[DEAD] DeepBit.net PPS+Prop,instant payouts, we pay for INVALID BLOCKS too - page 108.

os2sam

legendary

Activity: 3583

Merit: 1094

Think for yourself

Quote from: btc_artist on October 27, 2011, 12:41:15 PM

Quote from: os2sam on October 27, 2011, 12:36:52 PM

How long have you been mining?
Sam

20 or 25 minutes. Does it take a while to update the stats?

Deepbit updates the stats very responsively for me. I see my miner find a share and then update my browser and it will have shown up already on the stats page. But it can take a few minutes sometimes. It sounds like you are mining, I would let it go for a couple of hours.

Edit: I meant account page not stats https://deepbit.net/account

Also if you are CPU mining I would use the Ufasoft miner. I was getting 1.42MHsh/s on a 3.2GHz Pentium 4 which is pretty good for that older CPU.
Sam

os2sam

legendary

Activity: 3583

Merit: 1094

Think for yourself

Quote from: btc_artist on October 27, 2011, 12:33:05 PM

says 457 khash/s (it varies)

Really?!? Kilo Hash/second? Are you CPU mining with a 80486 or something? If you are really that slow then it may not be turning in enough work in a timely manner to make it look like your are mining.

I have a low end GPU which gets about 34.5 MHash/s and it will often go for 3 or 4 minutes without turning in a share. So if you are really mining that slow then it could take 20 or so minutes to find a valid share. Watch the stats page on deepbit for how many shares your miner gets done.
Sam

btc_artist

full member

Activity: 154

Merit: 102

Bitcoin!

Quote from: os2sam on October 27, 2011, 12:36:52 PM

Quote from: btc_artist on October 27, 2011, 12:33:05 PM

I seem to have Deepbit working with guiminer / poclbm. When I start mining, it works and says 457 khash/s (it varies). The console also occasionaly says " pit.deepbit.net:8332 27/10/2011 11:58:38, long poll: new block 00000730313xxxxx".

So it appears to be mining, but "accepted" and "stale" remain at 0, and in my Deepbit account it says "Workers not connected"

How long have you been mining?
Sam

20 or 25 minutes. Does it take a while to update the stats?

os2sam

legendary

Activity: 3583

Merit: 1094

Think for yourself

Quote from: btc_artist on October 27, 2011, 12:33:05 PM

I seem to have Deepbit working with guiminer / poclbm. When I start mining, it works and says 457 khash/s (it varies). The console also occasionaly says " pit.deepbit.net:8332 27/10/2011 11:58:38, long poll: new block 00000730313xxxxx".

So it appears to be mining, but "accepted" and "stale" remain at 0, and in my Deepbit account it says "Workers not connected"

How long have you been mining?
Sam

btc_artist

full member

Activity: 154

Merit: 102

Bitcoin!

I seem to have Deepbit working with guiminer / poclbm. When I start mining, it works and says 457 khash/s (it varies). The console also occasionaly says " pit.deepbit.net:8332 27/10/2011 11:58:38, long poll: new block 00000730313xxxxx".

So it appears to be mining, but "accepted" and "stale" remain at 0, and in my Deepbit account it says "Workers not connected"

DeathAndTaxes

donator

Activity: 1218

Merit: 1079

Gerald Davis

Quote from: Hawkix on October 25, 2011, 03:09:24 PM

What kind of solution to 51% problem do you think of? It may not be possible to solve it at all.

Consolidating the power into single block issuer/signer (which a pool owner is) is bad thing. Its not Tycho fault, though. Personally, I would not feel comfortable in a situation where I own a "rocket missile launch suitcase".

The proper solution is to find out a way how to allow to pool for less variance while leaving the block to sign to individual miners while not allowing the miners to cheat on pool. It has been discussed many times.

It certainly is possible at least in theory. Take a concept like p2pool. Now modify it so it uses conventional pool reward BUT each miner generates their own block header and submits shares to pool.

The block contains pools address in coinbase so there is no method for miners to cheat (except block withholding).
The pool isn't hashing the headers so the pool has no "influence" over miners.
The reward still goes to the pool and thus can bee split by any mechanism the pool wants PPS, Prop, SMPPS, etc thus variance is reduced.

Now how much demand is there for a such a pool and is it worth it for a pool operator to spend the resources building? Who knows. On a technical level though there is no reason for the "51% pool control problem to exist".

melted349

sr. member

Activity: 462

Merit: 250

Not to interrupt any current conversation, but I was wondering if Deepbit was considering or planning on mining namecoins anytime soon. A lot of pools are starting to do merged mining, I would love to see Deepbit do merged mining as I hate using other pools just to get a little NMC too.

DeathAndTaxes

donator

Activity: 1218

Merit: 1079

Gerald Davis

Quote from: Fiyasko on October 24, 2011, 09:30:54 AM

I think it would do the CoinNetwork some GOOD, if deepbit At Some Point temporarily controlled >51% of the network hash rate.
WHY?!?!
Because Nothings gonna fucking happen. Why would he fuck himself outta his (est i really dont have a good idea) 3,500/mo paycheck that the pools getting him just to grab some coins!

It would ease peoples minds about the whole "OMG IF IT PASSES 51% WERE ALL FUCKED"
But at the same time, If the fake blocks are made, Well shit. DOWN HILL GOES BITCOINS for a lonnnnnng lonnnnngggg time.

Personally i think we should only have One pool, One nice big 90%nethash pool, Run by all the leaders, Democracy style, Where NO INDIVIDUAL has any power, But as a group can make changes.

You do understand the risk isn't just from malicious action by pool operator but also by someone who subverts the pool. Granted Bitcoin economy is likely to small to support such cloak and dagger action but if someone could "undo" all VISA transactions in last 24 hours by kidnapping a pool operator (or his/her family) you don't think it would occur to anyone to try?

Hopefully in time technology like p2pool will make this issue obsolete. You can't subvert p2pool because the miners are smart. All conventional pool miners are "dumb" and as a result the pool is the weak point. If the pool starts sending false headers to miners guess what the miners will do. Happily hash away attempting to solve a block full of massive double spends.

Hawkix

hero member

Activity: 531

Merit: 505

Quote from: dishwara on October 25, 2011, 05:41:04 AM

Until bitcoin developers release solution for 51% attack blaming pools is foolishness.
Already enough times blamed pool owners that pool owners may attack, but its the bitcoin developers who have to give solution, not pool owners.

Instead of every time asking pool owners, whether they will attack or not, or asking what will happen if they attack, better ask bitcoin developers to release solution.
It seems after bitcoin price fell down bitcoin developers showing LESS INTEREST in bitcoin development.

What kind of solution to 51% problem do you think of? It may not be possible to solve it at all.

Consolidating the power into single block issuer/signer (which a pool owner is) is bad thing. Its not Tycho fault, though. Personally, I would not feel comfortable in a situation where I own a "rocket missile launch suitcase".

The proper solution is to find out a way how to allow to pool for less variance while leaving the block to sign to individual miners while not allowing the miners to cheat on pool. It has been discussed many times.

dishwara

legendary

Activity: 1855

Merit: 1016

Quote from: [Tycho] on October 24, 2011, 02:30:26 PM

Quote from: johnj on October 24, 2011, 01:51:42 PM

I may be late to the party, quick question: Would it be possible for you to throttle your connections to where if you start to exceed 50% of the total network, it refuses any other workers from connecting?

1) There is no way to know for sure if it's more than 50% or not.
2) Exceeding 50% doesn't hurts my pool or my users, so there is no need for such countermeasures, especially when wast majority of bitcoin community do not care about that.

Until bitcoin developers release solution for 51% attack blaming pools is foolishness.
Already enough times blamed pool owners that pool owners may attack, but its the bitcoin developers who have to give solution, not pool owners.

Instead of every time asking pool owners, whether they will attack or not, or asking what will happen if they attack, better ask bitcoin developers to release solution.
It seems after bitcoin price fell down bitcoin developers showing LESS INTEREST in bitcoin development.

Fiyasko

legendary

Activity: 1428

Merit: 1001

Okey Dokey Lokey

Quote from: [Tycho] on October 24, 2011, 12:31:24 PM

Quote from: Fiyasko on October 24, 2011, 09:30:54 AM

I think it would do the CoinNetwork some GOOD, if deepbit At Some Point temporarily controlled >51% of the network hash rate.

Some people think that this already happened more than once.
I believe that nothing bad will happen in this case and if someone else will gain >50% and do "bad things", the network will heal itself.

The community should either a) create a good monitoring service, b) develop something to prevent any bad things from happening when some entity is over 50%, c) stop complaining
because if a pool can be over 50%, then other miners can do this too, and then you won't be able to stop it.

So lets shutup and hope to hell One dude doesnt manage this eh boys?

johnj

full member

Activity: 154

Merit: 100

Quote from: [Tycho] on October 24, 2011, 02:30:26 PM

Quote from: johnj on October 24, 2011, 01:51:42 PM

I may be late to the party, quick question: Would it be possible for you to throttle your connections to where if you start to exceed 50% of the total network, it refuses any other workers from connecting?

1) There is no way to know for sure if it's more than 50% or not.
2) Exceeding 50% doesn't hurts my pool or my users, so there is no need for such countermeasures, especially when wast majority of bitcoin community do not care about that.

1) Ahh I see

2) While I disagree, I may be in that minority that does care.

In either case, thanks for the quick reply!

[Tycho]

hero member

Activity: 742

Merit: 500

Quote from: johnj on October 24, 2011, 01:51:42 PM

I may be late to the party, quick question: Would it be possible for you to throttle your connections to where if you start to exceed 50% of the total network, it refuses any other workers from connecting?

1) There is no way to know for sure if it's more than 50% or not.
2) Exceeding 50% doesn't hurts my pool or my users, so there is no need for such countermeasures, especially when wast majority of bitcoin community do not care about that.

sadpandatech

hero member

Activity: 504

Merit: 500

Quote from: Eveofwar on October 24, 2011, 02:15:47 PM

Quote from: johnj on October 24, 2011, 01:51:42 PM

Quote from: [Tycho] on October 24, 2011, 12:31:24 PM

Quote from: Fiyasko on October 24, 2011, 09:30:54 AM

I think it would do the CoinNetwork some GOOD, if deepbit At Some Point temporarily controlled >51% of the network hash rate.

Some people think that this already happened more than once.
I believe that nothing bad will happen in this case and if someone else will gain >50% and do "bad things", the network will heal itself.

The community should either a) create a good monitoring service, b) develop something to prevent any bad things from happening when some entity is over 50%, c) stop complaining
because if a pool can be over 50%, then other miners can do this too, and then you won't be able to stop it.

I may be late to the party, quick question: Would it be possible for you to throttle your connections to where if you start to exceed 50% of the total network, it refuses any other workers from connecting?

You're late.

No, the "total network hashrate" is just an estimate, based off of the blocks generated per time.

  Your statement is true but does not answer the question. Yes, theoretically he could refuse new connections based on some aribitrary set of rules. But the better question is, why should he? He is one guy, running a pool verses thousands of people connecting. If the majority cared so much about the 50% thing they would not connect when it reached such a point.

  Tycho, even if the pool did have over 50% someone would still have to hack and control all the bitcoin daemons right? Beyond that arn't you running multiple daemons on seperate server instances anyhows?(assuming) Since I have not looked into any of the pool software to see how it handles connecting to daemons or if it would support connecting to a daemon that was not 'localhost'.

  Cheers

Eveofwar

sr. member

Activity: 406

Merit: 250

Quote from: johnj on October 24, 2011, 01:51:42 PM

Quote from: [Tycho] on October 24, 2011, 12:31:24 PM

Quote from: Fiyasko on October 24, 2011, 09:30:54 AM

I think it would do the CoinNetwork some GOOD, if deepbit At Some Point temporarily controlled >51% of the network hash rate.

Some people think that this already happened more than once.
I believe that nothing bad will happen in this case and if someone else will gain >50% and do "bad things", the network will heal itself.

The community should either a) create a good monitoring service, b) develop something to prevent any bad things from happening when some entity is over 50%, c) stop complaining
because if a pool can be over 50%, then other miners can do this too, and then you won't be able to stop it.

I may be late to the party, quick question: Would it be possible for you to throttle your connections to where if you start to exceed 50% of the total network, it refuses any other workers from connecting?

You're late.

No, the "total network hashrate" is just an estimate, based off of the blocks generated per time.

johnj

full member

Activity: 154

Merit: 100

Quote from: [Tycho] on October 24, 2011, 12:31:24 PM

Quote from: Fiyasko on October 24, 2011, 09:30:54 AM

I think it would do the CoinNetwork some GOOD, if deepbit At Some Point temporarily controlled >51% of the network hash rate.

Some people think that this already happened more than once.
I believe that nothing bad will happen in this case and if someone else will gain >50% and do "bad things", the network will heal itself.

The community should either a) create a good monitoring service, b) develop something to prevent any bad things from happening when some entity is over 50%, c) stop complaining
because if a pool can be over 50%, then other miners can do this too, and then you won't be able to stop it.

I may be late to the party, quick question: Would it be possible for you to throttle your connections to where if you start to exceed 50% of the total network, it refuses any other workers from connecting?

[Tycho]

hero member

Activity: 742

Merit: 500

Quote from: Fiyasko on October 24, 2011, 09:30:54 AM

I think it would do the CoinNetwork some GOOD, if deepbit At Some Point temporarily controlled >51% of the network hash rate.

Some people think that this already happened more than once.
I believe that nothing bad will happen in this case and if someone else will gain >50% and do "bad things", the network will heal itself.

The community should either a) create a good monitoring service, b) develop something to prevent any bad things from happening when some entity is over 50%, c) stop complaining
because if a pool can be over 50%, then other miners can do this too, and then you won't be able to stop it.

Fiyasko

legendary

Activity: 1428

Merit: 1001

Okey Dokey Lokey

Quote from: os2sam on October 24, 2011, 09:38:55 AM

Quote from: Fiyasko on October 24, 2011, 09:30:54 AM

Personally i think we should only have One pool, One nice big 90%nethash pool, Run by all the leaders, Democracy style, Where NO INDIVIDUAL has any power, But as a group can make changes.

Hmm, wasn't that the main premise of the Star Wars story?
Sam

You sir. Get One Hundred And Fifty Points.
But in starwars, The "rebels" didnt win now did they?
Quite confident that theirs (in starwars) like a 20% Jedi Order (the "rebellion") and 80% Imperial ("the bad guys") (assuming that the Point in Time Within the starswars series, Im speaking asif were on book #7)

Soo. That in metaphor To ME, Translates into

75% in one pool 25% off solo mining

os2sam

legendary

Activity: 3583

Merit: 1094

Think for yourself

Quote from: Fiyasko on October 24, 2011, 09:30:54 AM

Personally i think we should only have One pool, One nice big 90%nethash pool, Run by all the leaders, Democracy style, Where NO INDIVIDUAL has any power, But as a group can make changes.

Hmm, wasn't that the main premise of the Star Wars story?
Sam

Fiyasko

legendary

Activity: 1428

Merit: 1001

Okey Dokey Lokey

Quote from: DiabloD3 on October 23, 2011, 10:35:55 PM

Quote from: [Tycho] on October 23, 2011, 09:33:28 PM

Quote from: DiabloD3 on October 23, 2011, 04:55:47 PM

I request everyone...

Oh, so that's where bitcoin's central authority is

You are a bit wrong comparing apples and oranges. You don't know network's total hashrate, you can only know network's resulting "blocks per unit of time" speed.
It may be a 12 TH/s with a very bad luck, or the opposite. So if you are comparing network with some pools, you should compare same parameters, like that "blocks per unit of time" (which is almost useless because it's based on past luck).

What I'm trying to say is that deepbit's hashrate didn't changed dramatically in last days and I really doubt that only those who aren't mining in deepbit are leaving the network (which can explain such increase of pool's part if it was real), so this deviation is probably just caused by luck.

No, Deepbit's hasn't changed dramatically, the network's has. Besides, I'm just asking temporarily, I don't particularly like any pool having a crack at a 51% attack.

I think it would do the CoinNetwork some GOOD, if deepbit At Some Point temporarily controlled >51% of the network hash rate.
WHY?!?!
Because Nothings gonna fucking happen. Why would he fuck himself outta his (est i really dont have a good idea) 3,500/mo paycheck that the pools getting him just to grab some coins!

It would ease peoples minds about the whole "OMG IF IT PASSES 51% WERE ALL FUCKED"
But at the same time, If the fake blocks are made, Well shit. DOWN HILL GOES BITCOINS for a lonnnnnng lonnnnngggg time.

Personally i think we should only have One pool, One nice big 90%nethash pool, Run by all the leaders, Democracy style, Where NO INDIVIDUAL has any power, But as a group can make changes.

Topic: [DEAD] DeepBit.net PPS+Prop,instant payouts, we pay for INVALID BLOCKS too - page 108. (Read 1601330 times)