compra venta de bitcoins en argentina
Upon receiving this answer, miner should drop current calculation in progress, discard its result, and start working on bitcoin data and make a jobs request to a long polling URI. The cgminer API reports those numbers so it's easy curl see what they are The pool checks that the block header of the submitted work He rigged getwork results. Anonymous 4 6.
coinmarketcap maidsafe bitcoin price
Unable to execute getwork logic in java. Those Chunks are sent to the miners. Sister projects Essays Source. I chose 2 KB because this is roughly the amount of bandwidth used to mine 1 share using the original no-rollntime getwork protocol, and therefore this metric gives approximately 1. The stratum overlay protocol was extended to support pooled mining as a replacement for obsolete getwork protocol in late Getwork - can the miner increment timestamp?
how to get bitcoins into paypal В»
bitcoin png logo new york
Curl uses a proprietary protocol jobs get p2pool-like benefits. Sign up using Email and Password. Getwork fun, try to stay on topic here Anything can happen between two requests to bitcoind. This implementation integrates getblocktemplate used for pool mining instead bitcoin getwork as it is getting the standard with BIP
unocoin bitcointalk flowers В»
Curl bitcoin getwork jobs
The test data does not demonstrate the bandwidth data difference intrinsic between stratum getwork and gbt, but the application of said technologies within luke-Jr's software within the constraints of his particular test. The intrinsic bandwidth requirements of each protocol can easily be calculated, and then I implore users who care about bandwidth to test it for themselves - with cgminer. Second what Kano is talking about when he says "transaction times", I believe he is referring to how often a block template for GBT, or a set of merkle branches for stratum, based on current queued transactions is being received by the mining software.
If said template is sent once every 30 seconds on average by stratum, and received every seconds on average by GBT, there are potentially 90 seconds more worth of transactions that never make it into the next block solve, in the way it's implemented in luke's software. In cgminer I receive the template every 30 seconds with GBT to match that of stratum.
Only when the protocols are "equal" in terms of their likelihood of perpetuating transactions since this is what bitcoin is about should the bandwidth be compared. Pretending the bandwidth doesn't matter when one implementation can use over MB per hour is just naive. Third, there has still not been any valid explanation for how sending the miner all the transactions in their entirety actually improves the security of the network. Unless someone is running mining software and a local bitcoin node and is comparing the values from each, and then decides what transactions overlap, and what are valid transactions the pool has chosen to filter out, and then determined that the data is enough of the transaction list to be a true set of transactions, having the transactions does not serve any purpose.
Pool security validity software should be developed that does this, and people should use said approach if they care to confirm the pool is behaving.
It simply grabs them and then if it doesn't get them claims the pool is doing something untoward if it doesn't match the template.
The transactions could be anything. It also completely ignores the fact that the vast majority of miners run their mining software on machines that aren't actually running bitcoin nodes with which to check the transactions. While the main bitcoin devs might wish this to be the case, it's not remotely the reality and is not going to become it. We have a very suspicious community that will continually check the pools' actions. Yes history has shown pools may do something untoward - though it's usually about scamming miners with get rich quick schemes and not about harming the bitcoin network.
Solo mining is pointless for any sole entity any more. Unless bitcoin devs decide that something resembling p2pool makes its way into bitcoind, allowing miners of any size to mine, then pooled mining is here to stay. If or until that is the case, pooled mining is a proven solution that the miners have embraced. P2pool is great in principle but the reality is it is far from a simple plug in the values and mine scenario that miners use pools for.
Pretending mining should be dissociated from bitcoin development just makes it even more the job of the pools to find solutions to mining problems as they arise. GBT failed to provide a solution early enough and efficient enough in the aspects that miners care about and stratum came around that was much more miner focussed. You can pretend that GBT is somehow superior but there isn't a single aspect that makes it attractive to miners or pool ops, and people are voting with their feet as predicted.
Luke runs a service, though its not much of a money making service as his pool doesn't take a cut of the subsidy. Bitcoin is a distributed and decentralized system. You can make any distributed system non-distributed by just having some centralized parties run it. I happen to think that Bitcoin is worth having, but only worth having if it offers something that more efficient options can't, without decentralization bitcoin is just a scheme for digicoin pump and dumpers to make a buck.
People using GBT or verified stratum for mining against a centralized pool aren't even running any software I wrote, and they're certainly not paying me for it. I'm quite happy that people provide services for Bitcoin, even though services have centralization risk. But in the community we should demand that things be run in a way which minimally undermines Bitcoin and we should reject the race to the bottom that would eventually leave us with something no better than a really byzantine implementation of paypal.
With your code commits you reinforce centralization by marginalizing anyone who can't or doesn't want to use GCC and has implementation ideas differing from the ones you espouse. The marginalization of Windows users and developers like Casascius is very glaring example: But there is another avenue to such surreptitious centralization: I am not attempting to really create anything that will see the light of day; simply fiddling for fiddling's sake.
I had thought to post this to the Bitcoin specific exchange, however I have the feeling my mistake is much more elementary than that. Get some work and print it to the page so I can inspect it and hopefully learn something. So, I had assumed obviously incorrectly that simply making a POST to the end-point would yield at least some response. I can ping the server stratum.
Yet, via cUrl I don't get anything at all I believe that the problem lies in my understanding of Json-RPC, as I have only previously worked with simple get API end-points in the past, but I have done my personal best to read up and find a simple explanation and have hit a road-block. I just don't have the tools to understand By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.
When there were no pools, all of the first mining clients interfaced directly with Bitcoin. Getting work from a pool is the same as getting work from Bitcoin. Do pool servers communicate with bitcoind, and in what capacity? At this point a single ASIC device can completely swamp a bitcoind with requests as they're able to exhaust the 32bit nonce in a fraction of a second. Anonymous 4 6. How do I keep my miners from doing duplicate work? My understanding of the mining mechanism is this: The miner connects to a Bitcoin client or pool and submits a getwork request The client or pool responds with a chunk of data containing the block data, including the randomized bits, and the nonce the bit which the miner changes The miner increments the nonce multiple times until it either finds a The miner you are using does not support the stratum protocol.
Protocols for use between mining clients and mining pool servers. Only the block header and first transaction generation transaction are included.
Stratum uses the least bandwidth of all the protocols. Stratum also makes it very fast and efficient to switch to new work data when there is a block change, which can help keep Haribo 5, 7 31 The number of transactions in the header is always zero, per the specification. The -gen option has no effect on the getwork RPC call. I'm not sure what you think is wrong with that information, but if it's just the zero transaction count, that's always that way.
If it's the fact that you only get the headers you need to hash, it's always that way. Getwork - can the miner increment timestamp? Yes, the miner can increment the time stamp by a limited amount, but only if the pool advertises X-Roll-NTime as a feature.
DiabloMiner and CGMiner both support this. See the official spec for more information. Diablo-D3 2 8. How does a miner perform hashing? This question is a complicated one, but I'll see what I can do to answer it. Also, I won't try tackling the issue of endianness, as in the case of Bitcoin it gives me a headache First, lets see what we have in a block header given to us by getwork. Lets take the Genesis Block for an example. How does the rate of getwork requests correlate with the hashrate of a miner?
The standard getwork protocol forces the miner to send a new request every second. If the miner can solve Could many large forks cause a DoS attack on the miner? If you mean a miner as in a computer that only does mining, it should be generally as resistant to DOS attacks as any casual computer on the network - it doesn't open its ports.
If you are worried about a standard client being flooded with many blocks and having to store it - the developers did think of that and they put in the checkpoint system. Bitcoin pool and getwork data validity.