Ok...
All other things being equal, and a bit of a derail. But... Why the HELL is eleuthria's trust rating so low? Mine is higher, and I mostly just talk.
Topic: [CLOSED] BTC Guild - Pays TxFees+NMC, Stratum, VarDiff, Private Servers - page 7. (Read 902906 times)
June 24, 2015, 11:25:54 AM
June 24, 2015, 10:47:00 AM
Trying to set a low withdrawal limit I get: "There was an error updating the database. Please try again after a few seconds."
For some reason its displaying as 0.00 yet I didn't set that, and there is still some ~dust sitting in there. Any ideas?
For some reason its displaying as 0.00 yet I didn't set that, and there is still some ~dust sitting in there. Any ideas?
Automatic withdrawals are still 0.01 intervals. If you want to withdraw dust you have to use the manual withdrawal button on the dashboard.
June 24, 2015, 03:16:03 AM
Trying to set a low withdrawal limit I get: "There was an error updating the database. Please try again after a few seconds."
For some reason its displaying as 0.00 yet I didn't set that, and there is still some ~dust sitting in there. Any ideas?
For some reason its displaying as 0.00 yet I didn't set that, and there is still some ~dust sitting in there. Any ideas?
June 23, 2015, 09:29:36 PM
...
I do not currently have plans to distribute the code used for the site or the backend. The frontend relies specifically on BTC Guild's DB schema, which is not remotely close to what any other pool software uses. The backend is almost entirely uncommented spaghetti code. Possibly down the road I will make a pass through it to comment and clean it up and open source it. However, I wouldn't recommend it simply because it would be unsupported, whereas other options (ckpool/eloipool) still have active developers/support.
I'd suggest use ckpool - much faster block changes - much lower stale work rates - and doesn't use empty blocks to fail at speeding up block changes. I do not currently have plans to distribute the code used for the site or the backend. The frontend relies specifically on BTC Guild's DB schema, which is not remotely close to what any other pool software uses. The backend is almost entirely uncommented spaghetti code. Possibly down the road I will make a pass through it to comment and clean it up and open source it. However, I wouldn't recommend it simply because it would be unsupported, whereas other options (ckpool/eloipool) still have active developers/support.
June 23, 2015, 09:24:48 PM
I do not currently have plans to distribute the code used for the site or the backend. The frontend relies specifically on BTC Guild's DB schema, which is not remotely close to what any other pool software uses. The backend is almost entirely uncommented spaghetti code. Possibly down the road I will make a pass through it to comment and clean it up and open source it. However, I wouldn't recommend it simply because it would be unsupported, whereas other options (ckpool/eloipool) still have active developers/support.
I've never been happy with Python and consider Eloipool mostly a failure in terms of language choice (and would ideally be designed very differently post-getwork era).Without having seen your code, I can't commit - but I wouldn't rule out possibly maintaining it instead of Eloipool.
June 23, 2015, 09:03:22 PM
Would you sell the code for the website? Or is there no offer for that sale?
There might be some proprietary code but it might be nice for someone who wants to run their own pool with "out of the box" software. I've never tried to run my own pool but if I did, I'm fond of the layout where your worker is your payout address.ie: The no registration sites.
June 23, 2015, 09:03:13 PM
eleuthria, we understand that BTC Guild is not for sale, but are you interested in selling only the btcguild.com domain?
Kind regards,
NiceHash
Kind regards,
NiceHash
Possibly, but it would not be for sale until 2016.
Would you sell the code for the website? Or is there no offer for that sale?
Do you think there's any way you'd release the pool code as open source on GitHub so that we can all see how our favourite thing for all those years actually worked?
I do not currently have plans to distribute the code used for the site or the backend. The frontend relies specifically on BTC Guild's DB schema, which is not remotely close to what any other pool software uses. The backend is almost entirely uncommented spaghetti code. Possibly down the road I will make a pass through it to comment and clean it up and open source it. However, I wouldn't recommend it simply because it would be unsupported, whereas other options (ckpool/eloipool) still have active developers/support.
June 23, 2015, 08:49:37 PM
Would you sell the code for the website? Or is there no offer for that sale?
June 23, 2015, 07:19:12 PM
eleuthria, we understand that BTC Guild is not for sale, but are you interested in selling only the btcguild.com domain?
Kind regards,
NiceHash
Kind regards,
NiceHash
June 23, 2015, 04:37:34 PM
Do you think there's any way you'd release the pool code as open source on GitHub so that we can all see how our favourite thing for all those years actually worked?
June 23, 2015, 11:49:38 AM
fair dues for all your hard work, the pool was great for me when I mined there, and you've always been open with the community. Hopefully those skills of yours won't go unrewarded!
June 22, 2015, 07:39:35 PM
On the brighter side: At least our last 2 weeks might be a bit lucky, the last few days haven't been half bad.
I have read about the opinion of different pool owners regarding the Bitcoin QT vs XT debate. But, I could not find your opinion about it. Though you are a closing pool, you were one of the earliest and served successfully over a very long time. So, I'd like to know your opinion about this debate. I am sorry, if you have already stated about it. Then you may please point me to that source.
The block size debate is something I've been expecting for years, and it's something I just can't see a great solution to. The real problem I'm seeing is the larger blocks, once they become normal/blocks actually start using up some of that extra space, is the ability for people to run full nodes. Similarly, solo mining/p2pool is already at a disadvantage compared to pools/farms running on datacenter quality connections, larger blocks just make it worse.
I've always fallen into the camp that felt like Bitcoin would be a settlement network more than a transactional network. Services building on top of the chain rather than all trying to live inside of it. I was very interested in what sidechains could accomplish. The idea of a separate network for insignificant transactions that then get settled on the main chain as a bulk settlement rather than 10,000 transactions cluttering up the entire network.
Obviously, we haven't gotten something like that ready in time, so we *need* to increase the block size in order for Bitcoin to remain functional in the next few years.
Thanks for the response. So, in short, you are supporting XT for now as QT is determined not to increase block size even to 8MB ?
And as you said, that you feel like Bitcoin would be a settlement network, dont you think bitcoin, the unit, will also has a future as store value ?
June 22, 2015, 12:29:43 AM
Jeez some members in the community have such an attitude problem... and I wish it were only about their age.
I guess eleuthria could have added it to the list of reasons for the shutdown. Sad
I guess eleuthria could have added it to the list of reasons for the shutdown. Sad
lolwut, this pool need all the hashrate it can get before actual shutdown...
June 22, 2015, 12:25:35 AM
On the brighter side: At least our last 2 weeks might be a bit lucky, the last few days haven't been half bad.
I have read about the opinion of different pool owners regarding the Bitcoin QT vs XT debate. But, I could not find your opinion about it. Though you are a closing pool, you were one of the earliest and served successfully over a very long time. So, I'd like to know your opinion about this debate. I am sorry, if you have already stated about it. Then you may please point me to that source.
The block size debate is something I've been expecting for years, and it's something I just can't see a great solution to. The real problem I'm seeing is the larger blocks, once they become normal/blocks actually start using up some of that extra space, is the ability for people to run full nodes. Similarly, solo mining/p2pool is already at a disadvantage compared to pools/farms running on datacenter quality connections, larger blocks just make it worse.
I've always fallen into the camp that felt like Bitcoin would be a settlement network more than a transactional network. Services building on top of the chain rather than all trying to live inside of it. I was very interested in what sidechains could accomplish. The idea of a separate network for insignificant transactions that then get settled on the main chain as a bulk settlement rather than 10,000 transactions cluttering up the entire network.
Obviously, we haven't gotten something like that ready in time, so we *need* to increase the block size in order for Bitcoin to remain functional in the next few years.
June 21, 2015, 09:29:59 PM
So long and thanks for all the fish!
I'm really going to miss this place. It's been a major minor part of my life over the last 4 years.
I'm also curious about where everyone is moving to. The times I've tried other pools, sooner or later I always hit a failover pool. At btcguild this almost never happened. I think if we can get 5ph or more of btcguild's hashrate to all move to the same pool it would really benefit everyone there. As of now I might move to eligius or ghash(ew) or even antpool IDK. Anyone decided on where they are moving to yet?
I'm really going to miss this place. It's been a major minor part of my life over the last 4 years.
I'm also curious about where everyone is moving to. The times I've tried other pools, sooner or later I always hit a failover pool. At btcguild this almost never happened. I think if we can get 5ph or more of btcguild's hashrate to all move to the same pool it would really benefit everyone there. As of now I might move to eligius or ghash(ew) or even antpool IDK. Anyone decided on where they are moving to yet?
eleuthria has a list he recommends.
absent from that list is Slush - i think its to do with bad blood and a misunderstanding, the result is Slush was responsible for a DoS attack on BTC Guild.
The pool we join in many ways is similar to a form of political representation. which it is why it is so important that we choose a pool that deserves our hashing power. One of the reasons it is such a shame to see btcguild close down, so thank you eleuthria for running this pool for so many years.
June 21, 2015, 06:36:47 PM
How long are you obligated to retain user data?
June 21, 2015, 05:40:06 PM
On the brighter side: At least our last 2 weeks might be a bit lucky, the last few days haven't been half bad.
I have read about the opinion of different pool owners regarding the Bitcoin QT vs XT debate. But, I could not find your opinion about it. Though you are a closing pool, you were one of the earliest and served successfully over a very long time. So, I'd like to know your opinion about this debate. I am sorry, if you have already stated about it. Then you may please point me to that source.
June 21, 2015, 05:34:39 PM
I used to mine on BTC Guild way back in early 2012. Sad to see it closing, but refreshing to see an operator actually give notice instead of just disappearing with the held balances. Good luck to you in the future eleuthria.
June 21, 2015, 05:28:41 PM
Thanks eleuthria for everything!
June 21, 2015, 04:48:13 PM
Jeez some members in the community have such an attitude problem... and I wish it were only about their age.
I guess eleuthria could have added it to the list of reasons for the shutdown. Sad
I guess eleuthria could have added it to the list of reasons for the shutdown. Sad
Jump to: