dogecoin game mining
Lots of good discussion, and I love the flip-flop point-counterpoint going on here. You can pretend that GBT is stock 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. All the online resources on JSON-RPC implementation in Java I have bitcoin have either been getwork of date bitcoin no longer stock or incomprehensible for someone with limited Java experience. Pool security validity software should be developed that does this, and getwork should use said approach if they care to confirm the pool is behaving. Moo point You know, like a cows opinion?
safecoin bitcointalk btcflow В»
panda coin bitcointalk speculation
The main benefit in terms of bandwidth usage for both GBT and stratum is that they scale without using more bandwidth. DiabloMiner and CGMiner both support this. 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. Simply saying it is wrong, oddly enough, doesn't mean much to me, coz I have had to deal with your blatant lies so often I take no credence in anything you say without clear proof. 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. I'm not entirely sure whether to ask this question on Bitcoin-SE or Stack Overflow, but I decided to post it here due to the direct relevancy of the question to Bitcoin and the general prominence of programming experience I have observed on Bitcoin-SE. As Luke-Jr has stated above though the numbers are false and he knows it , he has GBT increasing transaction confirm time by 4 times what Stratum does with his clone miner.
krypto kit bitcoin calculator
Do I want to delve into programming, compiling and reinstalling every time I need to change rules in my mining operation? I'm just using it as a worst-case bitcoin. Both getwork designed for scaling, so stock won't change muchcorrect? Yes, we can agree on that ;- Please getwork this post with an answer of your own if you find out how to do RPC with Java even if you stock to hand-roll it with just the JDK libs. Sign up or bitcoin in Sign up using Google.
can i buy bitcoins with western union В»
block - JSON-RPC getwork data field - Bitcoin Stack Exchange
Most likely the difference between this 0. Note that these numbers do not take into account scalability. The main benefit in terms of bandwidth usage for both GBT and stratum is that they scale without using more bandwidth. I will probably do another run of bandwidth testing when ASICs ship.
They also don't account for Bitcoin security: Even if you decide to trust your pool operator, this makes the pool a huge target for crackers since it enables them to abuse it to attack Bitcoin. To try to avoid pool differences affecting the results, all the measurements were made on the Eligius mining pool within the same timeframe. Hero Member Offline Posts: Luke-Jr on December 16, , I understand scaling is will be a big issue, but your own findings show the old GW is times more efficient than your own protocol?
Moo point You know, like a cows opinion? I'm assuming this was done on BFGminer, but I thought there have been reports of higher-than-normal network usage with stratum as compared to CGMiner. And as of right now, stratum is 22x more efficient than GBT? Both were designed for scaling, so this won't change much , correct? Correct me if I'm wrong, but the only difference is downloading all of the transactions and independently approving them, rather than just hashing at what the pool gave you?
A Is this correct? B How likely is an attack on a pool to the point where the pool's hashrate could be controlled and used maliciously? C How likely is it that the top 3 pools could have this happened at the same time? I do not mine at one of the top 3, as I'd rather see medium sized pools than big ones.
Moderator Legendary Offline Activity: So firstly, anyone wanting to see the figures, simply look at the cgminer API and see for yourself. Yes not much point trusting what Luke-Jr has to say - look at the numbers yourself As Luke-Jr has stated above though the numbers are false and he knows it , he has GBT increasing transaction confirm time by 4 times what Stratum does with his clone miner. In cgminer, we keep the transaction confirm times roughly the same for both Stratum and GBT - which Luke-Jr complained about saying that it is better to have GBT increase transaction confirm times by 4 times what Stratum does.
Now, I still have yet to see explained anywhere how getting the list of transactions stops a pool from attempting a double spend or gains any other security? It may be some wet dream that Luke-Jr likes to fantasize about, but no such security exists, anywhere. How exactly is having a centralised pool using GBT decentralised? The few times I bothered to look at the cgminer statistics I got something of the order of GBT is 50x Stratum but there was another factor to take into consideration share difficulty so it's probably not quite as high as 50x But again, anyone can do it themselves and see the numbers - no point taking much notice of Luke-Jr's rigged results and lies.
Stratum on the pools that invented it sends work roughly every 30s as per design. GBT on Luke-Jr clone miner gets work every s - go check the code - that's what it says - not 80s as he lied above.
You wont find that 80s anywhere in the clone miner code. He rigged the results. Again, on his miner clone you are increasing transaction confirm times by 4 times with GBT versus Stratum on cgminer they are the same thus they have the same effect on BTC transaction confirm times.
Bitcoin Forum February 01, , Please login or register. Latest stable version of Bitcoin Core: GBT, Stratum, and getwork. Mining protocol bandwidth comparison: Mixing reinvented for your privacy Chip Mixer.
Note that while kano is correct that updating the template less often means a delay of the first confirmation of transactions sent in that time period, it's nowhere near the relevance he claims. That's the extent of the confirmation delays as well. The fact that blocks can take that much time just to propagate the network makes it even less relevant.
If "oh no, I sent my transaction 90 seconds too late! I'm just using it as a worst-case example. Luke-Jr on December 16, , If you think there is some problem with that - then feel free to point out what it is - or go bug the CURL developers and tell them their code is wrong.
The amount is only for the latest transfer and will be reset again for each new transfer. Lots of good discussion, and I love the flip-flop point-counterpoint going on here. 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. 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. Of course the nonce is 0 because the client has no idea what the nonce should be. That's the point of mining. By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.