Bible Pay

Recent Posts

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
11
No wonder I was so confused!  I made the assumption the code was still working the way it was when I tested it last week.
So anyway when I added the podcupdate feature, it broke a couple of the return codes (or circumstances) inside the 'éxec  associate' feature.  So those are now fixed, and now people will see "ALREADY_IN_CHAIN" or "INVALID_CREDENTIALS" during the proper circumstances, in the next version.

Im checking in 1.0.9.4d now for linux if anyone wants to test that tonight.   Starting windows build over.

Lets check this out tomorrow when we have a chance to ensure reassociation works now.

Thanks for pointing out this bug!
1.0.9.4d for windows is now out there, if anyone was experiencing the Invalid Credentials bug or the miner-cpu-usage issue.

12
If Taskweight and UXTOweight are zero, should my magnitude be zero? I forgot to turn PoBH on.
Code: [Select]
"version": 1000904,
  "protocolversion": 70715,
  "walletversion": 61000,
  "wallet_fullversion": "1.0.9.4",
  "balance": 14328660.49245012,
  "privatesend_balance": 0.00000000,
  "retirement_balance": 0,
  "blocks": 6700,
  "timeoffset": 0,
  "connections": 12,
  "proxy": "",
  "difficulty": 0.2833186345714879,
  "testnet": true,
  "keypoololdest": 1518115544,
  "keypoolsize": 1001,
  "paytxfee": 0.00000000,
  "relayfee": 0.00010000,
  "errors": ""

"Command": "getboincinfo",
  "CPID": "4fd1bf6c6900d92b226e16c6a6935661",
  "Address": "yWQfYmBCAQrcn9RkjM9DJwWGfgjHdvpZwn",
  "CPIDS": "4fd1bf6c6900d92b226e16c6a6935661;",
  "CPID-Age (hours)": 422068,
  "NextSuperblockHeight": 6732,
  "NextSuperblockBudget": 1359680,
  "4fd1bf6c6900d92b226e16c6a6935661_RAC": 820.6,
  "4fd1bf6c6900d92b226e16c6a6935661_TEAM": 15044,
  "4fd1bf6c6900d92b226e16c6a6935661_TaskWeight": 0,
  "4fd1bf6c6900d92b226e16c6a6935661_UTXOWeight": 0,
  "Total_RAC": 820.6,
  "Total Payments (One Day)": 0,
  "Total Payments (One Week)": 546564,
  "Total Budget (One Day)": 13700330,
  "Total Budget (One Week)": 67535384,
  "Superblock Count (One Week)": 63,
  "Superblock Hit Count (One Week)": 49,
  "Superblock List": "6633,6534,6435,6336,6237,6138,6039,5940,5841,5742,5643,5544,5445,5346,5247,4653,4554,4257,4059,3861,3762,3267,3069,2970,2871,2772,2673,2574,2475,2376,2277,2178,2079,1980,1881,1782,1683,1584,1485,1386,1287,1188,1089,990,891,792,693,594,495",
  "Last Superblock Height": 6633,
  "Last Superblock Budget": 1359680,
  "Last Superblock Payment": 0,
  "Magnitude": 8.09300203283067

I know this is going to sound a little complicated.. and Im thinking of ways to simplify this but with advanced system comes some advanced business logic:

The getboinc info values are current as of right now, so this is what Your client feels your RAC and your UTXOWeight and your TaskWeight are right now.  However, it takes a while for those to propagate through into the Sancs memory.  Because the Sanc has to allow 6 confirms for utxo weight in order to trust it and memorize it (it memorizes each cpids utxo weight into memory with a global key, called CPID_UTXOWeight_ with a 24 hour deadline on the timestamp, where new stamps erase old stamps, so its a complicated thing to explain).  This way all sancs are memorizing the utxo weight and task weight at the same time - all their memories should be equal.  They actually vote on what *they* agree on.

Now the Magnitude in getboincinfo is actually your reverse engineered magnitude over 7 days period. 
Your Superblock magnitude however , seen in exec leaderboard, is actually your "realized" mag as of the last superblock.

So from a cosmetic point of view, Im working on homogenizing this to just give the average biblepay-qt user a few numbers to look at on the GUI.

For the techies though, this means:  Your getboinc info is current debug info, but what the sancs vote on (they are always voting on the Next contract) is slightly different, as their memories are lagging slightly.

To see what a sanc *will* be voting on, go to one of your sancs and type exec testvote.  That particular contract can be dissected to see what they see about the network.

13
Mining - General / Re: Purepool Biblepay Pool
« Last post by Lichtsucher on Today at 04:42:52 am »
As promised, I just released the source code of the Purepool Biblepay Pool:

https://github.com/Lichtsucher/purepool

Important: The software is designed to be easy to use for the miners and the pool admins, BUT the pool admin still needs to be an experienced linux admin.

The software is written in python and is based on the django framework. It was tested on Ubuntu 16.04. Everybody who wants to install and run it needs knowledge in the topics: Apache, Python, MySQL, Linux, RabbitMQ, Celery, Memcache (or at least must be able to dive into these topics).

There is currently no step-by-step installation guide, but the README will guide most linux admin in installing the pool.

Small note: The README only talks about the standard installation on multiple servers. You can install it on one server, I simply won't advice you to do that.

And yes, I'm aware that the pool might not be required with PoDC, but it might still be useful for a short time, or the base for some future development :)
14
Mining - General / Re: Solo mining ..anyone still doing this?
« Last post by Lichtsucher on Today at 04:42:05 am »
I'm pretty sure that was my worst run of luck and really outside what had been statistically normal in January where I was averaging about a block every two and a half days .

Same here. In Januar, 1 Block every 2 days, but now it took up to 9 days to hit a block.
Just look at my pool (https://www.purepool.org), it took a whole weak to find a block with multiple miners. Wow. It is really hard now to find a block.
I think solo-mining isn't working for a lot of people anymore. PoDC might be here at the perfect time.
15
What's your resolution set to? If it's below 1024x768 you might not see the whole window.
My resolution is FHD 1920*1080.
16
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.
17
If Taskweight and UXTOweight are zero, should my magnitude be zero? I forgot to turn PoBH on.
Code: [Select]
"version": 1000904,
  "protocolversion": 70715,
  "walletversion": 61000,
  "wallet_fullversion": "1.0.9.4",
  "balance": 14328660.49245012,
  "privatesend_balance": 0.00000000,
  "retirement_balance": 0,
  "blocks": 6700,
  "timeoffset": 0,
  "connections": 12,
  "proxy": "",
  "difficulty": 0.2833186345714879,
  "testnet": true,
  "keypoololdest": 1518115544,
  "keypoolsize": 1001,
  "paytxfee": 0.00000000,
  "relayfee": 0.00010000,
  "errors": ""

"Command": "getboincinfo",
  "CPID": "4fd1bf6c6900d92b226e16c6a6935661",
  "Address": "yWQfYmBCAQrcn9RkjM9DJwWGfgjHdvpZwn",
  "CPIDS": "4fd1bf6c6900d92b226e16c6a6935661;",
  "CPID-Age (hours)": 422068,
  "NextSuperblockHeight": 6732,
  "NextSuperblockBudget": 1359680,
  "4fd1bf6c6900d92b226e16c6a6935661_RAC": 820.6,
  "4fd1bf6c6900d92b226e16c6a6935661_TEAM": 15044,
  "4fd1bf6c6900d92b226e16c6a6935661_TaskWeight": 0,
  "4fd1bf6c6900d92b226e16c6a6935661_UTXOWeight": 0,
  "Total_RAC": 820.6,
  "Total Payments (One Day)": 0,
  "Total Payments (One Week)": 546564,
  "Total Budget (One Day)": 13700330,
  "Total Budget (One Week)": 67535384,
  "Superblock Count (One Week)": 63,
  "Superblock Hit Count (One Week)": 49,
  "Superblock List": "6633,6534,6435,6336,6237,6138,6039,5940,5841,5742,5643,5544,5445,5346,5247,4653,4554,4257,4059,3861,3762,3267,3069,2970,2871,2772,2673,2574,2475,2376,2277,2178,2079,1980,1881,1782,1683,1584,1485,1386,1287,1188,1089,990,891,792,693,594,495",
  "Last Superblock Height": 6633,
  "Last Superblock Budget": 1359680,
  "Last Superblock Payment": 0,
  "Magnitude": 8.09300203283067
18
Mining - General / Re: Solo mining ..anyone still doing this?
« Last post by 616westwarmoth on February 23, 2018, 10:05:04 pm »
I still solo mine.  It's been pretty sparse lately, I run about half to three quarters that on each of six rigs.  So I probably have three to four times your solo hash rate, found a block yesterday but prior to that was the 14th.  I'm pretty sure that was my worst run of luck and really outside what had been statistically normal in January where I was averaging about a block every two and a half days .  Its believed that botnets have hit us pretty hard since we're CPU mining.  Monero is suspected to be mined at about 50% by botnets, so if we're not there already we're likely heading that way.  That is why the PoDC mining method is being refined and worked on...it's suspected the botnets won't follow in significant numbers to BOINC.
19
Mining - General / Re: Clarification needed on mined blocks
« Last post by 616westwarmoth on February 23, 2018, 09:59:01 pm »
The string is the wallet address they were mined to (generally that would be the primary address of the wallet).

The amounts differ because the block reward varies based on how long it takes to for a block to be solved.
20
When we are talking about visual. I don't know if it is only my problem, but I'm not able to reduce wallet window size below some px (It is approx 90% of my screen height) And in testnet I'm unable to reduce it below maybe 110% of screen size, so I'm unable to see status bar and I must maximize my window to see everything. I have Win10. It is only my problem or it is common? Is possible to solve it?

What's your resolution set to? If it's below 1024x768 you might not see the whole window.
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10