However, if the poster is saying "1024 diff is unacceptable" for a 1 TH/s ASIC, I have bad news for you: You're going to mine at that difficulty whether you like it or not. Standard vardiff settings will put you in the 512-2048 range on just about every pool out there.
It looks like he's saying it *has* to run at 1024 diff, not that it *can't* run at 1024 diff. I'm not sure if that applies to both higher and lower difficulties, or what. 
Topic: [CLOSED] BTC Guild - Pays TxFees+NMC, Stratum, VarDiff, Private Servers - page 99. (Read 903163 times)
March 27, 2014, 04:01:02 PM
March 27, 2014, 01:33:47 PM
I know BTC Guild historically was better supported for ASICs that didn't function at low difficulty because it's difficulty adjustment for vardiff was designed agggressively, and would send you new work + diff changes within a second or two of turning on a very high speed ASIC.
However, if the poster is saying "1024 diff is unacceptable" for a 1 TH/s ASIC, I have bad news for you: You're going to mine at that difficulty whether you like it or not. Standard vardiff settings will put you in the 512-2048 range on just about every pool out there.
However, if the poster is saying "1024 diff is unacceptable" for a 1 TH/s ASIC, I have bad news for you: You're going to mine at that difficulty whether you like it or not. Standard vardiff settings will put you in the 512-2048 range on just about every pool out there.
March 27, 2014, 08:49:29 AM
Hey eleuthria, any idea how this can be the case?
Poster claims that a 1thps ASIC he was sold only works at BTC Guild with min diff at 1024, otherwise it will only hash at 12 to 16 Ghps. I found this unlikely to say the least, but the OP sounds sincere:
Yup, and they claim that I only can use the machine with BTCGuild with the setting 1024/1THs as minimal diff. So this would be a limitation I can't accept.
Did you try BTCGuild with 1024 min diff? You'd need to run it for a day, but at least you'd know if they were completely full of shit or just a little full of shit.
Okay, BTCGuild with 1024 min diff works with somewhat over 1 TH/s. However, this means I can't put it on other pools - unless I want my heater to run for 16 GH/s...
Poster claims that a 1thps ASIC he was sold only works at BTC Guild with min diff at 1024, otherwise it will only hash at 12 to 16 Ghps. I found this unlikely to say the least, but the OP sounds sincere:
have you tried contacting the company about your findings?
Yup, and they claim that I only can use the machine with BTCGuild with the setting 1024/1THs as minimal diff. So this would be a limitation I can't accept.
Did you try BTCGuild with 1024 min diff? You'd need to run it for a day, but at least you'd know if they were completely full of shit or just a little full of shit.
Okay, BTCGuild with 1024 min diff works with somewhat over 1 TH/s. However, this means I can't put it on other pools - unless I want my heater to run for 16 GH/s...
If I might what aside is it using? I know KnC hardware and Bitfury 400G rigs have issues with low difficulty. The reason for this is that their submit queue at low difficulty get full very quickly and overflows causing a loss of shares.
I don't see why setting it to 1024 wouldn't be acceptable. That's the BTCGuild recommended diff
they claim that I only can use the machine with BTCGuild
March 27, 2014, 08:13:20 AM
Hey eleuthria, any idea how this can be the case?
Poster claims that a 1thps ASIC he was sold only works at BTC Guild with min diff at 1024, otherwise it will only hash at 12 to 16 Ghps. I found this unlikely to say the least, but the OP sounds sincere:
Yup, and they claim that I only can use the machine with BTCGuild with the setting 1024/1THs as minimal diff. So this would be a limitation I can't accept.
Did you try BTCGuild with 1024 min diff? You'd need to run it for a day, but at least you'd know if they were completely full of shit or just a little full of shit.
Okay, BTCGuild with 1024 min diff works with somewhat over 1 TH/s. However, this means I can't put it on other pools - unless I want my heater to run for 16 GH/s...
Poster claims that a 1thps ASIC he was sold only works at BTC Guild with min diff at 1024, otherwise it will only hash at 12 to 16 Ghps. I found this unlikely to say the least, but the OP sounds sincere:
have you tried contacting the company about your findings?
Yup, and they claim that I only can use the machine with BTCGuild with the setting 1024/1THs as minimal diff. So this would be a limitation I can't accept.
Did you try BTCGuild with 1024 min diff? You'd need to run it for a day, but at least you'd know if they were completely full of shit or just a little full of shit.
Okay, BTCGuild with 1024 min diff works with somewhat over 1 TH/s. However, this means I can't put it on other pools - unless I want my heater to run for 16 GH/s...
If I might what aside is it using? I know KnC hardware and Bitfury 400G rigs have issues with low difficulty. The reason for this is that their submit queue at low difficulty get full very quickly and overflows causing a loss of shares.
I don't see why setting it to 1024 wouldn't be acceptable. That's the BTCGuild recommended diff
March 27, 2014, 07:19:33 AM
Hey eleuthria, any idea how this can be the case?
Poster claims that a 1thps ASIC he was sold only works at BTC Guild with min diff at 1024, otherwise it will only hash at 12 to 16 Ghps. I found this unlikely to say the least, but the OP sounds sincere:
Yup, and they claim that I only can use the machine with BTCGuild with the setting 1024/1THs as minimal diff. So this would be a limitation I can't accept.
Did you try BTCGuild with 1024 min diff? You'd need to run it for a day, but at least you'd know if they were completely full of shit or just a little full of shit.
Okay, BTCGuild with 1024 min diff works with somewhat over 1 TH/s. However, this means I can't put it on other pools - unless I want my heater to run for 16 GH/s...
Poster claims that a 1thps ASIC he was sold only works at BTC Guild with min diff at 1024, otherwise it will only hash at 12 to 16 Ghps. I found this unlikely to say the least, but the OP sounds sincere:
have you tried contacting the company about your findings?
Yup, and they claim that I only can use the machine with BTCGuild with the setting 1024/1THs as minimal diff. So this would be a limitation I can't accept.
Did you try BTCGuild with 1024 min diff? You'd need to run it for a day, but at least you'd know if they were completely full of shit or just a little full of shit.
Okay, BTCGuild with 1024 min diff works with somewhat over 1 TH/s. However, this means I can't put it on other pools - unless I want my heater to run for 16 GH/s...
March 25, 2014, 12:27:39 PM
It looks like the last dozen shifts have run for 62.5 minutes avg. did you adjust the shift size again or have we been chewing on more difficult blocks?
Shift length was increased when the difficulty increased in order to keep the target blocks per shift above 10 (IE: On average 1 block is found during each shift).
March 25, 2014, 08:24:07 AM
It looks like the last dozen shifts have run for 62.5 minutes avg. did you adjust the shift size again or have we been chewing on more difficult blocks?
difficulty just increased.
M
March 25, 2014, 05:13:59 AM
It looks like the last dozen shifts have run for 62.5 minutes avg. did you adjust the shift size again or have we been chewing on more difficult blocks?
March 24, 2014, 03:58:18 PM
OOOOO, had me scared I messed up sum tin......
March 24, 2014, 03:37:09 PM
There's a brief database maintenance going on right now to clear out some of the old PPS junk that is thankfully no longer needed. Additionally making a small update to the PPLNS History table. Hopefully this will only take a few minutes.
Mining servers will continue to function fine, as will the API. I only brought down the front end in order to reduce the amount of queries attempting to hit the PPLNS History table while the table structure update runs. It's the largest table in the database, so it takes a while to push any kind of structure change.
UPDATE: Maintenance time complete, front end is back up.
Mining servers will continue to function fine, as will the API. I only brought down the front end in order to reduce the amount of queries attempting to hit the PPLNS History table while the table structure update runs. It's the largest table in the database, so it takes a while to push any kind of structure change.
UPDATE: Maintenance time complete, front end is back up.
March 24, 2014, 03:35:55 PM
I am getting an Error 500 trying to log into the BTC Guild Website.
March 24, 2014, 01:45:44 PM
Fixed two little errors that popped up:
1) Load balancer was dropping some packets due to a change in filtering rules that had a small chance at false positives. Edited the rules to hopefully remove the false positives.
2) An auto payout failed (#32518). It has been removed from your payout history if you were paid in that batch and it will be caught up with the next automatic payout. The error was due to an auto payout attempting to execute at the same time I was working on the hot wallet server, causing the sendmany request to timeout.
1) Load balancer was dropping some packets due to a change in filtering rules that had a small chance at false positives. Edited the rules to hopefully remove the false positives.
2) An auto payout failed (#32518). It has been removed from your payout history if you were paid in that batch and it will be caught up with the next automatic payout. The error was due to an auto payout attempting to execute at the same time I was working on the hot wallet server, causing the sendmany request to timeout.
March 24, 2014, 09:00:41 AM
Some pools like ghash and discus fish limit the size of the transaction they pull from the network have anything to do with it? Any rate I will be adding on some of Bens osm miners tomorrow night.
March 23, 2014, 05:02:30 AM
Is a withold-and-mutate block attack possible ?
Zombie attack 
March 22, 2014, 09:28:19 PM
Looks like the filtering server (used to validate good miners from likely botnet/DDoS attacks) is...getting filtered because OVH thought it was under attack (logs show no such attack). I've temporarily pointed the filtering server (stratum.btcguild.com) elsewhere until OVH removes it from the attack mitigation system. This shouldn't have had any effect on active miners, it would only have affected miners establishing new connections (either due to a restart, disconnect, or being a new miner).
EDIT: No, the pool does *not* use OVH for it's actual servers. It uses them as an external validation server so that if the pool is under attack it acts as a first line of defense before an attack might affect legitimate miners.
EDIT: No, the pool does *not* use OVH for it's actual servers. It uses them as an external validation server so that if the pool is under attack it acts as a first line of defense before an attack might affect legitimate miners.
Please update when I can reconnect.
Thanks!
You should be able to reconnect just fine. It was resolved about 30 minutes after that post (and as of that post it should've worked fine, just pointing you to EU instead of US for a little while).
March 22, 2014, 09:25:40 PM
Looks like the filtering server (used to validate good miners from likely botnet/DDoS attacks) is...getting filtered because OVH thought it was under attack (logs show no such attack). I've temporarily pointed the filtering server (stratum.btcguild.com) elsewhere until OVH removes it from the attack mitigation system. This shouldn't have had any effect on active miners, it would only have affected miners establishing new connections (either due to a restart, disconnect, or being a new miner).
EDIT: No, the pool does *not* use OVH for it's actual servers. It uses them as an external validation server so that if the pool is under attack it acts as a first line of defense before an attack might affect legitimate miners.
EDIT: No, the pool does *not* use OVH for it's actual servers. It uses them as an external validation server so that if the pool is under attack it acts as a first line of defense before an attack might affect legitimate miners.
Please update when I can reconnect.
Thanks!
Never mind, got connected. Just threw up a bunch of odd errors and took a while to get going.
March 22, 2014, 06:28:27 PM
Looks like the filtering server (used to validate good miners from likely botnet/DDoS attacks) is...getting filtered because OVH thought it was under attack (logs show no such attack). I've temporarily pointed the filtering server (stratum.btcguild.com) elsewhere until OVH removes it from the attack mitigation system. This shouldn't have had any effect on active miners, it would only have affected miners establishing new connections (either due to a restart, disconnect, or being a new miner).
EDIT: No, the pool does *not* use OVH for it's actual servers. It uses them as an external validation server so that if the pool is under attack it acts as a first line of defense before an attack might affect legitimate miners.
EDIT: No, the pool does *not* use OVH for it's actual servers. It uses them as an external validation server so that if the pool is under attack it acts as a first line of defense before an attack might affect legitimate miners.
March 22, 2014, 03:29:34 PM
...
More just want to maximize the amount of coins I can pull in with the first few months to ensure good ROI on these asic chips. Any input is greatly appreciated.
Thanks for your input thus far eleuthria.
More just want to maximize the amount of coins I can pull in with the first few months to ensure good ROI on these asic chips. Any input is greatly appreciated.
Thanks for your input thus far eleuthria.
Hi Syber.
Ditto that here. I'm waiting on KNC to send me my Neptune 3TH miner to get it going asap so I can make up the ROI asap before all hell breaks loose if I can get a positive ROI that is.
March 22, 2014, 10:22:01 AM
Could block winning shares be malleable, to make a block witholding attack viable.
A block withholding attack doesn't need a special proof of work, just the ability to report only the ones that wont solve blocks.
March 22, 2014, 10:21:27 AM
Could block winning shares be malleable, to make a block witholding attack viable.
If you are asking if a share can be stolen (withheld) by a miner for the purpose of "redeeming" on their own, then the answer is "no". That is not possible, each share is hashed such that the pool is the payout address.
The only reason a miner would withhold a block solution is to cause financial hardship on a pool. They gain no direct financial gain from this.
Jump to: