Thank you matt
now it works ok.
I was just suprised, never got an error before.
Topic: Re: How (and why) to use the Relay Network - page 3. (Read 695 times)
Yea, eu went down for a bit...should be good now.
looks like that the public.eu.relay.mattcorallo.com Node is down, as I got this message:[2016-03-10 12:39:25.858+00] 00000000000000000149a9d6ccc79d07f460bbe888bc220e9ed643b3ba0226ec sent, size 998129 with 882427 bytes on the wire
[2016-03-10 12:39:25.868+00] public.02.relay.mattcorallo.com Disconnect: failed to read message header (Broken pipe)
I manualy changed to US-WEST and that works.
Strange, as it went down after the blockfound message.
Anybody else with problems on eu?
Without relaying this block, bitcoind tells me the relay client is misbehaving when it tries to relay the next block.
nevermind it was a miscofiguration on my end.
Does "on the wire" mean the amount left remaining to get for the new block?
Is this functional but just not actively maintained? Don't want to put effort in to getting up and running if it won't connect anywhere.
It's working fine.
Is this functional but just not actively maintained? Don't want to put effort in to getting up and running if it won't connect anywhere.
Is it correct that list of pools here has gone un-updated in a long time it seems incomplete... I thought that most major pools and large miners were connecting to the relay network in some capacity...?
The conflict of interest issue can probably be handled. I think Jeff Garzik is trying to set up a company of bitcoin-developers-for-hire. We could set up a multisig wallet which various miners pay into voluntarily, and where the keys are distributed among the miners and/or other caretaker entities, and use that to pay for a professional, politically neutral maintainer.
Balancing between "conflict of interest in how it is run" and "interested in making sure it continues to run" can be tricky to get right, but I think the worst thing we can do is to abandon it before we've got the replacement ready.
I think most of the potential conflicts of interest would be present in the choices of where to place relay nodes. Am I right? Do you think it would be okay to have a miner or pool (or two) contribute the code maintenance to keep it running?
Balancing between "conflict of interest in how it is run" and "interested in making sure it continues to run" can be tricky to get right, but I think the worst thing we can do is to abandon it before we've got the replacement ready.
I think most of the potential conflicts of interest would be present in the choices of where to place relay nodes. Am I right? Do you think it would be okay to have a miner or pool (or two) contribute the code maintenance to keep it running?
Matt, I'm asking around to see if we can find one or two people to take over maintenance of the code and maintenance of the infrastructure.
To be fair, having a miner or pool do it would be a significant conflict of interest. That, and I'd largely prefer to have multiple people run different networks, so I'd kinda prefer to not hand over the network as it is, and just shut it down at some point.
Matt, I'm asking around to see if we can find one or two people to take over maintenance of the code and maintenance of the infrastructure.
Is the code for the severs available anywhere? I have only managed to find the clients.
It's just a different option in the makefile. You can see it here. Does this mean you're only stopping development of the code and maintenance of it or are you shutting down the servers too?
Development, first. There's about three months of changes that I think would be much faster that seem to work, but I'm not gonna switch the servers to using them since that would mean a ton of work debugging when they inevitably fall over in production. Eventually I'll probably shut down the servers, since it would be nice if other people ran similar networks anyway.Is the code for the severs available anywhere? I have only managed to find the clients.
Does this mean you're only stopping development of the code and maintenance of it or are you shutting down the servers too?
Development, first. There's about three months of changes that I think would be much faster that seem to work, but I'm not gonna switch the servers to using them since that would mean a ton of work debugging when they inevitably fall over in production. Eventually I'll probably shut down the servers, since it would be nice if other people ran similar networks anyway. 
Note: The Relay Network is no longer being actively maintained. If you wish to take over its operation and keep it running, please contact me.
This is a real shame since it was an obvious boon to minimising orphans. Does this mean you're only stopping development of the code and maintenance of it or are you shutting down the servers too?
Note: The Relay Network is no longer being actively maintained. If you wish to take over its operation and keep it running, please contact me.
I fired up a linux vm and running it in that now. It seems to work fine 
Hi, i am using the windows exe version. Is it normal for it to be using 40+ % CPU usage on an i5 3570K at 4Ghz? Just wanted to check to see if it was perhaps something wrong.
That is definitely wrong. It shouldn't average more than 1-5%, maybe with spikes up higher, but 40% is crazy unless you built it in test mode.I am seeing a consistent 25% cpu usage with windows on my i7-3820 @ 3.6GHz. Also using the client binary from the client folder in the repository.
Hi thanks for getting back to me, i am using the .exe in the master branch in the client folder. Is this not recommended?
Hi, i am using the windows exe version. Is it normal for it to be using 40+ % CPU usage on an i5 3570K at 4Ghz? Just wanted to check to see if it was perhaps something wrong.
That is definitely wrong. It shouldn't average more than 1-5%, maybe with spikes up higher, but 40% is crazy unless you built it in test mode. Jump to: