mmm still incredibly high stales.
Im using latest version and after LP and running on btcguild atm its between 12-17% stales , I think alot of the stales came from the LP new block but still if I run on btcguild directly with same defined server I get <1% gauranteed stales.
Is this related to bithopper or something you are working on to resolve?
Topic: bitHopper: Python Pool Hopper Proxy - page 194. (Read 355689 times)
1) Where have you been?
For some reason my browser wasn't updating the forums so like 2 pages of posts showed up in 1 minute.
2) Lp Error?
I think they are ironed out now. And the code is less of a complete disaster.
3) ozco.in?
I'll add it. I just wasted two hours of my life trying to reset my bitcoins.lc account before they told me they banned it.
4) Lots of eligius?
Well it only hops onto pools as Sukrim said at shares < diff * .40.
I'm getting lots of arstechnica.
5) Why oh why did you rewrite the code and cause all these errors?
Because it makes it a lot cleaner to read the code and try and comprehend it.
6) Stats?
Yeah I added some basic ones. They are messed up in a number of ways including difficulty changes, old shares, old dropped shares, and plenty of other errors. I'm going to rewrite the system to use a sqlite database and we'll see whats up.
7) Database not another dependancy!
I'm going to make it strictly optional and try and rig it so it is only include if you pass a --stats command or something similar.
8)Connecting to pools with high share counts when it shouldn't?
If both the backups lag out it will jump on mining pools again with high share counts. Now that there are two backups it should do it less.
For some reason my browser wasn't updating the forums so like 2 pages of posts showed up in 1 minute.
2) Lp Error?
I think they are ironed out now. And the code is less of a complete disaster.
3) ozco.in?
I'll add it. I just wasted two hours of my life trying to reset my bitcoins.lc account before they told me they banned it.
4) Lots of eligius?
Well it only hops onto pools as Sukrim said at shares < diff * .40.
I'm getting lots of arstechnica.
5) Why oh why did you rewrite the code and cause all these errors?
Because it makes it a lot cleaner to read the code and try and comprehend it.
6) Stats?
Yeah I added some basic ones. They are messed up in a number of ways including difficulty changes, old shares, old dropped shares, and plenty of other errors. I'm going to rewrite the system to use a sqlite database and we'll see whats up.
7) Database not another dependancy!
I'm going to make it strictly optional and try and rig it so it is only include if you pass a --stats command or something similar.
8)Connecting to pools with high share counts when it shouldn't?
If both the backups lag out it will jump on mining pools again with high share counts. Now that there are two backups it should do it less.
You're missing pools to hop into:
1 563 027.9961162 * 0.4 = 625 211.198
If all your pools have more than 625211 shares, there's no point in hopping anywhere but it's better to mine in a 0% PPS pool like eligius. (I still think it should rather be 0.435 though...
)
Currently it seems that only ozco.in is hot, so you need to wait until/if it gets added to git or add it yourself.
1 563 027.9961162 * 0.4 = 625 211.198
If all your pools have more than 625211 shares, there's no point in hopping anywhere but it's better to mine in a 0% PPS pool like eligius. (I still think it should rather be 0.435 though...
)Currently it seems that only ozco.in is hot, so you need to wait until/if it gets added to git or add it yourself.
Ah ok that explains it. In mean time I changed it to 0.435 as you suggested
You're missing pools to hop into:
1 563 027.9961162 * 0.4 = 625 211.198
If all your pools have more than 625211 shares, there's no point in hopping anywhere but it's better to mine in a 0% PPS pool like eligius. (I still think it should rather be 0.435 though... )
Currently it seems that only ozco.in is hot, so you need to wait until/if it gets added to git or add it yourself.
1 563 027.9961162 * 0.4 = 625 211.198
If all your pools have more than 625211 shares, there's no point in hopping anywhere but it's better to mine in a 0% PPS pool like eligius. (I still think it should rather be 0.435 though...
)Currently it seems that only ozco.in is hot, so you need to wait until/if it gets added to git or add it yourself.
I must be missing something... I grabbed the latest git- setup the accounts I have in password.py, commented out a couple of the pools in pools.py that I don't have accounts for and when I run it, I don't see any errors but it only seems to be mining to eligius.
This is what my run looks like:
... followed by ongoing eligius entries.
What am I missing?
This is what my run looks like:
Code:
[root@localhost c00w-bitHopper-8324470]# python bitHopper.py
[13:27:13] RPC request [] submitted to BTC Guild
[13:27:13] mtred :2319433
[13:27:13] Server change to eligius, telling client with LP
[13:27:13] pool.bitp.it :1315972
[13:27:13] btcguild :3773677
[13:27:13] RPC request [] submitted to eligius
[13:27:13] btcguild efficiency: 41.2121798097%
[13:27:13] LP Call su.mining.eligius.st:8337/LP
[13:27:13] bitp.it efficiency: 118.788564677%
[13:27:13] bitcoin.lc :5764834
[13:27:13] RPC request [] submitted to eligius
[13:27:15] RPC request [] submitted to eligius
... followed by ongoing eligius entries.
What am I missing?
I don't think you're missing anything. Same thing happens to me right now...grabbed the latest version of the git as of a few minutes ago and same thing.
same here, must be the recent changes <20mins ago cow made, version just before that didnt do this.
I must be missing something... I grabbed the latest git- setup the accounts I have in password.py, commented out a couple of the pools in pools.py that I don't have accounts for and when I run it, I don't see any errors but it only seems to be mining to eligius.
This is what my run looks like:
... followed by ongoing eligius entries.
What am I missing?
This is what my run looks like:
Code:
[root@localhost c00w-bitHopper-8324470]# python bitHopper.py
[13:27:13] RPC request [] submitted to BTC Guild
[13:27:13] mtred :2319433
[13:27:13] Server change to eligius, telling client with LP
[13:27:13] pool.bitp.it :1315972
[13:27:13] btcguild :3773677
[13:27:13] RPC request [] submitted to eligius
[13:27:13] btcguild efficiency: 41.2121798097%
[13:27:13] LP Call su.mining.eligius.st:8337/LP
[13:27:13] bitp.it efficiency: 118.788564677%
[13:27:13] bitcoin.lc :5764834
[13:27:13] RPC request [] submitted to eligius
[13:27:15] RPC request [] submitted to eligius
... followed by ongoing eligius entries.
What am I missing?
I don't think you're missing anything. Same thing happens to me right now...grabbed the latest version of the git as of a few minutes ago and same thing.
I must be missing something... I grabbed the latest git- setup the accounts I have in password.py, commented out a couple of the pools in pools.py that I don't have accounts for and when I run it, I don't see any errors but it only seems to be mining to eligius.
This is what my run looks like:
... followed by ongoing eligius entries.
What am I missing?
This is what my run looks like:
Code:
[root@localhost c00w-bitHopper-8324470]# python bitHopper.py
[13:27:13] RPC request [] submitted to BTC Guild
[13:27:13] mtred :2319433
[13:27:13] Server change to eligius, telling client with LP
[13:27:13] pool.bitp.it :1315972
[13:27:13] btcguild :3773677
[13:27:13] RPC request [] submitted to eligius
[13:27:13] btcguild efficiency: 41.2121798097%
[13:27:13] LP Call su.mining.eligius.st:8337/LP
[13:27:13] bitp.it efficiency: 118.788564677%
[13:27:13] bitcoin.lc :5764834
[13:27:13] RPC request [] submitted to eligius
[13:27:15] RPC request [] submitted to eligius
... followed by ongoing eligius entries.
What am I missing?
Weird... ozco.in reports 446976 shares but I seem to mine at eligius sometimes.
Also nothing was yet written to my stats file, maybe try to flush the writes every once in a while - or maybe I did something wrong...
Edit: no, just kill it with Ctrl+c and the stats magically appear. Seems like the writes don't get flushed to me.
Also nothing was yet written to my stats file, maybe try to flush the writes every once in a while - or maybe I did something wrong...
Edit: no, just kill it with Ctrl+c and the stats magically appear. Seems like the writes don't get flushed to me.
Same problem i have, jumping to eligius mainly and other times bitpit or whatever other higher than the lowest available share block available.
Weird... ozco.in reports 446976 shares but I seem to mine at eligius sometimes.
Also nothing was yet written to my stats file, maybe try to flush the writes every once in a while - or maybe I did something wrong...
Edit: no, just kill it with Ctrl+c and the stats magically appear. Seems like the writes don't get flushed to me.
Also nothing was yet written to my stats file, maybe try to flush the writes every once in a while - or maybe I did something wrong...
Edit: no, just kill it with Ctrl+c and the stats magically appear. Seems like the writes don't get flushed to me.
Using phoenix and -u localhost:8337 I just get:
Unknown protocol:
Unknown protocol:
Try throwing any credentials at it and see if it works
Using phoenix and -u localhost:8337 I just get:
Unknown protocol:
Unknown protocol:
There seems to be an edit on github a few minutes ago on the LP.py maybe c00w fixed it?
1. Can be also because of poor pool performance. If you try to manually connect to that pool and not through bitHopper, do your stales get less?
2. Is something I never experienced yet. Currently I'm mining away at ozco.in with:
[17:46:51] mining.mainframe.nl :3664244
[17:46:51] mineco :474659
[17:46:51] bitcoin.lc :5291446
[17:46:51] mtred :1915681
[17:46:51] triplemining :1046166
[17:46:51] bitclockers efficiency: xxx
[17:46:51] bitclockers :1404907
[17:46:51] bitp.it efficiency: xxx
[17:46:51] pool.bitp.it :1206567
[17:46:51] btcguild :600806
[17:46:52] btcguild efficiency: xxx
[17:46:52] eclipsemc :3799559
[17:46:52] ozcoin :358315
and it doesn't seem to have jumped anywhere. Do you use the latest version from github?
Pool hopping also has a risk of earning less in the short run (on long rounds you loose), pools switching payout systems, pool operators plainly stealing from you (which is REALLY easy by the way, look it up in the pools forum) etc.
If users are too stupid to be able to get a system like PPLNS (which is 100% like proportional, only that the definition of "round" doesn't start when a new block is found) or SMPPS (which is in the longer run just like PPS) then they also shouldn't complain if someone is smart enough to not mine full time in their pool if it pays off less and less over time.
2. Is something I never experienced yet. Currently I'm mining away at ozco.in with:
[17:46:51] mining.mainframe.nl :3664244
[17:46:51] mineco :474659
[17:46:51] bitcoin.lc :5291446
[17:46:51] mtred :1915681
[17:46:51] triplemining :1046166
[17:46:51] bitclockers efficiency: xxx
[17:46:51] bitclockers :1404907
[17:46:51] bitp.it efficiency: xxx
[17:46:51] pool.bitp.it :1206567
[17:46:51] btcguild :600806
[17:46:52] btcguild efficiency: xxx
[17:46:52] eclipsemc :3799559
[17:46:52] ozcoin :358315
and it doesn't seem to have jumped anywhere. Do you use the latest version from github?
If you trade your dollars you also take a risk, i am fine with that.
I am upset about the fact that i am forced to either gain the system like you guys or switch to another pool with hopping measures in place.
If you find a way to increase the speed you could use it yourself and have little impact at all, sell it (again, little impact) or release it for free which wouldnt hurt anybody - word spreads fast and people would upgrade to your miner.
You would (if all other adopt this) increase the hash rate worldwide by 3%, thus you'd earn less than if you kept the tweak to yourself.I am upset about the fact that i am forced to either gain the system like you guys or switch to another pool with hopping measures in place.
If you find a way to increase the speed you could use it yourself and have little impact at all, sell it (again, little impact) or release it for free which wouldnt hurt anybody - word spreads fast and people would upgrade to your miner.
Pool hopping also has a risk of earning less in the short run (on long rounds you loose), pools switching payout systems, pool operators plainly stealing from you (which is REALLY easy by the way, look it up in the pools forum) etc.
If users are too stupid to be able to get a system like PPLNS (which is 100% like proportional, only that the definition of "round" doesn't start when a new block is found) or SMPPS (which is in the longer run just like PPS) then they also shouldn't complain if someone is smart enough to not mine full time in their pool if it pays off less and less over time.
1. Yep without bithopper Im getting ~0.5% stales on btcguild, with bithopper it average out at 8% stales.
2. Im using the latest version , the hopping happens quite often then resets to proper lowest shares pool after ~2mins
1. Can be also because of poor pool performance. If you try to manually connect to that pool and not through bitHopper, do your stales get less?
2. Is something I never experienced yet. Currently I'm mining away at ozco.in with:
[17:46:51] mining.mainframe.nl :3664244
[17:46:51] mineco :474659
[17:46:51] bitcoin.lc :5291446
[17:46:51] mtred :1915681
[17:46:51] triplemining :1046166
[17:46:51] bitclockers efficiency: xxx
[17:46:51] bitclockers :1404907
[17:46:51] bitp.it efficiency: xxx
[17:46:51] pool.bitp.it :1206567
[17:46:51] btcguild :600806
[17:46:52] btcguild efficiency: xxx
[17:46:52] eclipsemc :3799559
[17:46:52] ozcoin :358315
and it doesn't seem to have jumped anywhere. Do you use the latest version from github?
Pool hopping also has a risk of earning less in the short run (on long rounds you loose), pools switching payout systems, pool operators plainly stealing from you (which is REALLY easy by the way, look it up in the pools forum) etc.
If users are too stupid to be able to get a system like PPLNS (which is 100% like proportional, only that the definition of "round" doesn't start when a new block is found) or SMPPS (which is in the longer run just like PPS) then they also shouldn't complain if someone is smart enough to not mine full time in their pool if it pays off less and less over time.
2. Is something I never experienced yet. Currently I'm mining away at ozco.in with:
[17:46:51] mining.mainframe.nl :3664244
[17:46:51] mineco :474659
[17:46:51] bitcoin.lc :5291446
[17:46:51] mtred :1915681
[17:46:51] triplemining :1046166
[17:46:51] bitclockers efficiency: xxx
[17:46:51] bitclockers :1404907
[17:46:51] bitp.it efficiency: xxx
[17:46:51] pool.bitp.it :1206567
[17:46:51] btcguild :600806
[17:46:52] btcguild efficiency: xxx
[17:46:52] eclipsemc :3799559
[17:46:52] ozcoin :358315
and it doesn't seem to have jumped anywhere. Do you use the latest version from github?
If you trade your dollars you also take a risk, i am fine with that.
I am upset about the fact that i am forced to either gain the system like you guys or switch to another pool with hopping measures in place.
If you find a way to increase the speed you could use it yourself and have little impact at all, sell it (again, little impact) or release it for free which wouldnt hurt anybody - word spreads fast and people would upgrade to your miner.
You would (if all other adopt this) increase the hash rate worldwide by 3%, thus you'd earn less than if you kept the tweak to yourself.I am upset about the fact that i am forced to either gain the system like you guys or switch to another pool with hopping measures in place.
If you find a way to increase the speed you could use it yourself and have little impact at all, sell it (again, little impact) or release it for free which wouldnt hurt anybody - word spreads fast and people would upgrade to your miner.
Pool hopping also has a risk of earning less in the short run (on long rounds you loose), pools switching payout systems, pool operators plainly stealing from you (which is REALLY easy by the way, look it up in the pools forum) etc.
If users are too stupid to be able to get a system like PPLNS (which is 100% like proportional, only that the definition of "round" doesn't start when a new block is found) or SMPPS (which is in the longer run just like PPS) then they also shouldn't complain if someone is smart enough to not mine full time in their pool if it pays off less and less over time.
Look! There are people out in the streets without any guns. They are stupid to run around 24/7 without protection, they deserve to be robbed. 
If you think a gun protects you, you might also mine proportionally! 
The publicly available refined tool which enables a large part of the community to "help pools switch over to fairer methods" already exists in the form of hopping-proof payout algorithms. For about half a year now. If (new!) pools like triplemining choose to still proportional payouts, this is knowing that it's users can and will be exploited (some even write this on their main page).
People dont seem to be able to grasp the hopping-proof payout structure - new pools are forced to offer the traditional system. Large enough pools can switch but might as well lose user.
Quote
Look! There are people out in the streets without any guns. They are stupid to run around 24/7 without protection, they deserve to be robbed.
Um not even the same. Look what if I took Us dollars and traded them for various currencies around the world and then back into dollars and got a proffit. You held onto your dollars 24/7 and are pissed I made money off mine.
Quote
It is quite different to have a few smart people figure out ways to gain the system compared to a publicly available refined tool which enables a large part of the community to "help pools switch over to fairer methods".
not really, you are just upset at scale. If you consider it cheating than it is cheating weather one does it or 20. It doesnt matter if only a few smart people do it, it is still cheating. Pool operators dont give a shit, it doesnt hurt them. So nothing will change unless you actually let people understand this is going on.
Plus I find it hard to think of it as cheating when their isnt even the slightest of obstacles to get around. Not even a user agreement that says I cant do this. Kinda hard to claim I am breaking the rules when you cant even point to the rule I broke.
What If i found a way to edit the miner software and add say 3% of speed.. none of you have that speed increase.. would that be cheating? Shouldnt we all be forced to use the same mining software?
If you trade your dollars you also take a risk, i am fine with that.
I am upset about the fact that i am forced to either gain the system like you guys or switch to another pool with hopping measures in place.
If you find a way to increase the speed you could use it yourself and have little impact at all, sell it (again, little impact) or release it for free which wouldnt hurt anybody - word spreads fast and people would upgrade to your miner.
It is quite different to have a few smart people figure out ways to gain the system compared to a publicly available refined tool which enables a large part of the community to "help pools switch over to fairer methods".
Well think about this then...
One "smart" person has 500+ GH/s at their disposal and uses their own coded pool hopper. Then 500 1GH/s "average Joe's" turn up and start pool hopping using Bithopper.
IMO that one "smart" person is doing more damage. At least with Bithopper the pools know it is happening > their users know it is happening > users get angry at pools for letting it happen > pools take appropriate measures to stop it from happening.
Hopping is helping
There is nobody with 500+ GH/s at their disposal. Most of the userbase consist of little hashing power/user.
Well the log with floating error seems to be fixed with issue posted by ryo on the issues page.
Im mainly concerned with the other issues listed:
1. high stales/rejected.
2. randomly connecting to high share rounds on pools it shouldnt connect to.
Im mainly concerned with the other issues listed:
1. high stales/rejected.
2. randomly connecting to high share rounds on pools it shouldnt connect to.
Does anyone know why im getting these API errors for bitclockers/bitpit ?
Code:
Error in user api for bitp
"[Failure instance: Traceback:: float division by zero\n/usr/lib/python2.7/dist-packages/twisted/internet/defer.py:1076:gotResult\n/usr/lib/python2.7/dist-packages/twisted/internet/defer.py:1063:_inlineCallbacks\n/usr/lib/python2.7/dist-packages/twisted/internet/defer.py:361:callback\n/usr/lib/python2.7/dist-packages/twisted/internet/defer.py:455:_startRunCallbacks\n--- ---\n/usr/lib/python2.7/dist-packages/twisted/internet/defer.py:542:_runCallbacks\n/home/miner1/bitHopper/stats.py:65:selectsharesResponse\n/home/miner1/bitHopper/stats.py:55:parse_bitp\n]"
Code:
"[Failure instance: Traceback:: float division by zero\n/usr/lib/python2.7/dist-packages/twisted/internet/defer.py:1076:gotResult\n/usr/lib/python2.7/dist-packages/twisted/internet/defer.py:1063:_inlineCallbacks\n/usr/lib/python2.7/dist-packages/twisted/internet/defer.py:361:callback\n/usr/lib/python2.7/dist-packages/twisted/internet/defer.py:455:_startRunCallbacks\n--- ---\n/usr/lib/python2.7/dist-packages/twisted/internet/defer.py:542:_runCallbacks\n/home/miner1/bitHopper/stats.py:65:selectsharesResponse\n/home/miner1/bitHopper/stats.py:39:parse_bitclockers\n]"
I'm getting the same thing....
Im getting pretty high rejected rates using bithopper, is this normal?
between 8-15% rejected.
between 8-15% rejected.
Yes, I was also getting around 10% rejected today. I think there is a problem with LP support in the recent bithopper build.
I have reverted to the previous version for now, I'm sure c00w will resolve this later.
It is quite different to have a few smart people figure out ways to gain the system compared to a publicly available refined tool which enables a large part of the community to "help pools switch over to fairer methods".
Well think about this then...
One "smart" person has 500+ GH/s at their disposal and uses their own coded pool hopper. Then 500 1GH/s "average Joe's" turn up and start pool hopping using Bithopper.
IMO that one "smart" person is doing more damage. At least with Bithopper the pools know it is happening > their users know it is happening > users get angry at pools for letting it happen > pools take appropriate measures to stop it from happening.
Hopping is helping
Im getting pretty high rejected rates using bithopper, is this normal?
between 8-15% rejected.
Also another issue it seems to jump to silly pools while still below the 40-50% market of a new block on another pool.
Example: I am on btcguild block thats still new around 100k shares , it then jumps to bitpit which is over 1.5mil shares.
Am I missing something ?
between 8-15% rejected.
Also another issue it seems to jump to silly pools while still below the 40-50% market of a new block on another pool.
Example: I am on btcguild block thats still new around 100k shares , it then jumps to bitpit which is over 1.5mil shares.
Am I missing something ?
Jump to: