.

started 1.0.2.6 on 3 win and 2 linux boxes. all are running stable against the pool

bible_pay

full member

Activity: 1176

Merit: 215

Jesus is the King of Kings and Lord of Lords

Quote from: 616westwarmoth on August 31, 2017, 01:40:45 PM

1.0.2.6 is misbehaving a bit. It closed a few times on the laptop I use, but it's been stable for a bit (although it's been having trouble with connecting to the pool).

The desktop (running at genproc 12) exited while I was away.

The last lines of the debug look like this:

2017-08-31 17:35:39 Loading addresses from DNS seeds (could take a while)
2017-08-31 17:35:39 39 addresses found from DNS seeds
2017-08-31 17:35:39 dnsseed thread exit
2017-08-31 17:36:32 socket recv error An existing connection was forcibly closed by the remote host. (10054)
2017-08-31 17:37:02 CMasternodeSync::IsBlockchainSynced -- found enough peers on the same height as we are, done
2017-08-31 17:37:19 socket recv error An existing connection was forcibly closed by the remote host. (10054)
2017-08-31 17:37:37 socket recv error An existing connection was forcibly closed by the remote host. (10054)
2017-08-31 17:41:41 socket recv error An existing connection was forcibly closed by the remote host. (10054)

Oh great, right after I released it to the main thread. I have a feeling this is related to the shared mining comm volatile bool I added.
Alright I made a change and checked it in and Im burning it in now, and compiling a win version. Ill post here in about 4 hours when windows 1027 is ready. Cant guarantee this is the exact problem but its worth a shot.

bible_pay

full member

Activity: 1176

Merit: 215

Jesus is the King of Kings and Lord of Lords

Quote from: tiras on August 31, 2017, 01:12:20 PM

Quote from: bible_pay on August 31, 2017, 11:29:41 AM

Quote from: 616westwarmoth on August 31, 2017, 12:40:24 AM

I'm not sure why DDoS would be effective either, except for the idea that if the pool gets knocked off right before the solution is found, then all the hashes for that block from the pool are wasted. Granted, I would think that would require someone to be paying attention to the block chain pretty fiercely but that doesn't really make much sense. The only other thing that makes a bit more sense is a campaign of a hacker who has an axe to grind with religion but really, if that were the case (not suggesting or condoning this) why wouldn't they hit some high profile target like Joel Osteen or The 700 Club. So really, the only thing that makes much sense is a rival coin, which is sad to think about, or someone that doesn't realize no pool all that hash goes solo (and for the short term, that's a zero sum game, maybe long range the lack of a pool drives out other miners, but that's a bit hard to fathom).

We need more pool servers, I've offered as well to buy and run one if the price wasn't outlandish but I think the Dev wants to get a more finished product out there before that sort of thing happens. The counter argument to that is if there were one or two or three other supporters (I won't name anyone at the risk of offending, but I'd wager there's five or six posters in this thread contributing half the posts), like myself, that were willing to buy or at least Co-Lo a pool server under the direction of the Dev with the understanding it would be remotely accessed and upgraded on the short term by him and after his pool software was "prime time", would then become the hosts duty, there would be enough takers.

I can tell you with relative certainty why we're getting ddossed. Anyone who tries to create a 'novel' algorithm and a new pool is a threat to the top 50 coins on coinmarketcap. I think its more of a jealous group or actor than someone trying to extract an edge out of the pool.

On forking the code and running multiple pools, I agree, it is probably better to give you an early version of the code and have more than one, and have you upgrade later, rather than wait until we have a finished pool. However, I dont view it as 'ready' to check in. It still needs a couple things related to SQL, so, if you can respect the fact that its not ready to check in yet, thats why its too early to fork it to two beta pools. In addition, the alpha version is 65% complete (keeps getting interrupted by these outages) and I may end up checking that in instead, depending on how its received. The alpha version is completely different than the beta version.

there are ready VPSs or dedicated servers with DDOS protection on the market.. did you consider using one or few of them ?

google cloud is available for free now and it has DDOs protection too

Yeah, this pool wont run on a php or mysql host, it requires SQL 2012, .NET 4.5, biblepayd running as an instance on a static IP, etc. It could possibly be hosted on a windows hosting service, I suppose we'll find out when our first volunteer tries, but on my end I already paid for cloudflare and we should know within 24 hours if it helps.

616westwarmoth

full member

Activity: 406

Merit: 101

1.0.2.6 is misbehaving a bit. It closed a few times on the laptop I use, but it's been stable for a bit (although it's been having trouble with connecting to the pool).

The desktop (running at genproc 12) exited while I was away.

The last lines of the debug look like this:

2017-08-31 17:35:39 Loading addresses from DNS seeds (could take a while)
2017-08-31 17:35:39 39 addresses found from DNS seeds
2017-08-31 17:35:39 dnsseed thread exit
2017-08-31 17:36:32 socket recv error An existing connection was forcibly closed by the remote host. (10054)
2017-08-31 17:37:02 CMasternodeSync::IsBlockchainSynced -- found enough peers on the same height as we are, done
2017-08-31 17:37:19 socket recv error An existing connection was forcibly closed by the remote host. (10054)
2017-08-31 17:37:37 socket recv error An existing connection was forcibly closed by the remote host. (10054)
2017-08-31 17:41:41 socket recv error An existing connection was forcibly closed by the remote host. (10054)

Topic: BiblePay - TestNet Thread - Pool Testing for Proof of Bible Hash Pool (PoBh) - page 2. (Read 13230 times)