bitHopper: Python Pool Hopper Proxy - page 140.

muyoso

member

Activity: 84

Merit: 10

Quote from: djex on July 27, 2011, 05:29:09 PM

I got a question, is bitHopper only meant to have 1 miner connected to it per instance of bitHopper? Like say if I wanted to use bitHopper with all my miners would I have to make accounts for each one and have separate instances of bitHopper for each or can I just point all my miners to bitHopper?

I have two computers and only one instance of bithopper running and its flawless. Just use the local ip of the machine running bithopper instead of "localhost".

djex

full member

Activity: 196

Merit: 100

I got a question, is bitHopper only meant to have 1 miner connected to it per instance of bitHopper? Like say if I wanted to use bitHopper with all my miners would I have to make accounts for each one and have separate instances of bitHopper for each or can I just point all my miners to bitHopper?

paraipan

legendary

Activity: 924

Merit: 1004

Firstbits: 1pirata

wow, just had a jawbreak with last release, nice work ppl. wish I had 10 bitcoins for every one of you making this real

c00w

full member

Activity: 196

Merit: 100

The configuration in the trunk for polmine works...

paraipan

legendary

Activity: 924

Merit: 1004

Firstbits: 1pirata

Quote from: enmaku on July 27, 2011, 03:41:58 PM

Quote from: burp on July 27, 2011, 03:39:19 PM

What about this: If there is no pool with shares < 0.43*difficulty then mine namecoin if shares < 0.43*namecoin-difficulty, else switch to a backup pool? Namecoins might raise in value Cheesy

The problem isn't really on the mining/supply side of the fence, there's just not that much demand.

also, is anyone else having problems with polmine again? I updated to the regex above and still get 10^10 shares.

for me this works fine

api_address:http://polmine.pl/?action=statistics
role:mine
api_method:re
api_key:;
([ 0-9]+)

api_strip:' '

enmaku

hero member

Activity: 742

Merit: 500

Quote from: burp on July 27, 2011, 03:39:19 PM

What about this: If there is no pool with shares < 0.43*difficulty then mine namecoin if shares < 0.43*namecoin-difficulty, else switch to a backup pool? Namecoins might raise in value Cheesy

The problem isn't really on the mining/supply side of the fence, there's just not that much demand.

also, is anyone else having problems with polmine again? I updated to the regex above and still get 10^10 shares.

burp

member

Activity: 98

Merit: 10

What about this: If there is no pool with shares < 0.43*difficulty then mine, if namecoin shares < 0.43*namecoin-difficulty then mine namecoin, else switch to a backup pool? Namecoins might raise in value Cheesy

enmaku

hero member

Activity: 742

Merit: 500

Quote from: msb8r on July 27, 2011, 03:17:14 PM

Quote from: hawks5999 on July 27, 2011, 03:13:22 PM

is namecoin mining dead at this point?

I notice that role:disable is being used now in latest c00w pool.cfg.

With the current exchange rates, I'd say yes.

Had nmc-mining enabled (bitparking) for ~18 hrs, and while my efficiency in terms of NMC was 135%, after exchange to BTC it came out to 65%

I blame this in part on the extreme youth of namecoin. If namecoin had a GUI it'd be more popular, if there were an exchange that was better looking and (more importantly) easier to use it'd be more popular. It's kind of sitting right now where bitcoin sat a year ago. I think it's got potential but it needs a lot of work still. That said, I'm hoarding every namecoin I mine just in case... Not like they're worth much of anything right now anyway Grin

Clipse

hero member

Activity: 504

Merit: 502

Quote from: msb8r on July 27, 2011, 03:17:14 PM

Quote from: hawks5999 on July 27, 2011, 03:13:22 PM

is namecoin mining dead at this point?

I notice that role:disable is being used now in latest c00w pool.cfg.

With the current exchange rates, I'd say yes.

Had nmc-mining enabled (bitparking) for ~18 hrs, and while my efficiency in terms of NMC was 135%, after exchange to BTC it came out to 65%

At current price you need atleast 200% efficiency just to breakeven with btc value.

So yeh its a bit of a shitty one atm Wink

msb8r

member

Activity: 78

Merit: 10

Quote from: hawks5999 on July 27, 2011, 03:13:22 PM

is namecoin mining dead at this point?

I notice that role:disable is being used now in latest c00w pool.cfg.

With the current exchange rates, I'd say yes.

Had nmc-mining enabled (bitparking) for ~18 hrs, and while my efficiency in terms of NMC was 135%, after exchange to BTC it came out to 65%

hawks5999

full member

Activity: 168

Merit: 100

is namecoin mining dead at this point?

I notice that role:disable is being used now in latest c00w pool.cfg.

ed64

newbie

Activity: 42

Merit: 0

Quote from: hawks5999 on July 26, 2011, 02:23:06 PM

Quote from: ed64 on July 26, 2011, 01:48:44 PM

Nice to know... which fork do you think has the most promise? I'm divided where I should do some of my hacking...

I tried Ryouiki's latest changes and just based on a few hours of mining, the dynamic penalty thing isn't working out too well for me. Stays on a pool too long in some cases...

agreed. Need a "Use Dynamic Penalty []" option somewhere.

Done, you can try my latest changes in github, improved slicing calculations at startup (sometimes non-optimal server was picked).
https://github.com/echiu64/bitHopper

Code needs to be cleaned up to dynamically accept various hopping algorithms, that will help keep the forks relatively close together I think...

paraipan

legendary

Activity: 924

Merit: 1004

Firstbits: 1pirata

Quote from: c00w on July 27, 2011, 02:20:24 PM

Its back up but the polish and american polmine are giving different numbers...

Polish claims it just found a block though.

I noted some lag on the english version sometimes

ed64

newbie

Activity: 42

Merit: 0

The regex for polmine needs an update, this should work:

Code:

def polmine_sharesResponse(self, response):
        output = re.search(r"stkich:    
([ 0-9]+)
", response)
        output_speed = re.search(r"kopalni to([ 0-9\.]+)", response)
        if output != None and output_speed != None:
            round_shares = int(output.group(1).replace(' ',''))
            speed = float(output_speed.group(1))
            server = self.servers['polmine']
            server['ghash'] = speed
            self.UpdateShares('polmine',round_shares)
        else:
            self.bitHopper.log_msg('regex fail : polmine')

muyoso

member

Activity: 84

Merit: 10

Quote from: c00w on July 27, 2011, 02:20:24 PM

Its back up but the polish and american polmine are giving different numbers...

Polish claims it just found a block though.

There's an American polmine? Ive been translating through google translate. An english version would be awesome.

c00w

full member

Activity: 196

Merit: 100

Its back up but the polish and american polmine are giving different numbers...

Polish claims it just found a block though.

EDIT: Its all good. The english site just lags by about 2-3 minutes.

GoMaD

member

Activity: 74

Merit: 15

polmine website down for the moment.

hawks5999

full member

Activity: 168

Merit: 100

so you don't recommend them joules?

joulesbeef

sr. member

Activity: 476

Merit: 250

moOo

btlc is the only pool I am really against.

I dont like them at all. I dont like the owner, I dont like how he handles things. I dont like how their system will only pay you .1 and will cut off the change.. but you can donate to them 0.00000001.

and they delay stats and you get funky shit as you can see... really they should be removed from the hopper and ignored for the rest of eternity.

But yall do what you want, as you can tell i hate em. I wouldnt piss on their pool if it was on fire.

hawks5999

full member

Activity: 168

Merit: 100

Quote from: Clipse on July 27, 2011, 12:07:30 PM

Quote from: hawks5999 on July 27, 2011, 12:03:30 PM

Quote from: anty on July 27, 2011, 08:45:58 AM

bitcoins.lc seems to have PPLNS. My estimated earnings dropped rapidly and now I have 0 estimated BTCs in a 2h+ round. I disabled it again.

I think they are also still screwing with stats:

Site:
Valid shares for current round 1 461 811
Shares for current round 357 739

Ryouiki:
21% 357739

Stats for bitcoins.lc is delayed 0-60mins before we get the actual reports.

And not sure where you got your stats, but it says:

alid shares for current round 395 533
Shares for current round 410 387

That 1 461 811 is from previous round.

Yeah, I guess that is what's weird with bclc. I copied from the /stats page and it was a freshly loaded/reloaded page. There is just inconsistency in what you get from bclc.

Topic: bitHopper: Python Pool Hopper Proxy - page 140. (Read 355689 times)