Pages:
Author

Topic: BitcoinPool.com open thread - page 8. (Read 29840 times)

member
Activity: 112
Merit: 10
April 05, 2011, 11:57:31 AM
#35
another thing I'm noticing
I've only got shares on 4 of 7 blocks
but have a 0 for emp (blocks with out share)


Ive been monitoring poclbm-mod since the drive to remove those with low efficiency

what i'm seeing is that it continues hashing the current getwork after it finds an invalid/stale share
should it not get a fresh getwork after finding bad results Huh

I also tried using poclbm-mod for cpu
First off my hash rate on the cpu was 20% of what pudinpop's rpc miner were
my results also showed that after the first longpole block change  most block changes were missed
resulting in mostly invalid/stale shares being found

This is NOT a bitch or complaint against the pool or the operators
Just my findings - Yours results may differ


full member
Activity: 182
Merit: 107
April 05, 2011, 11:12:37 AM
#34
Per the BitcoinPool website: (emphasis added by me)

Quote from: BitcoinPool
In recent days our server has had an increasing number of malicious attacks made against it, and in the case of one, the attacker was successful.

While we see no direct modifications that have been made to any particular account, we would like to request at this time that all users verify their account information is correct. You may do so by opening the account page (http://www.bitcoinpool.com/account.php) and logging in with your miner credentials.

It is also advisable at this time to change your password for added security.

I highly agree with the site owners that anybody that has an account there should review their security immediately.
Yep, and this is a very good reason why you should use different passwords on each site.  I personally use different randomly-generated passwords for each site, account, worker account, etc.  Be smart and limit the damage someone can do by compromising a pool's data.
full member
Activity: 126
Merit: 100
April 05, 2011, 09:17:16 AM
#33
Ive been monitoring poclbm-mod since the drive to remove those with low efficiency

what i'm seeing is that it continues hashing the current getwork after it finds an invalid/stale share
should it not get a fresh getwork after finding bad results Huh

I also tried using poclbm-mod for cpu
First off my hash rate on the cpu was 20% of what pudinpop's rpc miner were
my results also showed that after the first longpole block change  most block changes were missed
resulting in mostly invalid/stale shares being found

This is NOT a bitch or complaint against the pool or the operators
Just my findings - Yours results may differ



This is a complaint, and a legitimate one as it is backed by your findings.  Roll Eyes
member
Activity: 112
Merit: 10
April 05, 2011, 08:50:21 AM
#32
Ive been monitoring poclbm-mod since the drive to remove those with low efficiency

what i'm seeing is that it continues hashing the current getwork after it finds an invalid/stale share
should it not get a fresh getwork after finding bad results Huh

I also tried using poclbm-mod for cpu
First off my hash rate on the cpu was 20% of what pudinpop's rpc miner were
my results also showed that after the first longpole block change  most block changes were missed
resulting in mostly invalid/stale shares being found

This is NOT a bitch or complaint against the pool or the operators
Just my findings - Yours results may differ

sr. member
Activity: 406
Merit: 250
April 05, 2011, 08:42:54 AM
#31
Per the BitcoinPool website: (emphasis added by me)

Quote from: BitcoinPool
In recent days our server has had an increasing number of malicious attacks made against it, and in the case of one, the attacker was successful.

While we see no direct modifications that have been made to any particular account, we would like to request at this time that all users verify their account information is correct. You may do so by opening the account page (http://www.bitcoinpool.com/account.php) and logging in with your miner credentials.

It is also advisable at this time to change your password for added security.

I highly agree with the site owners that anybody that has an account there should review their security immediately.
sr. member
Activity: 392
Merit: 250
April 04, 2011, 08:30:01 PM
#30
Freak'n amazing.  python poclbm-mod.py ... works!  I knew it had to be something simple. I'm only on a 4830 so it might take a day or two before I see any real payout Smiley

I got the same error message and just went with python poclbm-mod.py also. I forgot about the possibility of it being a system format issue.

dos2unix worked for me, but I had to install it.

sudo apt-get install dos2unix
dos2unix poclbm-mod.py

If you're on bitcoinpool it only takes as long to get paid as it takes for the pool to solve a block (which seems to be running long this round). How much is a different question.   Grin
newbie
Activity: 56
Merit: 0
April 04, 2011, 07:55:43 PM
#29
Freak'n amazing.  python poclbm-mod.py ... works!  I knew it had to be something simple. I'm only on a 4830 so it might take a day or two before I see any real payout Smiley
full member
Activity: 182
Merit: 107
April 04, 2011, 07:02:28 PM
#28
Anyone know why?  From what I read on line there is a mix up with the windows endings and the *nix endings, but I thought this file was suppose to work with Linux.  As I said, poclbm.py works fine.  I'm running it right now. 
Try "python poclbm-mod.py ..." or if that doesn't work, install dos2unix and run it over poclbm-mod.py.
newbie
Activity: 56
Merit: 0
April 04, 2011, 06:58:37 PM
#27
I'm having a hard time with the poclbm-mod.zip.  I'm on a Linux box (Ubuntu). 

Diablo and poclbm work great, but poclbm-mod.py does not work.

Code:
./poclbm-mod.py  -u ****** --pass=********** -o bitcoinpool.com -p 8334 -d 1
bash: ./poclbm-mod.py: /usr/bin/python^M: bad interpreter: No such file or directory

Anyone know why?  From what I read on line there is a mix up with the windows endings and the *nix endings, but I thought this file was suppose to work with Linux.  As I said, poclbm.py works fine.  I'm running it right now. 
sr. member
Activity: 406
Merit: 250
April 04, 2011, 07:50:08 AM
#26
Any and all downtime we've had that was not directly posted about in the thread was due to aggressive DDoS and SYN flood attacks against our pool. Someone, or some group specifically targeting us with malicious intent. We've also had attempts made to hack our personal email accounts and personal computers. All of this while being directly and openly trolled by non-members of our pool in the thread about our pool.

All of those things happen to all of the other pools too.

BitPenny even had to completely shut down due to malicious attacks.
sr. member
Activity: 258
Merit: 250
April 04, 2011, 04:44:15 AM
#25
I guess I'll put in my 2 cents.  In my opinion this pool has the greatest potential I mean you can't argue with no fees.  The main reason I haven't switched all my miners to here is I had one of mine on there for a couple days which there was a combined 2ish hours downtime in those couple days.  So that cut about 5% out right there, also I was watching my miner and it was acting weird once for a couple minutes it was switching between mining and then stating unable to connect.  It very well might have been that it was an unlucky period and the downtime isn't normal but I wasn't sure how much it showed the intermittent unable to connect errors either as I don't just sit and watch it mine all the time.  In conclusion I hope/think it's was/is just going through some growth pains and I'll keep an eye on it and probably bounce back in later.

Edit: looks like my grammar wasn't exactly spot on here sorry.

the downtime was only a recent problem. TBH,IMO, they have the right to be a bit on the aggressive side, they spent countless hours on the pool with no income (ie: fees)

Yeah like I said I was unsure if it was normal but it was just too much downtime for me.  I am glad they seem to be sticking to it and improving it.

Any and all downtime we've had that was not directly posted about in the thread was due to aggressive DDoS and SYN flood attacks against our pool. Someone, or some group specifically targeting us with malicious intent. We've also had attempts made to hack our personal email accounts and personal computers. All of this while being directly and openly trolled by non-members of our pool in the thread about our pool.

full member
Activity: 238
Merit: 100
April 03, 2011, 11:40:51 PM
#24
I guess I'll put in my 2 cents.  In my opinion this pool has the greatest potential I mean you can't argue with no fees.  The main reason I haven't switched all my miners to here is I had one of mine on there for a couple days which there was a combined 2ish hours downtime in those couple days.  So that cut about 5% out right there, also I was watching my miner and it was acting weird once for a couple minutes it was switching between mining and then stating unable to connect.  It very well might have been that it was an unlucky period and the downtime isn't normal but I wasn't sure how much it showed the intermittent unable to connect errors either as I don't just sit and watch it mine all the time.  In conclusion I hope/think it's was/is just going through some growth pains and I'll keep an eye on it and probably bounce back in later.

Edit: looks like my grammar wasn't exactly spot on here sorry.

the downtime was only a recent problem. TBH,IMO, they have the right to be a bit on the aggressive side, they spent countless hours on the pool with no income (ie: fees)

Yeah like I said I was unsure if it was normal but it was just too much downtime for me.  I am glad they seem to be sticking to it and improving it.
legendary
Activity: 3766
Merit: 1364
Armory Developer
April 03, 2011, 11:28:22 PM
#23
If I was a pool operator and another operator came into my thread and offered this up I would see it as hostile and be apprehensive also. He has his own pool. Even if is stats aren't constantly updated, anyone can calculate the sweet spot with some accuracy and try it out. There is no reason to repeatedly challenge another operator to exploiting their pool at the detriment of their users either way. That was adding fuel to the fire at a time when the whole conversation was going downhill.

slush didn't just walk in there saying "hey ima assault your pool". He defended his score system, that FairUser and Geebus presented as unfair. He exposed how it was mathematically yielding the same result as a share based pool, and how it protected against Raulo's attack. Now you don't see slush saying how he'll attack Tycho's pool to prove share based distribution vulnerable, simply because you don't see Tycho pretending score based systems are unfair.

Now, it is up to one's opinion to disregard mathematical evidence. If you manage to build a successful pool while remaining exposed to an exploit, the more power to you. It is a different matter if such opinion is the basis of one's criticism of the mathematical evidence. In a public discussion, your opinion doesn't weight the same as a mathematical theory.

Ill weigh in here. Most of the above is true however towards the end they did actually accept slush's challenge right before it was locked out. Also much of the confusion in the thread came from members AND non-members adding nothing constructive to the conversation mostly complaining about long rounds even though the pool was doing fine for its hash rate. There was an awful lot of critisim going on, much more than any other pool and im sure that was frustrating for two pool operators who weren't making a mint off running it like Slush

For information I tried the pool with the moded miner. I related that part of the discussion because it led to the locking of the thread. To the question "what are the downsides of BitcoinPool.com", i answered "the pool hopping", which is also relevant to the discussion prior to the lock down. And however frustrating it might have been FU and G, you might consider the fact that they're the ones who accused slush of cheating his pool. You should be prepared for a flame war when you go around flaming others. I mean, this is the internet.

I think this is a perfectly fair and open challenge so long as he doesn't try and hide it from everyone.  

Maybe yes, maybe no. I don't speak for slush but i can come up with a few arguments as to why he has little interest in performing that test under all these conditions. I'll elaborate if you so desire. Note also that slush offered to perform the attack under his name before Geebus gave in.
full member
Activity: 126
Merit: 100
April 03, 2011, 11:26:40 PM
#22
I guess I'll put in my 2 cents.  In my opinion this pool has the greatest potential I mean you can't argue with no fees.  The main reason I haven't switched all my miners to here is I had one of mine on there for a couple days which there was a combined 2ish hours downtime in those couple days.  So that cut about 5% out right there, also I was watching my miner and it was acting weird once for a couple minutes it was switching between mining and then stating unable to connect.  It very well might have been that it was an unlucky period and the downtime isn't normal but I wasn't sure how much it showed the intermittent unable to connect errors either as I don't just sit and watch it mine all the time.  In conclusion I hope/think it's was/is just going through some growth pains and I'll keep an eye on it and probably bounce back in later.

Edit: looks like my grammar wasn't exactly spot on here sorry.

the downtime was only a recent problem. TBH,IMO, they have the right to be a bit on the aggressive side, they spent countless hours on the pool with no income (ie: fees)
full member
Activity: 238
Merit: 100
April 03, 2011, 11:01:11 PM
#21
I guess I'll put in my 2 cents.  In my opinion this pool has the greatest potential I mean you can't argue with no fees.  The main reason I haven't switched all my miners to here is I had one of mine on there for a couple days which there was a combined 2ish hours downtime in those couple days.  So that cut about 5% out right there, also I was watching my miner and it was acting weird once for a couple minutes it was switching between mining and then stating unable to connect.  It very well might have been that it was an unlucky period and the downtime isn't normal but I wasn't sure how much it showed the intermittent unable to connect errors either as I don't just sit and watch it mine all the time.  In conclusion I hope/think it's was/is just going through some growth pains and I'll keep an eye on it and probably bounce back in later.

Edit: looks like my grammar wasn't exactly spot on here sorry.
sr. member
Activity: 1344
Merit: 264
bit.ly/3QXp3oh | Ultimate Launchpad on TON
April 03, 2011, 10:34:19 PM
#20
Ill weigh in here. Most of the above is true however towards the end they did actually accept slush's challenge right before it was locked out. Also much of the confusion in the thread came from members AND non-members adding nothing constructive to the conversation mostly complaining about long rounds even though the pool was doing fine for its hash rate. There was an awful lot of critisim going on, much more than any other pool and im sure that was frustrating for two pool operators who weren't making a mint off running it like Slush( No disrespect intended. When people even mention Bitcoinpool u imediately get people bashing without giving any good reason other than they dont like their attitude. But the best thing about the pool is its basically like setting up your own private pool and linking it with other people. if ur system crashes or u turn it off for the night u still get what u worked towards for that round and its really simple rules. Im sure i could go to slush or tychos pool and make the exact same but things would be slightly more complicated and i cant look at my stats page and say crap one of my units is down jus by getting on the net. You guys should still try the pool before bashing it despite what you think of Geebus & Fairuser

Thank you for your support FRanz33.  I locked the thread because of the trolling and flaming, and I think I made that clear once before.  A new forum on our site will be active in the next week. We feel this is necessary to help keep focus on our pool, efficiency, and how it affects mining.

Geebus did tell slush to go ahead and try it if he wanted, but we had a few conditions we would like met.

1) Tell everyone your handle. I'll even reserve "slush" just for him.
2) Tell everyone how long he plans on trying this.
3) Use our miner, poclbm-mod.  I don't want any more inefficient miners on the pool than necessary.
4) Report your stats somewhere on the forums every 24 hours so everyone can follow along.
5) Establish your baseline or average daily earnings using gribble, before, during, and after the test.

I think this is a perfectly fair and open challenge so long as he doesn't try and hide it from everyone. 

We are still waiting to hear his response...
sr. member
Activity: 392
Merit: 250
April 03, 2011, 10:27:22 PM
#19
Quote
FU and G refused to aknowledge the validity of such attack,

Mathematical proof is not real world proof, it is numbers making sense. I'm sure we would all like to see real world proof of this. The thread devolved into fights over simple definitions, terminology and hardheadedness between the math theory claiming the research to be irrefutable vs an actual test.

Quote
so slush offered to perform the attack (under his credentials) with his 3GH/s on BitcoinPool's 10~15 GH/s. FU and G turned down the offer, now accusing slush to try to attack their pool (implicitely admitting the attack is now possible and very real).


If I was a pool operator and another operator came into my thread and offered this up I would see it as hostile and be apprehensive also. He has his own pool. Even if is stats aren't constantly updated, anyone can calculate the sweet spot with some accuracy and try it out. There is no reason to repeatedly challenge another operator to exploiting their pool at the detriment of their users either way. That was adding fuel to the fire at a time when the whole conversation was going downhill.
newbie
Activity: 60
Merit: 0
April 03, 2011, 09:22:21 PM
#18
Ill weigh in here. Most of the above is true however towards the end they did actually accept slush's challenge right before it was locked out. Also much of the confusion in the thread came from members AND non-members adding nothing constructive to the conversation mostly complaining about long rounds even though the pool was doing fine for its hash rate. There was an awful lot of critisim going on, much more than any other pool and im sure that was frustrating for two pool operators who weren't making a mint off running it like Slush( No disrespect intended. When people even mention Bitcoinpool u imediately get people bashing without giving any good reason other than they dont like their attitude. But the best thing about the pool is its basically like setting up your own private pool and linking it with other people. if ur system crashes or u turn it off for the night u still get what u worked towards for that round and its really simple rules. Im sure i could go to slush or tychos pool and make the exact same but things would be slightly more complicated and i cant look at my stats page and say crap one of my units is down jus by getting on the net. You guys should still try the pool before bashing it despite what you think of Geebus & Fairuser
legendary
Activity: 3766
Merit: 1364
Armory Developer
April 03, 2011, 07:13:06 PM
#17
The main source of drama and the primary draw back on BitcoinPool.com is around miners hopping out of the long blocks. FairUser and Geebus presented their pool as superior in 4 aspects:

1) Their miner, a modified version of poclbm, which main change is an askrate defined by your hash/s as opposed to the 1-10sec offered by the original poclbm. Their argument is that giving enough time to the miners (based on their respective hash rate) to complete the hashes they request will increase the efficiency of the pool and eventually decrease the blocks completion time at equivalent speed when compared to the other pools. The concept is certainly interesting, and the operators invited miners to come and compare their speed with stock poclbm vs the moded miner on their pool. This invitation is at the origin of MOST of the hoping on that pool imo.

2) They distributes rewards through a share based system. They point that alternative as the fairest way to pay out their miners. This was a direct criticism of slush's pool.

3) They display full stats, live, for everyone to see, as a proof of "fairness". This time they're going after Tycho's delayed stat.

4) They don't charge any fee, that they label as "forced donations".

Putting aside the fee issue, that I consider is a fair reward for the job done by the operators, the community confronted FairUser and Geebus with their declarations: As xenon481 said, the longer askrate implies more stale shares; on the long term score based systems payed the same reward per shares contributed as a shared based system; score system and stats delaying were counter measures against pool hoppers. Even though FairUser and Geebus' idea regarding askrate had its merits, exposing its weakness resulted in much drama.

Eventually the issue focused on BitcoinPool's vulnerability to Raulo's attack. FU and G indeed made a point of accusing slush of being dishonest and exploiting his pool and disadvantaging the slower miners with his score based system. Slush confronted them, explaining that the score base system was to protect against pool hopping. FU and G refused to aknowledge the validity of such attack, so slush offered to perform the attack (under his credentials) with his 3GH/s on BitcoinPool's 10~15 GH/s. FU and G turned down the offer, now accusing slush to try to attack their pool (implicitely admitting the attack is now possible and very real).

Geebus eventually admitted to personally despise slush, Tycho and slush were then accused of trolling BitcoinPool's thread and pool, and FairUser locked the thread after posting an already defeated argument as of why he'll stick to share based rewarding while exposing full live stats at the same time.
member
Activity: 107
Merit: 10
April 03, 2011, 04:48:36 PM
#16
I fully agree with your post.  Very well written.  I agree with you that one of the reasons for all of the hostility is because the pool owners quite often lash out with harsh language and obscenities.  They are also very quick to threaten expulsion from their pool for anyone who disagrees with them or dares post a negative opinion on the forums.  They also follow through on these threats, as I am aware of several users who have been banned from their pool for speaking up.  I also fully concur with your conclusion that these are not the type of individuals that I would trust or do business with either.
Pages:
Jump to: