Bible Pay

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - jaapgvk

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 ... 12
Update on the next version - 1094c:

So I did a lot of expirimentation with the threading today, and have come to the conlcusion Jaap had a point, the wallet was using too much power even with the new settings in distributedcomputing mode.

So what I have done is in Distributed Computing mode the miner behaves slightly differently (in the next release).  It respects the CPU's thread priority meaning that it can run slower, and we now allow you to tweak the setting.

There will be a new setting called minersleep (the default is 0 for Prod and 250ms for Testnet).  If you set a numeric value you override it.
Now Im seeing about 10% proc usage by default, and when I raise the value, it does allow the machine to sleep more (down to more like 4% or so).

1094c is now out there for linux if anyone wants to expiriment.  This is a pretty minor change, so if you want to wait for the next release its no big deal.

Im compiling Windows now so we will have this to play with later tonight.

PS I did get the unbanked report working for the sanctuary validation system in unit test mode, but its not going to be ready til sometime tomorrow.

Great! I must say beforehand: Both AMD rigs I was telling you about were using the windows wallet. Looking back, could it be possible that the windows wallet (pre 1094c) wasn't using the 250ms setting yet?

Because just now I tested the new wallet on my linux rig, and out of the box (250ms) the cpu usage is already much lower than before. When I set it to 0ms it's back up to it's old values again.

I now set it to 500ms, and I'm able to get BOINC running along nicely while also mining (it's a véry slow AMD E-450 laptop) . I think it's great to have a 'one-go-solution' to tweaking the settings so that BOINC and one-thread-mining can go hand in hand, because I can imagine that a lot of people will be using only one computer to generate BBP.

Yeah, I think this is potentially resolved now but let me go over the feature now.
I think we can have the Sanctuary pull the unbanked report in the morning before it processes the RAC from its user file.

Please click on the unbanked report in the pool - its under Reports | Rosetta Unbanked report.

This thing pulls the Non-Arm RAC vs the ARM Rac for CPIDs who have ARM Rac > 0.

So what I think we can do is filter this report in the mornings , while its processing its User file, to find CPIDs who have LESS than 15 NonArm Rac, and Arm RAC > 0 into a little list of Ünbanked CPIDs.  So in this case, Rastiks is the Only one who would qualify as of today.

Rastiks Rosetta ID is connected to a certain CPID, that CPIDs RAC would be pulled in with no questions - everyone else would not be included. 

Now Im going to work on the Sanctuary side to see if I can make that rule.  Still looking into the Miner threadings.

I just checked the pool for the 'unbanked report', and I think this is a great way to 'shortlist' the data for the sanctuaries in light of this feature.

Rob, I must say, in the beginning I was not sure about PODC, but the more I'm able to wrap my head around it, the more excited I get! Absolutely marvelous work thus far.

I've also been testing with my daily phone. It only uses one core, and only when it's connected to the charger at night. But still I'm getting pretty nice results (a RAC of around 75).

You can lower the number of tasks by limiting the amount of RAM used in the settings. Or you can just reduce the CPU time setting.

Oh, thx! I didn't understand the 'CPU time' option. It indeed does what I was looking for. I'm also going to look for the RAM limiting option.

We dont need a pool, because the boinc infrastructure is already pooling the RAC for us. 

Jaap, regarding one thread using too much power, I already made it sleep 200ms between iterations, it could be that you are running this on a low power machine, I suppose I can put in more granular control over this to see if this can be improved.  Right now on my windows dev machine, Im running rosetta 6 tasks : taking 50% of the cpu, the plain vanilla biblepay on 1 thread is taking 13% of the cpu, and its hashing at 270hps in testnet.  So of course we have to consider the fact that we *do* want it hashing on 1 thread so we have a baseline level of average security.  But nevertheless, Ill add a setting to see if we can control the sleep better, and, have it actually attempt to sleep more often - there is also something that I need to look at for the miner process as far as CPU priority - it might be set to high and not normal, meaning that on certain machines its not listening to your wishes, ill check into all that today.

Well, it's an AMD Phenom II machine. 4 cores and 4 threads. What I've done for now, is allocate 3 cores to BOINC and 1 core to the wallet (which is mining with 1 thread now (+-250hps), with low priority).
Now both can run at the same time.

It's interesting to read that your Rosetta tasks take up 50% of your cpu power. With my PC (if I don't allocate cores), it just goes up to 100%, and I don't know how to lower that (is there a way to configure the amount of tasks that you do?).

I fired up Rosetta on a second PC (also AMD 4-core, 4-thread), and there Rosetta also takes up 100% of the CPU power.

And have same question like jaapgvk.
One (minor) thing: the 'setgenerate 1' option makes the wallet hash at the old speed again (not 1%) on both the linux and windows wallets. I think it was also the case with the previous version.
So, to be clear: with the current wallet, when I do 'setgenerate 1 true', on my quadcore 4 thread system, I'm using about 25% of my CPU.
I am on linux and last two versions are back on 1 full thread ( was 1% of all processor).

Thank and excuse my english. I beleve that you understand my question :).

Yeah, I'm using the latest wallet and BOINC on my windows pc now. But I can't mine and use BOINC at the same time, because the wallet will use too much of the cpu-cycles and BOINC stops processing.

I don't know how to tweak the settings so that I can use both.

That also brings me to an other question about poor people all over the world using their phone to mine BBP (which I think will be a great application for Biblepay). How would one go about this? Would one person have a wallet running somewhere 24/7, and other people (with phones and tablets) would be running BOINC, and the person with the wallet would divide the collected BBP? Just thinking out loud.

Because I always liked the idea of 'one-click-mining', especially in combination with mobile phones and tablets, because even though - for example - a lot of people in Afrika are poor, a lót of them have a phone (although I don't know how many have smartphones).

He said We were all here for Greed, and alluded that this project is about money and were not really Christians.  Your right, I should have replied with more Love.

If you look at the history, I have tried that, and God actually says to forgive your brother not 7 times but 77 times.
I do forgive him....

I understand your frustration Rob. Slovakia is quite the character, and I think he must have used up most of the '77 times' by now  ;D

Production Proposals / Re: New Charity Organization - BLOOM
« on: February 22, 2018, 03:08:57 am »
Congratulations on getting the budget  :D

It's great to see that the growth of our community goes hand in hand with the good we can do.

Maybe in a little while (maybe if/when CameroonOne can also gets some budget and after the introduction of PODC), we can start thinking about PR. It's great to hear that you are also willing to help out with the site.  I think one of our future steps should be to present ourselves in a singular way across our media.

Alright, windows 1093 is out there, now lets try to increase our Sanc count to ensure all sancs sync to 999.

Just fired up my sactuary again. Synced nicely up to 999 and is PRE-ENABLED now. Also installed the latest windows wallet.

One (minor) thing: the 'setgenerate 1' option makes the wallet hash at the old speed again (not 1%) on both the linux and windows wallets. I think it was also the case with the previous version.
So, to be clear: with the current wallet, when I do 'setgenerate 1 true', on my quadcore 4 thread system, I'm using about 25% of my CPU.

(And T-Mike: thanks for the tBBP!)

Could someone send me 500.000 tBBP so I can set up a new masternode?


10 - Mandatory Upgrade for Testnet

- Added PODC bounds checks to prevent invalid superblocks

Note:  Everyone will have to reassociate their CPIDs in Biblepay, and re-create hot sancs.

Windows is still compiling.

Team enforcement is enabled in testnet.

Please delete blocks, chainstate, and mn*.dat files before resyncing.

Nice work! Upgrading now...

I'll just have to see where I was as block 2000 and get my sanctuary up and running again.

I get the same error.

I also got the same error yesterday, and only on my masternode, not on my normal miner. But I messed something up with my masternode, now I re-installed it and everything seems fine again :)

Also, the windows wallet now also seems to mine with 1% of it's original HPS if you use one tread, so that's nice.

And the things you said about PODC are still crunching in my head Rob. Might take a little while to take it all in.

Thanks for compiling that list Togo. It doesn't make the decision easier for me, but it does give me more perspective :)

I'm glad you like the team requirement.

I'm not sure if you are referring to me, for not being patient enough to deal with some naysayers about this project or if you are referring to the people who left the project because they couldnt stand my response.

I'll tell you specifically what Im not going to tolerate in either of the forums (I could care less what people post outside of the BTCTalk/   Any single individual who makes inaccurate and strong statements - such as "this is this way" and "this will do this" but is actually of an individual opinion (of one who may not even own a single sanctuary), where part or all of the content is questionable or not true.  And in that case No, they do NOT have the best interests in mind for this project.  Burito has a hidden agenda, and others who have left made the mistake of not being careful enough to raise concerns the correct polite way and admit they have no clue what they are talking about.  I have patience for those people, but I dont have patience for people who are ultimately destroying us and the old ladies investments because they singlehandedly feel they are the cross section of BBP.  Anyone can enter a proposal for 2500 BBP and create a soap box for change and let the sancs vote where the money is.

Thank you for you reply Rob! I don't want to pollute this thread, so I'll try and keep it short. I often try to understand why people react in certain ways. I try to understand why people like Slovakia and nerfherder react in a certain way, so I try and talk to them (if they want). And yes, sometimes I'm also trying to figure out why you react in a certain way. In the case of Burito, I took his post and held your 'FUD rules' alongside it, and I couldn't figure out what was wrong with his post. But now you posted this reply for clarification, I understand: he made a strong statement which was in fact just an opinion (or something he couldn't say for a fact). Now I understand this, I also understand why you deleted his post.

That being said: I'm gonna update my testnet nodes now  :)

I'm happy to read about the latest implementation which ads the 'biblepay team' requirement. I already read Wests post, but I didn't find the space in myself to react till now.

I like the saying: "If you build it, they will come." And if we have a well thought out 'product' (I don't know better word at this time), I think people who's ideals align with those of Biblepay and happen to stumble upon us, will probably stick around.

Another thing I just wanted to say: I'm still positive about this project. What makes me uncomfortable from time to time though, is the - in my opinion - well meaning people leaving this project in discontent. There are a lot of variables at play here, so I want to stay as neutral as possible (people are people, and they act like people, as they have done for millennia). But I would personally would feel more comfortable in this community if there would be a bit more room for everyone's views, even if they don't align with the route this project is taking. But that's just my view ;)

With the addition of Swongels latest arguments, and the questions on bitcointalk from investors, maybe it's best to go about this implementation slow and steady, since it's such a big step in development. I really hope more people will give their opinion on this implementation.

I'm not a programmer, nor am I an expert on blockchain technology, and I'm sorry that I can't give more input on that side, but in the end I do want this community to flourish.

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 ... 12