[1050 TH] BitMinter.com [1% PPLNS,Pays TxFees +MergedMining,Stratum,GBT,vardiff] - page 227.

PCMiner

full member

Activity: 123

Merit: 100

Quote from: Jcw188 on May 07, 2013, 11:48:32 AM

How many rigs does realasicminer have? He is now at 4.3 Thps. Anyone know who this is? Or could it be BFL mining with the gear they're supposed to be shipping to customers? :-)

Its ASICMiner. They have some of their machines on bitminter for awhile while they are getting them setup. The plan I believe is to eventually move them to solo mining. So enjoy it while it lasts on Bitminter.

Jcw188

hero member

Activity: 546

Merit: 500

Carpe Diem

How many rigs does realasicminer have? He is now at 4.3 Thps. Anyone know who this is? Or could it be BFL mining with the gear they're supposed to be shipping to customers? :-)

philipma1957

legendary

Activity: 4256

Merit: 8551

'The right to privacy matters'

Quote from: organofcorti on May 07, 2013, 08:10:06 AM

Quote from: philipma1957 on May 07, 2013, 07:50:05 AM

Quote from: organofcorti on May 06, 2013, 09:49:06 PM

Quote from: philipma1957 on May 06, 2013, 05:08:04 PM

[....]
where did these come from? while they look nice where did the data come from to show this. the problem is you need to show your sampling of how you get the pools hash rate. if you take your data from when a block is made it leaves out all down time and can be very misleading. remember no blocks are made when a pool goes down. so any true hash rate must account for down time.

by the way I have figured out a very good way to test the idea out that coins are too low for luck to be accountable. I have a method that solves the problem of hash rate calculation. the pools hash rate is not important for my method . in fact all that matters is If I run at least one worker 24/7 . I can give 1 day result a 2 day result a 3 day result a 4 day result and a 5 day result.

Not quite. Unless you derive confidence interval for the data, you're only showing the variance.

true . but my method is not about btc real earnings vs btc projected earnings.

my method has constants that do not vary but rather show a parallel ratio that should be consistent.

if not consistent it would indicate a flaw and or a bug or a very clever manipulation of the pool.

frankly I have done this method a few times and never had any large problem (ie variance)

which is why I feel that this pool is run well and that the so called bad luck is not 10%.

You're a mysterious one!

When you're done, can you post your method and the reason for it along with the results?

yes I will.

It is quite simple but I want to post it after 5 days showing the 1 day the 2 day 3 day 4 day 5 day results.

After I post the first 5 days I will continue to track the pool. Frankly I do not expect to have a large 10% issue that has been mentioned.

More like plus or minus 1 or 2 %.

organofcorti

donator

Activity: 2058

Merit: 1007

Poor impulse control.

Quote from: philipma1957 on May 07, 2013, 07:50:05 AM

Quote from: organofcorti on May 06, 2013, 09:49:06 PM

Quote from: philipma1957 on May 06, 2013, 05:08:04 PM

[....]
where did these come from? while they look nice where did the data come from to show this. the problem is you need to show your sampling of how you get the pools hash rate. if you take your data from when a block is made it leaves out all down time and can be very misleading. remember no blocks are made when a pool goes down. so any true hash rate must account for down time.

by the way I have figured out a very good way to test the idea out that coins are too low for luck to be accountable. I have a method that solves the problem of hash rate calculation. the pools hash rate is not important for my method . in fact all that matters is If I run at least one worker 24/7 . I can give 1 day result a 2 day result a 3 day result a 4 day result and a 5 day result.

Not quite. Unless you derive confidence interval for the data, you're only showing the variance.

true . but my method is not about btc real earnings vs btc projected earnings.

my method has constants that do not vary but rather show a parallel ratio that should be consistent.

if not consistent it would indicate a flaw and or a bug or a very clever manipulation of the pool.

frankly I have done this method a few times and never had any large problem (ie variance)

which is why I feel that this pool is run well and that the so called bad luck is not 10%.

You're a mysterious one!

When you're done, can you post your method and the reason for it along with the results?

philipma1957

legendary

Activity: 4256

Merit: 8551

'The right to privacy matters'

Quote from: organofcorti on May 06, 2013, 09:49:06 PM

Quote from: philipma1957 on May 06, 2013, 05:08:04 PM

[....]
where did these come from? while they look nice where did the data come from to show this. the problem is you need to show your sampling of how you get the pools hash rate. if you take your data from when a block is made it leaves out all down time and can be very misleading. remember no blocks are made when a pool goes down. so any true hash rate must account for down time.

by the way I have figured out a very good way to test the idea out that coins are too low for luck to be accountable. I have a method that solves the problem of hash rate calculation. the pools hash rate is not important for my method . in fact all that matters is If I run at least one worker 24/7 . I can give 1 day result a 2 day result a 3 day result a 4 day result and a 5 day result.

Not quite. Unless you derive confidence interval for the data, you're only showing the variance.

true . but my method is not about btc real earnings vs btc projected earnings.

my method has constants that do not vary but rather show a parallel ratio that should be consistent.

if not consistent it would indicate a flaw and or a bug or a very clever manipulation of the pool.

frankly I have done this method a few times and never had any large problem (ie variance)

which is why I feel that this pool is run well and that the so called bad luck is not 10%.

luffy

hero member

Activity: 607

Merit: 500

bad luck will not last forever! just enjoy this great pool Wink

i would like to see also all the other merging capable coins, i wish PPC would be amongst them Tongue

organofcorti

donator

Activity: 2058

Merit: 1007

Poor impulse control.

Quote from: philipma1957 on May 06, 2013, 05:08:04 PM

[....]
where did these come from? while they look nice where did the data come from to show this. the problem is you need to show your sampling of how you get the pools hash rate. if you take your data from when a block is made it leaves out all down time and can be very misleading. remember no blocks are made when a pool goes down. so any true hash rate must account for down time.

by the way I have figured out a very good way to test the idea out that coins are too low for luck to be accountable. I have a method that solves the problem of hash rate calculation. the pools hash rate is not important for my method . in fact all that matters is If I run at least one worker 24/7 . I can give 1 day result a 2 day result a 3 day result a 4 day result and a 5 day result.

Not quite. Unless you derive confidence interval for the data, you're only showing the variance.

philipma1957

legendary

Activity: 4256

Merit: 8551

'The right to privacy matters'

I am about 8 hours and 35 minutes into my test. start time was 1:34

philipma1957

legendary

Activity: 4256

Merit: 8551

'The right to privacy matters'

Quote from: candoo on May 06, 2013, 10:06:39 AM

Whats wrong with the pool? Someone stealing blocks?

where did these come from? while they look nice where did the data come from to show this. the problem is you need to show your sampling of how you get the pools hash rate. if you take your data from when a block is made it leaves out all down time and can be very misleading. remember no blocks are made when a pool goes down. so any true hash rate must account for down time.

by the way I have figured out a very good way to test the idea out that coins are too low for luck to be accountable. I have a method that solves the problem of hash rate calculation. the pools hash rate is not important for my method . in fact all that matters is If I run at least one worker 24/7 . I can give 1 day result a 2 day result a 3 day result a 4 day result and a 5 day result.

Newar

legendary

Activity: 1358

Merit: 1001

https://gliph.me/hUF

Quote from: candoo on May 06, 2013, 10:06:39 AM

Whats wrong with the pool? Someone stealing blocks?
[...]

Read the last few pages.

organofcorti

donator

Activity: 2058

Merit: 1007

Poor impulse control.

Quote from: candoo on May 06, 2013, 10:06:39 AM

Whats wrong with the pool? Someone stealing blocks?

[....]

No.

candoo

hero member

Activity: 602

Merit: 500

Vertrau in Gott

Whats wrong with the pool? Someone stealing blocks?

redtwitz

full member

Activity: 231

Merit: 100

Call me greedy, but are there any plans to add further altcoins? IXC and DVC together seem to make almost as much as NMC...

organofcorti

donator

Activity: 2058

Merit: 1007

Poor impulse control.

Quote from: ?? on ??

But Bitminter isn't down 10% of the time, so there has to be more to it if there is soley a miscalculation going on. And any pool that is down 10% is one to avoid, failover to backup pools costs significant transition time.

Can you show me your calculations for the 10% figure?

philipma1957

legendary

Activity: 4256

Merit: 8551

'The right to privacy matters'

Quote from: ?? on ??

Quote from: philipma1957 on May 05, 2013, 08:37:55 PM

Quote from: MajorMiner on May 05, 2013, 07:35:29 PM

Half hour downtime...

yeah and this down time does not get shown correctly for luck. for instance today we mined 20 blocks which is a great day. so if you add the hash rates at the 20 blocks which is 20 samples of hash rate for a 24 hour day then divide by 20 you get an average hash of 8,739.616 Gh/s even with 20 samples from today that number is high since we had a half hour down time. remember if the server is down or ddos attack we can not earn a block so the zero samples do not get averaged in. so if we were down for .5 hours 23.5/24 = 96.04 percent the hash rate would need to be multiplied by that so we were more like 8,393.527 not 8,739.616

so we mined 20 if you use the calculator

https://bitclockers.com/calc it shows we should have mined 17.448 blocks but that has not been lowered b down time today the correct number of should mined was 16.757 blocks and we did 20. so if you defied 16.757 into 20 you get 1.193 or 19.3 percent better then normal. some will insist pools should have 0 done time and have 20 divided by the un adjusted 17.448 blocks. this comes to 1.146 or 14.6 percent better then normal.

either way it was a good day. do not forget we also got nmc 8 percent extra is normal so today was close to a 1.27 or 1.28 rather then 1 or 28% extra.

It's possible you are correct. Bitminter should show daily earnings like other pools do. This gives you a clear indicator that can be compared with expected earnings for your hashrate and the day's luck.

But Bitminter isn't down 10% of the time, so there has to be more to it if there is soley a miscalculation going on. And any pool that is down 10% is one to avoid, failover to backup pools costs significant transition time.

I have an idea that should be easy to do. I will get back with results in 5 days.

organofcorti

donator

Activity: 2058

Merit: 1007

Poor impulse control.

Quote from: AfricanHunter on May 05, 2013, 09:37:16 PM

Would love to see a gh/s breakdown by worker on the stats page

Your wish is my etc.

from http://organofcorti.blogspot.com.au/2013/05/122-pool-and-network-miner-hashrate_3.html

or you could just use the api:

/api/pool/top50

Littleshop

legendary

Activity: 1386

Merit: 1004

Quote from: jamesg on May 03, 2013, 02:20:06 PM

Quote from: ?? on ??

Another explanation is that some party is conducting a block withholding attack on the pool. That is:

They direct hashpower at the pool but modify their mining software to not submit shares with a target value greater than X where X is less than the current difficulty.

The result is that they collect coins without every contributing to the pool.

Such a strategy would be a very viable attack on competing pools.

I can think of several easy mechanisms to address such an attack, but I doubt that any pools do so today.

This is patently false. Please think about what you are saying before you start typing such things.

There is no way to perform a MITM attack or block withholding attack where the miner withholding receives the coins instead of the pool.

He never said that. On a PPS pool they can do that and still collect the PPS. On a non PPS pool they also can do it, but they do not collect. It still is an attack, it is just costly.

AfricanHunter

full member

Activity: 157

Merit: 103

Would love to see a gh/s breakdown by worker on the stats page

Jcw188

hero member

Activity: 546

Merit: 500

Carpe Diem

Absolutely a great day. But luck has been down for more than one day.

philipma1957

legendary

Activity: 4256

Merit: 8551

'The right to privacy matters'

Quote from: MajorMiner on May 05, 2013, 07:35:29 PM

Half hour downtime...

yeah and this down time does not get shown correctly for luck. for instance today we mined 20 blocks which is a great day. so if you add the hash rates at the 20 blocks which is 20 samples of hash rate for a 24 hour day then divide by 20 you get an average hash of 8,739.616 Gh/s even with 20 samples from today that number is high since we had a half hour down time. remember if the server is down or ddos attack we can not earn a block so the zero samples do not get averaged in. so if we were down for .5 hours 23.5/24 = 96.04 percent the hash rate would need to be multiplied by that so we were more like 8,393.527 not 8,739.616

so we mined 20 if you use the calculator

https://bitclockers.com/calc it shows we should have mined 17.448 blocks but that has not been lowered b down time today the correct number of should mined was 16.757 blocks and we did 20. so if you defied 16.757 into 20 you get 1.193 or 19.3 percent better then normal. some will insist pools should have 0 done time and have 20 divided by the un adjusted 17.448 blocks. this comes to 1.146 or 14.6 percent better then normal.

either way it was a good day. do not forget we also got nmc 8 percent extra is normal so today was close to a 1.27 or 1.28 rather then 1 or 28% extra.

Topic: [1050 TH] BitMinter.com [1% PPLNS,Pays TxFees +MergedMining,Stratum,GBT,vardiff] - page 227. (Read 837101 times)