Does DiabloMiner support the Long Polling protocol that DeepBit has introduced? If not, do you have any plans to implement it?

Why not use Bitcoin-Market? They have a currency pair for BBTC/PPUSD.

Ok, sounds like the KMail deletion isn't working right then. I thought I tested that pretty thoroughly, but it looks like I have more to do. I should hav emore time to work on it at the end of this week.

In any case, I figured out where those strange SSH access attempts were coming from: A friend of mine was trying to log in to get at some files I was hosting there and he couldn't remember the password.

Oh Jesus, that's a huge relief. Thanks for being so honest about that. I'll send instructions on where to send the BTC back to.

In any case, it looks like I still have some problems to fix. Strange that none of these showed up in the testing I did. Maybe I had to make bigger trades? In any case, I'll have to work on this more, and it's not looking like I have time at the moment to do it properly.

Also, I have no idea what happened to all the meat that was in there and the almost 700,000 that you sent, and there are a bunch of strange access attempts in the SSH logs which I didn't make. That's why I originally assumed that someone had hacked in.

Yeah, I didn't think it was that poor though. Hope that The bro has fun with my BTC. Was a fun project, in any case.

Well, that was short-lived. Someone hacked my machine, and stole all the BTC that I had available for trade, as well as all the Meat that was on my mall multi. I guess I'll see you later, folks. The server is going down for good.

So, apparently some time ago there was a service active for trading Kingdom of Loathing Meat <-> Bitcoins. But unfortunately that service died.

I'm here to bring such a service back. I spent the last few days coding up such an exchange service, and I think it's ready for public testing (As in, I've fixed most of the typos in the code.)

If you're willing to help test out such a service, head over to http://kolbtc.dyndns.org/home.php (or http://74.69.39.167/home.php if DynDNS is acting retarded).

Note that there are still probably bugs somewhere in there. Please don't get pissed at me if your trade takes a long time or if I have to do it manually. It takes a long time for BTC trades to be confirmed by the network!

I am very poor in terms of KoL Meat (IE: I have less than 50K in total), so there won't be much buying meat for BTC until people buy BTC for meat.

I've tried to make an overview of how it works at the site, but if you have more questions feel free to post them here.

Also, the website looks like garbage because I have no idea how to do web design. There are 30 BTC in it for someone who can make an impressive looking website for this service. The contact email is at the bottom of the front page.

If you don't know what KoL is, check out this thread about the old exchange service, he explained it better than I could ever hope to do:

http://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1384.0

So, I've been looking around at the json-RPC calls in the forum and at the documentation for the server daemon and maybe I'm derping terribly, but I can't figure out how to get the sender's bitocin address when I receive a transaction. I'd like to create an exchange service, but I would need the sender's bitcoin address for each transaction, so could someone explain to me how this is done?

OK then, thanks for the heads-up.

Thanks for pointing out my obvious error. It turns out that I wasn't waiting long enough when doing that test on single vs. multiple instances, and I'm actually getting about 500KH/s more per core from the combined instance.

Is this service still operating? It looks like no one has posted here in a very long time, but I think I'd be interested, since I play KoL...

In any case, I can't access the site from the first post, so I'm not going to get too hopeful.

Wonderful. Thanks for these clarifications. It is never complaining about invalid or stale hashes so I guess I'm never making any.

I was noticing that when I run a single instance of DiabloMiner with all 4 graphics cores, I get worse performance than running 4 seperate instances with one for each core. Do you have any idea why that is? The performance difference isn't huge (about 4-5%) but it's definitely present. Any idea as to why it works better with 4 independent instances than with all 4 in the same instance?

EDIT: Forgot to ask. Is there any way to start up a fake X session from the command line so that I can start the miner via SSH? Or do I have to look into getting VNC installed on my desktop so I can log into the graphical environment remotely?

You all should probably read through a few of the other threads on this forum.

To get better performance, you should:

-Use Stream SDK 2.1.
-Use the display drivers from Catalyst 10-11.
-Turn off crossfire if possible.
-Use Linux. I've heard that people had problems running DiabloMiner in Ubuntu, so I might suggest Debian instead. There are guides for getting many miners up and running on different linux platforms if you're unfamiliar with how to use it. Look around on the forums to find them. Get ready to use the command line.

I'd debate whether those statistics are informative or not. I don't give a damn about that efficiency statistic, nor the current getwork number, or the spot in the current getwork. However, a statistic on how many of the hash solutions found were invalid/stale would be great. That's what's telling me that I should stick with DiabloMiner instead of switching to poclbm, since poclbm reports that 3-5% of hash solutions are invalid, but gets about 2% better hashrate than DiabloMiner.

However, since DiabloMiner remains mute on that subject, I assume that no hashes computed by DiabloMiner are invalid or stale. This leads me to the conclusion that I should use DiabloMiner over poclbm, so it would be good to include that statistic, if only to allow the users to make a more informed decision about which miner they should use to get the most out of their hardware investments.

And about that not being controllable: As I understand it, that metric is within the user's control as soon as overclocking is involved. If overclocked too aggressively, cards start producing invalid hashes more frequently, no? This may be a useful tool for properly tuning overclocking settings.

Did you try using -f 1? That improved my performance on a 5970 from about 15M Hash/s to about 330M Hash/s.

I have no idea why DiabloMiner is affected by the -f option so much more than poclbm, but apparently it is.

Also, is there a way that we can have DiabloMiner output all those interesting statistics about mining like the modified version of poclbm that's been going around here? (Invalid/Stale Percentage, Current position in the getwork, Ratio of getworks to submissions, hashrate, ratio of getworks to answers with more work in them) Those were great for getting a very condensed picture of how your mining is going.

I'm using Linux. And there seems to be no problem now that slush's pool is back up and operating correctly, I'm still getting invalid/stale results but now only about 1 in 10 instead of 9 in 10.

OK, first off I need to thank you for making this miner. It's giving me much better performance than DiabloMiner ,which for some reason was giving me less than 40 Million Hashes per second with two 5970's, using all four graphics cores.

However, I'm seeing a huge parade of invalid/stale results when I run the miner, with a few accepted results between them (About 80% of results are invalid/stale). I've tried down-clocking the cores (they are running at 625 MHz now), removing the -v option, removing the -f option, and decreasing the work-unit size. Nothing seems to have helped it much. ATIConfig reports all core temperatures below 70 Celsius. I'm mining with slush's pool.

Any ideas as to why this is happening?

EDIT: I tried using Deepbit instead of slush's pool, and all of the invalid/stale results are gone. Is this something to do with using slush's pool, or does the deepbit server work differently? They say that "no block confirmation is needed", but does that mean that I'm still submitting invalid blocks, and that they aren't checking them?

ANOTHER EDIT: Tried changing drivers to Catalyst 10.11, as I read that was more stable and reliable. I am using it with Stream SDK 2.1. Nothing doing.

UNLIMITED EDIT WORKS: Anyone know of a verification program that I can run to ensure that the OpenCL Libraries are installed correctly? I got the list program to run correctly and return all of the GPU cores, but I don't know if there is one that will tell me whether or not the calculations going on in the cores are valid.

Sounds great, I just got two HD 5970's today in the mail, but I'm having problems getting the OpenCL Libraries to work properly.

Thanks. I also have another question that's unrelated, but I'd rather not clutter up the forum with a new thread, so I'll put it in here.

I'm running a nvidia GTX460 for mining under ubuntu, and I'd like to overclock it. I read that setting the "Coolbits" option correctly would enable this, so I read through the documentation to figure out how to set the option to enable fan controls and overclocking. Apparently, lowering the clock rate is supported, but raising it is not according to both nvidia's documentation, and screwing around with the configuration utility provided with the driver. Does any one here know of a nvidia linux driver that does allow overclocking? That would be much appreciated.

So, I was looking at the hardware comparison here:

https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Mining_hardware_comparison

And I noticed that the miners "clmine", "calmine", and "clmine2" were mentioned. Which are these? tcam's miner written in C? puddinpop's RPC miner?