The hashing speed drops, but cgminer shows there's no problem submitting shares, and cgminer don't switch to other pool.
Anyone noticed this?
Anyone noticed this?
Yes me, usually I mine at 700M/s but now I'm at 400M/s. No problem in the logs.
Topic: [OLD] Eligius: ASIC, no registration, no fee CPPSRB BTC + 105% PPS NMC, 877 # - page 157. (Read 458499 times)
January 18, 2012, 02:30:16 PM
Yes me, usually I mine at 700M/s but now I'm at 400M/s. No problem in the logs.
January 18, 2012, 01:55:08 PM
The hashing speed drops, but cgminer shows there's no problem submitting shares, and cgminer don't switch to other pool.
Anyone noticed this?
Anyone noticed this?
January 17, 2012, 11:36:38 PM
I'm more concerned about the current state of "buffer empty". You mentioned that it is acting as if "proportional" now and the per-share price varies. How is this affected by pool-hopping? Since the share price is varying would this make the pool a target now?
The share price isn't itself varying; the currency is. Since there aren't enough Bitcoins to go around, the pool issues its own fiat "currency" called "extra credit"; this has no value itself, but the pool tries to convert it to Bitcoins every block until it's gone.Specific to pool hopping, the whole premise of hopping is being able to get more than the fair PPS price for shares. This is never possible with SMPPS.
Also, I'd like to note that we're gaining and will probably have a buffer again pretty soon. However, the law of large numbers means that in the long run, the buffer should get closer and closer to zero.
January 17, 2012, 11:22:40 PM
I'm more concerned about the current state of "buffer empty". You mentioned that it is acting as if "proportional" now and the per-share price varies. How is this affected by pool-hopping? Since the share price is varying would this make the pool a target now?
January 17, 2012, 09:13:29 PM
While I can clean out old shares from the core database, the webserver still requires a full history of shares for active servers.
That sounds like a pretty bad design flaw. So I have to assume it's more a case of using a product to perform a task it was never designed to do or even using it in a manner never envisioned by the developer. January 17, 2012, 08:57:45 PM
While I can clean out old shares from the core database, the webserver still requires a full history of shares for active servers.
That sounds like a pretty bad design flaw. So I have to assume it's more a case of using a product to perform a task it was never designed to do or even using it in a manner never envisioned by the developer.
The buffer was exhausted. Due to timing, I ended up with 0.20 BTC leftover. I don't consider this amount worth the time trying to figure out how to split it up.
Enjoy your $1.32
January 17, 2012, 08:48:11 PM
Ok, thanks for the answers.
January 17, 2012, 06:04:57 PM
Why did you need to switch over?
While I can clean out old shares from the core database, the webserver still requires a full history of shares for active servers. This copy of the shares had grown to be 400 GB, and disk space doesn't grow forever. I figured it prudent to start over while we had the opportunity.What is the buffer? The SMPPS buffer?
Yes, that buffer.Now that we've switched to Ra, did that happen because people moved to 'generous' and was the buffer donated?
The buffer was exhausted. Due to timing, I ended up with 0.20 BTC leftover. I don't consider this amount worth the time trying to figure out how to split it up. January 17, 2012, 05:58:22 PM
Eligius-Ra, the new server, is online the same host and everything, ready for the moment we get to a switchover point. However, Eligius-Su has been finding short blocks, taking it further away. If miners wish to donate the rest of the buffer to me, they can switch their miners to use generous.mining.eligius.st to begin using Eligius-Ra early. When/if Eligius-Su's hashrate drops off to under 100 GH or so due to people moving to Eligius-Ra, I will take that as a vote to donate the buffer, and shutdown Eligius-Su, replacing it with Eligius-Ra. Either way, don't forget to update your Artefact2 stats links to use /7/ instead of /5/ 
Can you explain a bit more what this is about? Why did you need to switch over? What is the buffer? The SMPPS buffer? Now that we've switched to Ra, did that happen because people moved to 'generous' and was the buffer donated?
January 16, 2012, 07:48:57 AM
So why is the reward per share bouncing all over the place now? Am I mistaken in thinking it's supposed to be a fixed rate per share?
http://eligius.st/wiki/index.php/Shared_Maximum_PPSLong story short, if the pool doesn't have enough money for PPS, it's basically proportional, but will try to make up the difference in the future short blocks. Long-run, it will average out to normal PPS prices.
January 16, 2012, 05:18:20 AM
So why is the reward per share bouncing all over the place now? Am I mistaken in thinking it's supposed to be a fixed rate per share?
January 13, 2012, 07:21:57 PM
Eligius-Ra, the new server, is online the same host and everything, ready for the moment we get to a switchover point. However, Eligius-Su has been finding short blocks, taking it further away. If miners wish to donate the rest of the buffer to me, they can switch their miners to use generous.mining.eligius.st to begin using Eligius-Ra early. When/if Eligius-Su's hashrate drops off to under 100 GH or so due to people moving to Eligius-Ra, I will take that as a vote to donate the buffer, and shutdown Eligius-Su, replacing it with Eligius-Ra. Either way, don't forget to update your Artefact2 stats links to use /7/ instead of /5/
January 09, 2012, 10:30:29 AM
That means they had no value to begin with. If BTC dropped to $0 every time I sold some, I wouldn't bother with BTC to begin with.
Sure it would drop to zero if you obtained all the coins from the profits of having a Massive percentage of the mining power, and dumped them all at once.Yeah, but whats the difference between him doing it all at once or all of us doing it all at once? Do we even know how much he got? If it was less than 10BTC, hell, that just paid for the server for a month or two.
January 09, 2012, 10:28:50 AM
That means they had no value to begin with. If BTC dropped to $0 every time I sold some, I wouldn't bother with BTC to begin with.
Sure it would drop to zero if you obtained all the coins from the profits of having a Massive percentage of the mining power, and dumped them all at once. January 09, 2012, 10:26:58 AM
But not to the extent that is being claimed. The way merged mining works is when I give 400 mhash to the pool, that 400 mhash goes to Bitcoin AND namecoin AND whatever else without diminishing the original 400 that went to Bitcoin. He can merge mine 9000 other alt chains, and I still get my 400 mhash worth of Bitcoin shares.
But are you getting your 400mhash worth of altcoins? No, he is keeping them. Lame.
That implies said altcoins actually have value, of course. He could setup signed message shit for the rest of the alt chains just like he did for nmc, but the other chains simply have no value.
That means they had no value to begin with. If BTC dropped to $0 every time I sold some, I wouldn't bother with BTC to begin with.
January 09, 2012, 10:23:43 AM
But not to the extent that is being claimed. The way merged mining works is when I give 400 mhash to the pool, that 400 mhash goes to Bitcoin AND namecoin AND whatever else without diminishing the original 400 that went to Bitcoin. He can merge mine 9000 other alt chains, and I still get my 400 mhash worth of Bitcoin shares.
But are you getting your 400mhash worth of altcoins? No, he is keeping them. Lame.
That implies said altcoins actually have value, of course. He could setup signed message shit for the rest of the alt chains just like he did for nmc, but the other chains simply have no value.
January 09, 2012, 10:22:27 AM
But not to the extent that is being claimed. The way merged mining works is when I give 400 mhash to the pool, that 400 mhash goes to Bitcoin AND namecoin AND whatever else without diminishing the original 400 that went to Bitcoin. He can merge mine 9000 other alt chains, and I still get my 400 mhash worth of Bitcoin shares.
But are you getting your 400mhash worth of altcoins? No, he is keeping them. Lame.
That implies said altcoins actually have value, of course. He could setup signed message shit for the rest of the alt chains just like he did for nmc, but the other chains simply have no value.
January 09, 2012, 10:20:47 AM
But not to the extent that is being claimed. The way merged mining works is when I give 400 mhash to the pool, that 400 mhash goes to Bitcoin AND namecoin AND whatever else without diminishing the original 400 that went to Bitcoin. He can merge mine 9000 other alt chains, and I still get my 400 mhash worth of Bitcoin shares.
But are you getting your 400mhash worth of altcoins? No, he is keeping them. Lame.
January 09, 2012, 10:19:30 AM
...he genuinely does seem to believe that whatever other things he does with his pool are irrelevant to miners so long as they get their Bitcoins.
I can't quite agree with him, that's a blatant breach of agreement.
Miners mine at Eligius with the assumption that their hashing power is being exclusively used for Bitcoin (and since merged mining was introduced, Namecoin) mining.
Any other usage of the hashing power is simply unauthorized.
Please think the situation over once more Luke.
Incorrect. There was and still is no agreement to provide Coiledcoins. There is no agreement promising not to use the completed POWs for other calculations besides those promised to the users.
Technically there doesn't have to be. Every additional merged mined pool does not decrease the hash power used on Bitcoin. Luke merely should add the ability for users to acquire the output of the merged mining and it legitimizes it.
Complete disagreement with you here.
Luke should made it clear to his users what he's using _their_ computing power for,
which has absolutely not been the case, and his double-using his pool's computing
power via merged mining is the only explanation possible (unless you believe that
the redneck lowlife actually has a couple of TH/s of computing power hidden in a
shed in his backyard).
If I rent my car to someone, I'd like to know if he used it to attack a bank, independent
of the fact that he's paying the rental fee: I'd be rather unlikely to rent the car a second
time.
He is abusing his users and betraying their trust, pure and simple.
But not to the extent that is being claimed. The way merged mining works is when I give 400 mhash to the pool, that 400 mhash goes to Bitcoin AND namecoin AND whatever else without diminishing the original 400 that went to Bitcoin. He can merge mine 9000 other alt chains, and I still get my 400 mhash worth of Bitcoin shares.
January 09, 2012, 09:56:15 AM
Excellent example..
If you loan your car to someone, you can't ask them how they used it after they used it and then get upset to find out they used it for something you don't approve of. If you loan out your car and don't want it used for something, you need to stipulate BEFORE hand.
ahh, good ol morality questions..
See, the flaw in that logic is that when loaning to someone you 'trust' you would not feel the need to ever have to ask such questions...
Trust but VERIFY. That is why contracts exist. Mining is an economic activity. If miners feel that there should be limits on how their hashes (not hashing power) is used then it should be contracted. Barring a contract you should have no expectation of what the hashes are used for.
The only thing the pool has "contracted" (in an informal sense) if how much the rewards are, how much fees are, and how the rewards are split.
Jump to: