I saw today this for more than an hour before i go to sleep
Approx. cluster performance: 159.736 Ghash/s
Avg. cluster performance: 2.701 Ghash/s
Avg. network performance: 10.130 Ghash/s
What happened? Network down or some thing?
Topic: [4+ EH] Slush Pool (slushpool.com); Overt AsicBoost; World First Mining Pool - page 1080. (Read 4382648 times)
March 29, 2011, 03:18:52 PM
March 29, 2011, 02:12:46 PM
CPU miners will never find a single share before the total share count is near 5k shares or so.
Why? This is not correct - everybody has the same chance to hit first share, of course proportionally to his hashrate. Just for curiosity, 7/8 shares was submitted by normal users with decent GPUs (I know some of the users so I can tell), not by users with strong rigs. Of course probability that CPU user with 1mhash/s hit one of first 8 shares is very low, but don't forget that he has 200-300x slower worker.
Quote
In these cases, you could use the share ratio of the last round the did have time to actually find some shares for.
Sorry, I still don't see why. And why the limit should be 5k shares and not 3k or 10k shares. Don't confuse fairness and luck; this artifical limit is definitely less _fair_, because it favors unlucky workers.
March 29, 2011, 06:10:32 AM
Next, why anybody who didn't contributed to the round should receive any reward? 
Would be a lot more fair that way. CPU miners will never find a single share before the total share count is near 5k shares or so. In these cases, you could use the share ratio of the last round the did have time to actually find some shares for.
The idea is not fully finished yet.. But I guess you get the point. If the block was not invalid, only one or two guys would have gotten rewards even if everyone started to hash for it.
March 29, 2011, 03:44:09 AM
I realized something this morning: The average number of shares per block should be close to the current difficulty
You're right, average round should have the same number of shares as current difficulty is. The graph you did shows the real variance in round durations.
March 29, 2011, 03:42:39 AM
# Block found Duration Total shares Your Reward Block # Validity
2538 2011-03-29 04:57:49 0:00:02 8 8 none 115552 93 confirmations left
Now that doesn't seem too fair. How could this be "fixed" to be more fair with the score based system? Maybe total shares < 1000, use the ratio from the last round?
2538 2011-03-29 04:57:49 0:00:02 8 8 none 115552 93 confirmations left
Now that doesn't seem too fair. How could this be "fixed" to be more fair with the score based system? Maybe total shares < 1000, use the ratio from the last round?
Firstly, the block is invalid - the block redistribution is fairly slow and I'm being upset with it. Thinking about next bitcoin patch, we will see...
Next, why anybody who didn't contributed to the round should receive any reward?
March 29, 2011, 01:09:21 AM
# Block found Duration Total shares Your Reward Block # Validity
2538 2011-03-29 04:57:49 0:00:02 8 8 none 115552 93 confirmations left
Now that doesn't seem too fair. How could this be "fixed" to be more fair with the score based system? Maybe total shares < 1000, use the ratio from the last round?
EDIT: Ah. so it was a glitch/cheat attempt?
2538 2011-03-29 04:57:49 0:00:02 8 8 none 115552 93 confirmations left
Now that doesn't seem too fair. How could this be "fixed" to be more fair with the score based system? Maybe total shares < 1000, use the ratio from the last round?
EDIT: Ah. so it was a glitch/cheat attempt?
March 29, 2011, 12:06:39 AM
Wish I had gotten a piece of this block ... 
2538 2011-03-28 21:57:49 0:00:02 8 none 115552 99 left
edit: Block number off or invalid. I'm feeling a little better.
2538 2011-03-28 21:57:49 0:00:02 8 none 115552 99 left
edit: Block number off or invalid. I'm feeling a little better.
March 28, 2011, 05:58:47 PM
By my estimation, the average should actually be above the current difficulty.
If the range of the possible number of shares is from 1 - infinity (if the transactions being worked on continue changing over time, then it could be infinite, it is VERY remotely possible for there to be a block that is never solved)
and the current difficulty is only: 68978.8924579
Many more blocks will take longer than the "expected" amount of time, which is simply an estimated amount of time to represent the group as a whole having spent enough time to generate a single full difficulty block. Each hash you calculate has an equal chance of being the right one, form the very first, to the last one you allow your computer to check they all have an equal chance of being the lucky one. It taking a long time to solve a block does not actually mean that we are necessarily any closer to solving one. Therefore, with the likelihood of extreme outliers in any data with a large enough sample, the average time will end up being higher than the difficulty as a result of a few extreme cases.
I'm sure there are several miner [sic] mistakes in there, but the concept is reasonably accurate I think.
Also: I like puns.
If the range of the possible number of shares is from 1 - infinity (if the transactions being worked on continue changing over time, then it could be infinite, it is VERY remotely possible for there to be a block that is never solved)
and the current difficulty is only: 68978.8924579
Many more blocks will take longer than the "expected" amount of time, which is simply an estimated amount of time to represent the group as a whole having spent enough time to generate a single full difficulty block. Each hash you calculate has an equal chance of being the right one, form the very first, to the last one you allow your computer to check they all have an equal chance of being the lucky one. It taking a long time to solve a block does not actually mean that we are necessarily any closer to solving one. Therefore, with the likelihood of extreme outliers in any data with a large enough sample, the average time will end up being higher than the difficulty as a result of a few extreme cases.
I'm sure there are several miner [sic] mistakes in there, but the concept is reasonably accurate I think.
Also: I like puns.
March 28, 2011, 05:28:22 PM
dacoinmaster: Good spotting.
By the same reasoning then, the average shares per block should spend as much time below current difficulty as above current difficulty, (unless there are some rogue shares diluting the pool). It is an area under the curve thing, yes?
By the same reasoning then, the average shares per block should spend as much time below current difficulty as above current difficulty, (unless there are some rogue shares diluting the pool). It is an area under the curve thing, yes?
March 28, 2011, 03:50:22 PM
I realized something this morning: The average number of shares per block should be close to the current difficulty
Perhaps you all knew this, but it was big news to me. The number of shares per block bounces around a ton, but if you average it over a long enough time period, it should be close to the current difficulty.
Once I came to this stunning realization, I was able to make this graph using data from here: http://mining.bitcoin.cz/stats/?history=1000
Check it out:
My original question to myself was: why the heck is the pool solving blocks as if difficulty was ~80000 instead of difficulty ~69000??
Now I have my answer (we appear to be victims of probability), and I thought I would share it with you guys.
Perhaps you all knew this, but it was big news to me. The number of shares per block bounces around a ton, but if you average it over a long enough time period, it should be close to the current difficulty.
Once I came to this stunning realization, I was able to make this graph using data from here: http://mining.bitcoin.cz/stats/?history=1000
Check it out:
My original question to myself was: why the heck is the pool solving blocks as if difficulty was ~80000 instead of difficulty ~69000??
Now I have my answer (we appear to be victims of probability), and I thought I would share it with you guys.
March 26, 2011, 06:31:32 PM
In this particular case, that link to BlockExplorer shows that the 2nd block doesn't exist at all. I suspect it has something to do with the fact that it was found only 21 seconds after the previous one.
Good catch, this block is invalid (damn
). I'm checking his presence in blockchain after 100 confirmations, so it will turn to 'invalid' then. 
March 26, 2011, 06:27:55 PM
Is it possible?
May be i am wrong?
May be i am wrong?
*tired* I explained this many times. Again, yes this number is wrong, it is due to latency on bitcoin network, this does not affect anything, link to block explorer is correct.
Next?
P.S. Pleae don't double post (here and in fairuser's thread), not funny to respond you twice.
In this particular case, that link to BlockExplorer shows that the 2nd block doesn't exist at all. I suspect it has something to do with the fact that it was found only 21 seconds after the previous one.
March 26, 2011, 06:25:43 PM
Is it possible?
May be i am wrong?
May be i am wrong?
*tired* I explained this many times. Again, yes this number is wrong, it is due to latency on bitcoin network, this does not affect anything, link to block explorer is correct.
Next?
P.S. Pleae don't double post (here and in fairuser's thread), not funny to respond you twice.
March 26, 2011, 06:11:47 PM
Is it possible?
May be i am wrong?
March 26, 2011, 06:04:18 PM
I think your pool shows wrong block in the stats page.
Current Bitcoin block#: 115201, but bitcoin client says 115201.
How can one mine a block which is already solved & accepted & showed by client?
I most times see that the current bitcoin block shows is always the one solved as per bitcoin client & many bitcoin sites.
Your statistic page never showed current REAL block which is mining currently.
I think its a small bug escaped.
Current Bitcoin block#: 115201, but bitcoin client says 115201.
How can one mine a block which is already solved & accepted & showed by client?
I most times see that the current bitcoin block shows is always the one solved as per bitcoin client & many bitcoin sites.
Your statistic page never showed current REAL block which is mining currently.
I think its a small bug escaped.
No, the number is of course correct, I don't see any reason why it should differ from your client. This number mean how many blocks is currently in the blockchain, so it's perfectly fine that your client shows the same number.
Also don't forget that stats page is cached for 30 seconds, so when new block is found, the number on stats page can be different for few seconds.
March 26, 2011, 06:00:57 PM
I think your pool shows wrong block in the stats page.
Current Bitcoin block#: 115201, but bitcoin client says 115201.
How can one mine a block which is already solved & accepted & showed by client?
I most times see that the current bitcoin block shows is always the one solved as per bitcoin client & many bitcoin sites.
Your statistic page never showed current REAL block which is mining currently.
I think its a small bug escaped.
Current Bitcoin block#: 115201, but bitcoin client says 115201.
How can one mine a block which is already solved & accepted & showed by client?
I most times see that the current bitcoin block shows is always the one solved as per bitcoin client & many bitcoin sites.
Your statistic page never showed current REAL block which is mining currently.
I think its a small bug escaped.
March 26, 2011, 03:50:46 PM
I hope this is sarcasm.
Humour. I think the curse at the end may have been the give-away...Even after finding it helpful & refuse to donate me make you fart 100 times/ day. Its a curse, i secretly put with this message.
March 26, 2011, 03:48:12 PM
Every one can check in this site whether you have been sent coins or slush cheating you.
I can also check in my Bitcoin client. I'm not sure what your point is.I know you find it useful, & i am expecting donation from you.
I hope this is sarcasm. March 26, 2011, 03:44:49 PM
Looked at my account page today and noticed that I finally found a block for the pool.
Don't know which one ... but that does not matter.
Don't know which one ... but that does not matter.
March 26, 2011, 01:31:23 PM
Guys, appreciate your discussion, but let's discuss it in separate thread
Jump to: