locked this go here.
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.12393772
Topic: I am floating an idea here a sidehack usb stick solo pool. (Read 4434 times)
I didnt know you could set worker name and track each and everyone, on ck solo.
You figured out a way to not have to do it manually?
And it sound overly optimistic to get 30 of the 50 unique users to join, unless you contact them directly and let them know of this.
You figured out a way to not have to do it manually?
And it sound overly optimistic to get 30 of the 50 unique users to join, unless you contact them directly and let them know of this.
well who cares if they are too stupid (to be more pc mathematically challenged)
to not take advantage of 5th in hash power each day that I donate.
the chance of winning part of a block is far greater due to the 5th in hash power I will donate.
I will rent 0.011 btc a day on nicehash in 5th size for 30 days
So you can point a sidehack stick at this and have a huge chance to roi the stick.
Or you can take a stick and point it else where.
30 days of 0.011 = 0.33btc I can afford that.
Even with the donated hash most likely we won't hit a block in those 30 days but no better chance then this.
I didnt know you could set worker name and track each and everyone, on ck solo.
You figured out a way to not have to do it manually?
And it sound overly optimistic to get 30 of the 50 unique users to join, unless you contact them directly and let them know of this.
You figured out a way to not have to do it manually?
And it sound overly optimistic to get 30 of the 50 unique users to join, unless you contact them directly and let them know of this.
Couldn't you just run a proxy (BFG Miner) on your server or PC where you issue credentials (user / password) for each user? The proxy will point at CK pool with whichever address you designate and you can see the users that are hashing on the proxy?
don't need to do it.
sidehack says we have about 40 or 50 buyers of sticks.
so lets say 30 get in with 1 stick say 9gb a stick it is only 270gb
chances are you never win.
so if all are like under this:
http://solo.ckpool.org/users/1JdC6Xg3ajT3rge3FgPNSYYFpmf53Vbtje
http://solo.ckpool.org/worker/1JdC6Xg3ajT3rge3FgPNSYYFpmf53Vbtje.philipma1957stick
http://solo.ckpool.org/worker/1JdC6Xg3ajT3rge3FgPNSYYFpmf53Vbtjephilipma1957donatedhash
http://solo.ckpool.org/worker/1JdC6Xg3ajT3rge3FgPNSYYFpmf53Vbtje.forumnamestick
http://solo.ckpool.org/worker/1JdC6Xg3ajT3rge3FgPNSYYFpmf53Vbtje.forumnamedonatedhash
http://solo.ckpool.org/worker/1JdC6Xg3ajT3rge3FgPNSYYFpmf53Vbtje.forumname2stick
http://solo.ckpool.org/worker/1JdC6Xg3ajT3rge3FgPNSYYFpmf53Vbtje.forumname2stick
we all know whom everyone is
and the stats of each stick.
donations don't get you a bigger share but if you donate hash and it hits you keep block fees
the questions to kano are how many workers can go under 1 user?
would you rather it as a proxy?
And to help sidehack sell off sticks I will commit to donating hashpower via nicehash rentals. 5th for 5 hours or so each day.
If you run "ckpool -p" it's a proxy.
Couldn't you just run a proxy (BFG Miner) on your server or PC where you issue credentials (user / password) for each user? The proxy will point at CK pool with whichever address you designate and you can see the users that are hashing on the proxy?
so then here we go:
the user is here:
http://solo.ckpool.org/users/1JdC6Xg3ajT3rge3FgPNSYYFpmf53Vbtje
{"hashrate1m": "4.55T", "hashrate5m": "4.8T", "hashrate1hr": "982G", "hashrate1d": "69.4G", "hashrate7d": "16.4G", "lastupdate": 1441984198, "workers": 3, "bestshare": 570888.49073493551}
one worker is my rental
http://solo.ckpool.org/workers/1JdC6Xg3ajT3rge3FgPNSYYFpmf53Vbtje.philipma1957rental
{"hashrate1m": "5.14T", "hashrate5m": "4.84T", "hashrate1hr": "1.08T", "hashrate1d": "49.9G", "lastupdate": 1441984318, "bestshare": 434605.26039145078}
second worker is a pair of sticks
http://solo.ckpool.org/workers/1JdC6Xg3ajT3rge3FgPNSYYFpmf53Vbtje
{"hashrate1m": "38.7G", "hashrate5m": "31.2G", "hashrate1hr": "27.8G", "hashrate1d": "25.9G", "lastupdate": 1441984378, "bestshare": 570888.49073493551}
this is pretty easy to do I just need an address to give out.
if you sign up for this stats are kept daily Should work. I have to post 1 time a day to keep track.
the user is here:
http://solo.ckpool.org/users/1JdC6Xg3ajT3rge3FgPNSYYFpmf53Vbtje
{"hashrate1m": "4.55T", "hashrate5m": "4.8T", "hashrate1hr": "982G", "hashrate1d": "69.4G", "hashrate7d": "16.4G", "lastupdate": 1441984198, "workers": 3, "bestshare": 570888.49073493551}
one worker is my rental
http://solo.ckpool.org/workers/1JdC6Xg3ajT3rge3FgPNSYYFpmf53Vbtje.philipma1957rental
{"hashrate1m": "5.14T", "hashrate5m": "4.84T", "hashrate1hr": "1.08T", "hashrate1d": "49.9G", "lastupdate": 1441984318, "bestshare": 434605.26039145078}
second worker is a pair of sticks
http://solo.ckpool.org/workers/1JdC6Xg3ajT3rge3FgPNSYYFpmf53Vbtje
{"hashrate1m": "38.7G", "hashrate5m": "31.2G", "hashrate1hr": "27.8G", "hashrate1d": "25.9G", "lastupdate": 1441984378, "bestshare": 570888.49073493551}
this is pretty easy to do I just need an address to give out.
if you sign up for this stats are kept daily Should work. I have to post 1 time a day to keep track.
Yes, pretty much, though for workers the URL is /workers/ rather than /users/.
You'd use an address to which you (as the organizer) or multiple people (... I haven't tried solo.ckpool with a multisig, but I suppose it ought to work) hold the private key. That address could be made public (if you want everybody to be able to look at the stats), or you can try keeping it secret (but not sure why).
For the worker names you could use just 'address.sidehack' if you don't care if people could easily guess it, or you can use 'address.sidehackxxx' to make it more difficult to guess.
Note that knowing the worker name doesn't really mean much other than somebody using that workername and throwing extra hashrate at it, and being able to view that worker's stats.
Compared to multiple addresses, this means you only have to have one private key to keep track of and there will also be a single stats page that covers the overall stats (so the participants / the general public can look at the total hash rate, number of workers, etc.).
So for your idea, this would still work just fine - the single address gets the block reward (minus fees), and then you pay out to the individual workers from that address just as you would otherwise with the multiple addresses. The block reward can just be divided by the number of participants.
You'd use an address to which you (as the organizer) or multiple people (... I haven't tried solo.ckpool with a multisig, but I suppose it ought to work) hold the private key. That address could be made public (if you want everybody to be able to look at the stats), or you can try keeping it secret (but not sure why).
For the worker names you could use just 'address.sidehack' if you don't care if people could easily guess it, or you can use 'address.sidehackxxx' to make it more difficult to guess.
Note that knowing the worker name doesn't really mean much other than somebody using that workername and throwing extra hashrate at it, and being able to view that worker's stats.
Compared to multiple addresses, this means you only have to have one private key to keep track of and there will also be a single stats page that covers the overall stats (so the participants / the general public can look at the total hash rate, number of workers, etc.).
So for your idea, this would still work just fine - the single address gets the block reward (minus fees), and then you pay out to the individual workers from that address just as you would otherwise with the multiple addresses. The block reward can just be divided by the number of participants.
I am going to try to set up your idea today.
I will use 2 sticks and I will rent 5th from nicehash.
I will demo it here so we can see how it looks.
Yes, pretty much, though for workers the URL is /workers/ rather than /users/.
You'd use an address to which you (as the organizer) or multiple people (... I haven't tried solo.ckpool with a multisig, but I suppose it ought to work) hold the private key. That address could be made public (if you want everybody to be able to look at the stats), or you can try keeping it secret (but not sure why).
For the worker names you could use just 'address.sidehack' if you don't care if people could easily guess it, or you can use 'address.sidehackxxx' to make it more difficult to guess.
Note that knowing the worker name doesn't really mean much other than somebody using that workername and throwing extra hashrate at it, and being able to view that worker's stats.
Compared to multiple addresses, this means you only have to have one private key to keep track of and there will also be a single stats page that covers the overall stats (so the participants / the general public can look at the total hash rate, number of workers, etc.).
So for your idea, this would still work just fine - the single address gets the block reward (minus fees), and then you pay out to the individual workers from that address just as you would otherwise with the multiple addresses. The block reward can just be divided by the number of participants.
You'd use an address to which you (as the organizer) or multiple people (... I haven't tried solo.ckpool with a multisig, but I suppose it ought to work) hold the private key. That address could be made public (if you want everybody to be able to look at the stats), or you can try keeping it secret (but not sure why).
For the worker names you could use just 'address.sidehack' if you don't care if people could easily guess it, or you can use 'address.sidehackxxx' to make it more difficult to guess.
Note that knowing the worker name doesn't really mean much other than somebody using that workername and throwing extra hashrate at it, and being able to view that worker's stats.
Compared to multiple addresses, this means you only have to have one private key to keep track of and there will also be a single stats page that covers the overall stats (so the participants / the general public can look at the total hash rate, number of workers, etc.).
So for your idea, this would still work just fine - the single address gets the block reward (minus fees), and then you pay out to the individual workers from that address just as you would otherwise with the multiple addresses. The block reward can just be divided by the number of participants.
Maybe I missed a particular issue, but my BTC0.02: if you're using solo.ckpool, then why not use the worker facility?
e.g. -u address.workername -p x
Where 'address' remains the same, while the workername can be anything you want if you wanted to anonymize it.
For overall stats (essentially public), people would grab http://solo.ckpool.org/users/address
For per-worker stats, people would grab http://solo.ckpool.org/workers/address.workername
( worker names are not public, so only those with the worker name could check it (short of brute-forcing on that URL) )
For anybody who's not 'in' but still ends up using 'address(.whatever)' - the more the merrier, but they wouldn't gain anything from doing so.
e.g. -u address.workername -p x
Where 'address' remains the same, while the workername can be anything you want if you wanted to anonymize it.
For overall stats (essentially public), people would grab http://solo.ckpool.org/users/address
For per-worker stats, people would grab http://solo.ckpool.org/workers/address.workername
( worker names are not public, so only those with the worker name could check it (short of brute-forcing on that URL) )
For anybody who's not 'in' but still ends up using 'address(.whatever)' - the more the merrier, but they wouldn't gain anything from doing so.
not quite sure how your idea works.
but are you saying
use a secure address like this one
http://solo.ckpool.org/users/114J9nTVYHq5ZXA5hKorTLpyF6pxZgL6pf
then
http://solo.ckpool.org/users/114J9nTVYHq5ZXA5hKorTLpyF6pxZgL6pf.philipma1957xxx
http://solo.ckpool.org/users/114J9nTVYHq5ZXA5hKorTLpyF6pxZgL6pf.sidehackxxx
http://solo.ckpool.org/users/114J9nTVYHq5ZXA5hKorTLpyF6pxZgL6pf.TheRealStevexxx
prizes would be block - ck's fee = 24.75 + fees
if your worker hits the block you keep the block fees
anytime you want to put in extra hash cool but you only get 1 share no matter what.
Maybe I missed a particular issue, but my BTC0.02: if you're using solo.ckpool, then why not use the worker facility?
e.g. -u address.workername -p x
Where 'address' remains the same, while the workername can be anything you want if you wanted to anonymize it.
For overall stats (essentially public), people would grab http://solo.ckpool.org/users/address
For per-worker stats, people would grab http://solo.ckpool.org/workers/address.workername
( worker names are not public, so only those with the worker name could check it (short of brute-forcing on that URL) )
For anybody who's not 'in' but still ends up using 'address(.whatever)' - the more the merrier, but they wouldn't gain anything from doing so.
e.g. -u address.workername -p x
Where 'address' remains the same, while the workername can be anything you want if you wanted to anonymize it.
For overall stats (essentially public), people would grab http://solo.ckpool.org/users/address
For per-worker stats, people would grab http://solo.ckpool.org/workers/address.workername
( worker names are not public, so only those with the worker name could check it (short of brute-forcing on that URL) )
For anybody who's not 'in' but still ends up using 'address(.whatever)' - the more the merrier, but they wouldn't gain anything from doing so.
not quite sure how your idea works.
but are you saying
use a secure address like this one
http://solo.ckpool.org/users/114J9nTVYHq5ZXA5hKorTLpyF6pxZgL6pf
then
http://solo.ckpool.org/users/114J9nTVYHq5ZXA5hKorTLpyF6pxZgL6pf.philipma1957xxx
http://solo.ckpool.org/users/114J9nTVYHq5ZXA5hKorTLpyF6pxZgL6pf.sidehackxxx
http://solo.ckpool.org/users/114J9nTVYHq5ZXA5hKorTLpyF6pxZgL6pf.TheRealStevexxx
Maybe I missed a particular issue, but my BTC0.02: if you're using solo.ckpool, then why not use the worker facility?
e.g. -u address.workername -p x
Where 'address' remains the same, while the workername can be anything you want if you wanted to anonymize it.
For overall stats (essentially public), people would grab http://solo.ckpool.org/users/address
For per-worker stats, people would grab http://solo.ckpool.org/workers/address.workername
( worker names are not public, so only those with the worker name could check it (short of brute-forcing on that URL) )
For anybody who's not 'in' but still ends up using 'address(.whatever)' - the more the merrier, but they wouldn't gain anything from doing so.
e.g. -u address.workername -p x
Where 'address' remains the same, while the workername can be anything you want if you wanted to anonymize it.
For overall stats (essentially public), people would grab http://solo.ckpool.org/users/address
For per-worker stats, people would grab http://solo.ckpool.org/workers/address.workername
( worker names are not public, so only those with the worker name could check it (short of brute-forcing on that URL) )
For anybody who's not 'in' but still ends up using 'address(.whatever)' - the more the merrier, but they wouldn't gain anything from doing so.
I run this on a mac this means I can clone the hdd so a failed hdd is not an issue.
So if you are in you get a btc address and you use it to mine at ck's pool
so stats are kept here is an empty miner and a 2 stick miner
So if you are in you get a btc address and you use it to mine at ck's pool
so stats are kept here is an empty miner and a 2 stick miner
As of right now I have 40 unique customers, with 18 customers shipped. At least seven resellers. It might be a while before you get to 100 people with sticks.
yeah may make it a smaller number.
I have figured a way to do this.
I run a node 24/7/365
I can generate btc addresses with it.
So
look at the account I mark each unique address with
sidehack
philipma1957
valkir so on so forth
As of right now I have 40 unique customers, with 18 customers shipped. At least seven resellers. It might be a while before you get to 100 people with sticks.
yeah logistically I am working on this but I suspect that I may not be able to get it to work.
Maybe a clone of Kano pool? You'd need to do some manual policing but all the data needed would be there.
all he would have to do is take out the ability to anonymously mine with a btc address.. and then handout the username and temp passwords manually to people.
kanos pool mines to its own address and he does payouts manually, so it wouldnt be hard for him to distribute the btc based on current users.
How could I point 1 stick out of 4, all on the same hub/machine, to this and the other 3 to another pool; is that possible?
The cgminer i use(for other usb miners) let me use --scan-serial/dev/ttyUSB# where # is the usb port number. So you can run ttyUSB0 on this pool to be. Then do --scan-serial/dev/ttyUSB1 --scan-serial/dev/ttyUSB2 --scan-serial/dev/ttyUSB3 on a second .bat file for the rest.
I'm not sure if there's only BFG miner for this stick, but if so you're only missing the syntax to do it on BFG miner, which most likely has this as well.
Well the original cgminer -ck implemented quotas 2 years ago ........
https://github.com/ckolivas/cgminer/blob/master/README#L733
So you'd do that with one cgminer
If it has USB implemented properly in the fork you can use --usb which I added about ... 2.5 to 3? years ago ... so you can run multiple cgminers and divide up the selection of devices.
https://github.com/ckolivas/cgminer/blob/master/README#L480
https://github.com/ckolivas/cgminer/blob/master/README#L733
So you'd do that with one cgminer
If it has USB implemented properly in the fork you can use --usb which I added about ... 2.5 to 3? years ago ... so you can run multiple cgminers and divide up the selection of devices.
https://github.com/ckolivas/cgminer/blob/master/README#L480
Great, just the info I was looking for. I'm new to mining (just started earlier this year), and these little tricks slip by me.
yeah logistically I am working on this but I suspect that I may not be able to get it to work.
Maybe a clone of Kano pool? You'd need to do some manual policing but all the data needed would be there.
yeah logistically I am working on this but I suspect that I may not be able to get it to work.
Im also in with 2 Sidehack Stick 
Jump to: