Hey guys!
All day Earning have been showing this:
Unconfirmed: N/A
So I have no idea how much I have earned. I notice that I can't find any other account that does. Is there a problem with the service?
I switched to Slush's for the moment; at least until I know that my earnings aren't flying away.
Topic: BitcoinPool.com open thread - page 5. (Read 29840 times)
The bitcoinpool miner is the only one that works with sdk 2.1 on win7 afaik, which is worth almost 4% more for me in increased hash rate (40mhash total more for me on dual 5970's). I'm solo mining though....
bitcoinpool miner is normal m0mchil miner with some cosmetic changes in logging and network layer, but it does not affect hashrate. standard poclbm works for me on sdk2.1 and win7 without any problem...
Yeah it was the only miner that worked for me, 7 x64
really? i posted a 50btc bounty in the poclbm thread a while back to whoever had a solution to sdk2.1 + 10.11 drivers with dual 5970's on win7 64bit and this miner was the only one that worked
EDIT: just fired up some other miners and noticed they all work now.... must be the 11.2 driver update.
EDIT: just fired up some other miners and noticed they all work now.... must be the 11.2 driver update.
The bitcoinpool miner is the only one that works with sdk 2.1 on win7 afaik, which is worth almost 4% more for me in increased hash rate (40mhash total more for me on dual 5970's). I'm solo mining though....
bitcoinpool miner is normal m0mchil miner with some cosmetic changes in logging and network layer, but it does not affect hashrate. standard poclbm works for me on sdk2.1 and win7 without any problem...
The bitcoinpool miner is the only one that works with sdk 2.1 on win7 afaik, which is worth almost 4% more for me in increased hash rate (40mhash total more for me on dual 5970's). I'm solo mining though....
bobR, there are 2 things I have to say:
#1 learn english. Your posts are not very clear or comprehensible
#2 slush was being sarcastic...
http://img.techpowerup.org/110408/Capture142.png
#1 learn english. Your posts are not very clear or comprehensible
#2 slush was being sarcastic...
http://img.techpowerup.org/110408/Capture142.png
I just making reports
trolls here are deciding what's real & whats troll turds "NOT ME"
do as you will ... WHO CARES
anyway
Today was not very different
I restarted / re did for a previous version of sdk
was just an exercise in useless shit SDK 2.1 made no diff to SDK 2.3
saw NOTHING different
as a note i did see an hr with nothing reported....10+ nothing to shows
but mining everything REALLY helps
Fyi I think i'm down coins since the eff limit even though THE NUMBERS say I'm more eff
So what does that say
oh ps
even slush says ignore nster -- everyone knows he's a troll
trolls here are deciding what's real & whats troll turds "NOT ME"
do as you will ... WHO CARES
anyway
Today was not very different
I restarted / re did for a previous version of sdk
was just an exercise in useless shit SDK 2.1 made no diff to SDK 2.3
saw NOTHING different
as a note i did see an hr with nothing reported....10+ nothing to shows
but mining everything REALLY helps
Fyi I think i'm down coins since the eff limit even though THE NUMBERS say I'm more eff
So what does that say
oh ps
even slush says ignore nster -- everyone knows he's a troll
Thats old code that hasn't been in place for some time slush. Likewise, not really capable of doing sql injection if no variables are being requested from other functions or from post data, so it's completely safe to pass a static variable to a SQL string without escaping it. Especially if I'm enforcing strict data types on the sql server.
Furthermore, the PHP code used to calculate pool hash speed is hardly an indicator of how the rest of our pool and site is coded.
Furthermore, the PHP code used to calculate pool hash speed is hardly an indicator of how the rest of our pool and site is coded.
You yourself said that the problem was injection.
Quote from: Geebus from the BitcoinPool forum
Our worry was that your wallet ID may have been changed via injection, [...]
Well of 349 get works so far 143 had no results
that's better than 1/3 that were worthless to hash to the last bit
these numbers are from poclbm-mod which continues running even now and has been running since yesterday on at least 5 different blocks
still only seeing like 1 in 8 above 75%
and FYI
after 4 days of excluded low efficiency's the pool efficiency is still around 80%
that's better than 1/3 that were worthless to hash to the last bit
these numbers are from poclbm-mod which continues running even now and has been running since yesterday on at least 5 different blocks
still only seeing like 1 in 8 above 75%
and FYI
after 4 days of excluded low efficiency's the pool efficiency is still around 80%
Why do you use this pool if all you do is complain about it?
He troll and likes to call other people trolls. :p
Still, it is better to criticize a system and try to find potential flaws then leave it be and see many people getting ripped off by the said system unknowingly
Well of 349 get works so far 143 had no results
that's better than 1/3 that were worthless to hash to the last bit
these numbers are from poclbm-mod which continues running even now and has been running since yesterday on at least 5 different blocks
still only seeing like 1 in 8 above 75%
and FYI
after 4 days of excluded low efficiency's the pool efficiency is still around 80%
that's better than 1/3 that were worthless to hash to the last bit
these numbers are from poclbm-mod which continues running even now and has been running since yesterday on at least 5 different blocks
still only seeing like 1 in 8 above 75%
and FYI
after 4 days of excluded low efficiency's the pool efficiency is still around 80%
Why do you use this pool if all you do is complain about it?
Well of 349 get works so far 143 had no results
that's better than 1/3 that were worthless to hash to the last bit
these numbers are from poclbm-mod which continues running even now and has been running since yesterday on at least 5 different blocks
still only seeing like 1 in 8 above 75%
and FYI
after 4 days of excluded low efficiency's the pool efficiency is still around 80%
that's better than 1/3 that were worthless to hash to the last bit
these numbers are from poclbm-mod which continues running even now and has been running since yesterday on at least 5 different blocks
still only seeing like 1 in 8 above 75%
and FYI
after 4 days of excluded low efficiency's the pool efficiency is still around 80%
Unless you've audited our site
I saw part of pool sources, as I wrote many weeks ago to the forum thread...
Quote
through attempted attacks
...but I didn't hacked your pool. Those sources were just printed on the homepage for some time (following block is reformated, but code untouched):
Code:
// GHash/s
$numshares = mysql_num_rows(mysql_query("SELECT username FROM shares"));
$sampletime = 300;
$deltaframe = time() - $sampletime;
$sharesbeforedelta=mysql_num_rows(mysql_query("SELECT username FROM shares WHERE datetime < '".$deltaframe."'"));
$sharesdelta = (($numshares - $sharesbeforedelta) * pow(2, 32)) / $sampletime;
while(strlen($sharesdelta) > 4){
if(strlen($sharesdelta) >= 10 ? $sharesdelta = ($sharesdelta / 1000) : $sharesdelta = $sharesdelta);
if(strlen(round($sharesdelta)) >= 7 ? $sharesdelta = ($sharesdelta / 1000) : $sharesdelta = $sharesdelta);
if(strlen(round($sharesdelta)) >= 4 ? $sharesdelta = ($sharesdelta / 1000) : $sharesdelta = $sharesdelta);
$sharesdelta = round($sharesdelta, 2);
if($sampletime > 60 ? $avgstr = ($sampletime/60)."m avg" : $avgstr = ($sampletime)."s avg");
$theReturn = "Estimated Pool Speed (".$avgstr."): ".$sharesdelta." Ghash/s";
}
$numshares = mysql_num_rows(mysql_query("SELECT username FROM shares"));
$sampletime = 300;
$deltaframe = time() - $sampletime;
$sharesbeforedelta=mysql_num_rows(mysql_query("SELECT username FROM shares WHERE datetime < '".$deltaframe."'"));
$sharesdelta = (($numshares - $sharesbeforedelta) * pow(2, 32)) / $sampletime;
while(strlen($sharesdelta) > 4){
if(strlen($sharesdelta) >= 10 ? $sharesdelta = ($sharesdelta / 1000) : $sharesdelta = $sharesdelta);
if(strlen(round($sharesdelta)) >= 7 ? $sharesdelta = ($sharesdelta / 1000) : $sharesdelta = $sharesdelta);
if(strlen(round($sharesdelta)) >= 4 ? $sharesdelta = ($sharesdelta / 1000) : $sharesdelta = $sharesdelta);
$sharesdelta = round($sharesdelta, 2);
if($sampletime > 60 ? $avgstr = ($sampletime/60)."m avg" : $avgstr = ($sampletime)."s avg");
$theReturn = "Estimated Pool Speed (".$avgstr."): ".$sharesdelta." Ghash/s";
}
From this code I see that you were using mysql and inserting parameters directly into sql statements. So no black magic from my side, no speculations. And if you read carefully my previous post, I'm not attacking you, just thinking about possible problems.
Quote
, or looked at our code directly through successful attacks, you don't know how our site, or pool is coded, and should not comment on it.
As you see, I can read your code even without attacking your site
.Thats old code that hasn't been in place for some time slush. Likewise, not really capable of doing sql injection if no variables are being requested from other functions or from post data, so it's completely safe to pass a static variable to a SQL string without escaping it. Especially if I'm enforcing strict data types on the sql server.
Furthermore, the PHP code used to calculate pool hash speed is hardly an indicator of how the rest of our pool and site is coded.
Our pool. Our rules.
It seems you don't understand that.
It seems you don't understand that.
I do understand that. That's one of the reasons that I'm not registered on your forum.
This isn't your thread, therefore your rules don't apply.
Unless you've audited our site
I saw part of pool sources, as I wrote many weeks ago to the forum thread...
Quote
through attempted attacks
...but I didn't hacked your pool. Those sources were just printed on the homepage for some time (following block is reformated, but code untouched):
Code:
// GHash/s
$numshares = mysql_num_rows(mysql_query("SELECT username FROM shares"));
$sampletime = 300;
$deltaframe = time() - $sampletime;
$sharesbeforedelta=mysql_num_rows(mysql_query("SELECT username FROM shares WHERE datetime < '".$deltaframe."'"));
$sharesdelta = (($numshares - $sharesbeforedelta) * pow(2, 32)) / $sampletime;
while(strlen($sharesdelta) > 4){
if(strlen($sharesdelta) >= 10 ? $sharesdelta = ($sharesdelta / 1000) : $sharesdelta = $sharesdelta);
if(strlen(round($sharesdelta)) >= 7 ? $sharesdelta = ($sharesdelta / 1000) : $sharesdelta = $sharesdelta);
if(strlen(round($sharesdelta)) >= 4 ? $sharesdelta = ($sharesdelta / 1000) : $sharesdelta = $sharesdelta);
$sharesdelta = round($sharesdelta, 2);
if($sampletime > 60 ? $avgstr = ($sampletime/60)."m avg" : $avgstr = ($sampletime)."s avg");
$theReturn = "Estimated Pool Speed (".$avgstr."): ".$sharesdelta." Ghash/s";
}
$numshares = mysql_num_rows(mysql_query("SELECT username FROM shares"));
$sampletime = 300;
$deltaframe = time() - $sampletime;
$sharesbeforedelta=mysql_num_rows(mysql_query("SELECT username FROM shares WHERE datetime < '".$deltaframe."'"));
$sharesdelta = (($numshares - $sharesbeforedelta) * pow(2, 32)) / $sampletime;
while(strlen($sharesdelta) > 4){
if(strlen($sharesdelta) >= 10 ? $sharesdelta = ($sharesdelta / 1000) : $sharesdelta = $sharesdelta);
if(strlen(round($sharesdelta)) >= 7 ? $sharesdelta = ($sharesdelta / 1000) : $sharesdelta = $sharesdelta);
if(strlen(round($sharesdelta)) >= 4 ? $sharesdelta = ($sharesdelta / 1000) : $sharesdelta = $sharesdelta);
$sharesdelta = round($sharesdelta, 2);
if($sampletime > 60 ? $avgstr = ($sampletime/60)."m avg" : $avgstr = ($sampletime)."s avg");
$theReturn = "Estimated Pool Speed (".$avgstr."): ".$sharesdelta." Ghash/s";
}
From this code I see that you were using mysql and inserting parameters directly into sql statements. So no black magic from my side, no speculations. And if you read carefully my previous post, I'm not attacking you, just thinking about possible problems.
Quote
, or looked at our code directly through successful attacks, you don't know how our site, or pool is coded, and should not comment on it.
As you see, I can read your code even without attacking your site
.Edit: I'm just chatting with others about technical stuff, security and so on, it isn't targeted against you anyhow (I'm pretty tired that you take everything personally). And as I don't expect your reaction, I'm not writing it to official bitcoinpool thread.
Edit2: I published the code because I expect it is no longer in production. Looks like you followed my advice and removed the mysql_num_rows(mysql_query()) stuff, because pool homepage is little faster even on long rounds...
A FairUser post from BitcoinPool's forum: (emphasis added)
From the first portion's (2), it is apparent that FairUser still does not understand probability when it comes to mining. Either that, or he is purposefully spinning things to seem bad. Not finding a valid solution does not have any effect upon the probability of when you will find a valid solution.
And the 2nd part...... That's a great way to treat people that are contributing to you. What was that about gift horses and mouths?
Quote from: FairUser
[...] If that 90% of the getwork you missed contained the answer for the block, chances are you will not (1) find it and (2) get another getwork that contains the answer for the block for several days.
It is in your best interest and the pools for you to be efficiently mining. Please fix your problems before you continue mining in this pool. If you have a problem with that, then go be inefficient in different pool (cause it helps us when you do ;-).
It is in your best interest and the pools for you to be efficiently mining. Please fix your problems before you continue mining in this pool. If you have a problem with that, then go be inefficient in different pool (cause it helps us when you do ;-).
From the first portion's (2), it is apparent that FairUser still does not understand probability when it comes to mining. Either that, or he is purposefully spinning things to seem bad. Not finding a valid solution does not have any effect upon the probability of when you will find a valid solution.
And the 2nd part...... That's a great way to treat people that are contributing to you. What was that about gift horses and mouths?
Our pool. Our rules.
It seems you don't understand that.
A FairUser post from BitcoinPool's forum: (emphasis added)
From the first portion's (2), it is apparent that FairUser still does not understand probability when it comes to mining. Either that, or he is purposefully spinning things to seem bad. Not finding a valid solution does not have any effect upon the probability of when you will find a valid solution.
And the 2nd part...... That's a great way to treat people that are contributing to you. What was that about gift horses and mouths?
Quote from: FairUser
[...] If that 90% of the getwork you missed contained the answer for the block, chances are you will not (1) find it and (2) get another getwork that contains the answer for the block for several days.
It is in your best interest and the pools for you to be efficiently mining. Please fix your problems before you continue mining in this pool. If you have a problem with that, then go be inefficient in different pool (cause it helps us when you do ;-).
It is in your best interest and the pools for you to be efficiently mining. Please fix your problems before you continue mining in this pool. If you have a problem with that, then go be inefficient in different pool (cause it helps us when you do ;-).
From the first portion's (2), it is apparent that FairUser still does not understand probability when it comes to mining. Either that, or he is purposefully spinning things to seem bad. Not finding a valid solution does not have any effect upon the probability of when you will find a valid solution.
And the 2nd part...... That's a great way to treat people that are contributing to you. What was that about gift horses and mouths?
Anything posted in this thread, by anyone other than myself or FairUser should be considered pure speculation or heresay.
We opened our own forum to address issues on our pool and from this point forward, we will not participate in any discussion posted to this forum.
You can join our forum at http://www.bitcoinpool.com/forum
And a note to slush... Unless you've audited our site through attempted attacks, or looked at our code directly through successful attacks, you don't know how our site, or pool is coded, and should not comment on it.
We opened our own forum to address issues on our pool and from this point forward, we will not participate in any discussion posted to this forum.
You can join our forum at http://www.bitcoinpool.com/forum
And a note to slush... Unless you've audited our site through attempted attacks, or looked at our code directly through successful attacks, you don't know how our site, or pool is coded, and should not comment on it.
Unfortunately the widely used Mysql C API does not support parameterized queries AFAICS.
It doesThat's useful, thanks. I was looking at this page, and assumed that the "C API Function Descriptions" was a full and comprehensive list.
I use bound params with sqlite and postgresql already, but [mistakenly] thought mysql lacked same.
* jgarzik goes to update his just-written code...
Unfortunately the widely used Mysql C API does not support parameterized queries AFAICS.
It does, via mysql_stmt_prepare(), mysql_stmt_bind_param(), and mysql_stmt_execute(). The basic steps are: prepare the query (this is where the query itself is parsed), bind the parameters you take in the query, then execute the query. This illustrates that the user-supplied data is sent to the server after the query structure is known, thereby preventing all forms of SQL injection. (But not ensuring data integrity, of course.) A better option would be to use parametrized queries, which are by definition invulnerable to SQL injection attacks if the DB itself supports them, since the parameters are sent after the query has already been parsed.
Unfortunately the widely used Mysql C API does not support parameterized queries AFAICS.
Jump to: