Topic: bitHopper: Python Pool Hopper Proxy - page 162. (Read 355689 times)
Are you using autominer? Otherwise. Hmmm. It doesn't appear for me. i'll look through logs though.
anyone know why this would happen? Im guessing this is propably phoenix related, not bithopper? This is after running more than 30hrs without problems:
running Phoenix 1.50. Thanks
Code:
[23/07/2011 19:39:06] Result: 8ba20c64 accepted
[23/07/2011 19:39:20] Result: 7ddd8caa accepted
[23/07/2011 19:39:23] Result: 18558e4d accepted
[393.75 Mhash/sec] [9000 Accepted] [860 Rejected] [RPC (+LP)]./miner2.sh: line 3: 15173 Killed ./phoenix.py -u http://x:x@localhost:8336/ DEVICE=1 -k phatk VECTORS BFI_INT AGGRESSION=11 FASTLOOP=false WORKSIZE=256 -a 50
root@linuxcoin:/home/user#
When it happens, tell us and we'll switch it to a backup server.
Your awsome c00w, I'm sending some coins your way.
Also nofeemining is going to a score based system (where every share is equal to 50BTC/difficulty) not sure what thats called, but its happening soon.
Also nofeemining is going to a score based system (where every share is equal to 50BTC/difficulty) not sure what thats called, but its happening soon.
ahitman:
Oh and I added it to pool.cfg.default
Code:
[polmine]
name: polmine.pl
mine_address: polmine.pl:8347
api_address:https://polmine.pl/?action=statistics
role:mine
api_method:re
api_key: stkich:[ 0-9]*
api_index:16,-5
api_strip:' '
#CHANGE THIS
#https://polmine.pl
user: xxx
pass: xxx
Oh and I added it to pool.cfg.default
Do you have mtred in pool.cfg? I'm going to change it but the current start server is mtred.
EDIT: Actually its the last pool parsed in the latest version. Update?
EDIT: Actually its the last pool parsed in the latest version. Update?
2)bb nothing is happening?
You need to mv pools.cfg.default to pools.cfg
I should probably have a error output telling people that.
You need to mv pools.cfg.default to pools.cfg
I should probably have a error output telling people that.
Unfortunately it's not that trivial. :-)
Code:
$ ls /opt/bitHopper-4 | grep pool
pool.cfg
pool.cfg.default
pool.py
pool.pyc
I like the idea of having something like this in the pool.cfg file, but only because I dont know what a json_ec is.
How do I add methods?
edit: also above method would require the api_index
Code:
[polmine]
name: polmine.pl
mine_address: polmine.pl:8347
api_address:https://polmine.pl/?action=statistics
role:mine
api_method:re
api_shares: int(re.search(r"stkich:[ 0-9]* ", response).group(0)[16:-5].replace(' ',''))
#CHANGE THIS
#https://polmine.pl
user: xxx
pass: xxx
How do I add methods?
edit: also above method would require the api_index
The expected value of a share in a (properly implemented) PPLNS pool is exactly 1.0 (relative to solo or PPS).
Once a share is submitted, the fundamental question of its value is: how many blocks will be found before N more shares have been submitted. This can be modeled as a Poisson process with the expected number of blocks equal to N / difficulty. (If N is the difficulty, you'd expect to find one block. If N is twice the difficulty, you'd expect to find two blocks, and so on.) If (for example), N is one-half the difficulty, you'd expect a share to be paid approximately as follows:
Regardless of the value of N or the difficulty, the expected value will sum out to 1, however.
To make it relevant for this thread, PPLNS pools should be used only as backups, and definitely not as hopping targets.
You're completely right, PPLNS isn't hoppable. (Although PPLNS is subject to a share-withholding attack) Once a share is submitted, the fundamental question of its value is: how many blocks will be found before N more shares have been submitted. This can be modeled as a Poisson process with the expected number of blocks equal to N / difficulty. (If N is the difficulty, you'd expect to find one block. If N is twice the difficulty, you'd expect to find two blocks, and so on.) If (for example), N is one-half the difficulty, you'd expect a share to be paid approximately as follows:
- No payout: ~60.65%
- 1 payout: ~30.33%
- 2 payouts: ~7.58%
- 3 payouts: ~1.26%
- 4 or more payouts: ~0.18%
Regardless of the value of N or the difficulty, the expected value will sum out to 1, however.
To make it relevant for this thread, PPLNS pools should be used only as backups, and definitely not as hopping targets.
Can you add http://mining.bitcoin.cz/ to the list?
1)Pool.cfg is less flexible?
Well you can still add methods if you need some custom python code.
see json_ec. So no. Its actually more flexible.
2)bb nothing is happening?
You need to mv pools.cfg.default to pools.cfg
I should probably have a error output telling people that.
3)Cmd api_method?
Awesome. Can I get a copyright release burp?
4)Different triple mining code?
I'm going to test that but that works? Really? What I have now for re works also.
Well you can still add methods if you need some custom python code.
see json_ec. So no. Its actually more flexible.
2)bb nothing is happening?
You need to mv pools.cfg.default to pools.cfg
I should probably have a error output telling people that.
3)Cmd api_method?
Awesome. Can I get a copyright release burp?
4)Different triple mining code?
I'm going to test that but that works? Really? What I have now for re works also.
enmaku read my last post
Yeah, I see that now. I already fixed it myself, but in a different way - I added one more replace() to pools.py line 241:
Code:
parsed = response.replace('\n', '').replace('\r','').replace('\t','').replace(' ','')Took care of the extra spaces they added in the middle of the number as well as the space between the and
Glancing over yours I can kind of see how it's working, regex isn't my strong suit so if I can fix it ANYWHERE but the regex I'll gladly do so
enmaku read my last post
The expected value of a share in a (properly implemented) PPLNS pool is exactly 1.0 (relative to solo or PPS).
Once a share is submitted, the fundamental question of its value is: how many blocks will be found before N more shares have been submitted. This can be modeled as a Poisson process with the expected number of blocks equal to N / difficulty. (If N is the difficulty, you'd expect to find one block. If N is twice the difficulty, you'd expect to find two blocks, and so on.) If (for example), N is one-half the difficulty, you'd expect a share to be paid approximately as follows:
Regardless of the value of N or the difficulty, the expected value will sum out to 1, however.
To make it relevant for this thread, PPLNS pools should be used only as backups, and definitely not as hopping targets.
Once a share is submitted, the fundamental question of its value is: how many blocks will be found before N more shares have been submitted. This can be modeled as a Poisson process with the expected number of blocks equal to N / difficulty. (If N is the difficulty, you'd expect to find one block. If N is twice the difficulty, you'd expect to find two blocks, and so on.) If (for example), N is one-half the difficulty, you'd expect a share to be paid approximately as follows:
- No payout: ~60.65%
- 1 payout: ~30.33%
- 2 payouts: ~7.58%
- 3 payouts: ~1.26%
- 4 or more payouts: ~0.18%
Regardless of the value of N or the difficulty, the expected value will sum out to 1, however.
To make it relevant for this thread, PPLNS pools should be used only as backups, and definitely not as hopping targets.
Getting regex failures on triple with Ryouiki's latest. Did they change their stats page or something?
I'm trying to add polmine.pl to "pool.cfg" in last version (0dd8833) without success, I think the problem comes from the spaces in page source, just guessing
[polmine]
name: polmine.pl
mine_address: polmine.pl:8347
api_address:https://polmine.pl/?action=statistics
api_method:re
api_key:stkich:\d+
api_index:16,-5
role:mine
#CHANGE THIS
#https://polmine.pl/?action=signup
user: x
pass: x
any help would be appreciated
edit: minor changes
[polmine]
name: polmine.pl
mine_address: polmine.pl:8347
api_address:https://polmine.pl/?action=statistics
api_method:re
api_key:stkich:
api_index:16,-5
role:mine
#CHANGE THIS
#https://polmine.pl/?action=signup
user: x
pass: x
any help would be appreciated
edit: minor changes
Very nice work, Streblo!
Thanks, this pool math is really interesting to me because the results are sometimes bizzare!edit: Streblo!
I love the explanation. And I'm adding ppln.
Sounds good. Remember, the quick'n'dirty method with the factor of ~2 for shares adjustment only works with M=0.5. Though, I (or anybody with the mathematica link) can easily calculate numbers for arbitrary M. I love the explanation. And I'm adding ppln.
Amazing streblo. Really great stuff.
The thing I'm still unclear on though (and maybe I'm just dense) is:
Based on your analysis, given the situation of hopping two pools having different speeds, should I stay with the faster pool even though it is further from share 1 and then hop to slower later. Or do I hop to pool 2 immediately after it solves a block. It seems to me the downside is getting stuck in a slow pool and missing the spread of shares to other available pools ( even backup)
Assuming you switch pools with no increase stales and you have accurate round_shares information, ALWAYS send shares to the pool with least number of shares (unless, of course, all pools are above x=.428, in which case you should solo mine [read: use a "backup" pool]). The thing I'm still unclear on though (and maybe I'm just dense) is:
Based on your analysis, given the situation of hopping two pools having different speeds, should I stay with the faster pool even though it is further from share 1 and then hop to slower later. Or do I hop to pool 2 immediately after it solves a block. It seems to me the downside is getting stuck in a slow pool and missing the spread of shares to other available pools ( even backup)
nice work streblo, just managed to put my concepts straight thanks. I added you on my future donations list if you don't mind
Thanks man!Although this should REALLY go in a seperate topic... What's your understanding of PPLNS?
I got it like this, that you _always_ consider the last N shares and don't reset at block boundaries. Yes, this means you can get paid twice or more often for a single share but also that you can be not paid at all for some others. I suspect you do in your model reset your shares when a block was found. Is this true?
I don't see how his model could include anything from previous rounds - I think it resets at boundaries. That just means the model gives a low bound for speedup/efficiency.
I'd really like some details (that i probably won't follow!) though. Or at least more details about
You are correct, this analysis resets at the pools found block boundaries. I could run Monte Carlo simulations of the PPLNS system, because handling multiple payouts per share (technically, upto N times!) would be quite difficult, I suspect. I'd really like some details (that i probably won't follow!) though. Or at least more details about
Quote
PPLNS strongly deviates from proportional only during rounds which pay (per share) below the statistical average. Because the hopper "suffers" from PPLNS only during sub-par rounds, the absolute difference between proportional and PPLNS is small.
because it's tantalising me. I'd like to know why the gamma functions allow us to model the PPLNS behaviour.Yes, this analysis does include reseting shares after the pool finds a block (not when the system finds a block). Whoops. I don't included: multiple blocks found per share or the decreased payout from including the last N shares (including previous round(s)). These effects work in opposite directions, although I don't know which one is stronger.
PP expectation value was calculated by taking the payout (1/(n+x)) multiplied by the distribution of number of shares (x) required to find a block, and integrating over all possibilities.
n shares are already submitted
the payout after x more shares are submitted (1/(x+n))
probability of a pool solving a block after x shares = exp(-x)
PP = Integrate exp(-x)/(x+n) from x=0 to Infinity = exp(x) E1(x) = exp(x) Gamma(0,y) (this is the incomplete gamma function)
PPLNS (when incorrectly resetting shares after every block)
n shares are already submitted
the payout after x more shares are submitted: 1/(x+n) (x < M)
PPLNS = Integrate exp(-x)/(x+n) from x=0 to M = exp(x) ( Gamma(0,x) - Gamma(0,M+x)) (x < M)
Cheers
1FQoC3zsos22QxZC35fMfP8JteMK9nEQPU
With the newest version I am getting this error:
When this happened, current in line 212 in bitHopper.py was 'mtred', however, pool_server in line 213 turned out to be None.
The mtred entry in the config file looks ok.
Code:
Traceback (most recent call last):
File "/usr/lib/python2.7/dist-packages/twisted/web/http.py", line 1371, in dataReceived
finishCallback(data[contentLength:])
File "/usr/lib/python2.7/dist-packages/twisted/web/http.py", line 1585, in _finishRequestBody
self.allContentReceived()
File "/usr/lib/python2.7/dist-packages/twisted/web/http.py", line 1641, in allContentReceived
req.requestReceived(command, path, version)
File "/usr/lib/python2.7/dist-packages/twisted/web/http.py", line 807, in requestReceived
self.process()
------
File "/usr/lib/python2.7/dist-packages/twisted/web/server.py", line 125, in process
self.render(resrc)
File "/usr/lib/python2.7/dist-packages/twisted/web/server.py", line 132, in render
body = resrc.render(self)
File "/usr/lib/python2.7/dist-packages/twisted/web/resource.py", line 210, in render
return m(request)
File "/opt/bitHopper-4/bitHopper.py", line 370, in render_POST
return bitHopper_Post(request)
File "/opt/bitHopper-4/bitHopper.py", line 227, in bitHopper_Post
bithopper_global.log_msg('RPC request [' + rep + "] submitted to " + str(pool_server['name']))
exceptions.TypeError: 'NoneType' object is not subscriptable
When this happened, current in line 212 in bitHopper.py was 'mtred', however, pool_server in line 213 turned out to be None.
The mtred entry in the config file looks ok.
I don't see how his model could include anything from previous rounds - I think it resets at boundaries. That just means the model gives a low bound for speedup/efficiency.
I'd really like some details (that i probably won't follow!) though. Or at least more details about
I'd really like some details (that i probably won't follow!) though. Or at least more details about
Quote
PPLNS strongly deviates from proportional only during rounds which pay (per share) below the statistical average. Because the hopper "suffers" from PPLNS only during sub-par rounds, the absolute difference between proportional and PPLNS is small.
because it's tantalising me. I'd like to know why the gamma functions allow us to model the PPLNS behaviour.
nice work streblo, just managed to put my concepts straight thanks. I added you on my future donations list if you don't mind
@c00w kudos to you to man, I was waiting for this to happen coz my python skills really suck and many times I was just breaking the script after editing, it's a more portable now... thanks really , btw I already have you on donation list
@c00w kudos to you to man, I was waiting for this to happen coz my python skills really suck and many times I was just breaking the script after editing, it's a more portable now... thanks really , btw I already have you on donation list
Jump to: