Just put my gtx 460 in to try it out. I already found a couple shares. Looks good.
Thanks.
Topic: [DEAD] DeepBit.net PPS+Prop,instant payouts, we pay for INVALID BLOCKS too - page 325. (Read 1601412 times)
February 26, 2011, 04:03:00 PM
February 26, 2011, 03:29:19 PM
Same problem with authorization problems, I'm just assuming that the pool is down for right now. "username" for miner is our email address, correct?
No, the pool isn't down. In case of troubles you can look at pool speed indicator in the upper left part of webpage.Same answer as to previous poster - try your old password.
Worker management page will be added in less than a hour, then you'll be able to set worker password and change reward scheme.
February 26, 2011, 03:26:26 PM
Thanks for creating this pool. I've been waiting for a new one to be created after bitpenny's pool closed and I joined after slush had new registrations suspended.
February 26, 2011, 03:18:21 PM
Same problem with authorization problems, I'm just assuming that the pool is down for right now. "username" for miner is our email address, correct?
February 26, 2011, 12:26:16 PM
Of course every share is checked by pool. Why do you think that it doesn't ?
Ah, BitLex nailed it. I mistook your original comment about not validating blocks to refer to shares - My mistake.
February 26, 2011, 12:24:18 PM
ok, i made a new account and it works
February 26, 2011, 12:16:02 PM
already tried "hallo", didnt work either.
Looks like i know what's wrong with your auth.When you change your password on the site, it changes only your account password, not the worker's one.
So if you created your account and then changed your pw, then you need to use your OLD password in miner.
It's temporary condition while i'm implementing workers management, but if you give me your account name, i can clone your password to worker's one. Or just create new account.
February 26, 2011, 12:14:18 PM
Confirmed I got my first payout with this pool. Finally...my mining amounted to something.
February 26, 2011, 12:11:52 PM
already tried "hallo", didnt work either.
February 26, 2011, 12:10:33 PM
tycho, you have any idea why i get auth errors?
the login and password work for the homepage... ???
I'll look into resolving this. Try changing your password to one containing only letters and numbers. the login and password work for the homepage... ???
February 26, 2011, 11:39:09 AM
tycho, you have any idea why i get auth errors?
the login and password work for the homepage...
the login and password work for the homepage...
February 26, 2011, 11:00:14 AM
Slush has shown the statistical charts proving that the score based reward system distributes just as equally as a shares based reward system.
...Over time. "Fair" has more than one meaning in this context.
For people running GPU miners with hundreds of mh/s, the expected payout over time converges with reality in just a few blocks. For those of us running under 10mh/s, the payout per block varies radically - I've had a few lucky blocks where I get a whole BitDime as my share, and I've had full days where I only managed to solve a share every fifth block and even then only pulled down on the order of 1E-4BTC per block.
So Slush's pool, while "fair", trades slow-miner convergence rate for discouraging a particular type of cheating. A purely proportional pool converges faster, but allows a style of participation that some people might consider "cheating" (though if you legitimately contribute work to the pool, I don't know that I'd throw too many stones just because someone found the best way to split their contributions across multiple pools to maximize payouts - You could just as well call the entire concept of "pools" cheating, because it deviates from the Satoshi-intended winner-take-all style of BTC generation).
That said, Tycho, how do you plan to avoid massive cheating without block verification? Accepting all shares as equal, no problem; but what stops contibutors from simply lying?
As I posted in Slush's thread, even a CPU Miner trends towards strong convergence on the order of after 1-2 weeks. Are you planning on only mining for 1-2 days?
February 26, 2011, 10:43:11 AM
Looks cool, I'm switching my tiny netbook over... I should be a larger portion of the overall share pool... still don't expect much, but we'll see how it goes.
Mostly I'm replying to keep track of the thread.
Mostly I'm replying to keep track of the thread.
February 26, 2011, 10:39:28 AM
"no block confirmation is needed" is meant for real blocks that the pool found in a day, not for all hashes/shares miners send.
February 26, 2011, 10:36:12 AM
what could contributors lie about?
the only way of "cheating" is the same you mentioned above, legitimately contribute work to the pool and "pool-hopping" as discussed in other threads.
the only way of "cheating" is the same you mentioned above, legitimately contribute work to the pool and "pool-hopping" as discussed in other threads.
About completing a share... Without verification, what stops someone from just making up answers? "Yup, found a hash. Yup, found a hash. Yup, found a hash".
I can appreciate that checking those from hundreds of clients puts a bit of a load on the server, but it seems just plain necessary to keep the scum out of the pool.
February 26, 2011, 10:35:13 AM
[Tycho]: I think your calculation of "Average speed in last 5 minutes" is wrong. It shows that I have 14.20 MH/s with my CPU (which I wish I had) whereas I have ~1.4 MH/s now.
your "Average speed in last 5 minutes" is calculated by the number of shares you submitted,in lucky times (were you find lots of diff1 hashes in a very short time) you might see much more speed than you actually do, in unlucky times, you see less speed.
overall it seems pretty accurate, an increased timeframe for calculation might improve accuracy a bit though.
May be i'll change it to 10 minutes, but it's initial purpose was to show the variation.
Which timezone is used for datetimes on the website, please?
GMT it seems, correct me if i'm wrong.Thanks for helping people :)
February 26, 2011, 10:32:22 AM
what could contributors lie about?
the only way of "cheating" is the same you mentioned above, legitimately contribute work to the pool and "pool-hopping" as discussed in other threads.
the only way of "cheating" is the same you mentioned above, legitimately contribute work to the pool and "pool-hopping" as discussed in other threads.
About completing a share... Without verification, what stops someone from just making up answers? "Yup, found a hash. Yup, found a hash. Yup, found a hash".
I can appreciate that checking those from hundreds of clients puts a bit of a load on the server, but it seems just plain necessary to keep the scum out of the pool.
February 26, 2011, 10:06:46 AM
Which timezone is used for datetimes on the website, please?
GMT it seems, correct me if i'm wrong. February 26, 2011, 09:56:53 AM
[Tycho]: I think your calculation of "Average speed in last 5 minutes" is wrong. It shows that I have 14.20 MH/s with my CPU (which I wish I had) whereas I have ~1.4 MH/s now.
your "Average speed in last 5 minutes" is calculated by the number of shares you submitted,in lucky times (were you find lots of diff1 hashes in a very short time) you might see much more speed than you actually do, in unlucky times, you see less speed.
overall it seems pretty accurate, an increased timeframe for calculation might improve accuracy a bit though.
Which timezone is used for datetimes on the website, please?
GMT it seems, correct me if i'm wrong.That said, Tycho, how do you plan to avoid massive cheating without block verification? Accepting all shares as equal, no problem; but what stops contibutors from simply lying?
what could contributors lie about?the only way of "cheating" is the same you mentioned above, legitimately contribute work to the pool and "pool-hopping" as discussed in other threads.
February 26, 2011, 09:52:26 AM
Slush has shown the statistical charts proving that the score based reward system distributes just as equally as a shares based reward system./quote]
...Over time. "Fair" has more than one meaning in this context.
For people running GPU miners with hundreds of mh/s, the expected payout over time converges with reality in just a few blocks. For those of us running under 10mh/s, the payout per block varies radically - I've had a few lucky blocks where I get a whole BitDime as my share, and I've had full days where I only managed to solve a share every fifth block and even then only pulled down on the order of 1E-4BTC per block.
So Slush's pool, while "fair", trades slow-miner convergence rate for discouraging a particular type of cheating. A purely proportional pool converges faster, but allows a style of participation that some people might consider "cheating" (though if you legitimately contribute work to the pool, I don't know that I'd throw too many stones just because someone found the best way to split their contributions across multiple pools to maximize payouts - You could just as well call the entire concept of "pools" cheating, because it deviates from the Satoshi-intended winner-take-all style of BTC generation).
That said, Tycho, how do you plan to avoid massive cheating without block verification? Accepting all shares as equal, no problem; but what stops contibutors from simply lying?
...Over time. "Fair" has more than one meaning in this context.
For people running GPU miners with hundreds of mh/s, the expected payout over time converges with reality in just a few blocks. For those of us running under 10mh/s, the payout per block varies radically - I've had a few lucky blocks where I get a whole BitDime as my share, and I've had full days where I only managed to solve a share every fifth block and even then only pulled down on the order of 1E-4BTC per block.
So Slush's pool, while "fair", trades slow-miner convergence rate for discouraging a particular type of cheating. A purely proportional pool converges faster, but allows a style of participation that some people might consider "cheating" (though if you legitimately contribute work to the pool, I don't know that I'd throw too many stones just because someone found the best way to split their contributions across multiple pools to maximize payouts - You could just as well call the entire concept of "pools" cheating, because it deviates from the Satoshi-intended winner-take-all style of BTC generation).
That said, Tycho, how do you plan to avoid massive cheating without block verification? Accepting all shares as equal, no problem; but what stops contibutors from simply lying?
Jump to: