Topic: [1050 TH] BitMinter.com [1% PPLNS,Pays TxFees +MergedMining,Stratum,GBT,vardiff] - page 45. (Read 837171 times)

You understand correct, but a block withholding attacker would be paid by the pool for all his submitted (non winning) shares. So he would earn just as much as a regular miner per GH. Well, minus that one winning share

Curious about this. Perhaps my understanding of a 'block withholding attack' is inaccurate, but are you saying (bolded above) that if a block withholder finds a block they can keep the 25 BTC reward for themselves?

My understanding has been that they can withhold a winning block from the pool, but it wouldn't be seen as a 'winning block' to the bitcoin network (only to the pool) so they wouldn't get the 25 BTC reward either.

That's how random things are, people.

5 blocks found at 15 th (that was so awesome), but only one block at the 17th and 18th of june...

Today nothing yet, it's like we are punished for the 15 th.... like the bill for the party arrived today, lol

On average we should see 2 blocks a day... I hope.

I think we are still running within parameters, so to blame other people like multipool is completely irrational, I don't get what some people have in their head.... it's like they can't control their impulses, and will lash out at any opportunity.

multipool has 240th   current block rate for 240th is 11 blocks in a month.

about 1 block every 2.7 days.


the last diff rate 240th should make 12.9 blocks a month about  a block every 2.35 days


so if a block is made in 2.7 days multipool luck would be normal

if a block was made in 5.4 days multipool's luck would be  lower then normal  I believe 1 in 4 chance

if a block was made in 8.1 days  multipool's luck would be  worse then above I believe 1 in 8 chance

if a block was made in 10.8 days    1 in 16

if  a block  was made in 13.5 days  1 in 32

now new diff will come so   the 2.7 days changes to  say 3.1  

if you go to 16.6 days 1 in 64 chance

if you go to 19.7 days 1 in 128 chance

if you go to 22.8 days 1 in 256 chance

if you got to 25.9 days 1 in 512 chance.

if you are this far   it  is going to make many people very angry  but diff changes again  

  so  say 3.5 days and you are now at 29.4 days   a 1 in 1024 chance.      and while they should have mined around 280-320 they would have 0

As a miner Just use 5 pools and since  there is only 1 bad luck canon you won't get fully hit.

 If the canon really exists  

 I will continue to keep mining here  and 3 other pools.  

I have about 420gh here.  
I will keep an eye on the multipool results.  
I will tell all that There is no real proof multipool has a BL canon.


  I will tell all pools  give a solo mining connection to give your self some protection and consider  putting any big player in the solo pool some of the time.
Also allow anyone that wants to try  their luck to go into the solo pool at will.

To multipool I say one thing if you are a good guy and legit and the Doc offers you a solo pool tryout would you agree to stay in it  until you hit at least 1 btc block.  Or if you don't hit a block solo for 10 days then you could come back to the full pool.  The fact is in 10 days you should hit just about 4 blocks.

 If you said you would do it it would prove you think your setup works.

 To the Doc if  you set the test up  I think other pools would follow.  If he says no to the test it is your pool.  

To all of us whether multipool is just having bad luck , or is a bad guy or has a bad setup with the gear  I have no idea.  

I do know this I am now in more then one pool  because this Bad luck concept seems to have been talked about at 3 pools now and in all three pools a big miner was

a factor with really bad luck.

So far I rate multipools luck here as a little bad no where near the bad luck issues at btcguild  and eligus  which involved  someone much bigger in size

 then multipool. this is why I don't think multipool was the person or person at the other two pools.

They haven't found 4 BTC blocks yet. They did find two NMC blocks in quick succession which is good luck on their part.

Note that the CDF on the blocks relate to pool luck as a whole. Even though the second NMC block of those two I am talking about was unlucky for the pool as a whole, it was lucky mining by multipool to find it that quickly.

Not to beat the Multipool-dead-horse further than the earlier discussion, but is it possible for them to split their cores between bitminter and SHA-altchains (namely, PPC and TRC), through a best-scenario failover of switching chains?  Because hashes are rather quantum in nature, are they not?  

So at no point would you instantaneously be able to tell from which IP the Multipool drill was hitting at exactly which time they report a solution.  This is similar to time-space-constrained problem one faces when trying to define the same properties for an electron (which, incidentally, is the particle we use as a medium to conduct the network itself).

When a pool server verifies that a share hasn't been submitted anywhere else, does it simultaneously account for the mining of merge-mined and non-merged chains?  I feel like if I set my chips to run along a certain spectrum of hashes to every SHA-256, beyond a certain precision, the time scale might be small enough to accepting work from one server on the BTC network, solve a TRC share, submit it to a TRC pool server, and then relay that acceptance verification back to the BTC network as a completed BTC share.

The new ASICminer/Rockminer r-box uses the AM gen3's.  I've noticed that while it cranks out the advertised 32-37 Gh/s (with T=40C has 1%+/-0.05% error) on the BTC network, it will cycle with a higher amplitude on the TRC network, moving from as low as 21 Gh/s to as high as 52 Gh/s.  Since Bitmain's ASIC chips echo nonces to tune their electric frequency, is it possible to use symmetric sets of them to "bounce" like this between SHA-256 networks and submit fake shares (throwing "bad luck" at victims) while aggregating the real solutions to parse a solo-mined block if they were to find a valid header?

I think this cross-SHA256 mining, along with the scale of precision of intranet data as it moves from source to pool server, might be a cause of the duplicate rejected hashes (i.e. when one accepted solution is returned, and then another identical hash that immediately follows is rejected as a duplicate).  

Why do these dups happen on the AM chip with regard to that specific architecture of that particular chip (and possibly others).  I tried to look up why the circuit would queue running the same piece of work twice, but couldn't find anything.  If the mining protocol is based on just throwing out hashes into empty string-sets, is it still possible to instantaneously insure that discrete substitutions like this aren't permitted in the protocol?  Any blocks reported as solved could be disguised by the attacker within the unknown IP category - one that's been growing at a rate similar to what we'd just gotten over with GHash.io.

Just throwing my thoughts out there to try and take it back to an academic discussion.

A long time ago the pool hit some bad luck. There was a similar discussion about how bad luck can never happen unless there are bugs (or block withholding attacks). Entropy decided that since the pool was having bad luck that must mean it is broken and so he left for another pool. He's not carrying any asses, fat or not.

Sometimes bad luck is just bad luck.

Most people can do simple math but have no understanding whatsoever of probability theory. Listen to what Organofcorti is saying. He is one of the very few people on this forum who does understand it.

I don't report to you or anyone else here.  I'll provide info I deem appropriate to relevant and reasonable parties [hint: not you] as I see fit.

Still waiting to hear what Entropy's username on Bitminter is so I can take a look at his mining stats.

Then think hard about those things, because your words betray you.   It is late there go to bed and try to wake up kinder.   It is morning here and the sun it out, so I need to go and see some sights.
Trying to imply that I do not have a profession or that I am stupid is not your best argument.   Take some time to reflect on your behavior, it will be a good investment.

Maybe it's my profession to think about these things.  Maybe you wouldn't understand what that means.  If you did, you would have shut up a long time ago.

And considering you've been borderline stalking me since I entered the thread, I don't think you should be making any statements about my character.

Maybe. But do you think you should have your earnings frozen every time you have bad luck?



In my entire mining career, I only ever solved one block. Ignoring the extra I got from pool-hopping, I earned ~150 bitcoins from that. I had much worse luck than flound1129. I don't think my extra 100 coins should be considered a 100k donation to me, otherwise I would have just solo mined in the first place.

Pooled mining means that some users will have better luck than others. If you have a thousand users, you'll find one with one-chance-in-a-thousand bad luck.

Then you will continue to appear the fool.
Yes.   Make the statistically PROBABLE start to happen...
Perhaps there is a flaw in your software with this coin switching that messes something up?   Perhaps you made a mistake?  Not possible?   Maybe think about it.

You can throw all the FUs at me you want, it does not bother me.   Nor your other rants when you told me how stupid I was.   It is just provides the window so others can see the real you.

By the way, you leaving the pool does NOT cost the rest of us to lose money.   Think about that for a while.   Even if you eat some fiber and become more regular, it does not cost us anything.    Think hard about that because you said I could not do simple math but it seems you do not understand this very simple truth.

What's his username?  I see no entropy on the stats page.

We are up about 58BTC right now.  Apparently you would have us take those earnings and leave, rather than stay around long enough for our luck to even out.

That would be bad for Bitminter.  Good for whom, I wonder?

I'll shut up when I'm no longer being attacked.

Essentially what you're saying is: "You better make this completely random even happen more often or we won't trust you!"

I've done my due diligence.  My miners find blocks on every other currency we mine.  If there was some kind of issue it would have shown up way before today.  What you are suggesting is ludicrous on just about every level.

Also, fuck you.

I can guarantee you we have solved blocks worth substantially more than we have been paid.

Multipool has been paid 4x what they have contributed to the pool.  Maybe you think a $50k donation from all the other users of this pool is trivial.  I do not.

If DrH was to freeze funds for every miner that ever had reached the point where they had submitted 2.5*D shares and only solved one block, nearly everyone who has solved more than one block would be very pissed off.

I can almost guarantee you that at some point you will have submitted 2.5D shares for one block.

What is up with the bit minter screen asking you to type in those two words?   And why did it change from asking you to type in the numbers written on pictures of mailboxes an hour ago?

LOL.   You really are a fucking idiot.   First, you call someone insane that had read news/facts that you had not even read even though it CLEARLY is something that someone running a business like yours should be on top off and, NOW you are accusing the person that is carrying your fat ass as no mining here? 
You should just shut up, you will appear smarter.

LOL.  do a little research.

Let's stick with the numbers.

You've been paid around 100 BTC out of the pool, and have contributed 25 BTC.

That puts you up at least 75 BTC.  When you're payouts match your contributions you deserve the benefit of the doubt.  Until then you and your entire business model is suspect.