[ANN] ptsweb.beeeeer.org - Protoshares mining sub-pool

[djaychela]

As said to me, just wait for a bit.  I did 3-4 hours mining yesterday evening, and the balance didn't start showing up on my page until I had a look this morning (UK time).  Not sure what the lag was, but it was certainly over 6 hours between me starting and seeing anything.  Mining I've done this afternoon has already started to show up, so there is clearly some variance.

[vsystech]

Okay, i understand, but 8-10 shares. and page is empty only write balance 0. i do not understand...

[r05]

Hi,

http://postimg.org/image/3ssixf76x/


current balance: 0 PTS, when received ?

When the block you are working on gets found, you will receive a payout. It will be a percentage of the total block value, defined by how many shares you have mined. Blocks can take anywhere between 10 minutes and 4 hours to be found - your balance will be updated then.

[vsystech]

Hi,

http://postimg.org/image/3ssixf76x/


current balance: 0 PTS, when received ?

[r05]

Last question about ram influence on mining results. Is it better to use maximum amount? It's obvious to me.. but better asking

I've actually got lower performance by using the 1024mb option over the 512mb option. No idea why - there doesn't seem to be any clear correlation to me..

It is because you are above your max RAM amount so your system is using cache to balance.

Sorry, I don't think so - I have a dual core (2 core) system with 8GB of RAM. If I were to use the 512mb option, approximately 1024mb of RAM would be used by the miner. If I were to use the 1024mb option, approximately 2048mb were to be used by the miner. 2048mb is nowhere near the 8192mb of total RAM in my system, so the reason for my performance decrease is not that my system is using page/swap.

[agentsmith]

I've been mining for a while, actual confirmations times can vary by a lot. Just need a little patience 

Code: [Select]

current balance: 0.14874 PTS

32369 2013-12-12 20:56:51 3665 / 1867798 -> 0.04254 PTS / 21.68 PTS -> block waiting for confirmations
32311 2013-12-12 16:34:02 824 / 491601 -> 0.03634 PTS / 21.68 PTS -> block waiting for confirmations
32301 2013-12-12 15:27:28 1106 / 811930 -> 0.02958 PTS / 21.71 PTS -> block waiting for confirmations
32290 2013-12-12 13:39:22 3497 / 2234297 -> 0.03399 PTS / 21.71 PTS -> block waiting for confirmations (88 confirms as I'm posting this)
32191 2013-12-12 08:13:55 112 / 62028 -> 0.04120 PTS / 22.82 PTS -> added
32184 2013-12-12 08:04:11 1790 / 776276 -> 0.05262 PTS / 22.82 PTS -> added
32133 2013-12-12 05:51:42 392 / 163144 -> 0.05492 PTS / 22.86 PTS -> added
32120 2013-12-12 05:22:34 189 / 73172 -> 0.05894 PTS / 22.82 PTS -> PAID
32113 2013-12-12 05:08:59 385 / 183993 -> 0.04775 PTS / 22.82 PTS -> added


[xolokram]

protoshares' blocks need 120 subsequent blocks to be confirmed

[djaychela]

OK, is there an ETA for that?  I thought it was a 5 minute block target?  How many decimal places will the readout go to?

Sorry, just don't want to leave it on for two days only to find that I've done something stupid.  As I say, the XPM miner is working fine on the beeeeer pool, and I have BTC and LTC mining going on here as well on other machines... so I'm not a complete donut.  But maybe half one!

[xolokram]

the balance is based on confirmed (and valid) blocks

[djaychela]

Hi

Just realised I'd posted this in the wrong thread elsewhere...

In short, I've got it up and running on my i7, it's been running for a couple of hours, looks to be working as expected, seeing shares (1.6 per minute, apparently), and they are being submitted:

Code: [Select]

[MASTER] work received - sharetarget: 03ffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffbeefde4d
[WORKER] collision found: 18940878 <-> 44909807 #7154 @ 1386881561 by 1
[MASTER] submitted share -> REJECTED
[STATS] 2013-Dec-12 20:52:51 | 101.8 c/m | 1.6 sh/m | VL: 110 (97.3%), RJ: 3 (2.7%), ST: 0 (0.0%)
[WORKER] collision found: 31333721 <-> 62623656 #7166 @ 1386881562 by 2
[MASTER] submitted share -> REJECTED
[STATS] 2013-Dec-12 20:53:03 | 101.7 c/m | 1.6 sh/m | VL: 110 (96.5%), RJ: 4 (3.5%), ST: 0 (0.0%)
[MASTER] work received - sharetarget: 03ffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffbeefde4d
[WORKER] collision found: 22889228 <-> 6295588 #7206 @ 1386881609 by 1
[MASTER] submitted share -> SHARE
[STATS] 2013-Dec-12 20:53:24 | 101.8 c/m | 1.6 sh/m | VL: 111 (96.5%), RJ: 4 (3.5%), ST: 0 (0.0%)
[WORKER] collision found: 54390359 <-> 8144277 #7286 @ 1386881662 by 6
[MASTER] submitted share -> SHARE
[STATS] 2013-Dec-12 20:54:04 | 101.9 c/m | 1.6 sh/m | VL: 112 (96.6%), RJ: 4 (3.4%), ST: 0 (0.0%)
[WORKER] collision found: 31047563 <-> 17602610 #7346 @ 1386881731 by 3
[MASTER] submitted share -> SHARE
[STATS] 2013-Dec-12 20:54:43 | 101.9 c/m | 1.6 sh/m | VL: 113 (96.6%), RJ: 4 (3.4%), ST: 0 (0.0%)
[WORKER] collision found: 28908288 <-> 18051481 #7372 @ 1386881757 by 5
[MASTER] submitted share -> SHARE
[STATS] 2013-Dec-12 20:54:54 | 101.9 c/m | 1.6 sh/m | VL: 114 (96.6%), RJ: 4 (3.4%), ST: 0 (0.0%)
[WORKER] collision found: 33726286 <-> 47337434 #7530 @ 1386881890 by 2
[MASTER] submitted share -> SHARE
So it looks like it's working?  (these are the only two rejecteds I've seen, just thought I'd put them in for good measure)

But when I go to the address to check if I've got anything:

http://ptsweb.beeeeer.org/user/Pq3v5ag52s5KKSgne44YeuPf7Yae1G2bSQ

I see a balance of 0.  Should I see a small balance with a lot of leading zeroes (such as 0.000001) yet?

I've been mining with cgminer and bfgminer successfully with "standard" pools, but been trying lately to do something with the CPU on my machine as well, and it mostly seems to be currencies where you don't have an 'account' as such, and don't have a nice web front end (such as coinotron, btcguild), and I've not really had a lot of luck; on beeeeer.org I've got XPM working OK, but wanted to get pts on the go as well.  Any help is appreciated.

Darren

[maqifrnswa]

I've been having a problem with sources compiled from github. I have successfully built it on 6 Debian 7 64-bit machines. I'm trying an Ubuntu 13.10 laptop now

Code: [Select]

$ uname -a
Linux maqifrnswa1 3.11.0-14-generic #21-Ubuntu SMP Tue Nov 12 17:07:40 UTC 2013 i686 i686 i686 GNU/Linux
Intel(R) Core(TM) i5-2520M CPU @ 2.50GHz with avx sse4

When I run:

Code: [Select]

$ ./ptsminer Pn5cHQPYxzJAso16hpvCCSjj7HEnuccJbs 1 27 avx
********************************************
*** ptsminer - Pts Pool Miner v0.7 RC2 <experimental>
*** by xolokram/TB - www.beeeeer.org - glhf
***
*** press CTRL+C to exit
********************************************
using AVX
spawning 1 worker thread(s)
[WORKER0] Hello, World!
[WORKER0] GoGoGo!
connecting to 54.201.26.128:1337
[MASTER] work received - sharetarget: 03ffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffbeefde4d
[WORKER] collision found: 12 <-> 20 #26 @ 1386879675 by 0
[WORKER] collision found: 31 <-> 23 #48 @ 1386879675 by 0
...
{SNIP SEVERAL HUNDRED COLLISIONS}
...
[WORKER] collision found: 15604 <-> 15596 #31194 @ 1386879675 by 0
[MASTER] submitted share -> REJECTED
[STATS] 2013-Dec-12 15:21:15 | 937440.0 c/m | 13680.0 sh/m | VL: 0 (0.0%), RJ: 1 (100.0%), ST: 0 (0.0%)
[MASTER] submitted share -> REJECTED
[STATS] 2013-Dec-12 15:21:15 | 938160.0 c/m | 13680.0 sh/m | VL: 0 (0.0%), RJ: 2 (100.0%), ST: 0 (0.0%)
[MASTER] submitted share -> REJECTED
too many rejects (3) in a row, forcing reconnect.
[STATS] 2013-Dec-12 15:21:15 | 938700.0 c/m | 13680.0 sh/m | VL: 0 (0.0%), RJ: 3 (100.0%), ST: 0 (0.0%)
no connection to the server, reconnecting in 10 seconds

sse4 does the same thing. sph doesn't seem to do anything at all. This is a 64 bit processor but I'm running a 32bit kernel, don't know if that helps anything.

[superresistant]

Code: [Select]

doesn't make sense to mejust like your last 3 posts to me, do you even take your time to read what i'm writing?

Yes but it doesn't mean I understand everything.

@"different calculation of the collisions":
like i already wrote, they use different communication protocols...

So we agree, what's the problem ?

@"cache to balance":
there's no point in any caches if the amount of used ram is far too much to check/build/set/move/erase with every iteration of protoshares' mining calculation
and that's what i mean by bottleneck

Ok thanks.

[xolokram]

use a protoshares address, not a primecoin address

[Peter]

Hello, All!

Is the pool down?

Code: [Select]

c:\U\Ptsminer_32bit>ptsminer_32bit.exe  AYoEmYQXn89umjaMZgwyHMYVS6Nk4kngwg 11
********************************************
*** ptsminer - Pts Pool Miner v0.5 RC1 <experimental> HOTFIX-1
*** by xolokram/TB - www.beeeeer.org - glhf
*** thanks to jh00, testix & Co.
***
*** press CTRL+C to exit
********************************************
spawning 11 worker thread(s)
[WORKER0] Hello, World!
[WORKER6] Hello, World!
[WORKER4] Hello, World!
[WORKER7] Hello, World!
[WORKER2] Hello, World!
[WORKER6] GoGoGo!
[WORKER4] GoGoGo!
[WORKER9] Hello, World!
[WORKER9] GoGoGo!
[WORKER3] Hello, World!
[WORKER7] GoGoGo!
[WORKER1] Hello, World!
[WORKER8] Hello, World!
[WORKER10] Hello, World!
[WORKER2] GoGoGo!
[WORKER8] GoGoGo!
[WORKER0] GoGoGo!
[WORKER5] Hello, World!
[WORKER10] GoGoGo!
[WORKER5] GoGoGo!
[WORKER3] GoGoGo!
[WORKER1] GoGoGo!
connecting to 54.201.26.128:1337
no connection to the server, reconnecting in 10 seconds
connecting to 54.201.26.128:1337
no connection to the server, reconnecting in 10 seconds
connecting to 54.201.26.128:1337
no connection to the server, reconnecting in 10 seconds
connecting to 54.201.26.128:1337
no connection to the server, reconnecting in 10 seconds
connecting to 54.201.26.128:1337
no connection to the server, reconnecting in 10 seconds
connecting to 54.201.26.128:1337
no connection to the server, reconnecting in 10 seconds
connecting to 54.201.26.128:1337
no connection to the server, reconnecting in 10 seconds
connecting to 54.201.26.128:1337
no connection to the server, reconnecting in 10 seconds

[xolokram]

Code: [Select]

doesn't make sense to mejust like your last 3 posts to me, do you even take your time to read what i'm writing?

@"different calculation of the collisions":
like i already wrote, they use different communication protocols...

@"cache to balance":
there's no point in any caches if the amount of used ram is far too much to check/build/set/move/erase with every iteration of protoshares' mining calculation
and that's what i mean by bottleneck