◈◈Bitcredit ◈◈ Migrating to UniQredit◈◈ - page 68.

tombcoin

newbie

Activity: 49

Merit: 0

Quote from: bitcreditscc on October 05, 2015, 09:03:24 AM

Quote from: dragos_bdi on October 05, 2015, 08:08:38 AM

@bitcreditscc

I think you overwrite the "miner wait" push ...

https://github.com/bitcreditscc/bicreditsnew/commit/6bc38a93d5b50536195f60a3d2f8b6002642762f

There is not anymore in master ...

I changed that logic users now use the miningkeys.dat file with the required keys for mining.

Can confirm that it works. But it seems that it does not take the keys one by one.
It think is just hopping between the first keys.
Since chainz is behind, I just decoded some blocks by hand.

Also put no comments behind the keys nor between the lines in the miningkey.dat.
Throws out an error: wrong key
lg t.

bitcreditscc

hero member

Activity: 602

Merit: 501

Quote from: dragos_bdi on October 05, 2015, 08:08:38 AM

@bitcreditscc

I think you overwrite the "miner wait" push ...

https://github.com/bitcreditscc/bicreditsnew/commit/6bc38a93d5b50536195f60a3d2f8b6002642762f

There is not anymore in master ...

I changed that logic users now use the miningkeys.dat file with the required keys for mining.

dragos_bdi

sr. member

Activity: 322

Merit: 250

@bitcreditscc

I think you overwrite the "miner wait" push ...

https://github.com/bitcreditscc/bicreditsnew/commit/6bc38a93d5b50536195f60a3d2f8b6002642762f

There is not anymore in master ...

tombcoin

newbie

Activity: 49

Merit: 0

Got it

Now diff is acceptable again.

{
"version" : 301705,
"protocolversion" : 70012,
"walletversion" : 60000,
"balance" :
"darksend_balance" : 0.00000000,
"blocks" : 210288,
"timeoffset" : 0,
"connections" : 2,
"proxy" : "",
"difficulty" : 0.00000143,
"testnet" : false,
"keypoololdest" : 1442913009,
"keypoolsize" : 2,
"paytxfee" : 0.00000000,
"relayfee" : 0.00001000,
"errors" : ""
}

dragos_bdi

sr. member

Activity: 322

Merit: 250

Quote from: bitcreditscc on October 05, 2015, 06:13:50 AM

Code:

if (pindexLast->nHeight+1 >29999){
if (nActualTimespan < Params().TargetTimespan2()/4)
nActualTimespan = Params().TargetTimespan2()/2;
if (nActualTimespan > Params().TargetTimespan2()*4)
nActualTimespan = Params().TargetTimespan2()* 8;
}

Maybe to something like

Code:

if (pindexLast->nHeight+1 >21100){
if (nActualTimespan < Params().TargetTimespan2()/4)
nActualTimespan = Params().TargetTimespan2()/1.1; //10% increases in diff
if (nActualTimespan > Params().TargetTimespan2()*4)
nActualTimespan = Params().TargetTimespan2()* 8; //not sure if I should change this (works specially well to drastically reduce diff against possible attacks )
}

Why don't you use last 900 blocks to do a better diff adjustment ?

Code:

// Go back by what we want to be 14 days worth of blocks
   const CBlockIndex* pindexFirst = pindexLast;
const CBlockIndex* pindexFirst900 = pindexLast;
   if ((pindexLast->nHeight+1) < 4800){
   for (int i = 0; pindexFirst && i < Params().Interval()-1; i++)
   pindexFirst = pindexFirst->pprev;
}
else if ((pindexLast->nHeight+1) >210000 ){
for (int i = 0; 900; i++) {
   pindexFirst900 = pindexFirst900->pprev;
}
pindexFirst = pindexFirst->pprev;
}
   assert(pindexFirst);
   assert(pindexFirst900);

   // Limit adjustment step
   int64_t nActualTimespan = pindexLast->GetBlockTime() - pindexFirst->GetBlockTime();
   int64_t nActualTimespan900 = whole((pindexLast->GetBlockTime() - pindexFirst900->GetBlockTime())/900);
   if (fDebug)
   if(fDebug)LogPrintf(" nActualTimespan = %d before bounds\n", nActualTimespan);

if (pindexLast->nHeight+1 >210000){
if (nActualTimespan900 < Params().TargetTimespan2()/4)
   nActualTimespan900 = Params().TargetTimespan2()/1.1;
if (nActualTimespan900 > Params().TargetTimespan2()*4)
   nActualTimespan900 = Params().TargetTimespan2()* 8;
nActualTimespan = nActualTimespan900;
}

   else if (pindexLast->nHeight+1 >29999){
if (nActualTimespan < Params().TargetTimespan2()/4)
   nActualTimespan = Params().TargetTimespan2()/2;
if (nActualTimespan > Params().TargetTimespan2()*4)
   nActualTimespan = Params().TargetTimespan2()* 8;
}

bitcreditscc

hero member

Activity: 602

Merit: 501

Code:

if (pindexLast->nHeight+1 >29999){
if (nActualTimespan < Params().TargetTimespan2()/4)
nActualTimespan = Params().TargetTimespan2()/2;
if (nActualTimespan > Params().TargetTimespan2()*4)
nActualTimespan = Params().TargetTimespan2()* 8;
}

Maybe to something like

Code:

if (pindexLast->nHeight+1 >21100){
if (nActualTimespan < Params().TargetTimespan2()/4)
nActualTimespan = Params().TargetTimespan2()/1.1; //10% increases in diff
if (nActualTimespan > Params().TargetTimespan2()*4)
nActualTimespan = Params().TargetTimespan2()* 8; //not sure if I should change this (works specially well to drastically reduce diff against possible attacks )
}

bitcreditscc

hero member

Activity: 602

Merit: 501

Quote from: thelonecrouton on October 05, 2015, 05:18:27 AM

Quote from: dragos_bdi on October 05, 2015, 03:47:15 AM

Found it !!!! 210286

Difficulty now 9155 ?!?!?!? OMG

{
"version" : 301705,
"protocolversion" : 70012,
"walletversion" : 60000,
"balance" : 50006.35664640,
"darksend_balance" : 0.00000000,
"blocks" : 210286,
"timeoffset" : 0,
"connections" : 31,
"proxy" : "",
"difficulty" : 0.00009155,
"testnet" : false,
"keypoololdest" : 1443254195,
"keypoolsize" : 2,
"paytxfee" : 0.00000000,
"relayfee" : 0.00001000,
"errors" : ""
}

Hmm, I'm stuck on 210285:

getmininginfo
{
"blocks" : 210285,
"currentblocksize" : 1677,
"currentblocktx" : 3,
"difficulty" : 0.00000002,
"errors" : "Warning: The network does not appear to fully agree! Some miners appear to be experiencing issues.",
"genproclimit" : 1,
"networkhashps" : 0,
"pooledtx" : 3,
"testnet" : false,
"chain" : "main",
"generate" : true,
"hashespermin" : 5
}

Diff is nice and low here... Tongue

Likely an issue of connectivity. Since there are a few nodes fully operational it's taking a few seconds longer than usual for tx to get around the whole net. Also blocks may not propagate properly. I've sent a pm to the bitnodes guy, i'll compare his rates to just managing our own nodes.

bitcreditscc

hero member

Activity: 602

Merit: 501

Quote from: dragos_bdi on October 05, 2015, 04:51:08 AM

Quote from: bitcreditscc on October 05, 2015, 04:19:01 AM

Quote from: dragos_bdi on October 05, 2015, 03:47:15 AM

Found it !!!! 210286

Difficulty now 9155 ?!?!?!? OMG

{
"version" : 301705,
"protocolversion" : 70012,
"walletversion" : 60000,
"balance" : 50006.35664640,
"darksend_balance" : 0.00000000,
"blocks" : 210286,
"timeoffset" : 0,
"connections" : 31,
"proxy" : "",
"difficulty" : 0.00009155,
"testnet" : false,
"keypoololdest" : 1443254195,
"keypoolsize" : 2,
"paytxfee" : 0.00000000,
"relayfee" : 0.00001000,
"errors" : ""
}

full power on an i5, when i get a minute i'll throw 8 cores from a 8 core AMD processor.

I did not see that high diff form when was +100GPU mining.
It's worth your time to check the diff algo keeping in mind that now we mine only with cpu-wallet only.

Me, i'm out from mining, 3 wallets are at 50000 and the one that found the block is off till the next one.

I'm @ work so it's tight, i'll get some time @ lunch and use it to organize my mining nodes .You are right about the diff algorithm though, we once discussed using floats for adjustments, but it's scary stuff. Right now i'm working on json (when there are no clients of course) if i can get it to work, then when i go home all i'll be doing tonight is figuring out how to fix diff adj to float type...that should result it smoother increases and decreases.

dragos_bdi

sr. member

Activity: 322

Merit: 250

Quote from: dextronomous on October 05, 2015, 05:37:05 AM

{
"blocks" : 210286,
"currentblocksize" : 1225,
"currentblocktx" : 1,
"difficulty" : 0.00009155,
"errors" : "",
"genproclimit" : 1,
"networkhashps" : 3.88963552,
"pooledtx" : 1,
"testnet" : false,
"chain" : "main",
"generate" : true,
"hashespermin" : 2.49818881
}

here sweet.. so if no block found cpu keeps mining.. and if found stops till i activate it again or how does that part work?
i have my banknode.conf ok in place. worked till so far.

sleeps until another one find a block, then start again on your wallet. at least now ....

dextronomous

full member

Activity: 431

Merit: 105

{
"blocks" : 210286,
"currentblocksize" : 1225,
"currentblocktx" : 1,
"difficulty" : 0.00009155,
"errors" : "",
"genproclimit" : 1,
"networkhashps" : 3.88963552,
"pooledtx" : 1,
"testnet" : false,
"chain" : "main",
"generate" : true,
"hashespermin" : 2.49818881
}

here sweet.. so if no block found cpu keeps mining.. and if found stops till i activate it again or how does that part work?
i have my banknode.conf ok in place. worked till so far.

thelonecrouton

legendary

Activity: 966

Merit: 1000

Quote from: dragos_bdi on October 05, 2015, 03:47:15 AM

Found it !!!! 210286

Difficulty now 9155 ?!?!?!? OMG

{
"version" : 301705,
"protocolversion" : 70012,
"walletversion" : 60000,
"balance" : 50006.35664640,
"darksend_balance" : 0.00000000,
"blocks" : 210286,
"timeoffset" : 0,
"connections" : 31,
"proxy" : "",
"difficulty" : 0.00009155,
"testnet" : false,
"keypoololdest" : 1443254195,
"keypoolsize" : 2,
"paytxfee" : 0.00000000,
"relayfee" : 0.00001000,
"errors" : ""
}

Hmm, I'm stuck on 210285:

getmininginfo
{
"blocks" : 210285,
"currentblocksize" : 1677,
"currentblocktx" : 3,
"difficulty" : 0.00000002,
"errors" : "Warning: The network does not appear to fully agree! Some miners appear to be experiencing issues.",
"genproclimit" : 1,
"networkhashps" : 0,
"pooledtx" : 3,
"testnet" : false,
"chain" : "main",
"generate" : true,
"hashespermin" : 5
}

Diff is nice and low here... Tongue

thelonecrouton

legendary

Activity: 966

Merit: 1000

Quote from: dextronomous on October 05, 2015, 05:00:41 AM

yes thanks guys, dragos great thanks,

mine's off to till i figure out how to keep mining?

Right now you only need 2 x 50k+ addresses to mine continuously, just put both addresses in miningkeys.dat. When it increases to 1 in 20 (or whatever) you'll need 20 x 50k+ addresses to mine continuously.

thelonecrouton

legendary

Activity: 966

Merit: 1000

Without banknode.conf working, having more than one exactly 50k input in a wallet screws up starting your banknode, as the client seems to select a 50k vin at random, not necessarily the one that matches your banknodeprivkey.

I think things as they are now will do, it allows users to decide which income stream(s) they prefer.

You can run as many miningkeys as you can afford off a Pi2 or similar, appx. running cost nothing - 1 core of a Pi2 uses well under 500mW at full load, so take your electricity cost per kW/h and divide it by 2000, it doesn't amount to much even if you're paying European prices... or you can stick 10+ BNs on a $4/month 2GB RAM VPS... or do both, or whatever combination you like.

dextronomous

full member

Activity: 431

Merit: 105

yes thanks guys, dragos great thanks,

mine's off to till i figure out how to keep mining?

dragos_bdi

sr. member

Activity: 322

Merit: 250

Quote from: bitcreditscc on October 05, 2015, 04:19:01 AM

Quote from: dragos_bdi on October 05, 2015, 03:47:15 AM

Found it !!!! 210286

Difficulty now 9155 ?!?!?!? OMG

{
"version" : 301705,
"protocolversion" : 70012,
"walletversion" : 60000,
"balance" : 50006.35664640,
"darksend_balance" : 0.00000000,
"blocks" : 210286,
"timeoffset" : 0,
"connections" : 31,
"proxy" : "",
"difficulty" : 0.00009155,
"testnet" : false,
"keypoololdest" : 1443254195,
"keypoolsize" : 2,
"paytxfee" : 0.00000000,
"relayfee" : 0.00001000,
"errors" : ""
}

full power on an i5, when i get a minute i'll throw 8 cores from a 8 core AMD processor.

I did not see that high diff form when was +100GPU mining.
It's worth your time to check the diff algo keeping in mind that now we mine only with cpu-wallet only.

Me, i'm out from mining, 3 wallets are at 50000 and the one that found the block is off till the next one.

bitcreditscc

hero member

Activity: 602

Merit: 501

Quote from: dragos_bdi on October 05, 2015, 03:47:15 AM

Found it !!!! 210286

Difficulty now 9155 ?!?!?!? OMG

{
"version" : 301705,
"protocolversion" : 70012,
"walletversion" : 60000,
"balance" : 50006.35664640,
"darksend_balance" : 0.00000000,
"blocks" : 210286,
"timeoffset" : 0,
"connections" : 31,
"proxy" : "",
"difficulty" : 0.00009155,
"testnet" : false,
"keypoololdest" : 1443254195,
"keypoolsize" : 2,
"paytxfee" : 0.00000000,
"relayfee" : 0.00001000,
"errors" : ""
}

full power on an i5, when i get a minute i'll throw 8 cores from a 8 core AMD processor.

dragos_bdi

sr. member

Activity: 322

Merit: 250

Found it !!!! 210286

Difficulty now 9155 ?!?!?!? OMG

{
"version" : 301705,
"protocolversion" : 70012,
"walletversion" : 60000,
"balance" : 50006.35664640,
"darksend_balance" : 0.00000000,
"blocks" : 210286,
"timeoffset" : 0,
"connections" : 31,
"proxy" : "",
"difficulty" : 0.00009155,
"testnet" : false,
"keypoololdest" : 1443254195,
"keypoolsize" : 2,
"paytxfee" : 0.00000000,
"relayfee" : 0.00001000,
"errors" : ""
}

bitcreditscc

hero member

Activity: 602

Merit: 501

Quote from: dragos_bdi on October 05, 2015, 03:15:36 AM

Pffff ... You are right about this. I think the best solution is to warn users. Tongue

At present time, I was trying to spin up some more miners to find 210286 ... Cry

Just logged in to miner, yeah it's got a high difficulty. network hashrate has not yet stabilized. i had one core dedicated to mining i'll set 4 and see if that helps.

Nice catch though, these situations must be explored and discussed so that when we right a complete user guide, it will have all necessary information.

dragos_bdi

sr. member

Activity: 322

Merit: 250

Latest Windows 64 build based on master branch - version 0.30.17.5

Download Link: https://mega.nz/#!q4EXHZLK!-EdiPIZSD7qVYurXI_ypVUj_GKUc_32G5v2mv48562A

dragos_bdi

sr. member

Activity: 322

Merit: 250

Quote from: bitcreditscc on October 05, 2015, 03:05:32 AM

Quote from: dragos_bdi on October 05, 2015, 02:41:22 AM

Quote from: bitcreditscc on October 05, 2015, 02:32:35 AM

Quote from: dragos_bdi on October 05, 2015, 01:39:34 AM

https://github.com/bitcreditscc/bicreditsnew/blob/bb21fcb8bcf5dbc43e89eca6996f51e19d116479/src/main.cpp#L2158

>=50000*COIN

What would be rationale behind that...? I mean from a technical PoV? Having 50K is all wee and fine, but the reason i used > rather than >= was at that time i assumed that one would first spin up a BN then get at least one payment to prove they are an active BN then start mining. However users can get around that by simply sending 50000.001.

How can we resolve this ?

if they send 50000.001 they cannot start a BN but can mine. (for a BN to be started it's needed a fixed 50000 transaction)
If they send 50000 they can start a BN but cannot mine until they receive a payment.
If they have more BN's and just clear the BN wallet and send all coins received to another wallet, there is a possibility that they cannot mine because they are left only with 50000 BCR transaction.

For me, does not seems alright ...

Right, thus we find the conflict. However, do we make provisions in the code for this , or should we leave this to the users' discretion? Indeed we have to have clear policy and support for various setups and options, but do the benefits of coding a solution outweigh the costs in terms of development/testing/deploy time and the additional computing required ? remember we now check for balances and consecutive keys. Already the client suffers slow downs , would the additional cost of computing be worthwhile, or should we leave it to users to understand that emptying a BN means wait for another payment before mining? In general users emptying a BN use coin control perhaos we can just add a note in the client that warns users of this ?

Hehehe, I am changing my approach to development/problem solving based on what I am learning through books and practical

Pffff ... You are right about this. I think the best solution is to warn users. Tongue

At present time, I was trying to spin up some more miners to find 210286 ... Cry

Topic: ◈◈Bitcredit ◈◈ Migrating to UniQredit◈◈ - page 68. (Read 284545 times)