Quote from: Hotmetal on September 11, 2014, 02:11:06 PM

Quote from: clintar on September 11, 2014, 01:54:40 PM

Quote from: Hotmetal on September 11, 2014, 07:51:25 AM

Quote from: clintar on September 11, 2014, 02:34:32 AM

Nice, looks good. Sounds like I should change some diffs, then, too .

http://cncoin.farm/

Network
Hash Rate: 7.29 GH/sec
Block Found: 2 minutes ago

Our Pool
Hash Rate: 3.51 GH/sec
Block Found: 2 minutes ago

Right now BBR is getting itself into a bad situation for multiple reasons.. Besides the 51% attack, a DDOS attack @ http://cncoin.farm/ and mining BBR becomes *extremely* profitable for an attacker.

I was wondering what I can do about that. Probably need miners to fail-over at least. If pools had standard ports, I was wondering if a round-robin dns with all of them listed would work out ok. Otherwise I guess I can set a really high fee to get people to switch when it's so high, but I'd sure look greedy doing that with so much of the network.

Some type of round robin would actually work out really well. Then all pool owners can apply to be apart of the pool. There are a lot of reasons this is a good way of doing it.
The down side to doing it would be how would a miner see his hashrate?

We could have a site that queries all in the list for your address on the api port.

Edit: I've set up a SRV record as an example. _bb._tcp.us.cncoin.farm that has all the pools listed on the first page that have dns names for connecting. That is one issue with this approach. All pools would have to have a name and not an IP for a SRV record to work. You can see what it returns with

Code:

dig SRV _bb._tcp.us.cncoin.farm

in linux, or

Code:

nslookup -type=all _bb._tcp.us.cncoin.farm

in windows.
example output:

Code:

;; ANSWER SECTION:
_bb._tcp.us.cncoin.farm. 7199 IN SRV 10 0 11007 bbr.poolto.be.
_bb._tcp.us.cncoin.farm. 7199 IN SRV 0 0 7777 bbr.cncoin.farm.
_bb._tcp.us.cncoin.farm. 7199 IN SRV 0 0 1111 mine.bbr.unipool.pro.
_bb._tcp.us.cncoin.farm. 7199 IN SRV 0 0 7777 boolberry.extremepool.org.

Notice it gives a port. It has a priority that I have set the non-us pool to a higher number to give it less priority. Could do the opposite with a _bb._tcp.non-us or _bb._tcp.eu or whatever, even separate lists for cpu/gpu ports. Obviously, it should be managed by core boolberry team or at least not a pool operator, and then miner would have to use something like libsrv (first google hit I saw) to query this record. We could even have a complimentary SRV record to determine API port of these servers I guess. What do you think?

Reference I used for SRV records here: http://www.zytrax.com/books/dns/ch8/srv.html