Topic: [1050 TH] BitMinter.com [1% PPLNS,Pays TxFees +MergedMining,Stratum,GBT,vardiff] - page 229. (Read 837101 times)

Cool, anyway.

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.2027471

Well looks like someone got there 1,500 GH/s Bitcoin Miner BitForce Mini Rig SC

Delivered   Cool!

Here's a good read for ya: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/asicminer-entering-the-future-of-asic-mining-by-inventing-it-99497

Switching to another PPLNS pool with more or less hashrate should not change anything. If you want security and are willing to pay the fees, you should move to a pure PPS pool. That's why I'm considering, I prefered BitMinter, but I'm curious about the "too unlucky" issue discussed at the moment.

What do you think "RealAsicMiner" is running?  The whole Bitminter hash rate jumped almost 3 Thps.

See this is what I was wondering. Is it true I should switch to different pool with 300 mhash/sec? Or will we just find more blocks to make up for less per block

Wow realasicminer is up to 2.5 th/s. hope the pools luck will improve.

So u r saying that I get less btc per block found but it should be finding more blocks so it evens out. Well we will see cuz frankly luck has stunk here lately.

Now with 8+ TH/s we should on avg be finding 16 blocks/day at current difficulty 10076293.

So far today (past 15 hrs) found 4.
Yesterday (during full 24 hr period) found 7.

'realasicminer' has just found its first block, let's hope this was just bad luck and things go back to normal.

I like BitMinter (that's why I elected it as primary pool), but I must admit that:

• I had the impression that BitMinter was REALLY unlucky for the past 2 weeks,
• As one user out of thousands, I'm not willing to pay >1BTC on my expenses to find out why some pool would have a problem (and not getting ROI), I think the pool operator should do it on pool fee's expenses, now that the fees are in place (with all due repect the DrHaribo's work),
• Switching pools (and losing the NMC) seems to make more sense for an individual, GPU miner. The end is near anyway.

You get less btc per block and more blocks. btc per shift is unaffected, except that variance is reduced.

Ah I was wondering why my expected btc per block found went down substantially. This would explain it right?  Weird though, not like we have been finding many blocks lately :-(

ASICMINER

Someone with access to several ASIC's is onboard now, cranking 1.5+THps?  That's insane.  I'll leave my token Nvidia machines on BTC, but the end is near for all GPU BTC mining.  Time for me to switch most everything over to LTC.

No, you're assuming too much there. All the charts you are looking at are based on publicly available data, so the answer is in the data.

It's non-trivial but quite possible to analyse that data and determine 1. if the data is extremely unusual, and 2. hypothesize about reasons for any data anomaly. I've done exactly that here:

http://organofcorti.blogspot.com.au/2012/10/81-bitcoinpool-another-bitclockers.html
http://organofcorti.blogspot.com.au/2013/01/82-bitcoinpool-great-anomaly-hunt.html

Without analysing data you're flying in the dark and just guessing at problems without knowing if there are any significant problems, or what the nature of the problems are.

If you do wish to put your money where your mouth is, the offer holds

With PPS, the loss for the miner is only 1 share each time he finds a block ...
Thus on PPS it will directly affect the pool op but the miners are not affected at all and the witholder is losing only 1 in "network difficulty"/"work difficulty" shares ...
i.e. 10million/"work difficulty" (so mining at 10 diff the miner loses 0.0001% ...)

Where are you getting that information? The payout graph that I see, on Bitminter's rewards page, only shows the last few weeks, although that is not clear as the scale of the horizontal axis is not labeled.


With access to the pool's DB, that sort of analysis would be easy to do and would quickly identify any power users who had submitted a large number of shares but not found any blocks. However, if this type of withholding attack were indeed occurring, such analysis would easily miss a distributed attack of the same sort.

For example, if a user with 500GH/s has been mining for months, has submitted hundreds of millions of shares, and has yet found no blocks, that might be suspicious. But if 500 users with 1GH/s each had been mining for the same period of time and collectively submitted the same number of shares, it is entirely likely, on a per-user basis, that each of them would not have found a block. Thus if there were a large number of users participating in such an attack, at lower hashing speeds it would be essentially impossible to distinguish the miners who were participating in it from those who were not.

That being said, since there is no profit motive in such an attack -- worse, it's actually detrimental for any pool user to withhold a block hash which meets the target difficulty -- I think that such an attack is rather unlikely. The motive would perhaps be personal or spiteful in nature, and it would likely not be sustained for long due to opposing financial motivations.

Speculations on the motive of such an attack, only destruction if no personal profit possible?

Perhaps an analysis should be done on whether any high hash users are finding no blocks for the pool or perhaps far fewer blocks than is statistically likely.

I thought Entropy-uc's post was pretty clear, and mentions nothing about a Man-In-The-Middle attack. Let's put it this way:

1) I direct my hashpower at a pool.
2) when my (custom) mining software detects that I have found a block, it does not submit it.
3) when someone else finds a block at the pool, I get paid my share just like all the other miners.

So, I have contributed nothing (and never will), I have performed a 'block withholding attack', and I still get coins. Granted, there is no direct benefit to me by doing this (and even my rewards are lower because of it). But if I point enough hashpower at the pool, it is possible to 'discredit' the pool's rep by imposing what appears to be an ongoing (and perhaps never-ending) run of bad luck because of my block withholding attack.

I'm not suggesting this is what is happening. I merely point out that I don't see anything 'patently false' about Entropy-uc's post.