Topic: [4+ EH] Slush Pool (slushpool.com); Overt AsicBoost; World First Mining Pool - page 1142. (Read 4382653 times)

I agree, rounding to 0.01 is the better approach.

Almost. It means how many getwork() can worker perform at once. This is hardcoded now, but it is enough also for strongest card on the market. I'm working on some improvements which make autodetection to this.

Good news here! Firstly, another block found. But with current cluster power this become more and more common  

Then, new round of bitcoins sent.


Then, I fix typo in 'threshold'. I had many complains about this critical bug!  
Next change: You can enter your account without logging in again and again.

And, by the way, I just finished new accounting system. It is online already. Good to know:

a) Rolling between old and new accounting system:

Current unconfirmed blocks will be paid with old system, that means I cannot guarantee order of payments.

b) Changes in accounting:

You can see new type of balance on your profile pages => 'unconfirmed reward'. That mean we already found a block, but he is still unconfirmed by network. After 120 confirmations, reward will be moved to real balance. And of course, only real balance is sending by cron script.

What does "Max jobs | 10" mean in the workers table? Does it mean each worker has a maximum of 10 threads?

Performance

Slush, what reason to use per-miner, not per-user accounts?

that might end up not as nice as you might think.

here's why:

the big difference between the 2 public pool-systems we've seen is, how coins are "delivered".
in the first pool we all got our shares as soon as we found a block, it was the block-reward that was shared directly within the found blocks transaction, so everyone contributing immediately saw his generated share waiting to mature in his own wallet, as soon as the block itself was downloaded by the client.

the system slush uses puts the whole generated pot in one wallet, waits (>120blocks) until the single 50coin-transaction is mature and then sends rewards based on (client unrelated) accounts out to users (first manually, now or soon by scripts).

this method has good and bad sides.
a bad side is, that we need to trust the admin a bit longer (not sure if that even makes any difference),
a good side is, that noone will lose sub-bitcents and this is a real plus!

on the "doublec/puddinpop pool-system", users might "earn" 0.00****btc, but those sub-cents will be lost, not forever, but for you, the generator.

you might have noticed, that sending amounts below 0.01 currently would cause a sub-cent-transaction-fee of 0.01, so it makes no sense to send sub-cent-rewards at all, they will end up in tx_fees.
as long as they are not actual sub-bitcents though (no "real bitcoins"), but instead just a reward-balance on your pool-account, they can accumulate to >0.01 and then be sent for free, means without making a loss.

actually it saves "little guys" money, money that might have been lost using "the old and better method".

just my thoughts

I see your reward is 5.8xxx. Technically, there is only one method in whole software which touch reward and set it near to zero and I'm sure it was not triggered in your case.

If you mean 'expected reward', it is completely different issue. It is calculated from your current shares and shares contributed by all miners. When we solve block and start new round, this may be a little bit crazy for a moment.

So basically you're running the bitcoind Process right? Also I guess we should create some alternative pools, as not to accumulate too much computational power in a single site, which would then become a single point of failure

?

Thank you guys. Your support help me a lot when sitting on code many hours.


I understand your request. Unfortunately my miner is implemented in other way. It is built above common bitcoin client without any custom patches, so this is technically impossible. I would like to let it be as is. You can see maturing on site already and payments will be processed almost instantly soon.

That would be great, at least for people that are over their minimum payout limit with this block, but keep the really small amount back and allow specifying higher payout limits. As for the rest: great work slush, I'm happy you took the pool over

Great stuff, finally a pooled miner that's actually fast! Thank you slush!

Would be neat to see all the contributors included directly into the generated block, so that they see it as "Generated" and maturing in their own BitCoin client, immediately. Like some other pooled servers did. That was really nice of them.

Trust and reputation trump them all. I am not proud to say that I did waste far too much of my life reading the thread. Now, if you really understood the "answers" provided, then you deserve a PhD in cognitive science. That was not a joke. I consider myself to be marginally literate. I even work with computers a bit. The reasons why some have received payments recently while others, who have been contributing since 17 Dec, have received none continue to elude me. Somebody, please, point out where this mystery is elucidated.

I prefer to stay and warn others about the pool's mismanagement.

I choose to point out how poorly managed this pool is.

nice work slush, i just joined.  seems to be working...

First I think we should be thanking slush for running this service completely for free, and not taking a percentage for himself.

I can say that I have received my share from the first few blocks. And I personally do not believe this to be a scam, anyone who is pissed that they are not receiving their .01 BCs needs to chill out and realize that mining is probably not for you.  The energy spent setting up a client and complaining about the free service offered to you may well cost more than the value of what you generate.

Slush, I meant to say that I noticed a drop of about 1 BC in the reward field, in that it was ~6 and when I refreshed my browser it was ~5.  That is why I asked if you changed how the 'reward' is calculated.  I just wanted to let you know so that you may investigate if it was a bug, or something you already knew about.

Thanks for this service, it is great for what it is.

+1

a) it is working
b) in that snippet it has not found any "winning-hashes", so you've not earned a share yet

if it finds a "winning-hash" it will look like this

if you see a "yay!!!", you've earned a share, check your worker-stats.




i think coding is much more important than answering questions, especially when most have been answered already in earlier posts.
read the thread, it's long, lots of words but worth to read.
if you don't like it, just leave, you haven't lost anything, you might still get your leftover reward someday.


bitcoin == freedom of choice
take risks, or don't, trust people, or not. your life, your bitcoin, your choice.


Thank you slush, for doing what you do!

I'll let other judge for themselves as to the merit of your earlier comments

you're not being ripped off buddy

I do. However, experimental software have their glitches, programmers need sleep, and there seem to be other pooling initiatives around. I should think you would also understand that.

Maybe buying some off of MtGox would then be a good idea.

I'll beg to differ, and you know it

I'll let other judge for themselves as to the merit of my earlier comments and if the questions have really been answered.


If I understand the fundamental mechanisms by which a decentralized economy around this currency is to succeed (and I do), the only recourse I have to being ripped off is to do what I can to damage the reputation of the scammer. I should think you would also understand that. Besides, if the currency deflates the way I would expect it to were it to be adopted in any meaningful sense, then even 1.0BTC would be quite a sum of money in the future. No matter, your quoted remarks have no place in this discussion, and you know it.